scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Posted Content

Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms

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.

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors focus on R&D collaboration as a strategy to solve the dilemma of exploration and exploitation, and suggest that cooperative organizations are distinguishable by their initial strategic intent, to either explore new knowledge or exploit existing capabilities, but face similar tensions described in individual organizations when attempting to simultaneously pursue high levels of both activities.
Abstract: Managing innovation requires two distinctive sets of organizational abilities: the ability to push the technological frontier and create new knowledge, and the ability to refine existing technologies and deliver products into market. While both are essential to survival, they are generally seen as conflicting strategies. In this conceptual paper, we focus on R&D collaboration as a strategy to solve the dilemma of exploration and exploitation. We suggest that cooperative R&D organizations are distinguishable by their initial strategic intent, to either explore new knowledge or exploit existing capabilities, but face similar tensions described in individual organizations when attempting to simultaneously pursue high levels of both activities. Cooperative R&D bodies are, hence, a unique sampling frame. Like individual firms,

9 citations


Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."

  • ...…not only t reconcile the multiple -and sometimes colliding- expectations of member companies (Hagedoorn et al., 2000; Olk, 1998); they are also looked to for creating organizational linkages to support multiple structures, strategies and processes (Jansen et al., 2009; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2007)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the use of integration mechanisms in two innovation activities relationships: between exploitation product innovation and exploration product innovation, and between exploitation process innovation and exploratory product innovation.
Abstract: Purpose – This paper examines the use of integration mechanisms in two innovation activities relationships: between exploitation product innovation and exploration product innovation, and between exploitation process innovation and exploration product innovation. It also identifies the benefits generated by the use of integration mechanisms. Design/methodology/approach – A multiple case study in four companies from different sectors which are a reference in product and process innovation. Findings – There is integration in the innovation activities relationships studied. The most used integration mechanisms in both relationships are regular collaboration, involvement for knowledge exchange (cross-functional interface mechanisms), those related to a culture of freedom, such as the free flow and encouragement of ideas, and those related to knowledge and information exchange (connectedness mechanisms). Originality/value – In addition to identifying that integration is possible and occurs in companies, it was possible to verify that the use of integration mechanisms enables the generation of benefits for product innovation.

9 citations

01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors focus on the role of leadership in dealing with four paradoxes of organizing in four separate studies: efficiency-adaptability, exploitation-exploration, integrative-disintegrative tendencies, and aligned-conflicting perspectives.
Abstract: Despite the overwhelming amount of attention given by scientists and practitioners to leadership, most theories of leadership have been developed to explain the role of leadership in traditional line organizations, not to explain how leaders deal with complex and paradoxical demands in project-based organizations contexts. In this thesis we explore leadership in project-based organizations. We show how leaders enable project-based organizations to deal with complex and paradoxical demands through adaptive and paradoxical strategies, practices and narratives. In project-based organizations most work is organized in projects in which people from different functional backgrounds, and often different organizations and geographical locations, tend to come together for a limited period of time to accomplish a shared goal. As these projects are instigated to deal with an emergent demand they are well positioned to enable the organization to deal with complex and paradoxical demands. In this thesis we focus on the role of leadership in dealing with four paradoxes of organizing in four separate studies. These paradoxes are efficiency-adaptability, exploitation-exploration, integrative-disintegrative tendencies, and aligned-conflicting perspectives. We identify a number of leadership strategies, practices and narratives leaders enact and construct in order to deal with these paradoxes.

9 citations


Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."

  • ...Similarly, in studies that have addressed the factors that enable structurally separated exploration and exploitation, leadership has been identified as a crucial factor and has mainly been studied as a stable role (Adler et al., 1999; Cao, Simsek, & Zhang, 2010; Jansen et al., 2009; Jansen, George, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2008; Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2008)....

    [...]

  • ..., 2010), and top management team behavioral integration (Jansen et al., 2009; Lubatkin et al., 2006), shared vision (Jansen et al....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
15 Jun 2016
TL;DR: The ability of an organization to be flexible and adaptive to change by exploring new opportunities while at the same time being effective and aligned with daily operations through exploiting current capabilities is defined as organizational ambidexterity.
Abstract: The ability of an organization to be flexible and adaptive to change by exploring new opportunities while at the same time being effective and aligned with daily operations through exploiting current capabilities is defined as organizational ambidexterity. Achieving organizational ambidexterity is not trivial, and in this study at least three solutions are presented in order to support it (structural, temporal and contextual). Also, a review is conducted regarding the context of organizational ambidexterity in the framework of organizational learning, resource management, technology management and organizational behavior as well as about the factors affecting it.

9 citations


Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."

  • ...By loosely integrating their exploratory and exploitative units, organizations simultaneously perform both activities and balance them within their boundaries through active integration of senior management teams (Jansen et al. 2009)....

    [...]

Dissertation
03 Jun 2013
TL;DR: In this article, an agent-based model is proposed to find the optimal degree of knowledge integration considering environmental complexity and turbulence in MNCs, and the role of departmental absorptive capacities at the R&D-marketing interface for innovation performance.
Abstract: Departmental absorptive capacity: its conceptualization and role for cross-functional integration. The role of departmental absorptive capacities at the R&D-marketing interface for innovation performance: evidence from the italian manufacturing industry. How much knowledge integration in MNCs? An agent-based model to find the optimal degree of knowledge integration considering environmental complexity and turbulence.

8 citations


Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."

  • ...the ideal that division of labor according to specialization allows to speed up processes and hence efficiency with which organizational units respond to their particular environment (Jansen et al., 2009; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967)....

    [...]

  • ...regarded as a major driver behind ambidexterity (Jansen et al., 2009)....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
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,…...

    [...]

Book ChapterDOI
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)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
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…...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
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)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
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