文献信息：
文
献
标
题
：Does quality management improve performance or vice versa? Evidence from the hotel industry（质量管理能否提高绩效，或反之亦然？来自酒店业的证据）
国外作者：Tarí J J,Pereira-Moliner J,et al
文献出处：《Service Business》,2017,11(1):23-43.
字数统计：英文 2283 单词，12593 字符；中文 4193 汉字
外文文献：
Does quality management improve performance or vice versa? Evidence from the hotel industry Abstract This paper has several aims: (a) to identify an empirical taxonomy of quality management (QM), (b) to assess whether more advanced QM hotels achieve better performance levels and (c) to analyse whether hotels with better performance levels have more advanced QM levels. This paper contributes to identify a taxonomy of QM in hotels showing the association between a particular level of QM and different performance dimensions. In addition, the paper sheds light on the possible selection effect in the hotel industry. The study finds that hotels with higher QM levels have better hotel guest satisfaction and employee satisfaction, efficiency and better business performance. It also shows that hotels with better performance levels develop QM to a greater extent. Accordingly, QM level is one factor among others that explain better performance levels in hotels. Also, good performance can facilitate the implementation of QM practices.
Keywords: Quality management; Performance; Cluster analysis; Selection effec; Hotel industry
1.Introduction
Quality management (QM) is a management system that includes a set of practices (leadership, people management, stakeholder focus, planning, information and analysis, process management and supplier management) for managing an organization (Dale 1999; Tari et al. 2007) that may have positive effects on performance in manufacturing and service companies. The effects of QM on firm performance and competitiveness have been extensively examined in the literature, but results are inconclusive. Although most scholars have found positive effects of QM implementation (Duh et al. 2012; Lee 2012; Lee et al. 2009; Molina-Azorin et al. 2009; Tari et al. 2014; Yunis et al. 2013), others have shown that organizations do not achieve any benefits from QM (Lo et al. 2011; Yeung and Chan 1998; Yeung et al. 2006). These mixed results suggest that more empirical studies about this relationship are needed. Most studies have examined this relationship using regression analysis, structural equation modelling or similar techniques in order to identify direct and indirect relationships between QM practices and performance in manufacturing and service organizations (Alonso-Almeida et al. 2015; Kaynak 2003; Prajogo 2005; Sila 2007; Tari et al. 2007; Yang 2006). A few studies have identified an empirical taxonomy of QM in the manufacturing and service industries and then examined its association with performance (Lee et al. 2009; Yeung et al. 2003) as a way of supplementing previous studies on direct and indirect relationship between QM practices and performance. In addition, although most previous studies have examined the effects of QM on performance, very few studies indicate a relationship in the reverse direction, namely as a selection effect, whereby firms with better performance levels are those companies that implement QM (Dick et al. 2008).
In the case of hotels, previous studies have examined the effects of QM on performance (e.g. Alonso-Almeida et al. 2012; Nicolau and Sellers 2010; Wang et al. 2012) although the hotel industry has been examined to a lesser extent than manufacturing organizations (Rubio-Andrada et al. 2011; Wilkins et al. 2007). In addition, to the best of our knowledge, there have been no studies on selection effects in the hotel industry. Therefore, new studies about these topics will be interesting to extend the knowledge about a taxonomy of QM and the selection effect to the hotel context. This paper has several aims: (a) to identify an empirical taxonomy of QM in the hotel industry, (b) to assess whether more advanced QM hotels achieve better performance levels and (c) to analyse whether hotels with better performance levels have more advanced QM levels. The contribution of this paper is, first, that it identifies a taxonomy of QM in hotels showing the association between a particular level of QM and different performance dimensions. Few studies have identified an empirical taxonomy of QM mainly in the hotel industry. Second, the paper sheds light on the possible selection effect in the hotel industry.
2.Literature review
2.1.Taxonomies of quality management and performance
The literature offers a number of classifications of levels of QM (e.g. Claver and Tari 2003; Lee et al. 2009; Yeung et al. 2003; Zhao et al. 2004). These studies examining an empirical taxonomy of QM have analysed manufacturing and service organizations, and they have shown that performance levels are enhanced at the different development levels of QM practices. In addition, some scholars have suggested the need for further studies analysing the association with business performance, especially in service industries. For example, Lee et al. (2003) showed that manufacturing and service organizations with
better QM system implementation have significantly better outcomes in customer and people performance. Yeung et al. (2003) identified four types of QM systems in manufacturing firms: undeveloped quality system, framed quality system, accommodating quality system and strategic quality system. The authors indicated that different aspects of organizational performance (efficiency, customer satisfaction and business performance) are improved at different stages of development of QM practices. Organizations develop their QM first by establishing a framed quality system which improves operations and reduces mistakes. This can lead to some operational benefits ‘‘but not lifting up the organizational performance as a whole. When they further develop their QM systems, they accommodate their QM system and achieves slight improvement […] but the overall organizational performance, especially marketing growth and financial gains, cannot be achieved until a strategic quality system is established’’ (Yeung et al. 2003). These studies on empirical taxonomies of QM have shown that organizations with a higher level of adoption of QM practices outperformed those with a relatively lower level of implementation of QM practices in customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, efficiency and business performance. In relation to customer satisfaction, the positive effect of QM on customers can be due to the fact that QM practices reduce complaints, encourage repeat purchasing and improve service quality (Alonso- Almeida et al. 2015; Casadesu´s and Karapetrovic 2005; Doeleman et al. 2014; Gustafsson et. al 2003; Lai and Cheng 2003; Lee et al. 2009; Sila 2007; Singh 2008). The literature has also found that QM in hotels may increase hotel guest satisfaction (Alonso-Almeida et al. 2012; Nield and Kozak 1999; Wang et al. 2012). Based on this previous literature review, the following hypothesis is suggested for the hotel industry: H1 The higher the QM level, the better the hotel guest satisfaction. H2 The higher the QM level, the better the employee satisfaction. H3 The higher the QM level, the better the efficiency.
H4 The higher the QM level, the better the business performance.
2.2.Selection effect
The previous review suggests that higher quality implies lower costs and increased productivity, which in turn gives the firm a greater market share and better competitive levels (Deming 1982; Evans and Lindsay 2002). Firms with a higher
level of QM may achieve customer and people satisfaction, process improvement and better supplier management (Alonso-Almeida et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2012; Lee et al. 2009). This facilitates an improvement of performance levels. In spite of this general idea about the benefits of QM practices, some scholars have also suggested that those firms with better performance levels are those implementing QM systems. Those studies have shown that the propensity to implement QM is higher in firms with better financial performance. For example, Heras et al. (2002) showed that firms with a better financial performance have a higher propensity to seek quality certification. Dick et al. (2008) also found a reverse attribution between quality certification and performance. This could be due to the fact that it is easier for more profitable firms to seek certification because they find
the cost easier to absorb than less profitable firms. The authors then indicated that better performance preceded quality certification. Prajogo and McDermott (2011) tested the difference between highand low-performing firms and found that high- performing firms show higher scores in quality performance. Prester (2013) also examined different practices in lower and higher performers and found the biggest differences in the adoption of QM practices, statistical process control, supplier certification and ISO 9001. High performers develop QM practices to a greater extent than lower performers, and then if lower performers want to catch up with the best performers, QM practices could be one way to help them to improve their performance. These ideas suggest that organizations with good financial performance can allocate more resources to develop QM practices. In other words, financial performance may influence QM (Dick et al. 2008).
This may be explained by a selection effect, that is, an ex-ante selection mechanism where better performing firms have a greater propensity to carry out quality practices. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no studies on the selection effect in the hotel industry, and based on the previous reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis: H5 The better the business performance, the higher the level of quality management.
3.Methods
The target population for this study was 3 to 5-star individual hotel establishments, including independent and chain-affiliated hotels, located in Spain. Spain ranks second in the world in terms of international tourism revenue and fourth in volume (UNWTO 2013). The census was achieved from the Hostelmarket Database. The size of the population is 4770 hotels (2417 3-star hotels; 2063 4-star; and 290 5-star). A structured questionnaire with closed questions was sent by post in two waves to the whole population between October 2011 and February 2012. A pretest was carried out with seven hotel managers, four representatives of hoteliers’ associations, one representative of an institute linked to quality issues in the tourism sector and one manager of a consulting firm specializing in hotel management and quality. In the introduction letter of the questionnaire, we indicated that QM questions should be answered by the person responsible for the QM of the hotel, while business performance questions should be answered by the hotel manager. This arrangement was proposed to avoid the common method variance caused by having only one respondent for all questions. 350 hotel managers answered, a 7.34 % response rate. The sampling error is 5.0 % for a confidence level of 95 %, and the least favourable situation of p = q = 0.5. 45.07 %
of the respondents were 3-star hotels; 47.61 % 4-star establishments and 7.33 % were 5-star hotels. The average size was 128 rooms and 260 beds. 41.6 % were chain affiliated and 58.4 % were independent.
4.Discussion and conclusions 4.1.Theoretical implications First, the study has identified a taxonomy of QM using four managerial systems (operative, information, strategic and technical) that could be used to measure QM levels in hotels or other tourism organizations in future studies. Second, the results show that QM levels may have positive effects on performance. This idea suggests that QM practices are one factor among others that explain better performance levels in some hotels. Third, the results also demonstrate that a selection effect is also possible in the hotel industry. This results increase our knowledge about the association between QM and performance showing that a higher performance can be a factor that facilitates the adoption of different management practices such as those related to QM. In this context, as very few studies have examined the selection effect, researchers could continue investigating the ways in which better levels of performance in organizations facilitate the implementation of QM practices. In this respect, this study reinforces previous research about the importance of QM in improving performance and complements these previous works showing that better performing hotels can more easily adopt QM practices. 4.2.Managerial implications
This paper also has implications for hotel managers. First, QM is more developed in hotels with a higher category and more rooms. This result could be due to the fact that this kind of hotel has more resources to invest in improving QM capabilities. Second, the QM scale employed in this study could be used as a check-list to identify strengths and weaknesses regarding the development of QM practices. This may help
managers to identify the areas where their implementation has been less effective, so that they would then invest their efforts in those areas in order to increase the QM level in their organizations. In addition, cluster analysis can be used as a guide to identify where the hotel is situated along the improvement spectrum in order to
inform decisions about which practices should be reinforced to improve its QM level. Third, managers should also understand that although good performance facilitates the development of several management practices such as those related to QM, when hotels go beyond the control and management of key activities and consider quality as a strategic tool and use more quality tools, they can achieve even better QM levels. This higher commitment to the quality practices may produce positive results related to efficiency (e.g. they can reduce errors and increase productivity), hotel guest and employee satisfaction (e.g. they can reduce customer and employee complaints, increase hotel guest and employee satisfaction, service quality will be more valued by hotel guests) and business performance (e.g. they can have positive effects on RevPAR). 4.3.Limitations and future research
First, the study has examined the association between QM and performance using a snapshot across a number of hotels. A longitudinal study could extend these results, making it possible to test whether or not hotels with a higher degree of QM achieve significantly better performance levels. In this context, qualitative studies of each QM level, supporting the current quantitative studies, could help in the development of understanding of each level and its association with performance. Second, the research has asked managers if they implement QM practices using perceptual data. Future research could include objective data about QM tools and techniques. Finally, the study has focused on the hotel industry and future studies could be extended to other service industries.
中文译文：
质量管理能否提高绩效，或反之亦然？来自酒店业的证据
摘要
本文有以下几个目标：（a）确定质量管理（QM）的实证分类法， （b）评估拥有更先进的质量管理的酒店是否实现更好的绩效水平；（c）分析 绩效水平较高的酒店是否拥有更先进的质量管理水平。本文有助于确定酒店质 量管理体系的分类，它显示了特定级别的质量管理与不同绩效级别之间的联系。此外，本文揭示了酒店业可能的选择效应。研究发现，质量管理水平较高的酒 店，其客户满意度、员工满意度和效率更好，其业务绩效也更好。这也表明， 绩效水平更好的酒店在更大程度上开发了质量管理。因此，质量管理水平是解 释酒店业绩水平的因素之一。此外，良好的绩效可以促进质量管理实践的实施。
关键词：质量管理；绩效；聚类分析；选择效应；酒店业
1. 引言
质量管理（QM）是一个管理系统，包括管理组织的一套实践（领导力，人 员管理，利益相关方重点，规划，信息和分析，流程管理和供应商管理）（戴尔， 1999；塔里等人，2007），这可能对制造和服务公司的绩效产生积极影响。质量 管理对企业绩效和竞争力的影响在文献中得到了广泛的检验，但结果是不确定 的。虽然大多数学者已经发现质量管理实施的积极影响（杜赫等人，2012；李， 2012；李等人，2009；莫利纳·阿左林等人,2009；塔里等人,2014；尤尼斯等人， 2013），其他人则认为组织没有从质量管理中获得任何好处（卢等人，2011；杨和陈，1998；杨等人，2006）。这些混合结果表明，需要对这种关系进行更多的实证研究。
大多数研究使用回归分析、结构方程模型或类似技术来检验这种关系，以便确定制造业和服务组织中质量管理实践与绩效之间的直接和间接关系（阿隆索·阿尔梅达等人，2015；卡纳克，2003；普拉约戈，2005；席拉，2007；塔里等人 2007；杨，2006）。一些研究已经确定了制造业和服务业质量管理的实证分类，然后研究了它与绩效的关系（李等人，2009；杨等人，2003），作为以往关于质量管理实践和绩效之间直接和间接关系的研究的一种补充。此外，尽管大多数以往的研究已经研究了质量管理对绩效的影响，但很少有研究表明其关系是相反的，也就是说，作为一种选择效应，具有更好的绩效水平的公司是那些实施质量管理的公司（迪克等人，2008）。
在酒店方面，以往的研究已经研究了质量管理对绩效的影响（例如阿隆索阿尔梅达等人，2012；尼古劳和塞勒斯，2010；王等人，2012），虽然酒店业 的审查程度低于制造业组织（安德拉 达金发等人，2011；威尔金斯等人， 2007）。另外，据我们所知，酒店业的选择效应还没有被研究。因此，关于这些主题的新研究将会有趣地扩展了关于质量管理分类学的知识和对酒店背景的选择效应。
本文有以下几个目标：（a）确定酒店业的质量管理的实证分类，（b）评估拥有更先进的质量管理的酒店是否实现更好的绩效水平；（c）分析绩效水平较高的酒店是否拥有更先进的质量管理水平。本文的贡献是，首先，它确定了酒店业质量管理的分类法，显示了特定级别的质量管理与不同绩效级别之间的联系。很少有研究确定了酒店业的质量管理的实证分类。其次，本文探讨了酒店业可能的选择效应。
2. 文献综述
2.1. 质量管理和绩效的分类
文献提供了许多质量管理水平的分类（例如克拉弗和塔里 2003；李等人， 2009；杨等人，2003；赵等人，2004）。这些研究了质量管理的实证分类法，分析了制造业和服务业组织，并且表明，在质量管理实践的不同发展水平上，绩
效水平得到了提高。
此外，一些学者还提出，需要进一步分析与业务绩效的关联性，特别是在 服务行业。例如，李等人（2003）表明，实施更好的质量管理系统的制造和服 务组织在客户和人员绩效方面取得了显著的成果。杨等人（2003）确定了制造 企业中的四种质量管理体系：未开发的质量体系，框架式的质量体系，适应性 的质量体系和战略性的质量体系。作者指出，在质量管理实践的不同发展阶段， 组织绩效的不同方面（效率、客户满意度和业务绩效）都得到改善。组织首先 通过建立框架式的质量体系来开展质量管理，从而改进运营，减少错误。这可以带来一些运营效益，“但不能提高整体组织绩效。当他们进一步发展质量管理体系时，他们可以适应他们的质量管理体系，并实现轻微的改善[...]，但是， 只有建立战略性的质量体系，才能实现组织的整体绩效，尤其是市场增长和财务收益”（杨等人，2003）。
这些关于质量管理实证分类的研究表明，在客户满意度、员工满意度、效 率和业务绩效方面，采用更高水平的质量管理实践的组织优于质量管理实践实 施水平较低的组织。在客户满意度方面，质量管理对客户的积极影响可能是由 于质量管理实践减少了投诉，鼓励重复购买和提高服务质量（阿隆索 阿 尔 梅 达等人，2015；卡萨德苏斯和卡拉佩特罗维奇，2005；多尔曼等人，2014；古斯塔夫松等人 2003；赖和程，2003；李等人 2009；席拉，2007；辛格，2008）。文献还发现，酒店的质量管理可能会增加酒店客户满意度（阿隆索 阿尔梅达等人，2012；尼尔德和科扎克，1999；王等人，2012）。在此基础上，对酒店业提出了以下假设：
假设 1 质量管理水平越高，酒店客户满意度越好。
假设 2 质量管理水平越高，员工满意度越好。
假设 3 质量管理水平越高，效率越好。
假设 4 质量管理水平越高，绩效越好。
2.2. 选择效应
以前的审查表明，更高的质量意味着降低成本和提高生产力，这反过来又 给公司带来了更大的市场份额和更好的竞争水平（戴明，1982；埃文斯和林赛， 2002）。质量管理水平较高的企业可以实现客户和员工满意度、流程改进和更好的供应商管理（阿隆索 阿尔梅达等人，2015；基姆等人，2012；李等人， 2009）。这有助于提高绩效水平。
尽管对质量管理实践的好处有这样的普遍看法，但一些学者也提出，那些 绩效水平较高的企业是实施质量管理体系的企业。这些研究表明，财务绩效较 好的企业实施质量管理的倾向更高。例如，赫拉斯等人（2002）表明，财务绩 效较好的公司倾向于寻求质量认证。迪克等人（2008）也发现了质量认证和绩 效之间的反向归属。这可能是因为，更有利可图的公司更容易寻求认证，因为 他们发现成本比不太盈利的公司更容易吸收。作者随后表示，在质量认证之前， 绩效更好。普拉约戈和麦克德莫特（2011）测试了高绩效和低绩效企业之间的 差异，发现高绩效企业在质量绩效方面表现得更好。普雷斯特（2013）还研究 了较低和较高绩效者的不同做法，发现在采用质量管理实践、统计过程控制、 供应商认证和 ISO 9001 方面的差异最大。高绩效者在更大程度上开发质量管理实践，如果低绩效者想要赶上高绩效者，质量管理实践可能是帮助他们提高绩 效的一种方法。这些想法表明，具有良好财务绩效的组织可以分配更多的资源 来开发质量管理实践。换句话说，财务绩效可能会影响质量管理（迪克等人， 2008）。
这可以通过选择效应来解释，即事先选择机制，其中绩效更好的公司更倾向于实施质量实践。据我们所知，目前还没有关于酒店行业选择效应的研究， 基于前面的推理，我们提出以下假设：
假设 5 业务绩效越好，质量管理水平越高。
3. 方法
这项研究的目标样本是位于西班牙的 3 至 5 星级的个人酒店机构，包括独立和连锁酒店。西班牙在国际旅游收入方面排在世界第二位，数量排第四位
（世界旅游组织，2013）。人口普查是由 Hostelmarket 数据库完成的。样本规模为 4770 家酒店（2417 家三星级酒店，2063 家四星级酒店和 290 家五星级酒店）。
2011 年 10 月至 2012 年 2 月期间，两次向全体人员发送了一封具有封闭问题的结构化问卷。这次的测试是由 7 家酒店经理、4 家酒店管理协会的代表、一家与旅游行业质量问题相关的机构的代表以及一家专门负责酒店管理和质量 的咨询公司的经理进行的。在调查问卷的介绍信中，我们指出，质量管理问题 应由负责酒店质量管理的人员来回答，而业务绩效问题应该由酒店经理来回答。这种安排是为了避免所有问题只有一个答复者而造成的共同方法差异。
350 名酒店经理进行了回复，回复率为 7.34%。抽样误差为 5.0%，置信水平为 95%，最不利情况为 p＝q＝0.5。45.07%的受访者为三星级酒店；47.61%的为四星级酒店，7.33%的为五星级酒店。平均规模为 128 个房间和 260 个床位。41.6%的为连锁附属酒店，58.4%的为独立酒店。
4. 讨论和结论
4.1. 理论启示
首先，本研究已经确定了使用四种管理系统（操作，信息，战略和技术）
的质量管理分类法，可以用来在未来研究中衡量酒店或其他旅游组织的质量管理水平。其次，研究结果表明，质量管理水平可能对绩效产生积极影响。这个想法表明，质量管理实践是解释一些酒店绩效水平较高的因素之一。第三，研究结果还表明，酒店业的选择效应也是可能的。这一结果增加了我们对质量管理与绩效之间关联的认识，表明更高的绩效可能是促进采用与质量管理相关的不同管理实践的一个因素。在这方面，由于很少有文献研究了选择效应，因此研究人员可以继续调查组织中更好的绩效水平如何促进质量管理实践的实施。从某种意义上说，本研究加强了以往关于质量管理在提高绩效方面的重要性的研究，并补充了之前的研究成果，表明绩效更好的酒店可以更容易地采用质量管理实践。
4.2. 管理启示
本文对酒店管理者也有影响。首先，质量管理在具有较高级别和更多房间的酒店中更为完善。这一结果可能是由于这种酒店有更多的资源来投资改善质量管理能力。其次，本研究中使用的质量管理标准可当作检查单，以确定质量管理实践发展的优缺点。这可能有助于管理人员识别其实施效果较差的领域， 以便他们在这些领域投入力量，以提高其组织的质量管理水平。此外，集群分析可以作为一个指南，以确定哪些地方的酒店需要改善，以及决定应该加强哪些实践来改善其质量管理水平。
最后，管理人员也应该明白，虽然良好的绩效有助于开发一些管理实践， 例如与质量管理相关的管理实践，但当酒店超越了关键活动的控制和管理，并将质量作为战略工具以及使用更多的质量工具时，它们可以达到更好的质量管理水平。对质量实践的更高承诺可能会产生与效率相关的积极成果（例如，可以减少错误和提高生产力），酒店客户和员工的满意度（例如，可以减少客户和员工的投诉，增加酒店客户和员工的满意度，服务质量更重视酒店客人）和业务绩效（例如，它们可以对 RevPAR 产生积极影响）。
4.3. 局限性与未来研究
首先，本研究通过多个酒店的快照来检查质量管理与绩效之间的关系。纵 向研究可以扩展这些结果，从而有可能检验拥有更高程度的质量管理的酒店是 否能显著地提高绩效水平。在这种情况下，对每一个质量管理级别的定性研究， 支持当前的定量研究，可以帮助理解每一个级别及其与绩效的关联。其次，本 研究已经询问了管理者是否使用感知数据来实施质量管理实践。未来的研究可 能包括关于质量管理工具和技术的客观数据。最后，本研究的重点是酒店业， 未来的研究可以扩展到其他服务行业。