scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Posted Content•

Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms

Justin J. P. Jansen1, Michiel Pieter Tempelaar1, Frans van den Bosch1, Henk W. Volberda1•
Erasmus University Rotterdam1
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.

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal Article•DOI•
Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses

[...]

Royston Greenwood1, Mia Raynard1, Farah Kodeih2, E. Micelotta1, Michael Lounsbury1 •
University of Alberta1, ESSEC Business School2
26 Jul 2011-The Academy of Management Annals
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 Article•DOI•
Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance

[...]

Sebastian Raisch1, Julian Birkinshaw2, Gilbert Probst3, Michael L. Tushman4•
University of St. Gallen1, London Business School2, University of Geneva3, Harvard University4
01 Jul 2009-Organization Science
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•
Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future

[...]

O'Reilly Charles A., Tushman Michael L.
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 Article•DOI•
Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Organizations

[...]

Dovev Lavie1, Uriel Stettner2, Michael L. Tushman3•
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology1, Tel Aviv University2, Harvard University3
19 Apr 2010-The Academy of Management Annals
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 Article•DOI•
CROSSROADS---Microfoundations of Performance: Balancing Efficiency and Flexibility in Dynamic Environments

[...]

Kathleen M. Eisenhardt1, Nathan Furr2, Christopher B. Bingham3•
Stanford University1, Brigham Young University2, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill3
01 Nov 2010-Organization Science
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
Innovation Streams and Ambidextrous Organizational Designs: On Building Dynamic Capabilities

[...]

Michael L. Tushman, Wendy K. Smith, Robert C. Wood, George Westerman, Charles A. O'Reilly 
01 Mar 2003
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the consequences of organizational design choices on innovation outcomes and suggest that ambidextrous organizational designs are effective for all types of non-incremental innovations except for product substitution events.
Abstract: This paper explores the roots of dynamic organizational capabilities. We suggest that streams of innovation are central to a firm’s dynamic capabilities. We argue that organizational design is an important determinant of innovation streams and that these streams can be effectively executed within organizations through ambidextrous organizational designs. Based on in-depth data on 15 business units and 36 innovation episodes we explore the consequences of organization design choices on innovation outcomes. We explore the phenomena of ambidextrous organizational designs what they are, how they operate, and their association with innovation outcomes. We also explore their boundary conditions as well as how these complex organizational forms evolve. Functional designs, cross-functional teams, and unsupported teams are significantly less effective in hosting innovation streams than ambidextrous designs. Ambidextrous organizational designs are effective for all types of non-incremental innovations except for product substitution events. Further, the use of ambidextrous designs was associated with the sustained performance of existing products. While not all ambidextrous designs were successful, firms that did not employ ambidextrous designs were unable to implement streams of innovations. Two business units initiated spinouts but only after the non-incremental innovations were initiated within an ambidextrous design. These exploratory results suggest that organizational design and senior leadership behaviors are powerful levers in driving streams of innovation and that ambidextrous organizational designs permit a business unit to simultaneously explore and exploit. We discuss the implications of these results for the ongoing debate on the nature of dynamic capabilities and organizational evolution.

62 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Bridging knowledge in ambidextrous HRM systems: empirical evidence from hidden champions

[...]

Christian Garaus1, Wolfgang H. Güttel2, Stefan Konlechner2, Irina Koprax2, Hubert Lackner2, Karin Link2, Barbara Müller2 •
Vienna University of Economics and Business1, Johannes Kepler University of Linz2
04 Feb 2016-International Journal of Human Resource Management
TL;DR: In this article, the authors show how an ambidextrous human resource management (HRM) system works in the context of high performance work systems (HPWS) that facilitates the continuous integration of exploration and exploitation in the pursuit of flexibility and efficiency.
Abstract: Managing the tension between efficiency and flexibility is one of the core challenges that organizations must tackle in order to survive in the global competitive environment. Ambidexterity has been identified in the literature as a key way of managing this tension. Despite the enormous popularity of the concept of ambidexterity, the questions of how HR practices influence exploration and exploitation and support organizational ambidexterity remain underexplored. Drawing on our empirical case studies of three mid-sized ‘hidden champions’ in different high-tech manufacturing industries, we show how an ambidextrous human resource management (HRM) system works. We demonstrate that ambidextrous HRM systems can be regarded as a special type of high-performance work system (HPWS) that facilitates the continuous integration of exploration and exploitation in the pursuit of flexibility and efficiency. In particular, we elucidate how firms apply integrative employment practices and integrative work practices to fa...

62 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
The effects of strategic orientation on operational ambidexterity: A study of indian SMEs in the industry 4.0 era

[...]

Gurjeet Kaur Sahi1, Mahesh Gupta2, T.C.E. Cheng3•
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad1, University of Louisville2, Hong Kong Polytechnic University3
01 Feb 2020-International Journal of Production Economics
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the effects of strategic orientation on the operational ambidexterity-performance link using data from 204 SMEs located in northern India and found that explorative and exploitative operational activities and their levels (average) have significant impacts on firms' business performance.

61 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
The ability and willingness of family-controlled firms to arrive at organizational ambidexterity

[...]

Viktoria Veider1, Kurt Matzler1•
University of Innsbruck1
01 Jun 2016-Journal of Family Business Strategy
TL;DR: In this paper, the ability and willingness of different family constituencies to arrive at organizational ambidexterity (OA) has been investigated in the context of family-controlled firms, and the authors argue that the ability of family controlled firms to reach OA is dependent on their willingness to face family-related disadvantages via activities that allow for the reduction of flaws arising out of family related particularistic constituencies.

61 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Structural and contextual approaches to ambidexterity: A meta-analysis of organizational and environmental contingencies

[...]

Sebastian Fourne1, Nina Rosenbusch1, Mariano L.M. Heyden, Justin J. P. Jansen2•
Wilfrid Laurier University1, Erasmus University Rotterdam2
01 Oct 2019-European Management Journal
TL;DR: As research on ambidexterity enters the maturity stage, the findings suggest that structural separation helps firms of all sizes to balance exploration and exploitation, and thatStructural separation is more conducive for balancing exploration and exploit in high technology environments.

61 citations

Related Papers (5)
Antecedents and effects of individual ambidexterity – A cross-level investigation of exploration and exploitation activities at the employee level

[...]

01 Aug 2019-European Management Journal
Benedikt Schnellbächer, Sven Heidenreich, Andreas Wald
Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations

[...]

01 May 2020-Journal of Business Research
Mercedes Úbeda-García, Enrique Claver-Cortés, Bartolomé Marco-Lajara, Patrocinio Zaragoza-Sáez 
Organizational Ambidexterity : Balancing Exploitation and Exploration in Organizations

[...]

01 Jan 2013
Mert Yigit
Achieving ambidexterity across multiple organisational levels and functional areas : synchronising the development and marketing of firms' new and established products

[...]

01 Oct 2012
Nima Heirati
Organizing for Ambidexterity: A Paradox-based Typology of Ambidexterity-related Organizational States

[...]

01 Dec 2015-Bar. Brazilian Administration Review
Daniel Karrer, Denise Fleck