According to P. F. Drucker, the management philosophy known as Total Quality Management (TQM), which is designed to be adopted...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
According to P. F. Drucker, the management philosophy known as Total Quality Management (TQM), which is designed to be adopted consistently throughout an organization and to improve customer service by using sampling theory to reduce the variability of a product's quality, can work successfully in conjunction with two older management systems. As Drucker notes, TQM's scientific approach is consistent with the statistical sampling techniques of the "rationalist" school of scientific management, and the organizational structure associated with TQM is consistent with the social and psychological emphases of the "human relations" school of management.
However, TQM cannot simply be grafted onto these systems or onto certain other non-TQM management systems. Although, as Drucker contends, TQM shares with such systems the ultimate objective of increasing profitability, TQM requires fundamentally different strategies. While the other management systems referred to use upper management decision-making and employee specialization to maximize shareholder profits over the short term, TQM envisions the interests of employees, shareholders, and customers as convergent. For example, lower prices not only benefit consumers but also enhance an organization's competitive edge and ensure its continuance, thus benefiting employees and owners. TQM's emphasis on shared interests is reflected in the decentralized decision-making, integrated production activity, and lateral structure of organizations that achieve the benefits of TQM.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| According to P. F. Drucker, the management philosophy known as Total Quality Management (TQM), which is designed to be adopted consistently throughout an organization and to improve customer service by using sampling theory to reduce the variability of a product's quality, can work successfully in conjunction with two older management systems. |
What it says: A researcher named Drucker believes TQM (a management approach focused on consistent quality and customer service) can work alongside two other, older management approaches. What it does: Introduces the main topic and Drucker's primary claim Source/Type: Researcher's claim (Drucker's opinion) Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our opening - establishes the foundation for everything that follows What We Know So Far: • TQM exists as a management philosophy • It focuses on consistent quality and customer service • Drucker thinks it can work with two older systems What We Don't Know Yet: • What are these two older systems? • How exactly can they work together? • Are there any limitations? Visualization: Think of TQM as a new puzzle piece that Drucker believes can fit with two existing puzzle pieces to form a complete management picture. Reading Strategy Insight: This opening gives us the roadmap - expect the passage to explain how TQM connects with these older systems. |
| As Drucker notes, TQM's scientific approach is consistent with the statistical sampling techniques of the "rationalist" school of scientific management, and the organizational structure associated with TQM is consistent with the social and psychological emphases of the "human relations" school of management. |
What it says: Drucker explains HOW TQM works with the two older systems: TQM's scientific methods match well with the "rationalist" school, and TQM's organizational approach matches well with the "human relations" school. What it does: Provides specific explanation and evidence for the claim made in sentence 1 Source/Type: Researcher's detailed explanation (still Drucker) Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 1 told us: TQM can work with two older systems • NOW Sentence 2: Explains exactly HOW - through scientific consistency and organizational consistency • This is elaboration, not new complexity! What We Know So Far: • The two older systems are: "rationalist" and "human relations" schools • TQM connects through: scientific methods + organizational structure • All three systems have compatible elements Visualization: • Rationalist school: Uses statistical/scientific methods → TQM also uses scientific approach = MATCH • Human relations school: Focuses on social/psychological aspects → TQM has compatible organizational structure = MATCH Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - the author is helping us by giving concrete details about the vague "two older systems" from sentence 1. |
| However, TQM cannot simply be grafted onto these systems or onto certain other non-TQM management systems. |
What it says: But TQM can't just be slapped onto these older systems or other management systems - it's not that simple. What it does: Introduces a important limitation/qualification to the compatibility described in sentences 1-2 Source/Type: Author's clarification (note: no longer attributed to Drucker) Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentences 1-2 told us: TQM can work successfully with older systems • NOW Sentence 3: Clarifies this doesn't mean it's easy - you can't just "graft" them together • This is a qualification, not a contradiction What We Know So Far: • TQM is compatible with rationalist and human relations schools • BUT compatibility ≠ simple integration • There must be more specific requirements for success What We Don't Know Yet: • What makes integration difficult? • What does TQM require instead? Visualization: Think of compatible puzzle pieces that still need to be carefully aligned - they can fit together, but you can't just force them into place. Reading Strategy Insight: The "However" signals a shift, but notice this doesn't contradict the earlier claim - it just adds nuance. Expect the next sentences to explain what TQM DOES require. |
| Although, as Drucker contends, TQM shares with such systems the ultimate objective of increasing profitability, TQM requires fundamentally different strategies. |
What it says: Even though TQM and the older systems all want to increase profits (according to Drucker), TQM needs completely different strategies to achieve this goal. What it does: Explains WHY simple grafting doesn't work - different strategies needed despite shared goals Source/Type: Mixed - references Drucker's view on shared objectives, author's point about different strategies Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 3 told us: TQM can't simply be grafted onto other systems • NOW Sentence 4: Explains why - they share goals but need different strategies • This directly answers the "why" question from sentence 3 What We Know So Far: • All management systems aim for profitability (common goal) • TQM uses fundamentally different strategies (different methods) • This strategy difference explains why simple "grafting" fails What We Don't Know Yet: • What ARE these different strategies? • How do they compare specifically? Visualization: • All systems: Target = Higher Profits • Traditional systems: Use Strategy A to reach target • TQM: Uses Strategy B to reach same target • Result: Can't just combine A + B without careful planning Reading Strategy Insight: This sentence bridges our understanding - it connects the compatibility (sentences 1-2) with the integration challenge (sentence 3). The logic is becoming clearer, not more complex. |
| While the other management systems referred to use upper management decision-making and employee specialization to maximize shareholder profits over the short term, TQM envisions the interests of employees, shareholders, and customers as convergent. |
What it says: Here are the specific different strategies: Traditional systems use top-down decisions and specialized workers to maximize short-term shareholder profits, while TQM believes employee, shareholder, and customer interests can all align. What it does: Provides the concrete comparison of strategies that was promised in sentence 4 Source/Type: Author's detailed comparison Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 4 told us: TQM requires fundamentally different strategies • NOW Sentence 5: Shows us EXACTLY what those different strategies are • This is pure elaboration - giving us the specific details we needed What We Know So Far: • Traditional approach: Top-down + specialization + short-term shareholder focus • TQM approach: Sees all stakeholder interests as aligned • This fundamental difference explains integration challenges Visualization: • Traditional Systems: CEO/Managers make decisions → Specialized workers execute → Goal: Quick shareholder profits • TQM: Employee interests + Shareholder interests + Customer interests = All pointing in same direction Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - the passage is delivering exactly what it promised. No new complexity, just the concrete details that make the abstract concept clear. |
| For example, lower prices not only benefit consumers but also enhance an organization's competitive edge and ensure its continuance, thus benefiting employees and owners. |
What it says: Here's how convergent interests work in practice: When companies lower prices, customers benefit (obvious), but this also helps the company compete better and survive longer, which helps employees (job security) and owners (long-term success). What it does: Provides a concrete example of the "convergent interests" concept from sentence 5 Source/Type: Author's illustrative example Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 5 told us: TQM sees all stakeholder interests as convergent • NOW Sentence 6: Gives us a specific, concrete example of how this works • This is pure reinforcement - making the abstract concept tangible What We Know So Far: • TQM's "convergent interests" isn't just theory - it has practical applications • Lower prices demonstrate how one action can benefit all stakeholders • This contrasts with traditional short-term, shareholder-only focus Visualization: Lower Prices → • Customers: Save money ✓ • Company: More competitive, stays in business ✓ • Employees: Job security from company success ✓ • Owners: Long-term profitability ✓ Reading Strategy Insight: This is the most comfortable sentence yet - it's just a simple, practical example. The author is helping us understand, not testing us with new concepts. |
| TQM's emphasis on shared interests is reflected in the decentralized decision-making, integrated production activity, and lateral structure of organizations that achieve the benefits of TQM. |
What it says: TQM's focus on shared interests shows up in how successful TQM organizations actually operate: they use decentralized decisions, integrated production, and lateral (sideways) structure. What it does: Connects TQM's philosophy (shared interests) to its practical organizational structure Source/Type: Author's concluding synthesis Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentences 5-6 explained: TQM's convergent interests philosophy and example • NOW Sentence 7: Shows how this philosophy translates into actual organizational structure • This completes the picture - from philosophy to practice to structure What We Know So Far - Complete Picture: • TQM can work with older systems but requires careful integration • TQM uses fundamentally different strategies (convergent vs. shareholder-focused) • These strategies have practical applications (like pricing) • The philosophy shapes actual organizational structure Visualization: TQM Philosophy: Shared interests → Organizational Structure: • Decentralized decisions (not top-down) • Integrated production (not specialized silos) • Lateral structure (not hierarchical) Reading Strategy Insight: This final sentence ties everything together beautifully. We've gone from abstract compatibility to concrete organizational features. The passage has built a complete, logical argument without introducing any surprising complexity. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain how TQM can work with older management systems while clarifying why this integration requires careful implementation rather than simple combination.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their explanation in a logical sequence that moves from broad claims to specific details:
- First, the author introduces Drucker's claim that TQM can work successfully with two older management approaches
- Next, the author explains exactly how this compatibility works by showing TQM's scientific methods match the rationalist school and its organizational approach matches the human relations school
- Then, the author adds an important qualification that TQM cannot simply be grafted onto these systems because it requires fundamentally different strategies, even though all systems share the goal of increasing profits
- Finally, the author contrasts these different strategies by showing how traditional systems focus on top-down decisions and short-term shareholder profits while TQM aligns all stakeholder interests, then provides a concrete example and connects this philosophy to actual organizational structures
Main Point:
While TQM is compatible with older management systems because of shared scientific approaches and organizational elements, successful integration requires adopting TQM's fundamentally different strategy of aligning employee, customer, and shareholder interests rather than simply adding TQM practices to existing short-term, shareholder-focused approaches.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the primary purpose of the entire passage. We need to determine what the author's main goal was in writing this passage - what overarching point they were trying to make about TQM and its relationship to other management systems.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our progressive analysis, we can see the passage follows a clear structure:
- Opening claim: TQM can work successfully with two older management systems (rationalist and human relations schools)
- Explanation of compatibility: Shows how TQM's scientific approach matches rationalist methods and its organizational structure matches human relations emphasis
- Important qualification: TQM cannot simply be grafted onto these systems
- Reason for complexity: While all systems share profit goals, TQM requires fundamentally different strategies
- Specific contrast: Traditional systems use top-down, short-term approaches vs. TQM's convergent stakeholder interests
- Concrete example: Lower prices benefiting all stakeholders
- Structural implications: How TQM philosophy translates to organizational features
Prethinking:
The passage is fundamentally about relationships - specifically, how TQM relates to other management systems. The author spends the entire passage explaining:
- How TQM can work WITH certain older systems (compatibility)
- How TQM differs FROM other systems (strategic differences)
- Why simple integration doesn't work (different approaches required)
This is not primarily about advantages, contradictions, or shared features - it's about explaining the complex relationship between TQM and other management approaches. The author wants us to understand both the connections AND the distinctions.
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't identify contradictions within TQM itself
• Instead, it explains how TQM can work with other systems while requiring different strategies
• The author presents TQM as internally consistent, just different from other approaches
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you think the "However" and "Although" language indicated contradictions?
→ These words introduce qualifications and nuances, not internal contradictions in TQM
1. Did you see the contrast between TQM and traditional systems as contradictions?
→ These are differences between systems, not contradictions within one system
Why It's Wrong:
• While the passage does compare objectives, this is not the primary purpose
• The comparison of objectives (all want profitability) is used to support the main point about relationships
• The focus is more on how systems can work together despite different strategies
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you focus too much on the sentence about shared profitability goals?
→ This comparison serves the larger purpose of explaining system relationships
1. Did you mistake supporting details for the main purpose?
→ Look for what the entire passage structure is building toward, not individual comparisons
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage emphasizes differences more than shared features
• Shared features (like profitability goals) are mentioned to contrast with different strategies
• The main point is about relationships, not commonalities
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you focus on the compatibility mentioned early in the passage?
→ Compatibility doesn't mean shared features - it means systems can work together despite differences
1. Did you think the scientific and organizational connections meant shared features?
→ These are points of compatibility, not identical organizational features
Why It's Right:
• The entire passage structure focuses on how TQM relates to other management systems
• It explains both compatibility (can work together) and differences (requires different strategies)
• Every major point in the passage serves to clarify TQM's relationship to older systems
• The passage moves from broad relationship claims to specific relationship details
Key Evidence: "According to P. F. Drucker, the management philosophy known as Total Quality Management (TQM)... can work successfully in conjunction with two older management systems" and "However, TQM cannot simply be grafted onto these systems" - the entire passage explains this complex relationship
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't argue that TQM is better than other systems
• It explains how systems can work together, not which is superior
• The focus is on compatibility and integration challenges, not comparative advantages
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did you think explaining TQM's different approach meant showing its advantages?
→ Different doesn't mean better - the author is explaining relationships, not ranking systems
1. Did the positive example about lower prices make you think this showed advantages?
→ This example illustrates how TQM works, not why it's better than other approaches