TQM across multiple countries: Convergence Hypothesis versus National Specificity arguments

We provide conceptual clarity and new empirical findings for the question of whether or not TQM is universal in its applicability. At the conceptual level, we reposition and reframe the “universality of TQM” question in light of two conflicting theoretical perspectives in the international business literature - one that supports the universal applicability of TQM (i.e., the Convergence Hypothesis argument) and another that questions the universal applicability of TQM (i.e., the National Specificity argument). We do so to provide a stronger theoretical basis for the “universality of TQM” question and to motivate and initiate a “strong inference” epistemological approach [Platt, J.R., 1964. Strong inference. Science 146 (364), 347-353] to examine, at the empirical level, the applicability of TQM across multiple countries. For this empirical assessment, we compare both the adoption levels of the Deming-based TQM constructs and the patterns of Deming-based TQM relationships among German, Italian, Japanese, and USA plants, using secondary data from 143 plants in Round Two of the World-Class Manufacturing project. After assessing measurement quality (i.e., reliability and validity) and measurement equivalence (i.e., translation, calibration, and metric), MANOVA analysis and regression analysis were deployed to derive relevant empirical results - empirical results that have implications not only for the question of whether or not TQM is universal in its applicability but also for the theoretical tension between the Convergence Hypothesis argument and the National Specificity argument.