Socio-technical TQM configurations and technological innovation ambidexterity: balanced and combined pathways

Abstract

Purpose This study examines how different configurations of social and technical total quality management (TQM) practices shape technological innovation ambidexterity (TIA). Specifically, it distinguishes between balanced and combined TQM practices configurations and investigates their effects on balanced and combined forms of TIA. Design/methodology/approach A configurational framework grounded in socio-technical systems theory and organizational ambidexterity theory was tested using survey data from 113 ISO 9001-certified Tunisian manufacturing firms. The hypotheses were assessed using PLS-SEM. Findings Combined TQM practice configurations positively affect combined TIA but negatively affect balanced TIA. Balanced TQM practice configurations have no significant effect on either form of TIA. These findings indicate that the strong joint development of social and technical TQM practices supports innovation intensity rather than innovation balance. Research limitations/implications The study is limited by its cross-sectional design and its focus on a single-country manufacturing sample. It contributes to the TQM literature by showing that the effect of TQM on innovation depends on the configuration of social and technical TQM practices and on the specific form of ambidexterity considered. Practical implications Managers should configure TQM practices in line with their innovation objectives. Firms seeking high levels of both exploratory and exploitative innovation should strengthen social and technical TQM practices jointly. By contrast, firms seeking a balance between exploration and exploitation should guard against the control bias that may accompany intensive quality systems. Originality/value The study moves beyond linear views of the TQM-innovation relationship by showing that socio-technical TQM configurations differentially shape balanced and combined technological innovation ambidexterity.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 2026 · DOI ↗