Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organizational theories: An empirical study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although much has been written about TQM, little attention has been paid to the potential effects of contextual factors on TQM and TQM–performance relationships. The use of organizational theory to formulate propositions regarding the effects of such factors is especially scarce in the TQM literature. This study uses institutional theory and contingency theory as the basis to test a number of such propositions. First, a model of TQM and organizational performance is developed. Then using survey data, the effects of five contextual factors – three institutional factors and two contingency factors – on the implementation of TQM practices and on the impact of TQM on key organizational performance measures are analyzed within a TQM–performance relationships model framework. The three institutional factors include TQM implementation, ISO 9000 registration, and country of origin, and the two contingency factors include company size and scope of operations. The results show that the implementation of all TQM practices is similar across subgroups of companies within each contextual factor. In addition, the effects of TQM on four performance measures, as well as the relationships among these measures, are generally similar across subgroup companies. Thus, for the five contextual factors analyzed, the overall findings do not provide support for the argument that TQM and TQM–performance relationships are context‐dependent. The implications of the study for managers and researchers, as well as study limitations, are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it