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: It is explained how the phenomenon of site-shifting can serve as the new conceptual ground to develop and enact the practice of ambidexterity, and the importance of IT is brought to the fore in achieving an ambideXterity capability.
Abstract: We use the notion of site to create an alternative lens to theorise the strategy practice of ambidexterity.We illustrate and conceptualise how practices are bundled to yield the emerging, dynamic and fluid nature of ambidexterity.We explain how the phenomenon of site-shifting can serve as the new conceptual ground to develop and enact the practice of ambidexterity.We detail empirical insights collected from the leading ticketing company in China. Ambidexterity, defined as the capability to simultaneously explore knowledge to identify new market opportunities and exploit knowledge to capitalise on a firm's existing niches, is considered to be crucial in today's competitive marketplace. However, there is relatively limited research on how such a capability can be developed, and even less on the role of IT-enabled practices in promoting this. Drawing on the strategy-as-practice perspective, we investigate how interrelationships amongst practitioners, IT-enabled practices and praxis create a particular site of practice. More importantly, we consider how a site gets shifted over time through the emergence of changes in the interrelationships between IT-enabled practices and practitioners, stimulated by on-going praxis. Building on the findings derived from a case study of DaM,1We have disguised the name based on the request of the case organisation.1 the leading ticketing company in China, we explain how the phenomenon of site-shifting can provide a useful conceptual lens for explaining ambidexterity. In doing this, we bring to the fore the importance of IT in achieving an ambidexterity capability.
46 citations
TL;DR: Based on Kramer's theory on the multiple bases of trust, the authors argue that, at the societal level, dispositional, categorization-based and rule-based trust influence employees' out-group trust.
Abstract: Out-group trust is a crucial driver of international business performance. However, employees from different countries vary in their levels of out-group trust. The aim of this study is therefore to capture national forces driving out-group trust. Based on Kramer's theorizing on the multiple bases of trust, we argue that, at the societal level, dispositional, categorization-based and rule-based trust influence employees’ out-group trust. In particular, we argue for dispositional and rule-based societal trust to increase, and for categorization-based societal trust to decrease employees’ out-group trust through different types of socialization. Using data on 25,622 employees from 42 countries, we find partial support for the coexistence of these bases of societal trust. Disentangling trust-forming and trust-impeding models, we find support for dispositional and rule-based societal trust as drivers of employees’ out-group trust, and for categorization-based societal trust as impeding employees’ out-group trust. In a combined model, however, rule-based trust is not significantly related to employees’ out-group trust. Considering the coexistence of trust and distrust, employees’ out-group trust develops through socialization effects conveying general trust in others (i.e., high dispositional trust) and the equality of social groups (i.e., low categorization-based trust).
45 citations
TL;DR: A multiple-case study at five acute care U.S. hospitals suggests that nursing-led cross-level collaboration helped mitigate the disease-focus challenge experienced by physicians while physician-ledCross- level collaboration help mitigate the hierarchical challenge experiencedby nurses.
44 citations
TL;DR: This study develops hypotheses on the effect of bottom-up and top-down decision processes on hospitals' ability to simultaneously improve on conformance and experiential quality and indicates that a moderate level of administrative intensity is most beneficial to the relationship between Magnet status and simultaneous improvement.
Abstract: Recent changes to health care reimbursements policy mandate hospitals to improve simultaneously on conformance and experiential quality. Conformance quality measures the level of caregivers' adherence to evidence-based standards of care while experiential quality measures the level of interaction between caregivers and patients. Hospitals operate in regulated environments characterized by heavy top-down control mechanisms that are conducible for improving conformance quality. However, mechanisms that propel experiential quality, which emerges from the operational-level interactions between caregivers and patients, remain unclear. This study employs a two-phase multi-method research to investigate this issue. The first phase uses qualitative data from five U.S. acute care hospitals involving 49 semi-structured interviews and develops hypotheses on the effect of bottom-up and top-down decision processes on hospitals' ability to simultaneously improve on conformance and experiential quality. These hypotheses are then tested and refined using secondary data for a sample of 3,124 U.S. acute care hospitals between the years of 2006 and 2012. Results from the case analyses suggest that Magnet status, a sign of bottom-up decision processes, is associated with hospitals' ability to improve on both conformance and experiential quality. However, hospitals' administrative intensity, which relates to top-down decision processes, appears to mitigate the effect of Magnet status on simultaneous improvement. Testing this framework using large-scale secondary data supports the positive effect of Magnet status on simultaneous improvement. However, we do not find support for a negative moderating effect of administrative intensity. A follow-up analysis reveals that this moderation is in fact curvilinear (inverted U-shape), which indicates that a moderate level of administrative intensity is most beneficial to the relationship between Magnet status and simultaneous improvement. Taken together, our results provide new insights into the complementary between top-down and bottom-up decision processes in hospitals.
44 citations