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
Dissertation•
01 Mar 2015
TL;DR: In this article, the authors used knowledge from knowledge of the firm and subsidiary evolution theory as well as interrelated theories to show the value of different international knowledge creation strategies, how firms combine them in their overall knowledge strategy and align them to different contexts in which they operate.
Abstract: Knowledge creation is one of the most important instruments of firm survival and growth (Grant, 1996; Kogut and Zander, 1992; Kogut and Zander, 1993). Firms make decisions on whether to create knowledge using single country or international strategies, individually or in collaboration with various internal and external partners such as units, universities or research centres, which may operate in different countries (Arora et al., 2014; Berry, 2014; He and Wong, 2004; Kogut and Zander, 1992; Kogut and Zander, 1993; Van de Vrande, 2013). Therefore, firms make strategic choices regarding the locational and organisational origins of knowledge creation. Despite a growing body of research suggesting that firms increasingly create knowledge using international, multi-country strategies (Berry, 2014; Patel et al., 2014; Van de Vrande, 2013), many aspects of these strategies remain unclear. Using insights from knowledge of the firm and subsidiary evolution theory as well as interrelated theories, this thesis aims to show the value of different international knowledge creation strategies, how firms combine them in their overall knowledge strategy and align them to different contexts in which they operate. Based on a sample of 46,712 patents as indicators of knowledge creation granted to 150 UK headquartered manufacturing sector multinational firms and their 5,352 first level subsidiaries during the 2003 to 2012 period, the findings show that international internal and external knowledge creation strategies have a U-shaped relationship with performance. Also, this thesis offers evidence that multinational firms need to combine single country and international as well as internal and external international knowledge creation strategies in a balanced way in their overall strategy. Finally, these effects depend significantly on the characteristics of the environment in which multinational firms operate.
2 citations
TL;DR: P pragmatically examine how a U.S. health delivery organization responded to technological, regulatory, and demand changes over a 15-year period and the effects of its actions and retrospectively observes that the organization applied a portfolio of sequential, structural, and contextual ambidexterity approaches.
2 citations
01 Jan 2016
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors use the concept of ambidexterity to develop further the field of urban transformation and sustainability in a Chinese city, Hangzhou, by examining the political, entrepreneurial and environmental rationale behind the initiative, the distinctive organizational capability that enables its implementation, and the initiative's economic and ecological impact on the city.
Abstract: This research uses the concept of ambidexterity to develop further the field of urban transformation and sustainability. Empirically, we document and conceptualize the experience of a Chinese industrialized city, Hangzhou, in overcoming the economic-ecological trade-off common in declining urban environments. We analyze Hangzhou's large-scale green initiative by examining the political, entrepreneurial and environmental rationale behind the initiative, the distinctive organizational capability that enables its implementation, and the initiative's economic and ecological impact on the city. We propose and elaborate the concept of "ambidexterity in the making" and two sets of enabling mechanisms to explain how such a unique capability is formed and functions to afford an urban government to actualize its green aspirations into an ecological reality, while simultaneously fostering entrepreneurialism and further economic development.
2 citations
01 Jan 2020
TL;DR: The results show that the capabilities of BDA are an important precursor of an organization’s strategic agility and managers, who want to exploit the potential of big data completely, must invest in the improvement of procedures of knowledge management across their organizations.
Abstract: This chapter describes the micro-linkages that exist between Big Data Analytics (BDA) capabilities and an organization’s pursuit of strategic agility. One of the factors that influence this relationship is organizational ambidexterity. In order to assess this, dynamic capabilities are considered as the main theoretical framework. Multiple regressions are the main methodological approach used for this. The developed structural model is used to test on 250 survey responses collected from managers of large European organizations. The results show that the capabilities of BDA are an important precursor of an organization’s strategic agility. In this sense, managers, who want to exploit the potential of big data completely, must invest in the improvement of procedures of knowledge management across their organizations.
2 citations
03 Jan 2013
TL;DR: Rodrigues et al. as discussed by the authors investigated a sistema de Inteligencia Competitiva (ICC) at the Grupo Abril Cultural, a setor de comunicacoes de Brazil.
Abstract: As empresas enfrentam concorrencias crescentes em seus mercados, exacerbadas pela mutabilidade de seus consumidores e estreitamento do ciclo de vida de produtos, tecnologias e mercados. Esses fenomenos influenciam sobremaneira as decisoes e as estrategias corporativas dos executivos visando a criar capacidades internas, otimizar a alocacao de recursos e desenvolver competencias essenciais que deem as suas organizacoes maior capacidade competitiva. Uma das estrategias mais consistentes e de maior eficacia para o sucesso dos negocios tem sido o estimulo ao empreendedorismo corporativo e a inovacao. Para respaldar os processos de inovacao e balizar decisoes estrategicas para seus negocios as empresas precisam, no entanto, de um eficiente sistema de inteligencia competitiva. Tal sistema pode fundamentar a construcao de vantagens competitivas sustentaveis e oferecer subsidios importantes, como mecanismos de apoio ao empreendedorismo corporativo e formas de desenvolvimento e captacao de inovacoes, que possam sustentar o sucesso empresarial. Um dos maiores grupos brasileiros no setor de comunicacoes, o Grupo Abril Cultural, parece ter clareza da importância e consciencia do valor da inteligencia competitiva para seus negocios. Essa pesquisa explora a estrategia corporativa executada na Unidade de Negocios e Tecnologia do Grupo, que se utiliza da Inteligencia Competitiva como instrumento de apoio em seus processos decisorios e em sua estrategia de aprendizagem e geracao de inovacoes. Para tanto, utilizou-se o metodo de estudo de caso como principio normativo da pesquisa, envolvendo a coleta de dados por meio de entrevista pessoal a tres executivos da Unidade. Informacoes complementares necessarias foram buscadas nos registros e documentos oficiais da Unidade. Os principais resultados indicam que, em primeiro lugar, a Unidade possui um sistema de Inteligencia Competitiva operante, com nivel de maturidade 3 (tres), na escala de Rodrigues; Riccardi (2007). Isso significa que o sistema de inteligencia e formal, disciplinado e institucionalizado na Unidade. A Unidade, de fato, utiliza-se da Inteligencia Competitiva para sustentar suas decisoes e formular suas estrategias corporativas que orientam acoes e atividades de empreendedorismo corporativo e de inovacao. A consolidacao do sistema de inteligencia se reflete nos padroes internos de estimulo ao empreendedorismo corporativo e na organizacao sistemica de acoes de inovacao. As principais conclusoes indicam que a presenca do empreendedorismo corporativo e notavel em movimentos de alinhamento (busca de novas oportunidades) e adaptabilidade (ajuste estrutural em busca de criacao de valor) internos. A manifestacao do empreendedorismo corporativo se da principalmente por meio da ambidesteridade do tipo multitarefa (busca de oportunidades e ocupacao destas em adicao as suas proprias) entre varios talentos humanos da Unidade. Isso demonstra existir na Unidade uma clara estrategia de inovacao com base na exploracao (experimentacao para buscar recombinacoes do conhecimento existente), na cooperacao (utilizacao do conhecimento de parceiros, complementar ou novo, existente no ambiente externo) e no empreendedorismo corporativo (experimentacao visando a buscar novas aplicacoes e oportunidades no ambiente externo).
2 citations