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: This paper introduces and makes available to the research community an agent-based model and decision support system that captures many of the key aspects and tradeoffs of the exploration–exploitation dilemma faced by firms in the new product development process, with a focus on organizations’ product investment decisions.
Abstract: Organizational ambidexterity, defined as the pursuit of both exploitation and exploration, has become an important topic in the study of organizations, especially in innovation management theory. Previous literature has not focused on the strategic (game-theoretic) aspects of organizational ambidexterity or on its decision-making aspects. Little is known about how or even whether the decision to adopt ambidexterity is competitively advantageous in the presence of diverse strategies that competitors may adopt. This facet of the subject is inherently game-theoretic; the value of a decision by one firm depends in part on decisions made by other firms. This paper initiates systematic investigation of these strategic aspects, including the overall performance of available strategies. Specifically, this study examines questions of ambidexterity-related strategy performance in the context of new product development. The main contributions are (1) to introduce and make available to the research community an agent-based model and decision support system that captures many of the key aspects and tradeoffs, which have been identified in the literature, of the exploration---exploitation dilemma faced by firms in the new product development process, with a focus on organizations' product investment decisions and (2) to report on results obtained from the model, calibrated with available data from the literature, augmented by new data collected from interviews with practitioners.
7 citations
TL;DR: A conceptual model is presented to investigate the effects of intangible assets and organizational capabilities on business-IT strategic alignment and concludes that a combination of social-network characteristics and organizational capability in order to generate strategic business- IT alignment is new.
7 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose a paradigm of organizational ambidexterity, which gradually integrates various angles and valences into partial solutions and eventually comes up with a complex construct incorporating different levels of organizational ambiguity and multiple patterns of ambidextrous behavior.
Abstract: Abstract Complexity is rapidly and inexorably leading the global economy towards new configurations and new dynamics; within this (ever fluid and unstable) framework, the strategic dualities that govern organizations and shape their strategic choices are not only multiplying but also interacting and generating unprecedented challenges: new pairs of (apparent) paradoxes occur, sophisticated interdependencies take place amongst them, and therefore new approaches in search for strategic solutions are imperatively asked. Against this background, the main goal of the paper is to suggest a paradigm of organizational ambidexterity – which gradually integrates various angles and valences into partial solutions and eventually comes up with a complex construct incorporating different levels of organizational ambidexterity and multiple patterns of ambidextrous behavior – able to (dynamically) position organizations on the coordinates of the complex global economy, while providing them with the essential tools needed to achieve strategic competitiveness. Thus, by addressing a major organizational challenge (strategic competitiveness) through the lens of complexity (seen both as defining feature of nowadays and science that provides the instruments to deal with it) and advocating for the solution of ambidexterity, the paper will enrich the theory of strategic management and will offer businesses an alternative to their strategic approaches.
7 citations
Proceedings Article•
01 Jan 2012TL;DR: In this study, the ways digital components increasingly challenge preexisting work practices in traditional product development are concerned.
Abstract: In this study we are concerned with the ways digital components increasingly challenge preexisting work practices in traditional product development. By drawing on an in depth case study of an auto ...
7 citations
01 Mar 2016
TL;DR: A case study is investigated to better understand how exploitation and exploration were combined when opening data for creating transparency and how these factors found to influence ambidexterity.
Abstract: Government's resources are often committed to delivery existing services providing little room for innovation. Ambidexterity is the capacity of an organization being able to develop new products and innovate while also continue providing and updating their existing services. Ambidexterity is a concept originating from organizational studies, and hardly used in the public sector. Ambidexterity is the ability to exploit and explore at the same time. As scant attention is given in e-government we opted for investigating a case study to better understand how exploitation and exploration were combined when opening data for creating transparency. Exploration was enabled by introducing incentives to ensure that the open data was used to identify and fight corruption, whereas exploitation was focused on improving data collection, storage and treating, creating efficiency on the monitoring and accountancy procedures of expenditures on the government. Other factors found to influence ambidexterity are the availability of resources, knowledge management, data quality management, external partnership and legislation.
7 citations