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.
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.