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: Although there is broad agreement that ambidexterity somehow relates to the simultaneous pursuit of exploratory and exploitative activities, a lack of conceptual clarity exists regarding the extent to which it relates to exploration and exploitation as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Although there is broad agreement that ambidexterity somehow relates to the simultaneous pursuit of exploratory and exploitative activities, a lack of conceptual clarity exists regarding the extent...
7 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose an organizational model that balances exploration activities with those of exploitation, thus being able to meet the changing needs within the Administration, and the actions envisaged for its operations.
Abstract: Over the last 30 years, a wave of reforms has reshaped the panorama of public administrations around the world, which have also stimulated debates on the subject reform in public sector relations. Much research has focused on discussing the validity of New Public Management (NPM) as a paradigm, including the recognition of regional versions of a number of universal problems in the Public Governance, NPM, and Public Value areas. This debate is focused on the need to give concrete answers to the new management needs of policy makers and to the growing demands of citizens. Increasingly public administration is based on meeting two needs: society requires creative, flexible, and innovation-oriented approaches, whilst economic pressures and budget cuts are forcing uses and models oriented toward efficiency, competitiveness, and cost savings. As regard the changing requirements of the public government, the new organizational system needs to incorporate the creativity, innovation capacity, and flexibility necessary to achieve sustainability and public value. The purpose of this research is to offer an organizational model, which balances exploration activities with those of exploitation, thus being able to meet the changing needs within the Administration, and the actions envisaged for its operations. This article also introduces the requirements for a decision support system to measure regional performance and service quality. It is hoped that we add to our knowledge and understanding of coordinated public policy and good governance that is effective even in these radically demanding Covid-19 times.
7 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the effect of R&D enablers and barriers as well as industrial property on exploration, their influence on exploitation and finally the possible impact on innovative outcome (IO) as a result variable.
Abstract: This research aims to study the effect of R&D (research and development) enablers and barriers as well as industrial property on exploration, their influence on exploitation and finally the possible impact on innovative outcome (IO) as a result variable. The IO can be defined as the orientation towards new or improved products, services and processes, as well as towards penetration and greater market share, which the company has obtained as a result of innovative processes.,For this purpose, a new relationship model is defined, which is empirically contrasted in a quantitative study. We use a sample of large firms from different economic sectors with a high level of investment in R&D.,The results indicate a close relationship between exploration and exploitation processes, as well as a positive impact on the innovative outcome. Moreover, the type of relationship that R&D enablers and barriers have with exploration is demonstrated and the lack of a positive effect of industrial property on exploration.,These results may lead to new markets opening up and the creation or improvement of new products, services or processes in diverse sectors of highly innovative firms.,This research aims to study the effect of R&D enablers and barriers and industrial property on learning flows and, finally, the possible impact on the innovative outcome. A new theoretical model of relationships is defined, and it is the first time that it is empirically tested.,本研究旨在探討研究與開發的推動者、研發的障礙和工業產權對探索與開發的影響，並最終探究出其可能對作為結果變項的創新成果帶來的影響。創新成果可解釋為邁向新的或改良的產品，服務和流程的定向，以及邁向滲透和更大的市場份額的定向，而這更大的市場份額是企業的創新流程所帶來的。,為達研究目的，我們解說了一個新的關聯模型, 並使用於一項量化研究，進行以實驗為依據的對比。我們使用的樣本，包括來自不同經濟領域，並於研發投放高水平投資的大企業。,研究結果顯示，探索與開發是兩個關係密切的流程；研究結果亦顯示對創新成果的影響是正面的。而且，結果展示了研發推動者、研發障礙兩者與探索的關聯，以及工業產權對探索是欠缺正面作用的。,研究結果或會帶來新市場的開拓，以及在不同領域、高度創新的企業內，帶來新的產品，服務與流程的創造和改良。,本研究旨在探討研發推動者，研發障礙和工業產權對學習心流的影響，並最終探究出其對創新成果可能帶來的影響。研究解說了一個新的、純理論的關聯模型，而這個模型於此是首次憑實驗而被測試的。
7 citations
TL;DR: DeVaro et al. as discussed by the authors argue that the standard methods are more likely to support incorrect conclusions regarding mediating effects and propose to use instrument-based mediation tests such as two-stage least squares (2SLS) and threestage least square (3SLS).
Abstract: Theorizing in strategic organization often leads researchers to state hypotheses involving mediating effects, in which an antecedent variable, X, affects an outcome, Y, through the intermediate channel of a mediator, M (Whetten, 1989). Sometimes the entire effect of X on Y is thought to operate through M (i.e. complete mediation), and sometimes X is thought to affect Y directly and also indirectly through M (i.e. partial mediation). When empirical researchers set out to test such mediating hypotheses the vast majority of tests use either of two standard methodologies introduced in the mid-1980s. The first is the ‘causal steps’ approach of Baron and Kenny (1986), extended in Kenny et al. (1998) and further discussed in MacKinnon et al. (2002) and Shrout and Bolger (2002). The second is the SEM approach, advocated in James and Brett (1984) and further discussed in James et al. (2006). While the two standard methods and their variants feature an appealing simplicity that has sustained their popularity for decades, they both require a stringent assumption that is unlikely to hold in most contexts of interest in strategic organization research. The result has been a proliferation of studies reporting problematic tests of mediating effects.1 The good news is that better, instrument-based mediation tests such as two-stage least squares (2SLS) and three-stage least squares (3SLS) that do not require the stringent assumptions underlying the standard methods are available and have been well known for decades. The bad news is that they are rarely used, despite some clear and compelling articulations of their merits (e.g. Shaver, 2005). Some have recently argued that research in strategic organization would benefit from adopting these alternative methods given that they do not require the stringent assumptions of the standard methods (DeVaro, 2011; Shaver, 2005; Wood et al., 2008). The key point is not that evidence of mediating effects is more or less likely to be uncovered using the alternative methods versus the standard methods but rather that the standard methods are more likely to support incorrect conclusions regarding mediation. This essay offers a program for mediation remediation in the field of strategic organization and complements earlier papers that emphasized the importance of endogeneity and of correct interpretation of regressions in strategic organization research (e.g. Bascle, 2008; Hamilton and Nickerson, 2003; Yip and Tsang, 2007). It also provides a useful addition to the ‘hallmarks of high-quality empirical research’ identified in Oxley et al. (2010). But the call to replace the standard methods with instrument-based ones is not new. Given that the most important arguments for instrument-based methods have been made cogently before – without appreciably shifting the literature away from the standard methods – it is fair to ask what value there is in yet another orator ascending the soapbox to critique the standard methods. My answer is to focus this essay on what I see as the main reasons why scholars resist moving beyond 426357 SOQ9410.1177/1476127011426357DeVaroStrategic Organization
7 citations
TL;DR: The authors examined the underlying mechanisms through which Yin-Yang cognition, an Eastern philosophy of paradoxical cognition, affects firm ambidexterity and identified strategic flexibility as a mediator.
Abstract: This study examines the underlying mechanisms through which Yin-Yang cognition, an Eastern philosophy of paradoxical cognition, affects firm ambidexterity. Based on strategic cognition theory, this research identifies strategic flexibility as a mediator. Moreover, we also identify three fundamental characteristics of Yin-Yang cognition based on an Eastern philosophy. Using a sample of 206 manufacturing firms in China to test our model, we find that two types of strategic flexibility (resource flexibility and coordination flexibility) are important channels through which Yin-Yang cognition influences organizational ambidexterity. We describe how these findings offer several theoretical and managerial implications.
7 citations