Is Quality a “given” in our organizations? By: Thomas M. Abbott Academic Program Manager- Business Post University Friday, July 26, 2013 Quality is a mindset, an individual or organizational attitude. For many years, I have used the term “habit of thought” to define attitude and I think the application of that term to the concept of quality is appropriate. Individuals and organizations alike have attitudes and they are driven by their values, visions and define missions. (Yes…I was a strategy and organizational development consultant for many years and I still use these terms regularly.) If an organization or individual is to provide a quality outcome or service or product, the quality attitude must be present. It starts at the top…the senior leadership must be committed to the quality outcome. This has to extend to every facet of the operation and in my opinion this is where many organizations/individuals fall short of meeting the standard that many would define as “quality.” Too many times I have seen the quality focus be on the specific end product or service and not be expanded to the other supporting activities. Frequently, he result is a decline in the overall quality of all aspects of the operation. As the readings and videos point out, thought leaders like Deming and Juran understood the concept of quality as being a total organizational (or total personal) concept encompassing all facets of an operation. As much as we would like it to be otherwise, my opinion is that quality is not a “given” in our institutions. The issue goes right back to the idea of commitment to a set of ideals, the attitudes that I wrote of earlier. Particularly if the leaders of the institution are not steadfast in that commitment, the quality aspect of the institution’s operations will be jeopardized. Some of our course readings make reference to the American automobile industry in the late 1970’s and early 80’s as that industry tried to respond to the Japanese quality-based successes in the world and American markets. There was a rush to institute every quality improvement program known to man and even invent some new ones. Detroit even remembered that Deming was an American! But as soon as the markets began to stabilize after the oil shocks of mid-seventies, the American industry fell back to its old ways and refocused on profitability and market share…quality was no longer “Job 1” (to borrow Ford Motor Company’s slogan.) The American industry never fully recovered what was lost to the Japanese and European companies. This is where the Baldrige criteria can be seen as one of the better examples of what came out of the “quality movement” of that era. The Baldrige method recognizes the importance of the need for strategic thinking throughout the organization. Too many companies used methods like statistical controls, etc. as tactical responses to immediate problems. The Baldrige criteria are designed to help build lasting success and understand the role o.

1. Is Quality a “given” in our organizations?
By: Thomas M. Abbott
Academic Program Manager- Business
Post University
Friday, July 26, 2013
Quality is a mindset, an individual or organizational attitude.
For many years, I have used the term “habit of thought” to
define attitude and I think the application of that term to the
concept of quality is appropriate. Individuals and organizations
alike have attitudes and they are driven by their values, visions
and define missions. (Yes…I was a strategy and organizational
development consultant for many years and I still use these
terms regularly.) If an organization or individual is to provide a
quality outcome or service or product, the quality attitude must
be present. It starts at the top…the senior leadership must be
committed to the quality outcome. This has to extend to every
facet of the operation and in my opinion this is where many
organizations/individuals fall short of meeting the standard that
many would define as “quality.” Too many times I have seen the
quality focus be on the specific end product or service and not
be expanded to the other supporting activities. Frequently, he
result is a decline in the overall quality of all aspects of the
operation. As the readings and videos point out, thought leaders
like Deming and Juran understood the concept of quality as
being a total organizational (or total personal) concept
encompassing all facets of an operation.
As much as we would like it to be otherwise, my opinion is that
quality is not a “given” in our institutions. The issue goes right
back to the idea of commitment to a set of ideals, the attitudes
that I wrote of earlier. Particularly if the leaders of the
institution are not steadfast in that commitment, the quality
aspect of the institution’s operations will be jeopardized. Some
of our course readings make reference to the American

2. automobile industry in the late 1970’s and early 80’s as that
industry tried to respond to the Japanese quality-based
successes in the world and American markets. There was a rush
to institute every quality improvement program known to man
and even invent some new ones. Detroit even remembered that
Deming was an American! But as soon as the markets began to
stabilize after the oil shocks of mid-seventies, the American
industry fell back to its old ways and refocused on profitability
and market share…quality was no longer “Job 1” (to borrow
Ford Motor Company’s slogan.) The American industry never
fully recovered what was lost to the Japanese and European
companies.
This is where the Baldrige criteria can be seen as one of the
better examples of what came out of the “quality movement” of
that era. The Baldrige method recognizes the importance of the
need for strategic thinking throughout the organization. Too
many companies used methods like statistical controls, etc. as
tactical responses to immediate problems. The Baldrige criteria
are designed to help build lasting success and understand the
role of processes, strategies and core principles in the
achievement of a quality operation. The emphasis is on “closing
the loop.” The challenge with Baldrige is that it demands
systems and a commitment to maintain that quality attitude and
quality practices across the board in uncertain times. It
provides a framework and measuring guide for performance and
planning but sticking to it in uncertain times is not an easy
proposition. As we go through this week’s material and analyze
the Baldrige Core Principles and complementary systems such a
s Deming’s 14 Points, you will begin to see common themes.
Just remember, most of this “stuff” is simple…but it’s not easy.
History of Quality
The quality movement can trace its roots back to medieval
Europe, where craftsmen began organizing into unions called
guilds in the late 13th century.
Until the early 19th century, manufacturing in the industrialized

3. world tended to follow this craftsmanship model. The factory
system, with its emphasis on product inspection, started in
Great Britain in the mid-1750s and grew into the Industrial
Revolution in the early 1800s.
In the early 20th century, manufacturers began to include
quality processes in quality practices.
After the United States entered World War II, quality became a
critical component of the war effort: Bullets manufactured in
one state, for example, had to work consistently in rifles made
in another. The armed forces initially inspected virtually every
unit of product; then to simplify and speed up this process
without compromising safety, the military began to use
sampling techniques for inspection, aided by the publication of
military-specification standards and training courses in Walter
Shewhart’s statistical process control techniques.
The birth of total quality in the United States came as a direct
response to the quality revolution in Japan following World War
II. The Japanese welcomed the input of Americans Joseph M.
Juran and W. Edwards Deming and rather than concentrating on
inspection, focused on improving all organizational processes
through the people who used them.
By the 1970s, U.S. industrial sectors such as automobiles and
electronics had been broadsided by Japan’s high-quality
competition. The U.S. response, emphasizing not only statistics
but approaches that embraced the entire organization, became
known as total quality management (TQM).
By the last decade of the 20th century, TQM was considered a
fad by many business leaders. But while the use of the term
TQM has faded somewhat, particularly in the United States, its
practices continue.
In the few years since the turn of the century, the quality
movement seems to have matured beyond Total Quality. New
quality systems have evolved from the foundations of Deming,
Juran and the early Japanese practitioners of quality, and
quality has moved beyond manufacturing into service,
healthcare, education and government sectors.

4. Total Quality
The birth of total quality in the United States was in direct
response to a quality revolution in Japan following World War
II, as major Japanese manufacturers converted from producing
military goods for internal use to producing civilian goods for
trade.
At first, Japan had a widely held reputation for shoddy exports,
and their goods were shunned by international markets. This led
Japanese organizations to explore new ways of thinking about
quality.
Deming, Juran, and Japan
The Japanese welcomed input from foreign companies and
lecturers, including two American quality experts:
· W. Edwards Deming, who had become frustrated with
American managers when most programs for statistical quality
control were terminated once the war and government contracts
came to and end.
· Joseph M. Juran, who predicted the quality of Japanese goods
would overtake the quality of goods produced in the United
States by the mid-1970s because of Japan’s revolutionary rate
of quality improvement.
Japan’s strategies represented the new “total quality” approach.
Rather than relying purely on product inspection, Japanese
manufacturers focused on improving all organizational
processes through the people who used them. As a result, Japan
was able to produce higher-quality exports at lower prices,
benefiting consumers throughout the world.
American managers were generally unaware of this trend,
assuming any competition from the Japanese would ultimately
come in the form of price, not quality. In the meantime,
Japanese manufacturers began increasing their share in
American markets, causing widespread economic effects in the
United States: Manufacturers began losing market share,
organizations began shipping jobs overseas, and the economy
suffered unfavorable trade balances. Overall, the impact on
American business jolted the United States into action.

5. The American Response
At first, U.S. manufacturers held onto to their assumption that
Japanese success was price-related, and thus responded to
Japanese competition with strategies aimed at reducing
domestic production costs and restricting imports. This, of
course, did nothing to improve American competitiveness in
quality.
As years passed, price competition declined while quality
competition continued to increase. By the end of the 1970s, the
American quality crisis reached major proportions, attracting
attention from national legislators, administrators and the
media. A 1980 NBC-TV News special report, “If Japan Can…
Why Can’t We?” highlighted how Japan had captured the world
auto and electronics markets. Finally, U.S. organizations began
to listen.
The chief executive officers of major U.S. corporations stepped
forward to provide personal leadership in the quality movement.
The U.S. response, emphasizing not only statistics but
approaches that embraced the entire organization, became
known as Total Quality Management (TQM).
Several other quality initiatives followed. The ISO 9000 series
of quality-management standards, for example, were published
in 1987. The Baldrige National Quality Program and Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award were established by the U.S.
Congress the same year. American companies were at first slow
to adopt the standards but eventually came on board.
Beyond Total Quality
By the end of the 1990s Total Quality Management (TQM) was
considered little more than a fad by many American business
leaders (although it still retained its prominence in Europe).
While use of the term TQM has faded somewhat, particularly in
the United States, quality expert Nancy Tague says: “Enough
organizations have used it with success that, to paraphrase Mark
Twain, the reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.”
(see The Quality Toolbox, ASQ Quality Press, 2005).
As the 21st century begins, the quality movement has matured.

6. Tague says new quality systems have evolved beyond the
foundations laid by Deming, Juran and the early Japanese
practitioners of quality.
Some examples of this maturation:
· In 2000 the ISO 9000 series of quality management standards
was revised to increase emphasis on customer satisfaction.
· Beginning in 1995, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award added a business results criterion to its measures of
applicant success.
· Six Sigma, a methodology developed by Motorola to improve
its business processes by minimizing defects, evolved into an
organizational approach that achieved breakthroughs – and
significant bottom-line results. When Motorola received a
Baldrige Award in 1988, it shared its quality practices with
others.
· Quality function deployment was developed by Yoji Akao as a
process for focusing on customer wants or needs in the design
or redesign of a product or service.
· Sector-specific versions of the ISO 9000 series of quality
management standards were developed for such industries as
automotive (QS-9000 and ISO/TS 16949), aerospace (AS9000)
and telecommunications (TL 9000) and for environmental
management (ISO 14000).
· Quality has moved beyond the manufacturing sector into such
areas as service, healthcare, education and government.
· The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award has added
education and healthcare to its original categories:
manufacturing, small business and service. Many advocates are
pressing for the adoption of a “nonprofit organization” category
as well.
Reference:
American Society for Quality. (2013, August 26). Retrieved
from ASQ-A global Leader in Quality Improvement:
http;//www.asq.org

7. Grading Rubric for BUS 211 Reflective Paper
Letter Grade
Total Points Earned On Assignment
Description
Grade
A
90-100
Excellent:
Composes a clear and concise paper that addresses all
components of the stated assignment. Addresses multiple
concepts from the course materials. Shows depth of thought.
Contains no grammar errors. Requires minimal to no edits upon
review.
*Assignment is completed by the stated due date.
B
80-90
Good:
Composes a concise paper that addresses all components of the
stated assignment. Understanding of the course materials is
readily apparent. Shows depth of thought and contains minimal
to no grammar errors. May require some edits to improve
clarity.
*Assignment is completed by the stated due date.
C
70-80
Fair:
Composes a paper that addresses some components of the stated
assignment. Understanding of the course materials is
discernible. Shows some depth of thought. Follows directions
but has some grammar errors. May have incomplete thoughts or
poor transitions between paragraphs. Edits may be required to

8. improve clarity.
*Assignment is completed by the stated due or student may have
requested a minor extension to complete the assignment.
D
60-70
Poor:
Composes a paper that addresses only one component of the
stated assignment. Understanding of the course materials is
difficult to discern. Shows minimal depth of thought. Follows
directions but has some grammar errors. May have incomplete
thoughts or poor transitions between paragraphs. Edits may be
required to improve clarity.
*Assignment is completed by the stated due or student may have
requested a minor extension to complete the assignment.
F
Below 60
Unsatisfactory:
Does not follow directions; paper is composed of multiple
grammar errors; lacks clarity and depth of thought.
Understanding of course concepts and materials is not apparent.
*Assignment is not completed on time.
REFLECTION:
A TAXONOMY AND SYNTHESIS OF DESCRIPTIONS
OF
REFLECTIVE PRACTICE/REFLECTIVE INQUIRY
Copyright 2011
C. Timothy Dickel, Ed.D.
Professor of Education

9. Creighton University
2011
Introduction
This paper presents quoted descriptions of several types of
reflective practice and reflective inquiry. The intent is to use
the words of noted persons in the field of reflective practice to
summarize what they have described. The reference section of
the paper provides the reader with the complete source of each
of the quotes. Since much of the literature of reflective practice
is from [lead]er education, the author of this summary has used
brackets to indicate that “leadership” terms have been
substituted for “[lead]ing” terms.
Anticipatory Reflection
Anticipatory reflection is the kind of reflection that we engage
in as we prepare for some experience. As you approach a social
gathering, what are your thoughts? Do you think about who
might be there? If you know who might be there, do you think
about what you might say to that person, or those persons?
Does knowing who might be there stimulate feelings or
excitement or apprehension? On the other hand, sometimes as
we anticipate a situation, we may think about what will be
required of us. I once knew an orthopedic surgeon, and one
day, I asked him what he does each evening as he thinks about
the kind of surgeries that he has scheduled for the next day. He
told me that he intentionally walks himself through each step of
each surgery, rehearsing in his mind and with his hands the
actions that he will need the next day. Anticipatory reflection
can be both spontaneous and systematic.
In-the-Moment Reflection
In-the-moment reflection consists of our immediate thoughts

10. and feelings as we are either going through an experience or
immediately following that experience. It takes place just like
any other reflection when we take the time to step back and
spend a little time reviewing what is happening or what just
happened to us as a result of going through that experience. For
example, I suspect that there are two kinds of movie-goers,
those who reflect on the experience of the film during the film,
and know immediately following the film what they thought of
it, and those who need a little time after viewing the film to
collect their thoughts regarding what they thought of the film.
For people who can read their emotions and thoughts, or are
conscious of their emotions and thoughts, spontaneously, they
are able to engage in in-the-moment reflection. Most people
take a little longer to reflect on what they have experienced.
Types of Reflection, p. 2
Technical Reflection
Valli (1997) presents the following descriptions of “technical”
reflection.
The word technical in this context has two related meanings.
The first relates to the content of reflection: focus on the
narrow domain of [leadership] techniques or skills. The second
relates to the quality of reflection: directing one’s actions
through a straightforward application of research on
[leadership]. Technical reflection is very much rule-governed.
(pp. 74-75)
Using this type of reflection, [lead]ers judge their own
[leadership] performance on the basis of externally imposed
criteria. The content that prospective [lead]ers think about are
the general [leadership] behaviors that have been derived from
research on [lead]ing. These include things like time-on-task,
wait-time, active learning, student engagement, homework,
review, and prior knowledge. Prospective [lead]ers would think

11. about findings from this research and try to match their
performance to those guidelines. For example, they would
determine if they were “waiting” the recommended 3 seconds
after asking a higher order question before calling on a student
to respond. Or they would calculate the use of time in the
classroom to determine whether time spent on learning
activities was increasing. (p. 75)
Technical reflection occurs within these types of narrow, pre-
established boundaries. It is a prescriptive way to learn how to
[lead]: An outside authority sets the standards, guidelines, and
evaluation criteria. Experts (researchers or state evaluators)
determine what good [leadership] is and then [lead]ers think
about whether their [leadership] meets those expectations.
Reflection is limited to the retrospective comparison of the
effectiveness of prescribed [leadership] strategies. It leaves
broader goals and purposes of schooling; the social context and
environment of [leadership]; issues of equity, fairness, and
justice; and even the curriculum unquestioned. (pp. 75-76)
An example of technical reflection would be new [lead]ers who
learned how to use a state’s assessment instrument to judge
whether the lessons they taught were good. These new [lead]ers
would have strong technical skills, be able to maintain order,
pace instruction appropriately, and give their students useful
feedback. They would know when to re[lead] material and
when to correct student responses. They would be able to
implement new programs that they had received solid training
in, such as a mastery learning program. The quality of their
reflection would be judged by their knowledge of research
findings and their ability to match their [leadership]
performance to these findings. In this type of reflection, the
outside expert researcher’s voice is dominant. (pp. 75-76)
Reflection-In and On-Action

12. Although the concepts of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-
action come from Schon (1983), Valli (1997) provides some
detailed description.
[The terms reflection in action and reflection on action] come
from Schon (1983). Reflection-on-action is the retrospective
thinking [lead]ers do after a lesson has been taught.
Types of Reflection, p. 3
Reflection-in-action refers to the spontaneous, intuitive
decisions made during the act of [lead]ing. Schon claimed that
important decisions are made during the act of [lead]ing itself
and that these decisions are based primarily on practical
knowledge – knowledge derived from experience. The content
for reflection comes primarily from one’s own unique situation.
Each [lead]er’s values, beliefs, classroom context, and students
provide the source of knowledge for reflective action. Quality
of reflection is judged by the [lead]er’s ability to make and
justify good decisions based on his or her own situation and
experience. In this type of reflection, the [lead]er’s voice is
regarded as expert rather than the researcher’s. Reflection-in
and on-action values practical, craft knowledge. (p. 76)
[Lead]er preparation programs that emphasize reflection-in and
on-action would not give prospective [lead]ers explicit rules to
follow. Rather, they would have these prospective [lead]ers
keep journals of their experiences to help them look back on all
the important events that occur in their classrooms and help
them think carefully about these events. Those who promote
this type of reflection believe that the more unique situations
prospective [lead]ers reflect on, the more prepared they will be
to make good decisions in action. The unique case, rather than
the generalized rule, is the important [leadership] tool. (pp. 76-
77)
Schon (1987) has his own ideas about reflection-in-action and
reflection-on-action.

13. When we have learned how to do something, we can execute
smooth sequences of activity, recognition, decision, and
adjustment without having, as we say, to “think about it.” Our
spontaneous knowing-in-action usually gets us through the day.
On occasion, however, it doesn’t. A familiar routine produces
an unexpected result: an error stubbornly resists correction; or,
although the usual actions produce the usual outcome, we find
something odd about them because, for some reason, we have
begun to look at them in a new way. All such experiences,
pleasant and unpleasant, contain an element of surprise.
Something fails to meet our expectations. In an attempt to
preserve the constancy of our usual patterns of knowing-in-
action, we may respond to surprise by brushing it aside,
selectively inattending to the signals that produce it. Or, we
may respond to it by reflection, and we may do so in one of two
ways. (p.26)
We may reflect on action, thinking back on what we have done
in order to discover how our knowing-in-action may have
contributed to an unexpected outcome. We may do so after the
fact, in tranquility, or we may pause in the midst of action to
make what Hannah Arendt (1971) calls a “stop-and-think.” In
either case, our reflection has no direct connection to present
action. Alternatively, we may reflect in the midst of action
without interrupting it. In an action-present – a period of time,
variable with the context during which we can still make a
difference to the situation at hand – our thinking serves to
reshape what we are doing while we are doing it. I shall say, in
cases like this, that we reflect-in-action. (p. 26)
Recently, for example, I built a gate out of wooden pickets and
strapping. I had made a drawing and figured out the dimensions
I wanted, but I had not reckoned with the problem of keeping
the structure square. As I began to nail the strapping to the
pickets, I noticed a wobble. I knew the structure would become

14. rigid when I nailed in the diagonal piece, but how could I be
sure it would be square? There came to mind a vague memory
about
Types of Reflection, p. 4
diagonals: in a rectangle diagonals are equal. I took a
yardstick, intending to measure the diagonals, but I found I
could not use it without disturbing the structure. It occurred to
me to use a piece of string. Then it became apparent that, in
order to measure the diagonals, I needed a precise location at
each corner. After several trials, I found I could locate the
center point at each corner by constructing diagonals there. I
hammered in a nail at each of the four corner points and used
the nails as anchors for the measurement string. It took several
minutes to figure out how to adjust the structure so as to correct
the errors I found by measuring. And then, when I had the
diagonals equal, I nailed in a piece of strapping to freeze the
structure. (pp. 26-27)
Here is an example that must have its analogues in the
experiences of amateur carpenters the world over, my intuitive
way of going about the task led me to a surprise (the discovery
of the wobble), which I interpreted as a problem. In the midst
of action, I invented procedures to solve the problem,
discovered further unpleasant surprises, and made further
corrective inventions, including the several minor ones
necessary to carry out the idea of using string to measure the
diagonals. We might call such a process “trial and error.” But
the trials are not randomly related to one another; reflection on
each trial and its results sets the stage for the next trial. Such a
pattern of inquiry is better described as a sequence of
“moments” in a process of reflection-in-action: (p. 27)
There is, to begin with, a situation of action to which we bring
spontaneous, routinized responses. These reveal knowing-in-
action that may be described in terms of strategies,

15. understandings of phenomena, and ways of framing a task or
problem appropriate to the situation. The knowing-in-action is
tacit, spontaneously delivered without conscious deliberation;
and it works, yielding intended outcomes so long as the
situation falls within the boundaries of what we have learned to
treat as normal. (p. 28)
Routine responses produce a surprise – an unexpected outcome,
pleasant or unpleasant, that does not fit the categories of our
knowing-in-action. Inherent in a surprise is the fact that it gets
our attention. For example, I might not have been surprised by
the wobble in my gate because I might not have attended to it;
the structure might not have ended up square, and I might not
have noticed. (p. 28)
Surprise leads to reflection within an action-present.
Reflection is at least in some measure conscious, although it
need not occur in the medium of words. We consider both the
unexpected event and the knowing-in-action that led up to it,
asking ourselves, as it were, “What is this?” and, at the same
time, “How have I been thinking about it?” Our thought turns
back on the surprising phenomenon and, at the same time back
to itself. (p. 28)
Reflection-in-action has a critical function, questioning the
assumptional structure of knowing-in-action. We think
critically about the thinking that got us into the fix or this
opportunity; and we may, in the process, restructure strategies
of action, understandings of phenomena, or ways of framing
problems. In my example, the
Types of Reflection, p. 5
surprise triggered by my observation of the wobble led me to
frame a new problem: “How to keep the gate square?” (p. 28)
Reflection gives rise to on-the-spot experiment. We think up
and try out new actions intended to explore the newly observed

16. phenomena, test our tentative understandings of them, or affirm
the moves we have invented to change things for the better.
With my measuring-string experiment, I tested both my
understanding of squareness as equality of diagonals and the
effectiveness of the procedures I had invented for determining
when diagonals are equal. On-the-spot experiment may work,
again in the sense of yielding intended results, or it may
produce surprises that call for further reflection and experiment.
(pp. 28-29)
Deliberative Reflection
In technical reflection, research is the most important source of
knowledge. Reflection-inaction emphasizes craft knowledge
and personal experience. In contrast, the deliberative approach
to reflection emphasizes decision-making based on a variety of
sources; research, experience, the advice of other [Lead]ers,
personal beliefs and values, and so forth. No one voice
dominates. Multiple voices and perspectives are heard.
[Lead]ers must then make the best decision possible even
though conflicting advice might be offered. Quality of
reflection, therefore, would be judged by [lead]ers’ abilities to
weigh these competing claims and to give a good reason for the
decisions they make. (Valli, 1997, p. 77)
The content for deliberative reflection would also be more
inclusive than the narrow range of instructional and
management behaviors considered in technical reflection.
Deliberative [lead]ers would give serious consideration to their
own [leadership] behaviors; their relationships with students;
the subject matter they were [lead]ing; and the school’s
organization, culture, and climate. Because the sources for
their reflection are varied, [lead]ers will often face competing
points of view. There will not always be agreement about the
best course of action. For example, school district guidelines
might encourage [lead]ers to push through the entire curriculum

17. quickly so that students are exposed to a broad range of
information before they move on to the next grade level. In
contrast, educators who promote [lead]ing for deep
understanding would caution [lead]ers against this approach.
They claim that one of the greatest enemies of learning is the
obsession with “content coverage.” [Leadership] educators
would help prospective [lead]ers deliberate on such conflicting
viewpoints, determine the credibility of the sources, and
consider the best alternative for their particular students.
[Leadership] educators would help students develop their
capacities to become good decision makers. (Valli, 1997, p. 77)
Personalistic Reflection
Personal growth and relational issues are most central to this
mode of reflection. They provide the content of reflective
thinking. [lead]ers reflecting in a personal way would
consciously link their personal and professional lives. They
would think about what type of person they want to be and how
being a [lead]er helps them accomplish their life goals. Just
Types of Reflection, p. 6
as they think about their own lives, they would also think about
their students. Their concerns would not be limited to their
students’ academic achievement. Rather, they would be
interested in all aspects of their students’ lives: their personal
desires, their concerns, their hopes for the future. [Lead]ers
who reflect in a personalistic way would be caretakers, not just
information dispensers. Their job would be to understand the
reality of their students in order to give them the best care
possible. The quality of their reflection would be determined
by the ability to empathize. This kind of reflective [lead]er
would be less concerned about success on achievement tests
than about students’ ability to live compassionately, to be
trusted, and to support worthy institutions (Noddings, 1984,
1987). (Valli, 1997, pp. 77-78)

18. [Leadership] education programs that have a personalistic
orientation would help prospective [lead]ers examine those
events in their lives that influenced them to be [lead]ers. The
programs would help them be attentive to their inner voices as
well as the voices of their students. Students in these programs
would learn to question the sources of their beliefs, attitudes,
and biases. They would try to figure out what experiences
might have helped prepare them to be good [lead]ers and what
experiences might be hindering their professional development.
(Valli, 1997, p. 78)
For example, most prospective [lead]ers in the United States
have a European ancestry. Many of them attended schools in
which most previous students also had a European heritage. In
those schools, the curriculum is very Eurocentric. Yet, the
school-age population in the United States is becoming
increasingly diverse. A much higher percentage of students
have an Asian, African, or Hispanic heritage. Many prospective
[lead]ers do not know how to [lead] these students and are
reluctant to try. [Lead]er education programs with a
personalistic orientation would help prospective [lead]ers
understand the limiting nature of their own educational
experience and help them overcome their reluctance. (Valli,
1997, p. 78)
Critical Reflection
This mode of reflection is derived from political philosophers
such as Habermas (1974). It is the only form of reflection that
explicitly views the school and school knowledge as political
constructs. Habermas regarded the critical as the highest form
of reflection because of its potential to eliminate misery and
create social conditions necessary for human freedom and

19. happiness. The aim of critical reflection is not just
understanding, but improving the quality of life of
disadvantaged groups. Those who promote critical reflection
are committed to unlimited inquiry, fundamental self-criticism,
and social action (Van Manen, 1977). (Valli, 1997, pp. 78-79).
Programs that have a critical orientation emphasize that
educational decisions are inevitably based on beliefs about what
is good or desirable. An assumption of these programs is that
schools often reproduce unjust social class, race, and sex
relations. Therefore, the content for student reflection would
always be ways in which schools and [lead]ers contribute to
social injustices and inequality and ways in which they can help
overcome these inequities.
Types of Reflection, p. 7
Graduates of these programs would be encouraged to be
reformers and social activists. They would help change
[leadership] practices and school structures that foster injustice
and inequity. They would attend to the voices of those who are
among a society’s least powerful and privileged. (Valli, 1997,
p. 79)
The quality of [lead]er reflection would be determined by the
[lead]er’s ability to apply ethical criteria to the goals and
processes of schooling. Students would be encouraged to
examine even the most simple [leadership] action in relation to
broad social goals. Take [lead]er questioning, for example. In
the United States, this topic is often taught simply as a technical
skill without considering its moral aspects. Prospective
[lead]ers are taught how to ask different types of questions,
probe for further knowledge, use questions to get students’
attention, and select appropriate students for easier or harder
questions. But [lead]er questioning has social and ethical
implications. Programs that promote critical reflection would
[lead] students not only to questioning skills, but also the
potential consequences of the use of questions. Prospective

20. [lead]ers in this type of program would be asked to reflect on
matters such as: Is it important to consider the way questions
and wait time are distributed? Are certain kinds of students
systematically ignored? Do some students too often receive
negative feedback? What messages are communicated to
students who go through the school day without an opportunity
to contribute to classroom dialogue or without a positive
instructional interaction? (Valli, 1997, p. 79)
References
Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and practice. London:
Heinemann.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics
and more education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
(CU Library)
Noddings, N. (1987 April). An ethic of caring and its
implications for instructional arrangements. Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Washington, DC.
Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner:
Toward a new design for [lead]ing and learning in the
professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How
professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Spaulding, E., & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A
study of pedagogical strategies that encourage reflective journal
writing. [lead]ers College Record, 104(7), 1393-1421.

21. Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of
[lead]er reflection in the United States. Peabody Journal of
Education, 72, 67-88.
Types of Reflection, p. 8
Van Manen, M.(1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of
being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.
A guide to help with your Final Assignment
Your final assignment is what has become known as a reflective
paper. If you go back a unit or two, you'll be reminded that the
Baldrige Process uses self-assessment as a primary tool for
gaining insight into not only what you (or your organization)
have done but what you're doing and how will you change and
improve. It's a powerful tool and is the basis for many quality
initiatives today, including those used by our business school
accrediting body, the Accreditation Council for Business
Schools and Programs (ACBSP) and our university's regional
accrediting authority, the New England Association of Schools
and Colleges (NEASC.)
Therefore in lieu of an exam or test you're being asked to
compose a reflective paper. In this exercise, you should cover
the requirements in a thoughtful, measured way. Think about
what you have learned or maybe about what you wished you had
learned but didn't. This is to be the work of a developing
scholar and practitioner of quality systems and approaches to
thinking about academics, business, organization, self, etc. It's a
serious work of self-assessment in the Baldrige tradition.
I'm including two items for your use in preparing the paper. The
first is a discussion of "Reflective Practice" by Professor C.T.
Dickel of Creighton University. Read his paper before
attempting to write yours:
Types_of_REFLECTION_Defined_-_Dickel _2_.pdf
Next, you'll find a detailed rubric letting you know what the
expectations of the assignment are and what is required to reach
a designated level of achievement. Please read it carefully

22. before you compose your paper and then make sure to compare
your completed work to the rubric.
Grading Rubric for BUS 211 Reflective Paper.do
Final Assignment: Reflective Paper
As we have stated, self-assessment is a critical component of
the Baldrige process. Accordingly, this assignment will require
you to engage in a reflective process and allow you to develop
and articulate your own thoughts on the concept of "quality",
the Baldrige principles, organizational issues, personal and
organizational learning and other important features discussed
in the course.
Your paper should cover the issues above, address your learning
experience in the course and identify areas of your greatest (or
least if necessary) development or understanding. A well-
developed paper will make reference to the Baldrige principles
in a coherent and thoughtful way, introduce new thinking if
appropriate and show an understanding of the course materials
and their application in any organizational or personal
environment.
As always, length does not matter; quality does. Show a depth
of thought and consideration worthy of a course in quality
systems. Write clearly and in a grammatically correct manner.
Remember, clarity of presentation goes a long way in enhancing
the credibility of the presentation.
Make every effort to conform to the standards of the Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5thor 6th
Edition.
The assignment is due Saturday the 30th of April @ 5PM.
http://www.baldrige21.com/Baldrige_Core_Values.html
http://www.qualityintegration.biz/MalcolmBaldrigeShort.html
http://videos.asq.org/a-culture-of-quality-studied
https://www.inc.com/paul-schoemaker/6-habits-of-strategic-
thinkers.html
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.f
orbes.com/2010/11/09/strategic-thinking-innovation-creativity-
leadership-managing-rein.html&refURL=&referrer=

23. http://brainzooming.com/strategic-thinking-exercises-6-
characteristics-the-best-ones-have/14768/
https://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-3520437-dt-
content-rid-
27883496_1/courses/BUS211.331013100352/Documents/Custo
mer%20Focused%20Practices%20of%20Baldrige%20Award%20
Recipients.pdf
https://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-3520437-dt-
content-rid-
27883496_1/courses/BUS211.331013100352/Documents/Custo
mer%20Focused%20Practices%20of%20Baldrige%20Award%20
Recipients.pdf
https://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-3520437-dt-
content-rid-
27883494_1/courses/BUS211.331013100352/Documents/Custo
mer%20focus%20and%20quality%20management.pdf
http://www.baldrige.com/tag/customer-focus/
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_07.htm
https://fee.org/articles/stockholders-as-
stakeholders#axzz2bILSHyiN
https://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-3520475-dt-
content-rid-
27883501_1/courses/BUS211.331013100352/Documents/How%
20to%20Use%20Baldrige%20to%20Move%20from%20Informati
on%20to%20Wisdom%20_%20Blogrige%20The%20Official%20
Baldrige%20Blog.pdf
https://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-3520475-dt-
content-rid-
27883513_1/courses/BUS211.331013100352/Documents/perfor
mance_measurement_management%281%29.pdf
https://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-3520475-dt-
content-rid-
27883512_1/courses/BUS211.331013100352/Documents/Manuf
acturing_Metrics.pdf
http://www.kenexa.com/getattachment/fc497b12-8188-4380-
942d-9182f0dfee8d/Valuing-vs-Recognizing-Employees.aspx

24. http://www.solonline.org/?page=Abt_OrgLearning
http://infed.org/mobi/learning-in-organizations-theory-and-
practice/
https://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-3520459-dt-
content-rid-
27883511_1/courses/BUS211.331013100352/Documents/Issue_
Sheet_HR.pdf
https://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-3520459-dt-
content-rid-
27883493_1/courses/BUS211.331013100352/Documents/corlett.
learning-orgs-thoughts%281%29.pdf
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-operations-
managers-can-focus-on-quality-to-ac.html
THE SIX VALUES OF A QUALITY CULTURE
http://my.execpc.com/~jwoods/6values.htm
Continuous Improvement at Penn State
http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/innovation/insights010.pdf
Readings and Resources: Societal Responsibility
From the website Investopedia.com a definition of Corporate
Social Responsibility
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corp-social-
responsibility.asp
Blog entries from a corporate social responsibility specialist
http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/definition.php
Examples of corporate social responsibility
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/10-companies-social-
responsibility-core/143323/