Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: 1478-3363 (Print) 1478-3371 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

Influence of quality on employee results: the case

of rural accommodations in Spain

María de la Cruz Del Río-Rama, José Álvarez-García, Margarida Saraiva &

António Ramos-Pires

To cite this article: María de la Cruz Del Río-Rama, José Álvarez-García, Margarida Saraiva
& António Ramos-Pires (2017) Influence of quality on employee results: the case of rural
accommodations in Spain, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28:13-14,
1489-1508, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2016.1150171

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1150171

Published online: 04 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 192

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20
Total Quality Management, 2017
Vol. 28, No. 13, 1489–1508, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1150171

Influence of quality on employee results: the case of rural

accommodations in Spain
Marı́a de la Cruz Del Rı́o-Ramaa, José Álvarez-Garcı́ab, Margarida Saraivac and
∗
António Ramos-Piresd
a
Business Organisation and Marketing, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Turismo,
University of Vigo, Orense, Spain; bAccounting and Financial Economy Department, Facultad
de Empresa, Finanzas y Turismo, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain; cDepartment
Margarida Saraiva: Management Department, University of Évora and BRU-UNIDE/ISCTE-
IUL, Évora, Portugal; dPolytechnic Institute of Setúbal, Setúbal, Portugal

Few studies have analysed the effect of the critical factors of quality results on
employees in the services sector and, more specifically, in the tourism sector. This
work studies the rural accommodation sector in order to provide facility managers
with the critical factors on which to focus their efforts towards increasing their
employee results/satisfaction. The data obtained from 100 rural accommodations in
Spain are analysed and each of the measurement scales used are validated by
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The theoretical model proposed to
analyse the relationship is estimated by applying Structural Equation Modelling. The
research reveals that the factors to which greater attention should be paid in order to
enhance employee results/satisfaction are quality policy and strategy and processes
management, the latter being the criterion through which the rest of the critical
factors perform. The greatest total effect derives from quality policy and strategy
and leadership, and indirect effect via the rest of the criteria.
Keywords: critical factors; employee results; rural accommodations; Spain; TQM

1. Introduction
In the current context, firms understand total quality management (TQM) as a strategy to
be used in order to obtain and maintain a competitive advantage (Yang, 2006; Talib,
Rahman, & Qureshi, 2013), as well as a way to manage their companies. This enables
them to achieve a greater efficiency in their operations and, therefore, increased perform-
ance (ALNasser, Yusoff, & Islam, 2013; Chang, Chiu, & Chen, 2010; Chapman & Al-
Khawaldeh, 2002; Zhang, Waszink, & Wijngaard, 2000). In this sense, the research
carried out in recent years demonstrates the benefits of implementing a System of
Quality Management: increased market share (Cole, 1992; Mak, 2011), reduced manufac-
turing costs (Chin & Sofian, 2011), improved productivity (Anderson, Rungtusanatham,
Schroeder, & Devaraj, 1995; Antony, Leung, Knowles, & Gosh, 2002; Garvin, 1983;
Hasan & Kerr, 2003; Oakland, 1989) and improved strategic performance (Al-Tarawneh
& Ahmad, 2010; Zhang, 2000), among others. There are many benefits provided by the
implementation of TQM, but we must also keep in mind that it presents weaknesses in
practice (Dahlgaard, Chen, Jang, Banegas, & Dahlgaard-Park, 2013).
In the last decade, human resources in the TQM field has become a topic of great interest
(Cruickshank, 2000) and nobody puts in doubt today that employees are a basic pillar which

∗
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

# 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

1490 M.C. Del Rı́o-Rama et al.

organisations should support to ensure the long-term efficiency and effectiveness of the
overall management and processes management which Systems Quality Management
(Sakanovič & Mayer, 2006) upholds. We should note that the application of TQM practices
allows an improvement of the working conditions of employees, contributing to increased
job satisfaction (ALNasser et al., 2013; Zelnik, Maletič, Maletič, & Gomišček, 2012).
In this sense, employee satisfaction, as Chin and Sofian (2011) note, is an essential factor
for the growth and success of an organisation and for a satisfied employee to work more and
better (Sakanovič & Mayer, 2006). Researchers such as Gray, Densten, and Sarros (2003)
and Chin and Sofian (2011) provide empirical evidence that there is a positive correlation
between employee satisfaction and organisational effectiveness. Indeed, it is helping to
increase customer satisfaction with the services and products (Eskildsen & Dahlgaard,
2000). Following this line, Tutuncu and Kucukusta (2010) state that satisfied employees
have a direct influence on the level of customer satisfaction by improving service quality
and productivity (Chang et al., 2010; Sadikoglu & Zehir, 2010).
One of the distinctive capacities of enterprises – which is difficult to imitate and which
produces a competitive advantage – is precisely how the management of human resources
is implemented, how motivation occurs and how employee engagement is achieved. One
of the main tasks of managers in this field is the measuring and controlling of employee
satisfaction which will identify opportunities for the continuous improvement of human
resources.
Despite the importance of employee satisfaction, studies examining the influence of the
critical factors of quality on it have been scarce (ALNasser et al., 2013). These have focused
on analysing the influence of the practices on organisational performance and customer sat-
isfaction (Hsu & Chen, 2013). There are several works which we can mention that analyse
the relationship between quality practices and the satisfaction of employees in the industrial
sector, such as Guimaraes (1996, 1997), Gardner and Carlopio (1996), Lam (1995, 1996),
Noorliza (1999), Noorliza and Zainal (2000), Boselie and Van der Wiele (2002), Yang
(2006), Ooi, Abu Bakar, Arumugam, Vellapan, and Kim Yin Loke (2007), Kooij, Jansen,
Dikkers, and De Lange (2010) and Alsughayir (2014), and in the services sector (Chang
et al., 2010; Tomaževič, Seljak, & Aristovnik, 2014a, 2014b; Tutuncu & Kucukusta,
2006, 2010). However, practically no studies exist in the tourism sector.
This research means to fill this gap in the literature by proposing to analyse whether
TQM practices influence employee results/satisfaction, in order to know about what man-
agers should focus their efforts on in order to improve these results.
This paper is structured in five sections. In the introduction, the topic under study is
contextualised, the gap detected in the empirical research on the subject that has
brought about this research is presented and the objective of the work is introduced.
The second section provides a review of the literature on job satisfaction and the relation-
ship and influence of the quality therein, and considering the theory, we set out a structural
model and the assumptions underlying it. The third section describes the methodology
used and the measurement scale is validated. The fourth explains the data analysis. The
last two sections discuss the results, and the key findings are put forward, along with
the limitations of this research.

2. Literature review
2.1. Job satisfaction
The scientific literature reviewed on job satisfaction puts in evidence the difficulty of
finding a universal definition to be related to the term ‘attitude’ (Robinson & Head,
 Total Quality Management 1491

1983), which refers to a person’s way of behaving. In this sense, there have been many
definitions given by researchers over the years and all of them have a different approach
to this term. Locke (1969) assimilated it with the pleasant sensation experienced by
workers resulting from their assessment of the workplace and its facilities (Spector,
2003) and the extent to which they are happy with their work. For Heslop, Smith, Met-
calfe, Macleod, and Hart (2002), it is defined by the difference between the workers’
expectations and their actual perception of the work, and for Brief and Weiss (2001), it
is the emotional and intellectual satisfaction one gets from a job and is obtained from
the net sum of the positive and negative emotions experienced by workers through their
experience at work (Weiss, 2002).
Many researchers agree with the approach provided by Heslop et al. (2002) and Brief
and Weiss (2001). This considered that job satisfaction is the result of the difference
between workers’ expectations and aspirations and their real perception, considering
this to be a multidimensional set of attitudes towards their job and workplace (Hamermesh,
2001). Therefore, job satisfaction is a pleasant feeling that people have when their job
expectations have been met (Weiss, 2002), when their actions have been approved or
praised and when they feel necessary and important in the company (Gorenak & Pagon,
2006 cited in Tomaževič et al., 2014a). As these attitudes are different in each worker, evi-
dence has been empirically found that one employee can be satisfied with a set of attributes
and another dissatisfied (Sakanovič & Mayer, 2006; Qu & Tse, 1996), understanding job
dissatisfaction as unpleasant feelings that result from an evaluation of the work (Schwep-
ker, 2001).
According to the definitions given, we can appreciate that there are many factors which
influence job satisfaction: the worker’s expectations, age, beliefs and lifestyle, the cultural
factors of the environment, the worker’s values, etc. This complexity has led researchers to
try to define the factors that produce job satisfaction (Tutuncu & Demir, 2002), but no con-
sensus has been reached in this aspect. Studies differ with respect to the dimensionality of
the construct. Thus, some studies have investigated how demographic and organisational
factors influence the overall satisfaction of employees (MacKain, Myers, Ostapiej, &
Newman, 2010; Nalla, Rydberg, & Meško, 2011) and, on the other hand, other studies
– such as those of Boothby and Clements (2002), Johnson (2012) and Balci (2011) –
have focused on individual aspects of satisfaction (pay, work conditions, colleagues, etc.).
Many of these studies have demonstrated how job satisfaction influences many areas: a
greater commitment to the organisation (Brunetto & Farr-Wharton, 2003) and less labour
turnover and absenteeism (Howard, Howard Donofrio, & Boles, 2004), among others.
Another group of studies has also shown the consequences of dissatisfaction: leaving
work and more errors in the worker’s activity level; absenteeism and poor performance
(Lambert, Edwards, Camp, & Saylor, 2005) and low organisational commitment and
motivation (Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004).
In summary, attaining the labour satisfaction of employees in a company enables a
better organisational climate that encourages organisational effectiveness and improves
performance (Tutuncu & Demir, 2002), and dissatisfaction causes additional costs
(Camp & Lambert, 2006) and loses important time, as well as adversely affecting
competitiveness.

2.2. Critical factors of TQM

Over the last 20 years, many studies have been commissioned to identify the key factors
for success in the implementation of quality (Ahire, Golhar, & Waller, 1996; Al-Marri,
1492 M.C. Del Rı́o-Rama et al.

Moneim, Baheeg Ahmed, & Zairi, 2007; Antony et al., 2002; Flynn, Schroeder, & Saka-
kibara, 1994; Fotopoulos & Psomas, 2009; Grandzol & Gershon, 1998; Hafeez, Malak, &
Abdelmeguid, 2006; Karia & Hasmi Abu Hassan Asaari, 2006; Prajogo & Mc Dermott,
2005; Rao, Solis, & Raghunathan, 1999; Sadikoglu & Zehir, 2010; Saraph, Benson, &
Schroeder, 1989; Sila & Ebrahimpour, 2005; Yang, 2006; Zhang et al., 2000).
However, there is no agreed and definitive list of critical factors. When defining the
term ‘critical quality factors or dimensions of quality’, all people concur regarding the
key areas of the organisation that, if properly managed, ensure improved competitiveness
and the success of enabling the organisation to achieve business excellence (Kanji, 1998;
Psomas, Fotopoulos, & Dimitrios, 2010).
These elements have also been identified by quality models, such as the Malcolm Bal-
drige National Quality Award, the European Foundation for Quality Management
(EFQM) and the Deming Prize. These provide a framework (establishing key quality cri-
teria that must be managed) and aid in the TQM implementation.
We highlight five works that have been commissioned to bring together these critical
factors collected in studies in recent years: Sila and Ebrahimpour (2002), Claver, Tari, and
Molina (2003), Camisón, Cruz, and González (2007), Magd (2014) and Hietschold, Rein-
hardt, and Gurtner (2014). To summarise, we quote only a few: customer focus, continu-
ous improvement, teamwork, leadership, commitment, leadership training, processes
management, employee involvement, information and analysis, supplier relations, stra-
tegic planning, social responsibility and quality of results.

2.3. Relationship between critical factors of quality and employee results/

satisfaction
The existence of a relationship between the critical factors of quality and employee results
has been addressed by many researchers. As mixed results have been found, it is a ‘hard’
field to work in. On the one hand, authors such as Dale (1999), Guimaraes (1996, 1997),
Noorliza (1999), Noorliza and Zainal (2000), and Oakland and Oakland (1998, 2001)
found inconsistent results. According to Chapman and Al-Khawaldeh (2002), the
reasons for this are that either the theory or the methodology is not limited in providing
empirical evidence to support its conclusions (descriptive and inferential statistics).
Other authors – such as Tarı́ (2005), Bou-Llusar, Escrig-Tena, Roca-Puig, and
Beltrán-Martı́n (2005), Sila and Ebrahimpour (2005), Yang (2006), Ooi, Abu Bakar,
et al. (2007), Ooi, Arumugam, Safa, and Bakar (2007), Ooi, Arumugam, Teh, and Yee-
Loong Chong (2008), Teh, Yong, Arumugam, and Ooi (2009), Tutuncu and Kucukusta
(2010), Moullin (2011), Zelnik et al. (2012) and Dahlgaard et al. (2013) – did find a
relationship between different elements of quality results and employee/customer satisfac-
tion. Correlating the critical factors with different quality results has also been evaluated
by many researchers. Dahlgaard, Kristensen, and Kanji (1998) found no correlation
between job satisfaction and customer satisfaction.
There are many critical quality factors identified by researchers that influence job sat-
isfaction by increasing it. Dale (1999) claims that organisational culture – a set of values
and beliefs that guide within an organisation – is important to ensure job satisfaction.
Dahlgaard-Park (2012) placed great emphasis on the role of human resource management
and leadership. Zelnik et al. (2012) indicate that communication has a significant impact
on job satisfaction. Ooi, Abu Bakar, et al. (2007) argue that TQM practices such as team-
work, rewards and recognition, organisational culture, customer focus and organisational
trust are positively associated with job satisfaction within an organisation, and Tutuncu
 Total Quality Management 1493

and Kucukusta (2010) stated that there is a correlation between job satisfaction and the
EFQM Business Excellence Model. Alsughayir (2014) proved that quality elements,
such as organisational culture, customer focus, rewards and recognition, organisational
trust and teamwork, have a significant positive impact on employee job satisfaction
within Saudi Organisations.

2.4. Theoretical model and hypotheses

The structural model proposed (Figure 1) means to analyse the relationship between the
critical factors of quality and employee results/satisfaction. It is argued that processes
management is the direct antecedent of employee results/satisfaction and, in turn, influ-
ences leadership indirectly through the quality policy and strategy, and personnel manage-
ment and learning.
The hypotheses proposed in the structural model are based on causal relationships
identified and empirically supported by other authors. We have examined the literature
(Ahire et al., 1996; Black & Porter, 1996; Dean & Bowen, 1994; Porter & Parker,
1993; Quazi, Jemangin, Kit, & Kian, 1998; Ravichandran & Rai, 2000; Saraph et al.,
1989; Yusof & Aspinwall, 1999). Furthermore, we reviewed studies carried out consider-
ing the EFQM Model and other models of excellence, such as the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award (Eskildsen & Dahlgaard, 2000; Osseo-Asare & Longbottom,
2002; Pannirselvam & Ferguson, 2001; Winn & Cameron, 1998; Curkovic, Melnyk,
Calantone, & Handfield, 2000; Wilson & Collier, 2000). The EFQM model contains
five ‘enablers’ (what the organisation does) that positively affect four outcomes (what
the organisation gets – corporate performance), among which employee results is
included (Kristensen, Jørn Juhl, & Eskildsen, 2001).
The literature review enabled us to establish the following causal relationships and
enunciate the following hypotheses:

. The relationship of leadership with quality policy and strategy, personnel manage-
ment and learning. In this regard, the management of leadership is the most impor-
tant area to successfully supervisor critical quality factors (Flynn, Schroeder, &
Sakakibara, 1995; Saraph et al., 1989). It is the management which creates values
and goals, determines the definition of the policy and strategy (Eskildsen & Dahl-
gaard, 2000), the personnel management and personnel systems to be met (Ahire
et al., 1996) and a learning environment and internal cooperation (Anderson, Rung-
tusanatham, & Schroeder, 1994).
H1: The leadership of the top management has a positive and significant influence on quality
policy and strategy.
H2: The leadership of the top management has a positive and significant influence on person-
nel management.

Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model. Source: Authors’ own data.

1494 M.C. Del Rı́o-Rama et al.

H3: The leadership of the top management has a positive and significant influence on learning.
. Relationship quality policy and strategy (Black & Porter, 1996; Porter & Parker,
1993; Quazi et al., 1998; Ravichandran & Rai, 2000; Saraph et al., 1989; Winn &
Cameron, 1998; Wilson & Collier, 2000), personnel management (Ahire et al.,
1996; Ahmad & Schroeder, 2002; Flynn et al., 1994; Wilson & Collier, 2000)
and learning (Anderson et al., 1994; Hackman & Wageman, 1995) with processes
management (Curkovic et al., 2000; Eskildsen & Dahlgaard, 2000; Pannirselvam
& Ferguson, 2001; Wilson & Collier, 2000).
H4: The quality policy and strategy positively and significantly influence personnel
management.
H5: The quality policy and strategy positively and significantly affect processes management.
. We consider the following ideas. All the organisation’s employees can make
important contributions to the processes management if they have the power and the
necessary preparation – hence the importance of management (Ahire et al., 1996;
Eskildsen, Kristensen, & Juhl, 2002; Wilson & Collier, 2000). Personnel manage-
ment enables the achieving of an organisational learning process that is based on
people and influences the improvement of processes management (Ahmad &
Schroeder, 2002) and, finally, the policy and strategy affects the management of
people (Eskildsen & Dahlgaard, 2000) processes and impacts (Samson & Ter-
ziovski, 1999).
H6: Personnel management positively and significantly influences processes management.
H7: Personnel management positively and significantly influences learning.
H8: Learning positively and significantly influences processes management.
. The relationship between processes management and employee results/satisfaction
(Eskildsen & Dahlgaard, 2000; Pannirselvam & Ferguson, 2001; Wilson & Collier,
2000). According to the EFQM model, processes management is the link between
the enablers and employee results. Eskildsen (1998) and Eskildsen and Dahlgaard
(2000) confirm in their studies that improving organisational performance is a
result of the management of people and processes.

H9: Processes management positively and significantly influences employee results/

satisfaction.

3. Methodology
3.1. Universe and field of study
The population which is the object of analysis is the establishments of rural accommodation
in Spain (called rural houses) that have implemented a Quality Management System (QMS),
based on a standard called UNE 183001:2009-Rural Accommodation. They therefore use
the ‘Q for Quality’. The content of this quality norm standardises the management system
(planning, organisation, quality management, environmental management, universal acces-
sibility, security management, resource management, marketing and control and continuous
improvement), the provision of services (reservations, reception, stay and departure, cater-
ing, cleaning and maintenance, and provisioning and storage) and infrastructure and equip-
ment (accommodation capacity, dimensions, parking, access, etc.). It is an intermediate
between the QMS assurance (ISO 9001) and TQM (EFQM).
For data collection, a structured questionnaire was mailed to the total population (227
establishments). A total of 103 establishments responded; 95 were returned duly
 Total Quality Management 1495

completed and 8 incomplete. In these cases, their full completion was requested by mail
and telephone. Finally, a sample of 100 valid questionnaires was obtained, representing
a response rate of 44.05% and a margin of error of 7.48% for a confidence level of
95% Z ¼ 1.96 p ¼ q ¼ .5. The questionnaire was filled out by those responsible for
quality or, failing that, the store manager who is in charge of quality processes. Of the
businesses included in the sample, 67 have a certification age of 0 – 3 years and 33
more than three years; 0.95% of the accommodations are micro (0 – 9 employees) and
the remaining 5% are small-sized businesses (10 – 49 employees).

3.2. Questionnaire and measurement

The data were obtained by administrating a structured questionnaire survey. In the first
part of the questionnaire, data were acquired to develop the sample’s profile (number of
employees, certifications and so on). In the second part, the critical measurement
factors are shown together with the measurement scales. These form the data which
will allow us to measure the influence of the critical factors on the employee results
that, as already mentioned, refer to achievements in this area (improved satisfaction, estab-
lishment of measurement mechanisms, obtaining results and setting up improvement
actions targeting). These lead to improved employee satisfaction (EFQM, 2013). The
measurement scales of each of the critical factors and employee results/satisfaction are
used by researchers in this very relevant topic (e.g. Black, 1995; Grandzol & Gershon,
1998; Powell, 1995; Tarı́, Molina, & Castejon, 2007, etc.).
This investigation identified 50 items grouped within 7 critical factors (leadership – 8,
quality policy and strategy – 7, personnel management – 11, learning – 9 and processes
management – 6) and employee results/satisfaction-9. Among the great amount of critical
factors identified in the literature (see Appendix), we have chosen those that are directly
related to personnel. Leaders develop and facilitate the achievement of the mission and
vision, and develop the necessary values. They work out the organisation’s management
system through direct involvement in the policy and strategy (how they implement the
mission and vision through setting up a focus on all stakeholders, including staff). They
also organise personnel management referring to how they manage and plan the knowl-
edge and potential of people in support of their policy and strategy and the effective oper-
ation of their processes (EFQM, 2013). In addition, they improve learning. This refers to
the process through which organisations acquire new skills, competencies, knowledge,
behaviours or values as a result of study, experience, training and observation. Finally,
the processes management criterion refers to how they design, manage and improve the
organisation’s processes in order to support its policy and strategy, and increasingly
create value for its customers and other stakeholders (employees).
The reliability and validity of these measurement instruments were previously shown by
certain researchers (e.g. Black, 1995; Grandzol & Gershon, 1998; Powell, 1995; Tarı́, 1999,
2007, etc.). However, as the scales have been adapted to the specific characteristics of the
sector analysed, we will perform reliability and validity tests again. A 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (not implemented) to 7 (100% implemented) is used, and in the case of the
employee results/satisfaction, the items are valued 1–7: strongly disagree to strongly agree.

3.3. Data analysis

The data obtained are analysed using SPSS 19.0 (validation of the scale) and AMOS version
20.0 (scale validation and estimation model, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)).
1496 M.C. Del Rı́o-Rama et al.

3.4. Validation of the measurement model

To validate the measurement model, we analyse the reliability, validity and dimensionality
of each of the measurement scales in order to limit the number of items that each variable
measures. We follow the methodological recommendations of Churchill (1979) and
Anderson and Gerbing (1988), analysing the scales’ psychometric properties.
To analyse data reliability, the item-total correlation of each of the scales proposed, the
recommended minimum is 0.3 (Nurosis, 1993) and the Cronbach a must be greater than
0.7 according to Nunnally (1979) or 0.8 for confirmatory studies (Luque, 2000). To verify
the dimensionality, exploratory factor analysis (Bagozzi & Baumgartner, 1994) with
varimax rotation (EFA) was carried out: explained variance (this must be greater than
50%) and load factors (less significant loads up to 0.3 are considered according to Hair,
Anderson, Tathaman, & Black, 1999).
In view of EFA being an exploratory technique, factorial validation solutions obtained
by a confirmatory factor analysis technique (again having analysed the reliability, validity
and dimensionality) are subjected to study. One of the premises to start is multivariate nor-
mality, and the Kolmogorov– Smirnov test and Kurtosis Multivariate Analysis and its
critical ratio have been done to verify this.
Through the confirmatory factor analysis, a complete check of the specification of the
indicators of each of the variables has been achieved and it further allows the testing of the
goodness of fit of the solution proposed (the goodness of fit measures the structural model
and the overall fit of the model is evaluated). Hair et al. (1999) argue that this analysis is
especially useful in validating the scales. To examine the structural adjustment model, we
consider the significance of the estimated coefficients according to the following par-
ameters: the value of each normalised indicator t must exceed +1.96; standardised
charges should be approximately 0.7 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) and the R2 parameter
will take the value 0.5 recommended by Sharma (1996).
The reliability was estimated through composite reliability and the average variance
extracted (AVE). The first coefficient should take a minimum value of 0.7 and the AVE
values are acceptable above 0.5 (Hair et al., 1999).

3.5. Estimation of the SEM

The global model proposed is estimated using SEM – maximum likelihood estimation. To
examine the structural adjustment model, first, one takes into account the significance of
the estimates where the value t of each indicator’s standardised coefficients should exceed
+1.96. Second, the model’s goodness-of-fit indices (GFIs) are taken into account (Jores-
kog & Sorbom, 1988). The following indices were used: chi-square (x2); comparative fit
index (CFI); GFI; normed fit index (NFI); adjusted goodness fit index (AGFI) and robust-
ness mean squared errors of approximation (RMSEA). Values greater than 0.9 are rec-
ommended , according to Hair et al. (1999), and the CFI, GFI, NFI and AGFI and
RMSEA values should be below 0.08 (Steiger, 1990). The R2 measure indicates the
amount of variance of the construct that is explained by the model.

4. Results
4.1. Measurement model
The reliability analysis enabled us to verify that all the items have an item-total correlation
above the recommended minimum of 0.3, except in the employee results/satisfaction scale
in the ER4 (0.311) and ER5 (0.286) items. After eliminating them the Cronbach a was
 Total Quality Management 1497

improved, all scales being above the 0.7 recommended by Nunnally (1979), thus indicat-
ing adequate their internal consistency. Unidimensionality analysis did not involve the
removal of any items. In all cases, the factor loadings are greater than 0.5 and the accumu-
lated percentage of explained variance is greater than 50% in each of the scales.
In a second phase of validating the scales, the factor solution is subjected to validation
by a confirmatory factor analysis. This allows us to examine the measurement model, the
structural model and the overall model, hence guaranteeing the validity and reliability of
the measurement scales, improving them if necessary. As shown in Table 1, the models
have good absolute fit measures and incremental indices and parsimony. All indicators
show values within the generally accepted limits and the probability associated with x2
is above the recommended 0.05.
To finalise, we again analyse the reliability and validity of the scales: the average var-
iance must have a value greater than 0.5 and the minimum composite reliability should be
over 0.7 (Kang, Jeon, Lee, & Lee, 2005). Content validity is supported by the literature
review and we measure the validity of the concept through convergent validity (optimal
values Student t . +1.96, b . 0.5). It can be seen that they meet the minimum
requirements.

4.2. Structural model

Figure 2 shows the results. The standardised coefficients (b) related to the hypotheses indi-
cate the weights of the direct effects of one variable on another, and the directions are all
significant at the p , .05 level, and at p , .001.
The GFIs (x2 (df17) ¼ 23,947 (p ¼ .121), GFI ¼ 0.946, AGFI ¼ 0.885, CFI ¼
0.990, RMSEA ¼ 0.64, x2 normalised (x2/df) ¼ 1.046) show a good fit of the model,
all indices being within acceptable limits and above the minimum values recommended
in the literature (Hair et al., 1999; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988; Steiger, 1990).
The results show that one of the hypotheses was not supported in a statistically signifi-
cant manner by the standardised coefficients (H3). With respect to the direct relationship
between personnel management processes results and satisfaction, this is confirmed in the

Figure 2. Diagram of the final structural model. ∗ p , .05 ; ∗∗∗ p , .001. x2 (df6) ¼ 8.047 (p ¼
.235), GFI ¼ 0.974, AGFI ¼ 0.908, CFI ¼ 0.995, RMSEA ¼ 0.059, x2 normalized (x2/df) ¼
1.341. Source: Authors’ own data.
1498 M.C. Del Rı́o-Rama et al.

Table 1. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis.

Paths b AV CR
Leadership (a ¼ 0.948) 0.58 0.84
LE2 0.887
LE3 0.925
LE4 0.623
LE5 0.950
LE7 0.760
x2(df5) ¼ 7.989 (p ¼ .157), GFI ¼ 0.969, AGFI ¼ 0.908, CFI ¼ 0.993, RMSEA ¼ 0.978, x2
normalised (x2/df) ¼ 1.598
Quality policy and strategy (a ¼ 0.933) 0.50 0.83
PO1 0.633
PO3 0.913
PO4 0.618
PO5 0.917
PO6 0.838
x2(df9)¼ 7.754 (p ¼ .70), GFI ¼ 0.967, AGFI ¼ 0.901, CFI ¼ 0.991, RMSEA ¼ 0.075, x2
normalised (x2/df) ¼ 1.551
Personnel management (a ¼ 0.960) 0.55 0.88
PM2 0.854
PM4 0.934
PM6 0.873
PM7 0.907
PM9 0.778
PM11 0.758
x2(df9)¼ 15.770 (p ¼ .072), GFI ¼ 0.953, AGFI ¼ 0.889, CFI ¼ 0.987, RMSEA ¼ 0.087, x2
normalised (x2/df) ¼ 1.752
Learning (a ¼ 0.937) 0.52 0.78
LA1 0.987
LA3 0.838
LA4 0.873
LA6 0.865
x2(df2) ¼ 5.641 (p ¼ .060), GFI ¼ 0.972, AGFI ¼ 0.860, CFI ¼ 0.988, RMSEA ¼ 0.088, x2
normalised (x2/df) ¼ 2.821
Processes management (a ¼ 0.937) 0.57 0.84
P1 0.710
P2 0.754
P3 0.995
P4 0.506
x2(df5) ¼ 4.052 (p ¼ .132), GFI ¼ 0.980, AGFI ¼ 0.902, CFI ¼ 0.988, RMSEA ¼ 0.102, x2
normalised (x2/df) ¼ 2.026
Employee results/satisfaction (a ¼ 0.931) 0.56 0.83
ER3 0.601
ER6 0.894
ER7 0.953
ER8 0.932
ER9 0.679
x2(df2) ¼ 4.439 (p ¼ .109), GFI ¼ 0.980, AGFI ¼ 0.899, CFI ¼ 0.972, RMSEA¼ 0.107, x2
normalised (x2/df) ¼ 2.220
Note: The names of the items listed in this table have been shortened in order to simplify the results.
b, standard regression weight; a, reliability (Cronbach’s a); CR, composite reliability; AV, average variance.

same way as the rest of the hypotheses. The R2 metric that measures the amount of var-
iance of the constructs that is explained by the model is acceptable. In particular, the
model proposed explains 37.4% of the employee results/satisfaction.
 Total Quality Management 1499

Table 2. Direct, indirect and total effects employee results/satisfaction.

Effects 2. 3. 4. 5. 6a.
1 Leadership Direct 0.750 0.261 – – –
Indirect – 0.365 0.481 0.541 0.454
Total 0.750 0.627 0.481 0.541 0.454
2 Quality policy and strategy Direct – 0.487 – 0.279 0.450
Indirect – – 0.374 0.258 0.116
Total – 0.487 0.374 0.537 0.566
3 Personnel management Direct – – 0.767 0.175 –
Indirect – – – 0.354 0.115
Total – – 0.767 0.529 0.115
4 Learning Direct – – – 0.462 –
Indirect – – – – 0.100
Total – – – 0.462 0.100
5 Processes management Direct – – – – 0.217
Indirect – – – – –
Total – – – – 0.217
a
Employee results/satisfaction.
Source: Authors’ own data.

In order to further examine the effects of the critical factors included in the model, we
have taken into account the direct and indirect effects on employee results/satisfaction
(Table 2).

5. Discussion
This study revealed a strong link between the critical factors of quality and employee
results/satisfaction, in the rural accommodation sector. In this sense, the results provide
empirical validity to assert that leadership has a positive influence on the quality policy
and strategy (hypothesis H1) and personnel management (H2). In the first case, these
results are corroborated by the studies of Samson and Terziovski (1999), Eskildsen and
Dahlgaard (2000), Lee, Rho, and Lee (2003), Sila and Ebrahimpour (2005), Moon, Lee,
Yong-Seung, and Suh (2011) and Savic, Djordjevic, Nikolic, Mihajlovic, and Zivkovic
(2013). Based on the results of their studies, Tutuncu and Kucukusta (2006, 2010)
claim that there is a high correlation between the EFQM model’s critical factors and
employee results/satisfaction, with leadership and supervision being two of the most
important determinants.
The results for the H2 hypotheses are corroborated by the studies of Black (1995),
Flynn et al. (1995), Samson and Terziovski (1999), Eskildsen and Dahlgaard (2000),
Sila and Ebrahimpour (2005), Moon et al. (2011) and Savic et al. (2013). In the rural
sector, leadership exerts its influence on the employee results/satisfaction through
quality policy and strategy, personnel management and processes management.
However, the direct relationship of leadership with learning (H3) is not upheld as it is
not statistically significant. This result differs from that obtained by Tarı́ et al. (2007). This
may be due to the characteristics of the sector analysed. As rural accommodation is a very
small business which has a very limited number of staff, leadership is not important except
for setting quality policy and strategy, and personnel management.
Our model suggests that the critical factors of processes management are quality policy
and strategy (H5), personnel management (H6) and learning (H8), as corroborated by the
1500 M.C. Del Rı́o-Rama et al.

results of Tarı́ et al. (2007). In this sense, the results prove the theory, proposed by Anderson
et al. (1994), that learning facilitates the implementation and management of processes.
It also confirms the relations proposed between background management processes.
There is a relationship of interdependence between quality policy and strategy and person-
nel management (H4) and the latter with learning (H7). This is consistent with other
studies (Anderson et al., 1995; Kaynak, 2003; Lee et al., 2003; Samson & Terziovski,
1999; Tarı́ et al., 2007).
Ultimately, the relationship between processes management and employee results/sat-
isfaction (H9) is corroborated. This is in line with the studies of Eskildsen and Dahlgaard
(2000), Bou-Llusar et al. (2005), Tutuncu and Kucukusta (2006), Tarı́ et al. (2007) and
Alsarayreh and Khudair (2012). On the other hand, a new direct link arises between
quality policy and strategy (H10). This is supported by the works of Bou-Llusar et al.
(2005), Sila (2007) and Santos-Vijande and Alvarez-Gonzalez (2007).
To finalise, the results suggest that two variables have a direct effect on employee
results/satisfaction: quality policy and strategy (b ¼ 0.450) and processes management
(b ¼ 0.217). The greatest overall effect comes from quality policy and strategy (b ¼
0.566), and leadership (b ¼ 0.454) has an indirect effect through the rest of the variables.

6. Conclusions
In the tourism sector, and in this particular case study in the rural accommodation sector, it
has been empirically proven that there is a strong relationship between the critical factors
of quality and employee results/satisfaction. In addition, the literature review highlights
the importance of achieving high levels of satisfaction in personnel as this shows that
there is a strong relationship between the quality perceived by customers and the employ-
ees’ organisational commitment. This is higher when there is a greater satisfaction with
work (Hawkins & Lee, 1990).
In this sense, if we consider the theory developed by Harvard Business School on the
Service Profit Chain where the core concept is ‘Satisfied employees produce satisfaction
and customer loyalty’, satisfied customers generate profit and growth. This is a belief sup-
ported by numerous researchers (Maister, 2003). Job satisfaction and its determinants
become key to business success. Dahlgaard et al. (1998) empirically verified the link
between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction and then Eskildsen and Dahl-
gaard (2000) developed a causal model for employee satisfaction, taking into account
both the EFQM Excellence Model and the model of Hackman and Oldham (1980).
Thus, the analysis of the relationship between the critical factors of quality as antece-
dents of employee satisfaction and employee results (the establishment of measurement
mechanisms, getting results and organising improvement actions, and setting objectives
– all aimed at achieving improved job satisfaction) carried out in this research enables
a contribution to the understanding of the complex relationship between them (direct
and indirect relation). It also allows the observing of how they work and which factors
directly affect the employees’ satisfaction in the rural accommodation sector. This is,
moreover, an area in which there are no studies.
The major contribution of this study, therefore, is to provide evidence that the factors
which more attention should be paid to in order to improve employee results/satisfaction
are the quality policy and strategy and the processes management. The latter is the criteria
through which the rest of the critical factors operate.
These results have important implications for managers of rural establishments
wishing to improve employee satisfaction: (1) they must consider workers as internal
 Total Quality Management 1501

customers (Spencer, 1994) and their policy of personnel management should aim to
achieve job satisfaction, organisational commitment, work motivation, organisational
climate, teamwork, etc.; (2) a leadership that is responsible for planning the quality is
necessary, focused on their stakeholders and the deployment of policies and plans that
enable it to be operational; and (3) the managers must focus their efforts on the efficient
and effective use of the available human resources (Sit, Ooi, Lin, & Yee-Loong Chong,
2009) because, according to Motwani (2001), this allows for an increased employee pro-
ductivity and improves the quality of the organisation.
This investigation has several limitations. The first of these stems from the specific
characteristics of the sector analysed: the small size of the establishments, the rural
location, the low number of employees and the quality certification based on the rule of
Spanish quality ‘Quality Tourism Q’. Hence, the findings cannot be extrapolated to
other areas or countries without previous studies. Second, the data were provided to us
by managers or quality managers, which implies the risk of getting biased answers. It
would, therefore, be interesting to consider the perception of other staff of rural establish-
ments. A third limitation is related to the study’s cross section, as this paper has analysed
the relationship at a precise moment in time. Future research is aimed at determining how
13 dimensions identified in the EFQM model linked with employees’ satisfaction affect
the same.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Ahire, S. L., Golhar, D. Y., & Waller, M. A. (1996). Development and validation of TQM implemen-
tation constructs. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23–56.
Ahmad, S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2002). The importance of recruitment and selection process for sus-
tainability of total quality management. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 19(5), 540 –550.
Al-Marri, K., Moneim, M. Baheeg Ahmed, A., & Zairi, M. (2007). Excellence in service: An empiri-
cal study of the UAE banking sector. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 24(2), 164 –176.
ALNasser, A., Yusoff, R. Z., & Islam, R. (2013). Relationship between hard total quality manage-
ment practices and organizational performance in municipalities. American Journal of
Applied Sciences, 10(10), 1214–1223.
Alsarayreh, B., & Khudair, H. (2012). Structural equation modeling analysis between enabler and
results in EFQM model; A case study in vocational training corporation in Jordan.
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE) ISSN:
2278 –3075, 1(3), 52– 55.
Alsughayir, A. (2014). Does practicing total quality management affect employee job satisfaction in
Saudi Arabian organizations? European Journal of Business and Management, 6(3), 169–
175.
Al-Tarawneh, H. A., & Ahmad, H. (2010). Total quality management and leadership an experimen-
tal investigation of ISO certified companies in Jordan. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research Business, 2, 382 –398.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R. G. (1994). A theory of quality management
underlying the Deming management method. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 472–509.
Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R. G., & Devaraj, S. (1995). A path analytic model
of a theory of quality management underlying the deming management method: Preliminary
empirical findings. Decision Sciences, 26(5), 637–658.
1502 M.C. Del Rı́o-Rama et al.

Antony, J., Leung, K., Knowles, G., & Gosh, S. (2002). Critical success factors of TQM implemen-
tation in Hong Kong industries. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
19(5), 551 –566.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). The evaluation of structural equation models and hypoth-
esis testing. In R. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of marketing research (pp. 386–422). Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
Balci, F. (2011). The effects of education on police officer job satisfaction: The case of Turkish
national police. International Journal of Human Sciences, 8(2), 265–285.
Black, S. (1995). An empirical model for total quality management. Total Quality Management,
6(2), 149 –164.
Black, S. A., & Porter, L. J. (1996). Identification of the critical factors of TQM. Decision Sciences,
27(1), 1 –21.
Boothby, J. L., & Clements, C. B. (2002). Job satisfaction of correctional psychologists: Implications for
recruitment and retention. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 310–315.
Boselie, P., & Van der Wiele, T. (2002). Employee perceptions of HRM and TQM, and the effects on
satisfaction and intention to leave. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal,
12(3), 165 –172.
Bou-Llusar, J. C., Escrig-Tena, A. B., Roca-Puig, V., & Beltrán-Martı́n, I. (2005). To what extent do
enablers explain results in the EFQM excellence model? An empirical study. International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22, 337–353.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2001). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual
review of psychology, 53(1), 279 –307.
Brunetto, Y., & Farr-Wharton, R. (2003). The commitment and satisfaction of lower-ranked police
officers: Lessons for management. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management, 26(1), 43 –63.
Camisón, C., Cruz, S., & González, T. (2007). Gestión de la calidad: Conceptos, enfoques, modelos
y sistemas. Madrid: Pearson.
Camp, S. D., & Lambert, E. G. (2006). The influence of organizational incentives on absenteeism.
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(2), 144– 172.
Chang, C. C., Chiu, C. M., & Chen, C. A. (2010). The effect of TQM practices on employee satis-
faction and loyalty in government. Total Quality Management, 21(12), 1299 –1314.
Chapman, R., & Al-Khawaldeh, K. (2002). TQM and labour productivity in Jordanian industrial
companies. The TQM magazine, 14(4), 248– 262.
Chin, K. S., & Sofian, S. (2011). The Impact of human capital and total quality management on cor-
porate performance: A review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business, 3(3), 1091 –1100.
Churchill Jr., G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64 –73.
Claver, E., Tari, J. J., & Molina, J. F. (2003). Critical factors and results of quality management: An
empirical study. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 14(1), 91– 118.
Cole, R. E. (1992). The quality revolution. Production and Operations Management, 1(1), 118– 120.
Cruickshank, M. T. (2000). Developing a quality culture within a school of nursing in higher edu-
cation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury).
Curkovic, S., Melnyk, S., Calantone, R., & Handfield, R. (2000). Validating the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award framework through structural equation modelling. International
Journal of Production Research, 38(4), 765 –791.
Dahlgaard, J. J., Chen, C. K., Jang, J. Y., Banegas, L. A., & Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2013). Business
excellence models: Limitations, reflections and further development. Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, 24(5–6), 519– 538.
Dahlgaard, J. J., Kristensen, K., & Kanji, G. K. (1998). Fundamentals of total quality management.
London: Chapman & Hall.
Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2012). Core values – The entrance to human satisfaction and commitment.
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 23(2), 125–140.
Dale, B. G. (1999). Managing quality (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Dean, J. W., & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: Improving research and
practice through theory development. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 392–418.
EFQM. (2013). EFQM model for business excellence: Company guidelines. Brussels: Author.
 Total Quality Management 1503

Eskildsen, J. K. (1998). Identifying the vital few using the European foundation for quality manage-
ment model. Total Quality Management, 9, 92–94.
Eskildsen, J. K., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2000). A causal model for employee satisfaction. Total Quality
Management, 11(8), 1081–1094.
Eskildsen, J. K., Kristensen, K., & Juhl, H. J. (2002). Trends in EFQM criterion weights. The case of
Denmark 1998-2001. Measurement Business Excellence, 6, 22–28.
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1994). A framework for quality management
research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations management,
11(4), 339 –366.
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1995). The impact of quality management practices
on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 26(5), 659–691.
Fotopoulos, C. B., & Psomas, E. L. (2009). The impact of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ TQM elements on quality
management results. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 26(2),
150 –163.
Gardner, D., & Carlopio, J. (1996). Employee affective reactions to organizational quality efforts.
International Journal of Quality Science, 1(3), 39– 49.
Garvin, D. A. (1983). Quality on the line. Harvard Business Review, 61(5), 64– 75.
Gorenak, I., & Pagon, M. (2006). Vpliv organizacijskega komuniciranja na zadovoljstvo policistov
pri delu. Organizacija, 39(4), 247 –253.
Grandzol, J. R., & Gershon, M. (1998). A survey instrument for standardizing TQM modeling
research. International Journal of Quality Science, 3(1), 80–105.
Gray, J., Densten, I., & Sarros, J. (2003). A matter of size: does organisational culture predict job
satisfaction in small organisations?. In 17th Annual ANZAM Conference (ANZAM 2
December 2003 to 5 December 2003) (pp. 1 –9). Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd, Fremantle,
Australia.
Guimaraes, T. (1996). TQM’s impact on employee attitudes. The TQM Magazine, 8(1), 20 –25.
Guimaraes, T. (1997). Assessing employee turnover intentions before/after TQM. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 14(1), 46 –63.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign (Vol. 72). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual, and
practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 309– 342.
Hafeez, K., Malak, N., & Abdelmeguid, H. (2006). A framework for TQM to achieve business excel-
lence. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 17(9), 1213–1229.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tathaman, R., & Black, W. (1999). Análisis Multivariante (5th ed.). Madrid:
Prentice Hall.
Hamermesh, D. S. (2001). The changing distribution of job satisfaction. Journal of Human
Resources, 36(1), 1– 30.
Hasan, M., & Kerr, R. M. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and
organisational performance in service organisations. The TQM Magazine, 15(4), 286–291.
Hawkins, D. E., & Lee, Y. T. (1990). An empirical analysis of organizational commitment among
American hotel sales and marketing professionals. Hospitality Research Journal, 14(2),
103 –112.
Heslop, P., Smith, G. D., Metcalfe, C., Macleod, J., & Hart, C. (2002). Change in job satisfaction and
its association with self-reported stress, cardiovascular risk factors and mortality. Social
Science and Medicine, 54, 1589– 1599.
Hietschold, N., Reinhardt, R., & Gurtner, S. (2014). Measuring critical success factors of TQM
implementation successfully – A systematic literature review. International Journal of
Production Research, 52(21), 6254 –6272.
Howard, W., Howard Donofrio, H., & Boles, J. S. (2004). Inter-domain work-family, family-work
conflict and police work satisfaction. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies
and Management, 27(3), 380– 395.
Hsu, H. L., & Chen, Y. L. (2013). The effects of total quality management and organizational learn-
ing on business performance: Evidence from Taiwanese insurance industries. Journal of Total
Quality Management, 51, 86 –97.
Johnson, R. R. (2012). Police officer job satisfaction: A multidimensional analysis. Police Quarterly,
15(2), 157 –176.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1988). PRELIS: A preprocessor for LISREL. Mooresville, NC:
Scientific Software.
1504 M.C. Del Rı́o-Rama et al.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific
Software.
Kang, I., Jeon, S., Lee, S., & Lee, C. K. (2005). Investigating structural relations affecting the effec-
tiveness of service management. Tourism Management, 26(3), 301–310.
Kanji, G. K., (1998). Measurement of business excellence. Total Quality Management. 9(7), 633– 643.
Karia, N., & Hasmi Abu Hassan Asaari, M. (2006). The effects of total quality management practices
on employees’ work-related attitudes. The TQM Magazine, 18(1), 30 –43.
Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on
firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 405–435.
Kooij, D. T., Jansen, P. G., Dikkers, J. S., & De Lange, A. H. (2010). The influence of age on the
associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job satisfaction: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1111 –1136.
Kristensen, K., Jørn Juhl, H., & Eskildsen, J. (2001). Benchmarking excellence. Measuring Business
Excellence, 5(1), 19–24.
Lam, S. K. (1995). The impact of total quality management on front-line supervisors and their work.
Total Quality Management, 6(1), 1–6.
Lam, S. K. (1996). TQM and its impact on middle managers and front-line workers. Journal of
Management Development, 15(7), 37– 46.
Lambert, E. G., Edwards, C., Camp, S. D., & Saylor, W. G. (2005). Here today, gone tomorrow, back
again the next day: Antecedents of correctional absenteeism. Journal of Criminal Justice,
33(2), 165 –175.
Lee, S. M., Rho, B. H., & Lee, S. G. (2003). Impact of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
criteria on organizational quality performance. International Journal of Production Research,
41(9), 2003– 2020.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance,
4(4), 309 –336.
Luque Martı́nez, T. (2000). Técnicas de análisis de datos en investigación de mercados. Madrid:
Pirámide.
MacKain, S. J., Myers, B., Ostapiej, L., & Newman, R. A. (2010). Job satisfaction among psychol-
ogists working in state prisons: The relative impact of facets assessing economics, manage-
ment, relationships, and perceived organizational support. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
37(3), 306 –318.
Magd, H. A. (2014). TQM constructs development and validation in the context of Egyptian manu-
facturing sector: A snapshot perspective. Paper #: 07–1DK, 1–16.
Maister, D. H. (2003). Practice what you preach: What managers must do to create a high achieve-
ment culture. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Mak, B. L. (2011). ISO certification in the tour operator sector. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(1), 115– 130.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A
conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991–1007.
Moon, J. Y., Lee, S. C., Yong-Seung, P., & Suh, Y. H. (2011). A study on the causal relationships in
the Korean National Quality Award model. Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, 22(7), 705 –726.
Motwani, J. (2001). Critical factors and performance measures of TQM. The TQM Magazine, 13(4),
292 –300.
Moullin, M. (2011). Using the public sector scorecard to measure and improve performance.
Perspectives on Performance, 8(3), 37 –40.
Nalla, M. K., Rydberg, J., & Meško, G. (2011). Organizational factors, environmental climate, and
job satisfaction among police in Slovenia. European Journal of Criminology, 8(2), 144– 156.
Noorliza, K. (1999). The impact of TQM practice on employees’ work-related attitudes. MBA
unpublished research report, University Science Malaysia, Penang.
Noorliza, K., & Zainal, A. A. (2000). Quality practices that pay: Empowerment and teamwork.
Malaysian Management Review, 35(2), 66 –76.
Nunnally, J., 1979. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nurosis, M. J. (1993). SPSS. Statistical Data Análisis. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Oakland, J. S. (1989). Total quality management: A pictorial guide for managers. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heineman.
 Total Quality Management 1505

Oakland, J. S., & Oakland, S. (1998). The links between people management, customer satisfaction
and business results. Total Quality Management, 9(4– 5), 185–190.
Oakland, S., & Oakland, J. S. (2001). Current people management activities in world-class organiz-
ations. Total Quality Management, 12(6), 773–788.
Ooi, K. B., Abu Bakar, N., Arumugam, V., Vellapan, L., & Kim Yin Loke, A. (2007). Does TQM
influence employees’ job satisfaction? An empirical case analysis. International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, 24(1), 62 –77.
Ooi, K. B., Arumugam, V., Safa, M. S., & Bakar, N. A. (2007). HRM and TQM: Association with job
involvement. Personnel Review, 36(6), 939 –962.
Ooi, K. B., Arumugam, V., Teh, P. L., & Yee-Loong Chong, A. (2008). TQM practices and its
association with production workers. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 108(7),
909 –927.
Osseo-Asare, A. E., & Longbottom, D. (2002). The need for education and training in the EFQM
Model for quality management in UK higher-education institutions. Quality Assurance in
Education, 10(1), 26– 36.
Pannirselvam, G. P., & Ferguson, L. A. (2001). A study of the relationship between the Baldrige cat-
egories. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 18(1), 14– 37.
Porter, L. J., & Parker, A. J. (1993). Total quality management – The critical success factors. Total
Quality Management, 4(1), 13– 22.
Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical
study. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 15 –37.
Prajogo, D. I., & Mc Dermott, C. M. (2005). The relationship between TQM practices and organiz-
ational culture. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(11),
1101 –1122.
Psomas, E. L., Fotopoulos, C. V., & Dimitrios, P. K. (2010). Critical factors for effective implemen-
tation of ISO 9001 in SME service companies. Managing Service Quality, 20(5), 440–457.
Qu, H., & Tse, S. C. (1996). An analysis of employees’ expectations and satisfaction levels and turn-
over in the Hong Kong hotel industry. Tourism Recreation Research, 21(2), 15– 23.
Quazi, H. A., Jemangin, J., Kit, L. W., & Kian, C. L. (1998). Critical factors in quality management
and guidelines for self-assessment, the case of Singapore. Total Quality Management, 9(1),
35 –55.
Rao, S. S., Solis, L. E., & Raghunathan, T. S. (1999). A framework for international quality manage-
ment research: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Total Quality
Management, 10, 1047–1075.
Ravichandran, T., & Rai, A. (2000). Total quality management in information systems development:
Key constructs and relationships. Journal of Management in Information Systems, 16(3),
119 –155.
Robinson, A., & Head, K. (1983). Measures of occupational attitudes and occupational character-
istics. Survey Research Centre, Michigan.
Sadikoglu, E., & Zehir, C. (2010). Investigating the effects of innovation and employee performance
on the relationship between total quality management practices and firm performance: An
empirical study of Turkish firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 127(1),
13 –26.
Sakanovič, Z., & Mayer, J. (2006). Nekateri vidiki vodenja in njihov vpliv na organizacijsko klimo
in zadovoljstvo zaposlenih v slovenski policiji [Some of the aspects of leadership and their
impact on organizational the climate and satisfaction of the employees in the Slovenian
Police]. Organizacija, 39(4), 247– 253.
Samson, D., & Terziovski, M. (1999). The relationship between total quality management practices
and operational performance. Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), 393–409.
Santos-Vijande, M. L., & Alvarez-Gonzalez, L. I. (2007). TQM and firms performance: An EFQM
excellence model research based survey. International Journal of Business Science and
Applied Management, 2(2), 21 –41.
Saraph, J. V., Benson, P. G., & Schroeder, R. G. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical
factors of quality management. Decision Sciences, 20(4), 810–829.
Savic, M., Djordjevic, P., Nikolic, D., Mihajlovic, I., & Zivkovic, Z. (2013). Modeling the influence
of EFQM criteria on employee’s satisfaction and loyalty in transition economy: The study of
banking sector in Serbia. Serbian Journal of Management, 9(1), 15 –30.
1506 M.C. Del Rı́o-Rama et al.

Schwepker, C. H. (2001). Ethical climate’s relationship to job satisfaction, organizational commit-

ment and turnover intention in the salesforce. Journal of Business Research, 54(1), 39– 52.
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Sila, I. (2007). Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the
lens of organizational theories: An empirical study. Journal of Operations Management,
25(1), 83 –109.
Sila, I., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2002). An investigation of the total quality management survey based
research published between 1989 and 2000: A literature review. International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, 19(7), 902–970.
Sila, I., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2005). Critical linkages among TQM factors and business results.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(11), 1123 –1155.
Sit, W. Y., Ooi, K. B., Lin, B., & Yee-Loong Chong, A. (2009). TQM and customer satisfaction in
Malaysia’s service sector. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 109(7), 957–975.
Spector, P. E. (2003). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Spencer, B. A. (1994). Models of organization and total quality management: A comparison and
critical evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 446– 471.
Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.
Talib, F., Rahman, Z., & 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, 30(3), 280–318.
Tarı́, J. (2005). Components of successful total quality management. The TQM Magazine, 17(2),
182 –194.
Tarı́, J. J., Molina, J. F., & Castejon, J. L. (2007). The relationship between quality management
practices and their effects on quality outcomes. European Journal of Operational
Research, 183(2), 483 –501.
Teh, P. L., Yong, C. C., Arumugam, V., & Ooi, K. B. (2009). Does total quality management reduce
employees’ role conflict? Industrial Management and Data Systems, 109(8), 1118– 1136.
Tomaževič, N., Seljak, J., & Aristovnik, A. (2014a). The impact of CAF enablers on job satisfaction:
The case of the Slovenian Law Enforcement Agency. Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence, 25(11 –12), 1336–1351.
Tomaževič, N., Seljak, J., & Aristovnik, A. (2014b). Factors influencing employee satisfaction in the
police service: The case of Slovenia. Personnel Review, 43(2), 209– 227.
Tutuncu, O., & Demir, M. (2002). Human resources management and labor turnover analysis in
hotels (in Turkish). Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.
Tutuncu, O., & Kucukusta, D. (2006). Relationship between job satisfaction and business excel-
lence: Empirical evidence from hospital nursing departments. Journal of Comparative
International Management, 9(2), 40–57.
Tutuncu, O., & Kucukusta, D. (2010). Canonical correlation between job satisfaction and EFQM
business excellence model. Quality and Quantity, 44(6), 1227–1238.
Weiss, H. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs, and affective
experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173–194.
Wilson, D. D., & Collier, D. A. (2000). An empirical investigation of the Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award causal model. Decision Sciences, 31(2), 361–383.
Winn, B. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1998). Organizational quality: An examination of the Baldrige
National Quality Award causal model. Decision Sciences, 39(5), 491–512.
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, 18(2),
162 –173.
Yusof, S. R. M., & Aspinwall, E. (1999). Critical success factors for total quality management
implementation in small and medium enterprises. Total Quality Management, 10(4–5),
803 –809.
Zelnik, M., Maletič, M., Maletič, D., & Gomišček, B. (2012). Quality management systems as a link
between management and employees. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
23(1), 45 –62.
Zhang, Z. H. (2000). Implementation of total quality management: An empirical study of Chinese
manufacturing firms. PhD unpublished thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen.
 Total Quality Management 1507

Zhang, Z. H., Waszink, A. B. & Wijngaard, J. (2000). An instrument for measuring TQM implemen-
tation for Chinese manufacturing companies. International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, 17(7), 730 –755.

Appendix. Measurement scales

Leadership
LE1 – Top management actively manages our quality programne and reviews its effectiveness once
implemented
LE2 – Administrators actively communicate a quality commitment to employees
LE3 – Employees are encouraged to help implement changes in the organisation
LE4 – The Management Team allows employees to make their own decisions
LE5 – The Management Team motivates its employees and helps them to fulfil their work at a high
level
LE6 – The Management appreciates the efforts and improvements made by the staff
LE7 – The Management maintains contacts with customers, suppliers and other external agents and
is involved with them in the promotion and participation of alliances and improvement actions
LE8 – The changes that should be carried out for improvement are identified and boosted by the
Management and their effectiveness is reviewed once implemented
Quality Policy and strategy
QP1 – Strategies and business plans based on the information about customer requirements and
business capabilities are developed and implemented.
QP2 – The Management displays the policy establishing realistic targets for all its staff (managers
and employees)
QP3 – The Management communicates its strategy and objectives to all staff
QP4 – The Management communicates its strategy and objectives to customers, suppliers and other
external agents in order for them to know them
QP5 – Staff is involved in setting objectives and plans
QP6 – Key processes are identified and developed from the business strategies or plans
QP7 – The results are evaluated by performing a comparison with those planned, with the aim of
improvement
Personnel Management
EM1 – Management of human resources in line with the strategy and/or business plans performed
EM2 – The Management is trained in quality principles
EM3 – Employees are trained in quality principles
EM4 – Employees are trained in problem – solving skills
EM5 – Employees are trained in teamwork
EM6 – Experience and training of people are adjusted to current and future needs or specific training
plans are developed
EM7 – People are encouraged and supported to take responsibility and make decisions without risk
for the organisation, to be involved in improvement activities, teamwork, etc.
EM8 – There is a transparent system to reward staff achievements and improvements, as well as a
social benefits system (pension plan, kindergarten, etc.)
EM9 – Employee performance is measured and recognised in order to motivate them and improve
their work performance
EM10 – Communication between all personnel is ascending, descending and horizontal, so that
employees are considered to be well – informed and their opinions are valued
EM11 – Improvements in human resource management are introduced by using staff satisfaction
surveys, regular meetings with employees, performance analysis, etc.
Learning
L1 – Managers and supervisors ensure that all employees receive training in order to help them
understand how and why the organisation performs
L2 – Most employees of this company have sufficient knowledge about the basics of the sector

(Continued)
1508 M.C. Del Rı́o-Rama et al.

Appendix. Continued.
Leadership
L3 – Most employees of this organisation understand the basic processes used to create our products/
services
L4 – All company employees are trained in the concepts of total quality
L5 – The company employees are trained in basic statistical tools
L6 – Employees receive training to develop teamwork
L7 – Availability of resources for staff training within the organisation
L8 – Top Management has established an environment that encourages continuous training
L9 – Managers and supervisors participate in specialised training
Process Management
PM1 – Control and continuous improvement of key processes
PM2 – Prevention of defective services is a strong attitude in this organisation
PM3 – The processes used in this organisation includes measures to ensure that the development of
services is consistent with the previous design and subsequent execution (quality measures)
PM4 – Employees involved in different processes know how to evaluate them
PM5 – New services in an attempt to access other markets are developed, anticipate the needs of
today’s market or try to be better than the main competitors
PM6 – The development of products/services in line with previous designs and later developments is
guaranteed
Employee results/satisfaction
ER1 – The company collects relevant information to measure employee satisfaction (surveys,
meetings, motivation, training, promotion, etc.)
ER2 – Other indirect indicators of satisfaction, such as the level of absenteeism, complaints,
involvement in improvement programmes, staff turnover, etc., are evaluated
ER3 – Employee satisfaction shows improvement over time
ER4 – Absenteeism is low
ER5 – Staff rotation is low
ER6 – Objectives in this context are established and the results achieved meet the objectives set by
the organisation
ER7 – The causes of these results in people are analysed and plans or actions for improvement are
implemented
ER8 – These employee results cover the most relevant areas of the organisation
ER9 – These employee results are compared with those of the main competitors, such comparisons
being favourable or otherwise learning from them