Integration paper developmental psychology this assignment ser

1. INTEGRATION PAPER
Developmental Psychology
This assignment serves to encourage the integration of
consumer, theoretical, and research information in the field of
human development. Information should be provided in a
concise, organized and grammatically correct manner. One to
two paragraphs covering each of the headings below should be
sufficient.
TOPIC: Choose a topic of interest that addresses an issue or
concept in human development. Describe the issue or concept
from the following perspectives.
1. CONSUMER INFORMATION: (Provide APA-style
bibliographic reference)
Choose a recent (within the last year) article written for
consumption by the general population that addresses a specific
developmental issue. Describe the issue/concern (e.g. bed
wetting, temper tantrums, etc.) and discuss suggestions from the
author(s) on how to handle the situation.
2. JOURNAL/SCHOLARLY ARTICLE: (Provide APA-style
bibliographic reference)
Find a peer-reviewed, empirically-based journal article that
discusses the same topic (you may have to stretch the concept a
little). Summarize procedures,results, and discussion portions
of the article. Appropriate sources include journals such
asDevelopmental Psychology, Adolescence, Child Development,
Journal of Counseling and Development, Journal of Marriage
and Family, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Health Psychology, and Journal
of Experimental Psychology.

2. 3. THEORETICAL INFORMATION:
Using the Santrock textbook, identify the theory(ies) that could
be used to address the issue/concern and describe applications
of the theory(ies) to the specific behavior or developmental
issue. Pay particular attention to identifying developmental
stages and concepts that might be applicable.
4. SUMMARY OR CONCLUSION:
Integrate the consumer, theoretical and research information.
Identify points among the three that offer conflicting views and
points that are in agreement. Discuss your own
ideas/experiences that apply to this concept, and discuss how
you might be able to use this information in your personal or
professional life.
The paper will be evaluated on both content and writing style.
The relationship between total
quality management practices
and organizational culture
Daniel I. Prajogo
Department of Management, Monash University, Caulfield East,
Victoria,
Australia, and
Christopher M. McDermott
Lally School of Management and Technology, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute,
Troy, New York, USA

3. Abstract
Purpose – This empirical study explores the relationship
between total quality management (TQM)
practices and organizational culture with the purpose of
identifying the particular cultures that
determine the successful implementation of TQM practices.
Specifically, it tests two competing views
on the relationship; the unitarist and pluralist views.
Design/methodology/approach – The empirical data was drawn
from 194 organizations in
Australia. The research model employs the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award criteria as TQM
framework and builds on the competing values model to frame
organizational culture. The data was
analysed using structural equation modelling technique.
Findings – The findings support the pluralist view, wherein
different subsets of TQM practices are
determined by different types of cultures. Interestingly,
hierarchical culture was found to have a
significant relationship with certain practices of TQM.
Additionally, the findings indicate that
although the cultural factors underpinning different elements of
TQM are dissimilar, even
antagonistic, organizations can implement them in harmony.
Practical implications – The major implication of this study is
that organizations need to
accommodate divergent goals by developing a system and/or
structure that allows enough flexibility
for adapting different (even contrasting) management styles,
between control and flexibility and
between internal and external orientations, so that they may

4. gain benefits from the multiple
dimensions of TQM.
Originality/value – This paper provides empirical evidence on
the multidimensionality of TQM
practices along with their association with different types of
culture.
Keywords Total quality management, Organizational culture,
Australia
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Much has been written on the impact of total quality
management (TQM) on
organizational performance (Flynn et al., 1994; Samson and
Terziovski, 1999). These
studies typically conclude that TQM has a positive and
significant relationship with
organizational performance. However, not all TQM
implementation yields the
satisfactory results promoted by its advocates (Brown, 1993;
Harari, 1993; Tatikonda
and Tatikonda, 1996). Literature has noted numerous stories on
the problematic issues
relating to the implementation process and how they affect its
outcomes. Among
several factors, which have been attributed as key determinants
of its success,
organizational culture is often among those listed at the top. A
number of studies have
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at

5. www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm
TQM and
organizational
culture
1101
International Journal of Operations &
Production Management
Vol. 25 No. 11, 2005
pp. 1101-1122
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-3577
DOI 10.1108/01443570510626916
been devoted to identify what kinds of factors are suitable for
implementing TQM
based on a proposition that culture affects the extent to which
TQM can be
implemented in organizations.
Closer examination of literature that explores this relationship
between TQM and
culture reveals two competing schools of thought (Bright and
Cooper, 1993). The first
view argues that TQM is associated with a single
“homogeneous” culture. Underlying

6. this “unitarist” argument is a view that promotes TQM as a set
of organization-wide
practices that unify mindsets and perceptions among members
of an organization.
Within this group, the arguments typically suggest that TQM is
associated with a
single culture, especially the one that is flexible and people-
oriented (Tata and Prasad,
1998). In short, the underlying principal in this unitarist view is
that TQM thrives only
in a single, identifiable culture. The “pluralist” view,
alternatively, supports the ideas
of heterogeneity of various cultural dimensions on which TQM
should be built. A key
difference in this view is the argument that TQM also includes
cultural elements,
which can promote control and standardization, as opposed to
flexibility alone (Watson
and Korukonda, 1995). As such, this pluralist view of the
TQM/culture relationship is
more multi-dimensional, with different cultural characteristics
in turn being associated
with different elements of TQM. This view appears to contradict
the people-centered
cultural characteristics that are commonly associated with the
unitarist view.
Underlying these two opposing arguments is the contrasting
view on TQM as a set
of organizational practices. The first group (unitarist) views
TQM as a unidimensional
“package” which has to be implemented as a whole and
therefore both requires and
reflects a specific, single “homogeneous” culture of the
organization. The opposing
pluralist school of thought suggests that TQM practice is

7. multidimensional, and is
driven by and reflects various types of practices which are
driven and reflect various
dimensions of organizational culture.
These opposing views present an interesting dilemma for
managers and
researchers alike, named if TQM is indeed multidimensional
with respect to culture,
it stands to reason that management would need to consider
multiple approaches for
encouraging its implementation. Alternatively, if it is
unidimensional, then a single
culture and set of values might be more appropriate. The
purpose of this paper is to
empirically examine the validity of these two opposing views as
they relate to TQM
practice. The paper is structured is follows: it starts with
literature review discussing
the relationship between TQM practices and organizational
culture, especially relating
to the opposing issues above, which leads to the articulation of
the research questions
of this study. Following these are methodology and data
collection sections, outlining
data analysis using structural equation modelling (SEM).
Finally, discussion of the
findings is presented, followed by conclusion and several
recommendations for future
research in the area.
Literature review
This literature review starts with a discussion of the distinction
between TQM as a set
of organizational practices and organizational culture. This is
followed by a section

8. presenting the nature of the relationship between TQM practices
and organizational
culture. It concludes with a discussion of the controversy about
the relationship
between TQM and organizational culture, leading to the
development of the research
framework and questions for this study.
IJOPM
25,11
1102
The distinction between TQM practices and organizational
culture
TQM. TQM is a management model that aims to meet customer
needs and
expectations within an organization through continuous
improvement of the quality of
goods and services and by integrating all functions and
processes within an
organization. The TQM literature concurs that its concepts and
practices have been
shaped by a number of individuals who are recognised as
“quality gurus” such as
Deming, Juran, Crosby, Feigenbaum, Ishikawa, and Imai
(Hackman and Wageman,
1995; Lau and Anderson, 1998; Plenert, 1996). These TQM
gurus developed their
concepts primarily based on their experience in industry. Grant
et al. (1994) argue that
the prescriptive approach developed by these gurus has created
a perception that TQM
involves no explicit theory, and caused business schools to

9. dismiss TQM as
intellectually insubstantial, and to consider it as but one of a
number of management
fads.
Scholars argue, however, that the practical approach employed
by TQM proponents
does not necessarily imply an absence of theory underlying i t.
Dean and Bowen (1994),
for example, whilst arguing that there is a considerable overlap
between TQM and
existing management theory, hold that TQM has its own body of
knowledge. Similarly,
Hackman and Wageman (1995) vigorously argue that TQM does
exist as an entity and
that there is a set of theoretical assumptions underlying its
principles and techniques.
In particular, they maintain that TQM passes the convergent
validity test in the sense
that there is substantial agreement among its founders about its
key assumptions and
practices. What is emphasized here is that although TQM has
been accepted as
embodying a set of principles, TQM has been widely
disseminated in the form of
practices, tools, techniques, and systems. The way TQM has
been defined and what
have been usually operationalised and measured in its empirical
studies (Ahire et al.,
1996; Flynn et al., 1994; Samson and Terziovski, 1999; Saraph
et al., 1989) are practices
or behaviours of the organizations that have implemented these
principles. As
Wilkinson et al. (1998) argue, despite their differences, there is
a strong convergence
among concepts and practices put forward by TQM proponents,

10. and a number of
scholars (Curkovic et al., 2000; Dean and Bowen, 1994; Gobeli
and Brown, 1993; Sitkin
et al., 1994) have proposed the articulation of TQM principles
consisting of three core
elements as a common ground, namely customer focus,
continuous improvement, and
total involvement. As such, we adopted the definition of TQM
articulated by Ross
(1995, p. 1) as the integration of all functions and processes
within an organization to
achieve continuous improvement of the quality of goods and
services with the ultimate
goal being customer satisfaction.
Organizational culture. Organizational culture is defined as the
general pattern of
mindsets, beliefs and values that members of the organization
share in common, and
which shape the behaviours, practices and other artefacts of the
organization which are
easily observable (Sathe, 1985; Schein, 1985). Culture ther efore
is an explanatory
variable that distinguishes one organization from another
(Sathe, 1985; Schein, 1985).
In relation to the context of this study, as mentioned earlier,
there is a shift of focus on
studies in TQM from its “hard” aspects which are more
observable, such as tools,
techniques, and systems, to “softer” behavioural and cultural
aspects of TQM which
are harder to measure and to change. This shift of emphasis has
been driven by the fact
that many TQM implementations have failed, preventing
companies from realizing
its potential benefits because of the ignorance of the cultural

11. factors (Becker, 1993;
TQM and
organizational
culture
1103
Dale and Cooper, 1992; Oakland, 1995; Thomas, 1995; van
Donk and Sanders, 1993;
Wilkinson et al., 1998). The issue of culture in the TQM
literature has also been
augmented by a number of authors who attribute the failure of
TQM implementations
in western countries as the result of cultural factors (Mak,
1999).
A common challenge in discussing TQM and culture results
from the imperfect
boundary between TQM as a set of management practices and
TQM as an
organizational culture (Batten, 1993; Kanji, 1997; Strolle,
1991). For example, several
studies on TQM, such as those by Samson and Terziovski
(1999) and Dow et al. (1999),
consider TQM practices such as customer focus and people
management as “soft”
elements in TQM, implying that they actually represent aspects
of TQM culture. This
leads to confusion in understanding the substance of TQM: is it
a set of practices, or, is
it a specific type of culture, or both? In this regard, Zeitz et al.
(1997) strongly argue that

12. organizational culture is “distinguishable” from TQM practices
even though the two
are closely related to each other. They view TQM practices as
behavioural, whereas
organizational culture refers to attitudes, beliefs, and situational
interactions. This
argument is consistent with those of theorists and scholars in
the field of
organizational culture. Schein (1985), for example, asserts that
although practice can be
a reflection of organizational culture, it can only capture the
surface level. He further
argues that organizational culture is concerned with something
deeper, particularly
when considering such elements as mindset, values, and beliefs.
Further support can
be obtained from a “ground-breaking” study by Powell (1995)
which promotes the
importance of cultural aspects of TQM. In this study, Powell
argued that TQM
practices had to be implemented within a suitable environment
(i.e. culture) that
emphasized open communication; something which he believed
did not originally
belong to TQM, but was imperative for its implementation
success.
In this study, we take the position that TQM practices and
organizational culture
are separate entities. Our present analysis aims to explore the
extent to which TQM (as
defined earlier) is associated with a culture or set of cultures.
As such, we do not
assume, a priori, that there is a “TQM culture”, in the sense that
no one culture
embodies TQM. In other words, TQM is not a culture.

13. Therefore, we argue here that in
order to identify the typical organizational culture that can
function as “fertile soil” for
TQM, it would be better if researchers refer to the established
models in the area,
including:
. Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions of individualism versus
collectivism, high
versus low power distance, high versus low uncertainty
avoidance and
masculinity versus femininity;
. the organizational culture profile (OCP) developed by
O’Reilly et al. (1991) which
can be used to assess person-organization fit; and
. The competing values framework (CVF) developed by Denison
and Spreitzer
(1991).
We choose the CVF developed by Denison and Spreitzer (1991)
as the framework for
defining organizational culture in this study. The framework is
built upon two
dimensions represented by two axes with each representing a
superordinate
continuum as shown in Figure 1. The first dimension is the
flexibility-control axis that
describes two contrasting orientations, between that w hich
reflects flexibility and
spontaneity and that which reflects stability and control. The
second dimension is
IJOPM
25,11

14. 1104
the internal-external axis that also describes two orientations,
with one being oriented
towards maintenance and improvement of the existing
organization and the other
being focused on adaptation and interaction with the external
environment. This
reflects several classics of organizational theory such as
Thompson (1967) and
Lawrence and Lorsch (1986).
The combination of the two dimensions results in four quadrants
of cultural
dimensions, namely group, developmental, hierarchical, and
rational. Group culture
places emphasis on flexibility and internal organization.
Organizations with emphasis
on this culture promote the development of human resources
emphasizing openness,
participation, cohesiveness and commitment to membership.
Development culture also
emphasizes flexibility but with more focus on the external
environment. The
orientation is towards growth, creativity stimulation, resource
acquisition, innovation,
and continual adaptation to the external environment. The
rational culture is also
focused on the external environment but is control-oriented. It
emphasizes
productivity, performance, goal achievement, and one of the
primary motivating
factors is competition. The hierarchical culture is both control

15. and internal oriented. It
emphasizes rules and regulations, and standardization to
achieve control and stability.
Denison and Spreitzer (1991) stress that the four cultures in
their typology should be
viewed as ideal types, meaning that organizations will be
characterized by some
combination of these four cultures – although some types could
be more dominant
than the others – rather than reflecting only one culture. Thus,
as scales have been
developed and validated to empirically measure this, the items
are allowed to vary
independently (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1991). As McDermott and
Stock (1999) noted in a
later study using the CVF, “As such, a high rating on one
dimension (e.g. internal
orientation) does not exclude high rating at the other end (e.g.
external orientation)”.
There is nothing relating to having a strong internal orientation
that necessarily
prohibits the organization from also having elements associated
with external
orientation.
Figure 1.
The competing values
framework of
organizational culture
(adapted from Denison
and Spreitzer, 1991)
TQM and

16. organizational
culture
1105
The nature of the relationship between TQM practices and
organizational culture
Having established the distinction between TQM practices and
organizational culture,
the discussion now focuses on the relationship between the two.
A review of literature
suggests that there is a substantial disagreement on the nature of
this relationships
with one group arguing that TQM practices bring cultural
change, and the other that it
is organizational culture that affects TQM implementation and
its results. In essence,
the nature of this debate is concerned with the causal direction
of the relationship
between TQM and organizational culture, and which one is the
antecedent of the other.
Several authors argue that this debate is premised on the
understanding of culture as
something an organization has as opposed to something an
organization is (Bright and
Cooper, 1993; Sinclair and Collins, 1994). In this regard, we
base our study on the latter
argument by suggesting that it is the organizational culture that
will determine TQM.
In other words, our research is based on the premise that
organizational culture
determines the results of TQM implementation rather than the
TQM implementation

17. bringing about cultural change (Maull et al., 2001; McNabb and
Sepic, 1995; Westbrook
and Utley, 1995). As Bright and Cooper (1993) argue, quality
management of
organizations will take place inside cultural influences, that is
within the context of
prevailing shared-values, beliefs, and assumptions. The few
studies that have
attempted to examine the TQM-culture relationship, such as
those by Chang and
Wiebe (1996), Zeitz et al. (1997) and Dellana and Hauser
(1999) always place
organizational culture as the antecedent of TQM practices.
The dimensionality of TQM and organizational culture
Having discussed the nature of the relationship between TQM
practices and
organizational culture, the following question is explored: what
kind of culture would
be most suitable for implementing TQM practices? As
mentioned earlier, literature has
identified two competing arguments, the unitarist and pluralist
approaches. The
unitarist approach considers TQM as a unidimensional set (or
package) of practices,
which needs to be supported by one specific type of culture.
This can be traced back to
the fact that TQM was introduced by different gurus in the form
of a set (or package) of
tools and practices. Although not explicitly specifying a typical
culture which would be
necessary for implementing these “packages”, their strong
recommendation that these
“packages” need to be adopted “as a whole” implies the need of
a unified culture to
implement it. In this regard, typical cultures that are considered

18. in the literature as
suitable for TQM practices are those related to a flexible,
people-oriented style. In their
review of literature that examined the influence of the
company’s culture and structure
on TQM implementation, Tata and Prasad (1998) conclude that
people-oriented,
flexible cultures are more conducive to the success of TQM
implementation, compared
to the opposing types (i.e. rational control). They identify that
such practices as
leadership, employee involvement and empowerment,
teamwork, customer focus, and
continuous improvement are the reflection of people-centred
and flexible cultures or
will be best implemented where such cultures prevail. The study
by Westbrook and
Utley (1995) provides further support for this argument as the
result indicates that
creating culture where employees are valued and empowered
leads to successful
quality management implementation.
In conjunction with this, literature has also highlighted the
critical role of leadership
in reaching a consensus among all members within an
organization in embracing
IJOPM
25,11
1106
quality as the common goal of the organization. Several actions

19. that can be taken to
achieve this purpose include creating shared vision, and
breaking down barriers
between departments, typically by promoting cross-functional
cooperation and
teamwork. All of these efforts are directed towards unifying
mindset and culture of all
the members within the organization, hence, supporting the idea
of a unitarist
approach to organisational culture.
The opposing pluralist argument suggests the existence of
multidimensional
cultures. More recent discussions suggest that TQM should be
considered as
multidimensional, particularly in relation to the arguments that
TQM incorporate both
people-oriented, and those that would be considered more
rational, control types of
practices, which are antagonistic to each other (Kekale and
Kekale, 1995;
Moreno-Luzon and Peris, 1998; Watson and Korukonda, 1995).
However, as noted
by Bright and Cooper (1993), this notion that there are multiple
cultures that support
TQM would likely receive considerable challenges from
unitarist TQM supporters.
The problem in accepting the pluralist view on TQM, as
mentioned earlier, is rooted in
the conventional view that TQM is unidimensional and therefore
will not be able to
accommodate diversity of cultures within the organization.
Specifically, Watson and
Korukonda (1995) affirm that examining the juxtaposition
between the disparate
elements of TQM, despite its value in facilitating theoretical

20. insights and conceptual
clarity of TQM, will face serious challenges from the promoters
of TQM who will
oppose the idea of linking TQM to the type of cultures which
are usually associated
with rigidity and suppression of creativity. The fact that TQM
also embodies
mechanistic or hierarchical culture nevertheless has been
supported by several
empirical studies. The findings of the study by Germain and
Spears (1999), for
example, indicate that structural and formal approaches which
characterize several
TQM practices such as management by fact, strategic planning
and formulation, the
use of SPC, and process documentation, positively and
significantly predict quality
management practices. In concluding their study, Germain and
Spears (1999) suggest
the view of TQM in which formalization maybe better perceived
as a mechanism for
“coding and transmitting knowledge” to foster, rather than to
hinder, quality
management within the firm.
Two seminal works by Sitkin et al. (1994) and Spencer (1994)
provide theoretical
bases in support of the multidimensionality of TQM. Sitkin et
al. (1994) argue that with
similar underlying TQM precepts, organizations can apply
different goals and
practices based on different orientations, namely total quality
control (TQC) and total
quality learning (TQL) with TQC being associated with a
control or cybernetic
approach, and TQL being related to an innovative or learning

21. orientation. Spencer
(1994) argues that various practices under the TQM umbrella
can be categorized into
several organizational models, including the mechanistic and
the organic model, as
well as others. For example, the focus on quality as an
organizational goal is associated
with the mechanistic model, because in practice the real
objective of pursuing quality
could well shift into productivity and efficiency, something on
which a mechanistic
organization focuses. On the other hand, the practices of
employee empowerment and
cross-functional teamwork are closely linked to the organic
model. Summarising the
above arguments, Thompson (1998) affirms that in order to gain
a sharper focus on the
culture of TQM, organizations need to appreciate the paradoxes
of TQM which are
embodied in a number of principles of TQM which are
contradictory to each other.
TQM and
organizational
culture
1107
One of the examples of these paradoxes is between encouraging
creativity on the one
hand and promoting control and variation reduction on the other
hand. As will be
discussed below, this study explores the possibility of, but does

22. not force, multiple
dimensions of TQM in the analysis.
Research framework and methodology
The literature review section has addressed several issues on the
relationship between
TQM practices and organizational culture. First, it articulates
the difference between
TQM as a set of organizational practices, and culture as an
underlying belief system
related to the mindsets of people within the organization.
Second, it holds the
proposition that it is organizational culture, which affects TQM
implementation, not
the other way around. Third, it highlights the debate on the
kinds of organizational
culture, which are suitable for implementing TQM practices;
highlighting the
difference between unitarist and pluralist views. The conflict
between these two
arguments is then extended to another debate on TQM as either
unidimensional or
multidimensional. By incorporating these three key findings of
the literature review,
we developed a research framework examining the relationship
between
organizational culture and TQM practices that built on previous
works in the area.
In essence, this study was aimed at comparing the nature of the
relationship between
organizational culture and TQM practices in the form of two
competing structural
models based on unitarist and pluralist views.
In developing the research framework, we built on several past
studies. Our study

23. built on the work of Chang and Wiebe (1996) and Dellana and
Hauser (1999), which
examine the link between TQM practices based on Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality
Award (MBNQA) model and organizational culture based on the
competing values
model developed by Denison and Spreitzer (1991). Chang and
Wiebe (1996) interviewed
a panel of experts from the Conference Board Total Quality
Management Centre to
describe ideal cultural characteristics that they believe will
support TQM philosophy
based on the four types of cultures of the competing value
model, namely group,
developmental, hierarchical, and rational. This finding suggests
that these four types
of culture characterized the ideal organizational culture
embodied by a TQM
philosophy, although group and developmental cultures appear
to be dominant. As
such, it provides empirical support for the pluralist view.
Dellana and Hauser (1999)
also use the MBNQA criteria to represent TQM practices and
the competing values
model to represent organizational cultures as their research
variables. Using Pearson
correlation coefficients, they test the association between each
of the six elements of the
MBNQA criteria and the four cultural dimensions of the
competing values model.
Their finding concurs with that by Chang and Wiebe where both
group culture and
developmental culture are associated with high MBNQA scores.
Al-khalifa and
Aspinwall (2001) investigate the suitability of the national
culture in Qatar and the

24. culture required for implementing TQM. Their conclusion
suggests that Qatar
companies would find difficulties in implementing TQM since
they are dominated by a
rational and hierarchical culture, hence, confirming the findings
of the first two studies.
Our study aims to advance both studies from an analytical point
of view by
following the work by Zeitz et al. (1997) who employ SEM.
This allows us to examine
the multiple cultures and multiple TQM elements
simultaneously, hence, incorporating
the interaction amongst independent and dependent variables.
The use of SEM also
IJOPM
25,11
1108
allows us to make a rigorous analysis in comparing the unitarist
and pluralist model of
the culture-TQM relationship which would contribute to
knowledge in this area. In
modelling the structural relationship between TQM and
organizational culture, we also
follow the work of Zeitz et al. (1997) by considering
organizational culture as the
independent variable which determines the level of TQM
practices as the dependent
variable.
This study also builds on the work by Chang and Wiebe (1996)

25. and Dellana and
Hauser (1999) by examining the relationship between TQM
practices and
organizational culture. In particular, the objective of this study
is to examine the
multidimensionality of TQM, which is a reflection of
multidimensional organizational
culture with the following research questions being addressed:
RQ1. Can the multidimensionality of TQM practices be
reflected in
multidimensional cultures?
RQ2. What is the nature of the relationship between sub-
cultures and TQM
subgroups?
As mentioned earlier, this study defines organizational culture
as the pattern of values
in an organization that determine its artefacts and practices. As
such, we follow the
work by Zeitz et al. (1997) in terms of modelling the structural
relationship between
TQM and organizational culture by considering organizational
culture as the
independent variable and TQM practices as the dependent
variable. For confirmatory
purposes, this study also compares two competing structural
models of the
TQM-culture relationship; the “unitarist” model and the
“pluralist” model.
Research instruments
TQM measures. The use of constructs – a method that had been
commonly used in
research in the psychology discipline – has been …

26. Critical Analysis and Reflection
You are required to provide critical analysis and your own
reflection on the article (1000 words)
· Provide a summary in your own words on the article read.
· Write the main learning points from reading this article.
· Provide critical analysis and your own reflection on the
article.
Brief overview of APA guidelines.
Be sure to check the most recent APA publication manual or a
reputable on-line source such as Purdue Owl for additional
guidelines.
Formatting: 1” margins on all sides; 12-point font (Times New
Roman); double-spaced throughout (including references)
Do not add extra space between paragraphs or sections. Use
gender-neutral language and an objective/scientific writing
style. Avoid 1st and 2nd person (1st person may be used in the
summary section when discussing how you can apply the
information personally or professionally).
Use effective writing techniques that employ standard rules of
English, clear and concise language, good sentence structure
and effective organization of ideas.
Use the past tense or present perfect tense to describe earlier
research, for example, Billings and Phillips (2001) found or
Billings and Phillips (2001) have found..
In-text citations:
· Paraphrased information:

27. Lipnevich and Smith (2009) found that student performance on
essays improved after receiving feedback that was detailed and
specific and was presented to them in a written format.
Or
This study examined the impact of different types of feedback
on students’ future performance on essays (Lipnevich & Smith,
2009).
· Direct quote: (must be properly identified and requires a page
number)
Lipnevich and Smith (2009) found that “written, detailed
feedback specific to individual work was strongly related to
improvement” (p. 329).
Please note: To support concise writing, APA style discourages
inclusion of bibliographic information such as title of the article
or the sponsoring organization of the study. Also, do not
include first names, titles (Dr., Mr., etc.), or other designations
(PhD, MD, etc.).
Reference Page Format:
Typically references are provided on a separate page, with the
heading: References, centered at the top of the page (see
below). For purposes of the Integration Paper, it is acceptable
to place the reference at the beginning of each section
(Consumer Information, Scholarly Information,
Theoretical/Textual Information). Note: In-text citations are
still required.
NOTE: Only reference the articles/sources you read, not
indirect references referred to in your readings.
References
Henry, W. A., III. (1990, April 9). Making the grade in today's
schools. Time, 135, 28-31.
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). Effects of differential

28. feedback on students’ examination performance. Journal Of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 319-333.
Santrock, J. W. (2014). Essentials of life-span development
(3nd edition). New York: McGraw Hill.
Name_________________
Evaluation Criteria
Integration Paper
Content:
Summarization of consumer article ………………
10 points
____________
Summarization of journal/scholarly article ………
10 points
____________
Identification of concepts from the text ………….
10 points
____________
Integration of information in summary/conclusion
10 points
____________
Writing Style:

29. Correct use of APA style for references & citations
4 points
____________
Well organized, clearly and concisely stated
Correct grammar and spelling ……………
6 points
____________
Total
50 points
____________
Name_________________
Evaluation Criteria
Integration Paper
Content:
Summarization of consumer article ………………
10 points
____________

30. Summarization of journal/scholarly article ………
10 points
____________
Identification of concepts from the text ………….
10 points
____________
Integration of information in summary/conclusion
10 points
____________
Writing Style:
Correct use of APA style for references & citations
4 points
____________
Well organized, clearly and concisely stated
Correct grammar and spelling ……………
6 points
____________

31. Total
50 points
____________