What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

textPrior studies have emphasized that structural attributes are crucial to simultaneously pursuing exploration and exploitation, yet our understanding of antecedents of ambidexterity is still limited. Structural differentiation can help ambidextrous organizations to maintain multiple inconsistent and conflicting demands; however, differentiated exploratory and exploitative activities need to mobilized, coordinated, integrated, and applied. Based on this idea, we delineate formal and informal senior team integration mechanisms (i.e. contingency rewards and social integration) and formal and informal organizational integration mechanisms (i.e. cross-functional interfaces and connectedness) and examine how they mediate the relationship between structural differentiation and ambidexterity. Overall, our findings suggest that the previously asserted direct effect of structural differentiation on ambidexterity operates through informal senior team (i.e. senior team social integration) and formal organizational (i.e. cross-functional interfaces) integration mechanisms. Through this richer explanation and empirical assessment, we contribute to a greater clarity and better understanding of how organizations may effectively pursue exploration and exploitation simultaneously to achieve ambidexterity.

/pdf/structural-differentiation-and-ambidexterity-the-mediating-4tfwksgx8f.pdf

Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms

Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges

The Role of Strategic Alliances in High-Technology New Product Development

Much of the prior research on interorganizational learning has focused on the role of absorptive capacity, a firm's ability to value, assimilate, and utilize new external knowledge. However, this definition of the construct suggests that a firm has an equal capacity to learn from all other organizations. We reconceptualize the firm-level construct absorptive capacity as a learning dyad-level construct, relative absorptive capacity. One firm's ability to learn from another firm is argued to depend on the similarity of both firms' (1) knowledge bases, (2) organizational structures and compensation policies, and (3) dominant logics. We then test the model using a sample of pharmaceutical–biotechnology R&D alliances. As predicted, the similarity of the partners' basic knowledge, lower management formalization, research centralization, compensation practices, and research communities were positively related to interorganizational learning. The relative absorptive capacity measures are also shown to have greater explanatory power than the established measure of absorptive capacity, R&D spending. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning

Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe

Managing tensions related to information in coopetition

This study seeks to provide insights into the management of coopetitive tensions at the working-group level. We theoretically discuss the principles of separation and integration and a combination of both to manage coopetitive tensions at this level. An in-depth case study of a space programme conducted by two competitors − Astrium and Thales Alenia Space − was conducted. At the organizational level, according to the separation principle, we found that the coopetitors implemented a Coopetitive Project Team separated from the rest of their organization. At the individual level, according to the integration principle, we evidenced that project managers internalize the coopetitive paradox. At the working-group level, we revealed a new principle, that of co-management. The co-management principle, in the case of dyadic coopetition, relies on the implementation of a dual, equally shared governance structure and a dual management committee. To efficiently manage coopetitive tensions, firms are combining the separation principle at the organizational level, the co-management principle at the working-group level and the integration principle at the individual level.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/BJOM_BJOM12095.pdf?abstractid=2675639&mirid=2

Managing Coopetitive Tensions at the Working-group Level: The Rise of the Coopetitive Project Team

This study seeks to provide insights into the management of coopetitive tensions at the working‐group level. We theoretically discuss the principles of separation and integration and a combination of both to manage coopetitive tensions at this level. An in‐depth case study of a space programme conducted by two competitors − Astrium and Thales Alenia Space − was conducted. At the organizational level, according to the separation principle, we found that the coopetitors implemented a Coopetitive Project Team separated from the rest of their organization. At the individual level, according to the integration principle, we evidenced that project managers internalize the coopetitive paradox. At the working‐group level, we revealed a new principle, that of co‐management. The co‐management principle, in the case of dyadic coopetition, relies on the implementation of a dual, equally shared governance structure and a dual management committee. To efficiently manage coopetitive tensions, firms are combining the separation principle at the organizational level, the co‐management principle at the working‐group level and the integration principle at the individual level.

Anne-Sophie Fernandez

Papers

Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe

Managing tensions related to information in coopetition

Managing Coopetitive Tensions at the Working-group Level: The Rise of the Coopetitive Project Team

Managing Coopetitive Tensions at the Working-group Level: The Rise of the Coopetitive Project Team

The evolution of coopetitive and collaborative alliances in an alliance portfolio: The Air France case