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: The process-theoretical outcome of this study is the BPIT Capability Framework that provides explanation for the interaction between exploitation and exploration and contributes to the understanding of how to build ambidextrous BPIT capabilities.
Abstract: In highly dynamic industries, business processes require exploitation, i.e. activities that are associated with an increase in productivity through automation, standardization, integrated architectures, and the usage of existing IT resources. As a complementary capability, exploration is needed, i.e. the ability to flexibly implement new and innovative IT resources (Lee et al., 2015). The purpose of this paper is to use the concept of ambidexterity, which is researched intensively outside the domain of business processes (e.g. Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Tang and Rai, 2014), to address this paradoxical trade-off within business processes.,The paper follows a qualitative approach. A multiple case study comprising 11 interviews and additional document analysis in six organizations is conducted in the German energy sector to examine the proposed framework.,This paper shows the importance of balancing exploitative and explorative business process IT (BPIT) capabilities. The process-theoretical outcome of this study is the BPIT Capability Framework that provides explanation for the interaction between exploitation and exploration.,This study contributes to the understanding of how to build ambidextrous BPIT capabilities by explaining the underlying mechanisms for feedback loops that occur in cases of imbalance. The scope of the conducted study presents a limitation and thus future research is encouraged to further validate the findings of this paper.,By drilling down to the process level, this paper addresses the gaps that limited empirical studies have in business process management research (Recker and Mendling, 2015) and the focus on business processes that is lacking from the literature on organizational IT management (Gregory et al., 2015).
11 citations
TL;DR: In infrastructure project practice, balancing and maximizing the combined effect of exploratory and exploitative innovation have attracted increasing attention, but it is still unclear how to balance and maximize the impact of exploration and exploitation as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: In infrastructure project practice, balancing and maximizing the combined effect of exploratory and exploitative innovation have attracted increasing attention, but it is still unclear how ...
11 citations
Cites background or result from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...This study also differs 74 from previous research based on the "differentiation–integration" framework, which has generally been 75 validated at the top management team level (e.g., Jansen et al. 2009)....
[...]
...Many scholars have emphasized 63 the critical role of cross-functional teams in fostering ambidextrous innovation (Jansen et al. 2009; 64 Strese et al. 2016), but more importantly, they have stated that cross-functional teams play a vital role 65 in infrastructure projects....
[...]
...Whereas team diversity helps to identify multiple inconsistencies and conflicts, exploratory and 59 exploitative innovations must be differentiated, coordinated, integrated, and applied (Jansen et al. 2009)....
[...]
...169 Moderating Role of Team Autonomy Support 170 The "differentiation-integration" framework has generally been validated at the top management 171 team level (e.g., Jansen et al. 2009)....
[...]
...134 Mediating Role of Expertise Integration 135 In the "differentiation-integration" framework, differentiated exploratory and exploitative expertise 136 need to be mobilized, coordinated, integrated, and applied (Jansen et al. 2009)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors considered a manufacturer with ambidextrous sustainable innovation capability selling products in environmentally conscious market through an independent retailer in a two-period game setting and designed a dyadic supply chain (SC) model considering exploitative and exploratory nature of environmental innovations.
Abstract: This study considers a manufacturer with ambidextrous sustainable innovation capability selling products in environmentally conscious market through an independent retailer in a two-period game setting. We design a two-period game theoretic and dyadic supply chain (SC) model considering exploitative and exploratory nature of environmental innovations. We study five different contract types, viz. wholesale price contract, vertical Nash game structure, cost sharing contract, revenue sharing contract and two-part tariff contract. We demonstrate the impact of market sensitivity towards sustainable innovation and cost parameters on optimal level of decision parameters. The equilibrium results reveal that a suitably designed two-part tariff contract can be used to achieve coordination in a fragmented SC. The equilibrium results assist managers to optimise the SC based on the two-period contract model. The results obtained in this study can help the decision-makers to take decisions on investment in the ambidextrous sustainable innovation under different types of contract structures.
11 citations
Cites methods from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...However, it has been proved that the additive model possesses greater explanatory power as compared to the other two approaches (see Jansen et al., 2009, p. 803 for a detailed analysis)....
[...]
...There are three ways to measure ambidextrous innovations as subtracting (He and Wong, 2004), multiplying (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004), and adding (Jansen et al., 2006, 2009; Kortmann et al., 2014) of exploratory and exploitative innovations....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, a theoretical argument is developed on the critical role of founders' blueprints of the employment model, which are difficult to alter and mark firms' future paths by affecting the dynamism of organizational practices over an extended period of time.
Abstract: This paper explores how founders’ blueprints affect the dynamism of organizational practices, and in particular the capability to sustain as well as change practices. First, a theoretical argument is developed on the critical role of founders’ blueprints of the employment model, which are difficult to alter and mark firms’ future paths by affecting the dynamism of organizational practices over an extended period of time. Subsequently, case studies of several organizational practices in three management consulting firms in the USA, the Netherlands and the UK illustrate how founders’ conceptions of the employment relationship (i.e. their employment model) affect the way in which competing demands of continuity and renewal are addressed. Moreover, engineering- or commitment-oriented blueprints appear to facilitate the capability to adapt, while autocratic blueprints do not.
11 citations
Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...…Boyer and Robert, 2006; Greve, 1998; Hannan and Freeman, 1984; Hannan, Pólos and Carroll, 2004; Hodgkinson and Wright, 2002) or becoming locked into exces- © 2011 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2011 British Academy of Management. sive exploitation (Jansen et al., 2009; Liu, 2006)....
[...]
...Such excessive exploitation may result in a competence trap, fostering inertia and thereby reducing the firm’s capacity to respond adequately to future environmental changes and new opportunities (Jansen et al., 2009; Liu, 2006)....
[...]
25 Jan 2011
TL;DR: In this paper, a systematic review of existing studies on ambidexterity by using also bibliometric analysis techniques is presented, highlighting some important methodological and theoretical gaps: they would like to address some of them in this dissertation.
Abstract: Both scholars and practitioners extensively acknowledge the importance of innovation in an economic environment that is characterized by rapid technological changes, compression of product and process life cycles, a surge in competition and the succession of economic booms and busts. Recent development of the innovation literature clearly indicates that there are many tensions, paradoxes and dilemmas associated with innovation activities. The studies published on the theme also demonstrate that understanding, managing and resolving these tensions are key points for realizing successful innovation and ensuring firms’ survival.
How tensions get reconciled is therefore attracting increasing interest in the research community which has introduced the concept of ambidexterity to describe the capability of firms to achieve and manage conflicting activities by realizing high levels of both in a simultaneous way.
Although ambidexterity is a relatively young theme, today it has become a central concept in management research, receiving contributions from various literature research streams. The recent expansion of the theme, with many papers published in the last two years, has produced a great number of contributions which call for a synthesis of recent results and development. This dissertation thus opens with a systematic review of existing studies on ambidexterity by using also “bibliometric analysis” techniques. This analysis allowed us to map and summarize the results achieved on the issue and to highlight some important methodological and theoretical gaps: we would like to address some of them in this dissertation.
The literature analysis showed first that most existing empirical studies have focused on the one hand on demonstrating the positive effects of ambidexterity and on the other on identifying the enabling factors of such a capability. How firms can develop, nurture and sustain ambidexterity capability, however, still remains a major point of discussion and the need for additional conceptual and empirical investigations about this issue persists.
Second, existing studies on ambidexterity, have identified three main solutions for resolving tensions: the structural separation of units for dealing with tensions (structural solution), the creation of a context where employees are encouraged to perform contradictory tasks at the same time (contextual solution) and the critical role played by managers in sustaining and guiding ambidexterity. The literature review however outlines that researchers have mainly focused attention on one single solution while there are no works that consider the possibility that these solutions are complementary and can coexist in the same organization.
Finally, organizations are recognized as being in continuous interaction with their competitive environment, and they co-evolve with it by reconfiguring their activities and design to meet environmental changes. It therefore appears unlikely that one single design would provide the exhaustive functionality required to deal with the entire range of boundary conditions and new tensions that an organization faces over time. However, there are no studies that take a temporally sensitive perspective, capturing ambidexterity's co-evolution with the organization’s environment.
Based on these considerations, the need for further studies aimed at analyzing how companies can achieve ambidexterity and how ambidexterity co-evolves with the competitive environment clearly emerges.
To better reveal the complexity of the phenomenon, the use of a more fine-grained unit of analysis is strongly recommended: using a granular level of analysis (as opposed to what has been done in empirical studies which adopt the firm or the business unit as the level of analysis) makes it possible to really answer the "how" question of such a complex phenomenon. Shifting the focus from the organization level to a more fine-grained level – such as a single organizational process, project or phase - can also open up interesting areas of research by allowing a more detailed picture to be depicted of the dynamics and mechanisms that lie at the basis of the development of ambidexterity capability. However, studies that examine ambidexterity at a micro level are relatively scarce.
Following these suggestions, we therefore decided to analyse ambidexterity capability in the “search phase” of the innovation process (early phase). This phase is in fact characterized by the tension between searching for knowledge that deepens and improves firms’ existing core knowledge (Local Search) and simultaneously searching for completely new and unfamiliar knowledge that expands the existing knowledge base of the firm (Distant Search). How firms can deal with this tension, and therefore succeed in building ambidexterity capability in the search phase, is therefore the focus of this dissertation.
Consistent with the definition of capabilities as “constituted in the everyday practices”, we have additionally decided to focus the attention on the analysis of the practices through which firms search for knowledge. Adopting a practices-based perspective represents in fact a worthwhile tool that allows us to obtain a closer understanding of complex and multifaceted phenomena such as ambidexterity capability.
Therefore our research questions are:
1. Are there any differences, in terms of search practices, between firms that show ambidexterity capability in the search phase of the innovation process and firms that do not show such a capability? What are these differences?
2. How can firms succeed in realizing ambidexterity capability in the search phase?
3. How does the achievement of ambidexterity capability change while co-evolving with the external environment?
In order to answer these research questions we followed a combined research approach. Given the different forms of the research questions (the first research question is a “What” form of question, while research questions two and three are a “How” form of question), two different methodologies are in fact used. The research approach of this dissertation can thus be broadly divided into two parts: a first part which aims to answer the first research question through a survey methodology where search practices (practices used to carry out the search for knowledge) are treated as a “black-box” and a second part that answers research questions two and three by adopting a case study methodology where the internal structure of search practices is examined.
To answer the first question we created a questionnaire designed to investigate the use of a set of practices for searching for knowledge with a double purpose: to generate knowledge in order to improve the knowledge base already present in the firm - "Local search "- or create completely new knowledge and expand the existing knowledge base of the company - "Distant search". The questionnaire also includes scales designed to measure the ambidexterity capability during the search phase. The questionnaire, which has been sent to a sample of Italian medium-high tech companies, allowed us to obtain a picture of the use of different practices for the generation of both local and distant knowledge. Through an exploratory factor analysis we have additionally identified reliable, valid and one-dimensional measures of search, linked to its two dimensions: "local search" and "distant search". The analysis conducted on the data, cluster analysis and comparison of clusters have also allowed us to verify that indeed there are differences between ambidextrous and non-ambidextrous firms in the search phase, and to identify the distinctive characteristics of those firms that have developed this capability, thus answering the first research question.
To answer the second and third research questions we have instead adopted a qualitative methodological approach. The qualitative research has involved one high-tech Italian firm, with the purpose of delving into how tensions that arise during the search phase of innovation process are managed and resolved. The case study has been conducted by adopting a longitudinal approach, through numerous interviews aimed at grasping the changes that have affected the search activities and the consequent achievement of ambidexterity. The case study has contributed to the literature on ambidexterity capability in two main ways. On the one hand it has enabled us to identify a potential three-phased process followed by the firm in achieving ambidexterity. On the other, the case study has clearly shown that there is no one single ambidextrous configuration that makes it possible to support all the environmental conditions that the organization must deal with over time. In other words, the organizational solution adopted to achieve ambidexterity changes over time, also depending on some features of the external environment.
11 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