Leadership in quality management systems
All over the world, the relationship between leadership and quality management systems has been studied by researchers. As quality management systems focus on refining company policies in order to meet customer needs, the role of leadership in that system is one that many have analyzed. Leaders play a tremendous role in a company’s success; therefore, it stands to reason that they should share a similar role in quality management systems. Wagimin, Elisa, Juhary and Vembri (2019) show, for instance, that both transformational and transactional leadership styles can have positive effects on quality management systems as well as on employee performance. What they also point out, however, is that quality management systems and in particular total quality management (TQM) can assist transformational and transactional leaders in improving employee performance. Their study is helpful because it highlights the nature of the relationship between quality management systems and two styles of leadership: that relationship is symbiotic. Their study is also helpful because it is set in Indonesia and gives an indication of how there is a universality to this relationship between leadership and quality management systems when compared to studies from other parts of the world, like those of Alnuaimi and Yaakub (2020) in the United Arab Emirates, or the study by Praditya (2020) in Tangerang, or the study by Githaiga, Namusonge and Sakwa (2018) in Kenya. The studies all indicate that leadership and quality management systems share a special positive relationship that can be exploited in a company no matter where it is located.

Chen, Lee and Wang (2020) arrive at the same conclusion as Wagimin et al. (2019). The relationship is especially symbiotic between transformational leadership and quality management systems as each has a positive effect on the other. Transformational leaders benefit from quality management systems, as the latter provides the former with a foundational framework for efficiency and the former provides the latter with proactive implementation of policies and processes. What makes the study by Chen et al. (2020) helpful is that it provides a sense of just how having a vision and the ability to communicate that vision makes a major difference in the extent to which quality management systems are effective. In other words, Chen et al. (2020) suggest that without a transformational leader, the quality management system is unlikely to have as positive an effect as it might otherwise have. Alnuaimi and Yaakub (2020) used a survey methodology of 230 participants to show as much.

Praditya (2020) also found that leadership had a strong impact on the implementation of quality management systems. That study was conducted in an automotive plant in Tangerang with 63 participants from the plant randomly selected to participate in the study. Other factors were also assessed, including commitment and motivation, but it was found that only leadership matters when it comes to implementing the quality management system. The reason for...…another story altogether. The leader is there to facilitate the process in environments where the people are not used to quality management systems or where this is a new idea. In an industry like health care, quality management systems are going to have a more natural fit. This is not necessarily going to be the case for a construction industry or an auto factory. Thus, there is also the consideration to be made regarding the nature of the industry.

In conclusion, the literature indicates that leadership tends to have a major role in quality management systems but that this role is mostly felt in environments, industries or nations wherein the culture is not already aligned with the essence of quality management systems. When there is no foundational framework already in place, the leader is necessary because the leader provides the focus, the vision, the communication, and the motivation. That is why motivation and commitment were not found to be important factors in the implementation of quality management systems: the leader was expected to motivate and foster commitment. Thus, the leader is always going to be seen as having an important role in the process of overseeing and maintaining quality management systems where there is no culture in place to support them. The leader has to guide that process, which is not going to be the case in an environment where leaders can be more disengaged and removed.