Journal TQM The Key Factors of Total Quality

Benchmarking: An International Journal
The key factors of total quality management in the service sector: a cross-cultural
study
Nancy Bouranta, Evangelos Psomas, Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza, Carmen Jaca,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nancy Bouranta, Evangelos Psomas, Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza, Carmen Jaca, (2019) "The key
factors of total quality management in the service sector: a cross-cultural study", Benchmarking: An
International Journal, https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2017-0240
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2017-0240
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 13:43 26 January 2019 (PT)
Downloaded on: 26 January 2019, At: 13:43 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 127 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13 times since 2019*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178063 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service 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 current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm
The key
The key factors of total quality factors of
management in the service total quality
management
sector: a cross-cultural study
Nancy Bouranta
University of Patras, Agrinion, Greece
Received 5 September 2017
Evangelos Psomas Revised 10 May 2018
28 June 2018
Department of Business Administration of Food and Agricultural Enterprises, Accepted 7 July 2018
University of Patras, Agrinion, Greece
Manuel F. Suárez-Barraza
Universidad de las Americas Puebla, Puebla, Mexico, and
Carmen Jaca
Department of Management, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
Abstract
Purpose – Literature refers to the key factors of total quality management (TQM) based on studies carried
out in individual countries. However, few studies focus on studying the TQM factors in service companies
based on multinational data. The purpose of this paper is to empirically identify the key TQM factors and
their impact on internal and external customer performance measures across different countries.
Design/methodology/approach – The research questions regarding the TQM factors and their effects
were examined using a sample of service organisations from three countries (131 from Greece, 70 from Mexico
and 151 from Spain). TQM factors and their impact on employee and customer satisfaction were analysed
separately for each country. Exploratory factor analyses, coupled with multiple linear regression analyses,
were conducted.
Findings – The key TQM factors identified are common among the three participating countries and can be
summarised as follows: quality practices of top management, process management, employee quality
management, customer focus, and employee knowledge and education. The adoption level of these five key
factors of TQM varies across service organisations in different countries. The results also confirmed that
some of the TQM elements are antecedents of customer- and employee-focused performance.
Practical implications – Multinational service organisations may use such an instrument to evaluate TQM
implementation among worldwide operations and then benchmark their performance. In addition, an
understanding of similarities and differences among countries would help managers around the world to
address difficulties of TQM implementation related to the country culture.
Originality/value – Previous studies have compared key TQM factors across different countries in
manufacturing, but overall, there has been a little attempt in the literature to analyse the adoption of TQM
factors among service firms, as well the relationships between quality improvement and performance across
different geographical regions.
Keywords Total quality management, Greece, Mexico, Service operations
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Intense domestic and international competition, heightened consciousness towards quality
and the need to decrease operational costs have led many organisations to adopt total quality
management (TQM) practices. TQM is seen as a holistic management philosophy that is based
on principles and practices which lead to business excellence (Dahlgaard-Park, 2011). The
extant literature on TQM implementation practices has primarily focused on manufacturing
companies (Mahmood et al., 2014; Singh and Ahuja, 2014). However, in recent years, the
concept of TQM has also been applied to the service sector (Arasli, 2012; Talib et al., 2013; Benchmarking: An International
Journal
Psomas and Jaca, 2016), taking into consideration the essential characteristics of © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
services (intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability) ( Jyoti et al., 2017). DOI 10.1108/BIJ-09-2017-0240
BIJ Kumar et al. (2011, p. 37) pointed that “TQM is a way of managing the industries to improve
product as well as service quality and the overall efficiency of production and other
operations”. Thus, service organisations that implement TQM focus on the provision of
superior value to their customer in an effort to increase revenues (Miguel et al., 2016; Jyoti et al.,
2017). The successful implementation of TQM in a service setting presupposes the
identification and prioritisation of its key factors (Bouranta et al., 2017). Jyoti et al. (2017, p. 898)
argued that the service sector still lags behind the manufacturing sector in relevant research
efforts to understand and measure TQM practices. Considering the growing predominance
of the service sector in many countries and the lack of sufficient research in this field
(Miguel et al., 2016), this study seeks to identify and test the key TQM factors in an effort to
ensure the successful implementation of TQM in the service industry.
The relationship between TQM implementation practices and superior internal and
external customer satisfaction (Yang, 2006; Singh and Smith, 2006; Sit et al., 2009) is also
examined in this research. This is because past research results regarding this relationship
have been contradictory. Many extant studies have yielded evidence that supports the
success of TQM (Shenaway et al., 2007; Yunis et al., 2013; Psomas and Jaca, 2016), although
other research has demonstrated that TQM implementation failed to achieve satisfactory
performance results (Rich, 2008; Miller et al., 2009; Corredor and Goñi, 2011).
Finally, this research compares and contrasts TQM adoption practices across multiple
countries in a simultaneous manner, which will help to better understand the universality of
TQM practices and the levels of adoption. Although the formal evaluation models
(e.g. European Quality Award, Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and Deming
Award) claim to extend beyond cultural boundaries, studies from different counties have
provided different sets of TQM factors, leading to the hypothesis that sociopolitical and
socioeconomic factors likely inhibit the applicability of a common set of TQM practices.
However, Valmohammadi and Roshanzamir (2015) recommended a comparison of TQM
factors and performance indicators in service industries in various regions of the world to
test their commonality and their level of adoption. As an extension of the previous study,
this research strives to identify common key TQM factors and evaluate their impact on
customer- and employee-focused performance in the service context in three different
countries (Greece, Mexico and Spain).
Summarizing, the objectives of this study are to:
(1) expand the current knowledge about TQM factors to the service sector as there is a
little previous academic research or empirical study focusing on this filed
(Pattanayak et al., 2017);
(2) examine the relationship between TQM implementation practices and customer and
employee satisfaction as previous surveys gave contradictory results to this; and
(3) understand the universality of TQM practices and the levels of adoption in three
countries highlighting cultural differences.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a review of literature on the
TQM implementation in the service industry and the research questions are posited; this is
followed by the methodology and the results of the research. Finally, the paper discusses the
findings and ends with the main practical implications.
2. Literature review and research questions

2.1 TQM in the service industry
There is not a universally accepted definition of TQM, given that many different definitions
have been used to describe it. Generally, it can be said that TQM is a management
philosophy that strives to achieve customer satisfaction through superior performance
(Kumar and Sharma, 2017). Given that the definition of TQM is unclear, the effective The key
implementation of TQM practices is more difficult. The expansion of TQM in the service factors of
sector has highlighted the need for structured approaches to facilitate its business total quality
integration. Thus, it is important to study the key TQM factors based on effective TQM
models established in the real world. Studies within the service field have provided management
varied sets of practices considered essential to the successful implementation of TQM
(Dahlgaard-Park, 2011; Garza-Reyes et al., 2015). An overview of the most representative
studies in the service sector in recent years is presented in Table I, allowing for a number of
observations. To draw possible comparisons among the key TQM factors, similar factors
are presented on the same line in Table I. Some factors that were extracted from the research
do not fit precisely under any specific category, and these factors appear in the grey shaded
area in the Table. Research pertaining to the public service sector (Agus, 2004; Kanji and
Sá, 2007; Macinati, 2008; Ramseook-Munhurrun et al., 2011; Pimentel and Major, 2015;
Psomas et al., 2017) was not included in this literature review because of its particularity
when compared to the private service sector.

Of the previous studies reviewed, it should first be noted that TQM factors vary
according to a numeric range from 4 to 17. Some researchers proposed an extensive list of
TQM factors (Sureshchandar et al., 2001; Arasli, 2012; Talib et al., 2013; Mosadeghrad, 2014),
while others limited the set of TQM factors to a few ( Jung et al., 2009; Psomas and Jaca, 2016;
Miguel et al., 2016). A lengthy list of TQM factors may complicate managers’ understanding
and as a consequence prevent their proper implementation. In some instances, proposed
factors may be combined, especially when they refer to common practices or policies.
For example, employee satisfaction may be considered an item under HR management,
while it was extracted as a separate factor by Sureshchandar et al. (2001). Furthermore,
TQM factors differ from one author to another, not only in terms of their number, but also
their nature. Specifically, some empirical studies place more emphasis on soft practices
(Tarí et al., 2007), while others emphasise hard TQM practices (Duggirala et al., 2008).
Still others give equal attention to both (Kaynak, 2003; Al-Marri et al., 2007). Soft TQM
practices are intangible and are primarily related to leadership, employee empowerment and
culture, while hard TQM practices refer to quality improvement tools and techniques, such
as quality management systems, cost of quality and statistical process control,
benchmarking, etc. (Fotopoulos and Psomas, 2009). Moreover, similar TQM factors
are described by different researchers using different names. Specifically, various names are
used to describe information and analysis factors, including quality of data and reporting,
feedback and measurement, management by fact, measurement of resources, etc.
In reviewing previous empirical studies, some common TQM factors can actually be
found, although there is a disagreement over which factors constitute TQM. After analysing
and comparing more than 40 empirically validated TQM factors in the service sector
(Table I), it was found that leadership, HR management, customer focus, process
management and training are mentioned in more than half of the research results. These
TQM factors are common to MBNQA criteria, with the exception of strategic planning and
measurement analysis. Only a few of the empirical studies have examined the importance of
strategic planning and measurement analysis. Thus, these factors are not included in the
proposed set of TQM factors.
Taking into account the above observations, it can be said that a common set of practices
for the successful implementation of TQM have not yet been identified. The lack of general
consensus on common TQM factors may have arisen from differences in definitional or
methodological approaches taken by researchers (Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2003), company
size (Brah et al., 2002; Sila, 2007), sector of employment (Psychogios, 2010) or business
environments of the countries in which the surveyed firms operate (Yoo et al., 2006;
Psychogios et al., 2008). In light of the confusing findings regarding the success of TQM
BIJ
Table I.
management
different studies
constructs across
Comparison of quality
Saraph et al. (1989) Raghunathan et al. Solis et al. (1998) Kanji et al. (1999) Sureshchandar et al. Douglas and Judge Tsang and Antony
(1997) (2001) (2001) (2001)
Involvement
Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous
improvement improvement improvement improvement
Training Emphasis on TQM- Training and
oriented training development
Teamwork Teamwork
The role of Leadership Quality Leadership Top management Top management Top management
management leadership commitment and team involvement commitment
leadership and quality visionary leadership supervisory
policy leadership
Customer Customer External customer Customer focus Customer driven Customer focus
orientation orientation satisfaction
Supplier quality Supplier Supplier quality Supplier management
management relationships
Process management Process improvement Technical system
Product/service design
Quality data and Information and Quality Measurement of Information and Management by fact Measurement and
reporting analysis information resources analysis system total quality methods feedback
analysis
Benchmarking
Human resource Human resource Internal customer HR management
development satisfaction people employee satisfaction
management
Strategic quality Strategic quality
planning planning
Communication
within the company
Service culture Quality philosophy Cultural change
The role of the quality Quality assurance Quality Prevention Social responsibility Quality systems and
department Quality results assurance Services capes union policies
Employee relations Quality intervention
citizenship
Quality results
(continued )
Manufacturing and Manufacturing Manufacturing Higher education Banking sector Services Services
service and service and service UK India USA UK
USA USA, China and Taiwan
India
Sureshchandar et al. Brah et al. (2002) Kaynak (2003) Sakthivel et al. (2005) Prajogo (2005) Al-Marri et al. (2007) Khamalah and Tarí et al. (2007)
(2001) Lingaraj (2007)
Continuous Customer feedback and Continuous Continuous Continuous
improvement improvement improvement improvement in work improvement
process
Training Employee training Learning
Team-building
techniques
Top management Role of top Management Commitment of top Leadership Top management Management Leadership
commitment and management leadership management support commitment
visionary leadership leadership
Customer focus Customer focus Customer focus Customer focus Assess customer Customer focus
satisfaction
Supplier quality Supplier involvement Supplier
management management
Technical system Process focus Process Process management Quality improvement Process
management process management
Product/service Course delivery Product quality Service design
design
Information and Information and Quality data and Information and
analysis system analysis reporting analysis
Benchmarking Benchmarking Benchmarked internal
standards
HR management HR focus People management HR management Employee rewarded HR
employee satisfaction employees management
recognition and
reward
Corporate Strategic planning Strategy Quality
planning planning
Service culture Service culture
(continued )
total quality
The key
management
factors of
Table I.
BIJ
Table I.
Social responsibility Quality focus Employee Campus facilities Problem analysis Use of TQM tools Quality tools
services capes union relations courtesy Quality systems and techniques
intervention Quality department
Social responsibility
Services capes
Quality technologies
Banking sector Services and Manufacturing Education Manufacturing and Manufacturing and Services Manufacturing
India manufacturing and service India service service USA and service
Singapore USA Australia USA Spain
Duggirala et al. (2008) Selvaraj (2009) Jung et al. (2009) Fotopoulos and Psomas He et al. (2011) Kumar et al. (2011) Arasli (2012)
(2010)
Employee involvement People make quality
Quality improvement Continuous Continuous
improvement improvement
Continuous
improvement cycle
Knowledge Training
management
Teamwork Teamwork
Top management Leadership Quality practices of top Leadership Management Leadership
commitment management commitment
Safety indicators Customer focus Customer/ Customer focus Customer and market Customer Delight the customer
Overall experience of supplier relations Customer satisfaction focus satisfaction External customer
medical care satisfaction
Process of clinical care Product/process Process and data quality Process management All work is process
Administrative management management
procedures
Measurement analysis Feedback and Measurement
measurement management by fact
HR management HR focus Employees’ People-based
employee empowerment management
satisfaction Internal customer
satisfaction
Strategic planning
Communication
Service culture
(continued )
Social responsibility Technical and Employee Quality tools and Governance and social Prevention
Infrastructure important systems relations techniques responsibility
Personnel quality Services capes Market benefits
Social Protection of natural
responsibility and social environment
Healthcare Banking sector Manufacturing Manufacturing, service, Services and Manufacturing and Hotel
India India and service wholesales manufacturing service Iran
USA, Mexico, Greece China Indian
Korea and China
Singh and Sushil Montasser and Talib et al. (2013) Soria-García and Voon et al. (2014) Mosadeghrad (2014) Karimi et al. (2014)
(2013) Manhawy (2013) Martínez-Lorente (2014)
Employee commitment Employee Internal customer Total employee Employees’
involvement involvement involvement involvement
Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous
improvement culture improvement improvement improvement
Improved service and innovation
quality
Training and Training and Training and Training Continuous training Training and Knowledge
education education education education management
increased load
factor
Coordination and Teamwork Teamwork Teamwork Teamwork
teamwork
Top management Leadership Top Educational centre Top management Top management Leadership
commitment management leadership commitment commitment and support visionary
commitment and involvement support leadership
Democratic
management style
Customer satisfaction Customer focus Customer focus Customer satisfaction Customer-driven Customer and
quality market focus
Supplier Supplier Supplier involvement Suppliers’
relationship management partnership
management
(continued )
total quality
The key
management
factors of
Table I.
BIJ
Table I.
Process improvement Process Process Process management Process management
management management
Product and Product design
service design /educational service
Information and Management by fact Measurement and
analysis to solve problems analysis
Benchmarking Benchmarking Benchmarking
Empowerment of HRM practices HR management Empowerment Effective HR focus
employees employee management of HR
encouragement
Strategic Strategic quality Strategic planning
planning planning
Communication Communication Communication Quality information and
communication
Organisational Quality culture Quality culture Culture TQM culture
culture
Customer involvement Quality systems External customer Quality structure
on-time performance involvement
Airline Hotel Services Education Hospital Healthcare services Manufacturing,
India Egypt India Spain Iran Iran services, etc.
Iran
Sadikoglu and Calvo-Mora Delić et al. (2014) Miguel et al. (2016) Psomas and Bouranta et al. (2017) No. of studies in
Olcay (2014) et al. (2014) Jaca (2016) which the factor
was extracted
8
Continuous Continuous 17
improvement improvement
Innovations
Training Learning Employee knowledge Employee 19
and education knowledge and
education
Teamwork 11
Leadership Leadership and Leadership Leadership Quality practices of Quality practices of 34
top management top management top management
commitment
(continued )
Customer focus Customer focus Customer focus Customer focus Customer focus 31
customer
satisfaction
Supplier quality Supplier Suppliers 15
management management management
Knowledge and Process Process Processes Process management 24
process management management and management
control
8
Data-based 18
management
6
HR management Employee People Employee quality Employee quality 25
management management management
Strategic quality Strategic planning Quality planning Strategic quality 14
planning planning
6
10
Prevention Resources and alliances
Services and Services Production and Nursing homes Services Hotel industry
manufacturing Spain service Spain Spain Greece
China Serbia
total quality
The key
management
factors of
Table I.
BIJ practices, this study aims to identify the key factors for the successful implementation of
TQM in the service industry. Thus, the following research question has been formulated
and examined through this study:
RQ1. What is the underlying structure (latent factors) of the TQM practices
implemented in the service industry?
Much of the previous research on service settings tends to focus on single-organisation case
studies or single-country empirical surveys. Combining sample companies from different
countries into one sample will help to illuminate discussions regarding whether a
contingency approach to the implementation of TQM is needed or whether a universal
implementation approach is warranted. The external business environment, which is
comprised of its national culture, educational levels, information technology and
government regulations, may help to explain the reasons for diversity in TQM
implementation practices (Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2003). National culture seems to
influence TQM implementation, which means that firms need to adopt suitable TQM in
accordance with their different cultural characteristics (Kindlarski, 1996). Specifically,
Saraph et al. (1989) conducted an empirical survey among US manufacturing and service
organisations and proposed a TQM measurement instrument, which is represented by a list
of eight critical factors. The proposed instrument was subsequently replicated in three other
countries – India (Motwani et al., 1994), the United Arab Emirates (Badri et al., 1995)
and Singapore (Quazi et al., 1998) – revealing certain differences in the number of the
TQM factors. On the other hand, Rao et al. (1999) also examined 14 human resource (HR)
development practices among Chinese, Indian and Mexican companies (manufacturing and
service sectors) and found that the three countries demonstrated strengths (training in
specific-work skills, building quality awareness and availability of resources for employee
training) and also displayed weaknesses (training in basic statistical techniques, training in
advanced statistical techniques, employee involvement programmes and employee
participation in quality decisions) in the same HR practices. Thus, the question regarding
the universality of TQM factors has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Consequently,
more empirical and cross-country research is needed. An instrument on TQM factors has
been proposed and tested to determine whether country location influences the
implementation of TQM practices. The second research question is presented as follows:
RQ2. What are similarities and differences in the implementation of TQM practices
across countries?
2.2 The impact of TQM on service company performance

Previous studies have investigated the relationship between TQM practices and company
performance in the manufacturing and service sectors. Company performance is an
indicator that measures how well an organisation accomplishes its objectives
(Valmohammadi, 2012). Existing TQM literature has identified various performance
indicators. For example, Mensah et al. (2012) noted that organisational performance
primarily influenced by TQM can be broadly categorised into four main groups: financial
and market performance, organisational effectiveness, customer satisfaction and employee
satisfaction. Psomas and Jaca (2016) identified four company performance factors: financial
performance, operational performance, customer satisfaction and service quality.
Karimi et al. (2014) also studied a set criterion for TQM outcomes in service companies,
including product and service outcomes, customer-focused outcomes, financial and market
outcomes, HR outcomes, organisational effectiveness outcomes and social responsibility
outcomes. In addition, Talib et al. (2013) evaluated quality performance based on items
addressing product, processes and service quality, employee service quality, employee
satisfaction, customer satisfaction and supplier performance. Although financial outcomes The key
are essential for business survival, the service sector also has a strong interest in factors of
people-related TQM or HR-focused practices and their impact on employee behaviour total quality
(Fotopoulos and Psomas, 2009). Thus, the present study focused on two qualitative
performance indicators, internal and external customer satisfaction, hypothesising that management
TQM improves employee job satisfaction and customer satisfaction, both of which lead to
market share increases and long-term profitability (Shenaway et al., 2007; Fening et al., 2008;
Arumugam et al., 2008). TQM practices have a positive and significant relationship with
employee performance (Iqbal and Asrar-ul-Haq 2018). Quality enhancement depends upon
aptness of employees (Iqbal and Asrar-ul-Haq 2018). Thus, engaged employees who have
direct interactions with customers during “moments of truth” can contribute to customer
satisfaction through their behaviour and their performance (Ahmad et al., 2012; Jyoti et al.,
2017). Yang (2006) examined the impact of TQM practices on company performance and
found that all TQM practices significantly influence customer satisfaction. He also found
that TQM implementation enhances a company’s image and improves employee

satisfaction and quality awareness.
Employee satisfaction is defined as “the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values”.
Job satisfaction is a basic element in TQM models. It is considered important because of its
well-established association with a range of organisational outcomes, such as employee
performance (Siengthai and Pila-Ngarm, 2016), organisational commitment (Valaei and
Rezaei, 2016), customer satisfaction (Pantouvakis and Bouranta, 2013; Hur et al., 2015) and
its contribution to an organisation’s competitive edge (Bellou, 2010). The implementation of
TQM also influences work-related outcomes, especially employee job satisfaction (Yue et al.,
2011). Lenka et al. (2010) argued that an organisation’s TQM strategy should be linked to the
needs of internal customers, that is, its employees.
More specifically, the soft or qualitative aspects of TQM (namely, teamwork,
education and training, employee recognition, employee involvement and appraisals) are
found to have a positive effect on job satisfaction (Arunachalam and Palanichamy, 2017).
The research of Ooi et al. (2007) revealed that HR and organisational behavioural aspects
of quality management, such as organisational trust, customer focus, reward and
recognition, teamwork and organisational culture, have an impact on employee job
satisfaction. The relationship between TQM practices and employee job satisfaction
within the context of the Pakistan banking industry was also empirically tested
(Bari et al., 2016). It was found that teamwork, reward and recognition, and education and
training have direct as well as indirect (through relational psychological contract)
significant relationships with job satisfaction. Prajogo and Cooper (2010) found that
people-related TQM practices, operationalised at both individual and organisational
climate levels, have a positive relationship with job satisfaction. Employee empowerment,
training, teamwork, continuous improvement and prevention, which are widely
applicable practices to facilitate growth in a TQM business environment, also enhance
employee satisfaction (Kabak et al., 2014; Karia and Asaari, 2006). By contrast, no
significant link between quality management and employee job satisfaction was
identified in a survey of private and public sector industries in Britain (de Menezes, 2012).
In some cases, employees may believe that the implementation of TQM practices increases
pressure by compelling them to take on additional work and responsibilities (Lam, 1995;
Green, 2006).
The prescriptive literature on the link between TQM and job satisfaction is scant and
controversial, and it is generally specific to the manufacturing industry (Guimaraes, 1996;
Arunachalam and Palanichamy, 2017), to a particular service company (Harber et al., 1996;
Jun et al., 2006; Ooi et al., 2007; Chang et al., 2010) or to data from a single country
BIJ (Lam, 1996; Prajogo and Cooper, 2010; de Menezes, 2012) which hampers the generalisability
of findings. Thus, the following research question is formulated:
RQ3. What are similarities and differences in the relationship between TQM factors and
job satisfaction across countries?
It is logical to support the idea that a firm which improves its service quality through the
implementation of TQM practices will increase its customer satisfaction. Efficiency
improvements related to TQM lead to superior value to the external customer (Miguel et al.,
2016). Organisations are becoming more customer focused through the adoption of different
management ideas, paradigms and models, including the principles of TQM, as they are
perceived to be a means to improve organisations’ quality of service (Lam et al., 2011).
Lam et al. (2012) offered some evidence of the positive effects of TQM practices on market
orientation and service quality in the Malaysian service industry. In the same line, Ooi et al.
(2011) showed that TQM practices are significantly and positively linked to customer
satisfaction of the small service business firms. Another empirical study in the higher
education institutions supported the relationship between five TQM variables (commitment
of top management, course delivery, campus facilities, courtesy, and customer feedback and
improvement) and students’ satisfaction (Sakthivel et al., 2005). Conversely, Carman et al.
(1996) failed to find a significant relationship between TQM practices and the outcomes of
patient cost per admission, patient length of stay, market share, staff productivity and
patient satisfaction. Thus, the question regarding the universality of TQM factors and its
linkage with customer satisfaction has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Hence, we seek
to answer the following question:
RQ4. What are the similarities and differences in the relationship between TQM factors
and customer satisfaction across countries?
The conceptual framework of this study is depicted in Figure 1.
3. Methodology
3.1 Establishing the constructs
In order to answer the research questions, an empirical survey was carried out among three
countries (Greece, Mexico and Spain). These countries were selected based on the
accessibility to mailing lists by the researchers involved in the study. The research study
conducted in the services sector. A questionnaire was used as the data collection method, the
design of which was based on previously developed measurement instruments. Reviewing
more than 30 empirical studies in the service industry, the present study proposed five key
factors for the successful implementation of TQM, namely, employee quality management,
quality practices of top management, process management, employee knowledge and
Process management
Quality practices of Employee-focused

top management performance
Employee quality
management Customer-focused
performance
Employee knowledge
Figure 1. and education
Conceptual framework
of the study Customer
focus
education and customer focus. The TQM scale is a 32-item measure which was based on The key
previous studies (Table V ). One sample of the instrument items is the following: “Employees factors of
participate in the decision-making process and in setting quality objectives”. Job satisfaction total quality
was measured using the four-item scale developed by Hackman and Oldham (1980).
Customer satisfaction is measured using the respondent’s perception and based on three management
items instrument proposed by Psomas and Jaca (2016).
The scales were slightly modified for the best thematic fit, based on the
recommendations of academics and experts in the specific field. All the instruments were
in the English language, using the same questionnaire for the three countries. A pilot survey
was conducted to smooth questionnaire procedures, preventing subjects from missing
questions and reducing the probability of misunderstanding. Specifically, three managers of
each country completed the pilot questionnaire and indicated any ambiguity or other
difficulty they experienced in responding to the questions, as well as offering suggestions.
Based on this feedback, some questions were eliminated, others were modified and
additional items were developed. The items in these instruments took the form
of a seven-point psychometric Likert scale (anchored on 1 ¼ “strongly disagree” through
7 ¼ “strongly agree”). The self-administrated questionnaire also includes a series of
questions related to the company profile as well as to the demographic characteristics of the
respondents such as gender, job title, etc.
3.2 Sampling process

An initial e-mail was sent to managers, inviting them to participate in the research study,
explaining the purpose of the study and attaching the final version of the questionnaire.
It was requested that the questionnaire be answered by the company representative in the
charge of quality management. Participants were assured of total confidentiality and
anonymity. Follow-up reminder e-mails were sent after the initial e-mailing to increase the
response rate. These countries were selected based on the accessibility to mailing lists and
personal contacts.
In case of Greece, the database of ICAP (the largest business information and
consulting firm in Greece) was used for choosing the service companies that would
participate in the research study. Based on a random selection, 500 service companies
operating all over Greece were selected to participate in the present study. In case of
Mexico, the questionnaires were mailed to 150 service companies recorded in the
Puebla database (a database from local government that is very useful to search data from
metropolitan states of Mexico). A sample of 800 service companies from northern
Spain was selected from those recorded in the database of Euskalit (a non-profit
organisation that supports service companies in implementing improvement
methodologies). The simple sampling procedure was also used for this purpose. Totally,
a sample of 568 questionnaires was collected, of which 16 were excluded because they
were ineligible; they provided answers that were uniformly positive or negative or
with incomplete answers. Hence, the total usable sample for analysis consists of
352 questionnaires. The response rates were about 26.2 per cent for Greece, 46.6 per cent
for Mexico and 18.9 per cent for Spain.
No statistically significant differences were detected comparing the responding and
non-responding companies, in terms of the number of their employees (Mann–Whitney test).
The non-responding companies stated, when contacted, that the major reason for not
participating in the research project was the lack of time. Thus, it is apparent that
non-response bias is not likely to be an issue in the final sample. Since the questionnaire was
completed by a single respondent from each participating company, the common method
variance had to be checked to ensure that the data have no major problems. For this reason,
the single-factor test was applied. This test was run by loading all the items into a principal
BIJ component analysis and forcing them into one latent factor. This method produced poor
results as indicated by the 45 per cent of the variance extracted, while many items suffered
from poor factor loadings, which fell below 0.4. Thus, it is apparent that the common method
variance is not a substantive problem in this study. Furthermore, since the questionnaire
was completed by a single respondent (manager in the charge of quality management), the
common method variance was checked by applying the single-factor test (Martinez-Costa
and Martinez-Lorente, 2008). This method produced poor results, confirming that common
method variance is not a substantive problem.
Table II presents the size of the responding companies based on the number of their
employees. No statistically significant differences are observed among the companies of the
three countries in terms of their size.
Most of the participating service companies in Greece were certified according to ISO
9001, and a limited number of companies held an OHSAS 18001 certification (Table III).
In Spain, 27 companies were certified by OHSAS 18001, although they neglected the
requirements for the implementation of an environmental management system, as

it was also the case with Greek and Mexican service companies. In Mexico, the majority
of participating companies did not hold any kind of certification. These certifications
are considered a consistent complement to TQM and constitute the first step in
advancing quality.
3.3 Data analysis

Prior to feeding the data to factor analysis, it was confirmed that the assumptions of
normality, linearity and homoscedasticity were not violated. Then exploratory factor
analyses (EFA) were applied for the instruments. The EFA model is Y ¼ Xβ+ E, where Y
is a matrix of measured variables, X is a matrix of common factors, β is a matrix of
weights (factor loadings) and E is a matrix of unique factors and error variation. EFA was
employed using the principal component factor extraction method with the orthogonal
varimax rotation method. The factors structure of the TQM scale was further examined
by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The confirmatory factor model can be summarised
by the equation x ¼ Λξ + δ, in which x is the vector of observed variables, Λ is the
matrix of loadings connecting the ξi to the xi, ξ is the vector of common factors and δ is
Number of employees Greece Mexico Spain
1–10 19 8 13
11–50 64 9 32
51–100 16 6 36
101–250 13 25 29
Table II. 251–500 8 8 5
Size in the number W501 11 14 36
of employees Total 131 70 151
Greece Mexico Spain

Quality certification Certified Not certified Certified Not certified Certified Not certified
ISO 9001 128 3 26 44 73 78

Table III. ISO 14001 15 116 16 54 41 110
Quality certifications OHSAS 18001 3 128 7 63 27 124
the vector of unique factors. Cronbach’s α coefficient, which is the most common method The key
for reliability analysis, was also calculated using the formula: factors of
PK 2 ! total quality
K i¼1 sYi
a¼ 1 ; management
K1 s2X
where s2X is the variance of the observed total test scores, and s2Yi is the variance of
component i for the current sample of persons.
The measurement of the concepts was based on previously developed instruments, so
that content validity was assured. The analysis also verified that the factor loadings of the
items exceeded the 0.40 threshold on its parent factor with low cross-loading, which shows
that the measurement instruments reached convergent validity. Examining the discriminant
validity of the extracted factors, it was found that the square root of the average variance
extracted (AVE) of each factor was greater than the highest correlation coefficient between
the factor of interest and the remaining factors. This demonstrated discriminant validity
between the extracted latent factors. The AVE can be calculated as follows:
Pk 2
li
AVE ¼ Pk 2 i¼1 Pk ;
i¼1 li þ i¼1 Varðei Þ
where k is the number of items, λi the factor loading of item i and Var (ei) is the variance of
the error of item i.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey post hoc comparison tests is used
to analyse the data and point any statistically significant differences among the participated
countries. The results are based on the application of the above formula:
M 1 M 2
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi;
M S w n1
where M is the group mean and n the number per group.

Finally, multiple linear regression analyses were also used to examine the extent to
which the elements of TQM influence performance. The model for multiple linear regression,
given n observations, is yi ¼ b0 þbx1i1 þbΧ2 i2 þ þbpip þei , for i ¼ 1, 2, … n.
x
4. Results
4.1 Testing factor structure
As displayed in Table IV, the factor analysis of TQM practices revealed five factors. These
factors explained 70.1 per cent of the total variance, a rather satisfactory result in the
context of social science research (Hair et al., 2010). Variables with factor loadings less than
0.40 were ignored for the rest of the analysis; this effectively resulted in excluding four
questions. None of the factors had eigenvalues less than 1 (Kaiser criterion). In addition, the
data for factor analysis were tested using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin index (sampling
adequacy equal to 0.951) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (which rendered highly
significant results, p ¼ 0.000), both of which were considered satisfactory.
The extracted latent factors are explained using the measured variable loadings and
can be labelled as follows: employee quality management, quality practices of top
management, strategic quality planning, employee knowledge and education and customer
focus. In order to further test the factorial structure of the TQM scale, a CFA was applied.
The five-factor structure shows an adequate model fit ( χ2 ¼ 748.197, df ¼ 307, p ¼ 0.00,
TLI ¼ 0.93, CFI ¼ 0.94, NFI ¼ 0.90, IFI ¼ 0.94 and RMSEA ¼ 0.06).
BIJ Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin ¼ 0.918 Factor loadings
Quality Employee
practices Employee knowledge
Process of top quality and Customer
Items management management management education focus
Statistical process control is

implemented 0.777
Mistakes are precluded during the
design of the procedures 0.774
Process and service nonconformities are
detected through internal audits 0.718
The critical quality process is
determined and their performance
is evaluated 0.710
Equipment is controlled through
preventive maintenance 0.701

All employees are provided with work
instructions 0.600
Top management actively participates
in quality improvement efforts 0.794
Top management supports quality
improvement efforts by providing
resources 0.749
Top management sets the quality issues
on the agenda of the managers’ meetings 0.730
Top management gives priority to
process and product/service quality 0.681
Top management gives the authority to
employees to manage quality problems 0.550
Employees who improve quality are
awarded 0.735
Employees participate in the
decision-making processes 0.718
Employees take initiatives 0.703
Employees are motivated to improve
their performance 0.636
There are horizontal and vertical
communication channels throughout
the company 0.540
Employees participate in meetings, the
agenda of which is related to quality
improvement planning 0.512
Resources are provided for educational
reasons 0.771
Educational programmes are evaluated 0.753
The employees are educated in
subjects with regard to their specialty
and daily work 0.738
The employees have knowledge and
know-how 0.697
The employees are educated in quality
management 0.588
Customers’ complaints, satisfaction
level and proposals for quality
Table IV. improvement are selected 0.739
Exploratory factor
analysis of the
TQM practices (continued )
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin ¼ 0.918 Factor loadings
The key
Quality Employee factors of
practices Employee knowledge total quality
Process of top quality and Customer
Items management management management education focus
management
Customers’ needs, requirements,
desires and expectations are recorded
and analysed 0.686
Customers are encouraged to submit
complaints and proposals for quality
improvement 0.676
The company’s managers and
employees are in close contact with
customers 0.650
The company’s objectives overcome
customer expectations 0.514

Eigenvalue 49.749 7.082 4.969 4.214 4.053
Cumulative variance (%) 16.283 14.567 14.098 13.578 11.541 Table IV.
Table V presents the number of items of each factor as well as their mean value, standard
deviation and reliability value. The Cronbach’s α coefficients exceed the recommended level
of 0.70. More specifically, the Cronbach’s α value of the TQM construct is equal to 0.95,
suggesting that this construct has high internal consistency (Oliveira and Roth, 2012).
Customer focus and leadership are viewed as most important factors by the quality
managers of the sample companies. As far as employee and customer satisfaction
measurement is concerned, the factor analysis revealed a one-dimensional factor that
explained 61 and 69 per cent of the total variance. The Cronbach’s α values are 0.67 and 0.77,
respectively. The results of both tests of KMO and Bartlett were considered for both
instruments satisfactory.
4.2 Comparison results

In order to compare the differences in quality management practices among the three
countries, an ANOVA was applied to compare the mean values of TQM factors among
Greece, Mexico and Spain. The results of this statistical analysis are presented in Table VI,
demonstrating that the F-values were significant in most cases. Specifically, four out of the
five TQM factors – namely, process management, quality practices of top management,
employee knowledge and education and customer focus – present means between the
countries that are statistically different at the p ¼ 0.01 level. However, employee quality
management presents no significant difference in the mean value among the three countries.
Number Mean
Contract (factor) of items value SD Reliability Bibliographical source of items
Process management 6 5.01 1.2 0.91 Hoang et al. (2010), Gutierrez et al.
Quality practices of top management 5 5.32 1.1 0.89 (2010), Kuo and Kuo (2010),
Employee quality management 6 4.73 1.3 0.89 Alolayyana et al. (2011),
Employee knowledge and education 5 5.22 1.1 0.89 Cockalo et al. (2011), Psomas and
Customer focus 5 5.43 1.1 0.90 Jaca (2016), Zairi and Alsughayir
(2011), Dahlgaard-Park (2011), Table V.
Lam et al. (2011) Descriptive statistics
BIJ Contract (factor) Country Mean F-value
Process management Greece 5.65 32.33*

Mexico 4.64
Spain 4.62
Quality practices of top management Greece 5.49 6.596*
Mexico 4.93
Spain 5.35
Employee quality management Greece 4.76 0.315**
Mexico 4.61
Spain 4.75
Employee knowledge and education Greece 5.43 9.68*
Mexico 4.72
Spain 5.26
Customer focus Greece 5.62 4.95*
Mexico 5.14
Table VI. Spain 5.39

Results of ANOVA Notes: *p ¼ 0.01; **no statistical significance
The ANOVA analysis was followed by Tukey post hoc comparison tests (Table VII).
The results revealed that when comparing Mexico and Greece, significant differences
in the means were identified in all four TQM factors (process management, quality
practices of top management, employee knowledge and education, and customer focus). It
can also be observed that Greece and Spain have similarities, with the exception of the
implication of process management. When comparing Mexico and Spain, the Tukey tests
demonstrate significant differences in quality practices of top management and employee
knowledge and education.
4.3 The impact of the TQM factors on customer and employee satisfaction
The purpose of the third and fourth research questions is to analyse whether the
independent variables (TQM factors) are related to the dependent variables (customer and
employee satisfaction). The multiple linear regression analysis would be appropriate to
analyse the combined effect of predictor variables (independent) on dependent variables.
The results of regressions are given in Table VIII. According to the results of the first
regression analysis, employee-focused performance is affected by one out of the five TQM
factors extracted, namely employee knowledge and education ( p ¼ 0.05, standardized
coefficient ¼ 0.236) as far as the Greek case. In case of Spain, employee-focused performance
is significantly affected by quality practices of top management ( p ¼ 0.05, standardized
coefficient ¼ 0.276) and employee quality management ( p ¼ 0.0, standardized
coefficient ¼ 0.414). The Mexican service industry believes that employee knowledge
and education ( p ¼ 0.05, standardized coefficient ¼ 0.464) and quality practices of top
Contract (factor) Country pair showing significant difference
Process management Greece–Spain

Greece–Mexico
Quality practices of top management Greece–Mexico
Mexico–Spain
Employee knowledge and education Greece–Mexico
Table VII. Mexico–Spain
Results of ANOVA Customer focus Greece–Mexico
Greece Mexico Spain

Dependent variables Stand. coefficients t Sig. Stand. coefficients t Sig. Stand. coefficients t Sig.
Employee-focused performance
Employee quality management 0.111 1.059 0.292 0.200 1.550 0.126 0.414 2.795 0.006
Quality practices of top management 0.154 1.357 0.177 0.377 2.492 0.015 −0.276 −2.173 0.031
Process management 0.165 1.355 0.178 −0.063 −0.329 0.743 0.163 1.516 0.132
Employee knowledge and education 0.236 2.149 0.034 0.464 2.587 0.012 0.121 1.058 0.292
Customer focus −0.017 −0.154 0.878 −0.298 −1.606 0.113 −0.041 −0.307 0.759
R2 ¼ 0.5580, F-ration ¼ 39.397 R2 ¼ 0.273, F-ration ¼ 10.742 R2 ¼ 0.358, F-ration ¼ 8.687 R2 ¼ 0.150, F-ration ¼ 6.197
Customer-focused performance
Employee quality management 0.067 0.720 0.473 −0.044 −0.367 0.714 −0.183 −1.392 0.166
Quality practices of top management 0.087 0.862 0.390 0.117 0.843 0.402 0.094 0.839 0.403
Process management 0.248 2.293 0.024 0.024 0.134 0.894 0.123 1.302 0.195
Employee knowledge and education 0.306 3.129 0.002 0.086 0.525 0.602 0.247 2.449 0.016
Customer focus 0.079 0.807 0.421 0.554 3.254 0.002 0.390 3.276 0.001
R2 ¼ 0.423, F-ration ¼ 20.061 R2 ¼ 0.459, F-ration ¼ 12.704 R2 ¼ 0.334, F-ration ¼ 16.062
total quality
The key
management
factors of
Table VIII.
Regression results
BIJ management ( p ¼ 0.05, standardized coefficient ¼ 0.377) may lead to employee-focused
performance. The second regression model examines the impact of the five TQM factors on
customer-focused performance. According to the findings, customer-focused performance is
significantly affected by employee knowledge and education in both cases,
i.e. Greece ( p ¼ 0.05, standardized coefficient ¼ 0.306) and Spain ( p ¼ 0.05, standardized
coefficient ¼ 0.247). Spanish ( p ¼ 0.001, standardized coefficient ¼ 0.390) and Mexican
( p ¼ 0.05, standardized coefficient ¼ 0.554) quality managers believe that customer focus
practices can improve customer-focused performance. In addition, according to Greek
managers, the improvement of process management can lead to upper customer-focused
performance ( p ¼ 0.05, standardized coefficient ¼ 0.248).
5. Discussion and practical implications

First and foremost, this study focuses on the identification of TQM factors employed in
the service sector. The implementation of the TQM philosophy in the service sector calls
for specificity in terms of its key elements. Thus, an extensive literature review of the
critical factors of TQM necessary to ensure its successful implementation is conducted,
and thus 40 latent constructs representing quality practices are presented in Table I.
The comprehensive review and comparison of previous studies in the service sector that
empirically validated the critical factors of TQM in various countries revealed different
TQM factors in terms of both their number and their nature. This variety of TQM factors
brings into question the universal applicability of TQM practices under the umbrella of
certain factors. Some researchers have attempted to overcome these disparities in the set
of TQM factors by using self-assessment models or awards to test the link between TQM
practices and quality outcomes within the service industry (Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2004;
Ooi et al., 2011; Lam et al., 2012; Karimi et al., 2014; Sadeh and Garkaz, 2015;
Valmohammadi and Roshanzamir, 2015).
The current study found that five TQM factors (employee quality management, quality
practices of top management, process management, employee knowledge and education,
customer focus) are common in the majority of the TQM models used in previous empirical
studies, and these results are presented in Table I. The key TQM factors revealed in the
present study may support service managers in concentrating their efforts and effectively
using their resources on specific quality initiatives in order to enhance the TQM
implementation processes. These TQM factors are almost identical to those revealed by
previous research examining the Greek and Spain business environment (manufacturing
and service) (Fotopoulos and Psomas, 2010; Psomas and Fotopoulos, 2010; Psomas and Jaca,
2016). Four out of the five TQM factors pertain to the human aspect of the TQM philosophy,
revealing three main players: top management team, employees and customers. Similarly,
Calvo-Mora et al. (2014) supported the view that for an organisation to be capable of
improving key business results, it is necessary to orient its leadership and management of
HR towards a culture of quality, learning and continuous improvement. In the same vein,
Ali et al. (2010) supported the view that quality team working, customer-focused orientation
and visionary leadership are the three most critical factors in implementing successfully the
TQM concept in the Malaysian higher education context.
In addition, one of the objectives of this study was to address a gap in the literature, since
the operationalisation of the TQM concept in the service industry has not been previously
studied empirically across multiple countries. Previous research in the service sector has
developed valid measurement instruments of TQM but a limited number of them have
empirically tested the proposed scale in an international context. Thus, there is a need to
develop an instrument that is valid across countries to support international quality
management practices and benchmarking. To fill this gap, the present research utilises data
which have been gathered from 352 services organisations in three countries in order to
empirically test the proposed measurement instrument of TQM factors. The scale was The key
tested in three countries, Greece, Mexico and Spain, and was applied equally successfully in factors of
all three locales, providing some support for the “culture-free” hypothesis. total quality
However, the results of the descriptive statistical analysis and the pair-wise comparison
of the means revealed commonalities and differences in the adoption of the TQM factors management
among the three countries:
• The mean values of all the TQM factors range from 4.60 to 5.60, indicating that
quality management practices are implemented to a high degree in the three
countries. The high level of TQM adaptation could be explained based on country
culture. Flynn and Saladin (2006) argued that such a component of quality
management would be influenced by Hofstede’s (1980) national cultural values
(power distance, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance). Thus,
national cultural dimensions that are appropriate for the TQM culture are high
collectivism, low uncertainty avoidance and low power distance (Saha and Hardie,
2005; Kumar and Sankaran, 2007; Yahia-Berrouiguet, 2015). Firms in collectivistic

cultures, which score low individualism dimensions, such as Mexico (score of 30),
Greece (score of 35) and Spain (score of 51), are more successful at implementing
TQM than firms in individualistic cultures (Galperin and Lituchy, 1999). This is
because a collectivistic culture is closer to TQM values than an individualistic
culture (Galperin and Lituchy, 1999). High avoidance of uncertainty is more
common among countries that are experiencing rapid changes (McCarty and
Hattwick, 1992), such as Mexico, Spain and Greece. Mexico received a ranking of 82,
and Spain and Greece scored 86 and 100, respectively, in the uncertainty avoidance
index (https://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html). People in these countries
prefer to have rules and laws, but at the same time, they are obliged to avoid them,
making their life more complex. A low score on the dimension of power distance
means that people are relatively interdependent with the power holders, and there
is a nearly equal amount of power distributed among the people. At 60 and 57,
respectively, Greece and Spain have intermediate scores, while Mexico, with a score
of 81, is considered a hierarchical society (https://geert-hofstede.com/national-
culture.html). This may be one of the primary reasons that Mexico scored lower in
quality management practices when compared with Spain and Greece.
• The mean values of all of the key TQM factors for Greece are high when compared
with the other two countries. Spain’s mean values for the four out of five TQM
factors are higher when compared with Mexico. This is because Greece is
represented in the sample to hold more certifications according to ISO 9001
companies when compared with the others sub-samples, demonstrating their
commitment to quality practices. The certified companies are more likely to adopt
TQM factors on a more extensive level.
• The three countries give less attention to employee quality management practices.
This result is verified by a previous survey in the service and manufacturing sectors
among companies in the USA, India and China (Raghunathan et al., 1997). Thus, it
can be said that managers over time neglect HR practices, which have a negative
impact on employee performance.
• Spain and Greece are very close in terms of how their quality managers adopt TQM
factors in their service organisations, while Mexican and Greek managers had totally
different perceptions.
A valid instrument for TQM implementation that can be used in multiple countries will be
helpful from a practical perspective. Multinational service organisations may use such an
BIJ instrument to measure their quality practices. For example, hotels or banks operating in
different countries may use the same scale to evaluate TQM implementation among
worldwide operations and then benchmark their performance. In addition, an understanding
of the underlying reasons for these similarities and differences among countries would help
managers around the world to address difficulties of TQM implementation related to the
country culture.
The results also confirmed that some of the TQM elements are antecedents of business
performance in terms of employee and customer satisfaction. This study confirmed the
findings of previous studies which reported that organisations where TQM practices were
implemented have higher job satisfaction (Chang et al., 2010; Ooi et al., 2007; Amin et al.,
2017). Top management support, employee training and HR practices seem to have a
significant impact on improving job satisfaction level of employees. Iqbal and Asrar-ul-Haq
(2018) also pointed that quality improvement teams which are created in a TQM
environment give the employees a sense of respect to them and their work. Thus, satisfied
employees are more self-motivated, more dedicated to quality and have higher performance
(Sanchez and Blanco, 2014). However, the three countries differed from one another in terms
of the relationships between TQM factors and indicators of performance. Employee
knowledge and education was especially correlated with employee-focused performance in
Greece and Mexico. Surprisingly, only in the case of Spain was employee quality
management found to have a positive impact on employee-focused performance. This result
is consistent with Jun et al.’s (2006) findings that firms with HR focused on TQM practices
can enhance employee satisfaction. The quality practices of top management have a positive
effect on employee-focused performance in the case of Mexico and a negative effect in the
case of Spain.
As previously mentioned, some extant research works have reported that TQM
implementation has a positive impact on customer satisfaction (Kumar et al., 2009; Wang
et al., 2012). This positive relationship between TQM practices and customer-focused
performance was also supported by the findings from this empirical study. Customer
satisfaction is one of the high valued objectives of the TQM culture. Based on the results, it
sees that employee knowledge and education helps them to improve their behaviour
through moments of truth and to professionally respond to customer needs, enhancing the
level of customer satisfaction. In addition, service organisations should effectively collect
and utilise information about customer needs and efficiently handle customer’s complaint to
improve customer satisfaction. Previous research works have proved that customer
satisfaction has a positive impact on the customer loyalty which will enhance service
organisation financial outcomes (Calvo-Mora et al., 2014; Mahmood et al., 2014). However,
the TQM factors that influence customer satisfaction and the strength of this relationship
varied from country to country. Employee knowledge and education was especially
correlated with customer-focused performance in Greece and Spain, while customer focus
was correlated with customer-focused performance in the case of Mexico and Spain.
6. Limitations and suggestions for future research

There are some limitations to this study that must be taken into account when interpreting
the results. First and foremost, the measurement instruments used to gauge the TQM
elements were based on previously developed scales. The adoption of these scales on other
samples worldwide is worthwhile for future inquiry. Another possible limitation is the fact
that the data do not constitute objective, but rather subjective business evidence collected
from quality managers. Managers are involved with the organisation and may therefore
lack the rigour required to obtain accurate measurements. Thus, the findings were
consistent with research in perceptual distortion and self-rating bias. Additionally, the small
sample size of the participating countries limits the possibility of applying more advanced
statistical techniques. Finally, an interesting perspective for future research would take into The key
consideration certain factors (such as country culture) that may have a moderating role in factors of
the relationships examined in the present study. Moreover, external variables like firm size total quality
or absorptive capacity could be used as control variables to the proposed model, in an
attempt to increase the richness of the findings. In addition, future research should consider management
extending the current conceptual model by linking TQM to business performance, such as
financial results. Thus, more valuable information regarding the implications of TQM will
be revealed, which may benefit practitioners as well as academicians. Finally, significant
differences among countries in terms of the effect of the TQM factors on performance must
be extensively studied and analysed.
References
Agus, A. (2004), “TQM as a focus for improving overall service performance and customer satisfaction:
an empirical study on a public service sector in Malaysia”, Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, Vol. 15 Nos 5-6, pp. 615-628.
Ahmad, M.F., Zakuan, N., Jusoh, A. and Takala, J. (2012), “Relationship of TQM and business
performance with mediators of SPC, lean production and TPM”, Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 65, pp. 186-191.
Ali, N.A., Mahat, F. and Zairi, M. (2010), “Testing the criticality of HR-TQM factors in the Malaysian
higher education context”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 21 No. 11,
pp. 1177-1188.
Al-Marri, K., Ahmed, A.M.A.B. and Zairi, M. (2007), “Excellence in service: an empirical study of the
UAE banking sector”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 164-176.
Alolayyana, M.N., Mohd-Alib, K.A., Idrisb, F. and Ibrehem, A.S. (2011), “Advance mathematical model
to study and analyze the effects of total quality management and operational lexibility on
hospital performance”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 22 No. 12, pp. 1371-1393.
Amin, M., Aldakhil, A.M., Wu, C., Rezaei, S. and Cobanoglu, C. (2017), “The structural relationship
between TQM, employee satisfaction and hotel performance”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1256-1278.
Arasli, H. (2012), “Towards business excellence in the hospitality industry: a case for 3-, 4-, and 5-star
hotels in Iran”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 573-590.
Arumugam, V., Ooi, K.-B. and Fong, T.-C. (2008), “TQM practices and quality management
performance – an investigation of their relationship using data from ISO 9001:2000 firms in
Malaysia”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 636-650.
Arunachalam, T. and Palanichamy, Y. (2017), “Does the soft aspects of TQM influence job satisfaction
and commitment? An empirical analysis”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 385-402.
Badri, A.M., Davis, D. and Davis, D. (1995), “A study of measuring the critical factors of quality
management”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 36-53.
Bari, M.W., Fanchen, M. and Baloch, M.A. (2016), “TQM soft practices and job satisfaction; mediating
role of relational psychological contract”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 235,
pp. 453-462.
Bellou, V. (2010), “Organizational culture as a predictor of job satisfaction: the role of gender and age”,
Career Development International, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 4-19.
Bouranta, N., Psomas, E.L. and Pantouvakis, A. (2017), “Identifying the critical determinants of TQM
and their impact on company performance: evidence from the hotel industry of Greece”,
The TQM Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 147-166.
Brah, S.A., Lee, S.L. and Rao, B.M. (2002), “Relationship between TQM and performance of Singapore
companies”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 356-379.
BIJ Calvo-Mora, A., Picon, A., Ruiz, C. and Cauzo, L. (2014), “The relationships between soft-hard TQM
factors and key business results”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 115-143.
Carman, J.M., Shortell, S.M., Foster, R.W., Hughes, E.F.X., Boerstler, H., O’ Brien, J.L. and Connor, E.J.
(1996), “Keys for successful implementation of total quality management in hospitals”,
Health Care Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 48-60.
Chang, C.C., Chiu, C.M. and Chen, C.A. (2010), “The effect of TQM practices on employee satisfaction
and loyalty in government”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 21 No. 12,
pp. 1299-1314.
Cockalo, D., Djordjevic, D. and Sajfert, Z. (2011), “Elements of the model for customer satisfaction:
Serbian economy research”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 8,
pp. 807-832.
Corredor, P. and Goñi, S. (2011), “TQM and performance: is the relationship so obvious?”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 8, pp. 830-838.
Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2011), “The quality movement: where are you going?”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 493-516.
de Menezes, L.M. (2012), “Job satisfaction and quality management: an empirical analysis”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 308-328.
Delic, M., Radlovacki, V., Kamberovic, B., Maksimovic, R. and Pecujlija, M. (2014), “Examining
relationships between quality management and organisational performance in transitional
economies”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 367-382.
Douglas, T.J. and Judge, W.Q. (2001), “Total quality management implementation and competitive
advantage: the role of structural control and exploration”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 158-169.
Duggirala, M., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2008), “Patient-perceived dimensions of total
quality service in healthcare”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 560-583.
Fening, F.A., Pesakovic, G. and Amaria, P. (2008), “Relationship between quality management
practices and the performance of small and medium sized enterprise in Ghana”, International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 7 No. 25, pp. 694-708.
Flynn, B.B. and Saladin, B. (2006), “Relevance of Baldrige constructs in an international context:
a study of national culture”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 583-603.
Fotopoulos, C. and Psomas, E. (2009), “The impact of soft and hard TQM elements on quality
management results”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 150-163.
Fotopoulos, C. and Psomas, E. (2010), “The structural relationships between TQM factors and
Organizational performance”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 539-552.
Galperin, B.L. and Lituchy, T.R. (1999), “The implementation of total quality management in
Canada and Mexico: a case study”, International Business Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 323-349.
Garza-Reyes, A.J., Rocha-Lona, L. and Kumar, V. (2015), “A conceptual framework for the
implementation of quality management systems”, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, Vol. 26 Nos 11-12, pp. 1298-1310.
Green, F.B. (2006), “Six-sigma and the revival of TQM”, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 1281-1286.
Guimaraes, T. (1996), “TQM’s impact on employee attitudes”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 20-25.
Gutierrez, L.J.G., Torres, I.T. and Molina, V.B. (2010), “Quality management initiatives in Europe: an
empirical analysis according to their structural elements”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 21
No. 6, pp. 577-601.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison·Wesey, Reading, MA.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harber, D., Burgess, K. and Barclay, D. (1996), “Total quality management as a cultural intervention: The key
an empirical study”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 10 No. 6, factors of
pp. 28-46.
total quality
He, Z., Hill, J., Wang, P. and Yue, G. (2011), “Validation of the theoretical model underlying the Baldrige
criteria: evidence from China”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 2, management
pp. 243-263.
Hoang, D.T., Igel, B. and Laosirihongthong, T. (2010), “Total quality management (TQM) strategy and
organizational characteristics: evidence from a recent WTO member”, Total Quality
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hur, W.-M., Moon, T.-W. and Jung, Y.S. (2015), “Customer response to employee emotional labor: the
structural relationship between emotional labor, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 71-80.
Iqbal, A. and Asrar-ul-Haq, M. (2018), “Establishing relationship between TQM practices and employee
performance: the mediating role of change readiness”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 203, September, pp. 62-68.
Jun, M., Cai, S. and Shin, H. (2006), “TQM practice in maquiladora: antecedents of employee satisfaction
and loyalty”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 791-812.
Jung, J.Y., Wang, Y.J. and Wu, S. (2009), “Competitive strategy, TQM practice, and continuous
improvement of international project management: a contingency study”, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 164-183.
Jyoti, J., Kour, S. and Sharma, J. (2017), “Impact of total quality services on financial performance: role
of service profit chain”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 28 Nos 7-8,
pp. 897-929.
Kabak, K.E., Şena, A., Göçera, K., Küçüksöylemezb, S. and Tuncer, G. (2014), “Strategies for employee
job satisfaction: a case of service sector”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 150,
pp. 1167-1176.
Kanji, G. and Sá, P.M.E. (2007), “Performance measurement and business excellence: the reinforcing
link for the public sector”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 18 Nos 1-2,
pp. 49-56.
Kanji, G.K., Malek, A. and Tambi, B.A. (1999), “Total quality management in UK higher education
institutions”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 129-153.
Karia, N. and Asaari, M.H.A.H. (2006), “The effects of total quality management practices on
employees’ work-related attitudes”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
Karimi, A., Safari, H., Hashemi, S.H. and Kalantar, P. (2014), “A study of the Baldrige award framework
using the applicant scoring data”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 461-477.
Kaynak, H. (2003), “The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on
firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 405-435.
Khamalah, J.N. and Lingaraj, B.P. (2007), “TQM in the service sector: a survey of small businesses”,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 973-982.
Kindlarski, E. (1996), “Quality efforts in Poland”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 109-126.
Kumar, M.R. and Sankaran, S. (2007), “Indian culture and the culture for TQM: a comparison”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 176-188.
Kumar, R., Garg, D. and Garg, T.K. (2011), “Total quality management success factors in North Indian
manufacturing and service industries”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 36-46.
Kumar, V., Choisne, F., Grosbois, D. and Kumar, U. (2009), “Impact of TQM on company performance”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 23-37.
BIJ Kumar, V. and Sharma, R.R.K. (2017), “Relating management problem-solving styles of leaders to TQM
focus: an empirical study”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 218-239.
Kuo, T-H. and Kuo, Y-L. (2010), “The effect of corporate culture and total quality management on
construction project performance in Taiwan”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 617-632.
Lam, S.S.K. (1995), “Quality management and job satisfaction: an empirical study”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 72-78.
Lam, S.K. (1996), “Total quality management and its impact on middle managers and front-line
workers”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 37-46.
Lam, S.Y., Lee, V.H., Ooi, K.B. and Lin, B. (2011), “The relationship between TQM, learning orientation
and market performance in service organisations: an empirical analysis”, Total Quality
Lam, S.Y., Lee, V.H., Ooi, K.B. and Phusavat, K. (2012), “A structural equation model of TQM, market
orientation and service quality. Evidence from a developing nation”, Managing Service Quality,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 281-309.

Lenka, U., Suar, D. and Mohapatra, P.K.J. (2010), “Soft and hard aspects of quality management
practices influencing service quality and customer satisfaction in manufacturing-oriented
services”, Global Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 79-101.
McCarty, J.A. and Hattwick, P.M. (1992), “Cultural value orientations: a comparison of magazine
advertisements from the United States and Mexico”, in Sherry, J.F Jr and Sternthal, B. (Eds),
NA – Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 19, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT,
pp. 34-38.
Macinati, M.S. (2008), “The relationship between quality management systems and organizational
performance in the Italian National health service”, Health Policy, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 228-241.
Mahmood, K., Qureshi, I.M.A. and Nisar, A. (2014), “An empirical study on measurement of
performance through TQM in Pakistani aviation manufacturing industry”, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 665-680.
Martinez-Costa, M. and Martinez-Lorente, A.R. (2008), “Does quality management foster or hinder
innovation? An empirical study of Spanish companies”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Mensah, J.O., Copuroglu, G. and Fening, F.A. (2012), “The status of total quality management (TQM) in
Ghana. A comparison with selected quality awards winners from Turkey”, International Journal
of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 851-871.
Miguel, Ε., Heras-Saizarbitoria, Ι. and Tarí, J.J. (2016), “TQM and market orientation in care home
services”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1076-1098.
Miller, W.J., Sumner, A.T. and Deane, R.H. (2009), “Assessment of quality management practices within
the healthcare industry”, American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 105-113.
Montasser, W.Y. and Manhawy, A.A. (2013), “TQM critical success factors in hospitality Industry and
their impact on customer loyalty, a theoretical model”, International Journal of Scientific and
Engineering Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Mosadeghrad, A.M. (2014), “Why TQM programmes fail? A pathology approach”, The TQM Journal,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 160-187.
Motwani, J.G., Mahamoud, E. and Rice, G. (1994), “Quality practices of Indian organizations: an empirical
analysis”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Oliveira, P. and Roth, A.V. (2012), “Service orientation: the derivation of underlying constructs and
measures”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 156-190.
Ooi, K.-B., Lin, B., Tan, B-I and Chong, A. Y-L. (2011), “Are TQM practices supporting customer
satisfaction and service quality?”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 410-419.
Ooi, K.B., Bakar, N.A., Arumugam, V., Vellapan, L. and Loke, A.K.Y. (2007), “Does TQM influence The key
employees’ job satisfaction? An empirical case analysis”, International Journal of Quality & factors of
Reliability Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 62-77.
total quality
Pantouvakis, A. and Bouranta, N. (2013), “The interrelationship between service features, job
satisfaction and customer satisfaction: evidence from the transport sector”, The TQM Journal, management
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 186-201.
Pattanayak, D., Koilakuntla, M. and Punyatoya, P. (2017), “Investigating the influence of TQM,
service quality and market orientation on customer satisfaction and loyalty in the Indian
banking sector”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 362-377.
Pimentel, L. and Major, M. (2015), “Key success factors for quality management implementation:
evidence from the public sector”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 27
Nos 9-10, pp. 997-1012.
Prajogo, D.I. (2005), “The comparative analysis of TQM practices and quality performance between
manufacturing and service firms”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 217-228.
Prajogo, D.I. and Cooper, B.K. (2010), “The effect of people-related TQM practices on job satisfaction: a
hierarchical model”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 26-35.
Psomas, E. and Fotopoulos, C. (2010), “Total quality management practices and results in food
companies”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 59 No. 7,
pp. 668-687.
Psomas, E. and Jaca, C. (2016), “The impact of total quality management factors on performance
dimensions of service companies”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 380-398.
Psomas, E., Vouzas, F., Bouranta, N. and Tasiou, M. (2017), “Effects of total quality management in
local authorities”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 41-66.
Psychogios, A.G. (2010), “A four-fold regional-specific approach to TQM”, International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 1036-1053.
Psychogios, G.A., Michalopoulos, A. and Szamosi, L. (2008), “Anglo-Saxon change in a non-Anglo-Saxon
cultural context: lessons from TQM application in Greek public organisations”, International
Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 153-171.
Quazi, H.A., Jemangin, J., Kit, L.W. and Kian, C.L. (1998), “Critical factors in quality management and
guidelines for self-assessment, the case of Singapore”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 35-55.
Raghunathan, T.S., Rao, S.S. and Solis, L.E. (1997), “A comparative study of quality practices: USA,
China and India”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 97 Nos 5-6, pp. 192-200.
Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., Munhurrun, V. and Panchoo, A. (2011), “Total quality management
adoption in a public hospital: evidence from Mauritius”, Global Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 67-77.
Rao, S.S., Solis, L.E. and Raghunathan, T.S. (1999), “A framework for international quality
management research: development and validation of a measurement instrument”, Total Quality
Rich, E. (2008), “Management fads and information delays: an exploratory simulation study”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 11, pp. 1143-1151.
Sadeh, E. and Garkaz, M. (2015), “Explaining the mediating role of service quality between quality
management enablers and students’ satisfaction in higher education institutes: the perception of
managers”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 26 Nos 11-12, pp. 1335-1356.
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 Decision Sciences,
Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 948-975.
BIJ Saha, S. and Hardie, M. (2005), “Culture of quality and the Australian construction industry”, Proceedings of
the 13th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Sydney, pp. 531-538.
Sakthivel, P.B., Rajendran, G. and Raju, R. (2005), “TQM implementation: TQ implementation and
students’ satisfaction of academic performance”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 573-589.
Sanchez, L. and Blanco, B. (2014), “Three decades of continuous improvement”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 25 Nos 9-10, pp. 986-1001.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), “An instrument for measuring the critical factors
of quality management”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-829.
Selvaraj, M. (2009), “Total quality management in Indian commercial banks: a comparative study”,
Journal of Marketing & Communication, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 59-70.
Shenaway, E.E., Baker, T. and Lemak, D.J. (2007), “A meta-analysis of the effect of TQM on competitive
advantage”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 442-471.
Siengthai, S. and Pila-Ngarm, P. (2016), “The interaction effect of job redesign and job satisfaction on
employee performance”, Evidence-Based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 162-180.
Sila, I. (2007), “Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens
of organizational theory: an empirical study”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 83-109.
Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2003), “Examination and comparison of the critical factors of total quality
management (TQM) across countries”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41
No. 2, pp. 228-235.
Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2004), “An examination of quality management in luxury hotels”,
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 33-59.
Singh, A.K. and Sushil (2013), “Modeling enablers of TQM to improve airline performance”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 250-275.
Singh, K. and Ahuja, I.S. (2014), “Effectiveness of TPM implementation with and without integration
with TQM in Indian manufacturing industries”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 415-435.
Singh, P.J. and Smith, A. (2006), “An empirically validated quality management measurement
instrument”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 493-522.
Sit, W.Y., Ooi, K.B., Lin, B. and Chong, A.Y.L. (2009), “TQM and customer satisfaction in Malaysia’s
service sector”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 7, pp. 957-975.
Solis, L.E., Rao, S., Raghu-Nathan, T.S., Chen, C-Y. and Pan, S.-C. (1998), “Quality management
practices and quality results: a comparison of manufacturing and service sectors in Taiwan”,
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 46-54.
Soria-García, J. and Martínez-Lorente, Á.R. (2014), “Development and validation of a measure of the
quality management practices in education”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, Vol. 25 Nos 1-2, pp. 57-79.
Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2001), “A holistic model for total quality
service”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 378-412.
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 and Reliability Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 280-318.
Tarí, J.J., Molina, J.F. and Castejón, J.L. (2007), “The relationship between quality management practices
and their effects on quality outcomes”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 183 No. 2,
pp. 483-501.
Tsang, J.H.Y. and Antony, J. (2001), “Total quality management in UK service organisations: some key
findings from a survey”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 132-141.
Valaei, N. and Rezaei, S. (2016), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment: an empirical The key
investigation among ICT-SMEs”, Management Research Review, Vol. 39 No. 12, pp. 1663-1694. factors of
Valmohammadi, C. (2012), “Investigating innovation management practices in Iranian organizations”, total quality
Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 247-255.
Valmohammadi, C. and Roshanzamir, S. (2015), “The guidelines of improvement: relations among
management
organizational culture, TQM and performance”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 164 No. 3, pp. 167-178.
Voon, B.H., Abdullah, F., Lee, N. and Kueh, K. (2014), “Developing a HospiSE scale for hospital service
excellence”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 261-280.
Wang, C.-H, Chenb, K.-Y. and Chen, S.-C (2012), “Total quality management, market orientation and
hotel performance: the moderating effects of external environmental factors”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 119-129.
Yahia-Berrouiguet, A. (2015), “Algerian national culture and TQM”, Journal of Economics and Business
Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 145-152.
Yang, C.C. (2006), “The impact of human resource management practices on the implementation of
total quality management: an empirical study on high-tech firms”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 162-173.
Yoo, D.K., Rao, S.S. and Hong, P. (2006), “A comparative study on cultural differences and quality
practices: Korea, USA, Mexico and Taiwan”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Yue, J-W., Ooi, K-B. and Keong, C.C. (2011), “The relationship between people-related total quality
management (TQM) practices, job satisfaction and turnover intention: a literature review and
proposed conceptual model”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 15, pp. 6632-6639.
Yunis, M., Jung, J. and Chen, S. (2013), “TQM, strategy, and performance: a firm-level analysis”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 690-714.
Zairi, M. and Alsughayir, A.A. (2011), “The adoption of excellence models through cultural and social
adaptations: an empirical study of critical success factors and a proposed model”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 641-654, available at: https://geert-
hofstede.com/national-culture.html
Further reading
Agus, A. and Hajinoor, M.S. (2012), “Lean production supply chain management as driver towards
enhancing product quality and business performance: case study of manufacturing
companies in Malaysia”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 92-121.
Brah, S.A., Wong, J.L. and Rao, B.M. (2000), “TQM and business performance in the service sector: a
Singapore study”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20
No. 11, pp. 1293-1312.
Locke, E.A. (1969), “What is job satisfaction?”, OB and Human Performance, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 309-336.
Yong, J. and Wilkinson, A. (1999), “The state of total quality management: a review”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 137-161.
Corresponding author
Nancy Bouranta can be contacted at: nbouranta@upatras.gr
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Journal TQM The Key Factors of Total Quality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal TQM The Key Factors of Total Quality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benchmarking: An International Journal

Downloaded on: 26 January 2019, At: 13:43 (PT)

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

2. Literature review and research questions

when compared to the private service sector.

2.2 The impact of TQM on service company performance

that TQM implementation enhances a company’s image and improves employee

Quality practices of Employee-focused

3.2 Sampling process

requirements for the implementation of an environmental management system, as

3.3 Data analysis

Number of employees Greece Mexico Spain

Greece Mexico Spain

ISO 9001 128 3 26 44 73 78

where M is the group mean and n the number per group.

Statistical process control is

preventive maintenance 0.701

customer expectations 0.514

4.2 Comparison results

Process management Greece 5.65 32.33*

Table VI. Spain 5.39

Contract (factor) Country pair showing significant difference

Process management Greece–Spain

Greece Mexico Spain

5. Discussion and practical implications

2005; Kumar and Sankaran, 2007; Yahia-Berrouiguet, 2015). Firms in collectivistic

6. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 281-309.

You might also like