Richard E. Winder
Copyright 1993, Richard E. Winder.  All Rights Reserved


Five distinct, literal dimensions of quality leadership (experience, measurement, relationships, inter-connectivity, and value sharing) provide a framework for assessing, planning, and implementing quality improvement efforts.


There was a man in our town
and he was wondrous wise:
he jumped into a BRAMBLE BUSH
and scratched out both his eyes--
and when he saw that he was blind,
with all his might and main
he jumped into another one
and scratched them in again.(1)

Over six decades ago, law professor Karl Llewellyn, in The Bramble Bush, described the law as a massive body of knowledge that was so inter-connected that it was difficult to know where to begin to study it. Today we face a similar complexity as we contemplate the body of knowledge encompassing total quality leadership. We are reminded of the tale of three blind men describing an elephant as a forest of trees (the legs), as a snake (the trunk), and as a rope (the tail). All were correct in their assessment of what they experienced, but none had a complete comprehension of the elephant.

Similarly, many people today know quality as statistical process control. Others view quality as "conformance to requirements"(2) or "freedom from deficiencies."(3) Too many people still believe quality only applies to manufacturing processes. Some actually believe that quality is inspection. All of these are important elements of quality, but by themselves are incomplete. A lack of a complete comprehension of what quality is leads to lack of leadership in quality implementation and absence of the sustaining power that will keep continuous improvement as a central focus of the organization.

Critical to our understanding of quality is the understanding that quality itself is a system. Every organization has a quality system in place. It may not have explicitly defined this system. It may not even recognize its existence. However, by identifying the system in place, the organization leadership can then model the appropriate system design and then seek to transform the organization to the desired system.

The fact that quality is a system points to the critical role of organization leadership in establishing the policies, procedures, and resource base for the efficient functioning of the system. Leadership is also critical in ensuring that the quality system becomes standardized so that it does not disappear when those critical to its implementation leave or move to another position. Only in this way does the organization's quality process become "free of mortal risk."(4)

A significant limitation on quality thinking is the linear model on which it is traditionally based. Quality is seen as a set of components (such as statistical process control, systems thinking, human resource management, leadership, and customer satisfaction) which are pieced together to form a quality system. This system, according to Dr. Juran, is one that can be planned, controlled, and improved in the same manner a firm's finances are planned, controlled, and improved.(5) Pioneers like Dr. W. Edwards Deming (with the concepts of profound knowledge) and Dr. Peter Senge (with concepts of dynamic systems thinking) are now pushing us beyond the shallowness of the linear quality model and giving us the tools to comprehend quality in the socioeconomic framework in which it operates.

Notwithstanding significant insights into the quality process in recent years, the search has continued for a comprehensive definition of quality. Deming, Juran, and Crosby have been referred to as "the prophets of quality," but they each proclaim a different message. What is needed is a unifying theory of quality which captures the underlying forces of quality, yet explains each of the existing theories.

The focus of Llewellyn's Bramble Bush was to provide a framework for approaching the study of law so that its inter-connected complexities could be unwoven. The five dimensions of quality provide a similar framework for the study and practice of quality. These dimensions give us the power to completely comprehend the quality bramble bush and permit us to focus on assessing, prescribing, and implementing quality rather than continually searching for its definition. Moreover, the five dimensions of quality are more than platitudes that sound good but do not deepen our understanding of quality. Rather, these dimensions are founded in Relational Economic Theory(6) and Conative Psychology Theory(7) (both developed in 1987), which provide a solid theoretical base for quality in its socioeconomic and psychological context.

Quality is defined as "The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."(8) This definition, far better than stipulated definitions such as "quality is zero defects,"(9) still only describes quality in a static, or fixed state. Quality also has a process dimension, which illustrates its systemic nature. Under the process definition, quality is "Doing the right thing right, on time, every time."

But our understanding of quality is not complete until we somehow capture its dimensional and dynamic nature. The dynamic definition describes quality as "the process of moving people and organizations from a state of limitation, punishment, captivity, or victimization to a state of liberation, participation, captivation, or actualization." This is done through the anticipation and fulfillment of stated or implied needs of the individual or organization.

This dynamic definition of quality provides a universal platform for moving among quality, economics, psychology, and leadership and gleaning from each of them the power that each provides. This definition is best comprehended in the context of the five dimensions of quality, which are descriptive in nature, but provide a means of prescriptive quality planning.


Quality, in its most complete state, exists in five distinct dimensions. It is made up of experience, measurement, relationships and systems thinking, inter-connectivity and paradigm logic, and value sharing (these dimensions are summarized in the Five Dimensions of Quality chart at the end of this paper). Each of these dimensions is holographic in that they each reflect each of the other dimensions, creating an internal unity that protects and enhances the dimensional structure. By utilizing all five dimensions, an organization can accomplish a depth of quality fulfillment that will permeate the organization for long-lasting impact on the organization and its constituents.

The First Dimension: Experience. No matter how extensive the planning for quality of product or service, it does not and will not exist unless and until it is translated into experience. The primary impact of the experience dimension is its ability to translate vision into reality. It is the actualization of the vision which provides the basis for eventually determining whether a system is or is not accomplishing its intended mission.

A secondary impact of experience is the learning it provides. Peter Senge has introduced a new perspective on the value of experience as the source of learning in an organization. The successful organization is one that can take its experience and learn from it.(10) A major obstacle in the implementation of a quality management program is the lack of experience in starting and managing a quality program. Many firms simply do not know how to go about it. By contracting with a consultant who has had experience in implementing quality, an organization is able to purchase a sufficient pool of experience-based knowledge that is necessary to begin implementation. As it utilizes this pool of knowledge, it gains its own experience, and becomes more independent of the consultant.

In essence, experience is the translation into reality of the true state of vision of the organization. In other words, experience is the "footprint" of the system in place. When experience is effectively utilized in connection with the other dimensions of quality, the experience of each interaction with the customer becomes a positive "moment of truth." If experience does not utilize the other dimensions, this also will be reflected in the "footprint" of the system as each "moment of truth" becomes a burden rather than an opportunity. It is our understanding of the system that gives us the ability to measure the footprint and properly interpret the measurement. But it is our understanding of the footprint that gives us the ability to verify whether the desired system is actually in place. It is through following Dr. Deming's Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle that we make assumptions about our system, implement those assumptions, study the validity of those assumptions by measuring the footprint which is left by acting on those assumptions, and confirm or modify those assumptions based on the results of our measurement.

The Second Dimension of Quality: Measurement. Measurement gives quality the first of its multidimensional characteristics. Measurement provides the ability to not only assess that something was done (experience) but also to determine how well or how poorly it was done.

Measurement has always been a characteristic of a quality system. Even primitive quality systems, founded on detection and inspection techniques, utilized measurement (one-dimensional measurement) to determine whether a part was accepted or rejected. As quality thinking evolved focus turned to standards, such as "zero defects" propounded by Philip Crosby. With this, the focus went beyond acceptance or rejection of the individual part to a focus on a standard of performance (two-dimensional measurement).

However, it was Dr. Deming who provided enlightenment about the real power of measurement through use of statistical measures to understand operational processes.(11) This gave us the power to understand the operational process or system, to determine whether or not it was stable, and then to make small changes to the system that would result in a significant quality impact on the products of the system. If a process is in control, says Dr. Deming, it will produce parts similar to the parts it has always produced under similar circumstances. In that case, any improvement in quality must come from changes to the system itself (the responsibility of management) rather than from operator changes. Thus, three-dimensional, process measurement can be extremely valuable in understanding and improving a system or process.

The measurement dimension (utilizing statistical tools such as the check sheet, the Pareto chart, the histogram, the run chart, and the control chart) provides us with knowledge of the system and permits us to then structure interaction with the system for the greatest efficiency. A new insurance agent, using a tracking technique provided by the insurance industry, tracked his client and referral contacts. Through use of these methods he was able to generate sales in the first quarter of his second year that almost equaled his total first year volume.

The Third Dimension: Relationships and Systems Thinking. Systems thinking transforms a quality system beyond a shallow, two-dimensional system to one that is dynamic, integrated, and leveraged. The ability to see one set of data plotted against another set of data reveals relationships and common threads. From these, inferences can be drawn that begin to define the quality system and set its parameters. Then, as relationships begin to take shape--in both static and dynamic form--the full power of the system is realized. Operationally, systems thinking is the fourth step of Dr. Deming's Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. It is through standardization of processes which are effective that the system is established for consistent efficient processing of information or resources.

The two basic forms of system thinking are static and dynamic. Static systems thinking captures a process or system as of a single point in time to show the flow of a process as each point in the process anticipates the flow of goods or services through it. Static methods include flow-charting, "fishbone" cause-effect diagrams, and other diagrams which show the relationship of one part of a system to the other parts or which show factors which lead to or are responsible for other factors. The flow chart identifies physical components of a system. Each point in the system can be used to establish measurement points which provide insight as to how the system is working at that point in the process. The cause-effect diagram identifies the logical points in a system, and it can assist in determining the root cause of a problem in a system. It identifies the various parts of the system that might account for the result achieved and shows those in relationship to the other parts of the system.

No system is frozen in time or motion, but rather is dynamic as it receives the inputs of the system or process, applies resources to further processing in a unique physical and socioeconomic environment, and provides a product to the next process or system or stage. Dynamic systems thinking captures the interrelationship among all the parts of the system as they dynamically interact with one another in their environment. The language of dynamic systems thinking is best described by Peter M. Senge.(12) Its basic "nouns" and "verbs" include reinforcing cycles (which can be vicious or virtuous cycles) and balancing cycles. These are then constructed in "sentences," or system archetypes, which show basic patterns of interaction common in systems. Since dynamic systems thinking describes underlying forces, it provides us with knowledge about the underlying paradigms or rules or frames of reference in which the system is operating.

The third dimension also addresses the impact of interpersonal relationships on trading relationships. New research in relational economics has revealed that where there is a relationship, a buyer will pay more and a seller will accept less.(13) This expands the trading range and increases the likelihood that a trade will take place. But more important than that, the trade begins to take on a new dimension. As the relationship improves, the trade flows from the relationship rather than the relationship from the trade, and price becomes less of a consideration. The implications of this are profound. A legal administrator of a law firm indicated that for the better established attorneys it is a common occurrence for clients to call with new business repeatedly, without regard to price. At some point, little or no consideration is given to other suppliers of a product or service because the trade is based on the relationship. Were it not for the relationship, price would be a major factor, and convenience trading would take place in order to find the best product to satisfy the need at the lowest price.

The Fourth Dimension: Inter-connectivity and Paradigm Logic. The first three dimensions give us the ability to establish a system, as we measure the results of relationships among various parts of the system and make modifications necessary to produce the desired results. However, a system existing only in three dimensions is a closed system. In traditional systems thinking, it is the "black box." It has certain inputs, and it processes these inputs to produce certain outputs.

The drawback of three dimensional thinking is that no system exists in isolation. From whence does it derive its inputs? Where are its outputs used? As we begin to think through the entire process, we begin to see that each part is integrally inter-connected with other parts and other systems which cannot be ignored. If three dimensional thinking is used as an end in itself rather than as a means of understanding a component of a universal system, then significant external impacts can be ignored, to the detriment of the system.

Dr. Deming notes the example of two suppliers who produced the same part for a customer. One part worked, and one did not. Both were produced according to the specifications of the customer. The supplier whose part worked understood how the part was to be used by the customer; the other supplier did not.(14) In this case one supplier understood the inter-connectivity of its role in the process. The other viewed its role as a separate system merely providing inputs to another separate system.

The fourth dimension gives us the ability to look beyond three dimensional thinking to the inter-connectivity of all systems and processes. This gives us the power to understand the paradigm, or set of rules or guiding principles, upon which a system is based. With this thinking, we understand not only how the system works, but why it works as it does. It is dynamic systems thinking that gives us the power to assess the underlying undercurrents which explain the behavior of the system. Once the appropriate paradigm is learned, everything in the system will be explained by that paradigm. Thus, the fourth dimension provides the underlying logic of the system.

The footprint of experience which the system leaves can be, and universally is, interpreted under various paradigms. If the paradigm being used to explain the system mismatches the paradigm under which the system actually operates, then there will be "inconsistencies" in the system which are not explainable. Joel Barker notes that when a system reaches the point at which the inconsistencies appear insurmountable, we begin to look for a new paradigm which will explain our current understanding of the system, account for inconsistencies, and resolve the unresolvable problems of the system.(15)

When a product of the system is inconsistent with the paradigm under which the system is operated, then the result is illogical. This is one reason change is resisted in an organization. Change is generally inconsistent with the operational paradigm even though it may be completely consistent with (and thus logical under) the true underlying paradigm. As a result, traditionally the impetus for change has come only at a time of crisis, when it has become clear that the existing paradigm is inadequate. This occurred in Japan shortly after World War II as a part of the reconstruction effort, and in the United States in the 1980's in response to the "quality crisis." It was the recognition that the existing U. S. competition paradigm was not powerful enough to compete effectively with the Japanese that spurred the intense focus on quality in the 1980's. Consequently, a national focus on "Quality or Else" and Dr. Deming's endeavor to bring us "Out of the Crisis" focused the United States toward a new paradigm as we began to ask, "If Japan Can, Why Can't We?"

The power of inter-connectivity is that it provides a foundation for quantum leaps in quality improvement. Once we begin to understand paradigms, we begin to realize that we can pre-select, or plan, the paradigm rather than just describe it. This then provides the power for comprehensive cultural change in an organization. Under traditional management methods, focus on behavioral psychology led us to attempt cultural change through change in behavior. Major resistance was encountered, however, because the proposed change in behavior was inconsistent with the existing paradigm. Consequently, even if behavioral change took place, it tended to drift back to former patterns of behavior which belonged to the operational paradigm because the paradigm never changed.

The value of planning the paradigm is that once the paradigm is defined and understood, the behavior will naturally follow the paradigm. This creates a flow mechanism for change rather than the push or pull mechanism of behavioral psychology. Thus, change can be accomplished much more effectively in an organization by shifting the paradigm and letting behavioral changes naturally flow with the new paradigm rather than attempting to change behavior directly.

Peter Scholtes of Joiner Associates(16) described a situation in which a firm's bereavement policy was three pages long and required the employee to follow a complicated procedure in order to obtain three days bereavement leave. The firm leadership reviewed the underlying paradigm of the policy and determined that it was written for the five percent of their employees whom they could not trust to not abuse the policy. They decided to change the policy to reflect their trust in the other (95%) employees. The policy became one paragraph which essentially said that an employee could take bereavement leave upon approval of his or her supervisor.

This shift from a non-trusting paradigm to a trusting paradigm had a significant impact on the firm. The incidence of use of bereavement leave increased dramatically. But the number of days actually taken decreased by 47%. Furthermore, the potential abusers of the system (the 5% in the non-trusted group) were reluctant to abuse the system because of peer pressure they felt from other employees.

In this example, the shift in paradigms (or, more correctly stated, the redesign of the system to reflect the existing underlying paradigm) resulted in an actual change of behavior consistent with the new paradigm which could never have been obtained by asking people to reduce their use of bereavement leave under the old non-trusting paradigm. In fact, the behavioral approach of requesting employees to reduce their use of bereavement leave would have reinforced the undesirable non-trust paradigm.

Shifting of paradigms generally does not involve imposing an entirely new paradigm on an organization. Usually inefficiencies in a system are the product of an operational paradigm which is inconsistent with an underlying paradigm. By uncovering the underlying paradigm and permitting the system to reflect it in operation, the organization is able to eliminate inconsistencies which create inefficiencies. As the new paradigm is discovered (or uncovered) and applied, it provides the new logic to support the change. Thus, by planning the paradigm, change becomes a logical extension of the new paradigm rather than an illogical, inconsistent application of the old operational paradigm.

The entire movement to employee empowerment and Dr. Deming's focus on employee involvement and on removing barriers that rob people of pride in workmanship is reflective of this concept. The older management styles created an operational paradigm which was inconsistent with the underlying employee paradigm of self-worth. As Dr. Deming teaches, the employees must be permitted to see their part in the process. Permitting this paradigm to surface and become a part of the operating system empowers the employees to better, more efficiently utilize their knowledge and skills to improve the system, with which they, as front line workers, are far more familiar than managers who are functionally separated from the actual operations. Separation of the decision power from the knowledge power created inefficiencies that the new empowerment paradigm resolves.

The competition paradigm is a second dimension paradigm which breeds bureaucracy and destroys the system. Focus is directed toward "what others can do for me" and "what resources can I have," when often resources could be better directed to other departments or functions. When departmental lines are broken down, a fourth-dimensional partnership paradigm begins to emerge as each participant realizes there is greater value in working together than in working against each other.

At the Michigan State Bar Foundation, data entry involves entry of the interest and service charges on about 4,000 bank accounts each month. This involved entry of the account number and then interest and service charges. Some account numbers were as long as 15 digits, creating significant room for error. A shift in thinking permitted the staff to realize that the computer already "knew" which accounts were associated with each bank, so "blank" transactions could be created by the computer for each account, and they could be called up in the order in which they appeared on the remittance form. This eliminated the need to enter each account number, significantly reducing data entry time. But more importantly, with the new shift in thinking, the data entry person began to voluntarily take on new functions to utilize the time saved by the data entry procedure. This involved balancing and posting the transactions, freeing the time of the finance staff for other functions.

The Fifth Dimension of Quality: Value Sharing. There is a universal paradigm that provides a foundation for a complete quality system. The value sharing paradigm of relational economics theory is expressed as follows, "If I give something to you that is more valuable to you than it is to me, then together we are better off as a result of the trade. If it is worth $10 to you and $3 to me, then after the trade we are worth $10 rather than $3, even if I do not receive anything in exchange." This paradigm is founded on a long-term relationship between the parties, for without the ability to see the other party as a participant in a common endeavor, the party providing the value would be worse off after the trade. In actual practice, the party whose value is increased as a result of the trade is willing to share the value with the one who provided it. This cements the relationship and opens the door for further trading. The value of value sharing is that it gives us the ability to build and maintain long-term relationships.

In quality, value sharing is expressed in the phrase, "Delight the Customer." In other words, "Give the customer more than the customer is paying for," or "Consecrate resources to the customer." As the relationship with the customer grows, there is mutual consecration of resources by both parties as each shares the value it derives from the trade with the other party.

The quality movement is clearly showing a movement beyond "customer satisfaction" to this "delight the customer" paradigm. By learning of true customer needs and identifying those things which are of value to the customer, firms are placing themselves in a much better position to anticipate and fulfill needs before they are even perceived as needs. This permits the firm to shift paradigms and define new markets that do not even exist under older paradigms. This places the firm in a position to maintain long-term growth and viability, as it provides those products and services which have far greater value to the customer than their cost to the firm. Through focusing on fulfilling customer needs, the firm invites the customer into a long-term relationship in which the customer becomes a "sustaining member" of the firm. Furthermore, the firm's resource base is expanded as the customer provides not only capital resources, but also information resources that are critical to the firm's long-term growth.

An understanding of value sharing gives us the power to measure the strength of relationships. The measure of this strength is in the willingness of participants to consecrate resources to other participants or to a common good. The level of consecration is reflected by three measures: (1) the willingness of the participant to give more than is required (sometimes referred to as "social capital reserves"); (2) the willingness of the participant to become a long-term "sustaining member" of the organization (e.g., through long-term employment or through repeat purchases); and (3) the willingness of the participant to invite others to participate (e.g., referral business).

The five dimensions of value sharing involve the integration and fulfillment of all the other dimensions with respect to all the participants. It is accomplished through leadership, which is the only organizational behavior theory which incorporates all five dimensions.

The leadership process is simple yet powerful. The leader develops a vision for the organization and shares it with the other participants. Then all participants engage in sharing vision, resources (human/time resources, information/knowledge resources, and financial/capital resources), and value. All of this is bound together by the vision and its logical implementation.

In the leadership model, leadership begins and ends with shared vision. Shared vision becomes the lifeblood of leadership. When vision fades, so does leadership. Vision is driven by the underlying paradigm of the participants, and as such, becomes the logic by which the activities of the participants are understood.

In the value sharing paradigm, the vision of an organization is a description of the common good that is derived from the relationship among its participants. Consequently, the vision cannot be fully defined until an understanding is reached as to who the participants are, since, in the quality process it is the fulfillment of the needs of these participants which drives the quality improvement process.

Vision is directed toward the needs of each and all participants. Vision is the node which binds the participants together. Consequently, in relational economics, if vision is not shared, it does not exist. If the vision does not address the needs of a participant, then the vision is not (and cannot be) shared by that participant.

Anything less than leadership does not have the power to fulfill all the dimensions of quality. For example, management by objective, decried by Dr. Deming, uses only three dimensions. It operates on an incentive system in which ideally the goals of the organization are tied to incentives for the employees. As the employees do the work necessary to achieve the incentive (in the third dimension "achievement" paradigm), the work of the corporation is accomplished. However, if the goals of the corporation change to respond to new market needs, it is very difficult to change the incentives. Yet unless they are changed, the employees continue to work toward the wrong objectives.

Worse yet is the tyranny or autocratic model, which exists only in the experience dimension. The autocrat has no sensitivity to the needs of others and imposes his or her will on them. This breeds the first dimension "punishment" paradigm ("get back" or "get even") or the "apathy" paradigm ("I'll put in my 40 hours a week, but do not ask me to do anything extra.").

As leadership is implemented, it becomes synonymous with quality. The primary function of quality is in meeting the needs of internal and external customers. Strategic quality planning is accomplished through the Quality Leadership Plan, through which an organization identifies the participants and the vision, identifies which participants will provide what resources, and identifies how the value will be shared among participants. Within this framework, the firm then engages Dr. Deming's Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle to utilize the inter-connectivity (Plan), experience (Do), measurement (Study), and relationships (Act, or make part of the system) dimensions to actually implement quality in a continuous improvement cycle.

True leadership emerges in an organization when its participants fulfill all five dimensions of quality by (1) cultivating a consecration culture (in which "delight the customer" is the driving force); (2) planning the paradigm (in order to lead cultural change in the organization); (3) employing experience (in bringing the vision into actualization); (4) managing measurement (by using more effective process and paradigm measures rather than inspection or detection systems); and (5) reinforcing relationships (by developing interpersonal relationships and standardizing systems that work).


Understanding the quality system in which a firm operates requires an understanding of the "footprint" which that system leaves. This requires understanding all dimensions of that footprint: the experience, the measurements, the relationships and systems, the underlying paradigms, and the extent of the underlying value sharing paradigm. Measurement of each of these dimensions in the system permits an organization to assess its existing quality system and to design modifications to the system that will make fullest use of the value sharing paradigm. By "delighting the customer" the firm assists its customers in becoming "sustaining members" of the firm. Leadership is the only model which incorporates all five dimensions of quality and gives the firm the ability to inject continuing life into its quality improvement efforts.


1. The Bramble Bush, 1960.

2. Quality Without Tears, Chapter 6.

3. Juran's Quality Control Handbook, 4th ed., page 2.2.

4. Dr. Eugene Jennings of Michigan State University has developed the concept of "becoming free of mortal risk."

5. Juran's Quality Control Handbook, 4th ed., p. 2.8.

6. Deductive Implications of Social Distance Models, 1987.

7. "Agentive Theory as Therapy: An Outcome Study."

8. ANSI/ASQC. 1987 Quality Systems Terminology, American National Standard. A3-1987.

9. Quality Without Tears, Chapter 8. Note, however, that "Zero Defects" is the standard applied to the underlying definition of quality, which is "conformance to requirements" (Chapter 6).

10. Management's New Gurus, 1992, p. 52.

11. Out of the Crisis, 1986, p. 309 et seq.

12. The Fifth Discipline, 1990, pp. 68 et seq.

13. Interpersonal Relationships and Preferences: Evidences and Implications, 1989. For example, a buyer will pay up to $11 rather than $10, and a seller will accept as low as $7 rather than $8. In this example, the trading ranges (the intersection of acceptable price) doubles as a result of the relationship (from $2 [$10 minus $8] to $4 [$11 minus $7]).

14. Out of the Crisis, 1986, p. 140.

15. Future Edge, 1992, pp. 43-54.

16. Teamwork in the Quality Era, 1992.


ANSI/ASQC. 1987 Quality Systems Terminology, American National Standard. A3-1987.

Barker, Joel A., Future Edge, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1992.

Byrne, John A., "Management's New Gurus," Business Week, August 31, 1992, pp. 44-52.

Crosby, Philip B., Quality Without Tears (New York: McGraw-Hill), 1984.

Deming, W. Edwards, Out of the Crisis, Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute for Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, 1986.

Judd, Daniel K., "Agentive Theory as Therapy: An Outcome Study," Dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1987.

Juran, Joseph M., ed., and Frank M. Gryna, assoc. ed., Juran's Quality Control Handbook, 4th Edition, (New York: McGraw-Hill), 1988.

Llewellyn, Karl N., The Bramble Bush, New York: Oceana Publications, 1960.

Robison, Lindon J., "Deductive Implications of Social Distance Models," Appendix B, Richard E. Winder, Lindon J. Robison, and Daniel K. Judd, Value Sharing: A Foundation for Value Building, Haslett, Michigan: Leadership Press, 1991.

Robison, Lindon J. and A. Allan Schmid, "Interpersonal Relationships and Preferences: Evidences and Implications, Handbook of Behavioral Economics, Vol. 2, Roger Frantz and Harinder Singh, eds., J.A.I. Press, 1989.

Scholtes, Peter R., "Teamwork in the Quality Era," televised broadcast on April 14, 1992 in cooperation with the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, George Washington University, and GW National Satellite Network.

Senge, Peter M., The Fifth Discipline, New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990.

LCS: 020:10:000