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
Journal Article•DOI•
Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators

[...]

Sebastian Raisch1, Julian Birkinshaw2•
University of St. Gallen1, London Business School2
07 Mar 2008-Journal of Management
TL;DR: In this article, the authors review various literature streams to develop a comprehensive model that covers research into the antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of organizational ambidexterity, defined as an organization's ability to be aligned and efficient in its management of today's business demands while simultaneously being adaptive to changes in the environment.

2,207 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences

[...]

Erwin Danneels1•
Worcester Polytechnic Institute1
01 Dec 2002-Strategic Management Journal
TL;DR: This study examines how product innovation contributes to the renewal of the firm through its dynamic and reciprocal relation with the firm's competences through field research in five high-tech firms of varying age, size, and level of diversification.
Abstract: This study examines how product innovation contributes to the renewal of the firm through its dynamic and reciprocal relation with the firm's competences Field research in five high-tech firms of varying age, size, and level of diversification is combined with analysis of existing theory to develop the findings of the study Based on the notion that new products are created by linking competences relating to technologies and customers, a typology is derived that classifies new product projects based on whether a new product can draw on existing competences, or whether it requires competences the firm does not yet have Following organizational learning theory, these options are conceptualized as exploitation and exploration These organizational learning concepts are used to gain a dynamic and path-dependent view of product innovation and firm development, and to reveal the unique nature and challenges of different types of product innovation Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

2,199 citations

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

  • ...Not only do firms need to generate new knowledge associated with new products and services for emerging markets, they also need to leverage current competences and exploit existing products and services (Danneels 2002)....

    [...]

  • ...They deepen existing knowledge by refining established technological and customer competences (Danneels 2002, Jansen et al. 2006)....

    [...]

  • ...Prior studies such as Benner and Tushman (2003), Danneels (2002), and He and Wong (2004) have explicitly embraced the idea that exploratory innovations are designed to meet the needs of emerging customers or markets....

    [...]

  • ...Exploratory innovations require new knowledge or departure from existing knowledge and the pursuit of new technological and customer competences (Danneels 2002, Jansen et al. 2006)....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization

[...]

J. Douglas Orton1, Karl E. Weick1•
University of Michigan1
01 Apr 1990-Academy of Management Review
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present five recurring voices that focus separately on causation, typology, effects, compensations, and outcomes of loose coupling, and suggest more precise and more productive uses of the concept.
Abstract: Diverse applications of the concept of loose coupling are embodied in five recurring voices that focus separately on causation, typology, effects, compensations, and outcomes. Each has a tendency to drift away from a dialectical interpretation of loose coupling toward a unidimensional interpretation of loose coupling, thereby weakening the explanatory value of the concept. The authors first use the five voices to review the loose coupling literature and then to suggest more precise and more productive uses of the concept.

2,178 citations

Posted Content•
Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators

[...]

Justin J. P. Jansen1, Frans van den Bosch1, Henk W. Volberda1•
Erasmus University Rotterdam1
14 Aug 2006-ERIM report series research in management Erasmus Research Institute of Management
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined how environmental aspects (i.e., dynamism and competitiveness) moderate the effectiveness of exploratory and exploitative innovation and found that exploratory innovation is more effective in dynamic environments whereas exploiting competitive environments is more beneficial to a unit's financial performance.
Abstract: textResearch on exploration and exploitation is burgeoning, yet our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of both activities remains rather unclear. We advance the growing body of literature by focusing on the apparent differences of exploration and exploitation and examining implications for using formal (i.e. centralization and formalization) and informal (i.e. connectedness) coordination mechanisms. This study further examines how environmental aspects (i.e. dynamism and competitiveness) moderate the effectiveness of exploratory and exploitative innovation. Results indicate that centralization negatively affects exploratory innovation while formalization positively influences exploitative innovation. Interestingly, connectedness within units appears to be an important antecedent of both exploratory and exploitative innovation. Furthermore, our findings reveal that pursuing exploratory innovation is more effective in dynamic environments whereas pursuing exploitative innovation is more beneficial to a unit’s financial performance in more competitive environments. Through this richer explanation and empirical assessment, we contribute to a greater clarity and better understanding of how ambidextrous organizations coordinate the development of exploratory and exploitative innovation in organizational units and successfully respond to multiple environmental conditions.

2,177 citations

Journal Article•
The ambidextrous organization.

[...]

Charles A. O'Reilly1, Michael L. Tushman•
Stanford University1
01 Apr 2004-Harvard Business Review
TL;DR: Building an ambidextrous organizations allows executives to pioneer radical or disruptive innovations while also pursuing incremental gains, and the structure itself, combining organizational separation with senior team integration, is not difficult to understand.
Abstract: Corporate executives must constantly look backward, attending to the products and processes of the past, while also gazing forward, preparing for the innovations that will define the future. This mental balancing act is one of the toughest of all managerial challenges--it requires executives to explore new opportunities even as they work diligently to exploit existing capabilities--and it's no surprise that few companies do it well. But as every businessperson knows, there are companies that do. What's their secret? These organizations separate their new, exploratory units from their traditional, exploitative ones, allowing them to have different processes, structures, and cultures; at the same time, they maintain tight links across units at the senior executive level. Such "ambidextrous organizations," as the authors call them, allow executives to pioneer radical or disruptive innovations while also pursuing incremental gains. Of utmost importance to the ambidextrous organization are ambidextrous managers--executives who have the ability to understand and be sensitive to the needs of very different kinds of businesses. They possess the attributes of rigorous cost cutters and free-thinking entrepreneurs while also maintaining the objectivity required to make difficult trade-offs. Almost every company needs to renew itself through the creation of breakthrough products and processes, but it shouldn't do so at the expense of its traditional business. Building an ambidextrous organization is by no means easy, but the structure itself, combining organizational separation with senior team integration, is not difficult to understand. Given the executive will to make it happen, any company can become ambidextrous.

2,150 citations

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

  • ...The maximum VIF within the models was 1.43, which is well below the rule-of-thumb cutoff of 10 (Neter et al. 1990)....

    [...]

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