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
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the role of senior team attributes and leadership behavior in reconciling conflicting interests among senior team members and achieving organizational ambidexterity is explored. And the authors find that a senior team shared vision and contingency rewards are associated with a firm's ability to combine high levels of exploratory and exploitative innovations.
Abstract: Organizations capable of pursuing exploration and exploitation simultaneously have been suggested to obtain superior performance. Combining both types of activities and achieving organizational ambidexterity, however, leads to the presence of multiple and often conflicting goals, and poses considerable challenges to senior teams in ambidextrous organizations. This study explores the role of senior team attributes and leadership behaviour in reconciling conflicting interests among senior team members and achieving organizational ambidexterity. Findings indicate that a senior team shared vision and contingency rewards are associated with a firm's ability to combine high levels of exploratory and exploitative innovations. In addition, our study shows that an executive director's transformational leadership increases the effectiveness of senior team attributes in ambidextrous organizations and moderates the effectiveness of senior team social integration and contingency rewards. Hence, our study clarifies how senior executives reconcile conflicting demands and facilitate the balancing of seemingly contradictory forces in ambidextrous organizations. Implications for literatures on senior team attributes, transformational leadership and organizational ambidexterity are discussed.

509 citations


"Structural Differentiation and Ambi..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Senior team integration contributes to balanced resource allocation and establishes cross-fertilization across exploratory and exploitative activities (Jansen et al. 2008, Smith and Tushman 2005)....

    [...]

  • ...…of scarce resources and the departure from existing competences and skills within exploratory units (Gilbert 2005, Hill and Rothaermel 2003), yet establish cross-fertilization and strategic synergies with ongoing businesses in exploitative units (Jansen et al. 2008, Tushman and O’Reilly 1996)....

    [...]

  • ...Although senior team contingency rewards may be beneficial to achieving ambidexterity under certain organizational and industrial conditions (e.g., Jansen et al. 2008, O’Reilly and Tushman 2004), future studies should examine how interdependency affects the impact of senior team contingency rewards…...

    [...]

  • ...Studies have predominantly suggested that organizations pursuing exploration and exploitation simultaneously obtain superior financial performance (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004, He and Wong 2004, Lubatkin et al. 2006)....

    [...]

  • ...Senior teams in ambidextrous organizations typically face role conflicts that may diminish acceptance of decisions (Jansen et al. 2008, O’Reilly and Tushman 2004)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Empirical indicators of the organizational properties of complexity, centralization, formalization, and morale are developed and related to the rate of adoption of new programs and services in sixteen social welfare organizations and a high degree of job satisfactions is found to be most highly associated with a high rate of program change.
Abstract: Empirical indicators of the organizational properties of complexity, centralization, formalization, and morale are developed and related to the rate of adoption of new programs and services in sixteen social welfare organizations. Specifically, a high deree of participation in agency-wide decisions, a low deree of job condification, and a high degree of job satisfactions are found to be most highly associated with a high rate of program change. Measures of staff attitudes toward change are forund to be only weakly and inversely to the rate of innovation of new programs and techniques. The relationships between organizational properties and rate of program change largely remained when size, auspices, age of oranization and function were controlled. The distinction between rate of program change and changes in decision making, job codification, and job satisfaction allows us to discuss changes within a system and changes of a system of organizational properties.

485 citations


"Structural Differentiation and Ambi..." refers background or methods in this paper

  • ...…senior team are always prepared to work together and support each other There is a lot of competition within the senior team® Cross-functional interfaces (Hage and Aiken 1967, Gupta and Govindarajan 2000) Employees are regularly rotated between jobs in our organization There is regular talk about…...

    [...]

  • ...Based on Hage and Aiken (1967) and Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), cross-functional interfaces ( = 0 72) were measured through a five-item scale....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors analyzed the literature published between 1994 and 2011, using bibliometric methods, to explore the scope of the dynamic capability view and detect current research priorities.
Abstract: The dynamic capability view (DCV) is one of the most vibrant approaches to strategic management. In this study, the extant literature published between 1994 and 2011 is analysed, using bibliometric methods in order to explore the scope of this approach and detect current research priorities. For this purpose, the method of bibliographic coupling is introduced in management research, which shifts the focus of analysis from past traditions to current trends. Several clusters of thematically related research are extracted from bibliographic networks, which represent interconnected yet distinct subfields of inquiry within the DCV. The core cluster of the current DCV, which visualizes this research field's nascent but fragile identity, focuses on learning and change capabilities and relates them to firm performance, thus merging aspects of organization theory and strategic management. In addition, several peripheral clusters of research are identified, which reflect a parallel process of differentiation in the overall field. Both trends, i.e. of integration and differentiation, attest to the emancipation of the DCV as a distinct approach to strategic management. However, the DCV still lacks consensual concepts that allow comparisons of empirical studies and advance the theoretical understanding of dynamic capabilities. In the light of the above, some implications of this analysis for further research are discussed.

471 citations

Book
01 Jan 1977
TL;DR: The authors provide a clear and readable introduction to organizational design, its contribution to performance, and the problems and issues involved in organizational change, which is of real use to decision makers and to those in management education, both teachers and students.
Abstract: This textbook provides a clear and readable introduction to the subject. It deals with organizational design, its contribution to performance, and the problems and issues involved in organizational change. This text assumes little academic knowledge, and some familiarity with work in organizations. It is of real use to decision makers, and to those in management education, both teachers and students.

457 citations


"Structural Differentiation and Ambi..." refers background in this paper

  • ...It provides a sense of freedom and ownership over specific work activities and generates structural flexibility to adapt to local conflicting task environments (Child 1984, Orton and Weick 1990)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The simulation model demonstrates that a firm's centrality and structural hole positions in network relations can moderate the relationships between alliance formation choices and firm performance, and that the ambidexterity hypothesis may be limited to the earlier stage of the network.
Abstract: Although alliance studies have generally favored an ambidextrous approach between exploration and exploitation, they tend to overlook a firm's characteristics, its industry constraints, or the dynamic network in which the firm is embedded. This study examines the ambidexterity hypothesis and its boundary conditions with a unique research method. We not only analyze empirical data from five U.S. industries spanning eight years, but also expand theoretical insights to the network level by building a computer simulation model. Both our empirical and simulation results reveal the contingencies of the ambidexterity hypothesis in alliance formation. Our findings show that although an ambidextrous formation of alliances benefits large firms, a focused formation of either exploratory or exploitative alliances benefits small firms. In an uncertain environment an ambidextrous formation enhances firm performance but so does a focused formation in a stable environment. Finally, the simulation model demonstrates that a firm's centrality and structural hole positions in network relations can moderate the relationships between alliance formation choices and firm performance, and that the ambidexterity hypothesis may be limited to the earlier stage of the network. Our study provides critical evidence into the viability of adopting a dynamic network perspective in understanding the ambidexterity hypothesis and advancing strategic alliance research beyond static and dyadic levels.

443 citations


"Structural Differentiation and Ambi..." refers background in this paper

  • ...As organizational members with a larger pool of informal relations may be able to exploit or explore to their advantage (Lin et al. 2007), our study may also suggest that connectedness contributes to establishing a conducive context for achieving ambidexterity directly rather than indirectly by generating resource and knowledge flows across differentiated units....

    [...]

  • ...As organizational members with a larger pool of informal relations may be able to exploit or explore to their advantage (Lin et al. 2007), our study may also suggest that connectedness contributes to establishing a conducive context for achieving ambidexterity directly rather than indirectly by…...

    [...]