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
Dissertation•
01 Oct 2013
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined how teams shape task interdependence over time through an inductive, longitudinal study of four high-technology firms and found that structural linking in innovation-led firms occurs by means of linking teams.
Abstract: The innovation-era has seen firms adopting a variety of organisation designs with teams as their basic building blocks. The increasing competitive importance of innovation and the prevalence of team-based organisation designs have confronted firms with the challenge to manage complex task interdependence configurations. Firms therefore resort to structural linking to integrate dispersed innovation activities across a multitude of teams. I find that structural linking in innovation-led firms occurs by means of linking teams: i.e. teams which are created by top managers to support or manage the innovation process across other teams.
Within this context, I have set out to answer the central question of this study: how and why do teams shape the development of task interdependence? I examined how teams shape task interdependence over time through an inductive, longitudinal study of four high-technology firms. 122 interviews were conducted over a period of 24 months including a 3 month ethnographic stage.
My central contribution is a model of how teams shape the development of task interdependence. Overall, I present the conjunction of task and social interdependence as a dynamic, cyclical, process, which is shaped by the collective agency of teams. This study proposes that studying task interdependence from the perspective of teams requires the inclusion of social interdependence because teams form different perceptions of the designed task interdependence which can be positive, negative, or individualistic. These perceptions emerge in response to perceived goal structures between teams and as a response to how task interdependence relates to the identity and autonomy of the involved teams. These perceptions produce distinct patterns of interaction between teams in innovation systems, which subsequently instigate reconfigurations of both task and social interdependence.
8 citations
07 Mar 2017
TL;DR: The results reveal that existing infrastructures should be used and extended in such a way that they can facilitate a variety of different applications and suggest that smart cities focussed on structural ambidexterity innovate quicker.
Abstract: Most cities have limited resources to become a smart city Yet some cities have been more successful than others in becoming a smart city This raises the questions why were some cities able to become smart, whereas other were not able to do so? This research is aimed at identifying factors influencing the shift towards becoming a smart city In this way insight is gained into factors that governments can influence to become a smart city First, Literature was reviewed to identify dimensions and factors enabling or impeding the process of becoming a smart city These factors were used to compare two similar type of case studies The cases took different paths to become a smart city and had different levels of success This enabled us to identify factors influencing the move towards smart cities The results reveal that existing infrastructures should be used and extended in such a way that they can facilitate a variety of different applications Synergy from legacy systems can avoid extra expenditures Having such an infrastructure in place facilitates the development of new organizational models These models are developed outside the existing organization structure to avoid hinder from existing practices and organizational structures This finding suggests that smart cities focussed on structural ambidexterity innovate quicker
8 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors conducted a study to identify the impact of organizational ambidexterity on organizational conflict and found that exploration has the highest impact on organizational conflicts, while teaching knowledge, experience and new skills for employees.
Abstract: Objectives: The present research was conducted to identify the impact of Organizational Ambidexterity on Organizational Conflict. Methods/Statistical analysis: The study population consisted of all of the managers of Zain Telecommunication Company in Jordan. The questionnaire comprised three parts covered the intended constructs, i.e., Organizational Ambidexterity on Organizational Conflict. The questionnaires, with instructions of how to complete them, were used, (260) questionnaires retrieved, to analyze hypothesis data, Smart Equal Partial Least Square and Structure Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) were used as an approach for analysis. Findings: The results of the study indicate that Organizational Ambidexterity had a significant effect on organizational conflict. Exploration has the highest impact on organizational conflict. Application/Improvements: Organization with exploitation constantly responds to environmental changes and strives to meet client requirements by working continuously on teaching knowledge, experience and new skills for employees.
Keywords: Jordan, Organizational Ambidexterity, Organizational Conflict, Telecommunication Company
8 citations
TL;DR: A controllable and recyclable cation-assisted reduction route to fabricate a palladium nanoparticle supported catalyst to synthesize precious metal supported catalysts is reported.
Abstract: Development of sustainable routes to synthesize precious metal supported catalysts is of great importance because of their wide applications in the catalysis field. This paper reported a controllable and recyclable cation-assisted reduction route to fabricate a palladium nanoparticle supported catalyst. At 323 K, highly dispersed Pd/Al2O3-CARM was prepared through introducing M2+ (M = Mn, Zn or Cu) ions to promote the reduction of H2PdCl4 in ethylene glycol–water solution, and the residual filtrate after preparation could be recycled to prepare Pd/Al2O3 catalysts. A turnover frequency of 300 × 102 h−1 was obtained for Pd/Al2O3-CARMn in solvent-free aerobic oxidation of benzyl alcohol to benzaldehyde.
8 citations
TL;DR: The authors collected samples through two serial-wave surveys of the Bohai Economic Rim in China and tested the theoretical hypotheses using polynomial regression with response surface analysis, showing that alignment coping combination enhanced innovation ambidexterity by reshaping an entrepreneur’s cognitive structure.
Abstract: As an effective cognitive and behavioral strategy, coping helps to overcome negative events. Although coping and its effects have been widely studied in psychology, little is known about the combination of entrepreneurs' coping and its connection with firms' innovation ambidexterity. To fill these gaps, in this study, the authors collected 106 samples through two serial-wave surveys of the Bohai Economic Rim in China and tested the theoretical hypotheses using polynomial regression with response surface analysis. The results showed that alignment coping combination enhanced innovation ambidexterity by reshaping an entrepreneur's cognitive structure. Misalignment coping combination was found to enhance innovation ambidexterity by eliciting an entrepreneur's different types of information processing systems. This study contributes to the literatures of coping, innovation ambidexterity, and upper echelons theory from the entrepreneurial cognition approach.
8 citations