Posted Content•
Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms
05 Nov 2008-ERIM report series research in management Erasmus Research Institute of Management (Erasmus Research Institute of Management)-
TL;DR: The findings suggest that the previously asserted direct effect of structural differentiation on ambidexterity operates through informal senior team and formal organizational integration mechanisms, and contributes to a greater clarity and better understanding of how organizations may effectively pursue exploration and exploitation simultaneously to achieve ambideXterity.
Abstract: 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.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: It is indicated that conflicting demands between alignment and adaptability posed by agile distributed development can be addressed by a set of balanced practices that shape performance management and social context---two important antecedents of contextual ambidexterity.
Abstract: Distributed software development has become a common reality with the advent of off-shore development and the need to be close to markets. Also, the dynamic nature of the environment in which businesses operate suggests the use of agile development methods. Whereas distributed software development requires the use of formal processes advocated by plan-driven approaches, rapidly changing environments are appropriate candidates for the use of agile development methods. This tension in agile distributed development poses conflicting demands between alignment and adaptability in the software development process. We conducted a multisite case study of three projects that use agile distributed development to examine how these organizations developed contextual ambidexterity---the ability to pursue conflicting demands simultaneously. Our findings, presented as a conceptual framework, indicate that conflicting demands between alignment and adaptability posed by agile distributed development can be addressed by a set of balanced practices that shape performance management and social context---two important antecedents of contextual ambidexterity.
132 citations
Additional excerpts
...zational integration mechanisms (Jansen et al. 2009),...
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigate the effect of ambidextrous governance on innovation and cost performance in the context of supply chain management and highlight the critical role of organizational ambidexterity as an enabler for innovation performance.
Abstract: Ambidexterity has been gaining attention among supply chain scholars due to its potential for overcoming trade-offs. Associated with these complexities is the choice of an appropriate governance mechanism in buyer–supplier relationships, which can include relational and contractual approaches. Extending ambidexterity research to the supply chain management domain, we focus in the present study on ambidextrous governance, which we define as the simultaneous pursuit of both relational and contractual governance elements. We investigate the effect of ambidextrous governance on innovation and cost performance. In addition, as this relationship is highly dependent on the ambidexterity that may be present on the firm level, we theorize about the moderating effect of organizational ambidexterity. We further consider external contextual factors as influencing the ability of ambidextrous governance to effectuate performance, recognizing that the former may not be as effective under conditions of greater demand uncertainty and product complexity. We delineate our hypotheses based on extensions of complementarity theory, and test them, taking a buyer's perspective, with data collected in a multirespondent survey of manufacturing firms. Our results demonstrate the positive relationship between ambidextrous governance and both innovation and cost performance, and highlight the critical role of organizational ambidexterity as an enabler for innovation performance. We furthermore detect mixed effects for the contextual variables considered—demand uncertainty and product complexity—as moderators, emphasizing that the impact of ambidextrous governance on performance is subject to dynamics that are more complex than originally perceived. With our investigation, we extend ambidexterity research to the supply chain management domain and offer important implications for research and practice.
131 citations
Cites background or methods from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...However, even though multiplying the two different dimensions has been used in earlier supply chain related research, Jansen et al. (2009), who were among the first to compare these operationalizations, demonstrated the superiority of the additive approach, which we thus follow....
[...]
...Similar to earlier research, we model organizational ambidexterity as the interaction of exploitation and exploration (e.g., Jansen et al. 2009)....
[...]
TL;DR: Role integration is the new workplace reality for many employees as mentioned in this paper, and the prevalence of mobile technologies (e.g., laptops, smartphones, tablets) that are increasingly wearable and nearly always “on” m...
Abstract: Role integration is the new workplace reality for many employees. The prevalence of mobile technologies (e.g., laptops, smartphones, tablets) that are increasingly wearable and nearly always “on” m...
129 citations
Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...…prior research on collectives suggesting that internal variety combined with integration mechanisms enhance exploration (e.g., Alexiev et al., 2010; Jansen et al., 2009; Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001; Schilling et al., 2003; Taylor & Greve, 2006) and evidence that having “cosmopolitans” on a team who…...
[...]
...At a collective level, integration may take the form of integration structures or interpersonal and network cohesion (e.g., Jansen et al., 2009; Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006; Taylor & Greve, 2006)....
[...]
Blekinge Institute of Technology1, Norwegian University of Science and Technology2, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano3, National University of Ireland, Galway4, Technical University of Madrid5, Tampere University of Technology6, University of São Paulo7, University of Cagliari8, Maynooth University9, University of Oulu10, Konstanz University of Applied Sciences11
TL;DR: Software startup companies develop innovative, software-intensive products within limited timeframes and with few resources, searching for sustainable and scalable business models.
Abstract: Software startup companies develop innovative, software-intensive products within limited timeframes and with few resources, searching for sustainable and scalable business models. Software startup ...
128 citations
Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...Usually, this involves a conflict of interest in terms of learning modes [113] or risk propensity [114], which can be prevented by establish-...
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the impact of stakeholder pressures on firm's circular economy (CE) initiatives is explored by using structural equation modeling approach with maximum likelihood methods of approximation, the results indicate that exploratory innovation positively influences the firms to adopt CE practices whereas, exploitative innovation capability inhibits the adoption of CE practices.
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of stakeholder pressures on firm’s circular economy (CE) initiatives. The organizational responses are quite heterogeneous even when the firms face similar pressure. The authors have tried to explain this heterogeneity by using innovative capability as mediating variables.,Empirical survey data from Indian manufacturing firms are obtained to test the proposed hypotheses. The hypotheses are grounded in resource-based view of the firm. The authors used structural equation modeling approach with maximum likelihood methods of approximation.,The results indicate that exploratory innovation positively influences the firms to adopt CE practices. Whereas, exploitative innovation capability inhibits the adoption of CE practices.,This study guides business managers to focus on develop exploratory innovative capabilities before the adoption of CE practices. This study also provides guidance to policy maker about the role of regulatory mechanism plays to encourage/inhibits firms for adoption of CE practices.,This is first study to analyze the idiosyncratic behavior of the firms when subjected to stakeholder pressure for CE practices adoption. Innovative capabilities (exploratory/exploitative) are able to explain the reason for diverse response to stakeholder response.
126 citations
Cites methods from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...To measure a business organization’s capabilities for pursuing exploratory and exploitative innovations, we adopted a valid and reliable scale from Jansen et al. (2009)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: This article seeks to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ, and delineates the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena.
Abstract: In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators.
80,095 citations
"Structural Differentiation and Ambi..." refers background in this paper
...A four-item scale ( = 0 70) measures firmlevel exploitative innovation (Jansen et al. 2006) and captures the extent to which organizations build on existing knowledge and pursue incremental innovations that meet the needs of existing customers (Abernathy and Clark 1985, Benner and Tushman 2003,…...
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the link between firm resources and sustained competitive advantage and analyzed the potential of several firm resources for generating sustained competitive advantages, including value, rareness, imitability, and substitutability.
46,648 citations
"Structural Differentiation and Ambi..." refers background in this paper
...provides organizations with competitive advantages over time (Barney 1991)....
[...]
...Our study broadens the conceptual interpretation of organizational ambidexterity and suggests that it is difficult to achieve yet rare and not easily imitated, and 797 provides organizations with competitive advantages over time (Barney 1991)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends is critical to its innovative capabilities.
Abstract: In this paper, we argue that the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends is critical to its innovative capabilities. We label this capability a firm's absorptive capacity and suggest that it is largely a function of the firm's level of prior related knowledge. The discussion focuses first on the cognitive basis for an individual's absorptive capacity including, in particular, prior related knowledge and diversity of background. We then characterize the factors that influence absorptive capacity at the organizational level, how an organization's absorptive capacity differs from that of its individual members, and the role of diversity of expertise within an organization. We argue that the development of absorptive capacity, and, in turn, innovative performance are history- or path-dependent and argue how lack of investment in an area of expertise early on may foreclose the future development of a technical capability in that area. We formulate a model of firm investment in research and development (R&D), in which R&D contributes to a firm's absorptive capacity, and test predictions relating a firm's investment in R&D to the knowledge underlying technical change within an industry. Discussion focuses on the implications of absorptive capacity for the analysis of other related innovative activities, including basic research, the adoption and diffusion of innovations, and decisions to participate in cooperative R&D ventures. **
31,623 citations
"Structural Differentiation and Ambi..." refers background in this paper
...Organizational integration mechanisms not only facilitate new value creation through linking previously unconnected knowledge sources (Cohen and Levinthal 1990), but also through providing opportunities to leverage common resources and obtaining synergies across exploratory and exploitative units…...
[...]
TL;DR: The dynamic capabilities framework as mentioned in this paper analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change, and suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technology change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm.
Abstract: The dynamic capabilities framework analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change. The competitive advantage of firms is seen as resting on distinctive processes (ways of coordinating and combining), shaped by the firm's (specific) asset positions (such as the firm's portfolio of difftcult-to- trade knowledge assets and complementary assets), and the evolution path(s) it has aflopted or inherited. The importance of path dependencies is amplified where conditions of increasing retums exist. Whether and how a firm's competitive advantage is eroded depends on the stability of market demand, and the ease of replicability (expanding intemally) and imitatability (replication by competitors). If correct, the framework suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technological change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm. In short, identifying new opportunities and organizing effectively and efficiently to embrace them are generally more fundamental to private wealth creation than is strategizing, if by strategizing one means engaging in business conduct that keeps competitors off balance, raises rival's costs, and excludes new entrants. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
27,902 citations
"Structural Differentiation and Ambi..." refers background in this paper
...…capabilities, which are embedded in the distinct ways that organizations integrate, build, and recombine competences flexibly across boundaries, are fundamental to long-term strategic advantage (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000, Henderson and Cockburn 1994, Kogut and Zander 1992, Teece et al. 1997)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, structural equation models with latent variables are defined, critiqued, and illustrated, and an overall program for model evaluation is proposed based upon an interpretation of converging and diverging evidence.
Abstract: Criteria for evaluating structural equation models with latent variables are defined, critiqued, and illustrated. An overall program for model evaluation is proposed based upon an interpretation of converging and diverging evidence. Model assessment is considered to be a complex process mixing statistical criteria with philosophical, historical, and theoretical elements. Inevitably the process entails some attempt at a reconcilation between so-called objective and subjective norms.
19,160 citations