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: In this paper, the authors employed a systematic literature review analysis on a sample of 20 academic papers extracted from the Web of Science database in June 2021, showing that knowledge ambidexterity emerged in the late 2000s with a boom in research in the last 5 years and a clear predominance of quantitative studies.
Abstract: Despite the increasing and recent interest in researching knowledge ambidexterity, there has been no attempt from scholarly research to map and structure extant research on this topic. The aim of this study is to fill this gap, thereby contributing to previous literature by increasing our understanding of the research on knowledge ambidexterity. This paper employs a systematic literature review analysis on a sample of 20 academic papers extracted from the Web of Science database in June 2021. After illustrating the size, growth trajectory, geographic distribution, and key publishing journals in the sample, the paper analyses the intellectual structure and main foci of the research domain. The results show that this topic emerged in the late 2000s with a boom in research in the last 5 years and a clear predominance of quantitative studies. Moreover, content analysis reveals that both a clear definition of knowledge ambidexterity and its main components, knowledge exploration and exploitation, and a valid and reliable scale for measuring this concept are still lacking. The review has also revealed that the research domain on knowledge ambidexterity can be grouped into three different research lines, each of which relates to a different level of analysis—teams, intraorganisational processes within individual firms, and interorganisational collaborations—and concludes by identifying potential areas for future research on this topic that may help to advance in the consolidation of this particularly vibrant field.
3 citations
01 Jan 2015
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the intersection of design practices and organizational capabilities as an avenue to link the literature streams, focusing on collaborative activities in the organizations and find five propositions for future research in intersection of the domains.
Abstract: Today’s business is challenged by the constant change of technologies, markets and user preferences This dynamicity forces modern organizations to constantly affect and adapt to the environment Both management and design literature have explored the potential of design practices in addressing organizational change However, the streams still hold in their respective traditions and fall short in convincing design’s capacity
To contribute to this research gap we explore the intersection of design practices and organizational capabilities as an avenue to link the literature streams Focusing on collaborative activities in the organizations we find five propositions for future research in the intersection of the domains The motivation of this paper is to encourage design scholars to publish in management outlets in order to justify design practices’ promise as a driver of organizational change
3 citations
25 Aug 2016
TL;DR: In this article, a case study was conducted in a company that continuously develops technologies and products based on Brazilian biodiversity, and the authors analyzed how integration efforts occur in incremental and radical NPD projects.
Abstract: Recent research on new product development (NPD) has presented divergent results on the need for interfunctional integration efforts. Studies have shown that contingent ascpects and the level of innovation incorporated into product projects are elements that should be considered in these integration efforts. This study aimed to analyze how integration efforts occur in incremental and radical NPD projects. A case study was conducted in a company that continuously develops technologies and products based on Brazilian biodiversity. Among the main results, we noted that due to their greater technological complexity, the radical innovation projects require more intense integration. The physical distance from the R&D department was also shown to be a situation that generates positive results for the development of these types of projects. On the other hand, we observed that co-location is beneficial for interaction between the teams in the case of incremental innovation projects. The application of information technologies, such as Customer Relationship Management Systems as formal support mechanisms for integration in radical and incremental innovation projects was also observed.
3 citations
TL;DR: The influence of offshoring on entrepreneurial activity is analyzed in this paper, where the authors argue that the degree of integration with the offshore affiliate and TMT reflexivity each moderate the non-linear relationship between off-shoring KIS and innovation.
Abstract: Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the influence of offshoring on entrepreneurial activity (i.e. the introduction of new products and services). Methodology/approach: Conceptual Practical implication: The framework proposed in this study provides some indication to managers about designing an offshoring strategy. Particularly, we aim to inform managers that offshoring various functions may differentially influence firm innovation and that the effect also depends on the governance mode used for the offshore operations and managerial oversight of the offshoring process. Originality/value of chapter: We provide a theoretical framework that proposes that the offshoring of knowledge intensive services (KIS) and that of labour-intensive services (LIS) will differentially influence the ability of firms to introduce new products and services. While the offshoring of KIS has an inverted U-shaped influence on entrepreneurial activity, the offshoring of LIS has a positive impact. In addition, we propose that these relationships are conditioned by organisational (i.e. governance mode) and managerial (i.e. TMT reflexivity) factors. Specifically, we argue that the degree of integration with the offshore affiliate and TMT reflexivity each moderate the non-linear relationship between offshoring KIS and innovation in such a way that the positive effects of low levels of offshoring KIS will be stronger and the negative effects of high levels of offshoring KIS will be lower. In addition, we argue that the degree of integration constrains and TMT reflexivity enhances the relationship between offshoring LIS and innovation.
3 citations
Dissertation•
27 Jun 2013
3 citations