International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

The impact of TQM practices and KM Processes on organisational performance: an empirical investigation
Baraa Tareq qasrawi, soud Mohammad Almahamid, Shadi Tareq qasrawi,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Baraa Tareq qasrawi, soud Mohammad Almahamid, Shadi Tareq qasrawi, "The impact of TQM practices and KM Processes
on organisational performance: an empirical investigation", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-11-2015-0160
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-11-2015-0160
Downloaded on: 03 July 2017, At: 02:12 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:333301 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The impact of TQM practices and KM Processes on
Organizational performance: an empirical investigation
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)
 TQM practices and organizational performance: testing the mediating effect
of KM processes

Abstract
Purpose
This study investigated the impact of total quality management (TQM) practices in terms of
leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, teamwork, process management, information, and
analysis on organizational performance in three Jordanian telecommunications companies. In
addition, the mediating effect of knowledge-management (KM) processes was tested.

Design/methodology/approach
A survey instrument was used to gather empirical data, and it was distributed to all
managerial and non-managerial employees. A total of 477 questionnaires were valid for
analysis, representing a response rate of 97%. Factor analysis and multiple regression
analyses were used to test the study’s hypotheses.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

Findings
Customer focus and process management were found to have an insignificant impact on
organizational performance, while teamwork had the strongest impact on KM processes. The
results also revealed that only knowledge-sharing and knowledge-application processes had a
significant impact on organizational performance. More importantly, KM processes fully
mediated the impact of TQM practices on organizational performance, except for teamwork,
which had a partial mediating effect.

Research limitations/implications
This study was limited to a survey of the headquarters of three telecommunications
companies in Amman City, Jordan: A, B, and C.

Originality/value
The study tested the influence of TQM practices on organizational performance in a novel
context, where most TQM initiatives fail for one reason or another.

Keywords: TQM practices, KM processes, Organizational performance.

Paper type: Research paper

Introduction

Despite the importance of integration between total quality management (TQM) and knowledge
management (KM) in achieving superior organizational performance, very few studies link TQM
practices and organizational performance via KM processes. This research fills the void in the
literature by examining the impact of TQM practices on organizational performance via KM
processes in terms of knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, and knowledge application in
three of the leading and most promising telecommunications companies in the Middle East.

Adopting a managerial philosophy that focuses on customers and service quality has become a
vital requirement in environments characterized by dramatic changes in customer needs and
expectations, competitor behaviors, widespread information technology, and smart applications.
Research shows that TQM is one of the most effective methods for dealing with these particular
environmental conditions (Tanninen et al., 2010; Valmohammadi, 2011; Del Alonso-Almeida et
al., 2015). TQM practices not only guarantee superior performance, but also lead to sustained
competitive advantage (Del Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015).
 KM processes enable organizations to gain and share new knowledge. In addition, they can be
used to rationalize decision-making processes (Darroch, 2003; Dalkir, 2013; Wong et al., 2013)
and help organizations to develop and translate new ideas into new products and services, which
in turn improve organizational performance. In fact, both TQM practices and KM processes can
improve operational and financial organizational performance (Choy et al., 2006; Wali and
Boujelbene, 2009; Irfan, et al., 2012; Sadikoglu and Olcay, 2014). Thus, organizations oriented
toward continuously improving products and services should establish KM processes in order to
maximize the success of any quality endeavor, and should not consider quality improvements to
be unnecessary, nor the initiation of KM to be a waste of money.

Literature review
Related literature was reviewed in order to formulate the research hypotheses underpinning the
research model, which is shown in Figure 1.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

TQM practices
TQM’s main concern is the continuous improvement of processes to give higher customer value
and meet customer expectations (Lagrosen and Lagrosen, 2005). Yusuf et al. (2007), who studied
TQM implementation in Chinese firms and its effect on organizational performance, found that
TQM can improve the quality of products and services and can lead to functional integration,
depending on the degree of TQM implementation. Goetsch and Davis (2014) asserted that TQM
can enhance organizational competitiveness by improving product quality on a continuous basis.

In numerous companies, TQM endeavors were classified as a complete failure. This has led to a
push for both researchers and practitioners to understand the critical success factors of TQM
initiatives. For instance, Aboyassin et al. (2011) claimed that in order to have successful TQM,
companies must have effective planning, benchmarking, and teamwork, and must utilize all their
resources, including human and financial resources. Mosadeghrad (2014) found that ineffective
training, insufficient employee involvement and top management support, poor communications
and planning, inappropriate use of resources, poor-quality culture, and resistance to change were
the essential reasons for TQM implementation failure.

Various studies have discussed different TQM practices. For example, Talib et al. (2011)
considered management commitment, working in teams, involvement of employees, management
of the process, customer focus, management of resources, organizational culture, continuous
improvement, and training to be the best TQM practices. Bon and Mustafa (2013) divided TQM
practices into leadership, involvement and authorization of the employee, customer focus,
training, information and analysis, and continuous improvement. In this study, the TQM practices
of Ooi (2009; 2014) and Talib et al. (2013) have been adopted because they were the practices
that were most used in the literature (Lakhal et al., 2006; Talib et al., 2013; Ueno, 2008), and
combined both hard and soft TQM practices that are well known in quality awards.

TQM Practices in Jordanian telecommunications companies

In Jordan, the ICT sector that is the umbrella of telecommunications companies became fully
privatized in 2000. Since then, ICT companies have started to pay much more attention to TQM
practices and ISO standards in order to improve efficiency, effectiveness, competitiveness, and
the quality of their services and products. ICT companies started formally implementing TQM
and ISO standards in 2006 (JISM, 2008; KACE, 2008; Twaissi, 2008). The harsh competition,
endless customer requirements, and promised benefits of TQM have encouraged
telecommunications companies to speed up the TQM adoption process. However, the complex
political, economic and global conflict that is the dominant situation around Jordan makes it
impossible to follow a specific plan or approach because the conditions can changed overnight.
Telecommunications companies exist in an unstable region, and try to overcome and adapt their
approaches to fit the new changes. Although Jordanian telecommunications companies strive to
utilize and benefit from TQM practices, they encounter various challenges (Twaissi et al., 2008),
 with government influences and internal cultural characteristics the most significant of these. In
Jordan, the implementation of TQM practices has received much attention in sectors other than
ICT, such as banking (Al-Shobaki et al., 2010), manufacturing (Abu-Hamatteh et al., 2003),
health (Al-Marsumi, 2007), insurance (Aboyassin et al., 2011), construction (Bani Ismail, 2012),
and education (Al-Tarawneh and Mubaslat, 2011). Twaissi (2008) and Twaissi et al. (2008),
among others, identified top management commitment, quality communication and structure,
quality measurement and benchmarking, customer satisfaction, policy and strategy planning,
suppliers’ relationships, and quality information systems as critical TQM factors in the
Jordanian ICT sector. Al-Hawary and Abu-Laimon (2013) found that TQM practices relating
to leadership, information and analysis, customer focus, continuous improvement, and
managing supplier quality have a positive impact on service quality in Jordanian cellular
communication companies.

KM processes
According to Yang (2011), KM processes consist of creating, sharing and applying knowledge in
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

order to gain market opportunity and improve organizational performance. However, Chawla and
Joshi (2012) found that KM definitions differ from one organization to another. Manufacturing
firms may focus on processing the available knowledge, while service firms may concentrate on
acquiring knowledge from customers. KM can be described in terms of a KM cycle, which begins
with locating the source of knowledge, and then transferring it into an explicit form by codification
and sharing it throughout the organization (Dalkir, 2013).

Other researchers, such as Meihami and Meihami (2014), argued that KM is an effective tool for
improving efficiency and innovation in the firm. It consists of creating, coding, sharing, and
applying knowledge, which leads to the effective use of organizational resources. Ranjbarfard et
al. (2014) studied barriers that limit KM effectiveness and found that poor support from top
management and poor leadership negatively affect KM. Further, they concluded that managers can
play a significant part in providing a supportive KM environment by enhancing coordination,
promoting employee motivation, and facilitating the relationship with partners.

Wong et al. (2013) divided KM into knowledge acquisition and knowledge absorption. While the
former relates to acquiring new knowledge from various sources, the latter is about converting
explicit knowledge gained from the acquisition process into tacit knowledge (Uit Beijerse, 1999).
Knowledge creation is related to the process of new idea generation (Morey, 2001). Knowledge
application is associated with embedding the newly developed knowledge in implementing
business processes and making it available to every individual in the firm (Shannak, 2009). In this
study, knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge application are considered
because they are highly related to TQM practices.

The relationship between TQM practices and organizational performance

Many studies have investigated the relationship between TQM practices and organizational
performance. For instance, Fotopoulos and Psomas (2010) found that top management support,
worker involvement, managing quality data, customer focus, and using quality techniques
enhanced organizational performance in terms of the firms’ quality. Talib et al. (2013) found that
not all TQM dimensions have a significant relationship to quality performance. Various studies
have linked TQM practices with operational organizational performance. For example, Irfan et al.
(2012) studied public hospitals in Pakistan to investigate the impact of TQM practices on
operational performance and found that TQM practices have a positive significant impact on
operational performance in terms of increased flexibility, improved quality of services, reduced
service time, and more efficient diagnostics. Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014) found that leadership,
process management, training, managing the quality of supply, customer focus, and strategic
planning have a significant effect on operational performance. Costantini and Zanin (2015)
investigated TQM and performance in large Italian firms and found that TQM practices have a
positive relationship with organizational performance in terms of defect reduction, efficiency
enhancement, short delivery time, and fewer customer complaints.
 Other studies have linked TQM practices to financial studies. For example, Appiah Fening et al.
(2008) studied the effect of leaders’ roles, strategic planning, human resources, customer focus,
information and analysis, and process management on financial organizational performance in
terms of profit, sales growth, and market share. They also showed how these factors affect non-
financial performance in terms of customer satisfaction and worker morale. Their results indicated
that there is a significant effect of these practices on organizational performance. Zakuan et al.
(2010) found that TQM practices, including leadership, customer focus, information and analysis,
enhancement of human resources, strategic planning, and managing quality of supply, have a
significant effect on organizational performance in terms of profitability, productivity, and
number of errors. Valmohammadi (2011) examined the impact of TQM practices (leadership,
process management, supplier, customer focus, employee management, communication, tools,
and techniques) on organizational performance. They concluded that there is a significant
relationship between TQM practices and organizational performance (increase in sales, profits,
market share, and customer satisfaction). Aziz et al. (2012) proposed that TQM practices have a
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

positive impact on banks’ financial performance in Pakistan. They concluded that TQM practices
increase financial performance, especially strategic planning, service design, continuous
improvement, and benchmarking practices.

Recently, Herzallah et al. (2014) explored the impact of TQM practices, such as concentration on
customer needs, relationship between workers, managing relationships with suppliers, and quality
information, on firm’s performance via business strategies in Palestinian companies. They
concluded that TQM practices affect financial performance in an indirect way through the firm’s
business strategy, and that TQM practices are essential in order to allocate resources and enhance
organizational financial performance. Mehmood et al. (2014) studied TQM practices in terms of
customer focus, continuous improvement, employee participation, and commitment from top
management and their effect on organizational performance in terms of increasing market share
and achieving customer satisfaction. Their results indicated that continuous improvement and
employee participation have a significant effect on organizational performance, while focusing on
customer needs and top management commitment were not significant. Based on the above
arguments, the following null hypothesis can be set forth:
H01: TQM practices (leadership, customer focus, teamwork, process management, information
and analysis) have no statistical impact on organizational performance.

The relationship between TQM practices and KM processes

Ooi (2009) developed a theoretical framework that links TQM practices in terms of leadership,
strategic planning, information and analysis, process managing, human resources and customer
focus with KM processes, including knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge
application. He argued that TQM practices entail establishing KM processes. Kim and Lee (2010)
found that having a clear vision and effective use of IT have a significant positive effect on
knowledge acquisition and knowledge application. It is worthwhile understanding how each TQM
practice affects KM processes. This pushed Ooi et al. (2012) to investigate the effect of the
following TQM practices on knowledge sharing: leadership, firm culture, training and
development, working in a team, and focusing on the customer. Their results revealed that TQM
practices, except for leadership and firm culture, have a significant and positive impact on
knowledge sharing.

Recently, Ooi (2014) tried to dig deeper in order to understand whether the relationship between
TQM practices and KM processes differ between manufacturing and service industries. He
adopted the standard TQM practices that form the Malcolm Bridge National Quality Award (Lau
et al., 2004). KM processes were the acquisition, sharing, and application of knowledge. The
results showed that only the TQM practices of process management, strategic planning, and
human resource management had a significant and positive impact on KM processes. Within
quality departments, Duran et al. (2014) found that firms that adopted TQM practices and had
ISO certificates could manage knowledge effectively in terms of capturing knowledge from
 customers, sharing knowledge among employees, and enhancing their culture of quality and,
ultimately, quality performance. This study extends this line of thought by examining how TQM
practices influence each KM processes. Based on the above argument, the following hypothesis
can be set forth:

H02: TQM practices (leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, teamwork, process
management, information and analysis) have no statistical impact on KM processes.

To understand how TQM practices influence each KM processes, the following sub-hypotheses
can be derived:
H 02.1: TQM practices (leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, teamwork, process
management, information and analysis) have no statistical impact on knowledge acquisition.
H02.2: TQM practices (leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, teamwork, process
management, information and analysis) have no statistical impact on knowledge sharing.
H02.3: TQM practices (leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, teamwork, process
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

management, information and analysis) have no statistical impact on knowledge application.

The relationship between KM processes and organizational performance

The relationship between KM processes and organizational performance is well established in the
literature. For example, Liao and Wu (2009) found a positive relationship between KM processes
(acquisition, transformation, and application) and organizational performance (market, financial,
and partner performance). Further, they proposed that there is a full mediating effect of learning
between KM processes and performance. Theriou et al. (2010) highlighted the role of leadership
and culture in KM effectiveness and found a strong positive relationship between KM processes
and organizational performance (profitability and market share). They argued that KM is an
essential instrument for organizations to capture and transfer information in order to gain
competitive advantage. In the healthcare sector, Kim et al. (2012) examined the relationship
between knowledge sharing and organizational performance. They found that hospital structure
has a significant impact on knowledge-sharing practices, which together improve organizational
performance in terms of patient safety.

In a similar manner, Wang and Wang (2012) uncovered the relationship between tacit and explicit
knowledge sharing and organizational performance (operational and financial). Their results
indicated that both types of knowledge-sharing practices have a significant direct effect on
operational and financial performance. In addition, both practices have an indirect effect on
operational and financial performance via innovation. Gharakhani and Mousakhani (2012)
revealed that KM capabilities in terms of knowledge acquisition, exchange and application have a
positive impact on organizational performance. In service organizations, Birasnav (2014) delved
into the relationship between leadership, KM, and performance. His results revealed that
transformational leadership significantly affects KM processes and organizational performance
when transactional leadership is kept on hold. Furthermore, he predicted that KM can play a
partial mediating role in the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational
performance. Finally, he suggested that KM processes have a positive impact on organizational
performance.

Based on the above arguments, the following hypothesis can be set forth:
H03: KM processes (acquisition, sharing, and application) have no statistical impact on
organizational performance.

Although the earlier studies mentioned above showed that both TQM practices and KM processes
can influence organizational performance directly, the assumptions of these earlier studies are
believed to be inaccurate for the following reasons. Firstly, these studies help us to understand the
best TQM practices and KM processes, but they do not show how TQM practices interact with
KM processes to achieve superior organizational performance. Secondly, organizational
performance is a broad concept and general measures can be affected by many internal and
 external factors other than TQM practices and KM processes. Therefore, an organization may
implement TQM practices or KM processes, but it may not experience any improvement in
organizational performance, and vice versa. The present study extends that literature by testing
whether KM processes mediate the relationship between TQM practices and organizational
performance. Based on the above argument the following hypothesis can be set forth:

H04: KM processes have no statistical mediating effect on the impact of TQM practices on
organizational performance.

Research design
Research model
The research model shown in Figure 1 was developed based on two popular theories in the
management literature: TQM practices and KM theory.
[Insert Figure 1]
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

Firstly, TQM practices are the independent variables (Ooi, 2009; Talib et al., 2013; Ooi, 2014).
Secondly, KM processes are the mediating variables (Aboyassin et al., 2011; Ooi, 2014). Both
theories are an extension of resource-based theory (RBT) (Barney, 1991). The main premise of
RBT is that four key resource-management indicators – value, rareness, inimitability and
unsubstitutability – can be a source of superior performance. Our model assumes that the TQM
strategy needs various resources among the most is KM resources. KM resources enable the
implementation of TQM practices and can be valuable, rare, inimitable and unsubstitutable,
leading to remarkable performance. As a result, both financial and operational organizational
performance were included as dependent variables (Fotopoulos and Psomas, 2010; Taherparvar et
al., 2014).

Research methodology
Study population, sample, and data collection
The population of this study consisted of employees and managers working at the headquarters of
three Jordanian telecommunications companies: A, B, and C. Owing to the small size of the
population, a decision was made to survey all managerial and non-managerial positions. As
result, the research sample represents the whole population. A questionnaire instrument was
developed based on the related literature. To ensure a high level of validity and reliability,
construct measurements were adopted from earlier research, as shown in Table 1. Prior to data
collection, the questionnaire was validated by a number of professors and experts in the domain
of this study who work at both public and private universities in Jordan. Afterwards, the
questionnaire was revised to reflect the comments and suggestions received from the referees.

As this research was conducted with human participants, the questionnaire was approved by the
University’s Institutional Review Board. In addition, some companies asked for a copy of the
questionnaire to be sent by email with the research outlines in order to give their approval to
participate in this study. The data-collection procedure was conducted as follows. The human
resource department managers were contacted by phone to explain the aims of the research and to
obtain their approval to contribute to the survey. After they had agreed, a copy of the
questionnaire was sent by email with a covering letter explaining the aims of the study.

The final copy of the questionnaire consisted of four sections. Section One dealt with
demographic variables: gender, age, educational level, years of experience, and job title. Section
Two looked at TQM practices, which consisted of six dimensions (leadership, strategic planning,
customer focus, teamwork, process management, and information and analysis). Section Three
was concerned with three dimensions of the mediating variable, knowledge processes: acquisition,
sharing, and application. Section Four examined the dependent variable: organizational
performance (operational and financial). The questionnaire items were anchored on a five-point
Likert Scale: 1 – Never; 2 – Rarely; 3 – Sometimes; 4 – Most of the time; and 5 – Always. A total
of 490 questionnaires were distributed to all managerial positions; 13 questionnaires were
 discarded because of a large percentage of missing data. In total, 477 questionnaires, which
represents a 97% response rate, were subjected to further analysis.

[Insert Table 1]
Questionnaire validity and reliability
Face validity was achieved using scales developed by previous studies and by presenting the
questionnaire to six judges who had expertise and specialist knowledge. To assess construct
validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013). To carry
out the EFA, the data must achieve the following conditions (Hair et al., 1998; Field, 2000);
firstly, the sampling adequacy (the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure) must be greater than
0.5; secondly, the eigenvalue of each factor must be at least 1; thirdly, a minimum factor loading
of 0.40 for retention of each item must be achieved; and fourthly, varimax rotation was chosen.
The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.863 for TQM practices, 0.837 for KM processes,
and 0.804 for organizational performance after removing two questions (OP2+OP3) and running
the analysis again (Child, 2006). Bartlett’s test of sphericity (chi-square, χ2) was statistically
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

significant (p ≤ 0.00) all the time. The eigenvalues for all the factors produced were greater than
1, and all item loadings were greater than 0.4. Achieving these conditions, a six-factor model of
TQM practices was derived, explaining 56.606% of the total variance. One factor, strategic
planning, was deleted after adding two items from it to the customer focus factor, resulting in a
five-factor model, giving 52.724%.

Of the 27 items previously developed for measuring TQM practices, six items were deleted and
the remaining 21 items were loaded on five factors. Factor 1, with 28.962% explanation of the
total variance, was named ‘customer focus’ and included four of the five items previously
developed for measuring it and the two items transferred to it from the strategic planning factor
(CF1–CF4+SP2+SP4). Factor 2, with 7.608% explanation of the total variance, was named
‘leadership’ and included all the six items previously developed for measuring it (L1–L6). Factor
3, with 5.933% explanation of total variance, was named ‘information and analysis’ and included
three of the four items previously developed for measuring it (INF2–INF4). Factor 4, with 5.815%
explanation of the total variance, was named ‘process management’ and included three of the four
items previously developed for measuring it (PM2–PM4). Factor 5, with 4.406% explanation of
the total variance, was named ‘teamwork’ and included all three items previously developed for
measuring it (T1–T3).

With respect to organizational performance, a one-factor model explained 57.647% of the total
variance, leading us to combine the financial and operational performance questions. A total of
five out of the seven items previously developed for measuring it were loaded on one factor
(FP1+FP2+FP3+OP1+OP4) named ‘organizational performance’, while in the case of KM a
three-factor model was used, explaining 55.198% of the total variance. Three items from the 13
items previously developed for measuring KM were eliminated and the remaining 10 items loaded
onto three factors. Factor 1, with 35.340% explanation of the total variance, was named
‘knowledge application’ and included all four items that were previously developed for measuring
it (KAP1–KAP4). Factor 2, with 10.575% explanation of the total variance, was named
‘knowledge acquisition’ and included three of the five items previously developed for measuring
it (KA1–KA3). Factor 3, with 9.283% explanation of total variance, was named ‘knowledge
sharing’ and included three of the four items previously developed for measuring it (KS2–KS4).

The reliability of data was measured using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient to check the internal
consistency of the module variables (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013). The results indicated that
Cronbach’s alpha correlation coefficient for all the questionnaires was 0.91, which, according to
George and Mallery (2003), means excellent reliability. Table 2 shows the EFA and Cronbach’s
alpha correlation coefficient results.
[Insert Table 2]
Analysis
Hypotheses testing
 To examine the direct relationships among the research constructs, multiple regressions were
used. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) method for examining the mediating effect was used. The
multiple regression technique offers the opportunity to explore the relationships among a set of
independent variables and one dependent variable (Creswell, 2013). In order to use multiple
regression, several assumptions must be met. First, tolerance values must be greater than 0.10 and
variance inflation factor (VIF) values must be less than 10 for all research constructs, to avoid the
problem of multicollinearity (Hair et al., 1998). Second, the data must be normally distributed.
The histogram plots in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Table 3 show that all these conditions were met.
[Insert Figure 2]
[Insert Figure 3]

H01: TQM practices (leadership, customer focus, teamwork, process management, information
and analysis) have no statistical impact on organizational performance.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

In order to test the first hypothesis, multiple regression analysis was used. Table 3 shows the
details.
[Insert Table 3]

Table 3 shows that all TQM practices (leadership, customer focus, teamwork, process
management, and information and analysis) had a positive significant impact on organizational
performance at p ≤ 0.05. Table 3 also indicates that the dimensions of the listed TQM practices
together explained about 7% of the variance in organizational performance on the basis of the
2
adjusted R value. The F value was equal to 7.624 and significant at p ≤ 0.05. Therefore, the null
hypothesis H01 was rejected and the alternative, H1, accepted.

H02: TQM practices (leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, teamwork, process
management, information and analysis) have no statistical impact on KM processes.

In order to test the first hypothesis, multiple regression was used. Table 4 shows the details.
[Insert Table 4]

Table 4 shows that the dimensions of TQM practices (leadership, customer focus, teamwork,
process management, and information and analysis) together explained about 57% of the variance
2
in KM processes on the basis of the adjusted R value. The F value was equal to 130.661 and
significant at p ≤ 0.05. This indicates that TQM practices had a significant positive impact on KM
processes. Based on the T values, only leadership, teamwork, and information and analysis had a
positive significant impact on KM processes, at p ≤ 0.05, but customer focus and process
management did not. This result may be due to the long-term orientation of customer focus and
process management, which do not necessarily affect KM processes in the short term. Therefore,
we rejected H02 and accepted the alternative hypothesis, H2. In order to understand how each
TQM practice would influence each KM process, we tested the sub-hypotheses:

H02.1: TQM practices (leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, teamwork, process
management, information and analysis) have no statistical impact on knowledge acquisition.
[Insert Table 5]

Table 5 shows that the dimensions of TQM practices (leadership, customer focus, teamwork,
process management, and information and analysis) together explained about 34% of the variance
2
in knowledge acquisition on the basis of the adjusted R value. The F value was equal to 51.03
and significant at p ≤ 0.05. This confirms that TQM practices had a significant impact on
knowledge-acquisition process. On the basis of T values, all TQM practices (leadership, customer
focus, teamwork, and information and analysis) apart from process management had a positive
significant impact on knowledge acquisition at p ≤ 0.05.
 H02.2: TQM practices (leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, teamwork, process
management, information and analysis) have no statistical impact on knowledge sharing.
[Insert Table 6]

Table 6 shows that TQM practices (leadership, customer focus, teamwork, process management,
and information and analysis) together explained about 34% of the variance in knowledge sharing
on the basis of the adjusted R2 value. The F value was equal to 50.58 and significant at p ≤ 0.05.
This confirms that TQM practices had a significant impact on the knowledge-sharing process.
Moreover, and on the basis of T values, all TQM practices (process management, customer focus,
teamwork, and information and analysis) apart from leadership had a positive significant impact
on knowledge sharing at p ≤ 0.05. This result was expected and logical, because any TQM
program brings new practices that should be disseminated and understood by functional
departments to ensure the success of the program.

H02.3: TQM practices (leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, teamwork, process
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

management, information and analysis) have a statistically significant impact on knowledge

application.
[Insert Table 7]

Table 7 shows that TQM practices (leadership, customer focus, teamwork, process management,
and information and analysis) together explained about 42% of the variance in knowledge
2
application on the basis of the adjusted R value. The F value was equal to 71.09 and significant at
p ≤ 0.05. This confirms that TQM practices had a significant impact on the knowledge-application
process. On the basis of T values, all TQM practices (leadership, process management, teamwork,
and information and analysis) apart from customer focus had a positive significant impact on
knowledge application at p ≤ 0.05. This result was expected and logical, because applying TQM
practices implies applying new ways of doing jobs that necessitate applying new knowledge.

H03: KM processes (acquisition, sharing, and application) have no statistical impact on

organizational performance.
[Insert Table 8]

Table 8 shows that KM processes (acquisition, sharing, and application) together explained about
2
8% of the variance in organizational performance on the basis of the adjusted R value. The F
value, which was used to measure the model fitness, was equal to 15.58, and was significant at p
≤ 0.05. This confirms that KM processes had a significant impact on organizational performance.
On the basis of T values, knowledge sharing and knowledge application had a positive significant
impact on organizational performance at p ≤ 0.05. This result was expected and logical, because
improving organizational performance indexes requires sharing knowledge with workers who
need it for their daily work tasks.

H04: KM processes have no statistical mediating effect on the impact of TQM practices on
organizational performance.

To investigate the mediating effect of KM processes, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation
regression analysis technique was conducted. Mediation is an assumed causal series in which one
variable (independent) affects a second variable (mediator), which affects a third variable
(dependent). The purpose of the mediator variable is to explain and govern the nature of the
relationship of independent and dependent variables.

The following steps were taken:

1. A simple regression analysis was made between each predictor and mediator (each TQM
practice on KM processes). The relationship between the predictor (TQM practices) and
the mediator (KM processes) must be significant.
 2. A simple regression analysis was made between each predictor and criterion variable
(each TQM practice on organizational performance). The relationship between the
predictor (TQM practices) and the criterion (organizational performance) must be
significant.
3. A simple regression analysis was made between mediator and criterion variables (each
KM process on organizational performance). The relationship between the mediator (KM
processes) and the criterion (organizational performance) must be significant.
4. The predictor effect on the criterion must be reduced in Step 3 rather than Step 2. If the
effect on the criterion variable is reduced and turns non-significant in Step 3 compared
with Step 2, then full mediation occurs. However, if this effect is reduced in Step 3
compared with Step 2, but is still significant, then partial mediation occurs.

Table 9 shows the mediating regression results.

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

[Insert Table 9]

The results in Table 9 show that all TQM practices impacted organizational performance.
KM processes fully mediated the impact of leadership, customer focus, process
management, and information and analysis on organizational performance, except for
teamwork, which had a partial mediating effect. When organizational performance was
regressed at the same time on each TQM practice and KM process (see each Step 3 in Table
9) the relationship between these TQM practices and organizational performance was
reduced from β = 0.199 to β = 0.087 for leadership; from β = 0.123 to β = 0.005 for
customer focus; from β = 0.160 to β = 0.035 for process management; and from β = 0.198 to
β = 0.095 for information and analysis. Because these coefficients transformed from being
statistically significant to being insignificant, full mediation occurred. In addition, the beta
coefficient for teamwork decreased from β = 0.218 to β = 0.115. However, it was still
significant, which means there is a partial mediating effect regarding teamwork. From the
above discussion we can conclude that KM processes fully mediate the impact of TQM
practices on organizational performance, apart from teamwork practice, which has a partial
mediating effect, leading to the acceptance of H4.

Discussion of results
TQM practices, such as leadership, customer focus, teamwork, process management, and
information and analysis, had a positive impact on organizational performance. This finding
supports the results of Fotopoulos and Psomas (2010), Zakuan et al. (2010), and
Valmohammadi (2011), who suggested that higher levels of TQM practices leverage
organizational performance to the maximum. Although leadership, teamwork, and
information and analysis had a positive significant impact on organizational performance,
customer focus and process management did not. This was because the effect of customer
focus and process management on organizational performance often does not appear in the
short term, indicating that not all TQM practices can create a significant positive impact on
organizational performance. This result is in line with the results of Baird et al. (2011),
Mehmood et al. (2014), and Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014), which showed that organizational
performance is affected by some TQM practices, though not by all. This result also confirms
the result of Mehmood et al. (2014), who found that customer focus was not related to
organizational performance. Prajogo and Sohal (2001) explained the insignificance of this
relationship by showing that customers put various constraints on organizations that limited
their freedom to innovate.

The results also showed that TQM practices such as leadership, customer focus, teamwork,
process management, and information and analysis had a positive significant impact on KM
processes. This indicated that for successful TQM practice applications, the appropriate KM
process should take place. This result was in line with the results of Ooi et al. (2009), Ooi
 (2009), and Colurcio (2009), who suggested that TQM practices have a positive significant
impact on KM processes. Among TQM practices, teamwork had the most significant impact
on KM processes. This indicated that KM processes need cooperation between the team
members in order to be effective. Moreover, TQM practices such as leadership, customer
focus, teamwork, and information and analysis, apart from process management, had a
significant impact on knowledge acquisition. This result differed from the results of Ooi
(2009; 2014). This may be due to process management aims to remove unproductive
processes and create new productive processes that make knowledge that is already acquired
useful. In contrast, information and analysis had the most impact on knowledge acquisition.
This confirmed the observation of Ooi (2014), who found that using technology will speed
up acquiring processes.
Furthermore, the TQM practices of process management, customer focus, teamwork, and
information and analysis, apart from leadership, had a positive significant impact on
knowledge sharing. This result indicated that top management had withdrawn itself from the
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

knowledge-sharing process and may not have provided sufficient incentives and rewards to
encourage employees to share their tacit knowledge. This result was in line with the
findings of Ooi et al. (2012; 2014), but was at odds with the results of Ooi (2009), who
found that all the foregoing TQM practices had a positive significant impact on knowledge
sharing. Moreover, teamwork had the most impact on knowledge sharing, as teamwork
enhances communications and trust between individuals, which is a prerequisite for sharing
knowledge (Yusuf et al., 2007).
In addition, the TQM practices of leadership, process management, teamwork, and
information and analysis, except for customer focus, had a positive significant impact on
knowledge application. This result was in line with that of Ooi (2014), who showed that
customer focus did not influence knowledge application. He attributed this phenomenon to
continuously changing customer needs and expectations, which made knowledge
application difficult owing to the extra time and resources needed. In contrast, it was at
variance with the results of Ooi (2009), who found that all TQM practices had a positive
significant impact on knowledge application. Among TQM practices, leadership had the
most impact on knowledge application. This was due to the leader’s ability to create a
supportive environment that encouraged employees to apply knowledge in decision-making
and problem-solving situations (Macneil, 2001).
The results also showed that KM processes had a positive significant impact on
organizational performance. This result was in line with those of Liao and Wu (2009) and
Gharakhani and Mousakhani (2012). It also confirmed the results of Wang and Wang
(2012), who suggested that knowledge sharing influences organizational performance
positively. More specifically, only knowledge sharing and knowledge application
influenced organizational performance positively, though not knowledge acquisition. This
may be because acquired knowledge is only important if it is shared and applied in order to
carry out business processes and tasks. This result is supported by Nawaz et al. (2014), who
found that only knowledge sharing has a significant effect on organizational performance.
This same result also revealed that KM processes fully mediated the impact of the TQM
practices of leadership, customer focus, process management, and information and analysis
on organizational performance, while teamwork had a partial mediating effect. In addition,
this result confirmed the suggestion of Birasnav (2014) that KM processes can play a
mediating role between leadership and organizational performance.

Leadership had a significant relationship with knowledge acquisition and application, but
not knowledge sharing; this was a surprising result. This insignificant impact is probably
due to various factors. Firstly, the leaders in the study considered that they had fulfilled their
role by attaching some mechanisms for knowledge sharing within functional departments.
Secondly, in Arab culture, and in Jordan in particular, leaders are not willing to interact
equally with employees, as they consider that it downgrades their power and position, and
 that it could lead to some disrespect from employees. In fact, both leaders and employees
strongly believe in power distance. Thirdly, Jordan’s unemployment rate is currently high,
so managers believe that sharing their knowledge is putting their future career in danger.
Therefore, they avoid sharing their knowledge with anyone in order to keep their positions
secure and to feel they are indispensable. Fourthly, knowledge sharing is a culture in itself
and cannot be imposing on employees in a short time. Both employees and managers have
to believe in the importance of knowledge sharing to achieve organizational goals. Fifthly,
when reward and incentive systems focus on an individual’s effort and achievements,
leaders try to obtain most of the benefits, which, in turn, prevents knowledge sharing within
organizations. Sixthly, more often than not, leaders’ salaries reflect the market value of their
knowledge: the more they share their knowledge, the more their market value decreases.
Seventhly, leaders often accumulate their experiences and knowledge over a number of
years, so they are not willing to give it to others easily and in a short period of time. Lastly,
without leaders’ support, organizations do not dedicate the required resources to applying
knowledge.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

Another interesting result was the weak relationship between TQM practices and
organizational performance. This is probably due to several factors. Firstly, it may be
because of the mediating effects of KM processes. Secondly, organizational performance is
a macro-measure that reflects overall organizational performance, which is normally
affected by internal and external factors, such as signing a new contract with partners,
entering new markets, recruiting a new manager with unique expertise, or using a new type
of technology that competitors do not have. Thirdly, it takes time for TQM practices to
influence organizational performance. The application of TQM practices in
telecommunications companies is new; it is not going to affect organizational performance
directly.

Finally, the weak relationship between KM processes and organizational performance was
unexpected, and contradicts much of the KM literature. This result was also probably due to
several factors. Firstly, high levels of organizational performance require the activation of
all KM processes (acquisition, sharing, and application). Secondly, the application of KM
processes does not necessarily affect organizational performance, but it may affect other
factors, such as employee commitment, the quality of service processes, and doing tasks
differently, which in turn affects organizational performance. Thirdly, the result revealed
that leadership withdrawal from the knowledge-sharing process meant that whoever
acquired new knowledge would not disseminate it to others who were in need of that
knowledge. Consequently, organizational performance suffered.

Conclusions
TQM practices such as leadership, customer focus, teamwork, process management, and
information and analysis had a weak positive impact on organizational performance.
However, other TQM practices, such as customer focus and process management, did not
impact organizational performance. Teamwork was the most influential TQM practice that
impacted organizational performance. Knowledge application was the most influential KM
process that impacted organizational performance.

TQM practices enhanced the establishment of KM processes and influenced KM processes

differently. Of the TQM practices, information and analysis was the most important for
facilitating knowledge acquisition. Teamwork more positively influenced knowledge
sharing than other TQM practices. Leadership was the most important TQM practice for
knowledge application and knowledge acquisition. In contrast, leadership had an
insignificant impact on knowledge sharing. While KM processes played a full mediating
effect between TQM practices and organizational performance, they only played a partial
mediating effect on teamwork. Finally, Jordanian telecommunication companies should not
expect to achieve positive organizational performance as a result of executing TQM
 practices unless they are supported by the right KM processes.

Managerial implications and future studies

This study illuminates the role of KM processes in determining TQM practice success. Business
managers should give more attention to TQM practices such as leadership, teamwork, and
information and analysis in order to increase organizational performance. They should also initiate
teamwork structures to ensure effective knowledge sharing. Business managers can activate the
knowledge-acquisition process by focusing on information and analysis practices to enable
employees to extract new knowledge. Business leaders should set an example to their employees
by sharing their own knowledge and establishing effective mechanisms for knowledge sharing.
Business managers must make sure that any newly developed knowledge is utilized in executing
business processes and tasks in order to increase organizational performance. Business managers
should also be aware that neither TQM practices nor KM processes can create the required positive
impact on organizational performance unless both are closely intertwined. Finally, business
managers must ensure that customer focus leads TQM practices and KM processes.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

This study is similar to other survey-based studies in that it is not free of limitations. First, the
generalizability of research results is limited to the three telecommunications companies that
represent the whole telecommunications market in the small country of Jordan. Second, the current
study has only considered three types of constructs: TQM practices as independent variables, KM
processes as mediator, and organizational performance as a criterion variable. It did not take into
account any moderating impact on the presumed relationship in the research model. Future studies
can add other moderating or mediating variables, such as organization size, ownership (whether
private or public), and years of experience with TQM practices and KM process initiation. Third,
the current study depends on a survey as the main tool for data collection, and this is not free of
bias. Future research could conduct a longitudinal study to understand why some TQM practices
impact organizational performance more than others. In addition, future studies could dig deeper
into interviews or observations to understand why some TQM practices, such as process
management, do not influence knowledge acquisition, and why other TQM practices, such as
customer focus, do not influence knowledge application. The study results are important for future
research in which respondents can be classified into managerial and non-managerial staff, and
comparisons can be carried out between the two perspectives of the relationship between TQM
practices and KM processes. Finally, future studies can validate the current research model in
another context, such as the manufacturing sector.

References
Aboyassin, N.A., Alnsour, M. and Alkloub, M. (2011), “Achieving total quality management
using knowledge management practices: A field study at the Jordanian insurance
sector”, International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 394-409.

Abu-Hamatteh, Z.S.H., Al-Azab, T.A. and El-Amyan, M. (2003), “Total quality management
achievement: King Abdullah II Award for Excellence of Jordan as a model”, Technovation, Vol.
23 No. 7, pp. 649-652.

Al-Hawary, S.I.S. and Abu-Laimon, A.A.A. (2013), “The impact of TQM practices on service
quality in cellular communication companies in Jordan”, International Journal of Productivity
and Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 446-474.

Al-Marsumi, M. (2007), “Total quality management in a chosen section of the hospitals in

Amman, Jordan”, The Quality Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, p. 45-57.

Al-Shobaki, S.D., Fouad, R.H. and Al-Bashir, A. (2010), “The implementation of total quality
management (TQM) for the banking sector in Jordan”, Jordan Journal of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 304-313.
 Al-Tarawneh, H.A. and Mubaslat, M. (2011), “The implementation of total quality management
(TQM) on the higher educational sector in Jordan”, International Journal of Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 1-10.

Appiah Fening, F., Pesakovic, G. and Amaria, P. (2008), “Relationship between quality
management practices and the performance of small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) in
Ghana”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 694-708.

Aziz, A., Herani, G.M. and Nasar, A. (2012), “Ameliorating financial performance through
implementing total quality management practices: A study of Pakistani banks”, KASBIT Journal
of Management & Social Science, Vol. 5, pp. 1-9.

Baird, K., Jia Hu, K. and Reeve, R. (2011), “The relationships between organizational culture,
total quality management practices and operational performance”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 789-814.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

Bani Ismail, L. (2012), “An evaluation of the implementation of Total Quality Management
(TQM) within the construction sector in the United Kingdom and Jordan”, Doctoral dissertation,
University of Huddersfield, UK.

Barney, J. (1991). “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of

Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.

Birasnav, M. (2014), “Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service

industry: The role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional
leadership”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 1622-1629.

Bon, A.T. and Mustafa, E.M. (2013), “Impact of total quality management on innovation in
service organizations: Literature review and new conceptual framework”, Procedia
Engineering, Vol. 53, pp. 516-529.

Chawla, D. and Joshi, H. (2012), “An approach to KM implementation in Indian manufacturing

and service sector organizations: An exploratory study”, Vision: The Journal of Business
Perspective, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 13-25.
rd
Child, D. (2006), The essentials of factor analysis, 3 edn, Continuum International
Publishing Group, London, UK.

Choy, C.S., Yew, W.K. and Lin, B. (2006), “Criteria for measuring KM performance outcomes in
organisations”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 7, pp. 917-936.

Colurcio, M. (2009), “TQM: a knowledge enabler?”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 236-
248.

Costantini, A. and Zanin, F. (2015), “The influence of total quality management on risk
identification and non-financial performance measures: an Italian-based empirical
analysis”, International Journal of Management Cases, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 73-78.

Creswell, J.W. (2013), Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches, 2nd edn, Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
 Dalkir, K. (2013), Knowledge management in theory and practice, 1st edn, Routledge,
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, USA.

Darroch, J. (2003), “Developing a measure of knowledge management behaviors and

practices”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 41-54.

Del Alonso-Almeida, M.M., Bagur-Femenías, L. and Llach, J. (2015), “The adoption of quality
management practices and their impact on business performance in small service companies: the
case of Spanish travel agencies”, Service Business, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 57-75.

Duran, C., Çetindere, A. and Şahan, Ö. (2014), “An analysis on the relationship between total
quality management practices and knowledge management: The case of Eskişehir”, Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 109, pp. 65-77.

Field, A. (2000), Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows: Advanced techniques for
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

beginners, Introducing Statistical Methods series, Sage publications, London, UK.

Fotopoulos, C.V. and Psomas, E.L. (2010), “The structural relationships between TQM factors
and organizational performance”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 539-552.

George, D. and and

Mallery, P. (2003), SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
th
reference, 4 edn (11.0 update), Pearson Education, Inc., Boston.

Gharakhani, D. and Mousakhani, M. (2012), “Knowledge management capabilities and SMEs’

organizational performance”, Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 35-49.

Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B. (2014), Quality management for organizational excellence,
6th edn, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.

Hair, J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Herzallah, A.M., Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. and Munoz Rosas, J.F. (2014), “Total quality
management practices, competitive strategies and financial performance: The case of the
Palestinian industrial SMEs”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 25 Nos.5-
6, pp. 635-649.

Hsu, I.C. (2008), “Knowledge sharing practices as a facilitating factor for improving
organizational performance through human capital: A preliminary test”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 1316-1326.

Irfan, S.M., Ijaz, A., Kee, D.M.H. and Awan, M. (2012), “Improving operational performance of
public hospital in Pakistan: A TQM-based approach”, World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 1 No.
6, pp. 904-913.

Jordan Institution for Standards and Metrology (JISM) (2008), “Objectives & Strategies” [online],
available at: http://www.jism.gov.jo/ (accessed 15 March 2016).

Kim, S. and Lee, H. (2010), “Factors affecting employee knowledge acquisition and application
capabilities”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 133-152.

Kim, Y.M., Newby-Bennett, D. and Song, H.J. (2012), “Knowledge sharing and institutionalism
in the healthcare industry”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 480-494.

King Abdullah Centre for Excellence (KACE) (2008), “The King Abdullah II Award for
 Excellence in private sector” [online], available at: http://www.kace.jo/private.shtm (accessed 15
March 2016).

Lagrosen, Y., & Lagrosen, S. (2005) , “ The effects of quality management-a survey of Swedish
quality professionals”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.25
No.10, 940-952.

Lakhal, L., Pasin, F. and Limam, M. (2006), “Quality management practices and their impact on
performance”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp.
625-646.

Lau, R.S.M., Zhao, X. and Xiao, M. (2004), “Assessing quality management in China with
MBNQA criteria”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp.
699-713.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

Liao, S.H. and Wu, C.C. (2009), “The relationship among knowledge management, organizational
learning, and organizational performance”, International Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 64-76.

Macneil, C. (2001), “The supervisor as a facilitator of informal learning in work teams”, Journal
of Workplace Learning, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 246-253.

Mehmood, S., Qadeer, F. and Ahmed, A. (2014), “Relationship between TQM Dimensions and
Organizational Performance”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 662-679.

Meihami, B. and Meihami, H. (2014), “Knowledge management a way to gain a competitive

advantage in firms (evidence of manufacturing companies)”, International Letters of Social and
Humanistic Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 80-91.

Morey, D. (2001), “High-speed knowledge management: integrating operations theory and

knowledge management for rapid results”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp.
322-328.

Mosadeghrad, A.M. (2014), “Why TQM programmes fail? A pathology approach”, The TQM
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 160-187.

Nawaz, M.S., Hassan, M. and Shaukat, S. (2014), “Impact of knowledge management practices
on firm performance: Testing the mediation role of innovation in the manufacturing sector of
Pakistan”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 99-111.

Ooi, K.B. (2009), “TQM and knowledge management: Literature review and proposed
framework”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 11, pp. 633-643.

Ooi, K.B. (2014). “TQM: A facilitator to enhance knowledge management? A structural

analysis”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41 No. 11, pp. 5167-5179.

Ooi, K.B., Cheah, W.C., Lin, B. and Teh, P.L. (2012), “TQM practices and knowledge sharing:
An empirical study of Malaysia’s manufacturing organizations”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 59-78.

Ooi, K.B., Teh, P.L. and Yee-Loong Chong, A. (2009), “Developing an integrated model of TQM
and HRM on KM activities”, Management Research News, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 477-490.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988) , “ Servqual”, Journal of retailing, 64(1),
 12-40.

Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S. (2001), “TQM and innovation: a literature review and research
framework”, Technovation, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 539-558.

Ranjbarfard, M., Aghdasi, M., López-Sáez, P. and Emilio Navas López, J. (2014), “The barriers
of knowledge generation, storage, distribution and application that impede learning in gas and
petroleum companies”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 494-522.

Rodríguez-Antón, J.M., Almeida, M.A. and Andrada, L.R. (2011), “Shedding more light on the
impacts of quality certified systems in small service enterprises: A multidimensional
analysis”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 19, pp. 7911-7922.

Sadikoglu, E. and Olcay, H. (2014), “The effects of total quality management practices on
performance and the reasons of and the barriers to TQM practices in Turkey”, Advances in
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

Decision Sciences, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 948-975.

Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2013), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building
Approach, 6th edn, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Hoboken, NJ, USA.

Shannak, R.O. (2009), “Measuring knowledge management performance”, European Journal of

Scientific Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 242-253.

Taherparvar, N., Esmaeilpour, R. and Dostar, M. (2014), “Customer knowledge management,

innovation capability and business performance: a case study of the banking industry”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 591-610.

Talib, F., Rahman, Z. and Azam, M. (2011), “Best practices of total quality management
implementation in health care settings”, Health Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 232-252.

Talib, F., Rahman, Z. and Qureshi, M.N. (2013), “An empirical investigation of relationship
between total quality management practices and quality performance in Indian service
companies”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 280-
318.

Tanninen, K., Puumalainen, K. and Sandström, J. (2010), “The power of TQM: analysis of its
effects on profitability, productivity and customer satisfaction,” Total Quality Management, Vol.
21 No. 2, pp. 171-184.

Theriou, N., Maditinos, D. and Theriou, G. (2010), “Knowledge management enabler factors
and firm performance: An empirical research of the Greek medium and large firms”, in
International Conference on Applied Business and Economics, Technological Educational
Institute of Kavala, Kavala, Greece, 2010:1-20.

Twaissi, N.M. (2008), “An evaluation of the implementation of total quality management (TQM)
within the information and communications technology (ICT) sector in Jordan”, Doctoral
thesis,University of Huddersfield.

Twaissi, N., Rollins, R. and Worsdale, G. (2008). “A review of current issues and challenges for
TQM implementations in the Jordanian information and communications technology sector”, in
Creating an Architecture of Quality and Excellence in the Middle East: Responsibilities,
Challenges and Strategies, Quality Congress Middle East 2, Dubai, 7–9 April, pp. 7-9.

Ueno, A. (2008), “Which management practices are contributory to service

quality?”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 585-
 603.

Uit Beijerse, R.P. (1999), “Questions in knowledge management: defining and conceptualising a
phenomenon”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 94-110.

Valmohammadi, C. (2011), “The impact of TQM implementation on the organizational

performance of Iranian manufacturing SMEs”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 496-509.

Wali, S. and Boujelbene, Y. (2009), “The effect of TQM implementation on firm performance in
the Tunisian context”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 5 No.
1, pp. 60-74.

Wang, Z. and Wang, N. (2012), “Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance”, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No.10, pp. 8899-8908.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

Wong, K.Y., Tan, L.P., Lee, C.S. and Wong, W.P. (2013), “Knowledge Management
performance measurement: measures, approaches, trends and future directions”, Information
Development, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 239-257.

Yang, D. (2011), “The effect of knowledge management on product innovation: Evidence from
the Chinese software outsourcing vendors”, IBusiness, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 16-22.

Yusuf, Y., Gunasekaran, A. and Dan, G. (2007), “Implementation of TQM in China and
organisation performance: an empirical investigation”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 509-530.

Zakuan, N.M., Yusof, S.M., Laosirihongthong, T. and Shaharoun, A.M. (2010), “Proposed
relationship of TQM and organisational performance using structured equation modelling”, Total
Quality Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 185-203.
 Independent variable Mediating variable Dependent variable
H01
TQM practices Organizational performance

KM processes
H04

Leadership

Strategic planning
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

Financial performance
Knowledge acquisition
Customer focus

Knowledge sharing
Teamwork H02 H03
Operational performance
Knowledge application
Process management

Information
Direct effect
and analysis
Indirect effect

Figure 1. Research Model

Table1.Construct measurements
Construct Sources
Leadership (Kim et al., 2012)
Customer focus (Talib et al., 2013)
Teamwork (Talib et al., 2013)
Process management (Talib et al., 2013)
Information and analysis (Talib et al., 2013)
Knowledge acquisition (Liao and Wu, 2009)
Knowledge sharing (Hsu, 2008)
Knowledge application (Liao and Wu, 2009)
Financial performance (Fotopoulos and Psomas, 2010; Valmohammadi, 2011)
Operational performance (Baird et al., 2011; Rodríguez-Antón et al., 2011;
Del Alonso-Almeida et al., 2015; Parasuraman et al., 1988)

Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients

TQM Factors 1 2 3 4 5
practices
Items
(α = 0.88)
L1 The company’s top management evaluates quality
0.60
performance.
L2 The company’s department heads participate in 0.52
the quality-improvement process.
 L3 The company’s top management has specific 0.61
objectives for quality performance.
L4 The company’s top management has laid down a 0.53
comprehensive goal-setting process for quality.
L5 Quality issues are reviewed in organizational 0.62
meetings.
L6 The company’s top management considers quality 0.67
improvement as a way to increase profits.
CF1 The company carries out market studies to
0.63
determine its customers’ needs and expectations.
CF2 The company uses customer feedback as the basis 0.67
of quality improvement.
CF3 The company provides product and service 0.56
information and details to customers.
CF4 The company gives individual and caring 0.64
attention to customers.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

SP2 The company develops strategies and operational 0.58

plans that focus on customer satisfaction.
SP4 The company allocates adequate resources for 0.55
new facilities and process improvements
according to its long-term objectives.
T1 The company encourages employees to trust each 0.68
other and work as a team.
T2 The company encourages team members to
0.78
appreciate constructive criticism.
T3 The company facilitates communication among 0.79
team members to generate good ideas about
potential changes and solutions to problems.
PM2 The company’s technological capability (e.g. 0.52
computerization, networking of operations, etc.)
is enhanced to serve customers and compete in
the market more effectively.
PM3 The company regularly tracks and improves the 0.72
key processes critical to the company.
PM4 The company develops procedures for reducing 0.68
overall service delivery times.
INF2 The company uses quality data (cost of quality, 0.77
rejection rate, error rate, etc.) as tools to manage.
INF3 The company uses charts, graphs, and other
0.70
statistical tools and techniques to monitor quality.
INF4 The company’s departmental meetings are 0.73
conducted at regular intervals to plan, implement,
and monitor the effectiveness of quality-
improvement programs.
KM Process (α = 807)
KA1 The company has ways and procedures for 0 .77
acquiring knowledge about customers.
KA2 The company has ways and procedures for acquiring 0.74
knowledge about competitors.
KA3 The company uses feedback from projects to 0 .65
improve subsequent projects.
KS2 The company disseminates the lessons learned 0.70
from its past failure among its employees.
KS3 The company invests in IT systems that 0.55
facilitate knowledge sharing among its
workers.
KS4 The company offers incentives to encourage 0.73
knowledge sharing.
KAP1 The company has processes for applying
0.69
knowledge learned from mistakes or bad
experiences.
 KAP2 The company uses knowledge in the development 0.66
of new products/services.
KAP3 The company has processes for using 0.80
knowledge to solve new problems.
KAP4 The company facilitates communication 0.66
among team members to generate good ideas
about potential changes and solutions to
problems.
Organizational performance (α = 0.81)
FP1 The company’s profits have been increasing in the 0.78
last three years.
FP2 The company’s sales have been increasing in the 0.79
last three years.
FP3 The company’s market share has been increasing 0.82
in the last three years.
OP1 The company’s overall service quality has been
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

0.66
increasing in the last three years.
OP2 The company’s customer complaints have been 0.74
decreasing in the last three years.
Reliability of the questionnaire (α = 0.91)
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

Figure 2. Organizational Performance

Figure 3. KM Processes

Table 3. Multiple regression for the impact of TQM practices on organizational

performance
Model R R2 Adjusted R2 F Std. error Sig.
value
1 0.274 0.08 0.07 7.624 0.41668 0.000

Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig. Tolerance VIF

coefficients coefficients value
 B Std. Beta
Error
(Constant) 0.322 0.159 2.025 0.04
Leadership 0.258 0.040 0.242 6.430 0.00 0.628 1.591
Customer focus 0.154 0.038 0.150 4.090 0.00 0.657 1.521
Teamwork 0.209 0.026 0.284 8.006 0.00 0.705 1.419
Process management 0.099 0.031 0.125 3.239 0.00 0.601 1.664
Information and 0.170 0.024 0.246 7.226 0.00 0.767 1.304
analysis

Table 4. Multiple regression for the impact of TQM practices on KM processes

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 F value Std. error Sig.
1 0.762 0.58 0.57 130.661 0.27627 0.000
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

Model Unstandardized Standardized T value Sig. Tolerance VIF

coefficients coefficients

B Std. Beta
error
(Constant) 3.001 0.24 12.508 0.00
Leadership 0.13 0.06 0.12 2.10 0.04 0.628 1.591
Customer focus –0.02 0.05 –0.02 –0.42 0.68 0.657 1.521
Teamwork 0.11 0.04 0.15 2.84 0.00 0.705 1.419
Process management –0.01 0.05 –0.01 –0.22 0.82 0.601 1.664
Information and 0.09 0.036 0.12 2.38 0.02 0.767 1.304
analysis

Table 5. Multiple regression for the impact of TQM practices on knowledge acquisition
2
Model R Adjusted R F value Std. error Sig.
R2
1 0.59 0.35 0.34 51.03 0.42719 0.000

Model Unstandardized Standardized T value Sig.

coefficients coefficients
B Std. error Beta
(Constant) 0.47 0.25 1.92 0.05
Leadership 0.31 0.06 0.24 5.04 0.00
Customer focus 0.24 0.06 0.19 4.14 0.00
Teamwork 0.13 0.04 0.14 3.23 0.00
Process management –0.03 0.05 –0.03 –0.70 0.48
Information and analysis 0.23 0.04 0.27 6.25 0.00

Table 6. Multiple regression for the impact of TQM practices on knowledge sharing
2
Model R Adjusted R F value Std. error Sig.
R2
1 0.59 0.35 0.34 50.58 0.47300 0.000
Model Unstandardized Standardized T value Sig.
coefficients coefficients
B Std. error Beta
(Constant) 0.26 0.27 0.95 0.34
 Leadership 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.93 0.36
Customer focus 0.17 0.06 0.12 2.68 0.01
Teamwork 0.28 0.05 0.28 6.22 0.00
Process management 0.22 0.05 0.20 4.20 0.00
Information and analysis 0.14 0.04 0.15 3.49 0.00

Table 7. Multiple regression for the impact of TQM practices on application

2
Model R Adjusted R F value Std. error Sig.
R2
1 0.66 0.43 0.42 71.09 0.38941 0.000

Model Unstandardized Standardized T value Sig.

coefficients coefficients
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

B Std. error Beta

(Constant) 0.24 0.22 1.05 0.30
Leadership 0.40 0.06 0.31 7.04 0.00
Customer focus 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.92 0.36
Teamwork 0.22 0.04 0.25 5.94 0.00
Process management 0.11 0.04 0.12 2.57 0.01
Information and analysis 0.14 0.03 0.17 4.28 0.00

Table 8. Multiple regression for the impact of KM processes on organizational

performance
2
Model R Adjusted R F value Std. error Sig.
R2
1 0.30 0.09 0.08 15.58 0.41240 0.000

Model Unstandardized Standardized T value Sig.

coefficients coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 3.26 0.19 17.64 0.00

Acquisition –0.07 0.04 –0.08 –1.62 0.11

Sharing 0.12 0.04 0.16 3.21 0.00

Application 0.18 0.05 0.22 4.08 0.00

Table 9. Mediating effect of KM processes on the impact of TQM practices on

organizational performance

Mediating effect

Step Criterion Predictor β T Adj. R2 Sig.

1 KM processes Leadership 0.577` 15.407 0.332 0

2 Organizational performance Leadership 0.199 4.435 0.038 0.000
3 Organizational performance Leadership 0.087 1.598 0.061 0.111
KM processes 0.195 3.583 0.000

1 KM processes Customer focus 0.524 13.042 0.273 0

 2 Organizational performance Customer focus 0.132 2.902 0.015 0.004
3 Organizational performance Customer focus 0.005 0.096 0.056 0.924
KM processes 0.242 4.637 0.000

1 KM processes Teamwork 0.579 15.458 0.333 0

2 Organizational performance Teamwork 0.218 4.873 0.046 0.000
3 Organizational performance Teamwork 0.115 2.114 0.065 0.035
KM processes 0.179 3.287 0.001

1 KM processes Process management 0.552 14.445 0.304 0

2 Organizational performance Process management 0.160 3.522 0.023 0.000
3 Organizational performance Process management 0.035 0.650 0.057 0.516
KM processes 0.226 4.230 0.000
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 02:12 03 July 2017 (PT)

1 KM processes Information and analysis 0.525 13.445 0.274 0

2 Organizational performance Information and analysis 0.198 4.396 0.037 0.000
3 Organizational performance Information and analysis 0.095 1.829 0.063 0.068
KM processes 0.195 3.740 0.000