Organizational Culture Assessment

The Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence Framework Author: Masood Abdulla Badri; Selim, Hassan; Alshare, Khaled; Grandon, Elizabeth E; Younis, Hassan; Abdulla, Mohammed ProQuest document link Abstract (Abstract):   The purpose of this paper is to empirically test the causal relationships in the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) Education Performance Excellence Criteria. Using a sample of 220 respondents from 15 United Arab Emirates (UAE) universities and colleges, results of regression analysis and confirmatory structural equation modeling show that all of the hypothesized causal relationships in the Baldrige model are statistically significant. A comprehensive "measurement model" grounded in the Baldrige Performance Excellence in Education Criteria for the 33 items of measurement is developed, tested, and found to be valid and reliable. Leadership is identified as a driver for all components in the Baldrige System, including measurement, analysis and knowledge management, strategic planning, faculty and staff focus and process management. All Baldrige components (categories) are significantly linked with organizational outcomes as represented by the two categories of organizational performance results and student, stakeholder and market focus. The paper also tests the statistical fit of the only Baldrige model dealing with higher education, which was published in 1998 by Winn and Cameron. Links: Check for Full Text Full text:   Introduction Many researchers, encouraged by case study success stories, have called for evidence from large-scale studies on the effectiveness of quality management programs, such as the Baldrige Criteria ([47] Meyer and Collier, 2001; [7] Bigelow and Arndt, 1995, [8] 2000; [49] Motwani et al. , 1996; [30] Gann and Restuccia, 1994). The MBNQA has evolved from a means of recognizing and promoting exemplary quality management practices to a comprehensive framework for world-class performance, widely used as a model for improvement. As such, its underlying theoretical framework is of critical importance, since the relationships it portrays convey a message about the route to competitiveness ([27] Flynn and Saladin, 2001). It becomes imperative that the relationship between constructs be tested and validated. It is important because organizations allocate substantial resources toward improvement of their processes based on the relationships in the Baldrige framework. There are only a few studies that fully address Baldrige in the area of education. [25] Evans (1997) initially discussed MBNQA and institutions of higher education by relating it to learning and curriculum issues and identifying what higher education should be teaching based upon a survey of Baldrige Award winners. Using the findings of Evans study as a baseline, [80] Weinstein et al . (1998) identified an apparent gap between the Baldrige Award winners' perceptions and the current practice in higher education institutions. While developing a curriculum based upon Baldrige principles has received noteworthy attention, what is not readily evident within the literature is the actual application of the MBNQA concepts as part of the educational delivery process. [5] Belohlav et al. (2004) described how several faculty members in the Department of Management at DePaul University designed, developed, and delivered course material using the MNBQA framework both as part of the structure and as point in their individual classes. They concluded that end-of-term student evaluations indicated that the approach led to a higher level of student engagement in the learning process, as evidenced by more abundant and higher-quality feedback to the instructors. [70] Winn and Cameron (1998) examined the validity of the proposed relationships among the MBNQA

dimensions using data from higher education. They developed a survey instrument of the processes, practices, and outcomes of quality at a large Midwestern university in the USA. Through some psychometric tests, they indicated that the seven MBNQA dimensions are distinct constructs and are being measured reliably by the questionnaire items. To assess the validity of the framework's assumptions, three sets of regression analysis were conducted. The relationship between the leadership dimension and each of the four system dimensions was strong and statistically significant. They concluded that the assumed relationship between an organization's leadership and each of the quality process was definitely supported. Using structural equations modeling, the same authors proceeded to perform statistical analysis of MBNQA framework as a whole. They presented an alternative framework of relationships that took into account the lack of direct effects on quality and operational results from leadership, information and analysis, and strategic planning and the lack of direct effects on customer focus and satisfaction from leadership, information and analysis, and human resource development and management. The alternative model evidenced some acceptable goodness-of-fit with the data. While the Baldrige Award in education has captured the attention of decision makers, there has been little empirical research examining the usefulness of the award criteria to guide the actions of organizations that seek to improve performance ([32] Goldstein and Schweikhart, 2002; [1] Arif and Smiley, 2004). This research takes a step toward providing senior leaders in educational organizations with a valid means of making those decisions. The published Baldrige model (Education Criteria for Performance Excellence) ([54] NIST, 2004) is shown in Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. The general MBNQA theory that "Leadership drives the system which creates results" suggests that the performance relationships are recursive ([47] Meyer and Collier, 2001). When Baldrige quality experts defined the performance relationships among the seven categories, uncertain of the true direction of causation, they defaulted to the premise that all categories are related and used two-headed arrows among all Baldrige categories. We seek to add to the growing body of support related to the validity of the general Baldrige framework by examining it at the level of its theoretical constructs as it relates to the education industry in an international context. By moving beyond the specific criteria, we seek to examine the model in a larger context, as a theoretical model for quality management in higher education. We tested if there was empirical evidence that the relationships between the theoretical constructs held. To this end, we examined individual relationships between categories and overall relationships between categories when they acted as an integrated system. We hypothesized that the seven Baldrige categories were related in a recursive causal model and that the sign of each path coefficient was positive. So, for example, Leadership's direct effects in the causal model were represented in two ways: first, as the leadership score increased, the scores of the other dimensions of strategic planning, faculty and staff focus, student, stakeholder, and market focus, and process management increased as well; and second, as the leadership score increased, the organizational results dimensions scores should also increase. Leadership's indirect effects were represented by increases in the leadership score causing the organization results scores to increase through leadership's influence on the mediating dimensions in between. The award criteria were studied to determine if the Baldrige theory of relationships among the seven Baldrige categories were supported in UAE higher education institutions. The objectives of this study of Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence model were to: - develop a comprehensive measurement model, with associated constructs and scales, that accurately captured the content of the MBNQA-Education Criteria for Performance Excellence; - address whether the seven Baldrige categories represented a good model for higher education organizations (especially in the UAE); and - provide insight into the strength and direction of causation among the seven Baldrige categories. The insights gained from these objectives should contribute to the quality management, performance measurement, and education literature. While the seven categories and the associated structural (causal) model in the original and education criteria were similar, the specific measures addressed within each category

(i.e. the measurement model) were significantly different. For example, the original Baldrige Criteria ([50] NIST, 1995) most applicable to manufacturing defined the customer as the buyer of goods and services; however, the Baldrige-Education Criteria for Performance Excellence [54] (NIST, 2004) defined customers as the students, their families, communities, governments, and investors in students. Hence, the customer-driven measures used to develop the scales and measurement model for the Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence were different than the original Baldrige Criteria. The importance of the study The recent trends in decreasing financial support for educational institutions, increasing education costs, more local and global competition, changing students' expectations and backgrounds, and more engagement of students and communities in continuous lifelong learning require higher education institutions to do more with less. Under such pressure, administrators of these institutions should be concerned about the quality of their products. Thus, a solid theoretical model that helps them in managing the quality of education would be highly appreciated. Additionally, the importance of this study relied on the fact that it attempted to test the model at the theoretical constructs (items) rather than at the criteria level (dimensions), which validates the model in a broader context as a theory of quality management. Moreover, no study, to the best of our knowledge, has utilized the Baldrige Educational Criteria for Performance Excellence as a framework for studying quality management in educational institutions; especially, in a non-Western country; instead, researchers have used the original (business) Baldrige criteria. Even though the MBNQA framework acknowledged that educational criteria were built on the same seven dimensions (categories) used for the business criteria, it did not assume that the requirements of all organizations were necessarily addressed in the same way ([24] ECPE, 2005). The Baldrige criteria for Education project is dedicated to improve educational organizations across the nation by providing leaders with resources for improvement that will make a difference when implemented as designed. Moreover, as leaders continue to improve their understanding about making meaningful changes in their organizations, the wealth of resources and tools available to everyone will also improve. Review of literature In general, much of the published work on the quality aspects of higher education has concentrated on effective course delivery mechanisms and the quality of courses and teaching ([56] Oldfield and Baron, 2000; [3] Athiyaman, 1997; [11] Bourner, 1998; [17] Cheng and Tam, 1997; [46] McElwee and Redman, 1993; [57] Palihawadana, 1996; [63] Soutar and McNiel, 1996; [66] Varey, 1993; [72] Yorke, 1992). In particular, commentaries and case examples of quality initiatives appeared, but most authors focused on the applicability of quality principles and tools to the education setting ([18] Chaffee and Sherr, 1992; [61] Seymour, 1993; [62] Sherr and Lozier, 1991; [20] Cornesky et al. , 1991; [45] Marchese, 1993). More evidence has yet to be produced to confirm the effectiveness of quality programs and processes on desired organizational outcomes in higher education ([70] Winn and Cameron, 1998). Addressing this dearth was a key objective of this research. The MBNQA framework and the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model have become templates for most quality awards in many countries ([42] Mackerron et al. , 2003). These frameworks are widely adopted by organizations as a means of self-assessment to enhance performance. They represent an operational assessment tool for quality management practices. As indicated by the large number of criteria guidelines that have been distributed, many organizations use these criteria to assess their organizational quality. The applicability and usefulness of both MBNQA and EFQM models was evident from the vast empirical research that exist ([42] Mackerron et al. , 2003; [65] Stewart, 2003; [22] Da Rosa et al. , 2003; [31] George et al. , 2003; [41] Li and Yang, 2003; [16] Castka et al. , 2003). However, in this study, we will concentrate on the MBNQA Education Performance Excellence Framework, since it was the most popular model used at UAE institutions ([4] Badri and Abdulla, 2004). The seven dimensions in the MBNQA are hypothesized to have a particular relationship to each other, as illustrated in Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. Although the Baldrige criteria and framework are

widely accepted in practice, there is surprisingly little theoretical and empirical evidence of their validity ([28] Ford and Evans, 2000). Several studies presented empirical analyses of the original Baldrige Criteria in the manufacturing environment and provided evidence that the performance relationships observed in the Baldrige causal model were supported in US firms. Most recently, [71] York and Miree (2004) examined the relationship between TQM and financial performance, using a sample of Baldrige Award winners; they replicated a second sample of state quality award winning companies with three different sets of financial performance measures. Baldrige quality award winners generally had better financial performance than their peers after and before winning a quality award. Several studies examined the issue of the validity of the Baldrige framework and criteria more directly. Authors, such as [38] Keinath and Gorski (1999), have used state quality awards as surrogates for the Baldrige award, since data on actual scores can often be obtained from state award agencies, and most state awards are virtually identical to the Baldrige award. [59] Pannirselvam et al. (1998) reported an empirical analysis of data from the Arizona Governor's Quality Award (AGQA), whose criteria mirror the original Baldrige Criteria (with only minor editing). Their objective was to provide evidence of validity for the AGQA model and to generalize the validity to the MBNQA Criteria. They concluded that the MBNQA measurement model ( vis-à-vis AGQA data) was reliable and valid. However, they did not evaluate dependent relationships among the Baldrige categories (i.e. the structural model). In a similar line of inquiry, [58] Pannirselvam and Ferguson (2001) tested the validity of the relationships between the categories by modifying the 1992 Baldrige framework into an eight-construct model, separating customer focus and satisfaction into two separate constructs. Their results provided evidence to confirm the validity of the modified framework. Similarly, [28] Ford and Evans (2000) conducted a detailed analysis of the content validity of the strategic planning category. [26] Evans and Ford (1997) examined the relationship between the Baldrige core values and the processes embedded in the criteria. [25] Evans (1997) proposed a causal model describing the key linkages in the Baldrige framework; however, the model was not tested. [34] Handfield and Ghosh (1995) used structural equations modeling to empirically test the linkages between criteria in the 1992 framework. They reported empirical support for numerous causal relationships among the seven categories of the Baldrige model in the manufacturing environment. Similar to [34] Handfield and Ghosh (1995), [68] Wilson and Collier (2000) used structural equation modeling of the 1992 framework, concluding that a modified set of five Baldrige causal relationships was a good predictor of organizational performance. Other studies that also examined the casual relationships in the MBNQA in certain industries, other than education, include [39] Khanna et al. (2002), [32] Goldstein and Schweikhart (2002), [27] Flynn and Saladin (2001), [23] Dow et al. (1999) and [60] Samson and Terziovski (1999). The findings in these studies provided statistical support for the Baldrige theory of performance relationships depicted in the Baldrige causal model. Most of the studies found that the Leadership dimension is classified as a driver of quality ([47] Meyer and Collier, 2001; [70] Winn and Cameron, 1998; [58] Pannirselvam and Ferguson, 2001; [27] Flynn and Saladin, 2001). Although each of these studies contributed to the validation of the Baldrige framework, they all focused on the 1992 framework. It is important to understand the evolution of the framework and investigate the validity of the 2004 framework as it pertains to higher education, particularly given the major re-engineering of the criteria since 1992. Since questions have been raised about the lack of evidence for the causal relationships underlying the quality framework in higher education organizations, this research addressed two questions: Are the proposed relationships between the categories in the Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence framework valid? What is the strength of the relationships between the different quality management constructs prescribed by the criteria? We addressed these two questions using data from higher education organizations in the UAE. The paper also

attempts to present some detailed results and implications for higher education authorities in the UAE. Research methodology Research model: dimensions and categories Leadership is the key driver in MBNQA. Without the involvement and commitment of senior leaders, the quality management journey becomes difficult and at times impossible ([67] Vora, 2002). The MBNQA model evaluates top management leadership's ability to instill quality values and customer focus among the employees, and to continuously improve their leadership styles. In higher education, senior leaders should inspire and motivate the entire workforce and should encourage all faculty and staff to contribute, develop and learn, be innovative, and be creative. The governance body is responsible ultimately to all stakeholders for the ethics, vision, actions, and performance of the organization. Senior leaders should serve as role models through their ethical behavior and personal involvement in planning, communication, coaching, development of future leaders, reviewing of organizational performance, and faculty and staff recognition ([67] Vora, 2002). As role models, they can reinforce ethics, values, and expectations while building leadership, commitment, and initiative throughout the organization. In addition to their important role within the organization, senior leaders have other avenues to strengthen education. Reinforcing the learning environment in the organization might require building community support and aligning community and business leaders and community services with this aim. The leadership dimension in Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence includes six categories: organizational leadership (senior leadership direction, organizational governance, organizational performance review); and social responsibility (responsibility to the public, ethical behavior, and support of key communities). The emphasis of the MBNQA, with respect to the "strategic planning" criterion, is on keeping up with marketing changes and needs, and using advanced technology for launching new products and services ([40] Khoo and Tan, 2003; [43] Mak, 1999, [44] 2000). The strategic planning dimension examines how the organization develops strategic objectives and action plans, how strategic objectives and action plans are deployed, and how progress is measured. For higher education, the category stresses that learning centered education and operational performance are key strategic issues that need to be integral parts of the organization's overall planning. For example, e-learning-centered education is a strategic view of education. The focus is on the drivers of key factors in educational success such as student learning, student persistence, student and stakeholder satisfaction, new markets, and market share. Learning-centered education focuses on the real needs of students, including those derived from market requirements and citizenship responsibilities. The criteria emphasize that improvement and learning need to be embedded in work processes. The Strategic Planning category examines how the organization understands key student, stakeholder, market, and societal requirements as input to set strategic directions. The requirements in the Strategic Planning category encourage strategic thinking and acting - to develop a basis for a distinct leadership position in the market. The strategic planning dimension in Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence has four categories: strategy development (strategy development process, and strategic objectives); and strategy deployment (action plan development and deployment, and performance projections). In the Baldrige framework for education, Student, Stakeholder, and Market Focus address how the organization seeks to understand needs of current and future students and stakeholders and to understand the markets, with a focus on delighting students and stakeholders, building loyalty, and meeting students' and stakeholders' expectations. The MBNQA stresses this issue in its ''customer and market focus'' criterion by highlighting the importance of developing listening and learning skills in responding to customers' opinions and complaints. The MBNQA criteria, in evaluating customer relations, determine how special training and the career needs of customer-contact employees are met. For higher education, this dimension considered relationships as an important part of an overall listening, learning, and performance excellence strategy. The criteria also evaluate trends in customer satisfaction and how these trends compare with competitors as a means to assess effectiveness of the company's customer-relations management process. The student and stakeholder

satisfaction and dissatisfaction results provide vital information for understanding students, stakeholders, and markets. In many cases, these results and trends provide the most meaningful information, not only on students' and stakeholders' views but also on their actions and behaviors - student persistence and positive referrals. The student, stakeholder, and market focus dimension is reflected by three categories; however, for the purpose of this research, we split the student, stakeholder and market focus dimension into two sub- dimensions for a better representation. Hence, we have two dimensions and four categories: the first dimension is student, stakeholder and market knowledge with two categories (student knowledge, and stakeholder and market knowledge); and the second dimension is student and stakeholder relationship, and satisfaction with two categories (student and stakeholder relations, and student and stakeholder satisfaction determination). The MBNQA criteria provide for evaluation of data from the support processes. It evaluates information analysis at different levels of business. The MBNQA does not call for the evaluation of the financial performance of an organization. However, it does evaluate the ability of the institution to link quality and operational data to financial performance. It evaluates the methods used to continuously improve its information gathering and analysis cycle. In higher education, the measurement, analysis, and knowledge management dimension is the main point within the criteria for all key information about effectively measuring and analyzing performance and managing organizational knowledge to drive improvement in student and operational outcomes. It calls for the alignment of the organization's programs and offerings and its strategic objectives. The dimension addresses knowledge management and all basic performance related to relevant information, as well as how such information is analyzed and used to optimize organizational performance. The measurement, analysis and knowledge management dimension is given by four categories: measurement and analysis of organizational performance (performance measures, and performance analysis); and information and knowledge management (data and information availability, and organizational knowledge). The MBNQA criteria emphasize the need for human resource plans to support and help achieve the organization's goals. In higher education, faculty and staff focus addresses key human resource practices - those directed toward creating and maintaining a high-performance workplace with a strong focus on students and learning and toward developing faculty and staff for adaptation to change. The dimension covers faculty and staff development and management requirements in an integrated way, which is aligned with the organization's strategic objectives. The faculty and staff focus includes the work environment and the faculty and staff support climate. To reinforce the basic alignment of workforce management with overall strategy, the criteria also cover faculty and staff planning as part of overall planning in the strategic planning dimension. The faculty and staff dimension is given by seven categories: work systems (organization and management, faculty and staff performance management system, and hiring and career progression); faculty and staff learning and motivation (faculty and staff education, training, and development, and motivation and career development); and faculty and staff well-being and satisfaction (work environment, and faculty and staff support and satisfaction). The MBNQA "process management" criterion examines how new products and services are designed to meet customer needs. Hence, the MBNQA "process management" criterion examines how new products and services are designed to meet customer needs and to identify critical customer needs and competitor characteristics. The MBNQA is non-prescriptive regarding the tools used to control process quality. In discussing process management, prior research focused on the main process. Additionally, the MBNQA model evaluates the process management of support services. The criteria evaluate supplier quality management more thoroughly, measuring not only the methods used to inspect incoming material but also actions taken to improve the quality of supplied material and hence reduce the cost of inspection. The criteria also evaluate the methods used by the business to audit and improve its own quality assessment practices. In higher education, process management is the focal point within the Education Criteria for all key processes. Built into the category are the central requirements for efficient and effective process management: effective education design and delivery; a focus on student learning; linkage to students, stakeholders, suppliers, and partners and a focus on

learning-centered processes that create value for all key stakeholders; and evaluation, continuous improvement, and organizational learning. Agility, operational efficiencies tied to changes in revenue, and cycle time reduction are increasingly important in all aspects of process management and organizational design. It is crucial to utilize key measures for tracking all aspects of the overall process management. The process management dimension is given by two categories: (learning centered process) and (support process). In higher education, the organizational performance results category provides a results focus that encompasses student learning; student and stakeholder satisfaction; and overall budgetary, financial, and market performance. Also, initiatives seek to create a positive, productive, learning-centered, and supportive work environment; governance structure and social responsibility; and recognition of results for all key processes and process improvement activities. Through this focus, the criteria's purposes - superior value of offerings as viewed by students, stakeholders, and markets; superior organizational performance as reflected in operational, legal, ethical, and financial indicators; and organizational and personal learning - are maintained. Thus, this dimension provides "real-time" information (measures of progress) for evaluation and improvement of educational programs, offerings, services, and organizational processes, in alignment with the overall operational strategy. It calls for analysis of organizational results data and information to determine the overall organizational performance. Responses should include comparison information that incorporates brief descriptions of how the organization ensures appropriateness of each comparison. Comparable organizations might include those of similar types/sizes, both domestic and international, as well as organizations serving similar populations of students. The organizational performance results dimension is given by six categories: (student learning results); (student and stakeholder results); (budgetary, financial and market results); (Faculty and staff results); (organizational effectiveness results); and (governance and social responsibility results). Questionnaire development and pilot test To investigate the MBNQA Education dimensions, an instrument was developed to survey the level of practice for the quality items in the 33 categories. The seven Baldrige dimensions were operationalized through items on the questionnaire that captured the key elements in the MBNQA Application Guidelines. Items were guided by the criteria specified in the Malcolm Baldrige Award Application Guidelines. Several steps were taken to ensure that the questionnaire used in this study provided a valid measurement of the Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence. The measurement of each of the 33 Baldrige Education categories, which cannot be measured directly, was operationalized using a scale of items. Each scale was developed based on a thorough review and understanding of the criteria (dimensions). Additionally, the content and wording of the items were directly traceable to the Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence. The number of items for each category was determined so that the content of the dimension was adequately addressed. Because the Baldrige Criteria do not prescribe particular methodologies or practices, the items intended to identify whether, rather than how, relevant management and quality issues were addressed. For example, a scale item for dimension Leadership (Organizational leadership-senior leadership direction) (see the Appendix) asked whether senior leaders practice creating strategic directions (rather than specifying whether a particular method, was used). In the development of these scales, prior scales used in different settings such as manufacturing and healthcare were selected ([27] Flynn and Saladin, 2001; [47] Meyer and Collier, 2001; [48] Meyer and Schweikhart, 2002). Each item was measured using a seven-point Likert scale. Several college and university faculties and administrators assisted with pre-testing the questionnaire and provided valuable feedback in terms of wording and useful performance measures to be included in the questionnaire. This helped to establish content validity and focus the questionnaire on the MBNQA Education Criteria for Performance Excellence ([54] NIST, 2004). For example, the dimension Leadership (Organizational leadership-senior leadership direction) used the following survey question: "Our senior leadership creates strategic direction" and "senior leaders communicate a clear vision." These questions were tied to Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence Dimension

1.1 note (1) that states, "Organizational directions relate to creating the vision for the organization and to setting the context for strategic objectives and action plans". All survey questions were tied to specific criteria in the 2004 Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence ([54] NIST, 2004). Forty-three individuals participated in a pilot test that was conducted to determine the reliability of the measurement scales. Participants included university professors, deans, academic policy advisors, administrators, and senior college leaders. Cronbach's coefficient alpha was one measure used to evaluate reliability, and a guideline of 0.60 was used for the new scales in this study ([55] Nunnally, 1967; [47] Meyer and Collier, 2001). Some items were dropped to improve the reliability of the scale and shorten the instrument length without compromising the content validity. (In the Appendix, the dropped items are identified with an asterisk in the last column). Alpha values ranged from 0.820 to 0.909 for the pilot test and from 0.857 to 0.925 for the main study (Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]), which indicated excellent internal consistency of the scale. Study sample Colleges and universities in the UAE composed the population studied in this research. The study was conducted at the facility level, so that, each university or college was counted separately in the sample, regardless of its affiliation with a university or college system. There were some small colleges in the country that were not included in this study because they lacked minimum resource requirements to be considered. For example, two of these small colleges operated through a single office in a certain building. In addition, those universities or colleges usually have not developed extensive quality management systems. Small colleges that did not have any sort of accreditation from the Ministry of Higher Education in the UAE were also excluded from the study. It should be noted that universities and colleges provide a wide variety of educational services and are complex organizations. The Baldrige Criteria must account for this complexity and the broad range of human resource (faculty and staff), process, and information management (measurement, analysis, and knowledge management) issues that these organizations face. A total of 15 universities and colleges participated in the study. The questionnaire was only mailed to individuals after a phone call informing them of the study, apologizing for the size of the questionnaire, and encouraging them to be honest and objective in responding to each item. Titles of individuals contacted included vice chancellors, deputy vice chancellors, associate deputy vice chancellors, advisors, deans, vice deans, associate deans, assistant deans, academic department chairs, and unit heads. In all cases, it was made certain that each individual was familiar with the practice of each item on the questionnaire at their institution. The questionnaire was e-mailed to 409 individuals in 15 facilities. In total, 224 individuals completed and returned the questionnaire for a response rate of 54.7 percent. Six of the questionnaires were missing substantial results data (mostly student, stakeholder, and market focus, and organizational performance results categories) and were not included in further analysis, resulting in a final sample size of 220. A small number of missing data points were replaced with scale-average scores. Research hypotheses The research hypotheses provided a comprehensive evaluation of the theory and performance relationships proposed in the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award - Education Criteria for Performance Excellence ([54] NIST, 2004). These hypotheses addressed specific causal relationships among the seven Baldrige categories. As mentioned earlier, the Baldrige theory states that "Leadership drives the system which creates results" ([47] Meyer and Collier, 2001, [70] Winn and Cameron, 1998; [58] Pannirselvam and Ferguson, 2001). Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] presents this model indicating the relationships between the different quality management and performance evaluation constructs. The exogenous (independent) factor in the model was leadership. The endogenous factors were strategic quality planning; faculty and staff focus; process management; measurement, analysis, and knowledge management; student, stakeholder, and market focus; and organizational performance results.

Four specific research hypotheses were formulated to test directional relationships between leadership and the four system dimensions:H

1 . Leadership has a positive influence on Process Management.H

2 . Leadership has a

positive influence on Faculty and Staff Focus.H 3 . Leadership has a positive influence on Strategic Planning.H

4 .

Leadership has a positive influence on Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management. Two specific research hypotheses were formulated to test the directional relationships between leadership and the two results dimensions:H

5 . Leadership has a positive influence on Student, Stakeholder, and Market Focus.H

6 .

Leadership has a positive influence on Organizational Performance Results. Eight hypotheses were formulated to test the directional relationship between each of the system dimensions and each of the two results dimensions listed below:H

7 . Process Management has a positive influence on Focus on and Student,

Stakeholder, and Market Focus.H 8 . Process Management has a positive influence on Organizational

Performance Results.H 9 . Faculty and Staff Focus has a positive influence on Student, Stakeholder, and Market

Focus.H 10

. Faculty and Staff Focus has a positive influence on Organizational Performance Results.H 11

. Strategic Planning has a positive influence on Student, Stakeholder, and Market Focus.H

12 . Strategic Planning

has a positive influence on Organizational Performance Results.H 13

. Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management has a positive influence on student, stakeholder, and market focus.H

14 . Measurement, Analysis,

and Knowledge Management has a positive influence on Organizational Performance Results. Additionally, six within-system hypotheses were formulated to test the Baldrige theory that management systems should be "built upon a framework of measurement, information and data, and analysis" ([47] Meyer and Collier, 2001; [50] NIST, 1995, p. 4): H

15 . Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management has positive influence on

Strategic Planning.H 16

. Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management has positive influence on Faculty and Staff Focus.H

17 . Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management has positive influence on Process

Management.H 18

. Strategic planning has a positive influence on Process Management.H 19

. Strategic planning has a positive influence on faculty and staff focus.H

20 . Faculty and Staff Focus has a positive influence on

Process Management. Finally, the last hypothesis tested the Baldrige theory that improving internal capabilities and organizational performance results leads to improved external performance (customer satisfaction): H

21 .

Organizational Performance Results has a positive influence on Student, Stakeholder, and Market Focus. Each of these 21 hypothesized relationships was supported by the general theory that "Leadership drives the system which creates results". The general theory guided our assumption about a recursive casual model and the direction for each of the specific hypotheses. The review of literature indicated that there was one study that dealt with the MBNQA categories in higher education, the [70] Winn and Cameron (1998) study. They empirically examined the relationships between the MBNQA categories using data from higher education. They administered a 190-item survey based on the MBNQA criteria to all permanent non-instructional staff at a large Midwestern university. Factor analysis indicated that the seven categories were reliable and valid. Winn and Cameron used confirmatory path analysis to determine if the relationships between categories as suggested by the MBNQA framework were supported. Results from the LISREL analysis indicated that not all of the relationships in the framework were entirely supported. As a result, they generated a modified model that proved to fit the data very well. In this study, we used [70] Winn and Cameron's (1998) modified model to test whether the data collected fit the modified model as well. Thus, we stated the following hypothesis:H

22 . The [70] Winn and Cameron (1998) modified model will

provide good-fit statistics using the current data. Analysis methods To test hypotheses H

1 to H

19 , two different procedures were used. The two procedures examined the

relationships among the MBNQA dimensions. First, multiple regression analysis examined the relationships among each of the dimensions individually. Second, structural equation modeling examined the predicted relationships among all dimensions in the overall framework together (given the integrative direct and indirect effects). Structural equations model was also used to test H

20 .

Structural equation modeling consists of two components, a measurement model and a structural model ([33] Hair et al. , 1995; [36] Hoyle, 1995; [10] Bollen and Long, 1993; [9] Bollen, 1989). The measurement model includes the relationships between the dimensions (Baldrige subcategories) and the questionnaire items (indicators) that operationalize measurement of those dimensions. For this study, the measurement model included the 33 categories of the Baldrige Educational Criteria for Performance Excellence, and the 141 questionnaire items (see Appendix) that comprise the measurement scales for the categories. The results of statistical tests for the structural model are valid only if the measurement model uses reliable scales that accurately measure the content of the MBNQA Educational Criteria for Performance Excellence. The structural model consisted of the relationships that link the Baldrige dimensions to their respective categories as well as the dependent causal relationships that link the seven Baldrige dimensions to one another. In addition to testing the first 21 hypotheses, the structural equations model also served as a test of theory verification of the Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence framework. To test the [70] Winn and Cameron (1998) model, H

22 , structural equation modeling was also used.

Scale reliabilities The internal consistency method was used to test the reliability of the research constructs. As suggested by [55] Nunnally (1967), the coefficient alpha developed by [21] Cronbach (1951) was used to test for internal consistency. A Cronbach alpha value of 0.70 is considered the criterion for internal consistency for established scales ([55] Nunnally, 1967). Although the Cronbach alpha values for these constructs were acceptable, we decided that a more conservative measure for reliability should be calculated to confirm that these constructs were reliable ([58] Pannirselvam and Ferguson, 2001)). Therefore, the amount of variance captured by the category in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error was also calculated for each construct (a method suggested by [29] Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Scale unidimensionality, which was tested and confirmed for each scale, was evaluated in the main study data set using [15] Carmines and Zeller (1979) guidelines. These guidelines were also recommended by other researchers dealing with psychometric properties of scale ([47] Meyer and Collier, 2001). The percent of variance explained by the first principal component of each measurement scale is given in Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.], addressing [15] Carmines and Zeller (1979) criterion that the first component of each scale explains more than 40 percent of the variance in the items. These results show that the scales meet [15] Carmines and Zeller (1979). The two remaining criteria (a large eigenvalue for the first component and small, fairly equal eigenvalues for subsequent components) were also evaluated and upheld in the main study data set. Principal component analysis was used to reduce item responses to a single score for each of the 33 Baldrige categories. In this case, the first component score for each category was used in subsequent analysis. Results Scale reliabilities The reliability of each of the 33 scales (categories) used in this study was re-evaluated based on the main study data set. Cronbach's alpha values for the 33 measurement scales ranged from 0.857 to 0.944, exceeding guidelines for adequate reliability ([55] Nunnally, 1967; [81] Flynn et al., 1990; [47] Meyer and Collier, 2001), as shown in Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] (before and after dropping certain items). The values were well above the minimum recommended value of 0.70. The mean-average variance explained by each factor, were all greater than 50 percent indicating that the variance captured by each construct was greater than the variance due to measurement error ([29] Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Regression analysis: relationships among dimensions The MBNQA -Education Criteria for Performance Excellence framework (shown in Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]) assumes that the following exist: - A direct relationship exists between leadership and the four system dimensions of measurement, analysis, and knowledge management, strategic planning, process management, and faculty, and staff focus.

- A direct relationship exists between leadership and the two outcome dimensions of student, stakeholder, and market focus and organizational performance results. - A direct relationship exists between the four system dimensions of measurement, analysis, and knowledge management, strategic planning, process management, and faculty and staff focus and the two outcome dimensions of student, stakeholder, and market focus, and organizational performance results. To assess the validity of the framework's assumptions, three sets of regression analyses were conducted. The first regressed each of the four system dimensions on the leadership dimension. The standardized regression coefficients produced by this analysis is reported in Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. The relationship between the leadership dimension and each of the system dimensions was strong and statistically significant. The assumed relationship between an organization's leadership and each of the quality processes is definitely supported. Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] reports the relationships between the leadership dimension and the two outcomes dimensions and between the system dimensions (individually) and the outcome dimensions. When each of the outcome dimensions was regressed on the leadership dimension, the resulting relationships were also significant. That is, the multiple regression analysis revealed that the leadership dimension had a statistically significant effect on organization performance results and student, stakeholder, and market focus. In summary, leadership significantly influenced the organization's systems and outcomes. Other results indicated that all four system dimensions (individually) had relatively strong and statistically significant effects on the two outcome dimensions. Next, we ran two sets of multiple regressions where the two outcome dimensions were the dependent variables, and the four system dimensions were the independent variables (see Table IV [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). We noted the four system dimensions collectively had relatively strong and statistically significant effects on the outcome dimensions. They accounted for approximately 84 percent of the variation in the student, stakeholder, and market focus dimension and approximately 93 percent of the variation in the organizational performance results dimension. However, exceptions were a relatively weak relationship between the student, stakeholder, and market focus dimension, and the strategic planning and the faculty and staff focus dimension. These relationships were statistically not significant. In summary, the regression analyses showed that leadership had a significant effect on the four system dimensions and the outcome dimensions. In turn, the system dimensions had a significant effect on the outcome dimensions. The direct effects of leadership on organizational outcomes assumed in the MBNQA framework were supported. The Baldrige Education Criteria Performance Excellence Model fit The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is a measure of model fit that is not dependent on sample size ([33] Hair et al. , 1995; [13] Browne and Mels, 1994; [64] Steiger, 1990). Many other fit measures (e.g. Chi-square, goodness of fit index) are highly dependent on sample size. The following guidelines were used to determine model fit using RMSEA: RMSEA <0.05, good model fit; 0.05< RMSEA <0.10, reasonable model fit; RMSEA >0.10, poor model fit ([13] Browne and Mels, 1994, p. 86-87; [12] Browne and Cudeck, 1993). The computed RMSEA value for the model was 0.057 indicating a reasonable model fit. The overall fit of the model can be tested by using the Chi-Square (χ2 ). For a good fit, the χ2 value should be low and non-significant. The χ2 value for the model was 1342.32, which was significant (p =0.0). This would suggest that the model was not confirmed by the sample data. The significance levels of χ2 , however, are sensitive to sample size and multivariate normality. Therefore, other indicators of fit, such as χ2 /df, [6] Bentler's (1990) comparative fit index (CFI), [37] Joreskog and Sorbom (1993) goodness of fit index (GFI), [9] Bollen's (1989) incremental fit index (IFI), and the fit index (NNFI), that correct for these factors should also be used to assess the adequacy of the model ([37] Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993). With 476 degrees of freedom, the χ 2 /df is 2.82, which was less than the ratio of five suggested in the literature. All the measures of goodness of fit for the model tested were above the desired 0.9 level. The CFI, IFI, NNFI and GFI are 0.94, 0.91, 0.92, and 0.90, respectively. These fit indices indicated an acceptable fit between the model and data ([9] Bollen, 1989).

The standardized path coefficients for the set of causal relationships are presented in Figure 2 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. We noticed that all paths were significant at the 0.01 or the 0.05 levels. Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] shows the results of model estimation including path estimates, standard errors, and results of t -tests for the significance of the paths. A two-tailed t -test was performed on each path estimate to evaluate its statistical significance. The results of testing the research hypotheses provided empirical support for all of the causal relationships in the Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence model. However, the level of significance was different from one path to another. Hypotheses 1 through 4 addressed a casual influence of leadership on each of the system categories. We noticed that leadership had great influence on these four categories (path estimates varied from 0.60 to 0.75). The support of hypotheses H

1 to H

4 indicated

that leadership is an overall driver of strategic planning, process management, faculty and staff focus, and measurement, analysis and knowledge management in higher education. We also noted that leadership had significant influence on both outcome categories with path estimates of 0.22 (student, stakeholder and market focus) and 0.54 (organizational performance results). These values gave support for hypotheses H

5 and H

6 .

The results of testing the research hypotheses provided empirical support also for the influence of the four system categories on both outcome categories. The highest path estimate of 0.81 reflected the significant influence of process management on student, stakeholder and market focus. Thus, support was given to the next eight hypotheses, H

7 through H

14 .

The influences of the system categories on each other were also evident from the path estimates and significance levels. Thus, hypotheses H

15 to H

20 were also supported.

The last hypothesis in the Baldrige framework dealing with the two outcome categories was supported as well. Results showed that organizational performance results positively affected student, stakeholder and market focus. In summary, considering the regression and structural equation model results, it was possible to conclude that hypotheses H

1 to H

21 were all supported.

The Winn and Cameron model fit [70] Winn and Cameron (1998) found that their research did not validate the Baldrige framework. As a result, they performed modifications of the framework to derive a model that was statistically significant and used exploratory analysis to suggest an alternate statistically significant model. The alternative framework included the direct effects of leadership on each of the four systems categories, the direct effects of strategic quality planning on management of process quality and customer focus and satisfaction, the direct effect of human resource development and management on quality and operational results, and the direct effects of management of process quality on customer focus and satisfaction and quality and operational results. On the other hand, this alternative framework took into account the lack of direct effects on quality and operational results from leadership, information and analysis, and strategic quality planning and the lack of direct effects on customer focus and satisfaction from leadership, information and analysis, and human resource development and management. However, it also recognized the indirect effects of leadership and the direct effects of information and analysis, strategic quality planning, and human resource development and management on the outcome variables. Based on its ability to account for these predictive relationships and the fact that it has an acceptable goodness-of-fit with the data, the plausibility of the alternative framework (modified model) was supported in [70] Winn and Cameron's (1998) study. They concluded that leadership affected the outcomes by mediating effects through the organizational systems. After fitting Winn and Cameron model to the current data, all the measures of goodness of fit were above the desired 0.9 level, except for one. The CFI, IFI, NNFI and GFI were 0.94, 0.92, 0.91, and 0.89, respectively. These fit indices indicated an acceptable fit between the model and data ([9] Bollen, 1989). The standardized path coefficients for the set of causal relationships are presented in Figure 3 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. We noticed that all paths were significant at the 0.01 or the 0.05 levels. These results provided support

for the acceptance of H 22

. It is interesting to note that our analysis provided evidence to confirm the validity of the original [54] Baldrige criteria (2004). The differences in Winn and Cameron's results and the results obtained in this study could be partially explained by differences in the sample studied. Discussion The major finding of this research related to the role of leadership in the Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence. Leadership has a direct causal influence on each of the components of the Baldrige System: process management, faculty and staff focus, strategic planning, and measurement, analysis and knowledge management. Leadership causes direct positive changes in each of the Baldrige System categories. This result confirmed Baldrige theory that leadership drives the System. These results corresponded to previous research (see [47] Meyer and Collier, 2001; [70] Winn and Cameron, 1998; [5] Belohlav et al. , 2004; [28] Ford and Evans, 2000; [32] Goldstein and Schweikhart, 2002; [34] Handfield and Ghosh, 1995; [69] Wilson, 1997). The study showed that leadership was the most important enabler for achieving educational performance excellence. We assumed that effective leadership modulated the implementation of performance excellence in universities and colleges. Senior leaders have a significant influence on, and the ability to make changes to, the educational system. Thus, their role is crucial. Leadership must guide every system, strategy, and process for achieving excellence. However, there are several enablers of quality and performance excellence in higher education: strategic planning; faculty and staff focus; student, stakeholder and market focus; process management; and measurement, analysis and knowledge management. These enablers influenced six outcomes: student learning results; student and stakeholder results; budgetary, financial and market results; faculty and staff results; organizational effectiveness results; and governance and social responsibility results. Our research also showed evidence of an important causal relationship from leadership to measurement, analysis and knowledge management. The influence of leadership on measurement, analysis and knowledge management is (0.75), which was relatively stronger from leadership's influence on the other system categories of process management, faculty and staff focus, and strategic planning (0.67, 0.62, 0.60 respectively). The stronger influence of leadership on measurement, analysis and knowledge management was also addressed in other empirical studies ([47] Meyer and Collier, 2001). This means that quality-driven institution's leaders recognized the critical role of university information systems in providing systems of measurement, information, and data analysis. This study also showed that leadership's role in university's quality management systems was both direct, as indicated by the significant paths from leadership to organizational performance results and student, stakeholder and market focus. Also, it was indirect, as it influenced outcomes through the four system categories of measurement, analysis and knowledge management, process management, strategic planning, and faculty and staff focus. For other industries, such as healthcare, [47] Meyer and Collier (2001) did not find any support for direct effects of leadership on customer and stakeholder satisfaction. In other industries, such as manufacturing, [34] Handfield and Ghosh (1995) and [69] Wilson (1997) did not find direct linkages between leadership and outcome categories. In the education industry, our study showed that measurement, analysis and knowledge management was a driver of within-system performance with a significant causal influence on each of the other system categories: strategic planning, faculty and staff focus, and process management. These relationships identified measurement, analysis and knowledge management as the critical link in the Baldrige System. A comparison of within-system causal linkages for the published Baldrige Education model showed that we clarified the direction and strength of causation within the Baldrige System. These results corresponded with those of [69] Wilson (1997) and [68] Wilson and Collier (2000) for manufacturing firms, [70] Winn and Cameron (1998) for education institutions, and [47] Meyer and Collier (2001) for healthcare. The statistically significant causal influence of measurement, analysis and knowledge management on the other system categories supported the Baldrige theory that an effective organization needs to be built upon a framework of

measurement, information, data, and analysis ([54] NIST, 2004). Hence, University colleges, departments, administrative units and other systems must be linked by an effective information system, and this was reflected by the significant linkage of measurement, analysis and knowledge management to the other system categories. We also noted that measurement, analysis and knowledge management had a direct causal influence on both outcomes, organizational performance results, and student, stakeholder and market focus. This relationship indicated that effective use of measurement, information, and data, all addressed in the Baldrige Criteria, represented key assets in the organizational performance ([47] Meyer and Collier, 2001; [70] Winn and Cameron, 1998). Results showed that faculty and staff focus development and satisfaction had a positive causal influence on student and stakeholder satisfaction. The research found an important causal relationship from Baldrige process management to student and stakeholder satisfaction in UAE higher education (strongest link of 0.80). These results provided evidence that the design and delivery of educational and non-educational processes were critical to student and stakeholder satisfaction and should be managed from their perspectives. Organizational performance results had a positive causal influence on student, stakeholder, and market focus. This performance relationship supported Baldrige theory that improving internal capabilities and performance results in improved external performance ([47] Meyer and Collier, 2001; [82] Collier, 1991; [19] Collier and Wilson, 1997). The results of this research provided impetus for senior leaders in higher education to focus on improving faculty and staff resources and process management, both of which had a direct causal influence on customer satisfaction, and to strive for improved internal performance outcomes that also help to create improved customer satisfaction. Strategic planning had a statistically significant causal influence on both of the two outcome categories. This result was in contrast to the outcome of other studies performed in healthcare ([47] Meyer and Collier, 2001; [68] Wilson and Collier, 2000). They found that strategic planning did not exert any significant causal influence on "focus and satisfaction of patients and other stakeholder." In healthcare, it may be difficult for some hospitals to develop and deploy strategic plans because authorities are uncertain what to include in the mission statement ([47] Meyer and Collier, 2001; [83] Gibson et al . 1990; [14] Calem and Rizzo, 1995). Our results reported that higher education institutions usually were under pressure to obtain accreditation for their programs and offerings. Most international accrediting agencies, such as ABET (engineering programs), or AACSB (business programs), require universities to develop clear and specific strategies toward educational excellence. Moreover, measures and indicators of performance excellence in higher education may differ from those of healthcare organizations. However, it might be more realistic if performance results are not compiled into a single construct. In higher education, there are many categories with regard to performance results and outcome where each might address a certain aspect of the educational process (i.e. curriculum, delivering methods, teaching, advising, research, job placements, campus life, etc.). Similar arguments were also made by other authors (i.e. [48] Meyer and Schweikhart, 2002; [47] Meyer and Collier, 2001). Conclusions and implications Before discussing conclusions and implications, the limitations of the study should be acknowledged. The use of self-reported information is always a concern in studies of this nature. In addition, even though the sample size of this study (220) was consistent with recommendations given by [2] Anderson and Gerbing (1988), it was marginal according to recommendations given by [35] Hoelter (1983) and [33] Hair et al. (1995). Considering the size of the theoretical models tested in this study, the sample was just within the range of acceptability. However, and despite these shortcomings, the results provided useful insights for administrators in higher education institutions and researchers. This study used a confirmatory structural equation modeling and testing approach to empirically validate many of the causal relationships in the MBNQA Education model. The research study empirically tested the Baldrige education framework - that there is a significant relationship between the leadership, systems, and processes of

higher education organizations and the consequent outcomes. Specifically, this study focused on determining the extent to which higher education results are explained by the Baldrige Criteria. By providing empirical evidence of the nature of the relationships between what organizations do and the results they achieve, this study offered decision makers, managers, and researchers evidence that the Baldrige framework is a useful tool for developing and managing quality systems in institutions of higher education. The research aimed at exploring the nature of educational quality at UAE higher education institutions. The research designed and presented a reliable and valid self-assessment tool for higher education based mainly on the Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence, which are recognized as involving most comprehensive quality concepts. Through the survey results, the institutions of higher education or just those schools wishing to undertake TQM programs are able to diagnose their quality status, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and develop action plans after performing a thorough cost-benefit analysis. The Malcolm Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance encourages higher education organizations to address quality on a broad range of issues. Universities and colleges that wish to compare equitably with Award winners must produce evidence of leadership and long-term planning, initiate verifiable quality control procedures, address the happiness and well-being of the faculty and staff and, above all, work toward student and stakeholder satisfaction and market focus. The criteria argue strongly for customer-driven organizations, high levels of employee involvement, and information-based management. Many universities could utilize the criteria as a framework for implementing a quality program and establishing benchmarks for measuring future progress. Implications for senior administrators in higher education institutions The results provided insight for higher education leaders into the dominant role leadership plays in effective implementation of quality management systems. Strong support of quality initiatives from senior level management has long been cited as the starting point for an organization's quest to achieve a quality-driven culture. These results corresponded with [70] Winn and Cameron (1998) findings that strong support by senior administrators was an accelerator in the implementation of quality initiatives at educational institutions. The results of this study have some important implications for senior leaders in institutions of higher education. Many institutions want to improve the quality of their programs, offerings, and services, but they might be uncertain as to which quality philosophy is the best one to use. Some higher education institutes might focus on the philosophy of a single quality guru in planning their improvement process. Often, these philosophies provide sound principles for senior leaders involved in quality improvements, but they seldom provide a comprehensive system for measurement and evaluation of quality efforts at the organizational level. A second implication for managers is drawn from our construct validity analysis. From our structural equation modeling analysis, we found that each of the items was an important part of a representative category. We also noted that all seven categories were correlated with each other. The implications that each of these was correlated to the others indicated that quality improvement efforts concentrated on one or a few of these categories would be less effective. Senior leaders will need to plan and execute a concerted effort on several fronts to achieve world-class quality education. One of the most important results of this study was the presentation of a reliable and valid instrument based on the Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence. This instrument could be utilized by senior leaders at institutions of higher education as a self-assessment tool. Self assessment is important because it helps institutions of higher education to define their quality system and select student, stakeholder, and market focus quality objectives. A major motivation in developing the survey instrument we used was to make it simple enough to assist senior leaders in higher education to conduct internal MBNQA Education Excellence self assessment. In particular, the tested model provided guidelines on how to proceed with a quality improvement strategy in higher education. Assuming that committed and effective leadership is in place, the first step is to gather and

utilize information on internal and external environments. The model indicated that this information should feed the development of a strategic quality plan, which in turn guides the design and development of a faculty and staff management system as well as a set of organizational processes focused on quality. The design of these organizational processes should form a base because they are most important elements influencing the core outcome dimensions of student, stakeholder and market focus, and university performance results. Publicizing the use of the MBNQA Education Criteria for Performance Excellence is one way of raising awareness of quality management in institutions of higher education in the UAE (and comparable institutions in the Gulf Cooperation Council). It would help identify areas for improvement. When pursuing customer-focused and market-driven quality strategies, these criteria and standards can also provide references to higher education organizations. Finally, all levels of faculty and staff in a college or university might take the initiative to fulfill their different needs for education and training in quality management. To further the quality movement in higher education, senior leaders should take a leading role in promoting contemporary, strategic quality management concepts and practices. Likewise, they should play an active role in UAE's efforts to improve quality of the educational system. Implications for researchers As mentioned, organizational performance results dimension is conceptually broad, measuring many facets of internal and external university/college performance. We found extreme difficulties in identifying general items to capture the two outcome components of the Baldrige framework in education. Higher education organizations deal with many different issues and priorities. More research on specific outcomes for different facets of higher education for both internal and external customers is needed to identify specific and clear measures or indicators of performance and satisfaction (i.e. student segments, disciplines, majors, research, administrative, campus life, job placement, alumni activities, interdepartmental links, accreditation, etc.). Future research can improve upon our research findings by evaluating other educational units using different samples at other educational organizations, such as public and private school systems. Another plausible direction for future research might test the model across different cultures (countries). It should make the Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence more generalizable. Our research adds to the rich body of other endeavors to find the best casual model of organizational performance for higher education. Other research should reinvestigate the general model tested here and explore other competing (alternative) models. References 1. Arif, M. and Smiley, F. (2004), "Baldrige theory in practice: a working model", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 324-8. 2. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), "Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23. 3. Athiyaman, A. (1997), "Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of university education", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 528-40. 4. Badri, M. and Abdulla, M. (2004), "Awards of excellence in institutions of higher education: an AHP approach", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 224-42. 5. Belohlav, J., Cook, L. and Heiser, D. (2004), "Using the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in teaching: one criterion, several perspectives", Decision Sciences Journal of Innovation Education, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 153- 76. 6. Bentler, P. (1990), "Comparative fit index in structural models", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 238-46. 7. Bigelow, B. and Arndt, M. (1995), "Total quality management: field of dreams?", Health Care Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 15-25. 8. Bigelow, B. and Arndt, M. (2000), "The more things change, the more they stay the same", Health Care Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 65-72.

9. Bollen, K. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY. 10. Bollen, K. and Long, J. (1993), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. 11. Bourner, T. (1998), "More knowledge, new knowledge: the impact of education and training", Education+Training, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 11-14. 12. Browne, M. and Cudeck, R. (1993), "Alternative ways of assessing model fit", in Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136-62. 13. Browne, M. and Mels, G. (1994), RAMONA User's Guide, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 14. Calem, P. and Rizzo, J. (1995), "Competition and specialization in the hospital industry: an application of Hotelling's location model", Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 1182-98. 15. Carmines, E. and Zeller, R. (1979), Reliability and Validity Assessment, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. 16. Castka, P., Bamber, C. and Sharp, J. (2003), "Measuring teamwork culture: the use of modified EFQM Model", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 149-70. 17. Cheng, Y. and Tam, W. (1997), "Multi-models of quality in education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 22-32. 18. Chaffee, E. and Sherr, L. (1992), Quality: Transforming Postsecondary Education, ASHE-ERIC Education Report No. 3, ASHE-ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, DC. 19. Collier, D. and Wilson, D. (1997), "The role of automation and labor in determining customer satisfaction in a telephone repair service process", Decision Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 689-708. 20. Cornesky, R. and Associates (1991), Implementing Total Quality Management in Higher Education, Magna Publications, Madison, WI. 21. Cronbach, L. (1951), "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests", Psychometrika, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-334. 22. Da Rosa, M., Saraiva, P. and Diz, H. (2003), "Excellence in Portuguese higher education institutions", Total Quality Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-97. 23. Dow, D., Samson, D. and Ford, S. (1999), "Exploding the myth: do all quality management practices contribute to superior quality performance?", Production and Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-27. 24. Education Criteria for Performance Excellence (2005), p. 9, available at: www.quality.nist.gov/PDF_files/2005_Education_Criteria.pdf (accessed 20 April, 2005). 25. Evans, J. (1997), "Critical linkages in the Baldrige award criteria: research models and educational challenges", Quality Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 13-30. 26. Evans, J. and Ford, M. (1997), "Value-driven quality", Quality Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 19-31. 27. Flynn, B. and Saladin, B. (2001), "Further evidence on the validity of the theoretical models underlying the Baldrige criteria", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 617-52. 28. Ford, M. and Evans, J. (2000), "Conceptual foundations of strategic planning in the Malcolm Baldrige criteria for performance excellence", Quality Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 8-26. 29. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), "Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50. 30. Gann, M. and Restuccia, J. (1994), "Total Quality Management in health care: a view of current and potential research", Medical Care Review, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 467-500. 31. George, C., Cooper, F. and Douglas, A. (2003), "EFQM Excellence Model in a local authority", Managerial Auditing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 122-7. 32. Goldstein, S. and Schweikhart, S. (2002), "Empirical support for the Baldrige Award Framework in US hospitals", Health Care Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 62-75. 33. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall,

Upper Saddle River, NJ. 34. Handfield, R. and Ghosh, S. (1995), "An empirical test of linkages between the Baldrige criteria and financial performance", Proceedings of the Decision Sciences Institute, Vol. 3, Decision Sciences Institute, Atlanta, GA, pp. 1713-15. 35. Hoelter, J.W. (1983), "The analysis of covariance structures: goodness-of-fit indices", Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 325-44. 36. Hoyle, R. (Ed.) (1995), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Ideas, and Applications, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 37. Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by Maximum Likelihood, Instrument Variables and Least Squares Methods, 8th ed., Scientific Software, Morresville, IN. 38. Keinath, B. and Gorski, B. (1999), "An empirical study of the Minnesota quality award evaluation process", Quality Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 29-39. 39. Khanna, V., Vrat, P., Shankar, R. and Sahay, B. (2002), "Developing causal relationships for a TQM index for the Indian automobile sector", Work Study, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 364-73. 40. Khoo, H. and Tan, K. (2003), "Managing for quality in the USA and Japan: differences between the MBNQA, DP and JQA", The TQM Magazine, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 14-24. 41. Li, M. and Yang, J. (2003), "A decision model for self-assessment of business process based on the EFQM Excellence Model", International Journal of Quality &Reliability Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 164-88. 42. Mackerron, G., Masson, R. and McGlynn, M. (2003), "Self assessment: use at operational level to promote continuous improvement", Production Planning &Control, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 82-9. 43. Mak, W. (1999), "Cultivating a quality mind-set", Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. 622-6. 44. Mak, W. (2000), "The Tao of people-based management", Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 Nos 4/5/6, pp. 537-43. 45. Marchese, T. (1993), "TQM: a time for ideas", Change, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 10-13. 46. McElwee, G. and Redman, T. (1993), "Upward appraisal in practice: an illustrative example using the Qualed model", Education+Training, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 27-31. 47. Meyer, S. and Collier, D. (2001), "An empirical test of the causal relationships in the Baldrige Health Care Pilot Criteria", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 403-25. 48. Meyer, S. and Schweikhart, S. (2002), "Empirical support for the Baldrige Award Framework in US hospitals", Health Care Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 62-75. 49. Motwani, J., Sower, V. and Brashier, L. (1996), "Implementing TQM in the health care sector", Health Care Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 73-82. 50. NIST (1995), Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, 1995 Award Criteria, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. 54. NIST (2004), Education Criteria for Performance Excellence, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. 55. Nunnally, J.C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 56. Oldfield, B. and Baron, S. (2000), "Student perceptions of service quality in a UK university business and management faculty", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 85-95. 57. Palihawadana, D. (1996), "Modeling student evaluation in marketing education", Proceedings of the 1996 Annual Marketing Education Group Conference. 58. Pannirselvam, G. and Ferguson, L. (2001), "A study of the relationships between the Baldrige categories", International Journal of Quality &Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 14-34. 59. Pannirselvam, G., Siferd, S. and Ruch, W. (1998), "Validation of the Arizona governor's quality award criteria: a test of the Baldrige criteria", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 529-50. 60. Samson, D. and Terziovski, M. (1999), "The relationship between total quality management practices and

operational performance", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 393-409. 61. Seymour, D. (1993), On Q: Causing Quality in Higher Education, Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ. 62. Sherr, L. and Lozier, G. (1991), "Total quality management in higher education", in Sherr, L. and Tetter, D. (Eds), New Directions for Institutional Research, Association for Institutional Research, Louisville, KY. 63. Soutar, G. and McNeil, M. (1996), "Measuring service quality in a tertiary institution", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 72-82. 64. Steiger, J. (1990), "Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach", Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 173-80. 65. Stewart, A. (2003), "An investigation of suitability of the EFQM Excellence Model for a pharmacy department with NHS trust", International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 65-76. 66. Varey, R. (1993), "The course for higher education", Managing Service Quality, September, pp. 45-9. 67. Vora, M. (2002), "Business excellence through quality management", Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 8, pp. 1151-9. 68. Wilson, D. and Collier, D. (2000), "An empirical investigation of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award causal model", Decision Sciences, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 361-90. 69. Wilson, D.D. (1997), "An empirical study to test the causal linkages implied in the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award", dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 70. Winn, B. and Cameron, K. (1998), "Organizational quality: an examination of the Malcolm Baldrige quality framework", Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 491-512. 71. York, K. and Miree, C. (2004), "Causation or covariation? An empirical re-examination of the link between TQM and financial performance", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 291-311. 72. Yorke, M. (1992), "Quality in higher education: a conceptualization and some observations on the implementation of a sectoral quality system", Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 34-46. 80. Weinstein, L., Petrick, J. and Saunders, P. (1998), "What higher education should be teaching about quality - but is not", Quality Progress, Vol. 1998, pp. 91-5. 81. Flynn, B., Sakakibara, S., Shroeder, R., Bates, K. and Flynn, E. (1990), "Empirical research methods in operations management", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 250-84. 82. Collier, D. (1991), "A service quality process map for credit card processing", Decision Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 406-19. 83. Gibson, C., Newton, D. and Cochran, D. (1990), "An empirical investigation of the nature of hospital mission statements", Healthcare Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 35-45.    Further Reading 1. NIST (1995a), Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 1995 Education Pilot Criteria, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. 2. NIST (1995b), Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 1995 Health Care Pilot Criteria, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. 3. NIST (1999), Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 1998 Criteria for Performance Excellence, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. Appendix Appendix Table AI [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] shows the Malcolm Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence categories (items in the pilot study and deleted items in the main study).    About the authors Masood Abdulla Badri is a Professor of Production and Operations Management, in the Department of Business

Administration, College of Business &Economics, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates. He is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Hassan Selim is an Associate Professor of Management Information Systems in the Department of Business Administration, College of Business &Economics, United Arab Emirates. Khaled Alshare is an Associate Professor of Computer Information Systems in the Accounting &Computer Information System Department, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas, USA. Elizabeth E. Grandon is an Assistant Professor in the Accounting &Computer Information System Department, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas, USA. Hassan Younis is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Department of Business Administration, College of Business &Economics, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates. Mohammed Abdulla is an Associate Professor of Management in the Department of Business Administration, College of Business &Economics, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.    AuthorAffiliation Masood Abdulla Badri, Department of Business Administration, College of Business &Economics, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates    Hassan Selim, Department of Business Administration, College of Business &Economics, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates    Khaled Alshare, Accounting &Computer Information System Department, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas, USA    Elizabeth E. Grandon, Accounting &Computer Information System Department, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas, USA    Hassan Younis, Department of Business Administration, College of Business &Economics, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates    Mohammed Abdulla, Department of Business Administration, College of Business &Economics, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates Illustration Figure 1: Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence Model    Figure 2: The general Baldrige model (Education)    Figure 3: The [70] Winn and Cameron (1998) model with current data    Table I: The Baldrige categories, number of items, scale reliabilities, and percent variance explained (pilot study and main study)    Table II: Regression of the four system dimensions on leadership    Table III: Regression results of the two outcome dimensions on the driver (leadership) and the four system dimensions (individually)   

Table IV: Multiple regression results of the two outcome dimensions on the four system dimensions    Table V: Path estimates for the structural model    Table AI:    Table AI Continued:    Table AI Continued:    Subject: Studies; Colleges & universities; Correlation analysis; Awards & honors; Regression analysis; Models; Leadership; Location: United Arab Emirates Classification: 9178: Middle East; 9130: Experimental/theoretical; 8306: Schools and educational services; 2200: Managerial skills Publication title: The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Volume: 23 Issue: 9 Pages: 1118-1157 Publication year: 2006 Publication date: 2006 Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing, Limited Place of publication: Bradford Country of publication: Australia Publication subject: Business And Economics--Management ISSN: 0265671X Source type: Scholarly Journals Language of publication: English Document type: Feature Document feature: Diagrams References Tables DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710610704249 ProQuest document ID: 197684709 Document URL: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/197684709?accountid=7374 Copyright: Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2006 Last updated: 2014-05-18 Database: ProQuest Central

_______________________________________________________________ Contact ProQuest Copyright  2016 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions