www.management-journal.

com
The International
JOURNAL
of
KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE
& CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Volume 8, Number 5
Leading Change in Organisations: A Focus on
Quality Management
Kasim Randeree
































THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT
http://www.Management-Journal.com

First published in 2008 in Melbourne, Australia by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com.

2008 (individual papers), the author(s)
2008 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps.

All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as
permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written
permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact
<[email protected]>.

ISSN: 1447-9524
Publisher Site: http://www.Management-Journal.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT is a
peer refereed journal. Full papers submitted for publication are refereed by Associate Editors through
anonymous referee processes.

Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system
http://www.CommonGroundSoftware.com.
Leading Change in Organisations: AFocus on Quality Management
Kasim Randeree, The British University in Dubai, Dubai, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Abstract: In contemporary knowledge driven economies, local organisations must aim to be competitive, in part, through
ensuring the delivery of high quality in their goods and services. Changes in the social environment where customers are
more mature and better informed have forced these organisations to consider alternatives to traditional methods of running
their business. Consequently, Total Quality Management (TQM) has attracted the attention of many organisations as a
potential systemto improving their competitiveness and effciency. Implementation of a TQMsystemnecessitates transform-
ation away fromconventional ways of delivering business objectives by changing the way in which people deal with internal
or external work processes. TQMlooks at change within the organisation as an inevitable process which should be managed
fawlessly. Unfortunately, TQM initiatives often fail when implementation begins, with the proportion of successes in TQM
implementation only within the range of 20 to 35 per cent, according to Brown (1992 cited in Redman & Grieves 1999).
The reasons for failure were associated with the problem of sustainability of leadership and purpose, absence of strategic
communications and teamwork for quality improvement and the lack of total commitment to the TQM philosophy and
practice. These were attributed to poor understanding of the TQMphilosophy by senior management and a lack of employee
opportunities to relate training activities with company vision. This paper thus evaluates the dynamics of organisation
change with a view to understanding causes of success and failure. The research aims to review earlier studies and, through
the results of those studies, analyse the role TQM plays in organisational change management.
Keywords: Organisation, Change, Management, Total Quality Management (TQM)
Introduction
A
CCORDING TO ALMARAZ (1994) the
foundations of quality management were
laid by Deming (1986), Juran (1988),
Crosby (1984) and others who advocated
the use of statistics to control variation in the manu-
facturing process. This approach was later expanded
to address improvement issues in other areas of the
organisation.
Hodgetts et al. (1994 cited in Trofno 2000)
defned total quality as an organisational strategy
that drives a continuous ongoing programof process
improvements. Core values include a customer focus
with methods, processes and procedures developed
to meet internal and external clients. Top leadership
supports the strategy both in word and in actions.
There is full organisational involvement, with
everyone receiving a quality education.
Refecting on the model of TQM proposed by
Oakland (1993 cited in Thiagarajan and Zairi 1997),
the key components that impact on TQMimplement-
ation are a synergetic blend of hard and soft
quality factors. Systems and tools and techniques
such as those that impact on internal effciency are
examples of hard quality factors. Soft quality factors
are intangible and diffcult-to-measure issues and
are primarily related to leadership and employee in-
volvement.
In order to understand the relationship between
TQM programs and Organisational change, it is ne-
cessary to shed some light on organisational change
concepts such as models, drivers and implementation
frameworks.
Organisational Change
Organisational change is defned as a difference in
form, quality, or state over time in an organisational
entity. The entity may be an individuals job, a work
group, an organisational subunit, the overall organ-
isation, or its relationships with other organisations.
According to Burnes (2005), from the 1950s until
the early 1980s, the feld of organisational change
was dominated by the Planned approach, which ori-
ginated with Kurt Lewin and was feshed out and
extended by the Organisation Development move-
ment (Cummings and Worley 2001). Planned change
is aimed at improving the operation and effectiveness
of the human side of the organisation through parti-
cipative, group- and team-based programs of change.
Burnes proceeds, by the early 1980s, with the oil
shocks of the 1970s, the rise of corporate Japan and
the severe economic downturn in the West, it was
clear that many organisations needed to transform
themselves rapidly, and often brutally, if they were
to survive (Burnes 2004b; Dunphy and Stace 1993;
Kanter 1989; Peters and Waterman 1982).
In place of Lewins model, Culture-Excellence
school called for organisations to adopt fexible cul-
tures which promote innovation and entrepreneurship
and that encourage bottom-up, continuous and co-
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT,
VOLUME 8, NUMBER 5, 2008
http://www.Management-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9524
Common Ground, Kasim Randeree, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]
operative change. Its advocates maintained that top-
down coercion, and rapid transformation, might also
be necessary to create the conditions in which this
type of approach could fourish (Kanter 1983; Peters
and Waterman 1982).
Brunes also noted that underpinning the rise of
the Emergent approach were new perspectives on
the nature of change in organisations. Up to the late
1970s, the incremental model of change dominated.
Advocates of this viewsee change as being a process
whereby individual parts of an organisation deal in-
crementally and separately with one problem and
one goal at a time. By managers responding to pres-
sures in their local internal and external environments
in this way, over time, their organisations become
transformed (Cyert and March 1963; Hedberg et al.
1976; Lindblom 1959; Quinn 1980, 1982).
Brunes continues, in the 1980s, researchers began
to drawattention to two newperspectives on change:
the punctuated equilibriummodel and the continuous
transformation model. Proponents of the continuous
transformation model of change reject both the incre-
mentalist and punctuated equilibrium models. They
argue that, in order to survive, organisations must
develop the ability to change themselves continu-
ously in a fundamental manner.
Also Myer et al. (1990 cited in Johnson 2004)
categorised models of change at the frm level and
industry as follows:
Table 1: Models of Change within Organisations and Industries
Second-Order Change First-Order Change
Metamorphosis Adaptation Firm level
Focus: Frame-breaking change within organisation Focus: incremental change within
organisation Mechanism: Life-cycle stage
Mechanism: Incrementalism, Re-
source dependence
Confguration transitions
Revolution Evolution Industry level
Focus: Emergence, transformation, and decline of
industries
Focus: Incremental change within
established industries
Mechanism: Punctuated equilibrium Mechanism: Natural selection Institu-
tional isomorphism Quantum speciation
Cao et al. (2000) also classifed the key dimensions
of organisational change into four categories, namely,
changes in process; changes in functions (structural
change); changes in values (cultural change); and
changes in power within the organisation. In order
to approach such a change context, it is therefore
implied that any method or methodology used must
be able to address these multiple facets.
Triggers for Change
According to Oakland and Tanner (2007), it is im-
portant to understand what the key drivers for change
inside or outside the organisation are, in order that
the Need for Change may be understood and articu-
lated to focus the stakeholders desire for change.
This is where leaders give meaning to the change,
without which, as many organisations later discover,
initial enthusiasm and energy quickly dissolves.
Thus, they categorised major drivers of the change
fell into two: External drivers and internal drivers
for change (see table 2).
Table 2: Major Drivers for Change
Internal drivers External drivers
1. Improving operational effciency 1. Customer requirements
2. 2. Demand from other stakeholders, such as the Govern-
ment Regulatory demand
Need to improve the quality of products and
services
3. 3. Process improvement Market competition
4. Shareholders/city
Resistance to Change
It is well known that people are, for the most part,
resistant to change of any sort. Atkinson (1990, p.
48 cited in Vermeulen (1997)) identifed six reasons
why people resist change - fear of the unknown;
perceived loss of control; change means doing things
differently; personal uncertainty; it may mean more
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT,
VOLUME 8
44
work; and nwilling to take ownership and be commit-
ted.
Also, in his paper, Nadler (1981 cited in Abraham
et al. 1997) deals with the issue of resistance to
change and the need to motivate people through four
stages (1) Identifying and surfacing dissatisfaction
with the current state; (2) Building in participation
in the change; (3) Building in rewards for the beha-
viour that is desired both during the transition state
and in the future state; and (4) Providing people with
the time and opportunity to disengage from the
present state.
Managing the Change Process
Recardo (1995 cited in Johnson 2004) defned change
management as the process an organisation uses to
design, implement, and evaluate appropriate initiat-
ives to deal with demands placed on them by the
external environment. Failure to recognise the organ-
isational changes required to adapt to a newbusiness
approach will hinder the long-term benefts that can
be derived.
Goodstein and Burke (1991) believed that models
of change and methods of change are quite similar
in concept and often overlap. Kurt Lewins three-
phase model of change-unfreeze, move (or change),
refreeze--also suggests method. Organisation devel-
opment is based on an action-research model that is,
at the same time, a method.
They carry on explaining that Richard Beckhard
and Reuben T. Harris provided a relatively simple
and straightforward framework. They have suggested
that large-scale, complex organisational change can
be conceptualised as movement from a present state
to a future state. But the most important phase is the
in-between one that they label transition state. Organ-
isational change, then, is a matter of assessing the
current organisational situation (present state), de-
termining the desired future (future state), and both
planning ways to reach that desired future and imple-
menting the plans (transition state).
Kotter (1996) also compiled eight steps which are
valuable and informative in identifying the actions
necessary to achieve organisational change.
1. Establishing a sense of urgency, To drive people
out of the comfort zone to make thembelieve
that the current situation is more dangerous than
launching into the unknown.
2. Forming a powerful guiding coalition, it must
be nurtured and supported by a dedicated group
of infuential leaders throughout the organisa-
tion.
Efforts that dont have a powerful enough
guiding coalition can make apparent progress
for a while. But, sooner or later, the opposition
gathers itself to gather and stops the change.
3. Developing a vision and strategy, the vision
says something that helps clarify the direction
in which and organisation needs to move.
Leaders should be able to communicate the
vision in fve minutes and elicit understanding
and interest.
4. Communicating the change vision, Communic-
ation is more than a corporate announcement.
Leaders must communicate the vision through
their actions.
All the typical communication media play a
part. But leaders must make opportunities to
communicate the vision in hour-by-hour activ-
ities.
5. Empowering Others to Act on the Vision,
Leaders must clear the way for employees to
develop new ideas and approaches without be-
ing stymied by the old ways.
6. Planning for creating short-term wins, People
will not follow a vision forever. Employees
must see results within 12 to 24 months or they
will give up. Short-termwins validate the effort
and maintain the level of urgency. Rewarding
people responsible for the benefts is essential.
7. Consolidating Improvement and producing still
more change, Premature victory celebrations
can quash momentum and allow the forces of
tradition to regain their hold. Until changes sink
deeply into a companys culture, new ap-
proaches are fragile and subject to regression.
Short-term wins must be stepping-stones to
greater opportunities and bigger wins, all con-
sistent with the vision driving the overall effort.
8. Institutionalising new approaches , Leaders
must nowmake the conscious attempts to show
people how the new approaches, behaviours
and attitudes have helped improve performance.
Leader must make sure that the next generation
of top management really does personify the
approach.
TQM and Organisational Change
There have been numerous studies focusing on the
organisational variables associated with implement-
ation of a quality programs. When Organisations go
through TQM implementation, Romanelli and
Tushman (1994 cited in Johnson 2004) believed that
they move in a steady state and then experience re-
volutionary periods substantively disrupting estab-
lished activity patterns and install the basis for new
equilibrium periods. After initial quality standard
implementation and registration, the company returns
to the steady state. Yet, once a quality management
system is eventually established, there is a need to
constantly improve. Quality management systems
require continuous, constant improvement to meet
45 KASIM RANDEREE
ever-changing customer demand and increasing
competitor quality levels (Lee and Lazarus, 1993
cited in Johnson 2004).
Almaraz (1994) also explained that TQM often
leads to major change within an organisation. Such
change may be studied at a variety of levels; at the
organisational level, the implementation of quality
may represent a strategic move to become more
competitive. At the unit level, work units, or teams,
are sometimes created to fulfll quality goals. Many
teams become empowered through the quality
paradigm. Individuals are also impacted by the
change resulting fromthe implementation of quality
programs.
Referring to Nadler and Tushman (1989), Almaraz
explained that while change may be incremental in
nature, many organisations are faced with major,
core change, which represents a radical departure
from the old way of doing things.
He added, the components in Leavitts Contin-
gency Model (1965) depicts the interconnection of
people, task, technology, and structure. A major
change may begin in any of the four components. Its
magnitude will be such that all components will
make some adjustment to the change, and may in
fact incur major changes as a result. Such change
will affect the culture of the organisation, that is, the
values, beliefs and expectations of organisation
members. The result of such a major change will
transformthe organisation. Thus, Almaraz concluded
that TQM change should be classifed as radical and
transformational.
Abraham et al. (1997) Supported Almaraz, if a
quality mindset can be grafted onto existing values,
the transition may be more incremental. However,
if the new values threaten the status quo, this may
necessitate transformational change resulting in
considerable upheaval in order to create suitable
conditions to develop a critical mass of support for
the new mindset.
Huq (2005) identifed basic internal processes
necessary for a TQM paradigm shift. He stated
changing organisation structure in order to remove
hierarchical barriers; better implementation and
control through decision-making; improved commu-
nication through multiple media and information
systems; and empowering employees and/or creating
cross-functional teams to take charge of their work
operations in a manner that encourages continuous
learning as well as empowering the individual.
Finally, a conceptual model developed by Johnson
(2004) defned the importance of transformational
organisational change as being rooted in leadership,
strategy, structure, technology, culture and rewards
and recognition. This paper examines three variables
in greater depth, namely, leadership, structure and
culture.
Leadership and TQM
Majority of literature had established that one of the
key characteristics to affect TQM implementation is
the management style. Leadership plays an important
role in setting directions and inspiring change
throughout the organisation during change implement-
ation. According to Huq (2005), one of the major
challenges associated with TQM implementation is
navigation, i.e. guiding the change journey as de-
tailed in the implementation procedure.
Zairi (1994) emphasised that leadership in the
context of TQM is not about power, authority and
control, it is more about empowerment, recognition,
coaching and developing others.
Transformational leaders can effectively walk
through the change in their organisations by
demonstrating the appropriate behaviors at the appro-
priate stage in the transformation process. He would
be a good facilitator of this process by promoting
the creation of a culture that encourages team-de-
cision making and behavioral control (Manz and
Sims, 1990 cited in Eisenbach et al.1999). Individu-
alised consideration would also play a role in neut-
ralising the inevitable resistance that is bound to ac-
company the transformational process. The leader
must work at getting large numbers of people in the
organisation involved in the transformation process.
Management the president, vice-presidents,
managers and supervisors of the effective TQM
organisation are critical to success. Anjard (1998)
described the effective TQMmanager as an individu-
al with a clear TQM vision, is able to model the vis-
ion, clearly defnes departmental TQM criteria, en-
courages involvement and empowers employees,
leads, coaches and mentors and is a change agent.
Additionally, Sherman (1995 cited in Johnson
2004) believed that one third of the middle managers
should be change agents for a company going
through major organisational transformation.
Structure and TQM
Organisation structure is the formal presentation of
systems of positions and relationships in the organ-
isation and specifes the formal communication
channels. Therefore, this structure should facilitate
the objective of TQM in terms of empowerment,
more effective decision making removing unneces-
sary fragmentation of jobs, increasing orientation
towards the customer.
The Traditional structures have several layers
between the CEO and the workers, and communica-
tion is often lost in the process of dissemination from
the top to the bottom. This structure promotes an in-
ward focus, with employees focused more on satis-
fying internal management requests than overall or-
ganisational goals and targets.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT,
VOLUME 8
46
Jabnoun (2000) stated that there is almost a con-
sensus that a quality organisation should have a low
complexity. Low complexity usually means fewer
layers and a fatter organisation. This brings the de-
cision closer to the customer. Low complexity can
also simply mean a smaller organisation in terms of
both height and width. This organisation will also
make it easy to infuse a vibrant culture and to reduce
variations.
Spencer (1994, p. 447 cited in Moor and Brown
2006) noted that, under TQM, tasks are accomplished
by teams, which are centered around organisational
processes. Overall, the organisation is restructured
as a set of horizontal processes, which extends out-
side of the organisation to embrace suppliers and
customers.
Organisation Size and TQM
Ghobadian and Gallear suggested that some TQM
characteristics are size dependent. There is greater
correspondence between the inherent characteristics
of TQMand those of small to mediumorganisations
(SMEs). SMEs have a distinctive advantage in this
respect because the degree of vertical and horizontal
visibility is greater in SMEs. For this reason the level
of commitment and support generated by a quality
improvement team can directly and indirectly infu-
ence the change in the corporate culture, a key factor
in the successful implementation of TQM.
Thus, on the surface SMEs appear to be better
placed to introduce TQM. Yet, the biggest obstacle
to the introduction of TQMin SMEs is the manage-
ment realisation and the ability of owner managers
to modify their behavior and management style
Moreover, while the limited size of the manage-
ment team in SMEs means that individuals are often
responsible for a number of different functions with
little backup. They are often busy with managing the
day-to-day activities of the business and have very
little time left for activities perceived as adjunct. In
general, a short- rather than a long-range manage-
ment perspective dominates.
Ghobadian and Gallear (1997) believed that the
fat structure of SMEs can leave employees frustrated
because often they are unable to realise their short
and mid-term career goals. This is why SMEs may
fnd it diffcult to employ high caliber staff and even
harder to retain them.
Cultural Change and TQM
(Sathe, 1985; Schein, 1985 cited in Prajogo and
McDermott (2005)) defned organisational culture
as the general pattern of mindsets, beliefs and values
that members of the organisation share in common,
and which shape the behaviours, practices and other
artefacts of the organisation which are easily observ-
able
Also, Sinclair and Collins (1994) explained the
diffculty that entails any TQM-driven cultural
change in the organisation must be pointed out, as it
may also represent a distortion in the behavior of the
organisation members. And the bigger the penetration
of the real culture in the organisation, the more diff-
cult the change will be. Many organisations in an
attempt to dramatically change the companies cul-
ture, which necessarily led both managers and em-
ployees to dissatisfaction, lack of motivation and
frustration have encountered experiences near dis-
aster.
According to Anjard (1998), cultural values should
be part of any TQM implementation. These values
are focused on empowerment, being team based,
having collaborative management, being one-hundrer
percent committed to quality, developing a continu-
ous learning environment, having employees trained
in the use of quality tools, demonstrating strong hu-
man resources policies and showing respect for the
individual.
Furthermore, Sinclair and Collins (1994) sugges-
ted a number of issues to be considered in the quest
for cultural forms which provide the environment
for a quality service. These wer The rationale for
changing; a clear picture of the kind of culture re-
quired; how this picture fts in with the achievement
of business strategy; a clearer picture of the plurality
of cultural forms which make up an organisation;
that quality cannot be viewed in isolation: it has
knock-on effects for the whole organisation; people
have to see the personal beneft of offering a quality
service; the process of management must be ex-
amined if organisations are to achieve worker em-
powerment; reward issues require addressing: both
monetary and non-monetary and; not seeing quality
techniques as ends in themselves.
The key lesson is that management can only offer
environments which are conducive to employees
wanting to alter their values, beliefs and behaviours
towards providing a quality service.
TQM Drivers
The majority of organisation TQM originated with
either the CEO of the organisation or the quality de-
partment. The two most signifcant factors were the
pursuit of competitive advantage and the need for
improved quality.
Lagrosen (2001 cited in Svensson 2005) found
that TQM has become well established as a system
for improving both the performance of corporations
and the satisfaction of customers. Becker (1993 cited
in Svensson 2005) also considers TQMas something
47 KASIM RANDEREE
to reach for in order to enhance corporate competit-
iveness and proftability in the business environment.
A Final point, Yousef and Aspinwall (2000) cited
Rayner and Porter (1991) and Mo and Chan (1997)
who indicated that customer pressure, anticipation
of certifcation request, additional requirements from
potential customers, and the ambition to capture a
larger market share were seen as the driving forces
towards certifcation. The fear of losing contracts
prompted most small businesses to ``get quality
into their system rather than actually understanding
the purpose of ISO9000 as one of the tools of TQM.
TQM Resistance
There is often strong resistance to new ways of
thinking and new forms of organising. Resistance to
change is especially relevant if the vision of a leader
differs from the values and beliefs of the existing
organisational culture. If that is the case, then cultural
issues must be addressed (Schein, 1991; Trice and
Beyer, 1991 cited in Almaraz 1994). This is the part
of the process that is easy to overlook in major
change efforts in organisations. If the organisational
culture fails to assimilate the vision and its implica-
tions, desired change will never become accepted
and will ultimately fail.
Barriers to TQM
According to Gatchalian (1997), some causes of
failure in TQM implementation were identifed in
the acronym REJECT:
R Resistance of top management to educate
themselves regarding TQM.
E Erratic quality program implementation.
J Jolting but un-sustained enthusiasm for
TQM.
E Empowerment at all levels in the company
not adequate.
C Communication management strategies not
fully in place.
T Teams for quality improvement not func-
tioning effectively.
Recommendations
When pursuing organisational change, there are
several factors that need to be considered; is the
change planned or unplanned, incremental or
quantum leaps, transformational or transitional, and
the degree of change? These factors are all important
to successful implementation of change.
It is necessary for companies to assess the existing
state of their organisation and the different aspects
of their organisation that will be impacted by changes
associated with implementing and integrating a
quality management system into their mainstream
business practices. Failure to recognise the organisa-
tional changes required to adapt to a new business
approach will hinder the long-term benefts that can
be derived.
TQM to qualify as transformational change, the
majority of individuals within an organisation must
change their behaviour (Blumenthal and Haspeslagh,
1994 cited in Johnson 2004). They further explain
while the goal of all transformations is to improve
performance, many efforts to improve performance
are not transformational; creating behavioural change
is a diffcult and long-term process that requires
managements concerted and persistent effort.
Conclusion
Managing the transition involves the use of multiple
leverage points. This means that many actions in
different variables need to be managed simultan-
eously. For example achievement of a vision may
require strategic and structural change in conjunction
with teambuilding and individual training. Focus on
a single dimension of the model is not likely to be
effective, since major alterations in one component
tend to upset the balance with other components.
To wrap up, many organisations simply jump on
the bandwagon without fully understanding what
TQM means for them or its possible consequence.
Organisations should avoid wishful thinking that
TQM will fx short term problems and quickly im-
prove business performance; TQM is not a destina-
tion. It is a journey requiring long termsolid commit-
ment to the improvement of product, service and
processes. It is a means to an end rather than end in
itself.
References
Atkinson, P.E. (1990), Creating Culture Change: The Key to Successful Total Quality Management, Pfeiffer, London.
Becker, S.W. (1993), TQM does work; ten reasons why misguided attempts fail, Management Review, May, pp. 32-3.
Blumenthal, B. and Haspeslagh, P. (1994), Toward a defnition of corporate transformation, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 101-6.
Brown, M.G. (1992), Baldridge Award Winning Quality: How to interpret the Malcom Baldridge Award Criteria, 2nd
Edition, Milwaukee:ASQC
Burnes, B. (2004a). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6),
9771002.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT,
VOLUME 8
48
Burnes, B. (2004b). Managing Change, 4th edition. Harlow: FT/Prentice Hall.
Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Crosby, P. (1984), Quality without Tears, New American Library, New York, NY.
Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (1997), Organisation Development and Change, South-Western College Publishing,
Cincinnati, OH.
Dunphy, D. and Stace, D.A. (1993). The strategic management of corporate change. Human Relations, 46(8), 905918.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.
Eisenbach R.; Watson K.; Pillai R. (1999), Transformational leadership in the context of organisational change Source:
Journal of Organisational Change Management, Volume 12, Number 2, pp. 80-89(10).
Hodgetts, R.M. , et al. ( 1994) New Paradigm Organisations: from Total Quality Learning to World-Class. Organisational
Dynamics, 22 (3), 5 19.
Juran, J.M. (1988), Juran on Planning for Quality, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Kanter, R.M. (1989). When Giants Learn to Dance: Mastering the Challenges of Strategy, Management, and Careers in the
1990s. London: Unwin.
Leavitt, H.J. (1965), Applied Organisational Change in Industry: Structural, Technological, and Humanistic Approaches,
in March, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Organisations, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
Lee, Y.R. and Lazarus, H. (1993), Uses and criticisms of total quality management, The Journal of Management Devel-
opment, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 5-10.
Lindblom, C.E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(Spring), 7988.
Manz, C.C., Sims, H.P. Jr (1990), Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of self-managing work
teams, SuperLeadership: Leading Others to Lead Themselves, Berkley , New York, NY, .
Meyer, A.D., Brooks, G.R. and Goes, J.B. (1990), Environmental jolts and industry revolutions: organisational responses
to discontinuous change, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 93-110.
Mo, J.P.T. and Chan, A.M.S. (1997), ``Strategy for the successful implementation of ISO 9000 in small and medium man-
ufacturers, TQM Magazine, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 135-45.
Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1989), Beyond the Magic Leader: Leadership and Organisational Change, in Tushman, M.,
OReilly, C. and Nadler, D. (Eds), The Management of Organisations, Harper & Row, New York, NY, pp. 533-
46.
Nadler, D.A. (1981), Managing organisational change: an integrating perspective, The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 17 No. 2.
Oakland, J.S. (1993), Total Quality Management, Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford.
Peters, T. and Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from Americas Best-Run Companies. London:
Harper & Row.
Quinn, J.B. (1980). Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Quinn, J.B. (1982). Managing strategies incrementally. Omega, 10(6), 613627.
Rayner, P. and Porter, L.J. (1991), ``BS 5750/ISO 9000 the experience of small- and medium sized frms, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 16-28.
Recardo, R.F. (1995), Overcoming resistance to change, National Productivity Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 5-12.
Romanelli, E. and Tushman, M.L. (1994), Organisational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: an empirical test,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1141-56.
Schein, E. (1991), Organisational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Spencer, B. (1994), Models of organisation and total quality management: a comparison and critical evaluation, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 446-71.
Svensson, G. and Wood, G. (2004), Business ethics in TQM: the qualities and spectrum zones of a case illustration, The
TQM Magazine.
Trice, H. and Beyer, J. (1991), Cultural Leadership in Organisations, Organisation Science,Vol. 2 No. 2, May, pp. 149-
69.
About the Author
Dr. Kasim Randeree
Dr. Kasim Randeree is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Business at The British University in Dubai and Visiting
Lecturer to The University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. He has conducted numerous research and
development projects across the Arabian Gulf and North Africa. He has editorial responsibilities with four in-
ternational journal publications and has published over 40 peer reviewed articles. He is a Member of the Asso-
ciation of Project Managers as well as the Institute for Leadership and Management. His research interests are
broadly within organisational development and theory, with emphasis on structure, leadership, diversity and
multiculturalismand Islamic heritage. His particular interests in multiculturalismand diversity in human resource
management, the advancement of management education in the Middle East and Islamic and contemporary
perspectives on leadership and management, have brought himnumerous accolades and supporting publications
both internationally and across the region. Dr. Randeree is the Director of the Organisational Studies Research
49 KASIM RANDEREE
(OSR) group which has the fve Special Interest Groups (SIG) - Project Management, Managing People in Or-
ganisations, Leadership, Organisations in Theory and Practice and Learning.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT,
VOLUME 8
50






EDITORS
Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.



EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Verna Allee, Verna Allee Associates, California, USA.
Zainal Ariffin, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.
Robert Brooks, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Bruce Cronin, University of Greenwich, UK.
Rod Dilnutt, William Bethway and Associates, Melbourne, Australia.
Judith Ellis, Enterprise Knowledge, Melbourne, Australia.
Andrea Fried, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany.
David Gurteen, Gurteen Knowledge, UK.
David Hakken, University of Indiana, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Sabine Hoffmann, Macquarie University, Australia.
Stavros Ioannides, Pantion University, Athens, Greece.
Margaret Jackson, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Leslie Johnson, University of Greenwich, UK.
Eleni Karantzola, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece.
Gerasimos Kouzelis, University of Athens, Greece.
Krishan Kumar, University of Virginia, USA.
Martyn Laycock, University of Greenwich and managingtransitions.net, UK.
David Lyon, Queens University, Ontario, Canada.
Bill Martin, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Pumela Msweli-Mbanga, University of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa.
Claudia Schmitz, Cenandu Learning Agency, Germany.
Kirpal Singh, Singapore Management University, Singapore.
Dave Snowden, Cynefin Centre for Organisational Complexity, UK.
Chryssi Vitsilakis-Soroniatis, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece.










Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Management-Journal.com
for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS

International Journal of the Arts in Society
Creates a space for dialogue on innovative theories and practices in the arts, and their inter-relationships with society.
ISSN: 1833-1866
http://www.Arts-Journal.com
International Journal of the Book
Explores the past, present and future of books, publishing, libraries, information, literacy and learning in the information
society. ISSN: 1447-9567
http://www.Book-Journal.com
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal
Examines the meaning and purpose of design while also speaking in grounded ways about the task of design and the
use of designed artefacts and processes. ISSN: 1833-1874
http://www.Design-Journal.com
International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations
Provides a forum for discussion and builds a body of knowledge on the forms and dynamics of difference and diversity.
ISSN: 1447-9583
http://www.Diversity-Journal.com
International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability
Draws from the various fields and perspectives through which we can address fundamental questions of sustainability.
ISSN: 1832-2077
http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com
Global Studies Journal
Maps and interprets new trends and patterns in globalization. ISSN 1835-4432
http://www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com
International Journal of the Humanities
Discusses the role of the humanities in contemplating the future and the human, in an era otherwise dominated by
scientific, technical and economic rationalisms. ISSN: 1447-9559
http://www.Humanities-Journal.com
International Journal of the Inclusive Museum
Addresses the key question: How can the institution of the museum become more inclusive? ISSN 1835-2014
http://www.Museum-Journal.com
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences
Discusses disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge creation within and across the various social
sciences and between the social, natural and applied sciences.
ISSN: 1833-1882
http://www.Socialsciences-Journal.com
International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management
Creates a space for discussion of the nature and future of organisations, in all their forms and manifestations.
ISSN: 1447-9575
http://www.Management-Journal.com
International Journal of Learning
Sets out to foster inquiry, invite dialogue and build a body of knowledge on the nature and future of learning.
ISSN: 1447-9540
http://www.Learning-Journal.com
International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society
Focuses on a range of critically important themes in the various fields that address the complex and subtle relationships
between technology, knowledge and society. ISSN: 1832-3669
http://www.Technology-Journal.com
Journal of the World Universities Forum
Explores the meaning and purpose of the academy in times of striking social transformation.
ISSN 1835-2030
http://www.Universities-Journal.com


FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT
[email protected]