The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1754-2731.htm

Does transformational leadership TFL and TQM

practices
influence TQM practices?
A comparison analysis between
manufacturing and service firms
Nancy Bouranta Received 22 April 2020
Revised 28 July 2020
Business Administration of Food and Agricultural Enterprises, University of Patras, 26 August 2020
Patras, Greece Accepted 1 September 2020

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to fill a gap in the existing literature that relates leadership style to total
quality management (TQM) focus. Specifically, the study evaluates whether and how leadership style may
affect the implementation of TQM practices.
Design/methodology/approach – A structured questionnaire was used to collect data from employees of
different organizations operating in the manufacturing (n 5 156) and service sectors (n 5 147). Exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses as well as structural equation modeling were adopted to test the hypothesized
research model.
Findings – The results revealed that transformational leadership has a positive impact in the implementation
of TQM practices (e.g., customer focus, process management, human resource management, strategic planning
and learning). It was also found that, regardless of industry type, manufacturing or service, transformational
leadership has a significantly positive influence on TQM practices. In addition, it was noted that manufacturing
companies showed a higher level of TQM practices than did service companies.
Originality/value – This study represents, to the best of the author’s knowledge, the first empirical
examination of the relationship between transformational leadership and TQM in the service and
manufacturing industries, with the goal of determining the differences between these two sectors. The
study’s conclusions may be useful for service and manufacturing organizations in achieving more effective
leadership in the implementation of TQM.
Keywords Total quality management, Transformational leadership, Service and manufacturing industries
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Total quality management (TQM) is a comprehensive philosophy that consists of a set of
components, that is, critical success factors, tools, techniques and practices (Salim et al., 2019,
p. 875). Researchers have contradictory views about what comprises TQM, although they
agree that leadership plays a vital role in determining variations of TQM implementation.
Leadership is considered a key driving force behind the effective execution of the other
components of TQM (Cho and Jung, 2014; Sfakianaki, 2019). Similarly, quality awards and
frameworks recognize leadership as an important factor in TQM success rate. Notably, the
European Foundation for Quality Management’s excellence model designated leadership as a
principle criterion in quality management (EFQM, 2012). In addition, ISO 9001:2015 includes
requirements that must be demonstrated by top management in recognition of the crucial role
of leadership. Likewise, one of the Baldrige Foundation’s criteria for performance excellence
is the role of leaders in creating an organizational focus on action, including transformational
change in an organization’s structure and culture. The importance of leadership in TQM
implementation is also demonstrated by the fact that the primary causes of TQM failure are
attributable to management weaknesses or having an unsupportive leadership role (Dilawo
and Salimi, 2019; Krajcs
ak, 2019; Kumar et al., 2020). The success of TQM implementation is The TQM Journal
dependent, to a great extent, on the appropriate leadership style. Leadership style is the way © Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2731
in which the functions of leadership are carried out; in other words, it is the way in which DOI 10.1108/TQM-12-2019-0296
TQM managers behave toward their subordinates. The literature has identified many different
leadership styles, and discussions concerning a transformational style of leadership have
become popular over the last few years (Yousaf, 2017).
Transformational leadership (TFL) is characterized by leaders who encourage their
subordinates to perform beyond previous performance and standard expectations (Bass,
1985). Integrating empathy and compassion, transformational leaders are focused on having
an idealized influence, giving inspirational motivation, providing intellectual stimulation and
offering individual consideration (Avolio and Bass, 2004). These leadership attributes are
compatible with a TQM environment; as such, it has been suggested that TFL is the type of
leadership that is more suitable for effective TQM implication (Dean and Bowen, 1994; Idris
and Mohd Ali, 2008; Waldman, 1994; Rui et al., 2010). The literature also supports that TFL
increases employee engagement (Popli and Rizvi, 2017) or involvement (Liu et al., 2011; Welty
et al., 2014), which is vital for the effective and universal implementation of TQM philosophy
(Formby et al., 2018).
A review of the most recent literature reveals researchers’ proposals about the examination
of the relationship between leadership style and TQM philosophy. For example, Kumar and
Sharmal (2018, p. 1070) pointed out that “although TQM scholars consider leadership to be
important, there have been few studies on linkages between leadership style and TQM
studies.” Ng et al. (2013, p. 2) highlighted the need for more evidence on the supportive or
impeding effects of TFL on TQM practices. Laohavichien et al. (2011, p. 1051) also indicated
that “there are no rigorous examinations of what type of leadership is the most appropriate for
QM.” In response to these prompts, this work tries to fill the gap by exploring the relationship
between TFL and TQM practices. Specifically, it aims to examine how employees perceive
leadership at lower levels of an organization and how these perceptions influence employees to
support TQM implementation. The research findings may be useful for managers in achieving
more effective leadership in the implementation of TQM.
In terms of originality, this empirical survey is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to
present a comparative analysis by concurrently examining the relationship between TFL and
TQM in two sectors (i.e. service and manufacturing) with the goal of determining differences
between them. Cho and Jung (2014), for example, examined the same relationship between
USA- and China-based firms in service and manufacturing industries. However, the
comparison focus between these two surveys is different as this one focuses on the industry
(service and manufacturing) and Cho and Jung (2014) on the countries (i.e. USA, China). Further,
the two sectors do not define applicability of TQM practices and TFL; in addition, related
research has been proposed by many researchers (Crede et al., 2019; Mesu et al., 2015; Miguel
et al., 2016). Moreover, most previous research in the field used the multifactor leadership
questionnaire proposed by Avolio et al. (1995) to measure TFL. This empirical survey is based
on the TFL dimensions developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990), in an attempt to examine a
differentiated conceptualization of this concept on the TQM environment. The used constructs’
(TQM and TFL) validity is further confirmed in two sectors, adding value to the literature.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 is devoted to a brief review of the literature on
leadership styles and TQM practices. The development of hypotheses is related to the recent
literature and presented in the last part of this section. The third section outlines the research
methodology and is followed by the results in the fourth section. A discussion of the results is also
presented, and it is followed by conclusions and proposals for future research in the final section.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1 Total quality management
TQM implementation practices have traditionally focused on manufacturing companies;
over the last few years, however, they have similarly been applied to the service sector.
However, the service sector still lags behind the manufacturing sector in terms of relevant TFL and TQM
research and implementation efforts (Miguel et al., 2016; Bouranta et al., 2019; Jyoti et al., practices
2017). These efforts showed that TQM could help service and manufacturing companies to
improve their overall effectiveness and performance through focusing on a set of soft and
hard TQM practices (Abdallah, 2013).
Different sets of TQM practices have been provided, depending on the type of industry.
However, the literature reveals that some studies investigating TQM implementation used
the same key TQM factors for service and manufacturing industries (Table 1) (Talib and
Rahman, 2012; Tar
ı et al., 2007; Jung et al., 2009; Fotopoulos and Psomas, 2010; He et al., 2011;
Kumar et al., 2011; Karimi et al., 2014; Saraph et al., 1989; Raghunathan et al., 1997; Solis et al.,
1998; Brah et al., 2002; Kaynak, 2003; Prajogo, 2005; Al-Marri et al., 2007; Sadikoglu and Olcay,
2014; Deli
c et al., 2014).
A few factors such as leadership, customer focus, process management, human research
management, strategic planning and training seem to be the most cited across the relevant
studies. Leadership is the only factor that is referred to in all of the studies, supporting the
idea that leadership plays an important role in the success rate of TQM implementation.
Other factors such as benchmarking (Al-Marri et al., 2007), communication (Kumar et al.,
2011), employee involvement (Fotopoulos and Psomas, 2010), market benefits or protection of
natural and social environment (Fotopoulos and Psomas, 2010) or governance and social
responsibility (He et al., 2011) have been individually proposed.
Using the five most common TQM practices revealed in previous studies in both sectors,
the present empirical research seeks to identify if TFL is appropriate when implementing
specific TQM principles in the context of manufacturing and service industries.

2.2 Leadership styles

Burns (1978) introduced two leadership styles: transformational and transactional.
Regarding TFL as a motivational process, the author considered that “leaders and
followers raise one another to a higher level of motivation and morality” (Burns, 1978, p. 20).
On the other hand, transactional leadership (TCL) focuses on a process of exchange to
motivate subordinates by appealing to their personal drivers relative to work. They use their
position and authority to maintain control and get work done through constructive and
corrective transactions that incorporate reward and punishment. Within this paper, a focus
on perceived TFL was given because of its hypothesized closeness to TQM philosophy (Dean
and Bowen, 1994; Waldman, 1994). This assumption is thoroughly reviewed in the following
subsection.
The Burns transforming approach, which is based on political leaders, focuses on
changing followers’ perceptions and values to raise their awareness to higher levels of
motivation and morality. Expanding previous research on the military and in the industrial
field, Bass (1985) proposed TFL (instead of transforming), explaining the psychological
mechanisms that underlie transforming leadership, measuring the concept and evaluating
the impact on followers’ motivations and performance. Avolio and Bass (2004) identified four
interdependent TFL components, known as the “4I’s” (i.e. idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration), to better describe
transformational leader behavior. A transformational leader acts as a strong role model
for those around him/her who admire and emulate this person. This leader will motivate
followers to accomplish personal goals as well as the organization’s objectives, thus aligning
the individual with organizational needs with a common clear vision. A transformational
leader also encourages critical thinking, innovation and creativity in problem-solving and
group decision-making situations. Finally, a transformational leader exhibits sincere
consideration toward his/her followers as well as concern for their needs and personal
TQM Frequency of
TQM factors Source occurrence

Leadership Tar
ı et al. (2007), Jung et al. (2009), 16

Fotopoulos and Psomas (2010), He et al.
(2011), Kumar et al. (2011), Karimi et al.
(2014), Saraph et al. (1989), Raghunathan
et al. (1997), Solis et al. (1998), Brah et al.
(2002), Kaynak (2003), Prajogo (2005), Al-
Marri et al. (2007), Sadikoglu and Olcay
(2014), Deli
c et al. (2014), Talib and Rahman
(2012)
Customer focus Tar
ı et al. (2007), Jung et al. (2009), 14
Fotopoulos and Psomas (2010), He et al.
(2011), Kumar et al. (2011), Karimi et al.
(2014), Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014),
Raghunathan et al. (1997), Solis et al. (1998),
Brah et al. (2002), Prajogo (2005), Al-Marri
et al. (2007), Deli
c et al. (2014), Talib and
Rahman (2012)
Process mgt Saraph et al. (1989), Brah et al. (2002), 11
Kaynak (2003) Prajogo (2005), Tar
ı et al.
(2007), Jung et al. (2009), Fotopoulos and
Psomas (2010), He et al. (2011), Karimi et al.
(2014), Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014), Deli
c
et al. (2014)
Human resource mgt Tar
ı et al. (2007), He et al. (2011), Kumar et al. 11
(2011), Karimi et al. (2014), Raghunathan
et al. (1997), Solis et al. (1998), Brah et al.
(2002), Prajogo (2005), Al-Marri et al. (2007),
Deli
c et al. (2014), Talib and Rahman (2012)
Strategic planning Raghunathan et al. (1997), Solis et al. (1998), 10
Brah et al. (2002), Prajogo (2005), Al-Marri
et al. (2007), Tar
ı et al. (2007), He et al. (2011),
Karimi et al. (2014), Sadikoglu and Olcay
(2014), Deli
c et al. (2014)
Learning Kumar et al. (2011), Karimi et al. (2014), He 9
et al. (2011), Saraph et al. (1989), Kaynak
(2003), Tar
ı et al. (2007), Sadikoglu and
Olcay (2014), Deli
c et al. (2014), Talib and
Rahman (2012)
Supplier mgt Tar
ı et al. (2007), Saraph et al. (1989), 8
Raghunathan et al. (1997), Solis et al. (1998),
Kaynak (2003), Sadikoglu and Olcay (2014),
Deli
c et al. (2014), Talib and Rahman (2012)
Information and analysis Saraph et al. (1989), Raghunathan et al. 6
(1997), Solis et al. (1998), Brah et al. (2002),
Kaynak (2003), Prajogo (2005)
Continuous improvement Al-Marri et al. (2007), Tar
ı et al. (2007), 5
Fotopoulos and Psomas (2010), Kumar et al.
(2011), Deli
c et al. (2014)
Product/service design Saraph et al. (1989), Kaynak (2003), Prajogo 4
(2005), Al-Marri et al. (2007)
Employee relations Saraph et al. (1989), Kaynak (2003), Jung 3
Table 1. et al. (2009)
Proposed TQM factors
to both sectors (continued )
 Frequency of
TFL and TQM
TQM factors Source occurrence practices
Measurement He et al. (2011), Kumar et al. (2011), Karimi 3
et al. (2014)
Quality assurance Raghunathan et al. (1997), Solis et al. (1998) 2
Quality tools and techniques Tar
ı et al. (2007), Fotopoulos and Psomas 2
(2010)
Quality results Raghunathan et al. (1997), Solis et al. (1998) 2
Quality department Saraph et al. (1989), Al-Marri et al. (2007) 2
Employee involvement Fotopoulos and Psomas (2010), Talib and 2
Rahman (2012)
Benchmarking, communication, market Al-Marri et al. (2007) 1
benefits, protection of natural and social Kumar et al. (2011)
environment governance and social Fotopoulos and Psomas (2010)
responsibility Fotopoulos and Psomas (2010)
He et al. (2011) Table 1.

development. Based on these components of 4I, the multifactor leadership questionnaire

(Avolio et al., 1995) was developed. However, despite being the most widely used
measurement instrument, it has received criticism regarding its discriminant validity and
dimensionality (Bycio et al., 1995; Tejeda et al., 2001; Tepper and Percy, 1994). This fact led
researchers to adopt alternative approaches, such as a global construct, a reduced set of
factors or a fuller factor structure (Hardy et al., 2010, p. 21).
An alternative approach to TFL is considered to be the transformational leadership
inventory (TLI) per Podsakoff et al. (1990). TLI is structured on the following dimensions:
articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group
goals, having high performance expectations, providing individualized support and
providing for intellectual stimulation, performance, quality and standards of excellence on
the part of followers. The last two TL dimensions (individualized support and intellectual
stimulation) are supported in that they are displayed by ordinary leaders and not necessarily
by transformational ones (House and Podsakoff, 1994; Panagopoulos and Dimitriadis, 2009;
Schriesheim et al., 2007). Following this recommendation, the present study focuses on the
remaining TL dimensions, as follows:
(1) Articulating a vision concerns a leader’s effort to identify and express a clear vision of
the company future that inspires employees;
(2) Providing an appropriate model refers to a leader’s behavior that sets an example for
subordinates to follow, consistent with his/her espoused personal values and
organizational goals;
(3) Fostering the acceptance of group goals involves a leader aiming to encourage
cooperation among employees in order to achieve a common goal;
(4) High performance expectations refer to a leader’s high expectations for excellence,
quality and/or high employee performance.
The proposed measurement instrument based on this conceptualization has received little
attention in the literature, though some previous research has provided evidence about its
discriminant and predictive validity (Podsakoff et al., 1996; Schriesheim et al., 2007;
MacKenzie et al., 2001). The measurement of TFL in this empirical survey is based on the
four TL dimensions (Podsakoff et al., 1990) in an attempt to examine a differentiated
conceptualization of this concept in the TQM environment.
TQM Since its conceptualization, TFL has been found to be related to positive individual and
organizational outcomes. It has been reviewed by various fields and has been proven to be
related to effective organizational performance (Soane et al., 2015; Kaynak, 2003). Employees
working under a TFL style experience high job satisfaction (Podsakoff et al., 1990) and
commitment (Qu et al., 2015), both of which result in the achievement of organizational goals.

2.3 Total quality management and leadership styles

Over the last few years, studies have investigated the role of TFL in TQM implementation. In
a higher educational context, the fact that some TFL dimensions have a positive and
significant influence on TQM practices has been empirically supported (Argia and Ismail,
2013). Similarly, Pounder (2003) found a connection between TFL and generic learning
instructional outcomes as well as a connection with TQM orientation. Specifically, the TFL
dimension of individualized consideration was found to have a positive and significant
influence on TQM practices such as leadership, strategic planning, student and stakeholder
focus, faculty and staff focus, information and analysis, organizational performance results
and educational and support process management. Kumar and Sharma (2017) explored the
relationship between four different management problem-solving styles and a TQM focus.
The authors found a significant difference among these styles of leaders’ personalities with
respect to a continuous push for improvement and innovation. In a later study, the authors
established the relationship among five leadership styles (i.e. transformational, servant,
adaptive, rational and kinesthetic) and a TQM focus on the Indian firms (Kumar and
Sharma, 2018).
The research revealed that TFL can significantly improve TQM practices in the
manufacturing industry. While the literature has recognized the efficacy of many TQM
practices (customer focus, supplier relationship, training, employee focus, quality
measurement, quality process, zero defect, etc.), their empirical studies have focused only
on continuous improvement and innovation when proposing a list of TQM practices to be
expanded upon by future studies. Das et al. (2011) conducted an empirical study in the Thai
manufacturing industry, exploring the role of leadership competencies for implementing
TQM. The authors concluded that companies with high leadership competencies execute
TQM principles more effectively. Another study based on data from 618 managers in The
Netherlands found that TFL, together with a sufficient degree of management
communication, is a significant predictor of the effectiveness of management control
systems as part of a TQM approach (Doeleman et al., 2012). Rui et al. (2010) proposed a
conceptual model, which explores the relationship between TFL and TQM, defined by the
dimensions of innovation, creativity, trust and teamwork. Transformational leaders focus on
employees’ commitment, which leads to greater input on TQM policies and practices. Lee et al.
(2011) found that one of the dimensions of TFL (intellectual stimulation) and two of the
dimensions of team performance (intellectual stimulation team leader job satisfaction and
team overall performance) have a significant impact on service quality dimensions (reliability
and responsiveness).
Cho and Jung (2014) examined how transformational and transactional leadership have an
impact on various TQM practices (human resource management, customer focus, strategic
planning, process management, information and analysis) in US- and China-based firms. The
results based on the US-based firms’ sample showed that TFL has a significant positive
impact on TQM practices, while TCL has a strong negative impact on TQM practices. In
contrast, the test results of the China-based firms’ sample show that TCL has a positive and
significant impact on TQM practices, while TFL has a negative impact on TQM practices.
Based on this evidence, it can be suggested that the most effective leadership style for TQM
implementation varies depending on the national culture (Cho and Jung, 2014).
 Contrary to the previous results and assumptions, findings from Ng et al. (2013) revealed TFL and TQM
that the TFL relationship with TQM practices was not significant, whereas an ideal mixture practices
of distributed, charismatic and strategic leadership styles can significantly improve TQM
practices in a manufacturing firm. Teoman and Ulengin (2018) also supported the fact that
the level of the TCL style of managers in Turkish quality-focused enterprises has a
significant and positive impact on a firm’s supply chain quality performance. In the same line,
Tiwar and Sharma (2017) concluded that transactional leaders are innovative and
progressive people who believe in themselves and their employees and try to change the
organizational environment and acquire TQM. Ehigie and Akpan (2004) found that a
participative style of managerial behavior is not more effective in implementing the practice
of TQM. However, when rewards were considered along with the maintenance leadership
style, there was significant interaction effect in the practice of TQM. Prestiadi et al. (2020)
conceptualized the important role of visionary leadership in TQM as an effort to improve the
quality of education.
Based on the aforementioned uneven findings, the following hypotheses have been
empirically examined:
H1. TFL has a positive impact on TQM practices.
H1a. TFL has a positive impact on employee quality management.
H1b. TFL has a positive impact on process management.
H1c. TFL has a positive impact on employee knowledge and education.
H1d. TFL has a positive impact on strategic quality planning.
H1e. TFL has a positive impact on customer focus.
Successful managerial leadership in a quality-oriented organization is highly situational in its
context (Darling, 1992; Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2002). Thus, the type of industry, as a
contingency factor, may play a significant moderating role on the relationship between TFL
and TQM practices. Many studies have included industry type as a moderator (Vij and
Farooq, 2014; Lowe et al., 1996; Bedi and Vij, 2015; Chen and Chen, 2011).
The distinctive characteristics of services (i.e. intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability,
perishability) differentiate them from manufacturing firms in regard to the nature of their
output or the degree of customer contact (Bouranta and Psomas, 2017). Moreover, these two
broad sectors, manufacturing and service, have different levels of logistical complexity in
their production processes (Schmenner, 1986), which may have an impact on their ability to
implement TQM practices and influence the effectiveness of TFL. The aforementioned
differences between the two sectors distinguish them in terms of the applicability of the two
concepts to them. As far as TQM applicability is concerned, the two sectors have different
priorities; both, however, understand the importance of management commitment to TQM
(Kumar et al., 2011). Hoang et al. (2010) found that the relationship strength between TQM and
innovation changed from insignificantly positive to significantly positive when investigated
for a specific industry type. Concerning TFL, Crede et al. (2019) noted that the role of industry
type is unclear in determining TFL effectiveness. Mesu et al. (2015, p. 984) also highlighted the
need to examine the effectiveness of TFL in the service and manufacturing industries,
revealing that its effectiveness is not universal but is dependent on industry. The authors
further found that TFL is effective in service SMEs; within manufacturing SMEs, however,
TFL is only effective when it is combined with a directive leadership style. In the same line,
Chang and Lee (2007) found that the recognition of TFL to the service industries is higher
compared with that in manufacturing industries. Additionally, Lindgreen et al. (2009)
proposed that the link to a TFL is stronger in services compared with goods marketing.
TQM In manufacturing industries, the employees’ work is mainly regulated by bureaucratic
polices and standardized procedures. It is also characterized by repetitive processes and
technological intensity. TCL styles seem to be more suitable in manufacturing companies, as
transactional leaders tend to rely on structure and rules to direct their subordinates.
Contrarily, service, by its nature, is concerned with the intricacies of human interactions;
further, employees’ responsibilities are not confined to the boundaries of a defined role (Jha,
2014; Lenka et al., 2010). Frontline employees typically make quick decisions without much
consultation with their superiors, have the discretion to handle customer issues and move
into extra-role behavior (Jha, 2014), as customers’ satisfaction is directly affected by their
behavior. TFL seems to be closer to the concept of service organizations, as this type of leader
can tailor his/her guidance to followers’ particular characteristics and situations, supporting
them to provide personalized services that fit to the customers’ special needs. Taking into
consideration the aforementioned research findings and assumptions, it is expected that the
relationship between TFL and TQM practices would be stronger in service sectors compared
with those in the manufacturing industry.
Examining the relationship between TFL and TQM practices in both sectors will help us
to better understand the levels of the sectors’ adoption of TFL and TQM as well as the
universality of its link. Hence, the following research hypothesis is to be investigated:
H2. Industry type moderates the relationship between TFL and TQM practices.

3. Research methodology
3.1 Questionnaire measures
A structured questionnaire was used as a data collection method, the design of which was
based on previously developed measurements. Specifically, the TFL style scale is based on
Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) work. The 12 items in the original scale represent four dimensions:
articulating a vision (three items), providing an appropriate model (three items), fostering the
acceptance of a group goal (three items) and having high performance expectations (three
items) (Podsakoff et al., 1990). On a Likert-type scale, the employees were asked to indicate the
extent to which their supervisor exhibited each behavior. Examples include “My supervisor
provides a good model to follow” or “My supervisor insists on only the best performance.”
The instrument has been used and validated in recent empirical research (Weiß and S€ uß,
2016; Schwepker and Good, 2013; Ert€ urk et al., 2018; Hardy et al., 2010).
The measurement of the extent to which efforts have been made to implement TQM is
based on Psomas et al.’s (2017) instrument. Five dimensions are included: strategic quality
planning, employee quality management, customer focus, employee knowledge and
education and process management. The TQM scale is a 31-item measure. Examples
include “All employees are provided with work instructions,” “The company sets quality
objectives for managers and employees.” Evidence has been provided for the convergent and
discriminant validity of the scale (Bouranta et al., 2017, 2018).
The items of the constructs are presented in Tables 2 and 3. The scales were slightly
modified from the original ones for the best thematic fit based on the recommendations of
academics and experts in the specific field. A pilot survey was also conducted to smooth out
questionnaire procedures, reducing the probability of a misunderstanding. Specifically, 24
employees completed the pilot questionnaire and indicated any ambiguities or other
difficulties they experienced in responding to the questions, as well as offering suggestions.
Based on this feedback, some questions were eliminated or modified.
Demographic questions (regarding age, gender, tenure and position in the organization)
were also added to develop a profile of the sample. The questionnaire also includes questions
related to the company profile.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 5 0.866 Factor loadings
TFL and TQM
Fostering the High Providing an practices
Items acceptance of Articulating a performance appropriate
My supervisor . . . group goals vision expectations model

develops a team attitude and 0.843

spirit among his/her
subordinates
encourages employees to be 0.838
“team players
gets the group to work 0.801
together for the same goal
paints an interesting picture 0.830
of the future for our group
is able to get others 0.797
committed to his/her dream
of the future
inspires others with his/her 0.790
plans for the future
insists on only the best 0.886
performance
makes it clear to me that she/ 0.844
he expects me to give 100
percent all of the time
will not settle for second best 0.737
leads by “doing” rather than 0.757
simply by “telling”
leads by example 0.645 Table 2.
provides a good model to 0.590 Exploratory factor
follow analysis of
Eigenvalue 5.679 1.790 1.172 0.696 transformational
Cumulative Variance % 23.012 20.391 18.422 15.986 leadership

3.2 Sampling process

For the survey, ISO 9000-certified companies in the Greek manufacturing and service
industries were selected. This criterion is settled because ISO 9000 certification is considered
as a basic step for TQM initiatives (Bouranta et al., 2017; Babatunde, 2016). Certified
companies have a better average in eight of the nine success factors in all the TQM blocks
(Benzaquen et al., 2019). Probably for this reason many previous surveys investigating the
level of TQM implementation used quality-certified companies as a sample (Baidoun, 2003;
Bouranta et al., 2017; Lewis et al., 2005). A database of ICAP (the largest business information
and consulting firm in Greece) was used to select the companies that would participate in the
research study. Based on a random selection, 20 companies from different industrial sectors
and dispersed across Greece were selected. The companies from which the employees were
drawn for the sample were small and medium-sized manufacturing and service companies.
An initial email was sent to the general manager inviting his or her company to participate
in the research study and explaining the purpose of the study. After receiving a positive
response from 16 managers, employees of these companies were approached. They were
asked to rate the leader’s behavior as well as the extent of TQM initiatives. In order to
participate, the employees had to meet the selection criteria of having worked for a minimum
of one year in the current position and being answerable to a supervisor. Participants were
assured of the total confidentiality and anonymity of their answers. Top management staff
and supervisors were not involved in any part of the process to ensure the voluntariness of
participation in the survey.
TQM Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin 5 0.918 Factor loadings
Employee Strategic
Employee Process knowledge and quality Customer
Items quality mgt mgt education planning focus

Employees participate in the 0.846

decision-making processes
Employees take initiatives 0.838
Employees participate in 0.797
meetings, the agenda of which is
related to quality improvement
planning
There are horizontal and 0.656
vertical communication
channels throughout the
company
Data information is collected 0.621
from employees regarding their
satisfaction level
Employees who improve 0.574
quality are awarded
Statistical process control is 0.753
implemented
Process and service 0.735
nonconformities are detected
through internal audits
procedures
The critical quality processes 0.723
are determined, and their
performance is evaluated
Equipment is controlled 0.694
through preventive
maintenance
All employees are provided with 0.630
work instructions
Mistakes are precluded during 0.581
the design of the product
The employees are educated in 0.761
subjects with regard to their
specialty and daily work
The employees are educated in 0.749
quality management
Educational subjects are 0.740
absorbed
The employees have knowledge 0.734
and know-how
Resources are provided for 0.698
educational reasons
The quality objectives are being 0.844
set on customer needs and
requirements
The company sets quality 0.796
Table 3. objectives for managers and
Exploratory factor employees
analysis of TQM
practices (continued )
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin 5 0.918 Factor loadings
TFL and TQM
Employee Strategic practices
Employee Process knowledge and quality Customer
Items quality mgt mgt education planning focus

The quality policy is taken into 0.748

consideration in strategic
planning
Process and product-services 0.703
planning takes into
consideration citizen
requirements and expectations
The company’s managers and 0.788
employees are in close contact
with customers
Customers’ needs, 0.716
requirements, desires and
expectations are recorded and
analyzed
Customers are encouraged to 0.664
submit complaints and
proposals for quality
improvement
Customers’ complaints, 0.631
satisfaction level and proposals
for quality improvement are
selected
The company’s objectives 0.498
overcome customer
expectations
Eigenvalue 12.789 2.538 1.419 1.129 1.046
Cumulative variance % 15.96 15.88 14.71 13.88 12.34 Table 3.

On the cutoff date, a sample of 315 questionnaires was collected, of which 12 were excluded
because they were ineligible. Hence, the total useable sample for analysis consists of 303
questionnaires, representing a return rate of 35.4%. Specifically, of the 303 participating
employees, 156 were from the manufacturing industry and 147 were from the service
industry, hence the proportions from the two subgroups were approximately equal. As for the
demographic distribution of the sample, 158 (52.6%) were male and 145 (47.4%) were female,
with a mean job tenure at the company of 3.45 years. Only one-tenth of the participants (8.9%)
were responsible for managing others, mainly those belonging to the lower middle class. The
majority of the respondents (49.6%) had a university degree, followed by a percentage of
43.9% who were high school graduates.

4. Results
4.1 Preliminary analyses
In this subsection, the results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA), as well as the reliability and validity of the instruments tests are presented. Prior to the
analysis, the skewness and kurtosis of each variable were also tested; the results satisfy the
conditions for a normal distribution (skewness was less than 2 and kurtosis was less than 4).
Transformational leadership: principal component analysis with varimax rotation was
conducted to assess the structure of the 12 items of the TFL instrument. The factor analysis
revealed a four-dimensional factor that explains 77.8% of the total variance (Table 2). In this
TQM instrument, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value was (0.866) and the significance of
Bartlett’s test of sphericity (0.000) displayed satisfactory results. To test further the factorial
structure of the instrument, a CFA was applied. The CFA tests meet the desirable thresholds
for each fit index; the normed χ 2/df, the comparative fit index (CFI), the normed fit index (NFI),
the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean
squared residual (SRMR). Specifically, the results (χ 2/df 5 2.9; CFI 5 0.96; NFI 5 0.94,
RMSEA 5 0.08; SRMR 5 0.06) showed that the scale provides an acceptable fit to the data.
The factor structure of the TL instrument is in line with those found in previous studies
(MacKenzie et al., 2001; Panagopoulos and Dimitriadis, 2009).
TQM practices: The EFA of the TQM scale revealed five factors that accounted for 72.8%
of the variance, with all extracted factors having eigenvalues above 1.0. Five items were
deleted due to multifactor loading and 26 items remained for subsequent analysis (Table 3). All
of the remaining questions load as expected on the factors. The KMO index and the Bartlett
test of sphericity provided satisfactory results. The 26-item factor structure showed a very
good fit with the data (χ 2/df 5 2.4, CFI 5 0.93, NFI 5 0.90, RMSEA 5 0.06 and SRMR 5 0.05).
The results confirm that when followed by manufacturing and service firms, the TQM
practices improve employee quality management, process management, employee
knowledge and education, strategic quality planning and customer focus. These findings
are in accordance with previous research in this field (Bouranta and Psomas, 2017; Psomas
et al., 2017; Bouranta et al., 2017).
Convergent validity was tested by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE) by
each factor. The results verify the convergent validity of the scales, indicating that almost all
the variance for each factor exceeds the proposed cutoff point of 0.5 (Table 4). Additionally,
the factors demonstrate sufficient discriminant validity, as the correlation matrix illustrates
no correlations above 0.70 (Table 5). Both EFA and CFA results also showed that the survey
instruments have good construct validity. To assess the reliability of the instruments,
Cronbach’s α, which is one of the most accepted formulas, was used (Iacobucci and Duhachek,
2003). The results indicate that the constructs archive internal consistency reliability as
α-value is greater than 0.7 for all scales (Nunnally, 1978) (Table 4). Specifically, Cronbach’s
alpha for the leadership scale was 0.893 and 0.956 for the TQM scale. The Cronbach’s alpha
for the leadership constructs ranged from 0.794 to 0.912 and the same index for TQM
constructs ranged from 0.888 to 0.915, indicating their high reliability.
Differences in industry type were studied by applying independent t-tests to the constructs
(Table 4). The mean of the leadership behaviors of articulating a vision and fostering the
acceptance of group goals reported by service employees was substantially lower than those
found in the manufacturing industry. The results revealed that there was no significant effect
of industry type on the other two dimensions of TFL (providing an appropriate model and
high performance expectations). Concerning TQM practices, there were no significant
differences between the manufacturing and service industries for the employee quality
management and employee knowledge and education mean scores. However, manufacturing
employees reported significantly higher scores on process management, strategic quality
planning and customer focus than service employees. Thus, the two sectors (manufacturing
and service) seem to differ in the emphasis they paid to some of the TQM practices.
The Pearson correlation coefficients for all pairs of TQM and transformational constructs
are provided in Table 5. The leadership constructs have a positive and statistically significant
correlation with all of the TQM constructs in the full sample.

4.2 Results of the TQM practices–leadership style relationship

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to validate the proposed model and verify the
relationships among the constructs. TL was operationalized as a second-order reflective
 Manufacturing
Total sample (n 5 303) (n 5 156) Services (n 5 147)
Number of Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std
Contract (factor) items Reliability AVE Value Dev Value Dev Value Dev t-value

Fostering the acceptance of group 3 0.912 0.69 5.06 1.18 5.21 1.20 4.89 1.14 2.341*
goals
Articulating a vision 3 0.833 0.65 4.54 1.06 4.79 1.06 4.27 1.00 4.372***
High performance expectations 3 0.800 0.68 5.52 0.96 5.61 0.93 5.42 1.00 1.695
Providing an appropriate model 3 0.794 0.46 4.66 1.13 4.75 1.10 4.55 1.15 1.470
Employee quality management 6 0.897 0.52 4.09 1.24 4.17 1.26 4.00 1.23 1.183
Process mgt 6 0.915 0.64 4.83 1.18 5.13 1.05 4.58 1.25 4.186***
Employee knowledge and education 5 0.904 0.66 4.60 1.20 4.69 1.22 4.50 1.18 1.362
Strategic quality planning 4 0.888 0.69 5.09 1.23 5.61 0.95 4.54 1.06 9.206***
Customer focus 5 0.894 0.63 4.79 1.24 5.20 1.12 4.35 1.20 6.440***
Note(s): *p ≤ 0.05, ***p ≤ 0.001
practices
TFL and TQM

Table 4.
Descriptive statistics
TQM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

(1) Fostering the acceptance of 0.54** 0.33** 0.70** 0.42** 0.45** 0.38** 0.44** 0.42**
group goals
(2) Articulating a vision 0.28** 0.60** 0.44** 0.43** 0.35** 0.44** 0.48**
(3) High performance 0.31** 0.26** 0.46** 0.30** 0.44** 0.44**
expectations
(4) Providing an appropriate 0.57** 0.47** 0.49** 0.43** 0.49**
model
(5) Employee quality 0.59** 0.61** 0.46** 0.55**
management
(6) Process mgt 0.59** 0.65** 0.46**
(7) Employee knowledge and 0.47** 0.60**
Table 5. education
Bivariate correlation (8) Strategic quality planning 0.68**
matrices for TQM and (9) Customer focus
leadership constructs Note(s): **p ≤ 0.01

construct. The model indicates that χ 2 is 1488.310 with 648 dfs (p 5 0.000), Hence, the χ 2
relative value to degree of freedom ( χ 2/df) does not exceed the proposed cutoff point of 3 (Hair
et al., 2010) as it is equal to 2.29. The CFI (CFI 5 0.901) showed a relatively good fit as it is close
to the accepted threshold of 0.90 (Hair et al., 2010). NFI in this sample is a little below the
proposed cutoff of 0.90 (NFI 5 0.84). However, some recommendations argued that values
greater than 0.80 suggest a good fit (Forza and Filippini, 1998). Thus, the proposed model has
an acceptable fit. The RMSEA was equal to 0.066, which is considered adequate for the sample
characteristics. In addition, the standardized root mean square residual of the model
(SRMR 5 0.076) met the recommended threshold level, which is <0.08 (Browne and Cudeck,
1993). The results of the analysis of the effects of TFL on TQM practices are shown in Table 6.
Figure 1 also depicts the SEM results with the standardized path coefficient.
The TQM practices are significant in the equation with a different value of the beta
coefficients, thus contributing different weights to the variance of TL. These results support
H1 as well as its subhypotheses (H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d and H1e), showing that TFL has a
positive impact on examined TQM practices. They also revealed that all the path coefficients
between TFL and TQM practices are positive and statistically significant (ranging from 0.773
to 0.887).

4.3 Results of the moderating effects of industry type

To determine whether or not there were industry type differences in the relationships
between TFL and TQM practices, a multigroup SEM was used. The sample of 303
questionnaires was split into two subsamples based on the type of industry (manufacturing,
n 5 156, and service, n 5 147) to examine if the proposed model was the same or different
between these two groups. The sample sizes across the two groups were almost equal.

Hypothesis Path Estimate C.R. SE p

H1a TFL–Employee quality mgt þ0.838 9.509 1.166 0.000

H1b TFL–Process mgt þ0.887 9.476 1.180 0.000
Table 6. H1c TFL–Employee knowledge and education þ0.792 8.627 0.939 0.000
Test result of H1d TFL–Strategic quality planning þ0.773 8.480 0.960 0.000
hypotheses (H1a–H1e) H1e TFL–Customer focus þ0.847 9.284 1.151 0.000
 TQM practices TFL and TQM
practices
Employee
quality mgt
Fostering the
acceptance of
group goals 0.838

0.619
0.887
Process mgt
Articulating a
0.641
vision
0.792
Transformational Employee
0.525 leadership education
High
performance 0.773
expectations 0.749
Strategic quality
Providing an 0.847 planning
appropriate model

Customer
Figure 1.
focus
Results of the SEM
analysis

A two-step approach was used to estimate the significance of the difference between the
subgroups by comparing the χ 2 statistics of the constrained and unconstrained models.
Specifically, at the first step, the two models were tested unconstrained, allowing all the
parameters to vary freely across the subgroups. At the second step, equality constraints were
imposed on all the regression weights across the subgroups. The moderator effects were
tested by assessing the statistically significant χ 2 variation. Table 7 presents the results of a
multigroup comparison test between the manufacturing and service industries with regard to
the TFL and total quality management practices. All of the path coefficients are positive and
also statistically significant for both sectors. Thus, it can be suggested that this leadership
style is almost equally effective on TQM implementation for both the manufacturing and
service industries. The change in the χ 2 value (Δχ 2 / Δdf 5 79.513/37, p < 0.000) is statistically
significant. However, comparing the path coefficients between these two groups, only one
difference in the patterns of significant path coefficients between the two industries was
found. Specifically, only the path of TL–employee education shows a significant difference at
the level of 0.05 between the two industries. The other paths are not significantly affected by
the industry type. This result provides partial support for the second hypothesis.

Manufacturing Service
Relationships Estimate S.E. C.R. Estimate S.E. C.R.

TL→Employee quality mgt 0.774*** 0.196 6.104 0.825*** 0.126 6.213

TL→Process mgt 0.710*** 0185 5.718 0.961*** 0.154 8.292
TL→Employee education 0.922*** 0.161 6.058 0.840*** 0.163 7.617
TL→Strategic quality planning 0.704*** 0.150 5.543 0.839*** 0.127 5.817 Table 7.
TL→Customer focus 0.838*** 0.190 6.178 0.822*** 0.140 7.265 Multigroup
Note(s): ***p < 0.001, S.E. 5 Standard Error, C.R. 5 Critical Ratio comparison test results
TQM 5. Discussion
TQM and TFL, along with their various definitions, have attracted researchers from
different fields. However, the operationalization and, consequently, its effective
implementation are more difficult to define. The results revealed that, from the
employees’ perspectives, TQM practices are adopted in the manufacturing and service
industries at a satisfactory level, as the mean value, measured on a seven-point Likert scale,
ranged from 4.09 to 5.09. The practices highly rated were strategic quality planning
(mean 5 5.09), followed by process management (mean 5 4.8). However, employees poorly
rated the employee quality management practice, with a mean score of 4.09. Thus, the results
should motivate managers to enhance their employees’ empowerment and participation in
decision-making.
In addition, the manufacturing industry has adopted TQM principles to a higher level
than those of the service industry. Specifically, three TQM practices (i.e. process
management, strategic quality planning and customer focus) score higher in
manufacturing than in the service industry. These differences concerning the level of
adoption of TQM among the two sectors are statistically significant. Previous research also
found significant differences considering the company’s sector, supporting the view that
manufacturing companies show a higher level of TQM use than service companies (Woon,
2000). The main cause of this higher adoption could be the traditional focus of TQM
implementation practices on manufacturing companies (Miguel et al., 2016; Jyoti et al., 2017).
The lack of sufficient research in this field as well as the lack of general consensus on common
TQM factors in the service sector may prevent its dissemination in the service industries
(Bouranta et al., 2019). Only during the few last years have service companies been motivated
to implement TQM programs, which may be the reason for lagging behind their
manufacturing counterparts. Additionally, the different level of TQM implementation
between service and manufactory companies may be due to the inseparability, variability and
perishability nature of services. These service characteristics introduce differences in their
operation, process, product features and customer relationships compared with
manufacturing ones (Lenka et al., 2010). Thus, the application of TQM differs in service
and manufacturing firms (Lenka et al., 2010). For example, the emphasis of manufacturing
industries on process management and strategic quality planning compared with service
industries may be explained by their tangible nature, which requires the intense use of
quality tools and techniques. Services also focus on human interaction and typically
customize services to meet customers’ special needs; thus, it is difficult to set up and follow a
highly standard process. Hence, the service industries should sort the processes into those
that can be mass-customized and apply to them the proper quality frameworks and to those
that vary in complexity and customization and based on a great extent to the first-line
employees’ expertise. Moreover, the practical difficulty to standardize the service a customer
needs compared with measurable characteristics of a product may lead service employees to
evaluate customer focus practices lower than manufacturing employees do. In the
manufacturing industry, the quality-control process detects defective products based on
rules, thus ensuring to some extent customer satisfaction; in the service industry, the quality
perception may differ among the involved parties (i.e. provider, customer), thus complicating
customer satisfaction.
On the other hand, the levels of TFL dimensions in these two sectors are not significantly
different, except for the dimensions of articulating a vision and fostering the acceptance of
group goals. For these, the manufacturing industry scores significantly higher than does the
service industry. These results are similar to those of Mesu et al. (2015), which support the
view that TFL is effective in both sectors but on the condition that it is combined with a
directive leadership style as far as manufacturing SMEs are concerned. The findings of the
current research are also in accordance with Lenka et al.’s (2010) claim that there is not much
difference in the application of quality management practices, for example, leadership, TFL and TQM
between service and manufacturing firms. practices
The results also support H1 and its subhypotheses (H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d and H1e), showing
that TFL has a positive impact on examined TQM practices. Thus, H2, according to which
industry type moderates the relationship between TFL and TQM practices, is partially
supported. The TFL is almost equally effective on TQM implementation for both sectors,
but the path of TL–employee education has a significant difference between the two
industries.

6. Conclusions and scope for further research

Kumar and Sharmal (2018) proposed that leadership styles with a TQM focus are essential for
the current rapidly changing market. TQM gurus such as Deming, Crosby and Juran
recognized the important role of leadership in quality management. Other researchers also
agree with the notion of Perles (2002, p. 65) according to which “all the TQM principles require
the action of a leader.” Ehigie and Akpan (2004) also considered leadership styles and
rewards as psychological variables that could enhance TQM practices. Zairi (1994) argued
that TQM requires a special type of leadership. The appropriate leadership style should be
implemented to inspire all employees to focus on quality (Chih and Lin, 2009). Considering the
encouraging role of leadership in the implementation of TQM principles, this empirical
research seeks to identify the suitable leadership style for the implementation of TQM
practices.
Further analysis of the data concludes that TFL has a significant positive influence on all
TQM practices. Leadership theorists suggest that TFL supports the earlier-noted expectation
performance, changes in attitudes, inspirational motivation, sense of collective mission and
modeling behaviors (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Avolio and Bass, 1995).
These aspects of TFL are consistent with TQM’s philosophy, which emphasizes continual
improvement and customer satisfaction, encourages changes, sets clear and challenging
goals and promotes teamwork (Idris and Mohd Ali, 2008; Waldman, 1994; Rui et al., 2010).
Visionary leadership is essential for setting a commitment to quality and inspiring employees
to have high expectations. In addition, by leading by example, a transformational leader can
change his/her organization into one of quality following an effective QM program. The TL
dimension of high performance expectations demonstrates that leader expectations for high-
quality performance are critical (Podsakoff et al., 1990). A TL leader can also encourage
employee collaboration and boost involvement in a continuous quality process. Leaders, in
order to introduce the TQM philosophy, should have the ability to transform employee
attitudes and working methods to maintain focus on quality. First, they should inspire their
subordinates to follow their vision; further, corporate values should be oriented to having a
quality culture. Leaders should also establish an open communication channel with
employees, reminding them of the importance of customers’ needs and expectations. The
vision should also focus on internal customers’ needs as well, providing opportunities to
satisfy them. Leaders in the context of TQM should also pay attention to employee
empowerment, recognition and developing their career path.
Moreover, it was found that, regardless of industry type, that is, manufacturing or service,
TFL has a significantly positive influence on TQM practices. The relationship between the
TFL style and TQM could be considered common across organizations. However, the
influence of TL on the two industries is different as far as employee education practices are
concerned. TL has a more positive impact on employee education in the manufacturing
industry than in the service industry.
This paper’s results are tempered with limitations but also provide opportunities for
future research. First, the data came from a geographical context (Greece), so the findings
TQM could not be generalized, taking into consideration Cho and Jung’s (2014) conclusion that the
most effective leadership style for TQM implementation varies depending on the national
culture. A cross-cultural study among European and Japanese companies would also provide
interesting information. Another avenue for future research is to examine more moderators
that may influence the relationship between TQM and TFL such as the firm size or the span of
control. In addition, this study examined only the direct influence of leadership on TQM
implementation. Indeed, the impact of other relevant variables should be examined as well as
different mediating factors between these two concepts (Lee et al., 2011) such as trust
(Khattak et al., 2020). Finally, the subjectivity of the measures, as the data relied on self-
administered questionnaires, may lead to bias. The managers of the participating firms were
involved in this survey, as they consented to employee participation, which may also lead to
desirability bias. However, the sample size, the high response rate, the survey anonymity and
validity, the satisfactory results’ reliability and the validity of the constructs minimize these
potential biases to some extent.

References
Abdallah, A.B. (2013), “The influence of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ total quality management (TQM) practices on
total productive maintenance (TPM) in Jordanian manufacturing companies”, International
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 21, pp. 1-13.
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 and Reliability Management, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 164-176.
Argia, H.A.A. and Ismail, A. (2013), “The influence of transformational leadership on the level of TQM
implementation in the higher education sector”, Higher Education Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 136-146.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (2004), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set,
3rd ed., Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1995), MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Technical
Report, Mindgarden, Redwood City, CA.
Babatunde, Y.S. (2016), “TQM implementation through ISO 9001: findings from Chinese construction
firms in Nigeria”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 671-682.
Baidoun, S. (2003), “An empirical study of critical factors of TQM in Palestinian organizations”,
Logistics Information Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 156-171.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bedi, H.S. and Vij, S. (2015), “How do age, type, size and nature determine firms’ entrepreneurial
orientation?”, International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 1015-1030.
Benzaquen, J., Carlos, M., Norero, G., Armas, H. and Pacheco, H. (2019), “Quality in private health
companies in Peru: the relation of QMS and ISO 9000 principles on TQM factor”, International
Journal of Healthcare Management. doi: 10.1080/20479700.2019.1644472.
Bouranta, N. and Psomas, E. (2017), “A comparative analysis of Competitive Priorities and Business
Performance. Between manufacturing and service firms”, International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, Vol. 66 No. 7, pp. 914-931.
Bouranta, N., Psomas, E. 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.
Bouranta, N., Psomas, E., Su
arez-Barraza, M.F. and Jaca, C. (2019), “The key factors of Total Quality
Management in the service sector: a cross-cultural study”, Benchmarking: an International
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 893-921.
Brah, S.A., Lee, S.L. and Rao, B.M. (2002), “Relationship between TQM and performance of Singapore TFL and TQM
companies”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 356-379. practices
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing models fit”, in Bollen, K.A. and
Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), “Further assessments of Bass’ 1985 conceptualization of
transactional and transformational leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4,
pp. 468-478.
Chang, S. and Lee, M. (2007), “A study on relationship among leadership, organizational culture, the
operation of learning organization and employees’ job satisfaction”, The Learning Organization,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 155-185.
Chen, S.Y. and Chen, L.J. (2011), “Capital structure determinants: an empirical study in Taiwan”,
African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 27, pp. 10974-10983.
Chih, W.H. and Lin, Y.A. (2009), “The study of the antecedent factors of organisational commitment
for high-tech industries in Taiwan”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 20
No. 8, pp. 799-815.
Cho, Y.S. and Jung, J.Y. (2014), “The verification of effective leadership style for TQM: a comparative
study between USA-based firms and China-based firms”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 822-840.
Crede, M., Jong, J. and Harms, P. (2019), “The generalizability of transformational leadership across
cultures: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 139-155.
Darling, R.J. (1992), “Total quality management: the key role of leadership strategies”, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 3-7.
Das, A., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2011), “The role of leadership competencies for implementing
TQM: an empirical study in Thai manufacturing industry”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-219.
Dean, J.W. and Bowen, D.E. (1994), “Management theory and total quality: improving research and
practice through theory development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 392-418.
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 and Business Excellence, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 367-382.
Dilawo, R.C. and Salimi, Z. (2019), “Understanding TQM implementation barriers involving
construction companies in a difficult environment”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1137-1158.
Doeleman, H.J., ten Have, S. and Ahaus, K. (2012), “The moderating role of leadership in the
relationship between management control and business excellence”, Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 591-611.
EFQM (2012), “EFQM excellence model”, EFQM, available at: https://www.qualityscotland.co.uk/sites/
default/files/efqm/EFQM%20Excellence%20Model%20Book%202013.pdf (accessed 9
June 2020).
Ehigie, B.O. and Akpan, R.C. (2004), “Roles of perceived leadership styles and rewards in the practice
of total quality management”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 24-40.
urk, A., Van den Broeck, H. and Verbrigghe, J. (2018), “Self-other agreement on transformational
Ert€
leadership and subordinates’ assessment of supervisor’s performance: mediating role of leader-
member exchange”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 291-308.
TQM Formby, S.K., Malhotra, M.K. and Ahire, S. (2018), “The complex influences of quality management
leadership and work force involvement on manufacturing firm success”, International Journal
of Productivity and Performance, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 502-518.
Forza, C. and Filippini, R. (1998), “TQM impact on quality conformance and customer satisfaction: a
causal model”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
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.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hardy, L., Arthur, C.A., Jones, G., Shariff, A., Munnoch, K., Isaacs, I. and Allsopp, A.J. (2010), “A
correlational and an experimental study examining the sub-components of transformational
leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 20-32.
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 and Business Excellence,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 243-263.
Hoang, D.T., Igel, B. and Laosirihongthong, T. (2010), “Total quality management (TQM) strategy and
organisational characteristics: evidence from a recent WTO member”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 931-951.
House, R.J. and Podsakoff, P.M. (1994), “Leadership effectiveness: past perspectives and future
directions for research”, in Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational Behavior, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 45-82.
Iacobucci, D. and Duhachek, A. (2003), “Advancing alpha: measuring reliability with confidence”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 478-487.
Idris, F. and Mohd Ali, K.A. (2008), “The impacts of leadership style and best practices on company
performances: empirical evidence from business firms in Malaysia”, Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, Vol. 19 Nos 1-2, pp. 163-171.
Jha, S. (2014), “Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment: determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior”, South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 18-35.
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 and 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 and Business Excellence, Vol. 28 Nos 7-8, pp. 897-929.
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.
Khattak, M.N., Zolin, R. and Muhammad, N. (2020), “Linking transformational leadership and
continuous improvement the mediating role of trust”, Management Research Review, Vol. 43
No. 8, pp. 931-950.
Krajcs
ak, Z. (2019), “Leadership strategies for enhancing employee commitment in TQM”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 455-463.
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.
Kumar, V. and Sharmal, R.R.K. (2018), “Leadership styles and their relationship with TQM focus for
Indian firms: an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1063-1088.
Kumar, R., Garg, D. and Garg, T.K. (2011), “Total quality management success factors in North Indian TFL and TQM
manufacturing and service industries”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 36-46.
practices
Kumar, V., Verma, P., Mangla, K.S., Mishra, A., Chowdhary, D., Hsu, S.C. and Lai, K.K. (2020),
“Barriers to total quality management for sustainability in Indian organizations”, International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management. doi: 10.1108/IJQRM-10-2019-0312.
Laohavichien, T., Fredendall, L. and Stephen Cantrell, R. (2011), “Leadership and quality management
practices in Thailand”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 31
No. 10, pp. 1048-1070.
Lee, K.C.P., ChengYeung, T.C.E.C.L.A. and Lai, K. (2011), “An empirical study of transformational
leadership, team performance and service quality in retail banks”, Omega, Vol. 39, pp. 690-701.
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.
Lewis, W.G., Pun, K.F. and Lalla, T.R.M. (2005), “An empirical analysis of ISO 9004:2000 maturity in
ISO 9001 certified SMEs”, Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 190-203.
Lindgreen, A., Palmer, R., Wetzels, M. and Antioco, M. (2009), “Do different marketing practices
require different leadership styles? An exploratory study”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 14-26.
Liu, J., Liu, X. and Zeng, X. (2011), “Does transactional leadership count for team innovativeness?”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 282-298.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), “Effectiveness correlates of transformation
and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-425.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Rich, G.A. (2001), “Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 115-134.
Mesu, J., Sanders, K. and Riemsdijk, M.V. (2015), “Transformational leadership and organisational
commitment in manufacturing and service small to medium-sized enterprises: the
moderating effects of directive and participative leadership”, Personnel Review, Vol. 44
No. 6, pp. 970-990.
Miguel, E., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. and Tar
ı, J.J. (2016), “TQM and market orientation in care home services”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1076-1098.
Ng, P.K., Yeow, J.A., Chin, T.S., Jee, K.S. and Chan, P.H. (2013), “Leadership styles and their impacts on
TQM practices in Malaysian manufacturing firms”, International Conference on Economics and
Business Research, Penang, May 15-16.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Panagopoulos, N. and Dimitriadis, S. (2009), “Transformational leadership as a mediator of the
relationship between behavior-based control and salespeople’s key outcomes”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 7-8, pp. 1008-1031.
Perles, G.S.M. (2002), “The ethical dimension of leadership in the programmes of total quality
management”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39 Nos 1-2, pp. 59-66.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, organizational citizenship
behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Transformational leader behaviors and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and
organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 259-98.
Popli, S. and Rizvi, A. (2017), “Leadership style and service orientationThe catalytic role of employee
engagement”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 292-310.
TQM Pounder, J.S. (2003), “Employing transformational leadership to enhance the quality of management
development instruction”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 6-13.
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.
Prestiadi, D., Zulkarnain, W. and Sumarsono, R.B. (2020), “Visionary leadership in total quality
management: efforts to improve the quality of education in the industrial revolution 4.0”,
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Vol. 381, pp. 202-206.
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.
Qu, R., Janssen, O. and Shi, K. (2015), “Transformational leadership and follower creativity: the
mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity
expectations”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 286-299.
Raghunathan, T.S., Rao, S.S. and Solis, L.E. (1997), “A comparative study of quality practices: USA,
China and India”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 97 Nos 5-6, pp. 192-200.
Rui, C., Mainardes, E.W. and Lourenço, L. (2010), “Transformational leadership and TQM
implementation”, Advances in Management, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 7-18.
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.
Salim, K.A., Sundarakani, B. and Lasrado, F. (2019), “The relationship between TQM practices and
organizational innovation outcomes Moderating and mediating the role of slack”, The TQM
Journal, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-907.
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.
Schmenner, R.W. (1986), “How can service businesses survive and prosper”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 21-32.
Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., Zhou, X.T. and DeChurch, L.A. (2007), “An investigation of path-goal
and transformational leadership theory predictions at the individual level of analysis”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Schwepker, C.H. and Good, D.J. (2013), “Improving salespeople’s trust in the organization, moral
judgment and performance through transformational leadership”, Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 535-546.
Sfakianaki, E. (2019), “A measurement instrument for implementing total quality management in
Greek primary and secondary education”, International Journal of Educational Management,
Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1065-1081.
Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2002), “An investigation of the total quality management survey based
research published between 1989 and 2000”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 902-70.
Soane, E. and ButlerStanton, C.E. (2015), “Followers’ personality, transformational leadership and
performance”, Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 51,
pp. 65-78.
Solis, L.E., Rao, S., Raghu-Nathan, T.S., Chen, C.-Y. and Pan, S. (1998), “Quality management practices
and quality results: a comparison of manufacturing and service sectors in Taiwan”, Managing
Service Quality, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 46-54.
Talib, F. and Rahman, Z. (2012), “Total quality management practices in manufacturing and service
industries: a comparative study”, International Journal of Advanced Operations Management,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 155-176.
Tar
ı, J.J., Molina, J.F. and Castej
on, J.L. (2007), “The relationship between quality management TFL and TQM
practices and their effects on quality outcomes”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 183 No. 2, pp. 483-501. practices
Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A. and Pillai, R. (2001), “The MLQ revisited: psychometric properties and
recommendations”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 31-52.
Teoman, S. and Ulengin, F. (2018), “The impact of management leadership on quality performance
throughout a supply chain: an empirical study”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, Vol. 29 No. 11, pp. 1427-1451.
Tepper, B.J. and Percy, P.M. (1994), “Structural validity of the multifactor leadership questionnaire”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 734-744.
Tiwari, K. and Sharma, A.K. (2017), “Transactional leadership and total quality management”,
International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 2394-3386.
Vij, S. and Farooq, R. (2014), “Knowledge sharing orientation and its relationship with business
performance: a structural equation modeling approach”, The IUP Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. XII No. 3, pp. 17-41.
Waldman, D.A. (1994), “Transformational leadership in multifunctional teams”, in Bass, B. and
Avolio, B. (Eds), Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 84-103.
uß, S. (2016), “The relationship between transformational leadership and effortreward
Weiß, E.E. and S€
imbalance”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 450-466.
Welty, J.P., Wells, J.E. and Burton, L.G. (2014), “Examining the influence of transformational
leadership, organizational commitment, job embeddedness and job search behaviors on
turnover intentions in intercollegiate athletics”, Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 740-755.
Woon, K.C. (2000), “Assessment of TQM implementation: benchmarking Singapore’s productivity
leaders”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 314-330.
Yousaf, N. (2017), “A case against transformational leadership: empirical examples from political
history of South Asia”, International Journal of Public Leadership, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 190-212.
Zairi, M. (1994), “Leadership in TQM implementation: some case examples”, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 9-16.

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