If you did not read Penny Egbert's article on Total Quality Management (TQM) in the February 1993 issue of Talking Stick, I encourage you to do so at your earliest convenience. What she has to say about TQM is extremely relevant for residence life professionals at all levels. As Penny observes, TQM is almost universally accepted as one of the most significant managerial innovations of the last 50 years. Yet it remains "a hazy concept" to most administrators in higher education.

In an effort to expand on Penny's initial discussion of TQM and its implications for higher education, I would like to present an explanation as to why TQM is considered so important to the future of higher education. I will then follow up with a brief discussion of Deming's 14 points and how they are applicable to college and university housing programs.

Since about 1980, much of the private sector in the United States has been involved in a management revolution aimed at drastically improving customer satisfaction. One of the primary goals of this transformation has been the cultivation of greater acceptance and utilization of the TQM concepts developed by Deming, Juran, and Crosby prior to, and during, World War II. As most Americans are now acutely aware, their methods were embraced wholeheartedly after the War by most Japanese business leaders. As a result, we are now living in an economic era that is driven, to a significant extent, by the Japanese and their uncompromising allegiance to TQM. It has taken too long -- far too long -- for TQM to be recognized for its inherent value on native soil.

Higher education has also been significantly impacted by the management revolution taking place in the private sector. Evidence of how Deming's ideas have influenced the academic world can be found in the push toward greater accountability at all levels of the educational hierarchy. More than just an attempt to insure consistency within and between similar programs, many of the changes that have occurred within our educational system over the last ten years have been motivated by the desire to maximize the quality potential for both the institution and, ultimately, its graduates.

Within this context, it would be an understatement to note that collegiate housing will continue to be an exciting place to work throughout the next century. Demographics and other factors will no doubt continue to precipitate both subtle and radical changes in the characteristics of the student population. Residence life professionals will be constantly challenged to provide programs and services that are responsive to the collective as well as the individual needs of our clientele. As Deming so vehemently advocates, it is imperative that we continue to stress strict adherence to established standards tempered with the ongoing need to forever be flexible.

The challenges that lie ahead for higher education and residence life are enormous. As such, it is absolutely essential that we adequately prepare ourselves to confront those challenges. As one of the more visible units within Student Affairs, residence life plays an integral role in sustaining the overall viability of the higher education enterprise. Rather than assume a secondary, supportive position with respect to other areas, residence life professionals are increasingly required to take a much more proactive role in shaping the future.

One of the key ways we can better prepare ourselves to survive the coming turbulence is to study Deming's 14 points and understand how they apply to collegiate housing. What follows is a summary of his 14 points, together with an explanation of how each can be used to our advantage in achieving greater quality and customer satisfaction.

(1) Create constancy of purpose.

Everyone involved in the delivery of programs and services to the on- campus population must understand and accept the fundamental importance of providing exceptional customer service at every available opportunity. If living in a residence hall truly has significant advantages over other housing options, then we need to make those benefits obvious and desirable. Our students should want to live in our halls because they offer the kind of environment quality-conscious consumers need in order to succeed personally, socially, and academically. This perception will only exist if everyone in residence life shares the same vision and is pulling in the same direction.

(2) Adopt a new philosophy.

In short, what was acceptable as "standard procedure" in the not-too- distant past is now no longer applicable. When residence halls were the only housing alternative available to most students, the need to be sensitive and responsive to individual needs, concerns, complaints, and recommendations was not very acute. In many systems, the decision-making process was driven solely by the desire to provide as many beds as possible. If students wanted fairly comfortable housing at an affordable price, we were the only option. Students were taken seriously only when it was convenient and/or unavoidable. But now times have changed. In a very real sense, we are much more dependent on students than they are on us. Therefore, the perpetual enhancement of customer satisfaction must be the primary consideration in any decision we make. Our very survival depends upon our ability to successfully make this paradigm shift.

(3) Cease dependence on inspection.

Stated another way, we must become much more proactive in our approach to the provision of programs and services for our students. Traditionally, residence life professionals have tended to be primarily reactive in their response to issues and situations that concern the on-campus population. If something "bad" happened, we typically responded by trying to minimize the damage that might result as a consequence. Now, however, it is imperative that we take steps to prevent "bad" things from happening in the first place. Instead of simply responding to changing realities, we must assume an active role in determining what those realities will be at some future point and then develop programs and services designed to meet the challenges they represent.

(4) Minimize total cost.

A tell-tale characteristic of the reactionary mode of thinking involves the "band-aid" approach to dealing with problems and other difficult situations. In our efforts to deal with the perceived short-term consequences of a given situation, we typically spend three times the time, money, and effort needed to actually solve the problem; i.e., take the steps necessary to completely resolve the problem and thus prevent it from occurring again. Residence life professionals need to concentrate more on the long-term future of their programs; i.e., the "big picture," as opposed to expending inordinate amounts of energy putting out fires.

(5) Improve constantly and forever.

In today's market, it is no longer advisable to conclude that our residence halls are now "good enough." The only way to remain responsive to the needs of a dynamic and diverse student population is to constantly strive to provide better programs and services at the least cost possible. We must constantly monitor our students and offer living options and arrangements that best meet their needs at the current moment. The overriding goal of continual improvement must permeate every discussion and dominate every management decision.

(6) Institute training.

Training is the key to successfully implementing TQM within the residence hall system. Training residence hall staffs can be a very complicated and involved process. If done correctly, however, it can also be one of the most rewarding dimensions of residence life work. Sound training forms the basis for a successful housing program. Whereas many departments are doing an exceptional job of training their residence hall staffs, many others simply do not devote the time and effort needed to insure that the concepts presented here are given the attention they deserve. Far too often, staff training consists of 1) dispensing technical information, and 2) reacting to situations as they develop. To be truly effective, training must transcend these somewhat narrow parameters to include the decision-making and problem-solving skills necessary to facilitate customer satisfaction.

(7) Institute supervision.

Once staff have received training in the basics of TQM, it is imperative that residence life leaders constantly reinforce their commitment to enhanced quality through every aspect of their management style. Most management experts agree that, in the future, organizational hierarchies will tend to be much more horizontal than is typically the case with many of today's residence life departments. There will be far fewer levels between upper management and students. One logical result of this collapsing of the structure will be the empowerment of those at the lowest levels; i.e., those closest to our customers, the students. Such an arrangement necessarily mandates a management strategy foreign to many residence life administrators. Supervising empowered employees is substantially different from dictating what is to be done centrally. Supervision of personnel within the context of TQM is quite distinct from supervision of task facilitation within a traditional context.

(8) Drive out fear.

No one can focus totally on doing the best job possible if he or she constantly lives in fear of the consequences of perceived failure; i.e., being reprimanded or fired. Many residence life professionals, in the guise of enhancing accountability, have instituted a comprehensive and endless array of evaluations: self-evaluations, student evaluations, peer evaluations, supervisor evaluations, etc. The intended outcome of these assessments may indeed be to foster and maintain higher standards of commitment and quality. The message that is often received by employees, however, is one of implicit mistrust and intimidation. Good supervisors must learn to rely minimally on formalized evaluation schemes as a means of motivating staff and thus insuring that departmental goals and objectives are appropriately met.

(9) Break down barriers between departments.

TQM requires a systemwide effort on the part of all departments. Residence life professionals who are obsessively preoccupied with who reports to who, following the appropriate channels, and other issues related to turf protection often do considerable harm to the institution by keeping the focus from where it should be -- on the delivery of quality student services. Being as responsive as possible to the needs of the students we serve should be our only real concern. Getting the job done efficiently in a humanistic manner, regardless of the departmental lines drawn on some abstract organizational chart, is all that really matters. Ideas for improvement should always be welcome; where they originate should be relatively inconsequential.

(10) Eliminate unrealistic targets.

Although it sounds good to proclaim that "100% student satisfaction is our goal," in reality, this is impossible to achieve. For example, holding resident assistants responsible for the fact that not all of their students feel they are doing an acceptable job is unfair and unrealistic. Recognition should be given for effort, not just results. If, as residence life professionals, we establish ideal goals and objectives that are inherently unattainable, we are not motivating our paraprofessionals to "be all they can be." Instead, we are only frustrating them needlessly and thereby accelerating the inevitable burnout process.

(11) Eliminate numerical quotas.

A residence hall program can be very successful even though few people are in attendance. The mere fact that it was available, and that a great deal of effort went into its design and construction, account for a lot more than we often realize. Similarly, if I tend to reward/recognize only those central office staff who are proficient at processing high numbers of forms, them I am inadvertently creating an adversarial atmosphere in the workplace. Holding individuals with different abilities to the same performance standards is inherently counterproductive. Each employee should be rewarded/recognized for performing at their own individual level of proficiency.

(12) Abolish management by objectives.

On the surface, management by objectives (MBOs) seems like a good approach. MBOs can be helpful in establishing priorities and clarifying the various job functions that must be performed. In the coming era of TQM and its emphasis on continual improvement, however, MBOs are innately self- defeating in that they severely limit creativity by inhibiting employees from proceeding beyond the relatively narrow parameters they prescribe. Residence life professionals must be extremely flexible in order to respond effectively to each student's individual needs. MBOs, by their very nature, limit this flexibility and tend to precipitate meaningless, repetitious conformity.

(13) Institute a vigorous program of re-education.

As has been suggested by Penny Egbert and others, achieving the goals and objectives of TQM will require extensive re-education of the residence life workforce. Many of Deming's ideas are somewhat easy to comprehend yet moderately difficult to actually put into practice. Changing the way people think can be an extremely daunting task, as the proponents of multiculturalism are currently finding out. TQM requires an unwavering dedication to the central concept of complete and consistent customer satisfaction. Such dedication implicitly denotes a fundamental shift in the way many residence life professionals view their role as student development facilitators.

(14) The transformation is everybody's job.

Instituting TQM is not just the job of residence life leadership, nor is it the primary concern of any one group within the organization. It must be seen as everyone's responsibility. A chief tenet of TQM involves getting the decision-making authority as close to the customer; i.e., the student, as possible. This means that everyone within the department must have a clear understanding of the overall goals and objectives of TQM, as well as how those goals and objectives translate into concrete action. In order to make this connection, it is imperative that everyone be working toward the same end. TQM requires the full support of everyone within the organization; it will be a disappointing failure if it is only the dream of one or two people who have read a little about it and decided to "give TQM a try."

Total Quality Management offers tremendous advantages for higher education through its provision of new and innovative solutions to both existing and anticipated problems. TQM offers a philosophy and a framework in which the residence life department of tomorrow can not just survive, but prevail. It is essential that residence life professionals adopt the management ideas of Deming, Juran, and Crosby. Our emphasis must be on satisfying the customer through the never-ending provision of programs and services of the highest possible quality at the lowest possible cost.