Answer: This is not an uncommon response in fact this is a typical situation where “outsiders are trying to meddle with my turf“. First I would have a respected senior person close to the governor and a TQM representative have a separate meeting with each of the managers in an attempt to assess their objections while at the same time presenting TQM as a solution to some of their problems. What you will find is that their reason’s for objecting vary somewhat and in most cases at least one of the managers will be convinced enough to implement the pilot TQM which you want.

If the managers continue to stone wall select the organization that clearly needs reform and challenge the manager to show you in detail just what he is doing within his organization to implement quality improvements. Have him bring in his supervisors and get a detailed assessment of their improvement efforts. Listen carefully and be polite (you have to work with these people) be prepared to confront each supervisor with known documented shortcomings and show how a TQM implementation would solve the problem. Obtain a partial commitment by asking if they would like to know more about TQM. This partial commitment is critical because it gets them of the hook from having to give the “no” answer that their manager wants them to give. Schedule the next meeting for a review of TQM and with examples of successful implementations. For more information see Article 11. “Adaptation of Manufacturing Quality Improvement Techniques to Achieve Efficient Government“.

In the meantime schedule a meeting with the stone walling manager again to inform him of the results of the first meeting with his supervisors, he will already know about the scheduled second meeting with his supervisors. This time bring along a representative from the state auditor’s office. Again inform him of the success of the meeting with his supervisors and invite him to select a function in which a permanent installation might be made as a pilot for succeeding implementations through out his organization. The manager knows if he refuses that an audit of his organization will most certainly follow. When you leave the meeting you will have the commitment and support of the manager for a pilot implementation leading to other implementations through out his organization or the state auditor will do an audit of the organization leading to the replacement of the manager.

Sounds tough, you bet it is but most generally managers will come around long before it gets to this point. The above scenario is more likely to occur in a deeply intransigent bureaucracy and in most cases where a “Cost and Schedule” implementation is required. For more information see Article 12. Which Approach to use in State Government “Cost and Schedule” or “Work Improvement Teams“?