Journal of Safety Research 69 (2019) 193–200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Safety Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr

Quality and safety management practices: The theory of quality

management approach
Bruce J. Ladewski, a Ahmed Jalil Al-Bayati b,⁎
a
Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr, and Huber, 4775 Campus Dr, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, United States
b
Kimmel School of Construction Management, 225 Belk, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction: Safety management is frequently treated as non-essential and incidental to core business functions.
Received 3 October 2018 Accordingly, the importance of safety management is often underestimated. The Theory of Quality Management
Received in revised form 10 February 2019 was investigated in this study to find the degree of linkage between the management of quality and safety.
Accepted 5 March 2019
Method: Data derived from a 40-item online survey were used to test the Theory of Quality Management
Available online 25 March 2019
model factors among quality and safety professionals. The surveys were distributed to quality and safety
professionals represented by the American Society for Quality (ASQ) and American Society of Safety Engineers
(ASSE), for a total of 144 completed surveys, with the largest number coming from manufacturing organizations.
Results: the findings suggest good internal consistency for the variables and good correlations between
the quality and safety professional responses. Conclusions: This study offers evidence that the organizational
functions of safety and quality can follow the same management model, broadening the understanding of the
Theory of Quality Management from focusing only the management of quality, to embracing the management
of safety. Practical Application: The finding could help establishments improve overall worker safety and health
using quality tools and techniques.
© 2019 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction about workplace regulations on safety and employee rights to a safe

The U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2016 there were
2.9 million nonfatal workplace injuries and 5190 fatal injuries (USDOL,
2018a; USDOL, 2018b). The annual direct and indirect costs from seri-
ous injuries in 2016 are estimated at $151.1 billion (National Safety
Council, 2018). In response to the 2016 and previous years staggering
numbers, government, industry, and standards organizations have fo-
cused efforts on eliminating, or at least reducing, the human and eco-
nomic costs of these preventable injuries and deaths by implementing
various strategies to improve employee safety in the workplace. The
government response is the implementation of workplace regulations
as administered by OSHA. The OSHA approach follows a general ap-
proach of monitoring the workplace through workplace inspections
and employee hazard recognition (OSHA, 2016; Taylor, 2015). Work-
place inspections are performed by a review of annual reporting or by
an onsite inspection by an OSHA officer. On the other hand, employee
hazard recognition is accomplished by educating individuals and orga-
nizations through standardized 10- and 30-h courses or like Total
Worker Health® intended to make workers more knowledgeable
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ajalbayati@wcu.edu (A.J. Al-Bayati).
workplace (Anger et al., 2015; Taylor, 2015). The assumption is that em-
ployees will identify and communicate discrepancies between facility
operations and regulatory requirements. Both the inspection and edu-
cation approaches to workplace safety focus on meeting OSHA
regulations.
The industry response to OSHA regulations was to implement de
facto safety programs focused on meeting OSHA's legally enforceable re-
quirements (Gray & Scholz, 1993; Wachter, 2011). Safety management
techniques took two general directions: (1) manage safety by focusing
on meeting OSHA's technical and training requirements to avoid penal-
ties and enforcement actions, and (2) manage safety by self-correcting,
either by identifying and reporting hazards or by correcting unsafe be-
haviors. Accordingly, several national and international organizations
developed and published written safety management systems (SMS)
designed to fit a wide variety of organizations. An SMS is a method of
following a systematic, specific, and comprehensive process to proac-
tively manage safety risks in the workplace (Transport Canada, 2001).
Currently, there are numerous trade organization and SMS standards.
A recently finalized SMS titled ISO 45001, for example, was published
through the International Organization of Standardization (ISO). ISO
45001 is an international safety management system standard meant
to communize global safety management using a method that is

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.03.004
0022-4375/© 2019 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
194 B.J. Ladewski, A.J. Al-Bayati / Journal of Safety Research 69 (2019) 193–200
consistent with ISO environmental and ISO quality management sys-
tems (Rostykus & Barker, 2018). Establishments adapt proposed SMSs
for a variety of reasons, including protecting the workforce from inju-
ries, reducing costs associated with workplace injuries, and complying
with OSHA regulations.
1.1. Statement of the problem
The main purpose of a safety management system is to prevent inju-
ries in the workplace. However, they often result in deflecting the intent
of the true focus of a safety program. This deviation leads to focusing on
non-essential functions to meet requirements that are unrelated to
worker safety, such as workers surveilling each other for breaches in
safe conduct. Redirecting safety to fulfill non-essential and non-recog-
nizable functions perpetuates safety as a non-core business obligation
that is present to prevent governmental fines or sanctions, but inessen-
tial to businesses functions. The schism between safety and the broader
business culture perpetuates safety as an encumbrance and not an aid to
business functioning. Integrating safety into business functioning to re-
duce work-related fatal and non-fatal injuries, however, is crucial. There
is a commonality between the management of quality and the manage-
ment of safety (Behm, Veltri, & Kleinsorge, 2004; Das, Pagell, Behm, &
Veltri, 2008; Deming, 1986; Manuele, 2003; Maxfield, 2010; Manzella,
1997; Veltri et al., 2013; Al-Bayati, Abudayyeh, Fredericks, & Butt,
2017). For example, Behm et al. (2004) suggest that four categories of
“prevention, detection, internal failures, and external failures” used to
drive decision-making and operating action for managing quality can
be directly applied to managing safety. Veltri et al. (2013) similarly pro-
vided a summary of studies of safety and operations, noting “positive
synergies between safety and operations.” Likewise, Das et al. (2008)
and Maxfield (2010) stated that there is evidence that links safety per-
ceptions with quality outcomes. Accordingly, the techniques of quality
management could offer a good model for the integration of safety.
1.2. Study purpose and research questions
Many studies have examined the Theory of Quality Management
(Anderson, Rungtusanatham, & Schroeder, 1994; Anderson,
Rungtusanatham, Schroeder, & Devaraj, 1995; Fisher, Barfield, Li, &
Mehta, 2005; Grandzol & Greshon, 1998; Rungtusanatham, Forza,
Filippini, & Anderson, 1998; Rungtusanatham, Ogden, & Wu, 2003).
Most of these studies proposed that the development of the Theory of
Quality Management should be expanded to other areas of manage-
ment (Anderson et al., 1994; Anderson et al., 1995; Rungtusanatham
et al., 1998; Rungtusanatham et al., 2003). Accordingly, this study
adopts the developing theory of the management of quality to include
safety management; that is, safety. The idea of linking the business prac-
tices of quality and safety is not new and was identified by Deming, who
stated, “Safety, like quality, improves when we improve the system. The
quality of work life will improve when management views safety as the
results of their management system rather than treating accidents as a
special occurrence outside their management system” (Rahimi, 1993).
Also stated that quality and safety would be stronger values within an
organization if their management was in harmony rather than discon-
nected. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to find if the evolving
theory of the management of quality (Fisher, Elrod, & Mehta, 2011;
Khan, 2010; Zu, Fredendall, & Douglas, 2008) could be generalized to
other areas of management, including the management of safety.
Many researchers have written about the inherent improvements of
the management of quality with that of safety (Asif, Fisscher, de Bruijn,
& Pagell, 2010; Hill, 2006; Veltri et al., 2013). However, no researchers
have studied the existence of linkages between them. It is important
to notice that while there are many similarities between the organiza-
tional functions of quality and safety management, there is a major dif-
ference in focus between them. Quality is focused on improving the
product or service provided to the customer (Chiarini, 2011), and safety
is focused on improving the conditions that exist in producing the prod-
uct or service (Maxfield, 2010). As a result, client represents the inter-
ests of the employee for safety and the customer for product quality
(Herrero, Saldaña, Manzanedo del Campo, & Ritzel, 2002). Both the
quality and safety functions add value to the organization; quality in-
creases the value of the product by increasing revenue through savings
or increased sales, and safety increases the value of the product by de-
creasing costs associated with injuries. The end user that benefits from
the increase in product value by the quality and safety functions is de-
fined as the client (Herrero et al., 2002; Lawton, 1993). Accordingly, re-
search questions to test the level of linkages are as follows:
1. What differences in perceptions regarding the presence of the man-
agement factors exist between quality and safety professionals?
2. What is the “goodness of fit” of the Fig. 1 model to the quality and
safety factors for client (customer and employee) satisfaction?
Fig. 1 illustrates a quality model showing factors of quality manage-
ment that has been identified in several studies (Anderson et al., 1994;
Anderson et al., 1995; Fisher et al., 2005; Rungtusanatham et al., 1998;
Rungtusanatham et al., 2003). This model will be used to answer the re-
search questions. Accordingly, this study intends to investigate if the
management of quality and the management of safety follow the
same model.
1.3. Conceptual frame
Modifications were required to the original Anderson et al. (1994)
model, factor definitions, and survey questions to study the safety-qual-
ity connection. The Theory of Quality Management model was based on
a summary developed by a Delphi panel of experts assembled by
Anderson et al. (1994) to operationalize the 14 Points of Management
proposed by Deming (1986). The first cell in the Fig. 1 is based on the
Anderson et al. (1994) factor titled “Visionary Leadership.” This factor
represents the common vision of top management that cascades
throughout the model, setting the tone for the organizational culture,
including safety and quality. Anderson et al. (1994) described leadership
as defining, communicating, and implementing a plan of action that in-
spires and motivates the entire organization. The factors of “Communi-
cation and Cooperation” and “Workforce Management” are driven,
focused, and funded by upper management's vision and support. “Com-
munication and Cooperation” and “Workforce Management” are the
manifestation of direction and support of the “Leadership in Managing
Quality and Safety” into the organization. “Process Management” is de-
fined by the methods and technologies used in the production of the
organization's goods and services. This Anderson et al. (1994) factor fo-
cused only on meeting quality standards, but Zu et al. (2008) refocused
this factor on mistake-proofing processes. While it is limited by the
methods and behaviors for safety and quality used in the production
of the organization's goods and services, it is unlimited in how it can
use the methods and behaviors in adapting to new challenges from in-
side and outside the organization (Anderson et al., 1994). Anderson et
al.'s (1994) factor titled “Process Management” was kept, but the de-
scription of its underlying concepts was adjusted to make room for
both quality and safety in the factor.
Anderson et al.'s (1994) factors of “Continuous Improvement” and
“Employee Fulfillment” represent the evolutionary adaptations made
to the operating methods and culture to improve both methods and
align workers with leadership's vision and direction. “Continuous Im-
provement” is best represented as a helix of improvements moving
through time. “Continuous Improvement” follows the cycle of “plan,
do, check and act” that represents “better and better quality, [with]
less and less variation” (Deming as cited in Anderson et al., 1994, p.
488). The “plan, do, check and act” cycle includes deciding what to do,
doing it, implementing it, and then testing the system to determine its
level of success (Deming, 1986). Though the “plan, do, check and act”
 B.J. Ladewski, A.J. Al-Bayati / Journal of Safety Research 69 (2019) 193–200
Communication
and Cooperation
Leadership in
Managing Process
Quality and Management
Safety
Workforce
Management
Fig. 1. The Theory of Quality Management factors model.
cycle was originally focused on improving quality, it is completely in
alignment with improvements in worker safety (Manuele, 2003). The
Anderson et al. (1994) factor titled “Continuous Improvement” was
kept, but the underlying concepts were modified to emphasize more
of an aggressive approach to improvements in all aspects of operations.
“Client Focus” represents an organization's orientation on meeting
the needs of its employees for safety, and its customers for quality in
producing and supplying goods and services. “Client Focus” is based
on the Grandzol and Greshon (1998) factor of “Customer Focus.” “Client
Satisfaction” represents a common measurement for both quality and
safety and is based on the Anderson et al. (1994) factor of “Customer
Satisfaction.” If the external customer not satisfied with the quality of
the product, the customer would seek another supplier. If employees
are concerned about their safety, they are distracted from their role
resulting in a reduction in their “bandwidth” at the cost of some mea-
sured reduction in quality and productivity (Maxfield, 2010;
Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013; Senge, 2006). The resulting reduction in
quality and productivity will result some effect on the final product
and customer satisfaction. Anderson et al.'s (1994) factor titled “Cus-
tomer Satisfaction” was changed to “Client Satisfaction” to broaden
the factor to allow inclusion of both quality and safety in this factor.
Table 1 illustrates the terms and definition used in this study.
2. Methods
2.1. Method, population, and sampling
The study and questionnaire follow a quantitative design derived,
developed, and adopted from Anderson et al. (1995), Fisher et al.
(2011), Douglas and Fredendall (2004), and Zu et al. (2008) to further
the theory of the management of quality.
The survey was based on the work of other researchers, as modified
to fit the quality causal model (Fig. 1) and the constructs and definitions
(see Appendix A). No single “best” survey could be found, so one was as-
sembled from previous research. The survey is modeled after the initial
line of questions developed to test the “World Class Manufacturing re-
search project” that operationalized Deming's “14 Points” (Anderson
et al., 1995), as refined and used by other researchers (Douglas &
Fredendall, 2004; Fisher et al., 2005; Fisher et al., 2011; Grandzol &
Greshon, 1998; Kaynak, 2003; Rungtusanatham et al., 1998;
Rungtusanatham et al., 2003; Zu et al., 2008).
The quality and safety sections of the survey include some identi-
cally worded questions, but most had to be modified with respect to ter-
minology appropriate to safety and quality (e.g., safety for quality,
employee for customer, company for facility or organization). The
survey instructions asked the respondents to read and answer the ques-
tions from their specific location and for their respective responsibilities
for the administration of quality or safety. The survey was distributed
195
Continuous
Improvement
Clienta
Satisfaction
Client
Focus
following review and approval of the project by the Western Michigan
University Institutional Review Board.
Before distributing the final survey, a pilot survey was administered
to five safety professionals and five quality professionals asking for their
comments on the clarity of survey wording and instructions. The intent
was to assure that accurate data was captured by the final survey instru-
ment administration. The most significant comment was that value
judgment wording be removed from all questions so as not confuse
the value judgments inherent in the response. After understanding the
concern, I made the change to all the questions though much of the sur-
vey question wording, including the value judgment wording, came
from earlier research surveys.
Survey participants were chosen by their implied interest in safety
and quality respectively based on their membership in the American
Table 1
The terms and definitions of the proposed method.
Factors Definitions
Leadership in managing The leadership role establishes, leads, supports, and
quality and safety accepts responsibility for quality and safety practice in
the organization. The assessment of leadership
effectiveness includes improvements to quality and
safety outcomes. The challenge for leadership is to
meet changing needs in the organizations quality and
safety processes as driven by client satisfaction.
Communication and The propensity of the organization to engage in
cooperation non-competitive activities for the improvement of
quality and safety as defined and modeled by
leadership. This is done by maintaining open
communication between the organization's
employees and the internal and external clients.
Workforce management Employees are involved in quality and safety
decisions. There is organizational wide training on
quality and safety and capability to recognize and
nurture the development of its skills, abilities, and
knowledge base for improving quality and safety as
defined by the organization's leadership.
Process management The set of activities and behavioral practices
emphasizing mistake-proofing processes. Data and
preventative maintenance are used to manage
processes, meet schedules, and maintain high
working standards.
Continuous improvement The propensity of the organization to vigorously
pursue incremental and innovative improvements in
quality and safety of the processes, products, and
services.
Client focus “The degree to which the organization's [employees
and customers] continually perceive that their needs
are being met by the way the organization's products
and services are designed and produced” (Grandzol &
Greshon, 1998, p. 103).
Client satisfaction The degree to which an organization meets the
expectations for product or service quality of its
external clients (customers) and expectations for job
safety while engaged in the production of the product
or service by its internal clients (employees).
196 B.J. Ladewski, A.J. Al-Bayati / Journal of Safety Research 69 (2019) 193–200

Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) and the American Society of Quality Table 3
(ASQ). While the exact positions of the members of these groups was The number of respondents in the survey SIC divisions.

unknown, the members of these organizations at a minimum would SIC division Safety n Quality n
have an interest in improving safety and quality in their organizations. (%) (%)
Access to the survey was included as a link in emails sent to mem- Division A: Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 1(1.0) 0(0.0)
bers of the ASSE and ASQ. The survey included a question that asked Division B: Mining 3(3.0) 0(0.0)
the respondent to choose if he/she had major responsibility for quality Division C: Factorion 6(6.1) 0(0.0)
Division D: Manufacturing 66(66.1) 37(82.2)
or safety or neither. If the respondent answered that he/she did have re-
Division E: Transportation, Communications, Electric, Gas, 2(2.0) 4(8.9)
sponsibility for quality or safety, the survey logic then directed the re- & Sanitary Services
spondent to the appropriate block of safety or quality questions. If the Division G: Retail Trade 0(0.0) 1(2.2)
respondent responded that he/she has no responsibility for either safety Division H: Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 2(2.0) 0(0.0)
or quality, the respondent bypassed all questions but was thanked for Division I: Services 11(11.1) 1(2.2)
Division J:
opening the survey. Public administration 8(8.1) 1(2.2)
The groups of quality and safety professionals was surveyed to test Unidentified 0(0.0) 1(2.2)
the universality of the Fig. 1 model. The minimum sample size would Total respondents 99(100) 45(100)
be five responses per parameter (Kline, 2016, p. 16). The parameters
were the eight arrows between factors for a total minimum of 40 re-
sponses each from the safety and quality professionals. Accordingly, ranged from 25 to 343,000, with 35 companies following a formal man-
144 responses were received (99 from safety practitioners and 45 agement system and nine not.
from quality practitioners). The survey responses were converted
from alpha to numeric values by substituting 1 for strongly disagree, 2 3.2. Data preliminary screening
for moderately disagree, 3 for somewhat disagree, 4 for somewhat
agree, 5 for moderately agree, and 6 for strongly agree. If a respondent Data from the coded survey responses were screened for missing
answered fewer than 50% of the questions in a factor, then the values. From the total 144 safety and quality survey participants, there
respondent's answers were removed. were a total of 5760 data entries with 33 entries missing for a data
loss of 0.57%. The missing variables represent a small amount of data,
2.2. Crosswalk of research questions and data analysis but to avoid the potential of losing many lines of data and any resulting
bias, hot-deck imputation was used to input data for the few missing
A crosswalk table was developed as a method of cross-referencing data points. Internal consistency of the responses within each cluster
the research questions and survey questions with the statistical analy- of survey items for the seven model factors being examined was mea-
ses used (see Table 2). The crosswalk table is a summary of the analysis sured using Cronbach's alpha. The results indicate that each group and
of data and must be understood to represent only that. The specific sta- the combined group meet the threshold of good internal consistency
tistical evaluations that answer the associated research in most cases re- with all values with α N 0.80 (Gliem & Gliem, 2003).
quire other statistics to justify the ones that are listed on the crosswalk
table. 3.3. Research question testing

3. Results
In this section, the data results are reported in the following order:
demographic descriptions, data screening, analyses of the safety and
quality groups, and answering research questions.
3.1. Demographic analysis of the quality and safety respondents
A summary of the survey respondents' Standard Industrial Classifi-
cation (SIC) demographics is included in Table 3. It shows that a major-
ity of both quality and safety professionals came from manufacturing. Of
the 99 safety professional responses, company sizes range from 10 to
100,000, with 55 companies following a formal management system
and 44 not. Of the 45 quality professional responses, company sizes
Two sets of testing were run to answer the research questions,
which are: (1) tests of the independence of samples presented in
Table 4, and (2) correlations between the groups. To test the indepen-
dence of samples, a t-test was used to compare means on each measure
across the quality and safety groups. Type I error was controlled by
using a Bonferroni correction to adjust the p-value, resulting in an ad-
justed critical p-value of 0.007. As a method of measuring the effect
size in standard deviation units, a Cohen's d test was run as well
(Cohen et al., 2003). Table 4 independent samples t-tests show two sig-
nificant differences between the quality and safety professionals for the
factors of “Communication and Cooperation” and “Client Focus,” indi-
cating that there is a difference for these two factors for the safety and
quality professionals. In addition, Cohen's d values for the safety and
quality are all within the generally accepted large range value of b 0.8.
To test the correlations between the safety and quality groups, a

Table 2
Research questions and crosswalk of the data analysis.
Table 4
Research question Statistical Reason Description data, independent samples t, and Cohen's d.
analysis
Factor Means t-value p-value Cohen's d
1. What are the differences in Independent Find if samples are
Quality Safety
perceptions regarding the t-test significantly different and
presence of management factors Cohen's d test associated effect size. Leadership in managing 34.7 31.3 2.15 0.034 0.41
between quality and safety Workforce management 26.2 27.7 1.15 0.25 0.20
professionals? Communication and cooperation 34.4 29.9 3.12 0.002a 0.60
2. To what extent does the model Coefficient of Find the goodness of fit of Process management 28.0 25.8 1.95 0.053 0.36
predict perceived client determination the model Continuous improvement 28.2 26.5 1.70 0.091 0.31
satisfaction (customer and Client focus 19.6 16.0 3.87 b0.001a 0.73
employee) for quality and safety Client satisfaction 20.4 18.8 2.24 0.027 0.42
professionals? a
Significant t-value.
 B.J. Ladewski, A.J. Al-Bayati / Journal of Safety Research 69 (2019) 193–200
coefficient of determination was calculated for client satisfaction. The
overall results indicate that practices of the model's factors are similar
and could be applied to both quality and safety (R square for safety is
0.73, and for quality is 0.61). This finding suggests that firms that
adopt the total quality practices can rapidly adopt similar practices to
improve the overall safety and health of their employees. In addition,
this finding could also encourage firms that are planning to adopt total
quality management technique to involve safety personnel. On the
other hand, the existing difference between the two groups in commu-
nication and cooperation and client focus suggests the communication
and cooperation performance is better when it comes to quality
(mean values 34.4 vs. 29.9), as well as client focus (mean values: 19.6
vs. 16). This indicates that there is a need to improve the overall com-
munication and cooperation regarding safety policies, as well as in-
crease the focus on employees' safety expectations and feedback
Research question 2 concerns the extent the variables predicted per-
ceived client satisfaction. The statistic that was used to answer this re-
search question is the coefficient of determination (r2), which
represents the extent that the model approximates the observed data
points. If modeled perfectly, the r2 would equal one. If there is no rela-
tionship, the r2 value would equal zero (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
The overall r2 value for client satisfaction is 0.66, indicating that the
model explains 66% of the variance for client satisfaction for both quality
and safety. Furthermore, the r2 values of quality group and safety group
are 0.61 and 0.73, respectively. These values indicate that the model cre-
ated to measure external client satisfaction regarding the quality of the
product they bought could be used to measure the employee satisfac-
tion regarding the safety and health of their working conditions.
4. Discussion
This study, though focused on quality and safety, offers evidence that
the Theory of Quality Management can move from a focus only on the
management of quality to a much broader meaning to that of the quality
of management, and this broader meaning would include the manage-
ment of safety. This is demonstrated statistically in that the safety and
quality groups answered questions the same within the context of the
factors of the Theory of Quality Management as outlined in the research
questions. Though the ranking of safety professionals' responses tended
to be lower than the quality professionals, the responses by the groups
had more in common than not. Research question one compared the
safety and quality groups. The safety and quality groups were found to
have no statistically significant difference in their perceptions for equiv-
alent questions for 5 out of 7 factors by use of an independent samples t-
test and Cohen's d. Research question 2 focused on the extent to which
the Fig. 1 model would predict perceived “Client Satisfaction.” The ques-
tion was answered by finding the coefficient of determination (r2), with
a good fit considered as an r2 greater than 0.50 (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2013). The calculated r2 for the Fig. 1 model was 0.66, meaning that
Fig. 1 model explained and predicted 66% of the data variation for the
factor of “Client Satisfaction.” Therefore, the Fig. 1 model offers a good
fit to the data in predicting “Client Satisfaction” for future studies
using the same surveys.
The significance of this study could be illustrated in the statistical ev-
idence that safety performance could be a good indicator of quality per-
formance and vice versa. This is a result of the identified similarity in
policies and practices between the safety and quality. Using quality
measurement tools as a departure point in this study suggests that
safety could be considered as a core value of business management,
having an impact not only the workers' safety and health, but also qual-
ity and productivity. As shown by the results of this study, the manage-
ment of safety and quality share more in common through the lens of
quality management. This is based on the statistical evaluation of the re-
sponses from members within two independent groups of safety and
197
quality professionals. Though models are representations of the respon-
dents' perceptions of reality and a correlational study does not prove
causation, there is evidence of a good fit between the perceived aspects
of “Leadership in Managing Quality and Safety” undertaken within an
organization (as an input factor) and the perceived “Client Satisfaction”
factor for both the management of safety and quality (as the outcome
factor). Beyond advancing the understanding of the Theory of Quality
Management, the practical implications of this study are that the
methods, techniques, and modeling could be applied to analyze an orga-
nization for alignment at least between safety and quality professionals.
This study originates from and is rooted in previous work, but goes
further by incorporating the management of safety with the principles
forwarded by the Theory of Quality Management (Anderson et al.,
1994; Douglas & Fredendall, 2004; Fisher et al., 2005; Fisher et al.,
2011; Grandzol & Greshon, 1998; Khan, 2010; Rungtusanatham et al.,
1998; Rungtusanatham et al., 2003; Zu et al., 2008). There is a substan-
tial research base that recognizes common management principles be-
ginning with Deming (1986, p. xi) who stated: “All industries,
manufacturing, and service are subject to the same principles of man-
agement.” Focusing on the management areas of quality and safety,
there are many researchers who identify the commonality between
the management of quality and safety (Behm et al., 2004; Das et al.,
2008; Manuele, 2003; Maxfield, 2010; Manzella, 1997; Veltri et al.,
2013). Further, there is commonality between safety and quality man-
agement and the management of safety and quality (Beckerhagen,
Berg, Karapetrovic, & Willborn, 2003; Institution of Occupational
Safety and Health, 2015; Manuel et al., 2014; Raišiene, 2011; Simon,
Bernardo, Karapetrovic, & Casadesus, 2013; Vadastreanu, Bot, Maire, &
Maire, 2015; Zen, Lou, & Tam, 2006; Zutshi & Sohal, 2005).
The main difference between quality and safety management as
discussed in the construction of the safety and quality surveys is termi-
nology, but the focus of both is the same – to add value to the organiza-
tion by satisfying the end user of the product or service. Two
adjustments to terminology had to be made to in this study: (1) the
end user of the product or service was defined as client, or the one
who benefits from quality and safety within the organization
(American Society for Quality, n.d.; Herrero et al., 2002; Lawton, 1993;
Maxfield, 2010), and (2) the client focus is called “product production”
(McGregor, 2004; Mills, Chase, & Newton, 1983).
5. Limitations
This study was generally limited by the sampling pool and the num-
ber of respondents completing the survey. The pooled number of partic-
ipants did meet the minimum for using path analysis techniques on the
Fig. 1 model. However, the post-hoc power analysis indicated low
power, which limits the detecting effects. On the other hand, most par-
ticipants identified themselves as working within manufacturing, but
the remainder came from a range of organizations that may or may
not have the same type of organizational structure. This is a limitation
due to uncontrollable variation in the sampling pool. There was a differ-
ent mix of industrial classifications between the safety and quality
groups, which resulted in uncontrolled variation in the sampling pool.
In addition, the study did have delimitation bounds. The study focused
on adapting the Theory of Quality Management to the management of
safety, only allowing a single comparison between quality and safety.
Only U.S. safety and quality professionals were included in the survey,
which reduced the variation in the survey participants.
6. Recommendations
This study offers a method of comparing two areas of management
in a way that has not been done before which could strengthen the
joint management for quality and safety. Jointly managing quality and
198 B.J. Ladewski, A.J. Al-Bayati / Journal of Safety Research 69 (2019) 193–200
safety is outlined in numerous books and journal articles. The writings
tend to follow three general lines of justification for consolidating, im-
proving efficiency of management (Kymal, 2015; Standards Australia
International, 1999), and competitive advantage (Vadastreanu, Bot,
Maier, & Maier, 2015), and sustainability (Remmen, Jensen, &
Frydendal, 2007; Osman, Yusuff, Masood, & Jalil, 2013; Santos, Rebelo,
Barros, & Pereira, 2012). However, these publications discuss the me-
chanics of consolidation and why consolidation is essential but do not
show a mechanism to map out the perceptions of management for con-
solidating and adjusting these programs. Finally, this study serves both a
theoretical and practical purpose. At a theoretical level, this study offers
evidence that the organizational functions of safety and quality can fol-
low the same management model, broadening the understanding of the
Theory of Quality Management, and advancing the research knowledge
in this area. At a practical level, the survey, statistical analysis, and
modeling techniques could be used to help identify and focus resources
on areas of weakness, and leverage strengths in the management of
safety and quality to improve client satisfaction. Improved client satis-
faction from the perspective of quality means an organization can better
satisfy customers by reducing product or service deficiencies, while
from the perspective of safety, this means an organization can better
satisfy employees by reducing injuries.
7. Conclusions
This study serves both a theoretical and practical purpose. At a the-
oretical level, this study offers evidence that the organizational func-
tions of safety and quality can follow the same management model,
broadening the understanding of the Theory of Quality Management,
and advancing the research knowledge in this area. This is demon-
strated by the quality and safety professionals responding statistically
the same to survey questions about the Theory of Quality Management
path model. Further, this offers statistical evidence that the Theory of
Quality Management is transferable to another area of management,
in this study at least that of safety. This study challenges the notion
that the management of safety programs is incidental to core business
functions. Based on the statistical analysis provided, quality and safety
management are connected.
At a practical level, the survey, statistical analysis, and modeling
techniques could be used to help identify and focus resources on areas
of weakness, and leverage strengths in the management of safety and
quality to improve client satisfaction. Where quality focuses on meeting
the needs of the customer to assure financial sustainability, safety fo-
cuses on meeting the needs of the employees to assure work force sus-
tainability. From the perspective of safety, this means an organization
can better satisfy employees by reducing injuries and can leverage
implementing specific safety programs by using the management tech-
niques used in implementing quality programs. Assuring both quality
and safety are components of a sustainable organization, increasing
product reliability, assuring long term profitability, and a more stable
and healthy workforce.
Improved client satisfaction from the perspective of quality means
an organization can better satisfy customers by reducing product pro-
duction deficiencies by watching both how the product or service is pro-
duced and watching the product quality. The healthful and safe
workforce will significantly contribute the overall businesses outcomes
in term of quality and productivity. Accordingly, the study provides an-
other way management path for more fully integrating safety processes
into businesses thinking.
References
Al-Bayati, A. J., Abudayyeh, O., Fredericks, T., & Butt, S. (2017). Managing cultural diversity
at U.S. construction sites: Hispanic workers' perspectives. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.
0001359.
American Society for Quality. (n.d.), History of quality, Retrieved from http://asq.org/learn-
about-quality/history-of-quality/overview/overview.html", (Accessed 28 March 2019)
Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R. G. (1994). A theory of quality man-
agement underlying the Deming management method. Academy of Management
Review, 19, 472.
Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R. G., & Devaraj, S. (1995). A path analytic
model of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management
method: Preliminary empirical findings. Decision Sciences, 26, 637–658.
Anger, W. K., Elliot, D. L., Bodner, T., Olson, R., Rohlman, D. S., Truxillo, D. M., ...
Montgomery, D. (2015). Effectiveness of Total worker health interventions. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 226–247.
Asif, M., Fisscher, O. A. M., de Bruijn, E. J., & Pagell, M. (2010). Integration of management
systems: A methodology for operational excellence and strategic flexibility.
Operations Management Research, 3, 140–160.
Beckerhagen, I. A., Berg, H. P., Karapetrovic, S. V., & Willborn, W. O. (2003). Auditing in
support of the integration of management systems: A case from the nuclear industry.
Managerial Auditing Journal, 18, 560–568.
Behm, M., Veltri, A., & Kleinsorge, I. K. (2004). The cost of safety: Cost analysis model helps
build business case for safety. Professional Safety, 49, 22–29.
Chiarini, A. (2011). Japanese total quality control, TQM, Deming's system of profound
knowledge, bpr, lean and six sigma. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2(4),
332–355.
Cohen, J., Cohen, J., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, NH, USA: Erlbaum 2003.
Das, A., Pagell, M., Behm, M., & Veltri, A. (2008). Toward a theory of the linkages between
safety and quality. Journal of Operation Management, 269, 521–535.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA, USA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Douglas, T. J., & Fredendall, L. D. (2004). Evaluating the Deming management model of
total quality in services. Decision Sciences, 35, 393–422.
Fisher, C. M., Barfield, J., Li, J., & Mehta, R. (2005). Retesting a model of the Deming man-
agement method. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 16, 401–412.
Fisher, C. M., Elrod, C. C., & Mehta, R. A. (2011). Replication to validate and improve a mea-
surement instrument for Deming's 14 points. International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, 28, 328–358.
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach's
alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scale. Proceedings of the Midwest Re-
search-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Grandzol, J. R., & Greshon, M. (1998). A survey instrument for standardizing TQM model-
ing research. International Journal of Quality Science, 3, 80–105.
Gray, W. B., & Scholz, R. T. (1993). Does regulatory enforcement work? A panel analysis of
OSHA enforcement. Law & Society Review, 27(1).
Herrero, S. G., Saldaña, M. A. M., Manzanedo del Campo, M. A., & Ritzel, D. (2002). From
the traditional concept of safety management to safety integrated with quality.
Journal of Safety Research, 33, 1–20.
Hill, D. C. (2006). Time to transform? Assessing the future of the sh&e profession.
Professional Safety, 51(12), 62–71.
Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (2015). Joined-up working – an introduction
to integrated management systems. Retrieved from http://www.iosh.co.uk/~/media/
Documents/Books%20and%20resources/Guidance%20and%20tools/Joined-up%
20working.pdf.
Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and
their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 405–435.
Khan, M. A. (2010). Evaluating the Deming management model of total quality in tele-
communication industry in Pakistan: An empirical study. International Journal of
Business and Management, 5, 46–59.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New
York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press.
Kymal, C. (2015). Using an integrated management system to implement ISO9001.
Quality Digest Available online http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/standards-a
rticle/102115-implementing-iso-9001-iso-14001-and-iso-450001.html, Accessed
date: 1 October 2018.
Lawton, R. L. (1993). Creating a Customer-centered Culture: Leadership in Quality Innova-
tion, and Speed. Milwaukee, WI, USA: American Society for Quality.
Manuel, F. R., Santos, G., & Silva, R. (2014). A generic model for integration of quality, envi-
ronment and safety management systems. TQM Journal, 26. (pp. 143–159), 143–159 2.
Manuele, F. A. (2003). On the Practice of Safety (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley &
Sons.
Manzella, J. C. (1997). Achieving safety performance excellence through total quality
management. Professional Safety, 42, 26–28.
Maxfield, D. (2010). Workplace safety is the leading edge of a culture of accountability.
EHS Today, 3, 39.
McGregor, J. D. (2004). Product production. Journal of Object Technology, 3, 89–98.
Mills, P. K., Chase, R. B., & Margulies, N. (1983). Motivating the client/employee system as
a service production strategy. Academy Management Review, 8(2), 301–310.
Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. New
York, NY, USA: Times Books Henry Hold and Company.
National Safety Council (2018). Costs. Work Injury Costs. Available online https://injuryfa
cts.nsc.org/work/costs/work-injury-costs/ (accessed 12 January, 2019).
OSHA, (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) (2016). All about OSHA. Avail-
able online https://www.osha.gov/Publications/all_about_OSHA.pdf, Accessed date:
12 January 2019.
Osman, R. M., Yusuff, R. M., Masood, I., & Jalil, M. A. S. (2013). Strategies for integrating
quality environmental, safety and health management systems. Applied Mechanics
and Materials, 315, 894–898.
 B.J. Ladewski, A.J. Al-Bayati / Journal of Safety Research 69 (2019) 193–200 199

Rahimi, M. (1993). Merging strategic safety, health and environmental into total quality
management. Indian Ergonomics, 16, 84–94.
Raišiene, A. G. (2011). Advantages and limitations of integrated management system: The
theoretical viewpoint. Social Technologies, 1, 25–36.
Remmen, A., Jensen, A. A., & Frydendal, J. (2007). Life cycle management a business guide
to sustainability. United Nations Environmental Programme Retrieved from http://
www.unep.org/pdf/dtie/DTI0889PA.pdf.
Rostykus, W., & Barker, B. (2018). ISO 45001: A model for managing workplace ergonom-
ics. EHS Today Available online https://www.ehstoday.com/health/iso-45001-model-
managing-workplace-ergonomics (accessed 1 October 2018).
Rungtusanatham, J., Forza, C., Filippini, R., & Anderson, J. C. (1998). A replication
study of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management
method: Insights from an Italian context. Journal of Operations Management, 17,
77–95.
Rungtusanatham, J., Ogden, J., & Wu, B. (2003). Advancing theory development in total
quality management a “Deming management method” perspective. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33, 918–936.
Santos, G., Rebelo, M., Barros, S., & Pereira, M. (2012). Certification and integration of en-
vironment with quality and safety – A path to sustained success. In S. Curkovic (Ed.),
Sustainable Development – Authoritative and Leading Edge Content for Environmental
Management. InTech.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & Practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY, USA: Random House, Inc.
Simon, A., Bernardo, M., Karapetrovic, S., & Casadesus, M. (2013). Implementing inte-
grated management systems in chemical forms. Total Qual. Manage. & Excellence,
24, 294–309 2013.
Standards Australia International (1999). Step by step guidance on integrating management
systems: Health and safety, environment, quality. Strathfield, NSW, AU: Standards Aus-
tralia International Limited Volume 139.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). New York,
NY, USA: Pearson.
Taylor, E. L. (2015). Safety benefits of mandatory 10 h training. Safety Science, 77, 66–71.
Transport Canada (2001). Introduction to safety management systems. Ottawa, ON: Minis-
ter of Public Works and Government Serviceshttp://www.caa.lv/upload/userfiles/
files/SMS/Transport%20Canada/TP13739b%20intro%20to%20SMS.pdf (Accessed 28
March 2019).
USDOL (U.S. Department of Labor) (2018a). Employer-reported workplace injuries and
illnesses – 2016. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics - News Releasehttps://www.bls.gov/
news.release/archives/osh_11092017.pdf Accessed 1/15/2019.
USDOL (U.S. Department of Labor) (2018b). National census of fatal occupational injuries
in 2016. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics - News Releasehttps://www.bls.gov/news.relea
se/pdf/cfoi.pdf Accessed 1/15/2019.
Vadastreanu, A. V., Bot, A., Maier, D., & Maier, A. (2015). Quality, environment and health
integrated management systems: A literature review. Journal of Investment and
Management, 4(6), 348–356.
Veltri, A., Pagell, M., Johnston, D., Tompa, E., Robson, L., Amick, B. C., Hogg-Johnson, S., &
Macdonald, S. (2013). Understanding safety in the context of business operations:
An exploratory study using case studies. Safety Science, 55, 119–134.
Wachter, J. K. (2011). Ethics: The absurd yet preferred approach to safety management.
Professional Safety, 56, 50–57 2011.
Zen, S. X., Lou, G. X., & Tam, V. W. Y. (2006). Integration of management systems: The
views of contractors. Architectural Science Review, 49, 229–235.
Zu, X., Fredendall, L. D., & Douglas, T. J. (2008). The evolving theory of quality manage-
ment: The role of six sigma. Journal of Operations Management, 26, 630–650.
Zutshi, A., & Sohal, A. S. (2005). Integrated management system: The experiences of three
Australian organizations. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16,
211–232.
Ahmed Jalil Al-Bayati is an assistant professor in the Construction Management Depart-
ment at Western Carolina University (WCU). He earned his Ph.D. in Construction Engi-
neering from Western Michigan University in 2017. His dissertation research focused on
managing workforce diversity at construction sites in the US to improve safety, quality,
and teamwork. Dr. Al-Bayati has more than 10 years of experience in the construction in-
dustry working in diverse areas of the field from safety coordinator to site engineer. He is a
certified professional engineer in the state of Michigan, an OSHA authorized trainer and is
certified as a Construction Safety and Health Technician. His current research focuses on
construction safety and construction project management with an emphasis on safety cul-
ture parameters and their on-site impact safety, construction workforce diversity manage-
ment, construction rework and change orders, underground utilities damage prevention.
Finally, Dr. Al-Bayati is one of the instructors at Latino Workers Safety Center (LWSC)
and an instructor at OSHA Training Institute Education Center.
Bruce J. Ladewski is Certified Industrial Hygienist and a Certified Safety Professional with
more than 30 years of manufacturing experience. He earned his PhD in Organizational
Analysis from Western Michigan University in 2017. His dissertation research focused
on comparing the perceptions of quality and safety professionals through the lens of a path
analytic model rooted in management theory. His most recent focus is on methods of mea-
suring organizational sustainability.

Appendix A. Survey question comparison

Factors Quality survey questions Safety survey questions

Leadership in managing
quality and safety
Communication and
cooperation
Workforce management
Process management
• Our top management (i.e., top executives and major department
heads) assumes responsibility for quality performance.
• Our top management provides personal leadership for the quality of
our product production.
• Our top management has well defined targets for quality
performance
• Our top management provides our employees with the means to
meet company goals for quality.
• Major department heads participate in the entire quality improve-
ment process.
• Quality issues are reviewed in our company's management
meetings.
• Goals, objectives, and strategies for quality are communicated to
our employees.
• Everyone works well together on quality matters.
• Departments frequently communicate with each other on quality
matters.
• Management works well together on important quality decisions.
• We maintain close contact with our customers to identify develop-
ing quality issues.
• Our customers give us feedback on our quality performance.
• We measure customer satisfaction on quality.
• We use customer needs as the basis for quality improvements.
• We form teams to solve quality problems.
• Employees get feedback on their quality performance
• Employees are involved in making quality decisions.
• Employees receive quality-related training.
• Our employees are recognized for superior quality improvement.
• Quality training is given company-wide.
• Processes are designed to be “mistake-proof” to minimize the
chance of errors related to customer quality.
• We meet our daily production schedules.
• Production is stopped immediately for quality problems.
• Our preventive maintenance program includes a focus on the qual-
ity of product production.
• Our top management (i.e., top executives and major department
heads) assumes responsibility for safety performance.
• Our top management provides personal leadership for the safety of
our product production.
• Our top management has well defined targets for safety
performance.
• Our top management provides our employees with the means to
meet company goals for safety.
• Major department heads participate in the entire safety improve-
ment process.
• Safety issues are reviewed in our company's management meetings.
• Goals, objectives, and strategies for safety are communicated to our
employees.
• Everyone works well together on safety matters.
• Departments frequently communicate with each other on safety
matters.
• Management works well together on important safety decisions.
• We maintain close contact with our employees to identify develop-
ing safety issues.
• Our employees give us feedback on our safety performance.
• We measure employee satisfaction on safety.
• We use employee needs as the basis for safety improvements.
• We form teams to solve safety problems.
• Employees get feedback on their safety performance.
• Employees are involved in making safety decisions.
• Employees receive safety-related training.
• Our employees are recognized for superior safety improvement.
• Safety training is given company-wide.
• Processes are designed to be “mistake-proof” to minimize the
chance of errors related to employee safety.
• We meet our daily production schedules.
• Production is stopped immediately for safety problems.
• Our preventive maintenance program includes a focus on the safety
of product production.

(continued on next page)

200 B.J. Ladewski, A.J. Al-Bayati / Journal of Safety Research 69 (2019) 193–200
(continued)
Factors Quality survey questions
• Clear process instructions, procedures, and work instructions that
include quality are given to employees.
• Our production work areas are well organized and clean.
Continuous improvement • Continuous improvement of our product production stresses
improving quality.
• Employees contribute to improving the quality of product
production.
• Employees accept responsibility for improving the quality of our
product production.
• Employees have many opportunities to suggest changes or modifi-
cations to improve the quality of existing processes.
• The quality of our product production has improved in recent years.
• We receive the recognition we deserve in improving the quality of
our product production.
Client focus • Our processes and activities center on satisfying the quality needs of
our customers.
• Managers and supervisors encourage activities that improve our
customers' satisfaction with our quality.
• Satisfying the quality expectations of our customers is the most
important thing we do.
• Leadership and management behave in ways that show to our cus-
tomers the high importance of quality.
Client satisfaction • In general, our customers are satisfied with our focus on the quality
of our processes and activities.
• In general, we compare very well with industry norms in terms of
the quality of our product production
• Over the past 3 years, we compare very well with industry norms
for quality performance.
• Over the past 3 years, our customers have been very satisfied with
the quality of our product production.
Safety survey questions
• Clear process instructions, procedures, and work instructions that
includes safety are given to employees
• Our production work areas are well organized and clean.
• Continuous improvement of our product production stresses
improving safety.
• Employees contribute to improving the safety of product
production.
• Employees accept responsibility for improving the safety of our
product production.
• Employees have many opportunities to suggest changes or modifi-
cations to improve the safety of existing processes.
• The safety of our product production has improved in recent years.
• We receive the recognition we deserve in improving the safety of
our product production.
• Our processes and activities center on satisfying the safety needs of
our employees.
• Managers and supervisors encourage activities that improve our
employees' satisfaction with our safety.
• Satisfying the safety expectations of our employees is the most
important thing we do.
• Leadership and management behave in ways that show to our
employees the high importance of safety.
• In general, our employees are satisfied with our focus on the safety
of our processes and activities.
• In general, we compare very well with industry norms in terms of
the safety of our product production.
• Over the past 3 years, we compare very well with industry norms
for safety performance.
• Over the past 3 years, our employees have been very satisfied with
the safety of our product production.