Relationship between Organizational Commitment and EFQM ...kisi.deu.edu.tr/ozkan.tutuncu/Makale.pdf · Relationship between Organizational Commitment and EFQM Business Excellence

Relationship between OrganizationalCommitment and EFQM BusinessExcellence Model: A Study on TurkishQuality Award Winners

OZKAN TUTUNCU� & DENIZ KUCUKUSTA��

�Faculty of Business, Dokuz Eylul University, Center of Quality and Excellence, Izmir, Turkey; � �Center of

Quality and Excellence, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey

ABSTRACT Excellence models affect performance and help organizations achieve organizationalexcellence. Furthermore, organizational commitment is another concern of organizationalexcellence. The measurement of organizational commitment has become an important issue inTQM. In this respect, the extent to which employees are committed to what they are responsiblefor may directly influence the level of customer satisfaction with services and products. The mainpurpose of the study is to determine the relationship between an excellence model andorganizational commitment. In order to achieve this goal, a survey that contains Meyer & Allen’sOrganizational Commitment scale and EFQM Criteria are applied to Turkish Quality Awardswinners’ employees in 2004. Data obtained in the study have been analyzed at the level ofmultivariate data analysis and the results show that the relationship between organizationalcommitment and EFQM Excellence Model was significant. Findings suggest that leadership,partnerships and resources, policy and strategy, affective commitment, processes, results, peopledevelopment and involvement and continuance commitment are the determinants of theorganizational commitment and EFQM Excellence Model respectively. Theoretical and practicalimplications of the findings are also discussed in the paper.

KEY WORDS: Total Quality Management, organizational commitment, business excellence model,EFQM Award, Turkey

Introduction

In Europe, this interest in self-assessment was heightened with the introduction of the

European Quality Award (EQA), the quality award model most widely used in Europe

developed by the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM), in 1991,

Total Quality Management

Vol. 18, No. 10, 1083–1096, December 2007

Correspondence Address: Ozkan Tutuncu, Dokuz Eylul Universitesi, Isletme Fakultesi, Kaynaklar Yerleskesi,

35160 Buca, Izmir, Turkey. Email: [email protected]

1478-3363 Print/1478-3371 Online/07/101083–14 # 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14783360701594709

with the first winner in 1992. The EFQM was formed in 1988 by 14 leading European

businesses, and it encourages European businesses to improve competitiveness through

the use of TQM philosophy. Further details of the EQA are given by Conti (1993),

Hakes (1995), and Nakhai & Neves (1994).

The EFQM has provided a holistic model, termed ‘business excellence’ or the

‘excellence model’ (BEM), to facilitate such a purpose. The model and the associated

self-assessment process have given new direction to the quality movement and have

driven deep and lasting changes into participating organizations (Dale et al., 2000).

Many researchers have attempted to determine the factors that would assist describing

organizational commitment (OC), job satisfaction and, accordingly, a better organiz-

ational climate for organizational effectiveness and performance (e.g. Tutuncu &

Demir, 2002). There are some consequences of the surveys on organizational commitment

profits and/or social benefits. Excellence models affect performance and help organiz-

ations achieve organizational excellence. Furthermore, organizational commitment is

another concern of organizational excellence. The measurement of organizational

commitment has become an important issue in TQM.

Literature Review

EFQM Business Excellence Model

In 1999, the EFQM revised the model and made a noticeable switch in language from

TQM to organizational excellence. Nabitz et al. (1999) stated that the word ‘quality’

does not appear in either the sub-criteria or the areas to address on the revised model.

The EQA is now known as the EFQM excellence award.

The EFQM model comprises five ‘enabler’ criteria: leadership; policy and strategy;

people; management, resources and partnerships; and processes. It also comprises four

‘results’ criteria: customer satisfaction, people satisfaction, impact on society and key per-

formance results (EFQM, 2005). These criteria represent critical success factors and are

parallel to the TQM principles (Boynton & Zmud, 1984; cited in Kanji & Tambi,

1999). Criteria affect performance and help organizations achieve organizational excel-

lence (Oakland, 1999; Kanji & Tambi, 1999). The EFQM excellence model involves

nine criteria and the relative importance of these criteria is indicated by the criterion

weight structure (Figure 1). Research on the weight structure has been limited and this

is problematic regarding the use of the model because it raises the question of whether

or not it makes any sense to compare companies according to an arbitrary weight structure,

which has never been empirically tested (Eskildsen et al., 2002).

The criterion weights of the award models are important for the EFQM Excellence

Model as well as others (Lascelles & Peacock, 1996; Porter & Tanner, 1998; Conti,

1997). The logic behind this is that the award criterion has always been intended to be

instruments for comparing an organization with other organizations or to rate an organiz-

ation against a commonly-adopted scoreboard (Conti, 1997).

Peters (2000) noted that quality was seen as old-fashioned and was superseded, to an

extent, by the concept of ‘excellence’. Dale et al. (2000) also stated that people at the

centre of initiatives including self-assessment against the EFQM Excellence Model

often believe that their performance improvement initiatives are based on quality,

although they know little about the subject.

1084 O. Tutuncu and D. Kucukusta

The excellence model has evolved to be a framework that can incorporate several other

initiatives. Jeanes (2000) noted that every type of organization will be able to include any

one of the dozens of quality initiatives under the Model and he then went on to identify the

relevance of the Model to several initiatives and practices. This view was also supported

by Shephard (2000). Thus, while the Excellence Model provides an overall framework, it

presupposes that an organization has a number of established systems and initiatives to

deal with process and other operational issues. Morgan (2000) asserted that there are a

lot of parallels between Six Sigma and the Excellence Model and that both are comp-

lementary approaches.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is a long-studied topic by researchers (Angle & Perry, 1981;

Becker, 1960; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Reichers, 1985). Research has found commitment

positively related to job satisfaction (Mowday et al., 1982), motivation (Blau, 1988; Gunz

& Gunz, 1994; Mowday et al., 1979), and negatively related to absenteeism and turnover

(Aquino et al., 1997; Clegg, 1983; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986). Other issues include the foci

of commitment (Becker, 1992; Becker et al., 1996; Gordon et al., 1984; Gouldner, 1958;

Hunt & Morgan, 1994; Reichers, 1985); whether it is an attitude or a behavior (Jaros

et al., 1993); how to measure commitment (Meyer et al., 1989); and, most relevant to

this study, the multidimensional nature of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction are two of the most important work

attitudes examined in the work and organizational literature. Porter et al. (1974) defined

organizational commitment as the strength of an individual’s identification and involve-

ment with a particular organization, characterized by three factors:

(a) a strong belief in, and acceptance of, the organization’s goals and values;

(b) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization;

(c) a definite desire to maintain organizational membership.

Figure 1. The EFQM criterion weight

Relationship between Organizational Commitment and EFQM 1085

This definition combines both psychological and an attitudinal dimension (Maxwell &

Steele, 2003). Mowday et al. (1982) have suggested that gaining a greater understanding

of the processes related to organizational commitment has implications for employees,

organizations, and society as a whole. Employees’ level of commitment to an organization

may make them more eligible to receive both extrinsic (e.g. wages and benefits) and

psychological (e.g. intrinsic job satisfaction and relationships with co-workers) rewards

associated with membership. Organizations value commitment among their employees,

which is typically assumed to reduce withdrawal behaviors such as lateness and turnover.

Meyer & Allen (1997) state that organizational commitment is ‘a psychological state

that characterizes the employee’s relationships with the organization and it has impli-

cations for the decision to continue membership in the organization’.

According to organizational behavior theorists, organizational commitment consists of

three different types. It is believed that one type of commitment involves the employee’s

affective evaluation of the organization and this has been labeled as: affective commitment

(Meyer & Allen, 1997); psychological attachment through identification (O’Reilly

& Chatman, 1986); or involvement (Mowday et al., 1982). Another type of commitment

is reflected by an individual’s feelings of obligation to the organization and has been

termed: normative commitment (Meyer et al., 1989); moral commitment (Penley &

Gould, 1988); or internalization. A third type of commitment is reflected in the employee’s

evaluation of the costs and rewards associated with continued employment and has been

labeled: continuance commitment (Meyer et al., 1989); calculative commitment (Penley

& Gould, 1988); or compliance commitment (O’Reilly & Chatman,1986). In the study,

organizational commitment is measured by the Meyer–Allen Scale with the three

above-mentioned dimensions like affective, normative and continuance commitment.

Organizational Commitment in Business Excellence and TQM

Deming (1986) views employee commitment to quality work as central to a successful

TQM program. Commitment to remaining a member of the organization is crucial to

quality. TQM theory suggests that long-term employment contributes to quality in at

least two ways: it generates the kind of implied knowledge of operations that helps

improve effectiveness, and it helps the organization gain advantage from investments in

training (Brooks & Zeitz, 1999). Some researchers mention the importance of long-

term employment commitment from employees (Berry, 1991), although for others

employment longevity is only implicit. Treatments of Japanese TQM programs generally

are explicit in their emphasis on long-term commitment (McMillan, 1989).

TQM may have been misunderstood narrowly as a tool for quality improvement only.

There has been a movement from a ‘reactive’ to a ‘proactive’ quality management approach

(Slack et al., 1998; Dale, 1999). Many studies have investigated the effects of various quality

management practices on operational performance (Zhao et al., 2004; Choi & Eboch, 1998;

Samson & Terziovski, 1999), and quality performance (Anderson et al., 1995; Dow et al.,

1999), and business performance (Adam et al., 1997; Hendricks & Singhal, 1997).

It has been empirically verified that the application of holistic management models

such as The EFQM Excellence Model has a positive effect on corporate performance

(Kristensen et al., 2000). While it can be argued that the wide acceptance of business

excellence model slowed down the growth of the use of classical quality management

tools and techniques, it is more debatable that quality died or was totally eliminated


(Adebanjo, 2001). The move from the EFQM model to the European Business Excellence

Model seems justified but more explanation is needed (Sun et al., 2004).

The topic of business excellence has received considerable attention from academic

researchers and is well defined in the literature (Chin et al., 2003; Bemowski & Stratton,

1995; Conti, 1997; Coulambidou & Dale, 1995; Hakes, 1998; Lascelles & Peacock, 1996).

The search for excellence and dissemination of ‘best practice’ is the main philosophy and a

major function of the Business Excellence Model but many writers like Galloway (1996)

have difficulty in defining quality this way. It was also seen as addressing the needs of both

internal customers and stakeholders allowing the business to meet set goals and objectives

(Ritchie & Dale, 2000).

Some new models are developed for business excellence. One of them is Kanji’s (1998)

Business Excellence Model. Later, Kanji & Sa (2002) proposed the Business Excellence

Measurement System. The system is based on two core factors: leadership and organiz-

ational values. Business excellence is related to both quality performance and customer sat-

isfaction. Some empirical studies have addressed cause-and-effect linkages or correlations

among organizational performance measures (Evans & Jack, 2003). These include Norreklit

(2000), who examined the assumptions and cause-and-effect chain in the balanced score-

card; studies of the relationship between customer satisfaction, value and loyalty, organiz-

ational commitment and financial performance (Brandt, 2000; Anderson, Fornell &

Lehmann 1994; Bernhardt et al., 2000; Edvardsson et al., 2000); relationships between

employee attitudes and customer satisfaction (Tornow & Wiley, 1991; Hallowell et al.,

1996); and relationships between work environment and customer service as related to

financial performance (Wiley, 1991; Borucki & Burke, 1999); and relationships between

customer attitudes and market share/financial performance (Naumann & Hoisington, 2000).

Human resource management is also important to customer satisfaction as is strategic

planning to quality performance (Flynn & Saladin, 2001). Excellence models affect per-

formance and help organizations achieve organizational excellence (Kanji, 2002). Further-

more, employee satisfaction is another concern of organizational excellence. Organizations

should focus on internal customers as much as external customers. The link between

employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction has been verified empirically (Dahlgaard

et al., 1998). Eskildsen & Dahlgaard (2000) have developed a causal model for employee

satisfaction. Attention to the relationship between TQM implementation and employee com-

mitment is also under investigation by researchers. Brooks & Zeitz (1999) carried out a study

on the relationship between organizational commitments and TQM among healthcare staff.

The main purpose of the study is to determine the relationship between excellence

model and organizational commitment. The paper will focus on identifying the relation-

ships that create committed employees in the business excellence process. Therefore,

the first hypothesis of this study can be stated as follows:

H1: There is a correlation between OC and BEM.

Since the Business Excellence Model has been previously proved to improve performance

and human factors is one of the main dimensions of it, enablers of BEM may influence the

employees of an organization more than the components of OC. Through canonical

correlation analysis, the following hypothesis is tested:

H2: BEM components are perceived as more important than OC components.


The search for excellence and dissemination of ‘best practice’ is the main philosophy and a

major function of the Business Excellence Model, but many writers, such as Galloway

(1996), have difficulty in defining quality this way. It was also seen as addressing the

needs of both internal customers and stakeholders, allowing the business to meet set

goals and objectives (Ritchie & Dale, 2000).

As one of the modern organization theories, the contingency approach suggests that

organizational structure is related to environment and technology (Duncan, 1972, 1973).

On the other hand, as one of the post-modern approaches, the population ecology approach

argues that the unit of analysis may be determined as organizations, populations or commu-

nities in any given area, as well as any single organization. According to Hannan & Freeman

(1977), any sub-level unit of analysis cannot perform an accurate research without conceiv-

ing a high level unit of analysis. According to the cultural differences, the perceptions of

respondents may vary towards dimensions of the dependent variables. The third hypothesis

concerning different value judgments is stated as:

H3: Affective commitment is perceived more important among other OC

dimensions.

According to Hofstede (2005) Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) is highly correlated with the

country’s emotional values. The study conducted among 56 countries showed evidence

that UAI is higher than other dimensions in Turkey. Therefore, his study stated that

Turkish people are emotional. H3 is constructed with this information in mind. Another

result of this state of being emotional, is that normative commitment scores are expected

to be lower. When we analyze the statements that constitute the normative commitment

dimension the items seem more concrete than the ones that constitutes the affective com-

mitment dimension.

Quality award studies were started in Turkey in 1998 by the Turkish Foundation for

Quality (KALDER). The criterion for quality award in Turkey is the same as the ‘Business

Excellence Model’. The model has some limitations for Turkey. These limitations are

determined in previous researches (e.g. Tutuncu & Dogan, 2004). It is identified that

the nine EFQM Business Excellence Model criterion groups were perceived as six

groups by the respondents. In other words, the results of criterion groups were perceived

as a single item instead of independent groups. This can be explained by the pragmatic

approach of the Turkish society.

Research Methodology

The data were obtained by administrating a structured-questionnaire survey. The question-

naire instrument consisted of three parts. The first part of the survey inquired about 18 state-

ments covering organizational commitment under three dimensions. The second part of the

instrument included 36 questions designed to measure the level of the employees’ percep-

tion levels on EFQM Excellence model criteria and presented statements such as ‘Leaders

motivate, support and recognize the organization’s people’. The reliabilities and validities of

both instruments (OC & EFQM) have been previously proved by other researchers. Since

the scales were to be used in Turkey, it has to be retested against validity and reliability.

The reliability and validity have been proved in recent studies (e.g. Tutuncu & Dogan,

2005; Tutuncu et al., 2005). Their reliabilities and construct validities have been confirmed.


A five-point Likert scale was used in this part, ranging from ‘definitely agree’ (1) to

‘definitely disagree’ (5). The final part involved six questions regarding basic demographic

characteristics of the respondents, such as ‘How old are you?’. The survey instrument was

pilot tested among 25 employees. The pilot results were used to improve the clarity and

readability of questions.

The study was carried out in three stages: population, data collection and data analysis.

According to the KALDER, five companies and institutions won EFQM Business Excel-

lence Award in 2004. All of them accepted to take part in the research. Approximately

9000 employees work in these organizations. As a result, multi-stage sampling was

used for the survey due to its efficiency. In total, 600 questionnaires distributed by the

researchers and 407 questionnaires were returned, with a response rate of 69%, which

is statistically acceptable for data analysis. Of these, two were eliminated due to

missing data. The data obtained were analyzed by using SPSS 13.0 and SAS 9.0 software.

Data analysis consisted of frequency distribution, descriptive statistics and canonical

correlation analysis within the multivariate data analysis.

Research Findings

Demographic dispersion and the profile of employees under the base of definitive statistics

are stated in Table 1. A total of 405 people have participated in the research.

The reliability tests have been implemented on the data. To increase the reliability coef-

ficient of the test, two data items have been taken out of study. As a result of the test, the

general Cronbach alpha of the data is found to be 0.98. This is within acceptable limits for

reliability analysis (Nunnaly, 1978).

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the survey results by the means of factor

averages of the independent variables and dependent variables. The mean values come

out between 1–5 numerical values (in reading Likert scale results, 5: strongly agree, 4:

agree, 3: neither agree nor disagree, 2: disagree, 1: strongly disagree).

In order to determine the relationship between two sets of variables, canonical correlation

analysis is used. Canonical correlation analysis is a multivariate statistical model that facili-

tates the study of interrelationships among sets of multiple dependent variables and multiple

independent variables. In this study, organizational commitment (OC) and business excel-

lence models (BEM) are specified as the set of dependent variables.

One of the dependent variables, OC, is measured by the Meyer–Allen Scale with the

three above-mentioned dimensions, affective, normative and continuance commitment.

There are six more dependent variables associated with the other dependent variable,

the business excellence model.

The level of significance of a canonical correlation generally considered to be the

minimum acceptable level for interpretation is the 0.05 level, which (along with the

0.01 level) has become the generally accepted level for considering a correlation

coefficient as statistically significant (Hair et al., 1984: 450). In this study, both canonical

correlations are statistically significant ( p , 0.05). In addition, multivariate tests such as

Wilk’s lambda, Pillai’s trace, Hotelling’s trace and Roy’s ger are also performed (Table 3).

The results of these tests also prove that both correlations are significant at the 0.0001

level. Redundancy analysis for the first and the second function is observed.

From the redundancy analysis, it is seen that the canonical R 2 of the first function is

0.5949 and the redundancy analysis for the second function produces a lower value, a


canonical R 2 of 0.0740. From the redundancy analysis, and the significance tests, the first

canonical function should be accepted. Table 4 represents canonical results of the depen-

dent and independent sets for both functions (variates).

Table 4 shows the canonical coefficients of the dependent variables (OC and BEM)

belong to the criterion set and three commitment measures and six components of the

business excellence model belong to the predictor set. Canonical function 1 has been

found to be significant from the significance tests and redundancy values. Function 2

Table 2. Descriptive statistics

N Mean Std. deviation

Continuance commitment 405 3.55 0.433Normative commitment 405 3.22 0.833Affective commitment 405 3.74 0.729Leadership 405 4.04 0.813Policy 404 4.06 0.736People 405 3.78 0.889Partners 405 4.10 0.664Processes 404 4.06 0.701Results 402 4.04 0.644OC 401 4.38 0.697BEM 401 4.06 0.899Valid N (listwise) 398

Table 1. Demographic dispersion

Number % Number %

Sex EducationFemale 126 31.1 High school 73 18.0Man 260 64.2 University 244 60.2Missing 19 4.7 Post graduate 70 17.3

Total 405 100.0 Missing 18 4.4Age Total 405 100.0

At 15 or younger than 25 29 7.2 Total working years26–32 138 34.1 0–2 89 22.033–42 133 32.8 3–5 108 26.743–50 62 15.3 6–9 133 32.851 and above 26 6.4 More than 10 years 55 13.6Missing 17 4.2 Missing 20 4.9

Total 405 100.0 Total 405 100.0Tenure (Present job)

Less than 1 33 8.11–5 102 25.26–10 75 18.511–20 47 11.621 and more 125 30.9Missing 23 5.7

Total 405 100.0


has not been taken into consideration since it is significant but has poor redundancy

percent with lower loadings.

In Function 1, both dependent variables (criterion set) have loadings exceeding 0.80.

This indicates a high correlation between OC and BEM and supports Hypothesis 1. The

examination of the loading values in the criterion set shows that OC (0.9162) has a

higher value than BEM (0.8275). When BEM factors and OC factors are taken together,

these factors have a stronger effect on OC.

All the canonical loading of the independent variables in the predictor set have positive

values. Leadership (0.8166), Partners (0.8089), Policy (0.7880) have the highest loadings.

These loadings show that Hypothesis 2 should be accepted where BEM variables are per-

ceived more important than the OC variables Affective Commitment (0.7691), Processes

Table 3. Canonical correlation analysis relating levels of dependent and independent set

Measures of overall model Fit for canonical correlation

Canonical function

Canonical

correlation Canonical R2 F Statistics Probability

1 0.7713 0.594 27.28 0.00012 0.2719 0.074 3.88 0.0002

Multivariate tests of significanceValue Approx. F

statisticsProbability

Wilks’ lambda 0.375 27.28 0.0001Pillai’s trace 0.668 21.72 0.0001Hotelling’s trace 1.548 33.31 0.0001Roy’s ger 1.468 36.71 0.0001

Table 4. Canonical results

Canonical function 1 Canonical function 2

loadings loadings

Criterion SetBEM-Business Excellence Models 0.8275 20.5615OC-Organizational Commitment 0.9162 0.4006Explained variance 76.2% 23.8%Predictor SetLeadership 0.8166 20.3190Policy 0.7880 20.1668People 0.6755 20.4994Partners 0.8089 20.1135Processes 0.7629 20.3176Results 0.6958 20.2854Continuance Commitment 0.6101 20.1755Normative Commitment 0.2162 0.1323Affective Commitment 0.7691 0.3641Explained variance 49.7% 8.4%Canonical Coefficient 0.7713 0.2720Redundancy R 2 59.5% 7.4%


(0.7629), Results (0.6958), People (0.6755), and Continuance Commitment (0.6101) have

the next highest loadings. Normative Commitment (0.2162) has the lowest loading, which

may mean that normative commitment has the weakest effect on dependent variables. The

BEM components have mostly had positive and strong impacts on BEM and OC. This also

supports Hypothesis 2.

From Table 3 it can be seen that affective commitment, among other OC components, is

perceived to be more important since it has the highest loading value (0.7691). According

to Hofstede (2005) emotional values are respected more than other factors. This study also

supports his findings. In other words, of the three factors – affective, normative and con-

tinuance – which constitute the Organizational Commitment (OC), affective commitment

is perceived to be more meaningful on the road to business excellence. This also supports

Hypothesis 3.

As far as OC components are concerned, normative commitment has the weakest

impact on the criterion set. When the items of the normative commitment are examined

it can be seen that they have rigid expressions. Business excellence, however, is based

upon voluntariness. Forceful structure in the organization, on the way to excellence,

conflicts with the voluntary spirit of the BEM.

In order to validate the canonical correlation analysis, a sensitivity analysis of the inde-

pendent set also has been made. Independent variables like leadership, partnership and

normative commitment have been deleted but there have not been significant changes

at the factor loadings. This analysis ensures the validity of the data.

Conclusion

The relationship between the enablers and the results criteria of the EFQM can also be

interpreted. The enablers of the study have more canonical loadings compared to the

results. One reason is the formulation of the results in the survey as a whole through a

questionnaire whose validity was previously proved, while the results in the EFQM

Model consist of four parts. Consequently, the strength of the relationship between

them is relatively low. On the other hand, process management is perceived to be more

important than results.

As a result, there is a strong relationship between organizational commitment and

business excellence. Normative commitment has a negligible role in this relationship.

Employees do not evaluate their level of commitment in relation to coercive structure

(normative) in the process towards business excellence. It would be possible for the organ-

izations to establish more effective quality systems by taking these evaluations into con-

sideration. Although there is a strong relationship between canonical criterion variables, it

is seen that business excellence criteria are more affected by the predictors, especially by

the independent variables of its BEM’s original measure. It can be seen from the study that

affective commitment is highly correlated with BEM factors, as it is perceived to be more

important than processes, results and people factors.

Management that wants to implement the business excellence model should also take

affective and also continuance variables into consideration, as well as the BEM’s

factor. From the analysis of criterion set interrelations, it can be said that organizational

commitment receives more input than BEM factors. In other words, any contribution

into Business Excellence will help the level of organizational commitment to increase.

The strong relationship between OC and BEM shows that organizations that implement


business excellence models should be aware of an organizational commitment that has a

supporting role for the successful implementation.

Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research

The results part of the excellence model is handled as one dimension. However, the results

are in four parts in the EFQM Model. Better results would be achieved if the evaluations

are made in four parts in the following studies. This research was conducted among all the

companies and institutions that won the EFQM Quality Award in 2004 in Turkey. This

study can be conducted among other countries that adopt the EFQM model. Moreover,

the EFQM model can be compared with other excellence models within the organizational

commitment context. The repetition of the research could ensure the reliability and the

validity of the data. Therefore, this research can be planned as longitudinal studies.

References

Adam, E. et al. (1997) An international study of quality improvement approach and firm performance, Inter-

national Journal of Operations and Production Management, 17(9), pp. 842–873.

Adebanjo, D. (2001) TQM and business excellence: is there really a conflict?, Measuring Business Excellence,

5(3), pp. 37–40.

Anderson, E. W. et al. (1994) Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from Sweden,

Journal of Marketing, 58(3), p. 53.

Anderson, J. C. et al. (1995) A path analytic model of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming

management method: preliminary empirical findings, Decision Sciences, 26(5), pp. 637–658.

Angle, H. L. & Perry, J. L. (1981) An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational

effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, pp. 1–14.

Aquino, K. et al. (1997) Integrating justice constructs into the turnover process: a test of a referent cognitions

model, Academy of Management Journal, 40, pp. 1208–1227.

Becker, H. (1960) Notes on the concept of commitment, American Journal of Sociology, 66, pp. 32–42.

Becker, T. E. (1992) Foci and bases of commitment: are the distinctions worth making?, Academy of

Management Journal, 35, pp. 232–244.

Becker, T. E. et al. (1996) Foci and bases of employee commitment: implications for job performance, Academy

of Management Journal, 39, pp. 464–482.

Bemovski, K. & Stratton, B. (1995) How do people use the Baldrige criteria?, Quality Progress, 28(5),

pp. 43–47.

Bernhardt, K. L. et al. (2000) A longitudinal analysis of satisfaction and profitability, Journal of Business

Research, 47, pp. 161–171.

Berry, T. H. (1991) Managing the Total Quality Transformation (New York: McGraw-Hill).

Blau, G. (1988) Further exploring the meaning and measurement of career commitment, Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 32, pp. 284–297.

Borucki, C. C. & Burke, M. J. (1999) An examination of service-related antecedents to retail store performance,

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, pp. 943–962.

Brandt, D. R. (2000) Linking measures of customer satisfaction, value, and loyalty to market and financial per-

formance: basic methods and key considerations, in: Proceedings of ASQ’s 54th Annual Quality Congress

(Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press).

Brooks, A. & Zeitz, G. (1999).The effects of total quality management and perceived justice on organizational

commitment of hospital nursing staff, Journal of Quality Management, 4(1), Retrieved April 15, 2005,

from Emerald database.

Chin, K. et al. (2003) Development of a knowledge-based self-assessment system for measuring organizational

performance, Expert Systems with Applications, 24(4), pp. 443–455.

Choi, T. & Eboch, K. (1998) The TQM paradox: relations among TQM practices, plant performance, and cus-

tomer satisfaction, Journal of Operations Management, 17(1), pp. 59–75.


Clegg, C. W. (1983) Psychology of employee lateness, absence and turnover – a methodological critique and an

empirical study, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, pp. 88–101.

Conti, T. (1993) Company quality assessment, Total Quality Management, August, pp. 237–242.

Conti, T. (1997) Organizational Self-Assessment (London: Chapman & Hall).

Cotton, J. L. & Tuttle, J. M. (1986) Employee turnover: a meta-analysis and review with implications for

research, Academy of Management Review, 11, pp. 55–70.

Coulambidou, L. & Dale, B. G. (1995) The use of quality management self-assessment in the UK: a state of the art

study, Quality World Technical Supplement, 9, pp. 110–118.

Dahlgaard, J. et al. (1998) Fundamentals of Total Quality Management (London: Chapman & Hall).

Dale, B. G. (1999) Managing Quality, 3rd edn (Oxford: Blackwell).

Dale, B. G. et al. (2000) Quality is dead in Europe – long live excellence – true or false? Quality Focus, 4(3),

pp. 4–10.

Deming, W. E. (1986) Out of Crisis: Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press).

Dow, D. et al. (1999) Exploding the myth: do all quality management practices contribute to superior quality

performance? Production and Operations Management, 8(1), pp. 1–27.

Duncan, R. B. (1972) Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty,

Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), pp. 313–327.

Duncan, R. B. (1973) Multiple decision-making structures in adapting environmental uncertainty: the impact on

organizational effectiveness, Human Relations, 26(3), pp. 273–291.

Edvardsson, B. et al. (2000) The effects of satisfaction and loyalty on profits and growth: products versus services,

Total Quality Management, 11(7), pp. 917–927.

EFQM (2005) The EFQM excellence model criteria. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www.efqm.org/Default.aspx?tabid¼40.

Eskildsen, J. K. & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2000) A casual model for employee satisfaction, Total Quality Management,

11(8), pp. 1081–1095.

Eskildsen, J. K. et al. (2002) Trends in EFQM criterion weights; the case of Denmark 1998–2001, Measuring

Business Excellence, 6(2), pp. 22–28.

Evans, J. R. & Jack, E. P. (2003) Validating key results linkages in the Baldrige performance excellence model,

Quality Management Journal, 10(2), pp. 7–24.

Flynn, B. B. & Saladin, B. (2001) Further evidence on the validity of the theoretical models underlying the

Baldrige criteria, Journal of Operations Management, 19, pp. 617–652.

Galloway, L. (1996) But which quality do you mean?, Quality World, 22, pp. 564–568.

Gordon, M. E. et al. (1984) The job satisfaction and union commitment of unionized engineers, Industrial and

Labor Relations Review, 37, pp. 359–370.

Gouldner, A. W. (1958) Cosmopolitans and locals: toward an analysis of latent social roles–II, Administrative

Sciences Quarterly, 2, pp. 444–480.

Gunz, H. P. & Gunz, S. P. (1994) Professional/organizational commitment and job satisfaction for employed

lawyers, Human Relations, 47, pp. 801–827.

Hair, J. F. et al. (1984) Multivariate Data Analysis (New Jersey: Prentice Hall).

Hakes, C. (1995) The Corporate Self Assessment Handbook (London: Chapman & Hall).

Hakes, C. (1998) Total Quality Management: The Key to Business Improvement (London: Chapman & Hall).

Hallowell, R. et al. (1996) Internal service quality, customer, and job satisfaction: linkages and implications for

management, Human Resource Planning, 19(2), pp. 20–31.

Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. (1977) The population ecology of organizations, American Journal of Sociology,

82(5), pp. 929–964.

Hendricks, K. & Singhal, V. (1997) Does implementing an effective TQM program actually improve operating

performance? Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards, Management Science, 43(9),

pp. 1258–1274.

Hofstede, G. (2005) Cultural dimensions resources. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www.Geert-hofste-

de.com/geert_hosftede_resources.shtml.

Hunt, S. D. & Morgan, R. M. (1994) Organizational commitment: one of many commitments or key mediating

construct? Academy of Management Journal, 37, pp. 1568–1587.

Jaros, S. J. et al. (1993) Effects of continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: an

evaluation of eight structural equation models, Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp. 951–995.

Jeanes, C. (2000) Death by a 1000 initiatives, Quality World, 26(5), pp. 24–25.


Kanji, G. K. (1998) Measurement of business excellence, Total Quality Management, 9(7), pp. 633–643.

Kanji, G. K. (2002) Business excellence: make it happen, Total Quality Management, 13(8), pp. 1115–1124.

Kanji, G. K. & Sa, P. M. (2002) Kanji’s business scorecard, Total Quality Management, 13(1), pp. 13–27.

Kanji, G. K & Tambi, A. M. (1999) Total quality management in UK higher education institutions, Total Quality

Management, 10(1), pp. 129–153.

Kristensen, K. et al. (2000) The excellence index as a benchmarking tool, in R. Edgeman (Ed.) First International

Research Conference on Organizational Excellence in the Third Millennium, Colorado, pp. 155–161.

Lascelles, D. M. & Peacock, R. (1996) SelfaAssessment for Business Excellence (Berkshire: McGraw-Hill).

Maxwell, G. & Steele, G. (2003) Organisational commitment: a study of managers in hotels, International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(7), pp. 362–369.

McMillan, C. J. (1989) The Japanese Industrial System (Berlin/New York: deGruyter).

Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1997) Commitment in the Work Place: Theory, Research and Application (Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage).

Meyer, J. P. et al. (1989) Organizational commitment and job performance: it’s the nature of the commitment that

counts, Journal of Applied Psychology, 17, pp. 717–733.

Morgan, J. (2000) Six sigma excellence, UK Excellence, 6, pp. 20–22.

Mowday, R. T. et al. (1979) The measurement of organizational commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior,

14, pp. 227–247.

Mowday, R. T. et al. (1982) Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and

Turnover (New York: Academic Press).

Nabitz, U. et al. (1999) EFQM’s new excellence model, Quality Progress, 32, pp. 118–120.

Nakhai, B. & Neves, J. (1994) The Deming, Baldrige and European Quality Awards, Quality Progress, 27(4),

pp. 33–37.

Naumann, E. & Hoisington, S. H. (2000) Customer Centered Six Sigma (Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press).

Norreklit, H. (2000) The balance on the balanced scorecard – a critical analysis of some of its assumptions,

Management Accounting Research, 11(1), pp. 65–88.

Nunnaly, J. C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn (New York: McGraw Hill).

Oakland, J. S. (1999) Total Organizational Excellence (Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann).

O’Reilly, C. A. & Chatman, J. (1986) Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of com-

pliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior, Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 71, pp. 492–499.

Penley, L. E. & Gould, S. (1988) Etzioni’s model of organizational involvement: a perspective for understanding

commitment to organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(1), pp. 43–59.

Peters, J. (2000) A quality philosophy, Measuring Business Excellence, 4(4), p. 6.

Porter, L. J. & Tanner, S. J. (1998) Assessing Business Excellence (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann).

Porter, L. M. et al. (1974) Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover amongst psychiatric tech-

nicians, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), pp. 603–609.

Reichers, A. E. (1985) A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment, Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 10, pp. 465–476.

Ritchie, L. & Dale, B. G. (2000) Self assessment using the excellence model: a study of practice and process,

International Journal of Production Economics, 66, pp. 241–254.

Samson, D. & Terziovski, M. (1999) The relationship between total quality management practices and

operational performance, Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), pp. 393–409.

Shephard, A. (2000) Total integration, UK Excellence, June, 40.

Slack, N. et al. (1998) Operations Management, 2nd edn (London: Pitman Publishing).

Sun, H. et al. (2004) The trajectory of implementing ISO 9000 standards versus total quality management in

western Europe, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 21(2), pp. 131–153.

Tornow, W. W. & Wiley, J. W. (1991) Service quality and management practices: a look at employee attitudes,

customer satisfaction, and bottom-line consequences, Human Resource Planning, 14(2), pp. 105–115.

Tutuncu, O. & Demir, M. (2002) Human Resources Management and Labor Turnover Analysis in Hotels (in

Turkish) (Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi).

Tutuncu, O. & Dogan, O. (2005) Analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction and EFQM business

excellence model: an implementation on Turkish quality award winners, 10th World Congress for Total

Quality Management, Winnipeg, Canada.

Tutuncu, O. & Dogan, O. I. (2004) Analysis of the relationship between total quality management and EFQM

business excellence model and an implementation in Turkey, Seventh International Quality Management

and Organizational Development (QMOD) Conference, pp. 657–671, Monterrey, Mexico, August 4–6.


Tutuncu, O. et al. (2005) An analysis of organizational commitment and job satisfaction among ISO 9001:2000

certified companies: an empirical study on hospitality industry, International Conference of Business, Econ-

omics and Management Disciplines, New Brunswick, Canada.

Wiley, J. W. (1991) Customer satisfaction: a supportive work environment and its financial cost, Human

Resource Planning, 14(2), pp. 117–127.

Zhao, X. et al. (2004) Quality management and organizational context in selected service industries of China,

Journal of Operations Management, 22, pp. 575–587.


Documents

Relationship between Organizational Commitment and EFQM ...kisi.deu.edu.tr/ozkan.tutuncu/Makale.pdf · Relationship between Organizational Commitment and EFQM Business Excellence