Quality management in servicefirms: sustaining structures of

total quality serviceAtul Gupta, Jason C. McDaniel and S. Kanthi Herath

School of Business and Economics, Lynchburg College, Lynchburg,Virginia, USA

Abstract

Purpose Proposes developing a conceptual model that can be used in understanding therelationships between sustaining structures that support the total quality service (TQS) philosophyand customer satisfaction.

Design/methodology/approach Integrating the SERVQUAL instrument and other work in theservice quality literature, especially the Deming management model, this paper develops a model forunderstanding the interactions between customer satisfaction and sustaining structures.

Findings This conceptual paper develops three constructs: leadership, organizational culture andemployee commitment, which are very important in achieving total quality service objectives. Theproposed model links these three constructs with business processes and total quality service.

Research limitations/ implications It is not an empirical investigation of customer satisfactionand sustaining structures. The paper does not review in detail the impact of the three constructs onbusiness processes. A researcher who plans to do a customer satisfaction study could benefit from theproposed model as it will provide valuable insights about the interactions between customersatisfaction and sustaining structures.

Originality/value This paper provides an important conceptual framework for evaluating therelationships between customer satisfaction and sustaining structures.

Keywords SERVQUAL, Customer satisfaction, Quality management, Customer service quality

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionOver the past few years, the service sector has become the dominant element in manyeconomies including the economy of the USA. In many industrialized countries, servicesector accounted for more that 50 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Forinstance, in 1989 the service sector accounted for 69 percent of the USAs GDP; 67percent of Frances GDP; 62 percent of the UKs GDP; 60 percent of Germanys GDP;and 56 percent of Japans GDP (World Bank, 1991). These figures represent only theservice sectors contribution (Ghobadian et al., 1994) and in addition, manymanufacturing companies have started to provide services traditionally notprovided by them (Douglas and Fredendall, 2004). The employment in serviceindustries in the USA has also increased from 30 percent in 1900 to over 85 percent in2000 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002). The service sector in many economiesembraces a diverse and complex range of organizations and enterprises including:

. national and local government: for example, education, health, social security,police, the military, transport, legal, information, and credit;

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm

Sustainingstructures of

TQS

389

Managing Service QualityVol. 15 No. 4, 2005

pp. 389-402q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0960-4529DOI 10.1108/09604520510606853

. non-profit private services: for example, charities, churches, researchfoundations, mutual societies, and art foundations; and

. for-profit private services: for example, utilities, hotels, airlines, architects,restaurants, solicitors, retailers, entertainment, banks, insurance companies,advertising agencies, consultancy firms, market research companies, andcommunications (Ghobadian et al., 1994, p. 43).

Customer service has become a distinct component of both product and service sectorsand with the developments in information technology many business find demandingand knowledgeable customers. The worldwide trend toward service quality wasinitiated in the 1880s when businesses realized that a quality product, in itself, is notguaranteed to maintain competitive advantage (van der Wal et al., 2002). Manyresearchers recognize that service quality can bring an organization a lastingcompetitive advantage (Moore, 1987; Lewis, 1989). Quality of services can be thedifference between success and failure in both service and manufacturing firms. Servicequality, customer satisfaction and customer value have become the main concern ofboth manufacturing and service organizations in the increasingly intensifiedcompetition for customers in todays customer-centered era (Wang et al., 2004).

As a result, many organizations are paying increasing attention to improve servicequality. In some manufacturing industries service quality is considered a moreimportant order winner than product quality (Ghobadian et al., 1994, p. 43). Servicequality improvements will lead to customer satisfaction and cost management thatresult in improved profits (Stevenson, 2002). Literature suggests that total qualityphilosophy can be usefully deployed in the service sector too. As an initial step in anempirical investigation of service quality management, this study incorporates theSERVQUAL model and the total quality management (TQM) model, and developsseveral hypotheses for empirical testing.

Quality management modelsThe development of quality management systems has substantially been influenced byseveral American and Japanese quality experts: Deming, Juran, Feigenbaum, Crosbyand Ishikawa. The main theme of Deming is that by improving quality it is possible toincrease productivity, which results in the improved competitiveness of a businessenterprise (Kruger, 2001). According to Deming, the quality improvement of thecompanys work processes, both manufacturing and service, will result in lessreworking and less waste of manpower, material resources and the number of errorswill be reduced. Deming stressed the importance of constant and forever improvementof the system of production and service. Management must continuously reduce wasteand improve the quality of every activity in the company and this includes all functions,such as procurement, engineering, transportation, sales, methods of distribution,accounting, service to customers, etc. (Kruger, 2001). Early quality gurus recognizedthat both product and service quality will create competitive advantages for firms.

Juran contributed to TQM by highlighting the importance of quality Control. Accordingto Juran, once managing the quality issue was delegated to the subordinate hierarchy, itwas no longer considered to be vital for the top management of the company to participatepersonally in managing quality and this progressive removal of the companysmanagement from managing the quality issue led to negative effects on quality (Kruger,

MSQ15,4

390

2001). The ultimate result is that in the end, nobody in the firm will be responsible forquality and the visible leadership and personal involvement of top management ininspiring quality is very important for the achievement of strategic and operational goals.Juran stresses that quality control should be an integral part of the management functionsand the firm culture and leadership can play a major role in quality management.

Ishikawa provided four aspects of TQM quality circles, continuous training, thequality tool Ishikawa diagram, and the quality chain. According to Ishikawa, topractice quality control is to develop, design, produce and service a quality product,which is most economical, most useful, and always satisfactory to the consumer. To meetthis goal, everyone in the company should participate in and promote quality control,including top executives, all divisions within the company, and all employees (Ishikawa,1985). According Ishikawa, TQM is not limited to the quality department but involves alldepartments within the business organization and it stresses a clear customerorientation both internal and external (Kruger, 2001). The Deming Management Modelhas been tested in both manufacturing and service industries and the founders of totalquality portrayed this management philosophy as universally oriented.

Contemporary service sector firms are compelled by their nature to provideexcellent service in order to prosper in increasingly competitive domestic and globalmarketplaces (Sultan and Simpson, 2000). As service firms find themselves in anincreasingly competitive and complex business environment, they are inevitablydriven to examine their service delivery processes critically. The focus of such internalanalysis is ultimately about customer satisfaction, and how bottom-line results can beactualized through delivering quality services to customers via flawless interfaceplatforms. This is not only the case in the private sector, but it also is increasingly so inthe public sector. Public sector firms are trying to make administration more efficientand more citizen-oriented (Scharitzer and Korunka, 2000).

Despite services being a large and important segment of the world economies theconcepts and practices of service quality are not as well developed as those ofmanufacturing quality (Douglas and Fredendall, 2004, Ghobadian et al., 1994). Theliterature reveals that service organizations are lagging behind their manufacturingcounterparts in terms of the effective use of TQM practices aimed at achievingorganizational objectives (Yasin et al., 2004). The views of the quality gurus (i.e.Deming, Juran, Taguchi, Ishikawa, Crosby, and Feigenbaum) are prominent in themanufacturing literature and they can be easily deployed for services. There have beenmany such attempts in recent years.

The theoretical foundations and methods of total quality, however, support its usefor both manufacturing and services. Although the literature addressing the totalquality management have been developed separately for products and service sectors,the founders of quality management reveal that quality concepts are universallyapplicable. In addition, quality awards have been established to generate awarenessand interest in quality improvement in both service and manufacturing sectors. Forexample, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards (MBNQA) program,established by the US Congress in 1987, includes seven categories that could be appliedto any organization, whether in manufacturing or services (Bell and Keys, 1998). Theseseven categories on which applicants are evaluated are: leadership, information andanalysis, strategic planning, human resource management, quality assurance ofproducts and services, quality results, and customer satisfaction (Stevenson, 2002).

Sustainingstructures of

TQS

391

Most organizations have, however, become enamored with the framework, vision,and techniques subsumed in the rubric of TQM, because of the results it has reliablyproduced in a variety of business environments. However, the contemporary literaturein regard to quality management tends to be overwhelmingly manufacturing oriented,as there are far fewer empirical studies regarding the service sector (Sureshchandaret al., 2001a). Because it is now well understood that the fabrication of products is quitedifferent than the delivery of services (Robinson, 1999), the concept of total qualityservice (TQS) has gained increased attention. TQS is often considered as having along-range perspective, implying that organizations embracing TQS can achieve therewards of their quality improvement initiatives only after many years of toil and hardwork (Sureshchandar et al., 2003).

In brief, TQS is TQM applied in service organizations. However, it is also much morethan that, because of the complex implementation issues surrounding service delivery,as well as the increased number of variables involved in such delivery. Services differfrom manufacturing goods on a number of dimensions: service intangibility,simultaneity of production, delivery and consumption, perishability, variability ofexpectations of customers, and the participatory role of the customers in the servicedelivery (Sureshchandar et al., 2001b). Measuring the quality of service outputs is oftenmore difficult than measuring the quality of a good, because services are abstract ratherthan concrete, transient rather than permanent, and psychological rather than physical(Meredith and Shafer, 2002). Hence, because of the increased complexity regardingmeasuring service rather than manufacturing quality, TQM cannot be said to be purelysynonymous with TQS. Rather, a more malleable framework is needed to account forthe intricacies of service delivery effectively in a variety of business settings. TQMconcepts including the Deming management model does not measure customersatisfaction directly but they are relevant in developing a visionary leadership structureand organizational culture which are very important for quality service. This researchwill incorporate TQM concepts with SERVQUAL, a widely used customer satisfactioninstrument in developing sustaining structures for total quality services.

The SERVQUAL instrumentThe notion of service quality has produced considerable debate with regard to definingit as well as measuring it, with a lack of emerging consensus. The instrument that hasbecome most prominent in attempting to operationalize service quality is the gapmodel of service or SERVQUAL (van der Wal et al., 2002; Wisniewski, 2001).Parasuraman et al. (1985) developed a conceptual framework for the SERVQUALmodel to measure consumer perceptions of service quality and later refined the model.

Although this model was originally developed for application within the financialservices sector, it has been deployed to measure those components of services thatgenerate satisfaction in other service sectors such as telecommunications, healthcareand hospitality (Curry and Sinclair, 2002; van der Wal et al., 2002; Sultan and Simpson,2000; Saleh and Ryan, 1991). SERVQUAL assumes that service quality is criticallydetermined by the disparity between the expectations and perceptions of the customer,and the service actually delivered (Curry and Sinclair, 2002; Ninichuck, 2001). TheParasuraman et al. (1988) study refined the model and has five dimensions: tangibles,reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy.

MSQ15,4

392

In recent years, SERVQUAL has frequently been used to measure customersatisfaction (Harvey, 1998; Curry and Sinclair, 2002; van der Wal et al., 2002; Gabbie andONeill, 1997). Researchers support the continued use of SERVQUAL to measurecustomer satisfaction, although they recommend that more work is needed to improve itsscales (Eastwood et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2004; Landrum and Prybutok, 2004; Kettingerand Lee, 1999). SERVQUAL is based on the underlying premise that service quality canbe defined as the extent to which a service meets a customers needs or expectations.Thus, service quality can be operationally defined as the difference between customerexpectations of service and perceptions of actual service delivery (Wisniewski, 2001).Service quality is critical because such failure by management to interpret customerdesires accurately can result in loss of business and possible bankruptcy for some(Gabbie and ONeill, 1997). Many previously developed tools have tended to focusexclusively on customer perceptions of service, measuring what the customer thinks ofpresent service delivery. SERVQUAL is seen as superior, because it also focuses on anadequate understanding of customer expectations. However, comprehending theexpectations of customers is not an easy task, because often consumers either do notreally know what they want, or do not tell you directly what they want (Lim and Tang,2000). This is all the more reason to utilize a valid instrument such as SERVQUAL tofocus on capturing the functional aspects of quality management in service firms.

Although models explicating the essential elements of TQS will differ, consensus onthe importance of TQS as a practical framework certainly exists. Thus, the question ofhow one effectively implements, monitors, and maintains TQS in a firm is crucial. Arethere specific elements of the organizational environment that support the realization andpreservation of TQS in all crucial processes of the business? Moreover, are there certainsustaining structures that buttress the TQS philosophy and make the implementationof such run smoothly? In this context, sustaining structures refer to underlying,intangible constructs of the business, which substantially facilitate the delivery of TQS tothe customer. It would logically appear that certain key business elements related to thehuman factors of the enterprise would play a prominent role in achieving a TQSenvironment, because service delivery by its very nature is concerned with the intricaciesof human interactions. The quality of the leadership team, the commitment of theorganization as a gestalt, and the encompassing organizational culture would all appearto be crucial elements in attaining a fully functional TQS environment.

Visionary leadership, organizational culture and employee commitmentVisionary leadership is core to the Deming management model and leadership isessential in order to create a service organization that has both internal and externalcooperation (Douglas and Fredendall, 2004). Demings system of profoundknowledge emphasizes the need for a lifetime of dedication to the field of qualitymanagement and it is in reality a complex set of interactions that requires a precise fitto an organization, and the individuals that constitute that organization (Gapp, 2002).Literature suggests that system of profound knowledge to be successful leadership andmanagement styles should play a profound role. The system of profound knowledge isholistic in that the various components interact with one another and, therefore,cannot be separated (McNary, 1999, p. 20). McNary further discusses severaldistinctive differences between Deming and non-Deming managers. Deming

Sustainingstructures of

TQS

393

managers will create a more favorable leadership style and an organizational culture toachieve service quality than non-Deming managers (McNary, 1999).

Deming managers will support holistic thinking that will support sustainingstructures, which ultimately increase customer satisfaction through high levels ofquality management programs. Visionary leadership is very important in developingholistic organizational cultures and gaining employee commitment. Kanter (1983, p. 28)is concerned about the consequences of the absences of a visionary leadership, Thelack of holistic thinking has ultimately created a segmentalist organisational culturethat has proven to be dysfunctional because of its inability to respond quickly tochanges and its obstruction of creativity that impedes improvement and innovation.Boerstler et al. (1996) observed that hospitals that ranked high on employeeparticipation, teamwork, and an adaptable, flexible culture were most successful in thequality management initiatives. Employee commitment is essential for service quality.Employee commitment can be gained through effective communication, training anddevelopment, and employee motivation. Service quality literature recognizes thatemployee cooperation and commitment can be gained through well-managed humanresource programs. Distinctive items that should be included in such human resourceprograms are communications, training, recognition of support for quality objectives,and employee satisfaction (Cook and Verma, 2002).

Anderson et al. (1994) observe that employee commitment can be measured by jobsatisfaction and pride in their work. Sureshchandar et al. (2001a, b) suggest that firmsmust focus on employee job satisfaction because there is a high association betweenemployee perceptions of well-being and the customers perception of service quality.Increased employee relations and satisfaction will lead to successful qualityimplementations in the service sector.

TQS is TQM, the same continuous-improvement process requiring the same kindsof leadership, measurement tools and organizational culture (Karen, 1997). The onlydifference is that the product delivered to the customer is a service rather than amanufactured object and customer satisfaction is the ultimate goal in both cases(Karen, 1997).

Sustaining structures of the TQS modelThis research developed three major constructs from the review of literature of servicequality: organizational culture, leadership and employee commitment. Therelationships between these constructs and service quality are displayed in Figure 1.

Figure 1.Model of total qualityservice

MSQ15,4

394

This model focuses on customer needs and expectations. The firm should gain anunderstanding of customer needs and expectations before designing andimplementation of services quality improvements. The firm then should establishsustaining structures for organizational culture, leadership and employee commitment,which are the building blocks of a good total quality service program. Customersatisfaction and expectations are attitudes and they can easily be changed underdifferent circumstances. Thus, the model exhibits a two-way flow between customerneeds and expectations and the three constructs. This model highlights the feedbackloop that affects the three constructs. A well-established leadership system, anorganizational culture and a team of committed employees will lead to improvedbusiness processes. Improved business processes will result in improvements inservice quality. This can be an improvement in service performance outcomes orcost-based values. Finally, improved levels of service quality will lead to high levels ofcustomer satisfaction.

HypothesesIn this section, we observe the relationships between the constructs and develop threehypotheses regarding some underlying structures that support total quality service:

H1. The effective implementation and sustainment of TQS will be positivelycorrelated with an organizational culture that is pervasively quality focused.

H2. Effective TQS will be positively correlated with a strong, strategic-mindedleader or leadership team.

H3. Effective TQS deployment and maintenance will be positively correlated witha total commitment from all employees of the firm.

This paper will critically examine TQS in the context of the above explicatedhypotheses, and conclusions will be drawn that contribute to a better understanding ofthe under girding structures of TQS.

Organizational culture and TQSThe term organizational culture refers to a system of shared values and beliefs thatgives identity to members of a group. Culture in places of work is important instabilizing and making sense out of the social system, as well as generatingcommitment beyond oneself to the organization as a whole. It is the soft foundation onwhich the firm is built. Many researchers have attempted to understand the effects oforganizational culture on the delivery of quality services. Maull et al. (2001) maintainthat the organizational culture construct is a primary condition for the successfulimplementation of quality management. They have examined culture both assomething that is an objective, tangible phenomenon injected as a transformingintervention into the organization, and as something that is created by and becomesone with the essential fabric of the organization itself. Firms that have culturessupportive of strategy are likely to be successful, while businesses that have aninsufficient fit between strategy and culture must adapt, because organizationalculture plays such a central supporting role in the creation of viable strategic objectives(Maull et al., 2001).

Sustainingstructures of

TQS

395

To practice quality control is to develop, design, produce and service a qualityproduct, which is most economical, most useful, and always satisfactory to theconsumer. To meet this goal, everyone in the company must participate in and promotequality control, including top executives, all divisions within the company, and allemployees (Ishikawa, 1985).

Sureshchandar et al.(2001a, b) suggest that culture significantly affects servicepre-eminence, because it enables people to adopt a common vision of the organizationand its goals, and it aligns various organizational functions towards a shared target,thereby ensuring seamless processes that contribute to the overall delivery of highquality service. Just as important, Sureshchandar et al.(2001a, b) argue that, in serviceorganizations, there is a very frail and permeable layer between the organizationsemployees and the customers that they serve. Thus, a firm characterized by thequalities of reliability, responsiveness, and empathy within the relationships offront-line employees and managers will be much more likely to manifest those traits toexternal customers, in such a way that the patrons will perceive them as genuine in thedisplay of such characteristics. In a separate study, Sureshchandar et al. (2002)concluded that the soft issues of TQS seem to be more useful than do hard issues inpositively influencing customer-perceived service quality. Very prominent among thesoft issues was the pervasive infusion of a service-focused organizational culture.Leveraging such a means of influencing customer perception is essential, when oneconsiders that a service firms fiscal health and longevity is largely based on howclientele perceive their business interactions with the organization.

Leadership involvement and TQSLeading is one of the primary functions of management, but the complexities ofleadership as a theoretical concept continue to elude scholars. The magnitude ofstrategic leadership appears to be increasingly significant among high caliber firms,because it is leadership that establishes and transmits to all employees the overarchingdirection of the organization. All other company plans and activities flow from thisarticulated vision. Sureshchandar et al.(2001a, b) suggest that top managementcommitment to TQS is a prerequisite for effective and successful implementation ofhigh quality services. Visionary leadership with a clear understanding of the conceptsof service satisfaction, quality, and values is needed to stimulate the entire organizationtoward accomplishing a TQS vision. Because of increased competition in serviceindustries, leadership efforts consume a greater share of top managements time andeffort, particularly in the start-up phase of a business venture. Awareness, knowledge,and understanding of basic TQS principles are prerequisites for top executives incommitting to service quality improvement (Nwabueze, 2001).

Tsang and Antony (2001) likewise submit that supervisory leadership sets thefoundation for the implementation of TQS in an organization. If one assumes a TheoryY view of employee motivation (Fatt, 2002), then it follows that intrinsic motivation isfortified by providing employees with equilibrium of freedom, support, andencouragement to do their jobs. Among other things, effective leadership requirestop management to articulate values and beliefs to employees, develop clear andeffective strategies for achieving company objectives, and empower employees toexecute processes critical for supporting these objectives.

MSQ15,4

396

Burke (2001) conducted an exploratory study examining organizational correlatesof service quality. Among those variables studied was the quality of supervision.Burke (2001) argues that leaders should have extensive knowledge of customercharacteristics and expectations, and thus managers in service firms shouldcontinuously think how activities in which they are involved will strategicallyimpact customer service. In this manner, company executives should be activelyinvolved in the recruitment, hiring, training, and appraisal of front-line serviceworkers. Results of the investigative study demonstrated that quality of supervisionhad direct effects on reducing barriers to service, and increasing supports for service,job satisfaction, and quality of services (Burke, 2001). Thus, not only did organizationalleadership have a reinforcing effect on pro-customer behaviors exhibited by front-lineemployees, but it also was instrumental in neutralizing hindrances to the effectivedelivery of TQS.

Zineldin (2000) indicates that present day managers should ensure that everyemployee in all parts of the organization places top priority on continuousimprovement of customer-driven quality. Under the paradigm of total relationshipmanagement (TRM), the firm focuses on all integrated activities within theorganization, including internal and external relationships with employees,customers, and collaborators. Collaborators may include bankers, trade unions,politicians, or various public bodies, which do not directly interact with theorganization around core technology business functions, but which provide importantancillary resources to the enterprise as a whole. Thus, the main philosophy behind thisholistic approach to company relationships is to facilitate, create, develop, enhance, andcontinuously improve appropriate and advantageous internal and externalrelationships (Zineldin, 2000). The main goal is to deliver services with an adequatelevel of functional and technical quality, adequate price, and fast response times, whileallowing the firm to realize targeted short and long term profits, growth, andcompetitive advantage (Zineldin, 2000). It is therefore incumbent upon the leadership ofthe organization to inspire employees and hold them accountable for utilizing TRM asa tool to achieve a genuine TQS environment.

Employee commitment and TQSAs opposed to historically hierarchical corporate structures, modern workenvironments are increasingly characterized by flat organizational charts, withefforts made to increase collaboration across company boundaries. Many firms areshifting toward a team-based environment, where employees are encouraged, if notrequired, to participate actively in service design as well as delivery. Uppermanagement is learning the value of utilizing all the human resources at its disposalfor the purposes of innovation, increasing organizational efficiency throughoutessential work processes, and problem solving to overcome barriers to topperformance. A total commitment from all employees toward company objectives ishighly desirable.

Geralis and Terziowski (2003) have conducted research on employee empowermentpractices as they are related to service quality. Empowerment is based on a Theory Yconceptualization (Fatt, 2002), which assumes that all of the employees of the firm havean underlying desire, if appropriately tapped, to produce good quality work and takepride in that service delivery to customers. Empowerment strategies thus seek to

Sustainingstructures of

TQS

397

motivate employees by appropriately authorizing them with the autonomy toaccomplish important organizational tasks. This is essentially a decentralizationstrategy, which frees managers by relying heavily on the skills and decision-makingabilities of their subordinates to get essential work done, without a lot of excessivemonitoring by management. Geralis and Terziowski (2003) utilized quantitativeanalysis to find that empowerment practices have a favorable effect on employee wellbeing, productivity, performance, and service quality. This suggests a connectionbetween employee satisfaction, trust in internal firm relationships, and the emergenceof a TQS environment.

Sureshchandar et al. (2001a, b) argue that it is indispensable for serviceorganizations to look on human resource management as a source of competitiveadvantage. Although firms may be tempted to invest heavily in technology as a meansof gaining an advantage, in service settings, they must remember that it is theinteraction between the service provider and the customer that eventually determinesthe quality perceptions and satisfaction of the consumer. Customers often equateemployees with the service they are delivering. As employees are treated as valuableresources by their employers, they will, in turn, treat their customers as valuable andevolve into a committed workforce who is prepared to give their best towardaccomplishing organizational goals. Sureshchandar et al. (2001a, b) conclude thatemployee involvement in quality improvement efforts is vital for effective TQSimplementation.

Hopkins (2002) examined organizational citizenship in social science serviceagencies. Organizational citizenship behaviors were defined as extra-role activities thatare not formally required by the job, but that clearly benefit both the organization andits clients. These kinds of employee behaviors not only demonstrate a desire to goabove and beyond the call of duty to satisfy the customer, but they are also crucial formany organizations needing to maximize business results with fewer availableresources. The findings of her research demonstrate that workers reports oforganizational support, developmental experiences, and quality of work performanceand professional education were positively related to workers citizenship behavior(Hopkins, 2002). This would suggest that an organization, which invests in humancapital and seeks to support its staff, benefits by eliciting increased motivation fromworkers to focus on the needs of its patrons.

ConclusionThe model of TQS has become increasingly relevant in modern service firms, becauseit focuses on rigorously analyzing and continuously improving customer-orientedservice processes. The ultimate ends of the TQS philosophy are the achievement ofshort and long term financial goals, the realization of increased market share, and thecreation a sustainable competitive advantage. TQS is a comprehensive methodology,which engages crucial elements of the firm toward a vision of delivering increasinglyhigh quality services to consumers. It was hypothesized that a quality focusedorganizational culture, a strategically inclined leadership team, and a fully committedemployee population, as sustaining structures of TQS, would be positively correlatedwith the achievement and preservation of a TQS environment. The contemporaryliterature supports these three hypotheses, and it suggests that the human issuesinvolved with service delivery appear to be the best predictors of whether a TQS

MSQ15,4

398

environment will flourish within a given organization. Within the literature, thereappears to be an underlying theme that professional camaraderie, trust, andinterdependence among employees set the stage for superior service delivery. In thefuture, service firms must learn how to harness these soft issues in order to survive,and even thrive, in the prevailing markets.

An important contribution of the current research is the incorporation of TQMmodels, especially the Deming management model and the SERVQUAL instrument fordoing research in service quality. Literature suggests that it is important forresearchers to incorporate the variables in the Deming management model into theirresearch about service quality as previous research observes that the Demingmanagement model is as applicable to services as it is to manufacturing. TheSERVQUAL criteria better serve the quality implementations in organizations.Incorporation of these two models will give an important message to managers:visionary leadership will be directly involved in all aspects of quality programs. Thisresearch developed a model for TQS based on three major constructs: leadershipinvolvement, organizational culture, and committed employees. Future research willempirically validate the use of the Deming management model, combined with theSERVQUAL instrument in the service quality research. That will be the next step ofthe current research.

References

Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994a), Customer satisfaction, market share,and profitability: findings from Sweden, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 53-66.

Bell, R. and Keys, B. (1998), A conversation with Curt W. Reimann on the background andfuture of the Baldrige award, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 51-61.

Boerstler, H., Foster, R., OConnor, E., OBrien, J., Shortell, S., Carmen, J. and Hughes, E. (1996),Implementation of total quality management: conventional wisdom versus reality,Hospital & Health Services Administration, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 143-59.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2002), Current Employment Statistics Survey (National),US Department of Labor, Washington, DC.

Burke, R.J. (2001), Supervision and service quality, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 4,pp. 28-31.

Cook, L.S. and Verma, R. (2002), Exploring the linkages between quality system, service quality,and performance excellence: service providers perspectives, Quality ManagementJournal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 44-56.

Curry, A. and Sinclair, E. (2002), Assessing the quality of physiotherapy services usingSERVQUAL, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 15 Nos 4/5,pp. 197-205.

Douglas, T.J. and Fredendall, L.D. (2004), Evaluating the Deming management model of totalquality in services, Decision Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 393-423.

Eastwood, D.B., Brooker, J.R. and Smith, J.D. (2005), Developing marketing strategies for greengrocers: an application of SERVQUAL, Agribusiness, Vol. 21 No. 1.

Fatt, J.P.T. (2002), When business can be fun, Management Research News, Vol. 25 No. 1,pp. 39-49.

Gabbie, O. and ONeill, M. (1997), SERVQUAL and the Northern Ireland hotel sector:a comparative analysis part 2, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 43-9.

Sustainingstructures of

TQS

399

Gapp, R. (2002), The influence the system of profound knowledge has on the development ofleadership and management within an organization, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 17No. 6, pp. 338-42.

Geralis, M. and Terziowski, M. (2003), A quantitative analysis of the relationship betweenempowerment practices and service quality customers, Total Quality Management &Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 45-62.

Ghobadian, A., Speller, S. and Jones, M. (1994), Service quality: concepts and models,International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 9, pp. 43-66.

Harvey, J. (1998), Service quality: a tutorial, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 5,pp. 583-97.

Hopkins, K.M. (2002), Organizational citizenship in social science service agencies,Administration in Social Work, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 1-15.

Ishikawa, K. (1985), What Is Total Quality Control?, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change Masters, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

Karen, A. (1997), Grant brings quality service principles to nonprofits, Grand Rapids BusinessJournal, Vol. 15 No. 12.

Kettinger, W.J. and Lee, C.C. (1999), Replication of measures in information systems research:the case of IS SERVQUAL, Decision Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 893-9.

Kruger, V. (2001), Main schools of TQM: the big five, TQMMagazine, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 146-55.

Landrum, H. and Prybutok, V.R. (2004), A service quality and success model for the informationservice industry, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 156 No. 3.

Lewis, B.R. (1989), Quality in the service sector a review, International Journal of BankMarketing, Vol. 7 No. 5.

Lim, P.C. and Tang, N.K.H. (2000), The development of a model for total quality healthcare,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 103-11.

McNary, L.D. (1999), Leadership in the new economic age: quality management and the revivalof leadership in organizational America, A Journal of Ideas, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 19-28.

Maull, R., Brown, P. and Cliffe, R. (2001), Organisational culture and quality improvement,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 302-26.

Meredith, J.R. and Shafer, S.M. (2002), Operations Management for MBAs, 2nd ed., John Wiley &Sons, New York, NY.

Moore, C.D. (1987), Outclass the competition with service distinction, Mortgage Banking,Vol. 47 No. 11.

Ninichuck, B. (2001), Service quality is the key to good business, Pest Control, Vol. 69 No. 9.

Nwabueze, U. (2001), Chief executives hear thyselves: leadership requirements for 5-S/TQMimplementation in healthcare, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 406-10.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), A conceptual model of service qualityand its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,pp. 12-37.

Robinson, S. (1999), Measuring service quality: current thinking and future requirements,Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 21-32.

MSQ15,4

400

Saleh, F. and Ryan, C. (1991), Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry using theSERVQUAL model, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 324-45.

Scharitzer, D. and Korunka, C. (2000), New public management: evaluating the success of totalquality management and change management interventions in public services from theemployees and customers perspectives, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 7,pp. 941-53.

Stevenson, W. (2002), Production and Operations Management, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,NY.

Sultan, F. and Simpson, M.C. (2000), International service variants: airline passengerexpectations and perceptions of service quality, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14No. 3, pp. 188-216.

Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2001a), A conceptual model fortotal quality management in service organizations, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12No. 3, pp. 343-63.

Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2001b), A holistic model for totalquality service, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 Nos 3/4,pp. 378-412.

Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2002), The relationship betweenmanagements perception of total quality services and customer perceptions of servicequality, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 69-88.

Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2003), The influence of totalquality service age on quality and operational performance, Total Quality Management &Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 9.

Tsang, J.H.Y. and Antony, J. (2001), Total quality management in UK service organizations:some key findings from a survey, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 132-41.

van der Wal, R.W.E., Pampallis, A. and Bond, C. (2002), Service quality in a cellulartelecommunications company: a South African experience, Managing Service Quality,Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 233-6.

Wang, Y., Hing-Po, L. and Yang, Y. (2004), An integrated framework for service quality,customer value and satisfaction: evidence from Chinas telecommunication industry,Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 325-40.

Wisniewski, M. (2001), Using SERVQUAL to assess customer satisfaction with public sectorservices, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 380-91.

World Bank (1991), The Challenge of Development, World Development Report 1991, OxfordUniversity Press, New York, NY.

Yasin, M.M., Alavi, J., Kunt, M. and Zimmerer, T.W. (2004), TQM practices in serviceorganizations: an exploratory study into the implementation, outcome and effectiveness,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 377-89.

Zineldin, M. (2000), Total relationship management (TRM) and total quality management(TQM), Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15 Nos 1/2, pp. 20-8.

Further reading

Anderson, J., Rungtusanatham, M. and Schroeder, R. (1994), A theory of quality managementunderlying the Deming management method, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19,July, pp. 472-509.

Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality Is Free, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Sustainingstructures of

TQS

401

Deming, W. (1986), Out of the Crisis, Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA.

Feigenbaum, A.V. (1983), Total Quality Control, 3rd rev. ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, p. 112.

Ishikawa, K. (1989), Introduction to Quality Control, JUSE Press, Tokyo.

Juran, J.M. (Ed.) (1988), Quality Control Handbook, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Kruger, V. (1998), Total quality management and its humanistic orientation towardsorganisational analysis, TQM Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 293-301.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991), Perceived service quality as acustomer-based performance measure: an empirical examination of organizational barriersusing an extended service quality model, Human Resource Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,pp. 335-60.

MSQ15,4

402