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
15 Jun 2018
TL;DR: In this article, a new typology for acquisition integration associated with different pre-and post-acquisition characteristics is presented, and the authors distinguished between human and task integration to enable more nuanced integration decisions that help to reconcile conflicting findings on acquisition integration decisions.
Abstract: Increasing chances of firm survival requires enduring entrepreneurship or the ability to balance competing demands for exploration and exploitation. We developed how acquisitions can provide needed disruption to change a firm’s dominant orientation toward exploration or exploitation or enable a continued focus on a firm’s dominant orientation. The result is a new typology for acquisition integration associated with different pre- and post-acquisition characteristics. For example, a firm with an exploitation orientation faces different integration challenges in acquiring targets with an exploration or exploitation orientation. We also distinguished between human and task integration to enable more nuanced integration decisions that help to reconcile conflicting findings on acquisition integration decisions. Implications for management research and practice were discussed.
10 citations
TL;DR: The results show that environmental management is conducive to firms’ green process innovation, and the influence is through zero- order routine replication and higher-order routine replication.
Abstract: Although green process technology is vital to sustainable development, few articles focus on how to implement it from the perspective of firms. This article tries to answer this question. Being set as an antecedent of green process innovation, the influence of environmental management is analyzed and the influential path is elaborated. Hypotheses are tested by means of multivariate regression analysis and bootstrap method. The results show that environmental management is conducive to firms’ green process innovation, and the influence is through zero-order routine replication and higher-order routine replication. The mediating effect played by the interaction between the two is stronger than that of the individual. Implications are given to academia and practitioners.
10 citations
TL;DR: Innovation is often thought of as consisting of a new product, or a technology or a process that results in a patent as mentioned in this paper, but in fact, innovation can represent or result in a wide range of other outcomes, such as a new production process or marketing strategy, or an enhancement to an existing product.
Abstract: Innovation is often thought of as consisting of a new product, or a technology or a process that results in a patent. In fact, innovation can represent or result in a wide range of other outcomes, such as a new production process or marketing strategy, or an enhancement to an existing product. In a competitive global marketplace, innovation is critical to the success of many businesses— big or small, urban or rural.1
9 citations
01 Jan 2010
Abstract: Today’s business environments have become fast-moving, involving frequent, rapid and unpredictable change As such, firms are struggling to (find new ways to) create and sustain competitive advantage Scholars in organization science, and strategic management in particular, have shifted focus towards competing on higher-order (ie meta-)organizational capabilities in fast-moving business environments; organizational capabilities that may define a firm strategically as being key drivers of long-term business performance However, the main question that needs to be answered refers to what the key dimensions of such higher-order organizational capabilities in dynamic business environments are This doctoral dissertation therefore examines the following central research question: What are the key dimensions of higher-order organizational capabilities in addressing situations of changing market and competitive conditions? This dissertation builds upon the notions of dynamic capability and ambidexterity The notion of dynamic capability explains how organizations may develop competitive advantage in fast-moving business environments, by focusing on the dynamic processes of assembling, deploying and integrating a firm’s resource base Dynamic capabilities stress the importance of the history of a firm’s current capabilities, and the importance of revising and reconfiguring these in the future As such, firms are able to address changing environments and/or create market change However, in situations of changing market and competitive conditions, firms need to demonstrate the ability to timely response to new circumstances, along with the ability to address existing environments In this respect, scholars introduced the notion of ambidexterity, which refers to performing different and often competing challenges Here, competitive advantage may result from being efficient in managing today’s business demands, while at the same time being effective in adapting to changing business environments and/or in creating market change As such, firms need a focus on both exploitation and exploration; that is, on their current activities in existing domains along with developing new activities in non-existing domains The current literature comprises a variety of conceptualizations and interpretations of dynamic capability and ambidexterity, providing a significant challenge for both scholars and practitioners to understand and develop these meta-organizational capabilities In order to assess the collective understanding of both concepts, Chapter 2 introduces a systematic literature review approach Such an approach involves a comprehensive search of all potentially relevant papers and books of dynamic capability and ambidexterity, and the use of explicit, reproducible criteria in the selection of papers and books for review Drawing on systematic literature reviews, the foundations, antecedents and consequences of dynamic capability and ambidexterity are explored in terms of definitions, operationalizations and measurements of their key dimensions As a result, a (re-)definition of dynamic capability and ambidexterity is proposed These definitions point at ways in which dynamic capability and ambidexterity can be operationalized and measured more effectively in future research As such, Chapter 2 develops a definition and operationalization of dynamic capability and ambidexterity in terms of their key dimensions Chapter 2 therefore contributes to the development of a theoretical understanding of the key dimensions of dynamic capability and ambidexterity, providing a starting point for future theoretical and empirical studies that advance our collective understanding of dynamic capability and ambidexterity The insights from the systematic literature reviews provide a theoretical basis for the empirical studies in this dissertation The empirical studies in Chapter 3 and 4 extend our empirical understanding of the dynamics entailed in the way ambidexterity is performed in service firms Empirically studying ambidexterity in the service industries contributes to previous studies that have mainly been conducted in manufacturing firms, whereas relatively less attention has been paid to the challenges of exploitation versus exploration in service firms Moreover, ambidexterity is particularly challenging for service firms, because new service development requires integrating the needs of new service operations and processes with existing business activities As such, this dissertation extends and builds (new) theory in the field of dynamic capability, and ambidexterity in particular, which lead to main findings and implications that are of general scientific value for scholars and provide valuable insights for practitioners (in service firms) The empirical study in Chapter 3 studies ambidexterity from an organization design perspective by examining the relationship between decentralization and ambidexterity As such, this study provides an in-depth understanding of the impact of decentralization on the dynamics entailed in the way ambidexterity is organized, balanced and connected in large service firms, incorporating the role of timing and interdependencies Recently, scholars have suggested that a decentralized structure facilitates ambidexterity However, comparative case studies of two service innovations in a large decentralized retail bank in the Netherlands paint a more complex picture First, a literature review implies that decentralization may activate highly different generative mechanisms Subsequently, the case study findings show that the activation of these generative mechanisms depends on the actual use of the decentralized structure Moreover, these generative mechanisms and their outcomes gain and lose dominance in different phases of the innovation process In particular, the effectiveness of the decentralized structure depend on the interdependence of exploitation and exploration activities A decentralized structure appears to be of limited help for ambidexterity if exploration involves complex service innovation that needs to be integrated into the exploitative core of the organization In other words, a decentralized structure does not support ambidexterity when exploitation and exploration activities are strongly interdependent Overall, the main contribution of chapter 3 is to elaborate and extend existing theory In this respect, Chapter 3 contributes to the literature by combining the literature on ambidexterity, organizational design and service innovation The empirical study in Chapter 4 studies ambidexterity from a managerial perspective by examining the relationship between an organization’s founding conditions and the degree of ambidexterity in organizational practices in small-to-medium sized service firms As such, this study extends our understanding of the dynamics entailed in the way competing priorities are performed, especially when these priorities demand both continuity and renewal More specifically, this study explores the way founding conditions impact organizational practices, and in particular the capability to change these practices The findings of comparative case studies of two practices in three management consulting SME’s in the USA, the Netherlands and the UK reveal how founding conditions affect the way competing demands of continuity and renewal are addressed The case study findings primarily suggest the importance of founders’ blueprints, embedded in their employment models These blueprints are difficult to alter, and as such mark the firm’s future path by impacting the level of ambidexterity in practices over an extended period of time Overall, the main contribution of Chapter 4 is to build new theory In this respect, Chapter 4 contributes to the literature by combining the literature on ambidexterity, founding conditions and practice-based research Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the main findings and (practical) implications of the studies described in previous chapters of this dissertation Subsequently, a general conclusion regarding the central research question is given In this respect, by drawing on the systematic literature reviews and empirical studies, this chapter describes a taxonomy of key dimensions of ambidexterity as a higher-order organizational capability As such, this taxonomy integrates the previous chapters, and serves to answer the central research question in this dissertation Finally, this chapter describes the main limitations of this dissertation and makes suggestions for future research
9 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a questionnaire approach is used to collect data, and a moderated structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses and found that new product creativity has a positive influence on alliance ambidexterity, whereas causal ambiguity moderates these associations.
Abstract: There has been little research discussing the role that new product creativity plays in achieving alliance ambidexterity and how causal ambiguity may be a potential moderator in the association between new product creativity and alliance ambidexterity. The purpose of this study is to identify the contingent role of causal ambiguity and examine the relationships between new product creativity, causal ambiguity and alliance ambidexterity.,In this empirical study, a questionnaire approach is used to collect data, and moderated structural equation modeling is used to test the hypotheses.,The findings indicate that new product creativity has a positive influence on alliance ambidexterity, whereas causal ambiguity moderates these associations. When causal ambiguity increases, the positive impact of new product creativity on alliance ambidexterity is attenuated.,This study integrates the ambidexterity literature and the alliance literature by applying the concept of ambidexterity to a strategic alliance context. The moderating role of causal ambiguity echoes previous research postulating causal ambiguity as a barrier to knowledge transfer in alliances. Given a higher level of causal ambiguity, firms face more difficulty when they attempt to develop new product creativity to achieve the desired level of alliance ambidexterity.,Managers could initiate incentive programs and build supportive environments that facilitate new product creativity. Firms will be capable of elaborating the potential of new product creativity to further facilitate alliance ambidexterity. Managers need to pay attention to causal ambiguity that may have a moderating influence on the relationship between new product creativity and alliance ambidexterity.,This study contributes to the synthesis of new product creativity and alliance ambidexterity and helps scholars and managers to better understand the moderating effect of causal ambiguity in the context of the innovation and ambidexterity literature.
9 citations