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
Dissertation•
01 Jan 2012
3 citations
11 Dec 2020
TL;DR: Managers, consultants and researchers are now empowered to enter the academic debate on the PCB-IWB link and to test substantial and complementary hypotheses that will contribute meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge.
Abstract: Background: Innovative work behaviour (IWB) is central to organisational success and occurs despite psychological contract breaches (PCBs), which are the norm, rather than the exception. Aim: The aim of the article is to present a comprehensive review of the conceptualisation of IWB and PCB, specifying the manner in which the concepts are defined and assessed. Consistency in conceptualisation and the standardisation of measurement should contribute to the development of the unified body of knowledge. Setting: The ways concepts are defined and assessed differ across studies, which challenges researchers and managers as no standard definitions or measurement techniques are available. Methods: A systematic literature review methodology was followed to gather data, which were analysed by focusing on broad adoption, theoretical coherency and, in the case of measurement, psychometric properties. Results: In total 14 articles were retrieved that measured the PCB-IWB link. Psychological contract breach is most often defined and measured in terms of Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) and Robinson and Rousseau’s (1994) conceptualisations, whilst Janssen’s (2000) framework is applied to IWB. Reliability information is reported for these measures. Conclusion: Whilst many definitions and measures of the constructs are used, some are theoretically more comprehensive and some are applied more than others, and these are now stipulated. Managers, consultants and researchers are now empowered to enter the academic debate on the PCB-IWB link and to test substantial and complementary hypotheses that will contribute meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge.
3 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors employed a systematic literature review analysis on a sample of 20 academic papers extracted from the Web of Science database in June 2021, showing that knowledge ambidexterity emerged in the late 2000s with a boom in research in the last 5 years and a clear predominance of quantitative studies.
Abstract: Despite the increasing and recent interest in researching knowledge ambidexterity, there has been no attempt from scholarly research to map and structure extant research on this topic. The aim of this study is to fill this gap, thereby contributing to previous literature by increasing our understanding of the research on knowledge ambidexterity. This paper employs a systematic literature review analysis on a sample of 20 academic papers extracted from the Web of Science database in June 2021. After illustrating the size, growth trajectory, geographic distribution, and key publishing journals in the sample, the paper analyses the intellectual structure and main foci of the research domain. The results show that this topic emerged in the late 2000s with a boom in research in the last 5 years and a clear predominance of quantitative studies. Moreover, content analysis reveals that both a clear definition of knowledge ambidexterity and its main components, knowledge exploration and exploitation, and a valid and reliable scale for measuring this concept are still lacking. The review has also revealed that the research domain on knowledge ambidexterity can be grouped into three different research lines, each of which relates to a different level of analysis—teams, intraorganisational processes within individual firms, and interorganisational collaborations—and concludes by identifying potential areas for future research on this topic that may help to advance in the consolidation of this particularly vibrant field.
3 citations
01 Jan 2015
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the intersection of design practices and organizational capabilities as an avenue to link the literature streams, focusing on collaborative activities in the organizations and find five propositions for future research in intersection of the domains.
Abstract: Today’s business is challenged by the constant change of technologies, markets and user preferences This dynamicity forces modern organizations to constantly affect and adapt to the environment Both management and design literature have explored the potential of design practices in addressing organizational change However, the streams still hold in their respective traditions and fall short in convincing design’s capacity
To contribute to this research gap we explore the intersection of design practices and organizational capabilities as an avenue to link the literature streams Focusing on collaborative activities in the organizations we find five propositions for future research in the intersection of the domains The motivation of this paper is to encourage design scholars to publish in management outlets in order to justify design practices’ promise as a driver of organizational change
3 citations
Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...2013), ambidexterous processes (between exploration and exploitation) (Jansen et al. 2009) and cross-functional links between business units (Jansen et al....
[...]
...Management research also emphasizes the need for cognitive and emotional routines that enable the organization to balance between exploration and exploitation (Jansen et al. 2009) and internal and external routines (Lewin et al....
[...]
...While each individual in the management team have their own way to conduct, also the management team needs to be orchestrated to enable integration (Kor & Mesko 2013; Jansen et al. 2009; Lubatkin et al. 2006)....
[...]
...The tasks of the managers and the management team are to synchronize social and task processes to promote diverse understanding of issues (Lubatkin et al 2006) and to recognize and help to communicate different conflicting aspects (Jansen et al. 2009)...
[...]
..., formal and informal means of integration (Jansen et al. 2009), socially enabled learning (Kor & Mesko 2013, Lewin et al....
[...]
25 Aug 2016
TL;DR: In this article, a case study was conducted in a company that continuously develops technologies and products based on Brazilian biodiversity, and the authors analyzed how integration efforts occur in incremental and radical NPD projects.
Abstract: Recent research on new product development (NPD) has presented divergent results on the need for interfunctional integration efforts. Studies have shown that contingent ascpects and the level of innovation incorporated into product projects are elements that should be considered in these integration efforts. This study aimed to analyze how integration efforts occur in incremental and radical NPD projects. A case study was conducted in a company that continuously develops technologies and products based on Brazilian biodiversity. Among the main results, we noted that due to their greater technological complexity, the radical innovation projects require more intense integration. The physical distance from the R&D department was also shown to be a situation that generates positive results for the development of these types of projects. On the other hand, we observed that co-location is beneficial for interaction between the teams in the case of incremental innovation projects. The application of information technologies, such as Customer Relationship Management Systems as formal support mechanisms for integration in radical and incremental innovation projects was also observed.
3 citations
Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...Studies on management innovation often analyze the internal and external integration for driving innovative projects through the organizational ambidexterity (Duncan, 1976; Jansen et al., 2009; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013), and they recommend a balance between actions of exploration and exploitation....
[...]
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