' Academy o! Managemeni Executive, 2001, Vol. 15.

No, 4

Management fads: Emergence,

evolution, and implications
for managers
}ane Whitney Gibson and Dana V. Tesone

Executive Overview
Management iads often get a lot oi attention. Should managers be concerned cibout
the latest management fad, or is it just a waste of time?' Considerable interest has been
shown in the literature about management fads and fashions. Journal and newspaper
articles abound.^ and professional books have been written on the subject.^ Unlike many
literature-based, academic concepts, these fads and fashions are well known by
practicing managers. This article focuses on five management fads of the late 20^'^
century, each one representative of a management trend of a specific decade: MBO
(1950s), sensitivity training (136Qs). quality circles (1970s), total quality management
(1980s), and self-managed or seif-direcfed teams (1990s). In each case, this article explores
the origin of the fad through its evolution into mainstream management practice. Further,
each fad is examined fo defermine relevance fo currenf management practice. The article
offers practical guidelines for managers regarding which fads to embrace and when.

Faddish jargon is everywhere. As one author is generally thought of as a craze, a temporary

noted:
You can, if you wish, flatten your pyramid,
become a horizontal organization, and elimi-
nate hierarchy from your company. You can
empower your people, open your environ-
ment, and transform your culture. . . . You can
improve continuously, shift your paradigms,
and become a learning organization. You can
devote yourself and your company to total
quality management.''
In the last half of the 20'^ century, management
fads came and went, which suggests there is a life
cycle to management fashion. One central, pre-
vailing question of this article is: where have these
fads gone? Have they disappeared or have they
evolved into management practices? If the latter is
true, do newer fads build upon the content of older
fads?
What Constitutes a Management Fad?
Management fads and management fashions are
terms that are often used interchangeably. A fad
122
cultural blip in society, like the Hula Hoop craze
of the 1950s or the miniskirts of the 1970s.
Management fads are a more serious phenome-
non, although they are often as temporary and
compelling.
One author defines management fads as rela-
tively transitory collective beliefs, disseminated by
management fashion setters.^ A more recent defini-
tion describes fads as "managerial interventions
which appear to be innovative, rational, and func-
tional and are aimed at encouraging better organi-
zational performance."^ Learning outcomes associ-
ated with effectiveness of the fad may result in the
retention or rejection of the fad itself. In either case,
the fad loses its specific identity as an intervention
strategy at some point, which results in the decline of
its individual notoriety. However, the content of the
fad becomes part of the overall management expe-
riential base, which means new fads should be at
equal or higher levels than preceding processes.'^
This overall management experiential base can be
called a management practice.
We consider management fads to be widely ac-
cepted, innovative interventions into the organiza-
tion's practices designed to improve some aspect
2001
of performance. Fads either evolve into new man-
agement practices or are abandoned as failures.
Fads and Practices
Many management practices started as fads. They
were discovered or created by someone, after
which they found their way into management prac-
tice. The point of differentiation between a fad and
a practice is related to the age or newness of the
practice. New practices are often old fads. For in-
stance, management by objectives {MBO) was not
simply about setting goals. It was a radical depar-
ture from the way objectives had previously been
established. It advocated participative goal set-
ting at all levels of the organization that ensured
mission-driven companies and provided specific
results to be evaluated by the performance man-
agement system. Prior to this new approach, goals
were established at the top of the organizational
hierarchy and forced downward. MBO, a wildfire
fad dating back to the 1950s, lives on today in the
mainstream management practice of goal setting.
So while fads may fade in their original interpre-
tation, they can morph into stable management
practices, albeit under new names.
New practices are often old fads.
How Fads Develop
Some management techniques that origi-
nated as fads include: management by objec-
tives, T-groups, matrix management, mana-
gerial grid, job enrichment, quality circles,
centralized corporate strategy, matrix organi-
zations, total quality management, just-
in-time inventory management, self-directed
teams, empowerment, business process re-
engineering, and even downsizing.^
One author refers to those who initiate fads as
fashion setters, and identifies them as consultants.
Variables Leading to Fad Adoption*
Environmental Pressures
Competitiveness
Increase in union activity
Political and regulatory environment
Dynamic and turbulent environment
• Adapted from Carson, P. P., Lanier, P. A., Carson, K. D., & Berkenmeier, B. J. 1999. An historical perspective on fad adoption and
abandonment: Developing theory Irom the management iad jungle, journal of Management History, 5: 320-333.
Gibson and Tesone 123
management gurus, business schools, and busi-
ness mass-media publications.^ Another notes that
management fads are also created by managers
themselves, although they may be popularized
and articulated by outsiders:
I know of no new form of organization that
was invented by organization theorists while
advancing the theory. I have seen no new
form emerge from the test tubes of organiza-
tion theory. Instead, the researchers record
what the inventive practitioner creates and
give it labels like grids, system 4, or matrix
organization.'°
Regardless of where the original idea emanates
from, some people are more eager to embrace a
new fad than others. Research summarized in Ta-
ble 1 finds that environmental pressures, forces for
conformity, and characteristics of the organization
determine in large measure the speed and
strength with which fads are adopted in a given
organization.
Environmental pressures are primarily external
to the organization. Organizations facing an in-
creasingly competitive environment often look for
new managerial techniques and strategies, i.e.,
management fads, to help them sustain or in-
crease market share. An increase in union activity
may be a catalyst for management to seek employ-
ee-friendly techniques such as empowerment. The
political and regulatory environment may prod or-
ganizations into trying new fads designed to meet
current imperatives in the way, for example, that
sensitivity training coincided with equal-employ-
ment opportunity. A dynamic or turbulent environ-
ment can also jostle the defenders of the status quo
into looking for new solutions to new problems.
Forces for conformity include a desire to be seen
as progressive and a member of the in-crowd, a
desire to avoid sanctions by stakeholders who
might see the manager or the company as lagging
behind current trends, and knowledge cascades.
The last occur when people do not have enough
Table 1
Forces for Conformity Organizational Characteristics
Knowledge cascades Frustration irom past efforts
Desire to be in the in-crowd Desire for difierentialion
Desire to avoid sanctions Culture oi risk taking
124 Academy of Management Execufive
information to make their own choices, so they
imitate the choices made by others.i'
Organizational characteristics that encourage
fad adoption include a frustration with past fad
adoption. Past failures supposedly make compa-
nies more determined to embrace change and
prove that they have overcome past errors. A de-
sire for differentiation also leads companies to
adopt fads early so as to place them ahead of the
competition. An internal culture of risk taking is
another key factor in deciding whether to risk the
stability of the status quo by adopting new fads.'^
Organizafionai characteristics that
encourage fad adoption include a
frustration with past fad adoption.
Organizations are also more likely to support a
fad that is in the earlier stages of the life cycle.'^
The life cycle is a useful construct to understand
the evolution of management fads.
The Life Cycle ol Management Fads
A bibliographic study of five management fads
demonstrated general support for the contention
that fads display a symmetrical life cycle. Some of
these life cycles, however, seem to last much
longer than others:
While there may be an upward and down-
ward trend to most fashions, the slope (rate of
increase and decrease in number of articles)
for each fashion will be different. This likely
depends on the existence of other fashions
and events. It may be that peer review and
pay-for-performance, since they are both re-
Table 2
Ettorre's Life Cycle Applied to Five Management Fads
Stage MBO Sensitivity Training
Discovery 1954-1964 1946-1955
Wild acceplance 1964-1981 1956-1964
Digestion 1982-1992 1964-1974
Disillusionment 1992-1996 1975-1980
Hard core 1996 and later 1980 and later
Note: The authors have identified MBO as being representative of the 1950s, Sensitivity Training of the 1960s, Quality Circles of the
1970s, Total Quality Management of the 1980E. and Self Managed Teams of the 1990s. Table 2 shows some variance from this
chronology in Stage 1: Discovery. However, the fads are marked as representative of the decades in which they became well-
established in organizations.
November
lated to human resource management, com-
pete with each other for attention more so
than other management fashions, and thus
the number of articles for either will not reach
that of a fashion such as benchmarking.''*
Other research found that management fads are
preceded by periods of dormancy followed by a
bell-shaped life cycle. This same study found that
the decline of one fad was usually interdependent
with the development and increasing popularity of
another management fad that replaced it.'^
Ettorre proposed a similar life cycle, based on a
bell-shaped curve, that included five stages in the
Ufe cycle of a management fad, as shown in Table
2.'^ In Stage 1, the discovery stage, the fad is just
beginning to come to the public's attention. Very
early articles are appearing in the literature. It is
during Stage 2, however, the wild-acceptance
stage, that the fad becomes very popular. During
Stage 3, digestion, critics begin to suggest that the
fad is not the panacea it might once have seemed
to be. In Stage 4, disillusionment, there is more
widespread recognition that problems exist with
the fad, and in Stage 5, hard core, only the staunch
supporters remain loyal to the fad. During the dis-
illusionment stage, the next fad has already begun
to capture the attention of the organization, has-
tening the decline of the current fad. However, this
does not mean that the fad always fades away
completely. The fad may serve as a catalyst or
antecedent to some new managerial fad or prac-
tice, or it may become part of the normal way of
doing things under a different name.
We apply Ettorre's life-cycle theory of manage-
ment fads to MBO, sensitivity training, quality cir-
cles, TQM, and self-managed teams, discussing
the origin of these fads, their development, and
Fad
Total Quality Seli-Managed
Quality Circles Management Teams
1977-1979 1950-1971 198CH991
1979-1981 1971-1991 1991-1996
1981-1982 1992-1993 1997-1999
1982-1986 1993-1996 unknown
1986 and later 1996 and later unknown
2001 Gibson and Tesone
current status. These particular fads were chosen
not necessarily as the most important ones of their
decades, but as representative iads that were un-
deniably widespread and received much attention
in the academic literature. This attention is a good
indicator of the importance of each management
fad, even though much evidence suggests that the
academic literature lags behind actual manage-
ment practice.
Management by Objectives
Management by objectives (MBO) gained promi-
nence in the private sector during the 1950s as the
result of the writings of Peter Drucker and others.
The federal government began using MBO in
the 1970s, during the Nixon administration, which
launched the technique in the management of
public-sector institutions.
MBO covers a range of activities from planning
through performance appraisal. According to
Drucker, it is a process of goal setting and self-
control. Management by objectives is a technique
that encourages participative decision making
through shared goal setting at all levels of the
organization and performance assessment based
on the achievement of stated objectives. As is the
case with all management practices, MBO is sub-
ject to scrutiny not so much in theory, but in organ-
izational practice.''' One critic contends that MBO
generates too much emphasis on bottom-line as-
pects of the organization, in which upper-level
managers tend to mandate a series of financial
targets for performance.'^
MBO gained popularity during a time when the
world was intrigued with Western management
concepts, and it gained wider recognition in Japan
than in the United States. This was partly due to
cultural norms concerning participation and to the
willingness of many Japanese managers to dedi-
cate a number of years to institutionalizing MBO in
their organizations. In contrast, American manag-
ers were often quick to jump to the next manage-
ment fad.
One trend that helped popularize MBO in the
United States was the emergence of large numbers
of white-collar and administrative positions. This,
combined with Drucker's publications, which iden-
tified different processes required for the manage-
ment of non-assembly-line personnel, generated
wide interest among Western managers in MBO.
During the 1960s and 1970s, MBO saw a gradual
increase in popularity. In the mid-1970s and con-
tinuing well into the 1980s, MBO's popularity
surged. In 1992 it was reported that MBO was stan-
dard operating procedure in 80 percent of Fortune
125
500 firms, Forbes best-managed, and Dun's list of
best-managed companies.'^ Table 2 projects this
data onto the life-cycle model, showing the ap-
proximate year of each stage.
By 1996, management by objectives was a fad
that was reported to be long gone.^'^ While it is
probably true that MBO has lost its status as a
management fad, the practice continues to thrive
while couched in new fad terminology. For in-
stance, MBO thinking exists in the current man-
agement practice known as self-managed work
teams. Additionally, managers in Japan have
taken the MBO concept to a further point of matu-
ration and exported it back to American managers
in the form of quality circles.^'
While it is probably true that MBO has
lost its status as a management {ad, the
practice continues fo thrive while
couched in new fad terminology.
Sensitivity Training
Sensitivity training is one of the primary roots of
organizational development. Dating back to the
mid- and late 1940s, sensitivity training traces its
beginnings to an intergroup relations workshop
held at the State Teachers College in New Britain,
Connecticut, conducted by Kurt Lewin, the father of
social psychology and founder of the Research
Center for Group Dynamics at MIT, along with
Kenneth Benne, Leland Bradford, and Ronald Lip-
pitt.^^ Shortly after Lewin died in early 1947, his
three colleagues organized the National Training
Laboratories (NTL), which conducted a three-week
session at the Gould Academy in Bethel, Maine.
Simultaneously, the Tavistock Institute in England
and the Group Dynamics Department of Kyushu
University in Japan were conducting parallel re-
search.^^
What was actually going on at these all-day
sessions? A sensitivity training session, widely
called T-group (for training) or laboratory training,
typically consisted of 10-12 stranger-participants
and one or two trained facilitators. Over the one- to
three-week training period, a laboratory experi-
ence was derived from the interpersonal dynamics
exhibited by the attendees. Here is what tran-
spired;
The focus is on what goes on in the group and
on the interpersonal dynamics between group
members. The learning is unstructured in the
sense that there is no appointed leader and
 Academy of Management Executive
no assigned topic. The goal is for participants
to develop self-insight and awareness, to in-
crease sensitivity to one's effect on others,
and to bring to the surface data on one's blind
spots and hidden areas.. . . Participants can
then take back to their work new ways of
behaving and working with
As the practice of laboratory training slowly came
out of the laboratory and into organizations,
T-groups attained considerable popularity all
through the 1960s. Several problems emerged.
First, it was not unusual for poorly trained facili-
tators to lead these sessions. Since topics of a
personal nature often came up during T-group
training, an inexperienced trainer was often inept
at putting the group back together again. Second,
while the original T-groups were totally voluntary
in nature and the participants were strangers one
to another, the very personal nature of the training
took on a whole new meaning when interdepen-
dent people, as opposed to strangers, were going
through this training. Third, there was little or no
proof, other than purely anecdotal, that there was
sufficient carry-over of training results back to the
job to justify the time and expense. As these short-
comings became apparent, T-groups began to lose
influence in the workplace. See Table 2 for the
approximate years of each stage of the sensitivity
training cycle.
Since topics of a personal nafure often
came up during T-group training, an
inexperienced trainer was often inept at
putting the group back together again.
The influence of sensitivity training, however,
was felt in subsequent personal-development
movements, such as encounter groups, and other
management fads, such as team building. While
T-groups proved to be an ineffective technique, the
concept of sensitivity training surged in popularity
as workplace-diversity and harassment-preven-
tion programs became popular during the 1990s.
The impact of T-groups as a fad may be summed
up in the following way:
Things have certainly changed from the 1960s
when laboratory learning or T-groups took on
something of a fad nature. The extremes of
the fad were widely reported and widely crit-
icized. It was another one of those touchy-
feely seminars. No agenda, no leader. No top-
ic. . . . The let's all be honest and open bull
November
sessions of the sixties faded away, but some
of the laboratory learning goals stayed with
us: learn to admit mistakes, feelings, ques-
tions, tolerate and even applaud openness.
And some of the group techniques of the early
days have persisted in somewhat modernized
form.2^
Quality Circles
In the 1970s, while sensitivity training faded, qual-
ity circles (QCs) became very popular. Like many
quality initiatives, QCs came to the United States
via Japan. After World War II, Japanese industry
seemed determined to rid itself of the negative
stigma associated with "Made in Japan," and em-
barked on an all-out, national effort to improve
quality and build market share. QCs were a part
of that strategy. Simply put, quality circles con-
sisted of volunteer groups of workers who met on
company time and considered ways in which the
quality of products and/or processes could be
improved. It is thought that the first QC was reg-
istered with the Japanese Union of Scientists and
Engineers (JUSE) in 1962. By the early 1990s, over a
million QCs had been registered in Japan.^^
It was not until the early 1970s, however, that the
first use of quality circles in the U. S. was docu-
mented at Lockheed Missile and Space Compa-
ny.2' These circles quickly grew as American firms
scrambled to adopt what might have been the sim-
plest part of W. Edwards Deming's overall quality
program. Hughes Aircraft reported saving $45,000
in 1978 as a result of a QC initiative.'"'^ Deming
advocated the use of quality circles as part of a far
more comprehensive program, but often QC pro-
grams were seen as a quick way to increase
worker participation.^^ When carefully planned
and inaugurated, however, QCs offered both mea-
surable cost savings and human-relations benefits
in the form of improved attitudes and behavior
among employees.^'^
QC programs became popular in the United
States in a very short time. By 1980, Donald L.
Dewar of the International Association of Quality
Circles estimated that 2,000 to 3,000 quality circles
were running in over 100 U.S. companies.^' In 1982,
6,300 U.S. sites were reported as having active
QCs.==^ By the middle of the 1980s, QCs were used
in over 90 percent of the Fortune 500 companies,
including IBM, TRW, Honeywell, Digital Equip-
ment, and Xerox.3^ However, a survey in 1988
showed that more than 80 percent of the Forfune
500 companies that had tried QCs had already
abandoned them.3''
One measure o( a fad's popularity is the number
2001 Gibson and Tesone
of articles appearing in academic journals about
it. In the business database ABI/Inform, the num-
ber of articles on QCs grew Irom a modest begin-
ning in the mid-1970s to a peak in the bell-shaped
curve in 1981. After 1983, there was a steady and
rapid decline.'*'' Table 2 shows the approximate
years of each stage.
Joseph Juran, Deming's contemporary in the
quality revolution of the late 20th century, sug-
gested a central reason why quality circles were
far more lasting in Japan than in the U.S. The
Japanese QC movement was just that—a move-
ment—directed from the outside and supported
and reinforced by JUSE. Juran sees the lack of such
central support and guidance as a key reason why
these circles declined in the U.S., even as they
continued to grow in Japan. Interestingly, Juran
believes that, because many U.S. managers are
now being trained in quality management, QCs
will have a revival in this country.^^
Corporations, on the other hand, report specific
reasons for abandoning QC programs. Whirlpool
vice president Kevin Coney has been quoted as
saying that quality circles didn't drive quality. The
meetings were not focused on specific problems,
and employees did not sufficiently understand the
goals. Consequently, Whirlpool abandoned the QC
initiative. Likewise, General Electric found QCs
weren't producing the expected quality advances:
In quality circles, workers discuss defined
topics in dozens of different areas, often iso-
lated from each other, and they get so much
direction from the top that their contributions
are seldom substantial.^''
As a consequence, GE began replacing QCs with a
program called Work Out, which offered individ-
ual rather than group recognition, and encouraged
workers to come up with radically new ideas.
While the number of quality-circle programs has
declined within American firms, at least some re-
searchers feel that the philosophical underpin-
nings of participation and focus on quality have
become the foundation for other techniques, such
as TQM and self-managed work teams.^^ QCs got
employees involved in everyday quality-improve-
ment initiatives in a similar way to the continuous-
quality efforts of TQM. Likewise, the employee ini-
tiative shown in QCs can be found in self-
managed teams that are responsible for many el-
ements of productivity.
Total Quality Management (TQM)
While the popularity of QCs was declining in
the 1980s, Western managers were still eager to
127
apply Japanese quality-movement methodologies
in their organizations. One prominent fad of this
period was total quality management (TQM). TQM
evolved from the works of Deming, Juran, Crosby,
and others, who emphasized quantitative mea-
sures, continuous improvement, customer-defined
standards, individual empowerment, situational
analysis, and top-management support.
The quality of products and services surged dur-
ing the late 1980s and early 1990s in certain sectors
of industry, and consumers were recipients of
these quality improvements. But, as is the case
with all management tads, a good deal of criticism
has emerged in the academic literature. One study
contended that TQM had fallen on hard times be-
cause of, among other reasons, high costs of over-
head, too much bureaucracy, and cumbersome pro-
cesses.33 Another identified a shift away from the
philosophical roots on the part of managers into
standardized procedures, which resulted in less-
than-meaningful buy-in by workers. Without un-
derstanding the philosophy, workers really did not
embrace TQM as part of the culture, which was
essential to the TQM philosophy.^" This problem
was addressed by quality experts, who convinced
organizational managers to buy in to the quality
journey and to accept that there would be no im-
mediate financial return. Eor many firms, the TQM
journey left them with large consulting fees and
little improvement in their earnings reports.•*'
While most organizations jumped on the quality
bandwagon during the 1980s, failed TQM projects
became common.''^
For many firms, the TQM journey left
them with large consulting fees and little
improvement in their earnings reports.
Research that led to the development of TQM
began at the midpoint of the 20'^ century, and
Western managers began to become aware of the
concepts during the 1970s, a time during which
quality circles were the management mainstay.
The decline of QCs in the early 1980s paved the
way for a surge in the popularity of TQM that
prevailed for the remainder of the decade and into
the 1990s. One study, however, cited high levels of
disappointment in TQM initiatives in Western or-
ganizations, noting surveys that showed as many
as 66 percent of managers thought that TQM had
failed in their organizations.''^ The number of ap-
plicants seeking the Baldrige Award, the symbol of
TQM excellence, peaked in 1991 and fell sharply
thereafter. New consultants emerged in the early
128 Academy o/ Management Execufive
199Ds who specialized in turning around failed
TQM programs, and in 1993 an article in the Wash-
ington Posf was titled, "Totaled Quality Manage-
ment."•'^ Other literature links the demise of TQM
to that of its MBO predecessor, but argues for the
perpetuation of quality programs in spite of the
published criticisms.'^^
As shown in Table 2, TQM moved into stage 3
during 1992, and to stage 4 during 1993. By 1996,
only the staunch supporters of quality initiatives
appeared to be in favor of TQM initiatives, which
qualified the lad as having entered the final phase
of the life cycle. However, there were notable ex-
ceptions, like Eord and GE, which launched major
TQM programs in the late 1990s.
Self-Managed Teams (SMT)
Self-managed teams (SMT), also known as self-
managed work teams (SMWT) and self-directed
teams (SDT), became popular during the last decade
of the 20'^ century. SMT was based on a synthesis of
contemporary theories of group behavior and team
leadership that included participative management,
systems theory, and sociotechnical systems (STS>
theory.'*^ Utilizing rotating team leadership, SMT pro-
vided a departure from command and control man-
agement by establishing nonhierarchical work
groups that were responsible and accountable for
outcomes in the organization.''''
According to one study, SMT resulted in produc-
tivity enhancement and increased worker satisfac-
tion in organizations. Each work group was auton-
omous and provided maximum group control of
work-related variables that resulted in improved
results and member satisfaction.^^ Other studies
suggested that small work groups consisting of
eight to 12 members resulted in heightened intrin-
sic worker motivation, performance levels, job sat-
isfaction, and reduced labor turnover.''^
A number of factors were reported in the litera-
ture as essential to the success of SMT in organi-
zations. For example, SMT membership required a
shift in functional performance from specialist to
generalist activities. SMT members even got in-
volved in employee selection by participating in
hiring decisions. Eurther, in the age of corporate
downsizing, job security was cited as a fundamen-
tal issue in successful implementation of SMT.
Success was also linked to compensation prac-
tices, which included gain-sharing and profit-shar-
ing programs. Einally, formal team-building pro-
grams and empowerment policies were cited as
instrumental in SMT development
November
SMT members even got involved in
employee selection by participating in
hiring decisions,
A number of organizations have reported suc-
cessful implementation of SMT. Managers at BP
Norge reported case-study examples of empower-
ment that produced enhanced results in the organ-
ization. 3M managers cited market nimbleness as
a major advantage of SMT implementation. An-
drew Grove, chairman of Intel, was reported to
claim that it was possible to develop a collective
identity, while maintaining a sense of personal
responsibility with SMT programs.'^'
Negatives associated with SMT have, however,
started to emerge. Criticism of SMT included the
assertion that improvements in performance were
overstated in the literature.^^ Other criticisms of
SMT included individual resistance to team partic-
ipation and the claim that the techniques did not
prove to be beneficial to many organizations.^^ As
indicated previously, one measure of fad popular-
ity is the number of literature citations. Eight arti-
cles were cited in the ABI/Inform database prior to
1986 on the topic of SMT. The majority of the arti-
cles, 143 in all, were written between 1986 and 1995.
A smaller number (33) appeared after 1995. Table 2
illustrates the development of SMT.
The question remains: what lessons can be
learned from looking at these five management
fads and representative examples of fads which
were once wildly popular? What is their signifi-
cance to managers today?
Significance of the Five Fads for
Management Today
In our introduction, we asked whether manage-
ment fads go away, or slip from individual notori-
ety into the general content of management prac-
tices. While at least three of these fads have
entered the declining stages of the management-
fad life cycle, each has had some lasting signifi-
cance on management. MBO, for example, while
perhaps not followed in pure form today in most
organizations, is similar to much current thinking
about goal setting. Path-goal theory depends on
measurable, challenging goals, in much the same
way that MBO espoused. Goal-setting as part of
performance appraisal is still used by many man-
agers, and with good results. While MBO was seen
as an organization-wide, deliberate program of
mutual goal-setting between supervisors and em-
ployees, what we may be seeing today is a less-
2001 Gibson and Tesone
structured application of the same beliefs.
Sensitivity training is the hardest of the five to
justify in terms of lasting contribution to manage-
ment. Originally a technique for interpersonal de-
velopment not intended for organizational set-
tings, T-groups found their way into corporations
in large numbers during the 1960s. Subsequent
problems diminished their attractiveness, but few
would deny that sensitivity training did have
branches that spread to various types of commu-
nication training and group-development activi-
ties. Participants in team building, as well as
diversity-training and harassment-prevention pro-
grams, can thank Lewin and other social psychol-
ogists for pointing the way with sensitivity training.
Quality circles are an even more interesting fad
to study. Originating in the U.S. and popularized in
Japan, QCs were embraced in the U.S. in the 1970s
when Japanese management techniques suddenly
became popular. Yet quality circles failed to win
the structured support in the U.S. that they enjoyed
in Japan, and fell by the wayside as total quality
management came into vogue. Still, even today, in
companies like Motorola, quality efforts include
structured employee participation. The terminol-
ogy may be different, but worker commitment to
quality is the same by any name.
Total quality management, as evidenced by text-
book data presented above, is still very much with
us. Like QCs, the philosophy of continuous quality
improvement now often carries a different name in
organizations. The TQM fad may be passing, but it
is doubtful that as a nation the United States will
ever again be able to ignore the necessity of im-
proving customer service and the quality of goods
and services. Those who do will quickly be
snapped back to the imperatives once called TQM.
Einally, self-managed teams seem to be a natural
outgrowth of quality circles and TQM. They provide a
tool by which the flattening of organizations can
proceed, with authority and responsibility delegated
down in the organization. They are also a natural
extension of other popular fads like empowerment
and 3B0-degree evaluations, and because of this in-
tegration of fads, self-managed teams can be ex-
pected to have a fairly long life cycle.
Implications for Managers
Eads, however transitory in practice, have a signif-
icant impact on management practice for a while,
and then linger in the workplace either as the roots
of new management fashion or under the guise of
different jargon and terminology. It is imperative
that managers who want to keep their toolbox cur-
rent pay attention to any fad that has gone beyond
129
the Initial discovery phase. By the time of wild
acceptance, there is ample indication in both the
popular and academic literature to guide the as-
tute manager into an understanding of the new
management practice. Of greater importance to
managers, however, may be the question of
whether they, themselves, should adopt a fad or
take a wait-and-see posture. In choosing which
fads to fully embrace, managers should watch the
trends for signs of longevity and ask themselves
the 11 questions in Table 3. The more yes answers
that are checked, the more likely it is that fad
adoption is the right thing to do. Let's look at each
of these questions in turn.
Has the fad been around long enough to have a
proven track record? Eor example, a CEO who
wanted to adopt sensitivity training around 1950
for organizational use would have been taking a
risk, for there would have been little organiza-
tional experience or evidence to suggest how sen-
sitivity training could be used outside oi the labo-
ratory. Most top managers have neither the time
nor inclination to be the testing ground for untried
and unproven fads.
A more current example involves TQM, which
was widely adopted in American corporations in
the 1980s. Many small companies, however, were
not sure they could afford the necessary changes
in their operations in order to effectively imple-
ment TQM. By the mid-199as, they realized they
couldn't afford not to. In addition to the Baldrige
Award, a rise in state and local quality awards
began to recognize the efforts of many small
Table 3
Checklist for Adopting
1. Has the fad been around long enough to have a proven
track record?
2. Does the goal of the fad complement the needs of the
organization?
3. Does implementation of the fad mesh with the
organizational culture?
4. Will adopting the fad help the organization remain
competitive?
5. Does the organization have the resources needed to
implement the fad?
6. Do the expected beneiits of the iad outweigh fhe direct
and indirect costs?
7. Can the fad be implemented in small sections oi the
organization to test the new concepts with minimum risk?
8. Has the organization's track record with previous iad
adoptions been positive?
9. Can you wail ior the long-term beneiits irom iad
adoption?
10. Can organizational inertia and resistance to change be
managed lo successfully implement the iad?
11. Do you have a choice?
130 Academy of Management Executive
organizations. Florida's Sterling Award included,
for example, Armstrong World Industries, Inc., and
the Pinellas County School System, while the New
York Excelsior Awards recognized Trident Tool Co.
and AIL Systems, Inc.^'*
Does the goal of the fad complement the needs of
the organization? What problem is management
trying to solve? If customer service and quality of
products is a true concern of the organization, then
it could hardly afford to ignore TQM in the 1980s.
However, if the company was already scoring very
high in these areas, it was probably better not to
spend the time and money to overlay the new TQM
approach on top of what was already working.
One company. Sun Microsystems' microelectron-
ics division, was not handling customer problems
effectively. To deal with customers waiting up to
six months to get a problem solved. Sun set up a
15-member interdepartmental team to improve its
analysis of microchip failure. As a result. Sun's
customers in 1999 could get a preliminary analysis
in six days instead of six months. Notably, the Sun
team program went on to establish 300 teams, in-
volving over 4,000 employees, but steered away
from calling the teams either quality circles or
self-managed teams.^^
Does implementation of the fad mesh with the
organizational culture? This question has to do
with organizational fit. Does the new fad mesh
with the organizational culture as it exists? Cul-
ture change requires a long lead time and often
causes much anxiety. If, however, the fad seems to
blend well with the core values of the organization,
it will be much easier to integrate with the expec-
tation of positive results.
Introducing self-managed teams, for example,
into a bureaucratic, managed-from-the-top organi-
zation will require considerable culture shift. The
same fad would be much more easily implemented
in a culture like Southwest Airlines where employ-
ees are already given a great deal of responsibility
and authority. Likewise, when one reads the qual-
ity-commitment statement of Boise Cascade, it is
clear the organization is philosophically in tune
with its TQM program. The statement entitled "Our
Total Quality Commitment" states:
To continuously make improvements that will
enable us to anticipate.
Understand, and fulfill both internal and ex-
ternal customer expectations
So that the company becomes the preferred
supplier of each of our customers.^^
November
WiU adopting the fad help the organization re-
main competitive? Organizations continue to look
for competitive advantage, and if TQM will gener-
ate greater customer satisfaction and thus an edge
over the competition, it will be hard to resist giving
it a try. This question requires the manager to
know exactly what the fad is supposed to accom-
plish. How can benchmarking make Kodak more
competitive? What can empowerment do to im-
prove Delta Airlines' customer service? Managers
need to have their eyes on specific outcomes be-
fore running to embrace the latest fad.
Managers need to have their eyes on
specific outcomes before running to
embrace the latest fad.
Does the organization have the resources
needed to implement the fad? Does the organiza-
tion have the time, money, and energy required to
implement the fad successfully? There are many
examples of failed MBO programs whose philoso-
phy was never communicated effectively to man-
agers and employees at all levels. Merely deciding
to try a new technique does not necessarily mean
that employees will follow through. If they find that
the fad is being given lip service and not truly
being institutionalized, they may quickly revert to
the old way of doing things.
Institutionalizing fads often equates to putting
financial resources behind them. When the
Reagan Administration created the Federal Qual-
ity Institute, there was no executive order mandat-
ing TQM initiatives. It was left to the Defense De-
partment (DOD) to provide a solid role model with
its success stories. DOD saw TQM as a valuable
management philosophy and incorporated its sta-
tistical tools and techniques widely. More impor-
tantly, DOD committed the resources to provide
training, self-assessment protocols, and manage-
ment directives.^^
Do the expected benefits of the fad outweigh the
direct and indirect costs? This question asks the
manager to do a cost/benefit analysis regarding
the fad, measuring both direct and indirect costs.
Indirect costs often escape notice. What type of
corporate anxiety will reengineering produce?
How will employees' fears be overcome and at
what cost? How much will the fad disrupt the rou-
tine of the organization, and is that disruption a
positive or a negative thing? The direct costs of
training, for example, are easier to weigh, but all
costs must be clearly thought out before making
the decision to proceed. Likewise, what benefits
2D01 Gibson and Tesone
are likely to accrue to the organization? Do the
benefits justify the costs?
Can the fad be Implemented in small sections of
the organization to test the new concepts with min-
imum, risk? Is it possible, ior example, to introduce
self-managed teams into a single department or
facility to perfect the process and measure the
results? Assuming positive results, it will be easier
to sell the rest of the organization on the benefits of
the new fad if there are success stories to be told.
If the fad doesn't work out, the costs have been kept
to a minimum.
Has the organization's track record with previ-
ous fad adoptions been positive? Research
shows that companies that have failed in their
implementation of earlier fads are more likely to
run out and embrace the next fad, hoping for
better results.^^ Managers are advised to look
back in their organization's history and examine
how previous fads have fared. Have they been
implemented successfully? If not, what caused
the failure and how can these problems be
avoided in the future? Managers at Philip Morris
think they have an answer. They believe QCs
failed at their company primarily because of in-
sufficient management interest and the lack of
concrete goals. In the early 1990s, they believed
they would fare better with TQM because the
focus on customer needs and continuous im-
provement more closely matched the corporate
philosophy of Philip Morris.^^
Can you wait for the long-term benefits from fad
adoption? The literature indicates that the life
cycles of fads are getting shorter. This may be
because of mounting external pressures on man-
agers to be successful and competitive in an
increasingly complex global environment. Achiev-
ing lasting benefits from something as fundamen-
tally different as self-managed teams takes time
and patience. CAE Electronics Ltd. found persever-
ance paid off when it implemented QCs in the late
1970s and early 1980s. The first attempts failed for
the standard reasons: lack of management com-
mitment, poor planning, and little training. By
early 1990, however, CAE was ready to try again
and hired a full-time QC facilitator. Since that
time, 44 major projects have been recommended to
management by the QC teams, and all but one
have been accepted and implemented.^^
The literature indicates that the life
cycles of fads are getting shorter.
Can organizational inertia and resistance to
change be managed to successfully implement the
131
fad? Change always produces stress on employees
and the organization's processes. Can this stress
be managed in such a way that the fad is accepted
comfortably in a reasonable amount of time? One
success story is that told by Rich Teerlink. When
Teerlink decided that a massive change program
needed to be instituted to save the faltering Har-
ley-Davidson organization, he teamed with consul-
tant Lee Ozley to introduce participative manage-
ment and self-managed teams. Despite initial
resistance, he eventually reported success:
Employee satisfaction and "empowerment" at
Harley-Davidson are at record levels, which
may also explain why customer satisfaction
with the Harley-Davidson Sportster has im-
proved by 200%. The fact that a 16-24 month
waiting period has been reduced to 2 weeks or
less clearly has delighted all stakeholders.^'
Do you have a choice? Managers often find that
they are under political pressure from upper man-
agement to institute the newest fad in their organ-
izations. Likewise, they may feel pressure to appear
progressive and up-to-date in their managerial style
and tools. In this case, managers may feel compelled
to try their best to operationalize the fad. Consider,
for example, the 1999 survey by Office Team that
showed that 79 percent of top executives surveyed
thought self-managed teams would increase produc-
tivity for U.S. companies. Likewise, 84 percent be-
lieved employees have adopted a better team-play
attitude over the last five years. Managers reading
these statistics would be hard pressed to explain
why their companies were not making use of the
newest techniques.^^
Considering these U questions can help manag-
ers decide whether to support adoption of a partic-
ular fad and give them reasons to justify the deci-
sion. After all, the goal of fad adoption is to provide
an innovative technique to improve organizational
performance. Likewise, the adopter will want to
embrace a fad that has a good chance of evolving
into a standard management practice over time.
Otherwise, the effort and cost of the fad adoption
are unlikely to justify the short-term results.
The Benefits of Fads
Understanding management fads and translating
them into practice within the organization is a
mark of the manager who stays current in both
theory and practice. This ability serves two pur-
poses for the manager. First, it demonstrates that
the person is up-to-date on current management
techniques designed to increase organizational ef-
132 Academy of Management Executive
fectiveness. It prepares the individual in a very
real way for the next management fad or fashion
that is bound to come along. Whether to adopt a
specific fad for a given organization depends on
the fit of that fad. Managers can use the 11 ques-
tions in Table 3 to help make this decision.
Recent research suggests that, while there is no
proven correlation between adopting management
fads like TQM, empowerment, and self-managed
teams, and resulting financial performance, there
are other documented benefits. A study of the 100
largest industrial corporations, based on the 1995
Forfune database, showed that organizations that
were closely associated with popular management
fads were more admired by the public and thought
to be more innovative. These companies were also
perceived as having better managers. The same
research confirmed that CEOs of these firms also
benefited from increased compensation, regard-
less of corporate performance.^^
Recent research suggests that, while
there is no proven correlation between
adopting management fads like TQM,
empowerment, and self-managed teams,
and resulting financial performance,
there are other documented benefits.
Management fads, like clothing fads, are cyclical
in nature. They start out quietly, attract a lot of atten-
tion, spread through expanding adoption by people
who want to be in the in crowd, then often fade into
obscurity as the adopters tire of the fad and the effort
required to maintain it. Some fads, however, are so
useful that they become mainstays of our repertoire.
Other fads are retired, only to come back in a slightly
different form years later.
Our advice to managers? Hold on to the remnants
of MBO and TQM as you would to your favorite old
tie or skirt. Even if you can't use them today, they will
undoubtedly fit into the changing fashion demands
(or managerial environment) of tomorrow.
Acknowledgments
This article was accepted for the New Time special call ior
papers, which was the theme of the 2000 Academy of Manage-
ment meetings. The authors would like to thank Editor Sheila
Puifer and acknowledge the special issue gues! editor, the late
Richard M. Hodgetts, ior working with us on earlier versions oi
this manuscript.
Endnotes
' This article is based on a paper presented at the Academy
oi Management's 2000 annual meeting in Toronto, and entitled:
November
A look back at five management iads of the late twentieth
century: Their roots, their evolution, and their iniluence on man-
agement today.
^ See the following articles ior earlier work on management
iads: Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy oi
Management Review. 21(1): 254-285; Abrahamson, E., 1996. Man-
agement fashion, academic fashion, and enduring truths. Acad-
emy o! Management Review 21(3): 616-619; Abrahamson, E., &
Fairchild, G. 1997. Management fashion: Lifecycles, triggers,
and collective learning processes. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 254-256; Carson, P. P., Lanier, P. A., Carson, K. D.,
& Berkenmeier, B. J. 1999. An historical perspective on iad adop-
tion and abandonment: Developing theory from the manage-
ment fad jungle. /ournaJ of Management History. 5: 320-333;
Chaudron, D. 1996. The battle of the buzzwords. HR Focus 73(5):
13: DeBare, I. Quality craze: Oiten-ridiculed management fads
have helped improve performance at U.S. companies. San Fran-
cisco Chronicle. 3 March 1999, Bl; Ettorre, B. 1997. What's the
next business buzzword? Management Review, 86(8): 33-35;
Graves, J. 1994. Management tools that work. For(tine, 129(11): 15;
Malone, M. S. A way too short history of fads. Forbes, 7 April
1997. 72; McKinley, W. 1996. What's hot and what's not. Academy
of Management Review, 2i(3): 614-616; Spell, C. S. 1998. Where
do management lashions come from, and how long do they
last? Paper presented at the annual meeting oi the Academy oi
Management, San Diego; Stipp, D. 1996. The theory of fads.
Fortune. 134(7): 49-52; Wartenberg,M. 1996. Management iads or
management basics. Management Review, 85(3): 62; Worren. N.
1996. Management fashion. Academy of Management Review,
2i(3): 6i3-614; and Zemke, R. 1995. In defense of fad surfing.
Training, 32(9): 8,
^ For books on the subject of management fads, see Hakuta,
K, 1988. How to create your own iad. New York: Morrow; Niien-
berg, J. 1997. Power toois; A leader's guide lo fhe latest manage-
ment thinking. Englewood Clilis, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Shapiro,
E. C. 1996. Fad surfing in the boardroom: Reclaiming the cour-
age to manage in the age of instant answers. Institutional In-
vestor Systems, Inc.; and Wende], C. B., 8f Svensson, E. 1995.
Business buzzwords. New York: Amacom.
" Ginzl, D. 1996. Who's in charge here? Managers, consult-
ants, and management fashions in the 1990s. Commercial Lend-
ing Review. 11(2): 90.
^ Abrahamson. Management fashion, op. cit.
^ FOI a good discussion oi how fads develop and why, see:
Carson et al., op. cit.
^ Abrahamson, E. 1999. Liiecycles, triggers, and collective leam-
ing processes. Adminisfrafive Science Quarferiy, 44(4): 708-740.
^ Abrahamson & Fairchild, op. cit.
^ Eric Abrahamson has been one oi the most prolific writers
on management fads. This information comes from Abraham-
son, 1996, Management fashion, op, cit.
'" Gaibraith, J. R. 1980, Applying theory to the management of
organizations. In W. M. Evan, (Ed.), Fronfiers in organization and
management: 162. New York: Praeger,
" Stipp, op, cit.
'^ Carson et al., op. cit.
'3 Ibid,
'^ Spell, op. cit.
'^ Abrahamson & Fairchild, op. cit.
'^ Ettorre, op, cit.
" For information on the beginnings of MBO, see Drucker, P,
1954. The practice of management. New York: Harper & Row;
Drucker, P. 1964. Managing for resuJfs. New York: Harper & Row,
'^Quigley, P. E. 1993. Can management by objectives be
compatible with quality? IIF Solutions. 25(7): 14-17.
'^ Odiorne, G, S. 1992. MBO means having a.goal and a plan:
Not just a goal. Management, 44(1): 8-14,
2001 Gibson and Tesone 133

' ° U e , W. B., & Skarke, M. G. 1996. Value-added fads: From
passing fancy to eternal truths. /ournaJ of Management Con-
sulting, 9(2): 10-15.
^' Broadwell, M. M, 1995. Why command and control won't go
away. Training, 32(9): 63-69,
*' French, W. L,, & Bell, C. H., Jr, 1995. Organizatjon deveJop-
ment; Behaviorai science interventions for organization im-
provement, 5th ed, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
^^ Harvey, D. F., & Brown, D. R. 1992, An experiential approach to
organization development. Englewood Clifis, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
=* Ibid,, 295,
^^ Ibid., 294,
^^ Brocka, B., 8f Brocka, M. S, 1992, Quality management: Im-
plementing the best ideas of the masters. Homewood, IL: Busi-
ness One Irwin.
" Gray, G. R. 1993, Quality circles: An update, S.A.M. Ad-
vanced Management Journal, 58(2): 41.
^^ A quality concept catches on worldwide. Industry Week, 16
April 1979, 125.
^^ Gray & Spring, op. cit.
^° Juran, J, M.. & Gryno. F. M. 1993, Quality planning and
analysis: From product development through use, 3rd ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
^' Nelson, J. Quality circles become contagious. Industry
Week. 14 April 1980, 99.
^^ Stimson, R. A,, 8t Mossburg, P. A. 1983. Quality circles: The
latest lad? NafionaJ Contract Management Journal, 17(1): 41.
^^ Tang, T., L., & Butler, E. 1997, Attributions oi quality circles'
problem-salving failure: Differences among management, sup-
porting staif, and quality circle members. Public Personnel
Management, 26(2): 203-225,
^^ Abrahamson, 1996, Management fashion, op. cit.
^^ Ibid.
^^ luran, J. M. 1992. Juran on quality by design: The new steps
for planning quality into goods and services. New York: The
Free Press.
^'' Naj, A. K, Shifting gears: Some manufacturers drop efforts
to adopt Japanese techniques—they hit snags with ideas such
a s quality circles, just-in-time deliveries—melding people and
machines. The Wall Street Journal. 1 May 1993, Al.
^^ Worren, op. cit.
^^ Lee & Skarke, op. cit.
^° McConnell, C. R. 1992. Quality: A watchword for the 1990s
or the same old song? The Healthcare Supervisor, 10(4): 75-83.
•" Holand, C , & Dey, K. 1996. Making quaiity pay. Telephony.
230(3): 34-40,
••^ Wiersema, W. H. 1998. Producing better quality at lower
cost. ZlecXxical Apparatus. 51(9): 42-43.
"^ Jacob, R, 1993. TQM: More than a dying fad? Forfune, 128(9);
66-72.
" Ibid,
^^Youssef, M. A,, Libby, P., A!-Khaiaji, A., & Sawyer. G., Jr.
1998. TQM implementation barriers in academe: A iramework
for further investigation, /nfernafiona/ 7ournai of Technology
Management, 16(4-6): 584-593,
"^Yeatts. D. E., & Hyten, C. 1998. High-performing self-
managed work feams: A comparison of theory fo practice. Thou-
sand Qaks, CA: Sage.
•" Moravec, M., johannessen, Q. J,, 8E Hjemas, T, A. 1998. The
well managed SMT. Managemenf Review, 87(6): 56-58.
^^ Garson, B. E., & Stanwyck, D. J. 1997. Locus of control and
incentive in self-managed teams. Human Resource Develop-
ment Quarterly. 8(3): 247-258.
^^ Wall, T, D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg, C. W. 1988,
Outcomes oi autonomous workgroups: A long-term iield exper-
iment. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2): 280-304.
^" Pfeifer, J. 1999. Seven practices of successful organizations.
Health Forum Journal, 42(1): 24-27.
^' Moravec et al., op. cit.
•''^ Chaston, I. 1998. Self-managed teams: Assessing the ben-
eiits for small service-sector firms. British Journal of Manage-
ment, 9(1): 1-12.
^^ Moravec, M. 1997. Thumbs up ior self-managed teams.
Management Review, 86(7): 42.
'•''^ Hodgetts, R. M. 1996, fmp/ementing TQM in small & medi-
um-sized organizations. New York: AMACOM.
^^ DeBare, H, Quality craze: Often-ridiculed management
fads have helped improve performance at U,S. companies. San
Francisco Chronicle, 5 March 1999, Bl.
''^ Hodgetts, op, cit.
^'Anonymous, 1997, From quality circles to TQM. Govern-
ment Executive, 29(7): 60-62.
^^ Moravec, op. cit.
^^ Gray, op. cit,
^° Davidson, G. 1995, Quality circles didn't die—They just
keep improving. CMA, 69(1): 6.
^' Singer, J., & Duvall, S. 2000. High performance partnering
by self-managed teams in manuiacturing. Engineering Man-
agement Journal. 12(4): 9-15.
^^ Sullivan, L. 1999. Tomorrow's workplace. Risk Manage-
ment. 46(9}: 9.
''^ Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L- D. 2000. What bandwagons bring:
Effects of popular management techniques on corporate perfor-
mance, reputation, and CEO pay. Adminisfrafive Science Quar-
ferly, 45(3): 523-556,
^•' Adapted from Carson et al., op. cit.

Jane Whitney Gibson is a profes- Dana V. Tesone is an assistant

sor of management at the Wayne professor in the School of Hos-
Huizenga Graduate School oi pitality Management at the
Management and Entrepreneur- University of Central Florida.
ship at Nova Southeastern Uni- He has held administrative
versity, where she received her and executive positions in aca-
DBA. She teaches courses in demic and corporate organiza-
management, organizational be- tions. He received his Ph.D.
havior, and human resources. from Nova Southeastern Uni-
She is the author of books on su- versity. His current research is
pervision and communication. in leadership, organization
Her current research interests in- theory, and distance learning.
clude leadership, mentoring, Contact: dfesone@mai/.uc/.edu.
and online education. Contact:
gibson@nova.edu.