The Impact of Soft TQM Practices on Organizational Enactment: A Mediating Role of OHSAS18001 Standard
Md. Mamun Mia1*
Yahya Majri2
Ibrahim Kamal Abdul Rahman3
1UniKL Business School (PhD student) Universiti Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia |
AbstractThe purpose of the study is to propose a conceptual structural equation model to investigate the relationship between soft TQM practices and organizational enactment and to demonstrate the indirect impact on organizational enactment from the perspectives of OHSAS18001 standard. The tool of analysis is used of the study through stratified random sampling by structural equation model (SEM) analysis of quantitative method of survey data collection. The finding of the study showed that all soft TQM dimensions are well implemented as part of RMG industry of human related indicator measured with OHSAS18001 enabling to perform a dominant practice. The result of the study is also prescribed potential implications for the management of RMG industry in Bangladesh is supported of human related aspect of TQM as integral part of business's strategic visualization to obtain higher level indicators of leadership, employees, and customer by ensured of workplace health & safety toward organizational enactment. |
Licensed: |
|
Keywords: |
|
| (* Corresponding Author) | |
Funding: This study received no specific financial support. |
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
1. Introduction
In this section is discovered through background of the study towards explained problem statement, objectives, and research hypotheses to find out the significance of the research by empirical data through SEM analysis.
1.1. Background of the Study
TQM - Soft TQM indicates any practices of business determinations have committed to human related dimensions of TQM, namely, leadership, employee relations, and customer relations (Bambang & Adawiyah, 2012). This indication has more significant and powerful dimensions corresponding to human related to measure towards organizational enactment. Nevertheless, inside of any businesses to make sure that satisfactions are always indicated to determine something empowerment either internal or external performing. However, soft TQM practices are executed between all types of employees relation, work perspectives, customers relation, and TQM platform levels have marked a very predeterminations for the organizations (Zeitz, Johannesson, & Ritchie, 1997). Moreover, the execution of human-oriented TQM dimensions are identified more faster indication than others soft indicators (Jabnoun, 2005). Subsequently, soft TQM is also resolved some influences that appear in the literature regarding the relationship between TQM dimensions and organizational enactment association (Aliyu, 2016).
Organizational Enactment – it is very vital stage of any organization to measure how performance indication tells to the organizations by numerically and intangibly of the organization. There are many predictors tools are measured for the organizational enactment and one the major tool is TQM and its diversification through several indicators enactments. Organization itself has also several indicators are measured for well know of two indicators are financial and non-financial. Financial is more powerful that all of the organizations has mainly focused on that rather than non-financial indicator measurement. The most dynamic and significant business is motivated and strength calculation on financial performance (Inquiry & Development, 2002).
The association between human related indicators and company performance is received much more attention in prior to the literature, while the employee relations and customer perspectives are commonly ignored in the organization (Desing et al., 2006). organizational enactment is confirmed by the direct and indirect effect and which ever has more challenges than ever to adopt such standards (Ho, 2008).
Occupational Health & Safety standard (OHSAS18001) – it is more focused in developing countries such as Bangladesh, to make ensure that working places are healthier and safer for employees. Since 2013 onwards there was big issue about safety for the ready-made garment industries in Bangladesh. Nowadays, the most challenges are become standard factories from non-compliance to become a compliance standard. However, Occupational Health & Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS1800) standard is suggested as an instrument for handling and monitoring occupational risks over a efficient and organized management by the efficiency of OHSAS 18001 in dropping occupational risks at workplace (Mohammadfam et al., 2016). The execution of OHSAS 18001 is established to response of customer request for identifiable occupational health & safety management system standard in contradiction of which is management system can be measured and confirmed (BSI, 2007).
Nevertheless, industrial risks are escaped from regulator requires the execution of a health & safety management system that sanctions organizations to carry out safety practices through method of organized, harmonized, and included into of entire set for accomplishments and assessments (Fernández-Muñiz, Montes-Peón, & Vázquez-Ordás, 2012).
1.2. Problem Statement
In the view of ready-made garment industries are contributed a tremendous for the economy of Bangladesh, while almost 83% of total export earning of this sectors. As organizational enactment is going down due to a big disaster since 2013 of Rana Plaza and now it has a big mark on the health & safety issue for the workers at workplace. Therefore, problem is that firms are not up to standard which is one of the major issues of occupational health & safety standard in the point of compliance concern. Subsequently, in the point of this view to find out the impact of soft TQM practice on organizational enactment with mediating role of OHSAS18001 standard which is correspondent of occupational health & safety standard.
1.3. Study Objective
To determine the impact of soft TQM practices on organizational enactment with mediating role of OHSAS18001 standardized system in Bangladesh of ready-made garment industry. Therefore, having of this objective is to examine of hypotheses from conceptual framework indication of this study respectively.
1.4. Hypotheses and Conceptual Framework
H1: TQM has a significant and positive impact on organizational enactment
H2: TQM has a significant and positive impact on OHSAS18001 standard
H3: OHSAS standard has a significant and positive impact on organizational enactment.
Denoted: Total Quality Management: TQM; Organizational Enactment: OE; OHSAS18001 stand for Occupational Health & Safety standard.
2. Literature Review
This point will discusses about three main constructs of soft TQM, OE, and OHSAS18001 about their relationships link with invention relationship respectively.
2.1. Soft TQM
Soft TQM and organizational enactment relationships are context-dependent always where TQM predicts how much can be impact on firms performing and continuously improved on that measures are analysed (Sila, 2007). TQM has two factors one hard and soft TQM dimension. Therefore, in this study literature is conducted regarding soft TQM where one of the three core dimensions are leadership, employee relations, and customer relation is measured TQM construct as soft dimension.
First of all leadership is a key relation on TQM therefore soft TQM is a significant effect on organizational enactment. Leadership qualities that is prepared to managers drive a serious part in the growth of an organization (Kiran, 2017). However, it is commitment of leadership on overall enactment within the organization that is implemented properly from top to bottom line. Moreover, if leadership is failed of their commitment either internally or externally then TQM become to be failed cause and effect relationship between TQM practices and organization's enactment (Anil & Satish, 2016). Secondly, employee relations are one of the vital issues of any firms before joining of their new job task for the employees. TQM is a broadly used management philosophy through many areas in order to improvement of competitive advantage in terms of quality, productivity, employee, and customer satisfaction (Shafiq, Lasrado, & Hafeez, 2017). Accordingly, employees contributions and it measures are redesigned the quality management concepts and implementation in organizations when they are granted awards for their good contribution (Rabah, 2016). However, implementation of TQM and organizational enactment is succeeded and determined that TQM practices have a more important consequence on the operational outcomes (Calvo-Mora, Picón-Berjoyo, Ruiz-Moreno, & Cauzo-Bottala, 2015).
2.2. Organizational Enactment
TQM is considered is very significant element for the long-term achievement of an organization. However, soft TQM implementation is significant featured for improving organizational competence.
Numerous researchers are suggested that total quality management can exclusively and successfully promote performance (Hung, Lien, Yang, Wu, & Kuo, 2011). Moreover, soft TQM and organizational enactment is investigated by many researchers had researched. Therefore, exploratory of the association between TQM and organizational enactment researchers are used a diverse of organizational performance dimensions such as financial and non-financial performance are one of the most commonly to measure the overall enactment.
Management tools and techniques are focused on continuous process improvement inside the organizations to deliver for larger customer worth and meet customer requirements. Although, impact of TQM is a common instruction for organizational management that is implemented for emerging strategic plan in order to get sustainable competitive advantage towards organizational enactment (Gharakhani, Rahmati, Farrokhi, & Farahmandian, 2013). Nevertheless, most of the organization is captivated advantage of quality improvement in accomplishing to set organizational goals of the advanced modern economy while, organizational goals be lead to organizational enactment. Though, achieving of maximum possible organizational enactment that TQM individually is enough to measure the enactment through financial and non-financial performance (Ali, Kong, & Siti, 2010).
Therefore, the total quality management is a viewpoint of provocative implementation process for the organizational enactment because it is significant relationship between the execution of total quality management and organizational enactment (Das, Handfield, Calantone, & Ghosh, 1998).
2.3. OHSAS18001 Standard
In the past decade, an excessive consideration is engaged towards the concern of measuring health & safety performance, while firms employing a management system standards that can have better corporate performance and marketing advantages than the others (To, Lee, & Yu, 2012). The key objective of measuring health & safety performance is to formulate the evidence of essential concerning the degree of growth as well as the existing environments of strategies, processes, and activities that are done through an organization to regulate health & safety hazards.
The health & safety of management system OHSAS18001 has prominent performance indicators are developed through operations. The health & safety performance indicators are determined built on the workings of occupational health & safety management system OHSAS18001 along with the key and significant tools and technique that are coincidences and hazards of the working place areas (Falahati et al., 2017). Management system standards among OHSAS18001 is a significant impact on recognized of health & safety foundations that are OHSAS18001 documentation assists of business promised by health & safety actions and indications by performing with additional areas are encouraged workplace health & safety. Therefore, OHSAS18001 is perceived as a tactical unit for refining health & safety performance. However, it is concluded that a health & safety management system can be efficiently executed through holding of OHSAS18001 authorization (Paas & Tint, 2015).
3. Research Methodology
In this research, the method is conducted through positivism philosophy regarding quantitative survey method is followed of entire study.
Following subsections are elaborated separately of research design, sampling technique, target population, respondents, and data management process of data analysis.
3.1. Research Design
The research design is fully quantitative method to have the answer from collection of data analysis to justify the literature theory by conducting structural equation model (SEM) analysis.
3.2. Sampling Technique, Target Population, and Respondents
Sampling technique is followed by stratified random sampling in the area from Savar of Dhaka district in Bangladesh. Target population is ready-made garment industries having with compliance and non-compliance standardized firms. The target respondent of this study is managers from different department such as compliance, human resource, finance, marketing, and quality department.
3.3. Data Collection and Data Analysis
Data collection process management is to follow through survey questionnaire by physically and after that data is reorganized through screening and errors checking. However, before going to main analysis data is executed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to make sure of factors loading of each measure variable is reliable and supported for measurement analysis of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) subsequently toward structural model of path analysis.
4. Analysis Results and Discussion
In this section, empirical data is executed through different test of analysis which is showed consequently of following section respectively.
4.1. Reliability Test
In quantitative research a Cronbach's alpha is a common technique to measure reliability for the items of questionnaires which is equal to 0.70 or above 0.70 of Cronbach’s alpha is indicated a desirable and above 0.80 value are indicated more strength of survey items (Christmann & Van, 2006). In this study all Cronbach’s alpha is more than 0.80 which is confirmed more than desirable value to go the further data analysis. Anyway, all items of reliability results are showed in appendix Table of A/B/C with details for the three constructs accordingly. Though, in the questions of reliability is increased as the purpose of scales of strained to encompass of prediction. However, one of the most common reliability statistics is practiced today of Cronbach's alpha. Therefore, Cronbach's alpha is regulated the internal consistency or regular correlation of items in a survey instruments quantity of its reliability (Reynaldo & Santos, 1999).
4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is recounted as systematic explanation of interrelated measures. EFA usually is used to explore the probable underlying the factor structure a set of pragmatic variables without stately is defined structure on the outcome (Fincham et al., 2008). However, factor loading is better equal or above 0.50 then is acceptable to go for run the confirmatory factory analysis (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Moreover, adequacy of sample is measured by KMO in value between 0.7 and 0.8 are acceptable but the value between 0.8 to 0.9 are excellent and value 0.9 and above then is outstanding with Bartlett test of Sphericity at significant level of 0.005 while the strength of the relationship is significant with cumulative is generated more than 0.60 percentage (Ul Hadia, Abdullah, & Sentosa, 2016).
The data is tested and results for all of the factors loading are above 0.50 and total cumulative of three components are generated of 68.95%, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measured of sampling adequacy 0.875 with significant .000 which is p <.001 at Bartlett’s test of Sphericity. Therefore, all of the measured variables are tested and result is showed in Table-D and E has more details regarding EFA analysis. Anyway, next section moved for the second phase of CFA analysis which is confirmed by EFA tested result that is allowed to go for CFA analysis.
4.3. Confirmatory Factory Analysis (CFA)
The measurement theory can be signified with a model that displays how a measured variable come together to signify constructs is. CFA analysis allows to test how sound of the measured variables signify the constructs. The main benefit is that it can systematically test a conceptually grounded theory explanation how different measured items signify important to measure (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Therefore, the structural equation model (SEM) with a good fit indices are measured by Chi-Square value, degree of freedom (DF), P-value is <0.05, GFI value is ≥0.90, AGFI value is ≥.80, CFI value is ≥0.90, TLI value is ≥0.90, RMSEA value is <0.08, and CMIN/DF value is <5 then the model is become good fit (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Sharma, Mukherjee, Kumar, & Dillon, 2005). Following figure is showed about the measurement model fits indices.
Nevertheless, above figure is showed the value of P-value is significant at point of <0.001, GFI value is 0.959, AGF is 0.940, CFI is 0.979, TLI is 0.973 greater than accepted value, and REMSE is 0.046 and CMIN/DF is 2.116 which is less than acceptance value. The Table-F is shown about regression weights details where critical ratio (C.R.) shows that all of the indicating value is showed above more than 1.96 while P-value is significant and overall CFA measurement model is supported by the theory that is a goodness of fit model with three constructs.
Therefore, the measurement model with all of the measured variable indicators are above more than 0.50 and modification indices (M.I) have been made through covariance where M.I. values were above 10 to make covariate to have better model fit. However, correlation standardized estimates between TQM ↔ organizational enactment is 0.19, TQM ↔ OHSAS18001 is 0.24, and OHSAS18001 ↔ organizational enactment is 0.22 and covariance standardized critical ratio is more than 1.96 at P-value level of less than 0.001.
Therefore, CFA results are confirmed that is executed outputs are supported of surveyed sample for the constructs measurement. However, the testes results are confirmed by CFA to test in further analysis such as SEM which is conducted following next section respectively.
4.4. Hypothesized Path Model
In SEM analysis is examined in several test of structural analysis and one of the tests is path analysis that is stated to the scheming of moment structures inside, among variables through covariance or correlations, and oblique by set of simultaneous linear regression equations toward one type of structural equation model. However, path diagram of structural equation model (SEM) is offered a graphical picture with exact analysis to permit the covariance between two variables in a structural equation model. Moreover, it is served to understand how the interrelationships between variables toward the model that predict the covariance between two selected variables (Boker & McArdle, 2005).
Therefore, a mediating variable is identified causes the effect of independent variable toward dependent variable (MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007). Nevertheless, in appendix of Figure-H direct structural path model standardized path coefficient is 0.19 and from the Figure-I indirect structural path coefficient between TQM and mediating standard estimates is 0.24 where mediating of organizational enactment standard estimates is 0.22. Therefore, following SEM path model is executed through AMOS software for the path structural model respectively.
According to above of final path model overall value of P is statistically significant at point of P<0.001, GFI value is 0.959, AGF is 0.940, CFI is 0.979, TLI is 0.973 which is indicated greater than accepted value, and REMSE is 0.046 and CMIN/DF is 2.116 which is also identified of less than acceptance value. In appendix of Table-F is showed about regression weights details where critical ratio (C.R.) is showed that all of the indicated value more than 1.96 while P-value is significant and overall path model is supported by the theory for the goodness of fit model with three constructs together with 15 measured variables.
Therefore, the final structural model with all of the variable indicators are more than 0.50 and modification indices (M.I) is made through covariance where M.I. values are above 10 to make covariate to have better model fit.
4.5. Assessing Hypothesized Direction of Regression Path
From above structural equation model have successful evaluation confirmed that the model could be used for rest of the subsequent analysis hypotheses test. The model had tested direct and indirect paths analysis and results have showed the answer of research objective and accepted the research hypotheses. Final output of AMOS result is given in following table.
| Structural of Path Coefficient | Standardized regression weights (β) |
S.E. |
C.R. (t-value) |
P-value |
Result |
| OE ← TQM | 0.143 |
0.067 |
2.808 |
0.005 |
Accepted for H1 |
| OHSAS18001 ← TQM | 0.238 |
0.069 |
4.565 |
*** |
Accepted for H2 |
| OE ← OHSAS18001 | 0.181 |
0.050 |
3.536 |
*** |
Accepted for H3 |
Note: ***Significant at 0.001 level. |
5. Discussion and Conclusion
In this section, there are two stages are displayed of discussion and conclusion separately by following section respectively. First subsection is elaborated of test results and second subsection is concluded of overall study outcomes briefly.
5.1. Discussion
The initial objective of this is to determine the impact of soft TQM practices on organizational enactment with mediating role of OHSAS18001 standardized system in Bangladesh of ready-made garment industry. Therefore, this study is identified through mediating role of OHSAS18001. Based on overall measurement variables are supported of each construct which was predicted to outcome variable. However, a key result is identified of validate the significance for occupational health & safety standard having more support on organizational enactment than direct of predict variable on organizational enactment.
Nevertheless, achievement of research objective and hypotheses are examined through research hypotheses test to reach of the study objective. However, in this study there are three constructs of soft TQM as independent variable which is direct relation with dependent variable of organizational enactment. A mediating variable of OHSAS18001 which are associated between constructs of soft TQM and organizational enactment respectively. Therefore, the empirical results are showed at Table 1 of hypotheses test, based on constructs structural of path coefficient relationships. The test results are displayed for H1 is accepted that t-statistics of critical ratio is 2.808 at p-value is 0.005 which less than 0.05 in the association between independent of predict variable (TQM) and dependent variable (OE). Second hypothesis of H2 is accepted, that t-statistics of critical ratio is 4.565 at p-value is 0.000 which less than 0.001 in the association between independent of predict variable (TQM) and mediating variable (OHSAS18001). Last hypothesis of H3 is also accepted, that t-statistics of critical ratio is 3.536 at p-value is 0.000 which less than 0.001 in the association between mediating variable (OHSAS18001) and dependent variable (OE).
Subsequently, a positive indication of the standardized regression path coefficients (β) are 0.143, 0.238, and 0.181 for (OE ← TQM), (OHSAS18001 ← TQM), and (OE ← OHSAS18001) respectively, which is reflected a high correlation suggested (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Therefore, the result is confirmed through SEM analysis of hypothesized structural model which is justified of the study objective based on the impact of soft TQM practices on organizational enactment with mediating role of OHSAS18001 standard.
5.2. Conclusion
In the manufacturing industry gradually is increased competition of health & safety issues by external and internal customers in the firms strengthening with ensured that is human oriented indication performance within organization. Although, human oriented customers are employees such as staff and potential customer’s target group. Anyway, customer’s demand is a quality product with make to ensure by health & safety working places where staffs are involved during for the production.
Therefore, in the SEM analyses are carried out to demonstrate the effect of soft TQM practices dimensions (leadership, employee relation, and customer relation) on organizational enactment, which is observed soft TQM practices are positively engaged on enactment. However, in the mediating role is displayed the relation by indirectly is highly correlated than direct relation. Therefore, firms should focus on health & safety issue that is supported more improvement of human oriented dimensions. Subsequently, in the light of the study results, it is possible to say that business craving to expand of their enactment should place more emphasized on soft TQM practices by ensuring of health & safety standard. If firm’s adopt of OHSAS18001 and practices properly, then management shall realize that empirical results are desirable controlled towards overall performance.
References
Ali, Z., Kong, T. L., & Siti, N. O. (2010). The relationship between total quality management, knowledge management and organizational performance. 2nd. Paper presented at the International Conference on Technology and Operations Management (ICTOM).
Aliyu, M. A. (2016). Modelling total quality management dimensions for SME. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 3(1995), 165–169.
Anil, A. P., & Satish, K. P. (2016). ScienceDirect Investigating the relationship between TQM practices and firm’s performance: A conceptual framework for Indian organizations. Procedia Technology, 24(24), 554–561.
Bambang, A. P., & Adawiyah, W. R. (2012). The human related dimensions of TQM practise in service settings. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2(1), 124–131.
Boker, S. M., & McArdle, J. J. (2005). Path analysis and path diagrams. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, 3, 1529–1531.
BSI. (2007). OHSAS 18001 occupational health and safety management systems. British Standards Institution, 4, 217.
Calvo-Mora, A., Picón-Berjoyo, A., Ruiz-Moreno, C., & Cauzo-Bottala, L. (2015). Contextual and mediation analysis between TQM critical factors and organisational results in the EFQM excellence model framework. International Journal of Production Research, 53(7), 2186–2201.
Christmann, A., & Van, A. S. (2006). Robust estimation of Cronbach’s alpha. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 97(7), 1660–1674.
Das, A., Handfield, R. B., Calantone, R. J., & Ghosh, S. (1998). TQM dynamics - an empirical study of TQM practice and performance. Paper presented at the In Proceedings - Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute, 3.
Desing, L., Advantage, C., Commitment, O., Effecteveness, O., Satisfaction, G., Exhaustion, E., & Tuomi, K. (2006). Sinikka Vanhala, Kaija Tuomi * HRM, company performance and employee well-being. Management Revue, 17(3), 241–255.
Falahati, M., Karimi, A., Mohammadfam, I., Mazloumi, A., Khanteymoori, A. R., & Yaseri, M. (2017). Development of safety and health leading performance indicators in the phase of construction of a gas refinery plant using Bayesian network and AHP. International Journal of Advanced Biotechnology and Research, 8(2), 1440–1453.
Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J. M., & Vázquez-Ordás, C. J. (2012). Occupational risk management under the OHSAS 18001 standard: Analysis of perceptions and attitudes of certified firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 36–47.
Fincham, D., Schickerling, J., Temane, M., Nel, D., De Roover, W., & Seedat, S. (2008). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the multidimensional anxiety scale for children among adolescents in the Cape Town metropole of South Africa. Depression and Anxiety, 25(11), 1–17.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Gharakhani, D., Rahmati, H., Farrokhi, M. R., & Farahmandian, A. (2013). Total quality management and organizational performance. American Journal of Industrial Engineering, 1(3), 46–50.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. (2010). Factor analysis: Confirmatory factor analysis : In Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.): 599–606.
Ho, L. (2008). What affects organizational performance? Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(9), 1234–1254.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
Hung, R. Y. Y., Lien, B. Y.-H., Yang, B., Wu, C.-M., & Kuo, Y.-M. (2011). Impact of TQM and organizational learning on innovation performance in the high-tech industry. International Business Review, 20(2), 213-225.
Inquiry, A., An, A. S., & Development, O. (2002). As an organizational development tool. Performance Improvement, 4(8), 34–39.
Jabnoun, N. (2005). Organizational structure for customer-oriented TQM: An empirical investigation. TQM Magazine, 17(3), 226–236.
Kiran, D. R. (2017). Leadership and TQM. In Total Quality Management. 1(1), 39–55.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 593–614.
Mohammadfam, I., Kamalinia, M., Momeni, M., Golmohammadi, R., Hamidi, Y., & Soltanian, A. (2016). Developing an integrated decision making approach to assess and promote the effectiveness of occupational health and safety management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 127(c), 119–133.
Paas, R. K., & Tint, P. (2015). OHSAS 18001 contribution to real and formal safety elements in safety management system in manufacturing. Agronomy Research, 13(5), 1260–1274.
Reynaldo, J., & Santos, A. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of Extension, 37(2), 1–5.
Shafiq, M., Lasrado, F., & Hafeez, K. (2017). The effect of TQM on organisational performance: Empirical evidence from the textile sector of a developing country using SEM. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 1–22.
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. (2005). A simulation study to investigate the use of cut-off values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 935–943.
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.
To, W. M., Lee, P. K. C., & Yu, B. T. W. (2012). Benefits of implementing management system standards. The TQM Journal, 24(1), 17–28.
Ul Hadia, N., Abdullah, N., & Sentosa, I. (2016). An easy approach to exploratory factor analysis: Marketing perspective. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 6(1), 215-223.
Zeitz, G., Johannesson, R., & Ritchie, J. E. (1997). An employee survey measuring total quality management practices and culture: Development and validation. Group and Organization Management, 22(4), 414–444.
6. Appendices of Data Analysis Results
Table-A. Descriptive statistics of soft TQM.
| Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. | .857 |
|
| Bartlett's Test of Sphericity | Approx. Chi-Square | 4443.668 |
| Df | 105 |
|
| Sig. | .000 |
|
Source: SPSS output result of final surveyed data analysis. |
Component |
|||
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
| QM1 | .758 |
||
| QM2 | .882 |
||
| QM3 | .837 |
||
| QM4 | .870 |
||
| QM5 | .699 |
||
| OE1 | .836 |
||
| OE2 | .870 |
||
| OE3 | .847 |
||
| OE4 | .801 |
||
| OE5 | .840 |
||
| HS1 | .785 |
||
| HS2 | .842 |
||
| HS3 | .857 |
||
| HS4 | .816 |
||
| HS5 | .765 |
||
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Source: SPSS output result of final surveyed data analysis. |
Estimate |
S.E. |
C.R. |
P |
Label |
|||
| QM5 | <--- | TQM | 1.000 |
||||
| QM4 | <--- | TQM | 1.597 |
.123 |
12.932 |
*** |
|
| QM3 | <--- | TQM | 1.534 |
.123 |
12.429 |
*** |
|
| QM2 | <--- | TQM | 1.769 |
.145 |
12.182 |
*** |
|
| QM1 | <--- | TQM | 1.354 |
.121 |
11.177 |
*** |
|
| OE5 | <--- | OE | 1.000 |
||||
| OE4 | <--- | OE | 1.043 |
.055 |
19.021 |
*** |
|
| OE3 | <--- | OE | 1.191 |
.067 |
17.867 |
*** |
|
| OE2 | <--- | OE | 1.214 |
.070 |
17.424 |
*** |
|
| OE1 | <--- | OE | 1.023 |
.060 |
16.974 |
*** |
|
| HS5 | <--- | OHSAS_18001 | 1.000 |
||||
| HS4 | <--- | OHSAS_18001 | 1.160 |
.074 |
15.702 |
*** |
|
| HS3 | <--- | OHSAS_18001 | 1.245 |
.074 |
16.809 |
*** |
|
| HS2 | <--- | OHSAS_18001 | 1.223 |
.074 |
16.495 |
*** |
|
| HS1 | <--- | OHSAS_18001 | 1.030 |
.072 |
14.368 |
*** |
Source: AMOS output of final surveyed data analysis. |
Estimate |
S.E. |
C.R. |
P |
Label |
|||
| OHSAS_18001 | <--- | TQM | .317 |
.069 |
4.565 |
*** |
|
| OE | <--- | TQM | .187 |
.067 |
2.808 |
.005 |
|
| OE | <--- | OHSAS_18001 | .178 |
.050 |
3.536 |
*** |
|
| QM5 | <--- | TQM | 1.000 |
||||
| QM4 | <--- | TQM | 1.597 |
.123 |
12.932 |
*** |
|
| QM3 | <--- | TQM | 1.534 |
.123 |
12.429 |
*** |
|
| QM2 | <--- | TQM | 1.769 |
.145 |
12.182 |
*** |
|
| QM1 | <--- | TQM | 1.354 |
.121 |
11.177 |
*** |
|
| OE1 | <--- | OE | 1.000 |
||||
| OE2 | <--- | OE | 1.186 |
.055 |
21.727 |
*** |
|
| OE3 | <--- | OE | 1.164 |
.068 |
17.111 |
*** |
|
| OE4 | <--- | OE | 1.019 |
.066 |
15.507 |
*** |
|
| OE5 | <--- | OE | .977 |
.058 |
16.974 |
*** |
|
| HS5 | <--- | OHSAS_18001 | 1.000 |
||||
| HS4 | <--- | OHSAS_18001 | 1.160 |
.074 |
15.702 |
*** |
|
| HS3 | <--- | OHSAS_18001 | 1.245 |
.074 |
16.809 |
*** |
|
| HS2 | <--- | OHSAS_18001 | 1.223 |
.074 |
16.495 |
*** |
|
| HS1 | <--- | OHSAS_18001 | 1.030 |
.072 |
14.368 |
*** |
Source: AMOS output of final surveyed data analysis. |