Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Contribution of TQM to Organizational Ambidexterity: The State of the Art and Promising Research Streams

  • Chapter
Achieving Competitive Advantage through Quality Management

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to present the state of the art of research on the impact of TQM implementation on organizational ambidexterity. The widespread diffusion of TQM in organizations in all sectors and the already established importance of ambidextrous capability for achieving long-term competitiveness make understanding the connection between both fields a worthwhile objective. We underline the need to include in the analysis the broad and complex nature of TQM. Due to the interactions between its principles and practices, total quality management can act as a platform in creating an ambidextrous organizational context. We also underline the importance of clarity in research on the specific quality management approach, and of the treatment of the ambidexterity concept, which is subject to substantial variability both in relation to the type of ambidexterity selected, and because measurement and scales can differ widely. We conclude by highlighting the role of cultural change brought about by TQM for generating organizational ambidexterity as a future promising research stream.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Asif, M., de Vries, H. (2015). Creating ambidexterity through quality management. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2014.926609. In press, available in the journal web.

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 676–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2003). Exploitation, exploration and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., Chang, H., Chi, H., Chen, M., & Deng, L. (2012). How do established firms improve radical innovation performance? The organizational capabilities view. Technovation, 32, 441–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, B. G., Boaden, R. J., & Lascelles, D. M. (1999). Total quality management: An overview. In B. G. Dale (Ed.), Managing quality (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, J. W., & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: Improving research and practice through theory development. The Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 392–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellana, S. A., & Hauser, R. D. (1999). Toward defining the quality culture. Engineering Management Journal, 11(2), 11–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denison, R. D. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization (1st ed., pp. 167–188). New York, NY: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood, R. L. (1993). Beyond TQM. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: managing role conflict in strategic renewal, Academic Management Review, 25, 154–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghobadian, A., & Gallear, D. (1996). Total quality management in SMEs. Omega, 24(1), 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Review, 47(2), 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, T. J. (2012). TQM and organisational culture: How do they link? Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 23(2), 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academic Management Journal, 49, 693–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organizational Science, 15(4), 481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irani, Z., Beskese, A., & Love, P. E. D. (2004). Total quality management and corporate culture: Constructs of organisational excellence. Technovation, 24(8), 643–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khazanchi, A., Lewis, M. W., & Boyer, K. K. (2007). Innovation-supportive culture: The impact of organizational values on process innovation. Journal Operations Management, 25, 871–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D. Y., Kumarb, V., & Kumarb, U. (2012). Relationship between quality management practices and innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 30, 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning [Special issue: Organizations, decision making and strategy]. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mom, T. J., Van der Bosch, F. A. J., & Volverda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Luzon, M. D., Gil-Marques, M., & Arteaga, F. (2014). Driving organizational ambidexterity through process management. The key role of cultural change. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 25(9–10), 1026–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Peris, F. (1998). Strategic approaches, organizational design and quality management: Integration in a fit and contingency model. The International Journal of Quality Science, 3(4), 328–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Luzon, M. D., Peris, F., & Gonzalez, T. (2001). Gestion de la calidad y diseño de organizaciones. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Valls-Pasola, J. (2011). Ambidexterity and quality management: Towards a research agenda. Management Decision, 49(6), 927–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naveh, E., & Erez, M. (2004). Innovation and attention to detail in the quality improvement paradigm. Management Science, 50(11), 1576–1586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., & Filippini, R. (2012). The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliometric investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization, 10, 450–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 28, 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prajogo, D. I., & McDermott, C. (2005). The relationship between total quality management practices and organizational culture. The International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(11), 1101–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. (2004). The multidimensionality of TQM practices in determining quality and innovation performance – an empirical examination. Technovation, 24, 443–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational. Analysis Management Science, 29(3), 363–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), 759–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos-Vijande, M. L., & Alvarez-Gonzalez, L. I. (2007). Innovativeness and organizational innovation in total quality oriented firms: The moderating role of market turbulence. Technovation, 27(9), 514–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1986). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 597–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 864–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Schroeder, R. G. (1994). Distinguishing control from learning in total quality management: A contingency perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 537–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (1998). Cultural and structural constraints on total quality management implementation. Total Quality Management, 9(8), 703–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatikonda, M. V., & Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Successful execution of product development projects: balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process. Journal of Operations Management, 18, 401–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, K. R. (1998). Confronting paradoxes in a total quality environment. Organization Dynamics, 26(3), 62–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, University of Valencia, Av/ dels Tarongers s/n, Valencia, 46022, Valencia, Spain

    María D. Moreno-Luzon

  2. Department of Management, Catholic University of Valencia, C/Corona, 34, Valencia, 46003, Valencia, Spain

    María Gil-Marques

Authors
  1. María D. Moreno-Luzon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. María Gil-Marques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María D. Moreno-Luzon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, Universitat Politècnica de València, Departamento de organización de Empresas, Valencia, Spain

    Marta Peris-Ortiz

  2. Departamento de Economia Financiera y Contabilidad, Facultad de Estudios Empresariales y Turismo; Universidad de Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain

    José Álvarez-García

  3. Department of Business Administration, Universitat Politècnica de València, Departamento de organización de Empresas, Valencia, Spain

    Carlos Rueda-Armengot

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Moreno-Luzon, M.D., Gil-Marques, M. (2015). The Contribution of TQM to Organizational Ambidexterity: The State of the Art and Promising Research Streams. In: Peris-Ortiz, M., Álvarez-García, J., Rueda-Armengot, C. (eds) Achieving Competitive Advantage through Quality Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17251-4_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation