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: In this paper, the authors draw on a variety of cognate literatures to discuss the field-level structural characteristics and organizational attributes that shape institutional complexity and explore the repertoire of strategies and structures that organizations deploy to cope with multiple, competing demands.
Abstract: Organizations face institutional complexity whenever they confront incompatible prescriptions from multiple institutional logics. Our interest is in how plural institutional logics, refracted through field-level structures and processes, are experienced within organizations and how organizations respond to such complexity. We draw on a variety of cognate literatures to discuss the field-level structural characteristics and organizational attributes that shape institutional complexity. We then explore the repertoire of strategies and structures that organizations deploy to cope with multiple, competing demands. The analytical framework developed herein is presented to guide future scholarship in the systematic analysis of institutional complexity. We conclude by suggesting avenues for future research.
2,129 citations
Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...…the ambidextrous approach and to minimize internal resistance, and the skills to communicate clearly their approach in order to offset any media skepticism (e.g., O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004; Jansen et al., 2009; Fang, Lee, & Schilling, 2010; Benner & Tushman, 2003; Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003)....
[...]
...These include the need for “ambidextrous leaders” with the ability to understand the requirements of different types of businesses, the authority to implement new incentive systems to institutionalize the ambidextrous approach and to minimize internal resistance, and the skills to communicate clearly their approach in order to offset any media skepticism (e.g., O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004; Jansen et al., 2009; Fang, Lee, & Schilling, 2010; Benner & Tushman, 2003; Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003)....
[...]
TL;DR: An overview of the seven articles included in this special issue is provided and several avenues for future research are suggested.
Abstract: Organizational ambidexterity has emerged as a new research paradigm in organization theory, yet several issues fundamental to this debate remain controversial. We explore four central tensions here: Should organizations achieve ambidexterity through differentiation or through integration? Does ambidexterity occur at the individual or organizational level? Must organizations take a static or dynamic perspective on ambidexterity? Finally, can ambidexterity arise internally, or do firms have to externalize some processes? We provide an overview of the seven articles included in this special issue and suggest several avenues for future research.
1,946 citations
Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...The Jansen et al. (2009) article “Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms” claims that structural differentiation can help ambidextrous organizations maintain multiple inconsistent and conflicting demands; however, these differentiated activities…...
[...]
...Third, ambidexterity may arise from both simultaneous and sequential attention to exploitation and exploration....
[...]
...Kogut and Zander (1992, p. 384) describe “combinative capabilities” as the firm’s ability “to synthesize and apply current and acquired knowledge.”...
[...]
...Several studies in this special issue provide the first evidence that ambidexterity results from interactions across multiple levels (Andriopoulos and Lewis 2009, Groysberg and Lee 2009, Jansen et al. 2009, Mom et al. 2009, Taylor and Helfat 2009)....
[...]
Posted Content•
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: Organizational ambidexterity refers to the ability of an organization to both explore and exploit--to compete in mature technologies and markets where efficiency, control, and incremental improvement are prized and to also compete in new technologies as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Organizational ambidexterity refers to the ability of an organization to both explore and exploit--to compete in mature technologies and markets where efficiency, control, and incremental improvement are prized and to also compete in new technologies and markets where flexibility, autonomy, and experimentation are needed. In the past 15 years there has been an explosion of interest and research on this topic. We briefly review the current state of the research, highlighting what we know and don't know about the topic. We close with a point of view on promising areas for ongoing research.
1,350 citations
TL;DR: The exploration and exploitation framework has attracted substantial interest from scholars studying phenomena such as organizational learning, knowledge management, innovation, organizational design, and strategic alliances as discussed by the authors, and it has become an essential lens for interpreting various behaviors and outcomes within and across organizations.
Abstract: Jim March's framework of exploration and exploitation has drawn substantial interest from scholars studying phenomena such as organizational learning, knowledge management, innovation, organizational design, and strategic alliances. This framework has become an essential lens for interpreting various behaviors and outcomes within and across organizations. Despite its straightforwardness, this framework has generated debates concerning the definition of exploration and exploitation, and their measurement, antecedents, and consequences. We critically review the growing literature on exploration and exploitation, discuss various perspectives, raise conceptual and empirical concerns, underscore challenges for further development of this literature, and provide directions for future research.
1,241 citations
Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...…the notion of ambidexterity quite narrowly when referring to contextual balancing and organizational separation, whereas many studies consider ambidexterity as a general term for describing balance between exploration and exploitation (e.g., Jansen et al., 2009; Raisch et al., 2009; Simsek, 2009)....
[...]
...By loosely integrating their exploratory and exploitative units, organizations simultaneously perform both activities and balance them within their boundaries through active integration of the senior-management teams (Jansen et al., 2009)....
[...]
TL;DR: Overall, this work contributes a more accurate view of how leaders effectively balance between efficiency and flexibility by emphasizing heuristics-based “strategies of simple rules,” multiple environmental realities, and higher-order “expert” cognition.
Abstract: Our purpose is to clarify the microfoundations of performance in dynamic environments. A key premise is that the microfoundational link from organization, strategy, and dynamic capabilities to performance centers on how leaders manage the fundamental tension between efficiency and flexibility. We develop several insights. First, regarding structure, we highlight that organizations often drift toward efficiency, and so balancing efficiency and flexibility comes, counterintuitively, through unbalancing to favor flexibility. Second, we argue that environmental dynamism, rather than being simply stable or dynamic, is a multidimensional construct with dimensions that uniquely influence the importance and ease of balancing efficiency and flexibility. Third, we outline how executives balance efficiency and flexibility through cognitively sophisticated, single solutions rather than by simply holding contradictions. Overall, we go beyond the caricature of new organizational forms as obsessed with fluidity and the simplistic view of routines as the microfoundation of performance. Rather, we contribute a more accurate view of how leaders effectively balance between efficiency and flexibility by emphasizing heuristics-based “strategies of simple rules,” multiple environmental realities, and higher-order “expert” cognition. Together, these insights seek to add needed precision to the microfoundations of performance in dynamic environments.
621 citations
Cites background from "Structural Differentiation and Ambi..."
...…and flexibility are contradictory choices that require mutually exclusive solutions that support either efficiency or flexibility (Duncan 1976, Jansen et al. 2009, Lubatkin et al. 2006, Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008, Raisch et al. 2009, Tushman and O’Reilly 1996; see also the Organization…...
[...]
...Finally, regardless of whether ambidexterity is spatial or temporal, senior executives ultimately must integrate the contradictory cognitive agendas of efficiency and flexibility (Gilbert 2006, Smith and Tushman 2005) through mechanisms such as contingent awards for senior teams (Jansen et al. 2009) and education (Taylor and Helfat 2009)....
[...]
...…is spatial or temporal, senior executives ultimately must integrate the contradictory cognitive agendas of efficiency and flexibility (Gilbert 2006, Smith and Tushman 2005) through mechanisms such as contingent awards for senior teams (Jansen et al. 2009) and education (Taylor and Helfat 2009)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the influence of specific key organizational factors (i.e., enabling formalization, coercive formalization and trust) as antecedents of ambidexterity is investigated.
11 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors systematically review articles published in top-tier ABS journals and identify 120 articles covering 35 years of scientific research on BI, and run a co-citation analysis of selected articles and their reference lists.
Abstract: The business intelligence (BI) literature is in a flux, yet the knowledge about its varying theoretical roots remains elusive. This state of affairs draws from two different scientific communities (informatics and business) that have generated multiple research streams, which duplicate research, neglect each other’s contributions and overlook important research gaps. In response, the authors structure the BI scientific landscape and map its evolution to offer scholars a clear view of where research on BI stands and the way forward. For this endeavor, the authors systematically review articles published in top-tier ABS journals and identify 120 articles covering 35 years of scientific research on BI. The authors then run a co-citation analysis of selected articles and their reference lists. This yields the structuring of BI scholarly community around six research clusters: environmental scanning (ES), competitive intelligence (CI), market intelligence (MI), decision support (DS), analytical technologies (AT) and analytical capabilities (AC). The co-citation network exposed overlapping and divergent theoretical roots across the six clusters and permitted mapping the evolution of BI research following two pendulum swings. This study aims to contribute by structuring the theoretical landscape of BI research, deciphering the theoretical roots of BI literature, mapping the evolution of BI scholarly community and suggesting an agenda for future research.,This paper follows a systematic methodology to isolate peer-reviewed papers on BI published in top-tier ABS journals.,The authors present the structuring of BI scholarly community around six research clusters: ES, CI, MI, DS, AT and AC. The authors also expose overlapping and divergent theoretical roots across the six clusters and map the evolution of BI following two pendulum swings. In light of the structure and evolution of the BI research, the authors offer a future research agenda for BI research.,This study contributes by elucidating the theoretical underpinnings of the BI literature and shedding light upon the evolution, the contributions, and the research gaps for each of the six clusters composing the BI body of knowledge.
10 citations
27 Sep 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the role of corporate development decisions in evolving technology ecosystems is examined and empirically evaluated for improving the likelihood of survival of companies in the evolving technology ecosystem, including internal development, alliances, acquisitions and divestitures.
Abstract: As contemporary business environments across the globe are increasingly affected by the advent of disruptive technologies, several technology ecosystems are in a consistent state of flux driven by the fast paced and discontinuous nature of technological change. This dissertation addresses the adaptive role of firms’ corporate development decisions in these dynamic and fast changing environments. I theorize on and empirically evaluate the role of four corporate development decisions – internal development, alliances, acquisitions and divestitures as adaptive mechanisms towards improving the likelihood of survival in evolving technology ecosystems.
This dissertation examines how corporate development decisions exert an adaptive influence on strategic decisions taken at the product portfolio level (essay one), firm level (essay two) and transaction level (essay three). Each essay focuses on a unique challenge that accosts managers in evolving technology ecosystems – product configuration (essay one), corporate growth (essay two) and technology driven inertia (essay three). Also, each essay proposes that corporate development decisions contribute to the adaptive behavior of firms in different ways and hence, they represent strategic alternatives through which managers can overcome these challenges to enhance the likelihood of survival of their firms in evolving technology ecosystems.
10 citations
TL;DR: It is suggested that Scrum facilitates sequential and contextual ambidexterity by producing a pattern of alternating exploitation and exploration actions and by assigning specific roles, and which aspects of project management methods they should pay attention to.
Abstract: Ambidexterity has been shown to contribute to project performance. Recent studies of ambidexterity on the project level focus on multilevel knowledge resources, individual actions and structural ambidexterity. However, the role of project management methods remains unclear. This is surprising because project management methods are broadly disseminated as standards. The purpose of this paper is to theorize how project management methods affect ambidexterity on the project level.,It is demonstrated how routine theory adds to a better theoretical conceptualization and understanding of project management methods. The analysis of this paper contains, first, the reconstruction of the contribution of each action in “Scrum” to either exploitation or exploration and, second, the discussion of roles in Scrum. To conclude, a “big picture” of what ambidexterity in projects can look like is developed.,The main findings suggest that Scrum facilitates sequential and contextual ambidexterity by producing a pattern of alternating exploitation and exploration actions and by assigning specific roles.,For practitioners this leads to steps they can take to enhance ambidexterity in projects. It is suggested to staff explicitly ambidexterity-related roles like a Scrum Master and to persist on explorative actions like adaption of project goals and Customer Feedback.,First, the present paper contributes an analysis of the underlying micro-mechanisms of sequential and contextual ambidexterity in projects. Second, it informs practitioners on what aspects of project management methods they should pay attention to.
10 citations
Dissertation•
01 Jan 2012
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors studied the effect of strategic orientation on innovation performance in manufacturing SMEs in the Netherlands and found that RO leads to radical innovation where it develops a unique resource base and searches the environment for channels to exploit.
Abstract: This study researched differences in strategic orientations at small and medium sized enterprises in the Netherlands and the effect of strategic orientations on innovation performance. Research on strategic orientations and its effect on innovation performance provide four general orientations: resource orientation (RO), market orientation (MO), entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and learning orientation (LO).
Data is collected using questionnaires to identify strategic orientation characteristics and innovation performance at manufacturing SME’s in the Netherlands. After excluding companies with less than 10 or more than 250 fulltime employees and companies younger than three years, exactly 100 “clean” cases remained. Regression analysis provides evidence that the four strategic orientations are best represented in a moderating model where MO and RO lead to innovation performance and EO and LO are moderating this relationship. The results show that RO leads to radical innovation where it develops a unique resource base and searches the environment for channels to exploit. Developing, accumulating and deploying a unique resource base will enable a company to provide (potential) customers with a qualitative, total new and valuable product based on their latent needs (not on their current needs). Uniqueness of the resource base, dynamism effects of unique resources on the organization and synergy effects of the resources are maximizing the potential to create competitive advantage. MO leads to incremental innovations where it gathers information about customer needs, competitors and transfers this information throughout the organization to fully exploit it. Based on this information, existing products are improved on the short term to stay ahead of competitors. The conclusion of the theoretical framework argued that always a combination (balance) of RO and MO exists for both radical and incremental innovation. However, the regression analysis indicates that no combination of balance exists. RO only leads to radical innovation and MO only leads to incremental innovation.
For developing radical innovations, moderator entrepreneurial orientation has no effect on the resource orientation relationship with radical innovation performance. EO refers to the behavioral processes essential for entering new or established markets with new or existing goods or services, particularly in dynamic competitive environments. Entrepreneurial organizations are better able to match their internal organization by changing and shaping the environment and allocate resources to exploit uncertain business opportunities. The three dimensions of EO are: risk taking, proactiveness, and autonomy. The effect of EO on MO and incremental innovations is on the other hand remarkable. Where MO leads to incremental innovations when EO is low, no relation exists when EO is high. With regard to moderator LO, the results show that companies with low LO are most likely to develop incremental innovations through MO. High LO, tantamount to generative (or double loop) learning, is most beneficial for the development of radical innovations through RO. LO refers to the ability of an organization to develop new knowledge or insights that have the potential of influencing (strategic) behavior. LO has two dimensions: commitment to learning and shared vision. Two learning modes can be recognized; Adaptive learning (single loop) refers to detect and correct errors within the boundaries of the organization where generative learning (double loop) refers to detecting and correcting errors and questioning the boundaries of the organizations implying that organizational members are willing to question long-held assumptions about its mission, customers, markets, products or technologies (out-of-the-box thinking).
One must recognize that the development of radical and incremental innovations cannot be implemented within the same processes. The challenge, for smaller SME’s in particular, is to manage both processes sequentially or simultaneously. This requires different internal characteristics, strategic orientations and external environment. SME’s must therefore have dynamic capabilities (the ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly-changing environments). It represents organizational and strategic routines by which
5
organizations identify and deploy new resource combinations (bundles) as markets emerge, collide, split, evolve, and die and market opportunities shift. Managers should be able to sense and shape opportunities and threats, seize market opportunities and maintain competitiveness by reconfiguring, obtaining, protecting and bundling the company resources
Unsuccessful companies could have problems aligning their internal organization with the strategy and the external environment when internal or external conditions change. Ideally, separate business units must be set up, but at SME’s the ability to create separate business units is not always possible. Therefore, managers and CEO’s of SME’s must consider ambidexterity in their product development processes and day-to-day routines. Simultaneously or sequentially managing the two contradictory processes requires companies to be ambidextrous. This study provides evidence that ambidexterity is needed at SME’s also, not only at larger companies. However, SME’s with fewer resources than large multinationals are mostly not able to incorporate two different alignments within their organization at the same time. Therefore, managers or employees themselves need to be ambidextrous, the organizational structure must support clear and qualitative communication about goals, vision and mission for both exploitative and explorative activities. The opportunity to exercise social contacts, recognition and teambuilding facilitate the needed culture. Furthermore, ambidextrous individuals have to transfer knowledge top down and horizontal throughout the organization and need decision making authority to act effectively.
With regard to financing the development of radical innovations with turnover from existing products, resource leveraging is important to consider. Resources can be “leveraged” to reduce the gap between market opportunities and existing resources. Resource leveraging is an alternative for downsizing in disengaging resources for new strategic objectives. Resource leveraging seeks to get the most out of the existing resources by concentrating them more effectively on key strategic goals; by accumulating them more efficiently, by complementing one kind of resource with another to create higher order value; by conserving resources wherever possible; and by recovering them from the marketplace in het shortest possible time. Reflecting on the article of Hamel & Prahalad (1993) about “Strategy as stretch and leverage”, the following can be concluded. Focus on internal capabilities and resources (RO) and organizational learning (LO) lead to the development of radical innovations with an inside-out approach. However, its success does not depend on the degree of LO, but it does contribute to the success. The results show that with LO the radical innovation performance is slightly higher. Vision and commitment (to learning) give an additional boost that maybe provides companies with more lucrative new opportunities. One would expect that with “ambition” also entrepreneurial elements (EO) are visible like proactiveness and risk taking. The results of this study do not support this expectation. This does however fits the theory of strategic intent. With shared intent, companies must set a long term plan but also control for incremental step in between. These incremental adjustments reduce the degree of risk and proactiveness.
This study finds that resource orientation is important for developing radical innovations, market orientation is only important for developing incremental innovations, the role of entrepreneurial behavior is highly overrated for radical innovation development and even hampers the development of incremental innovations and organizational learning contributes to the development of radical innovations, but also hampers the development of incremental innovations. Reflecting on the present literature on strategic orientations and their effect on innovation performance one can only conclude that the role of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation is highly overrated and researchers must separate incremental and radical innovation performance to see these dynamics. Research must not continue to invent concepts around market orientation and entrepreneurial behavior to explain radical innovation development (for example “proactive MO”), but should focus on building further on and testing the focus on resources and internal capabilities as the driver of developing new products, new services, new methods of production, new markets, new sources of supply and new ways of organizing.
10 citations