scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Posted Content•

Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms

Justin J. P. Jansen1, Michiel Pieter Tempelaar1, Frans van den Bosch1, Henk W. Volberda1•
Erasmus University Rotterdam1
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.

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal Article•DOI•
Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses

[...]

Royston Greenwood1, Mia Raynard1, Farah Kodeih2, E. Micelotta1, Michael Lounsbury1 •
University of Alberta1, ESSEC Business School2
26 Jul 2011-The Academy of Management Annals
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)....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance

[...]

Sebastian Raisch1, Julian Birkinshaw2, Gilbert Probst3, Michael L. Tushman4•
University of St. Gallen1, London Business School2, University of Geneva3, Harvard University4
01 Jul 2009-Organization Science
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•
Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future

[...]

O'Reilly Charles A., Tushman Michael L.
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

Journal Article•DOI•
Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Organizations

[...]

Dovev Lavie1, Uriel Stettner2, Michael L. Tushman3•
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology1, Tel Aviv University2, Harvard University3
19 Apr 2010-The Academy of Management Annals
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)....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
CROSSROADS---Microfoundations of Performance: Balancing Efficiency and Flexibility in Dynamic Environments

[...]

Kathleen M. Eisenhardt1, Nathan Furr2, Christopher B. Bingham3•
Stanford University1, Brigham Young University2, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill3
01 Nov 2010-Organization Science
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
Proceedings Article•DOI•
Ambidexterity in Entrepreneurship: A Perspective of Dynamic Capability

[...]

Wang Xiaoyan1, Yang Dapeng1, Yuan Yan1•
Zhejiang University1
01 Dec 2015
TL;DR: The ambidexterity in entrepreneurship is illustrated from a perspective of dynamic capability, to make a better understanding of entrepreneurship.
Abstract: Strategic entrepreneurship is an emergent research field which has gained increasing attention of researchers. In the process of strategic entrepreneurship, ambidexterity plays a key role. This paper illustrated the ambidexterity in entrepreneurship from a perspective of dynamic capability, to make a better understanding of entrepreneurship.

3 citations

Proceedings Article•
Relational embeddedness and disruptiveness of innovation: The mediating role of absorptive capacity

[...]

Zhiwei Wang1, Zhenxiu Cai1, Yan Zheng1•
Fuzhou University1
21 Oct 2013
TL;DR: Li et al. as discussed by the authors developed a model in which absorptive capacity mediates between knowledge network relational embeddedness and disruptive innovation performance, and found that relational trust between knowledge networks linkages will enhance corporation disruptive innovation through the mediation of exploratory learning.
Abstract: We developed a model in which absorptive capacity mediates between knowledge network relational embeddedness and disruptive innovation performance. Using a survey-based sample of 251 Chinese firms, this study's findings show that relational trust between knowledge network linkages will enhance corporation disruptive innovation performance through the mediation of exploratory learning. In the three dimensions of ACAP, exploratory learning is the only factor which can foster disruptive innovation performance. In contrast, neither transformative learning nor exploitative learning has direct impact on disruptiveness of innovation. More surprisingly, our research suggests that relational closeness with knowledge network linkages has no relationship with disruptive innovation. Relational closeness of knowledge network may only improve transformative learning and exploitative learning but not exploratory learning. Implications for the theory and practice of disruptive innovation are discussed, and future research directions offered.

3 citations

Journal Article•
Ambidextrous identity in Public Management. The case of Apulia Region

[...]

Pamela Palmi, Angelo Corallo, Antonio Caforio, Angelo Scialpi
01 Jan 2019-Impresa Progetto - Electronic Journal of Management
TL;DR: In this article, the static and dynamic elements of an organizational ambidextrous model that must be adopted by public administrations and agencies are presented to optimize four interconnected dimensions: organizational, individual, inter-organizational and decisional.
Abstract: This research investigates how, in the age of post-bureaucracy, an ambidextrous identity could help public bodies to be efficient and to innovate at the same time. Public governance has undergone a paradigm change with the introduction of a post-bureaucratic system, that is flat, connected and flexible, with individual autonomy as the key to addressing environmental complexity. This new system should balance the trade-off between creativity, innovation and flexibility needed to solve emerging social challenges and efficiency as a basis for sustainable competitiveness. In this scenario, this paper intends to present the static (forms) and dynamic elements (flows) of an organizational ambidextrous model that must be adopted by public administrations and agencies. The model is designed to optimize four interconnected dimensions: organizational, individual, inter‐organizational and decisional

3 citations

Dissertation•
Integration and the Performance of Large-scale Health Enterprises: Field Studies of Psychological Health Delivery Systems in the U.S. Military

[...]

Cody M. Kamin
01 Jan 2012

3 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Psychological contract breach and innovative work behaviour: Systematic literature review

[...]

Larysa Botha1, Renier Steyn1•
University of South Africa1
11 Dec 2020
TL;DR: Managers, consultants and researchers are now empowered to enter the academic debate on the PCB-IWB link and to test substantial and complementary hypotheses that will contribute meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge.
Abstract: Background: Innovative work behaviour (IWB) is central to organisational success and occurs despite psychological contract breaches (PCBs), which are the norm, rather than the exception. Aim: The aim of the article is to present a comprehensive review of the conceptualisation of IWB and PCB, specifying the manner in which the concepts are defined and assessed. Consistency in conceptualisation and the standardisation of measurement should contribute to the development of the unified body of knowledge. Setting: The ways concepts are defined and assessed differ across studies, which challenges researchers and managers as no standard definitions or measurement techniques are available. Methods: A systematic literature review methodology was followed to gather data, which were analysed by focusing on broad adoption, theoretical coherency and, in the case of measurement, psychometric properties. Results: In total 14 articles were retrieved that measured the PCB-IWB link. Psychological contract breach is most often defined and measured in terms of Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) and Robinson and Rousseau’s (1994) conceptualisations, whilst Janssen’s (2000) framework is applied to IWB. Reliability information is reported for these measures. Conclusion: Whilst many definitions and measures of the constructs are used, some are theoretically more comprehensive and some are applied more than others, and these are now stipulated. Managers, consultants and researchers are now empowered to enter the academic debate on the PCB-IWB link and to test substantial and complementary hypotheses that will contribute meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge.

3 citations

Related Papers (5)
Antecedents and effects of individual ambidexterity – A cross-level investigation of exploration and exploitation activities at the employee level

[...]

01 Aug 2019-European Management Journal
Benedikt Schnellbächer, Sven Heidenreich, Andreas Wald
Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations

[...]

01 May 2020-Journal of Business Research
Mercedes Úbeda-García, Enrique Claver-Cortés, Bartolomé Marco-Lajara, Patrocinio Zaragoza-Sáez 
Organizational Ambidexterity : Balancing Exploitation and Exploration in Organizations

[...]

01 Jan 2013
Mert Yigit
Achieving ambidexterity across multiple organisational levels and functional areas : synchronising the development and marketing of firms' new and established products

[...]

01 Oct 2012
Nima Heirati
Organizing for Ambidexterity: A Paradox-based Typology of Ambidexterity-related Organizational States

[...]

01 Dec 2015-Bar. Brazilian Administration Review
Daniel Karrer, Denise Fleck