TQM vs. KBR's Management Style: Strategic Analysis
This paper examines KBR's strategic planning framework — including its mission, vision, values, and 2007 focus areas — and evaluates the company's management style against the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM). The analysis compares TQM's participative, customer-driven approach with KBR's largely autocratic management style, shaped by its work on government and military contracts. The paper also reviews TQM tools and techniques in the context of KBR's operations and assesses the feasibility and limits of implementing TQM within the organization, identifying which components could be adopted and which remain incompatible with KBR's operational environment.
- Mission, Vision, and Values: KBR's strategic goals, values, and 2007 focus areas
- TQM Management Style vs. KBR's Management Style: Participative TQM versus KBR's autocratic approach
- Characteristics of TQM Companies vs. KBR: TQM tools and techniques compared to KBR's practices
- Implementing TQM in KBR: Feasibility and limits of TQM adoption at KBR
- Conclusion: Summary of compatible and incompatible TQM changes
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds the analysis in KBR's own publicly stated mission and values before applying a theoretical framework, giving the critique concrete footing.
- Clearly distinguishes between TQM's "hard" and "soft" components, which allows a nuanced verdict: some TQM elements fit KBR, others do not.
- Uses a specific real-world context — military and government contracting — to justify why a fully participative management style is structurally incompatible with KBR's operations.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied framework comparison: it introduces TQM as a theoretical model, maps its requirements onto a real organization's documented practices, and identifies both alignment and divergence. This approach — theory first, application second, gap analysis third — is a reliable structure for business and management essays at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by profiling KBR's strategic planning context (mission, vision, values, 2007 goals). It then compares TQM's management philosophy against KBR's authoritarian style, follows with a parallel comparison of organizational characteristics, and closes with a pragmatic implementation assessment. The conclusion synthesizes the compatibility limits identified throughout. Each section builds directly on the previous one, maintaining a clear analytical progression.
Mission, Vision, and Values
KBR's mission, as stated on the corporate website, is to "safely deliver any project, any time, in any environment for the benefit of our customers, shareholders, employees and the communities" the company serves. This statement emphasizes the importance of product and service quality delivered within specific time limits.
The company's vision is "to be the world's premier contractor delivering projects and services to a global marketplace." This vision is consistent with that of any large company seeking to outrun its competition in the era of globalization.
Some of the most important company values include:
Uncompromising commitment to Health, Safety and Environment; Integrity in all they do; Transparency in their business; Accountability for their work; Best-in-class Risk Awareness; Financial Responsibility to their stakeholders.
These values address both external clients — customers — and internal clients — shareholders and the environment.
The 2007 Focus Areas and Goals were influenced by the company's newly acquired status as a publicly traded enterprise. Management considered the keys to success to be the commitment and contributions of each member, concentrating the company's efforts in four strategic areas: transparency, accountability, discipline, and financial responsibility. These areas were seen as the driving force for moving the company forward, creating new opportunities, and increasing its commitment to organizational success.
These four goals are characteristic of companies that have already adopted Total Quality Management (TQM). TQM requires transparency of activities within the PDCA cycle — Plan, Do, Check, Act. Accountability is important in assigning roles to individuals and tasks and responsibilities to each role. Discipline is necessary for total control over operations, and financial responsibility is designed to satisfy both customers and shareholders while maintaining the organization's financial health.
TQM Management Style vs. KBR's Management Style
TQM promotes a participative management style in which the entire organization works to achieve total customer satisfaction. This style replaces top-down management with a decentralized, customer-driven form best suited to large, complex organizations. The management style associated with TQM has been categorized as democratic (Morgan and Murgatroyd, 1997), and many have suggested that this same style is the kind of participative one that "involves soliciting input from empowered employees" (Goetsch and Davis, 1994).
TQM is a management system focused on a continuous improvement process. The rationale behind this process is that 90% of process outcomes are a system-related consequence rather than an employee-related one. The TQM system is composed of two parts: a hard component and a soft component. The hard component encompasses the techniques, tools, and systems engaged to achieve continuous improvement, whereas the soft component addresses the way organizations deal with their employees and customers. Some of the soft concepts associated with TQM include:
Continuous improvement; Total employee involvement; Empowerment; Teamwork; Democratic and participative management style; Management commitment and support; Cultural change; Total customer satisfaction.
Given that KBR works extensively with public and military entities, discipline in everything the company does is essential. This discipline is reflected in the management style. Employees are held to a strict code of conduct that must comply with both the law and company regulations. This type of management style is authoritarian and autocratic: managers typically make decisions unilaterally, without consulting employees, and employee participation and empowerment are considerably reduced compared to a participative style.
By adopting this management style, KBR risks missing valuable input from its employees — input that is essential for innovation, which is critically important in its industry. Employee motivation is also expected to be lower under an autocratic style than under a participative one, and motivation is a key driver of productivity.
Characteristics of TQM Companies vs. KBR
TQM has been defined as "a total organizational approach for meeting customer needs and expectations that involves all managers and employees in using quantitative methods to continuously improve the organization's processes, products and services" (American Federal Office of Management Budget Circular, cited in Milakovich, 1990).
TQM companies make extensive use of techniques, tools, and systems to achieve better results. Some of the most well-known tools include Statistical Process Control, ISO 9000 series standards, Pareto Analysis, Matrix Diagrams, Histograms, Tree Decision Diagrams, Critical Path Analysis, and the Fishbone (Ishikawa) Diagram (Psychogios and Priporas, 2007).
KBR employs a number of high-tech solutions in its operations, such as advanced warehouse management strategies. The company ensures that it engages the best-fit warehouse solutions — encompassing people, technology, and processes — given that a considerable number of its contracts are with the U.S. Army. During conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, KBR was responsible for delivering a wide range of resources to the military. Timing and precise provisioning were essential for these contracts. The company employs such techniques across its supply chain to deliver results as expected.
Other characteristics of TQM-adopting companies relate to the management style discussed in the previous section. As noted, KBR's management style differs markedly from the participative and democratic model, leaning instead toward an autocratic approach.
Conclusion
Overall, there are a number of changes that can be implemented in KBR that also have a high probability of success. There are also some changes that will never be implemented in this company, as they are not compatible with its activity. KBR can meaningfully benefit from TQM's hard-component tools and systems, while its operational context — defined by military contracts and regulatory compliance — imposes clear boundaries on how far the softer, participative elements of TQM can realistically be adopted.
References
Engelbart, D. (2000). The Unfinished Revolution — Quality and Bootstrapping. Colloquium held at Stanford University. Retrieved from http://www.bootstrap.org/
Goetsch, D., & Davis, S. (1994). Introduction to total quality: Quality, productivity, competitiveness (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.
Milakovich, M. E. (1990). Total quality management in the public sector. National Productivity Review, 10(2), 195–215.
Morgan, C., & Murgatroyd, S. (1997). Total quality management in the public sector. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Psychogios, A. G., & Priporas, C. V. (2007). Understanding Total Quality Management in context: Qualitative research on managers' awareness of TQM aspects in the Greek service industry. The Qualitative Report, 12(1), 40–66.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.