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: A set of interrelated choices of organization design and senior team process determine which attempts to build ambidextrous organizations are successful, and which ones helped or hindered them in their attempts.
Abstract: Dynamic capabilities have been proposed as a useful way to understand how organizations are able to adapt to changes in technology and markets. Organizational ambidexterity the ability of senior managers to seize opportunities through the orchestration and integration of existing assets to overcome inertia and path dependence, is a core dynamic capability. While promising, research on dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity has not yet been able to specify the specific mechanisms through which senior managers are actually able to reallocate resources and reconfigure assets to simultaneously explore and exploit. Using interviews and qualitative case studies from thirteen organizations, this article explores the actions senior managers took to implement ambidextrous designs and identify which ones helped or hindered them in their attempts. A set of interrelated choices of organization design and senior team process determine which attempts to build ambidextrous organizations are successful.
537 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared in-depth qualitative data from six top management teams exploring and exploiting paradoxes simultaneously, and the results informed a model of dynamic decision-making in which strategic paradoxes can be effectively engaged.
Abstract: Senior leaders increasingly embed paradoxes into their organization's strategy, but struggle to manage them effectively. To better understand how they do so, I compared in-depth qualitative data from six top management teams exploring and exploiting simultaneously. The results informed a model of dynamic decision making in which strategic paradoxes can be effectively engaged. The details of this dynamic decision-making model extend and complicate our understanding of managing paradoxes by depicting dilemmas and paradoxes as interwoven, explicating a consistently inconsistent pattern of addressing tensions, and framing both differentiating and integrating practices as necessary for engaging paradox.
519 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the role of senior team attributes and leadership behavior in reconciling conflicting interests among senior team members and achieving organizational ambidexterity is explored. And the authors find that a senior team shared vision and contingency rewards are associated with a firm's ability to combine high levels of exploratory and exploitative innovations.
Abstract: Organizations capable of pursuing exploration and exploitation simultaneously have been suggested to obtain superior performance. Combining both types of activities and achieving organizational ambidexterity, however, leads to the presence of multiple and often conflicting goals, and poses considerable challenges to senior teams in ambidextrous organizations. This study explores the role of senior team attributes and leadership behaviour in reconciling conflicting interests among senior team members and achieving organizational ambidexterity. Findings indicate that a senior team shared vision and contingency rewards are associated with a firm's ability to combine high levels of exploratory and exploitative innovations. In addition, our study shows that an executive director's transformational leadership increases the effectiveness of senior team attributes in ambidextrous organizations and moderates the effectiveness of senior team social integration and contingency rewards. Hence, our study clarifies how senior executives reconcile conflicting demands and facilitate the balancing of seemingly contradictory forces in ambidextrous organizations. Implications for literatures on senior team attributes, transformational leadership and organizational ambidexterity are discussed.
509 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors analyzed the literature published between 1994 and 2011, using bibliometric methods, to explore the scope of the dynamic capability view and detect current research priorities.
Abstract: The dynamic capability view (DCV) is one of the most vibrant approaches to strategic management. In this study, the extant literature published between 1994 and 2011 is analysed, using bibliometric methods in order to explore the scope of this approach and detect current research priorities. For this purpose, the method of bibliographic coupling is introduced in management research, which shifts the focus of analysis from past traditions to current trends. Several clusters of thematically related research are extracted from bibliographic networks, which represent interconnected yet distinct subfields of inquiry within the DCV. The core cluster of the current DCV, which visualizes this research field's nascent but fragile identity, focuses on learning and change capabilities and relates them to firm performance, thus merging aspects of organization theory and strategic management. In addition, several peripheral clusters of research are identified, which reflect a parallel process of differentiation in the overall field. Both trends, i.e. of integration and differentiation, attest to the emancipation of the DCV as a distinct approach to strategic management. However, the DCV still lacks consensual concepts that allow comparisons of empirical studies and advance the theoretical understanding of dynamic capabilities. In the light of the above, some implications of this analysis for further research are discussed.
471 citations
Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...For example, factors that promote ambidexterity include integration mechanisms at the senior team level (Jansen et al. 2009), intellectual capital architectures (Kang and Snell 2009), total quality management (Luzon and Pasola 2011), organizational design (Tushman et al. 2010), executive leadership…...
[...]
TL;DR: The simulation model demonstrates that a firm's centrality and structural hole positions in network relations can moderate the relationships between alliance formation choices and firm performance, and that the ambidexterity hypothesis may be limited to the earlier stage of the network.
Abstract: Although alliance studies have generally favored an ambidextrous approach between exploration and exploitation, they tend to overlook a firm's characteristics, its industry constraints, or the dynamic network in which the firm is embedded. This study examines the ambidexterity hypothesis and its boundary conditions with a unique research method. We not only analyze empirical data from five U.S. industries spanning eight years, but also expand theoretical insights to the network level by building a computer simulation model. Both our empirical and simulation results reveal the contingencies of the ambidexterity hypothesis in alliance formation. Our findings show that although an ambidextrous formation of alliances benefits large firms, a focused formation of either exploratory or exploitative alliances benefits small firms. In an uncertain environment an ambidextrous formation enhances firm performance but so does a focused formation in a stable environment. Finally, the simulation model demonstrates that a firm's centrality and structural hole positions in network relations can moderate the relationships between alliance formation choices and firm performance, and that the ambidexterity hypothesis may be limited to the earlier stage of the network. Our study provides critical evidence into the viability of adopting a dynamic network perspective in understanding the ambidexterity hypothesis and advancing strategic alliance research beyond static and dyadic levels.
443 citations
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