scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Posted Content

Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms

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 ArticleDOI
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 ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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 ArticleDOI
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
17 Sep 2012
TL;DR: In this paper, a questionnaire survey of 159 respondents was conducted using purposive sampling focusing on six major open innovation contests in Taiwan, and the results show that team vision, commitment, and self-efficacy only partially mediate the integration mechanism that can be used to integrate the team members' varied abilities in order to achieve more innovative outcomes.
Abstract: Open innovation has received considerable attention in the practical business domain, as it can help companies to increase their abilities to produce either incremental or radical innovations. Due to the open nature of this approach, there is a lack of formal structure and thus a need for an integration mechanism to motivate the participants to collaborate productively. This study examines such constructs as team vision, commitment, and self-efficacy, which might drive cross-field teammates to contribute their efforts to innovation projects. The aim is to explore how the participants' varied abilities can be integrated in open innovation student teams. A questionnaire survey of 159 respondents was conducted using purposive sampling focusing on six major open innovation contests in Taiwan. The results show that team vision, commitment, and self-efficacy only partially mediate the integration mechanism that can be used to integrate the team members' varied abilities in order to achieve more innovative outcomes.

2 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this paper, the relationship between structural ambidexterity and NPD financial and non-financial performance has been investigated in the context of new product development, where the authors propose a conceptual framework that shows the relationships between structural and contextual ambideXterity.
Abstract: New product development (NPD) consists of exploitative activity for incremental product development and explorative activity for radical product development. However, since the functions of exploitative and explorative NPDs are of opposite directions, they compete for scarce resources that make them in trade-off nature. This trade-off nature can negatively affects NPD performance. As a solution to this problem, a concept of organisational ambidexterity has emerged. This concept refers to a firm’s ability to simultaneously pursuit exploitative and explorative NPDs that able to achieve the benefits of both worlds. However, as this concept is relatively new, its relationship with NPD performance is still underexplored. In details, structural ambidexterity and contextual ambidexterity that are two types of organisational ambidexterity need to be compared and contrasted to NPD financial and nonfinancial performance since they pursuit exploitative and explorative NPDs in different ways. As such, this study contributes to NPD and organisational ambidexterity literatures through a conceptual framework that shows the relationships between structural ambidexterity, contextual ambidexterity, and NPD financial and nonfinancial performance. A potential setting for empirical study based on this conceptual framework is also addressed.

2 citations

DOI
29 Jun 2015
TL;DR: In this paper, a bibliometria of 52 artigos of a universo de 2.656 artígos was used to investigate the caracteristicas dos trabalhos cientificos and find that a forma for a mensuracao nao pode ser normatizada.
Abstract: O objetivo deste artigo e bibliografar o tema ambidestria organizacional nas bases de dados internacionais, ProQuest e EBSCO, fornecendo resultados sobre o estado da arte deste assunto e as caracteristicas dos trabalhos cientificos ja publicados. O metodo utilizado foi a bibliometria. Investigando uma amostra de 52 artigos de um universo de 2.656. Os trabalhos analisados compreenderam o periodo de 1993 a 2010. Os resultados sugerem que: a) durante o periodo analisado diversas redes sociais de pesquisadores e instituicoes se formaram para estudar este tema; b) o trabalho de March (1991) e o principal influenciador das pesquisas e considerado o trabalho seminal sobre o assunto, embora, o estudo de Duncan (1974) tenha sido mencionados por muitos pesquisadores como sendo o primeiro a abordar, de maneira singela, a questao da ambidestria organizacional; e; c) a pesquisa sobre ambidestria organizacional vem conquistando cada vez mais espaco nas agendas de pesquisas dos pesquisadores, instigando novas investigacoes. Esta pesquisa concluiu que a forma para a sua mensuracao nao pode ser normatizada, visto que cada segmento possui caracteristicas distintas, sendo necessario a adaptacao das variaveis de exploracao (pesquisa, variacao, aceitacao do risco, experimentacao, concorrencia, flexibilidade, descoberta e inovacao) e explotacao (refinamento, escolha, producao, eficiencia, selecao, implementacao e execucao), no entanto, algumas direcoes ja foram testadas e habilitam-se para servir de espelho a novas pesquisas.

2 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a model of new routine introduction based on a notion of micro-level entrepreneurship, which tracks the source of new routines antecedents, defined as factors motivating the conception and adoption of ideas for new routines, tying them to organizational structure and performance.
Abstract: The aim of this study is to understand the process of new routine introduction and its effects on organizational structure and performance. To achieve this, it proposes a model of new routine introduction based on a notion of micro-level entrepreneurship. The model tracks the source of new routine antecedents, defined as factors motivating the conception and/or adoption of ideas for new routines, tying them to organizational structure and performance. Currently, the literature on routine micro foundations lacks this kind of integrative, holistic model to spur fruitful connections between nascent and dispersed contributions related to the origins of new routines. Applying a process approach in the context of a single case study, the research analyzes 23 instances of new routine introduction at an Australian consulting firm called Secure. The results reveal that ideas for new routines were heavily influenced by endogenous factors such as the personal preferences of enterprising managers and internal pressure. While market-related factors were omnipresent, endogenous factors were remarkably preponderant, influential, and oftentimes mixed with exogenous factors such that an either/or distinction in the origins of flexibility- and efficiency-oriented routines did not hold. The findings also shed light on a paradox related to new routine introduction in which the act of introducing new routines intended to improve performance actually undermines it by inciting conflict. Ultimately the model of new routine introduction bestows a central role on the enterprising manager, showing how they oscillate between managerial and micro-level entrepreneurial action in the pursuit of adaptation and growth. This study’s bringing back of the individual and his or her subjectivity into the routine introduction process is in line with recent calls for further research, as is its provision of an empirically detailed case-based analysis.

2 citations

Book
25 Sep 2012
TL;DR: The overall innovation process at Legrand can be described as a cycle involving the entire organization, with the cycle itself consisting of an upward stream and a downward stream as discussed by the authors, where the upward stream flows through the whole organization.
Abstract: The overall innovation process at Legrand can be described as a cycle involving the entire organization, with the cycle itself consisting of an upward stream and a downward stream.

2 citations