rganizational structure have been experimented with. Much of the framework of the organization is determined by the type of business, goals, and even the social environment. Our armed forces today reflect this idea. Traditionally the military has used a rigid organizational structure. A well defined chain of command is used to delegate responsibilities, even to this day. This style requires more managers with general management abilities. Managers are concerned with the problem at hand; they focus on what has to be done. Leaders on the other hand, notice what has to be done, but spend their time figuring out how to get it done. In the previous structure the subordinate's job is to follow instructions from the higher level. This behavior has been reinforced by a high level of discipline, required for battlefield operations. As technology has redefined combat operations, so has the organizational and management style changed. Business cultures have moved away from the original organizational models by flattening out layers of mid-level management, but quantitative measures of business performance still dominate the landscape. High level managers sometimes view TQM as more of a hindrance than a tool. The idea to give up authority and power to those who may abuse it scares executives to the point that while they want the proposed results, they are not so inclined to put the consistent effort forward to get there over a period of time. For established large organizations, physics predicts that the force needed to change the course and direction is directly proportional to the size of the organization. For smaller or new organizations, cultures and new ideas are more easily applied and modified. Because of today’s business culture, TQM is less effective. Globalization of Markets: The business world as a whole today exists as a patchwork of global entities working together as a whole, because markets are so closely tied,...
