Open Access Journal Article

The Moderating Role of Organizational Structure Between Quality Management Systems and Organizational Resilience

by Mohammed Al Balushi a,*
The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
JES  2024, 16; 2(1), 16;
Received: 22 September 2023 / Accepted: 10 January 2024 / Published Online: 12 January 2024


Purpose: To realize the benefits a Quality Management System (QMS), an organization needs to effectively implement its principles. This includes embracing these principles within an enabling environment. Hence, organizational structure is a critical success factor for adopting quality management systems. This paper aims at understanding how the organizational structure impacts ISO 9001 QMS implementation and vise versa, besides exploring how quality management initiatives affect organizational resilience through parts. Design/methodology/approach: The research deploys a qualitative methodology, with an outsider-insider approach. 32 semi-structured interviews were conducted, plus one final reflective interview. Interview questions dealt with structural constructs: communication, employee engagement, employee empowerment, process/routine-orientation, multidisciplinarity, cross-functionality, expertise-utilization and change-readiness. The questions also dealt with how the organizational structure impacted ISO 9001 implementation and vice versa. Findings: The results show that ISO 9001 implementation was more successful and fruitful under process-orientation and to some degree under semi-process orientation, while it looked inconsistent under routine-orientation. This indicates a significant role played by the organizational structure when it comes to ISO 9001 implementation. More importantly, the results also demonstrate that ISO 9001 implementation managed to improve organizational resilience by consistently driving the organizational structure toward higher levels of process-orientation for process-oriented units, whereas it failed to realize such impact for routine-oriented units. Originality/value: This study is unique as it is the first - within the reviewed literature - to examine the moderating role of the organizational structure between the ISO 9001 standard and organizational resilience. It draws a roadmap for the successful realization of organizational resilience through quality management systems, considering organizational structure constructs.

Copyright: © 2024 by Al Balushi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


Oman Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (982/2016)

Share and Cite

ACS Style
Al Balushi, M. The Moderating Role of Organizational Structure Between Quality Management Systems and Organizational Resilience. Journal of Economic Statistics, 2024, 2, 16.
AMA Style
Al Balushi M. The Moderating Role of Organizational Structure Between Quality Management Systems and Organizational Resilience. Journal of Economic Statistics; 2024, 2(1):16.
Chicago/Turabian Style
Al Balushi, Mohammed 2024. "The Moderating Role of Organizational Structure Between Quality Management Systems and Organizational Resilience" Journal of Economic Statistics 2, no.1:16.
APA style
Al Balushi, M. (2024). The Moderating Role of Organizational Structure Between Quality Management Systems and Organizational Resilience. Journal of Economic Statistics, 2(1), 16.

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics


  1. ISO 9001 HISTORY [Online]. The British Assessment Bureau. Available: The Ultimate Guide to ISO 9001 | British Assessment Bureau (
  2. What is ISO 9001:2015 – Quality management systems? American Society for Quality.
  3. Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B. and Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System. Organization Science, 10, 43-68.
  4. Benraad, M., Ozkan, B., Turetken, O. and Vanderfeesten, I. (2022). The influence of BPM-supportive culture and individual process orientation on process conformance. Business Process Management Journal, 28, 1-22.
  5. Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: the art of making quality certain, New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  6. Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm, Cambridge, Mass.; Oxford, Cambridge, Mass.; Oxford: Blackwell.
  7. Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology, Boston, Mass., Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
  8. De feo, J. (2017). Juran's Quality Handbook, New York, McGraw-Hill.
  9. De feo, J. A. and Juran, J. M. (2012). Juran’s Quality Handbook: The Complete Guide to Performance Excellence, New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  10. Deming, W. E. (2013). The essential Deming: leadership principles from the father of total quality management, Place of publication not identified McGraw Hill.
  11. Dutt, N. and Joseph, J. E. (2018). Regulatory Uncertainty, Corporate Structure, and Strategic Agendas: Evidence from the U.S. Renewable Electricity Industry. Academy of Management Journal.
  12. Feigenbaum, A. V. (1983). Total quality control, New York; London, New York; London: McGraw-Hill.
  13. Follett, M. P. and Graham, P. (1996). Mary Parker Follett--prophet of management: a celebration of writings from the 1920s, Boston, Mass., Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
  14. Furlan, A., Grandinetti, R. and Rentocchini, F. (2023). Inter-organizational routine replication: Evidence from major football championships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 39.
  15. Gersick, C. J. G. and Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65-97.
  16. Goetsch, D. L. and Davis, S. B. (2014). Quality management for organizational excellence: introduction to total quality, Harlow, Essex: Pearson.
  17. Gulati, R. and Puranam, P. (2009). Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies Between Formal and Informal Organization. Organization Science, 20, 422-440.
  18. Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68, 104.
  19. Champy, J. and Hammer, M. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution, London, London: Nicholas Brealey.
  20. Hammer, M. (1996). Beyond reengineering: how the process-centred organization is changing our work and our lives, London, London: HarperCollinsBusiness.
  21. Hammer, M. (2007). The process audit. Harvard Business Review, 85, 111-+.
  22. Hammer, M. and Stanton, S. (1995). The reengineering revolution: the handbook, London, London: HarperCollins.
  23. Hannan, M. and Freeman, J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149-164.
  24. Hertz, S., Johansson, J. K. and De jager, F. (2001). Customer- oriented cost cutting: Process management at Volvo. Supply Chain Management, 6, 128-141.
  25. Hinterhuber, H. (1995). Business Process Management: The European Approach. Business Change and Re-engineering, 2, 63-73.
  26. Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K. and Balogun, J. (2016). The social practice of co-evolving strategy and structure to realize mandated radical change. Academy of Management Journal.
  27. Kohlbacher, M. and Reijers, H. A. (2013). The effects of process- oriented organizational design on firm performance. Business Process Management Journal, 19, 245-262.
  28. Lim, J. Y. and Moon, K.-K. (2021). Transformational Leadership and Employees’ Helping Behavior in Public Organizations: Does Organizational Structure Matter? Public Personnel Management, 50, 485-508.
  29. Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change, Cambridge, Mass., Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  30. Ozanne, L. K., Chowdhury, M., Prayag, G. and Mollenkopf, D. A. (2022). SMEs navigating COVID-19: The influence of social capital and dynamic capabilities on organizational resilience. Industrial Marketing Management, 104, 116-135.
  31. Peter, K. and Klaus, H. (2007). The fruits of Business Process Management: an experience report from a Swiss bank. Business Process Management Journal, 13, 477-487.
  32. Safavi, M. (2021). Advancing post-merger integration studies: A study of a persistent organizational routine and embeddedness in broader societal context. Long Range Planning, 54.
  33. Seddon, J. (2000). The case against ISO 9000, Dublin, Dublin: Oak Tree Press.
  34. Silvestro, R. and WESTLEY, C. (2002). Challenging the paradigm of the process enterprise: a case-study analysis of BPR implementation. Omega, 30, 215-225.
  35. Skrinjar, R., Bosilj-Vuksic, V. and Indihar-Stemberger, M. (2008). The impact of business process orientation on financial and non- financial performance. Business Process Management Journal, 14, 738-754.
  36. Stene, E. O. (1940). An Approach to a Science of Administration. American Political Science Review, 34, 1124-1137.
  37. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: social science bases of administrative theory, New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  38. Vanhaverbeke, W. and Torremans, H. (1999). Organizational structure in process- based organizations. Knowledge and Process Management, 6, 41-52.<41::AID-KPM47>3.0.CO;2-4
  39. Watson, G. (2004). The Legacy of Ishikawa. Quality Progress, 37, 54-57.
  40. West, J. and Cianfrani, C. (2016). ISO 9001: 2015-what's Vital. Quality Progress, 49, 53-54.
  41. Yang, Y., Secchi, D. and Homberg, F. (2022). Organizational structure and organizational learning: The moderating role of organizational defensive routines. Journal of General Management, 47, 259-270.