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 article, a case study of ambidextrous routines in knowledge management (KM) initiatives is presented, where the authors identify KM initiatives that concurrently facilitate exploration and exploitation.
89 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the extensiveness of top managers' social networks inside and outside the firm, on an integrative basis, can offer the dual knowledge benefits conducive to ambidexterity.
Abstract: Organizational research suggests that ambidexterity is attainable if top managers cultivate collective behavioral routines that enable them to synthesize large amounts of information and decision alternatives, and manage conflict and ambiguity. However, the type of information and knowledge sources that enable top managers to meet the knowledge demands of ambidexterity remains poorly understood. Toward that end, we argue that the extensiveness of top managers’ social networks inside and outside the firm, on an integrative basis, can offer the dual knowledge benefits conducive to ambidexterity. Because ambidexterity entails the firm's departure from existing products, technologies, and practices, we further argue that the contribution of extensive networks to ambidexterity is conditional upon the collective volition of top managers to parlay extensive network opportunities into innovative pursuits. From a study of CEOs and top management teams in SMEs operating in technology-based industries, we find support for both a network extensiveness effect and the moderating role of a proactive commitment to innovation in shaping this effect. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
87 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, an empirical study examines the interplay of buyer-driven knowledge activities, resource acquisition and combining, and product innovation outcomes in the context of Pakistani export firms, and test hypotheses using structural equation modeling.
Abstract: In this study, we are interested in how export firms organize knowledge management and increase product innovation performance. Prior studies have concluded that knowledge transfer from external actors leads to operational performance outcomes; others have questioned the positive influence of buyer‐driven knowledge transfer activities on innovation performance. Drawing on absorptive capacity, we aim to offer a better understanding, how export firms as recipients of knowledge resources, organize their internal capabilities in order to realize firm‐level product innovation. This empirical study examines the interplay of buyer‐driven knowledge activities, resource acquisition and combining, and product innovation outcomes in the context of Pakistani export firms. Drawing on survey data from 239 export‐manufacturing firms, we test hypotheses using structural equation modeling. Our findings show that buyer‐driven knowledge transfer activities play a crucial role in enhancing export firms in absorbing and combining resources that lead to product innovation. The pragmatic suggestion of the research suggests that managers look closely at developing a culture of involvement with their buyers that promotes the development of knowledge resources. The results of this study have research, policy, and managerial implications.
87 citations
TL;DR: This article explored the role of cognitive conflict, generated by performance measurement systems (PMSs), in shaping the relationships between competence ambidexterity and innovation amelioration.
Abstract: This study explores the decision-facilitating role of performance measurement systems (PMSs) in firms attempting to translate competence ambidexterity (i.e., the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation) into innovation ambidexterity outcomes (i.e., the achievement of both radical and incremental innovations). Drawing on paradox and organisational conflict literature, this study emphasises the role of cognitive conflict, generated by PMSs, in shaping the relationships between competence ambidexterity and innovation ambidexterity. Based on survey data from a sample of 90 Irish firms, our findings indicate that competence ambidexterity is associated with (a) the choice to have a balanced set of performance measures, and (b) the use of PMSs for frequent and intensive debate between top managers. Furthermore, the study reveals that these choices are interdependent, as they function as complements in generating cognitive conflict, which in turn drives the realisation of innovation ambidexterity outcomes. The results also show that cognitive conflict is not directly associated with the development of competence ambidexterity, but is instead generated through the conjoint action of a balanced PMS design and the use of PMSs for intensive debate. Overall, this study demonstrates the interdependent nature of choices concerning the design and use of PMSs, and the significant role of PMSs as generators of cognitive conflict in firms attempting to achieve ambidexterity.
86 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a sample of technology-intensive industrial firms using a multi-informant design showed that operational-level exploratory and exploitative product innovation and marketing capabilities allow firms to implement corporate-level exploration and exploitation strategies in the context of new product development (NPD).
85 citations