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: Wang et al. as mentioned in this paper argue that diverse teams have a dual nature that simultaneously facilitates and hinders organizational ambidexterity. And they suggest that establishing a governance mechanism to manage the dual impact of team diversity is crucial.
Abstract: Combining the upper echelons theory and intra-group confl ict view, this paper argues that diverse teams have a dual nature that simultaneously facilitates and hinders organizational ambidexterity. This study suggests that establishing a governance mechanism to manage the dual impact of team diversity is crucial. This study is based on a questionnaire survey and analysis using a sample of 196 fi rms in China. The fi ndings show that team diversity not only positively infl uences organizational ambidexterity through strategic planning processes but impedes ambidexterity through intra-group confl icts. The results also show that senior team integration mechanisms increase the ability of top executives to manage the ambiguous effect of diversity to facilitate organizational ambidexterity.
32 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a literature review of organizational research and construction management literature together with a brief interview study of Swedish clients and contractors was conducted to investigate how procurement strategies may be designed to facilitate exploration and exploitation in construction projects.
Abstract: Purpose
The purpose of this study is to investigate how procurement strategies may be designed to facilitate exploration and exploitation in construction projects.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper is based on a literature review of organizational research and construction management literature together with a brief interview study of Swedish clients and contractors.
Findings
The theoretical and empirical findings propose that small and simple projects with low uncertainty and scarce resources may focus on exploitation to enhance short-term efficiency through traditional procurement strategies including delivery systems that separate the actors and their activities (i.e. pure design-build- or design-bid-build-contracts), fixed price payment and price focus in bid evaluation. Large complex projects with high uncertainty and customization benefit from combining exploration and exploitation to enhance sustainable performance. This requires collaborative procurement strategies including joint specification through early contractor involvement, cost reimbursement coupled with incentive-based payment, bid evaluation based on multiple criteria and collaborative tools and activities in partnering arrangements.
Research limitations/implications
This paper contributes to organizational learning literature by pinpointing the need for integrating procurement strategies that enhance combination of exploration and exploitation. The main contribution to the construction management literature involves the investigation of how procurement strategies may affect exploration and exploitation, as identified and articulated in the propositions developed in this paper.
Practical implications
From a practical perspective, the findings highlight the importance of tailoring procurement strategies to project characteristics to enhance a suitable balance between exploration and exploitation in construction projects.
Originality/value
The explicit focus on the operational project-level is uncommon but relevant in organizational learning literature.
32 citations
01 Jan 2012
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the tendency to avoid the often risk-saturated opportunities characterizing innovation means some guidance is necessary to put organizations on a creative path, and the development of innovation plans, even with their complexity and need for near constant attention, provide this push necessary for moving toward unknown territory.
Abstract: Publisher Summary Organizations continue to place an ever-increasing premium on innovation—the successful implementation of novel and useful ideas. The reasons for the pursuit of innovation are seemingly quite justified. Simply put, businesses that can bring products to market before competitors stand to have a unique competitive advantage over those that lag in development. Moreover, organizations that continually seek new and novel ways to operate might also gain a competitive advantage over those businesses that continue to engage in outdated and inefficient practices. Planning is not a “set and forget” activity—leaders cannot develop a plan and put the innovation to function on autopilot. Planning, in general, requires constant monitoring. Planning for innovation requires even greater attention and flexibility. For those willing to invest time and energy, planning for innovation can provide leaders with a useful means to create movement toward an innovation strategy. The tendency to avoid the often risk-saturated opportunities characterizing innovation means some guidance is necessary to put organizations on a creative path. The development of innovation plans, even with their complexity and need for near constant attention, provide this “push” necessary for moving toward unknown territory.
32 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors draw on empirical case-study evidence of a globally operating SME to show how managing the interplay of organizational structure and context enables firms to combine exploration and exploitation for achieving ambidexterity.
Abstract: Sustaining success requires the integration of the contradicting aims of short-term efficiency and long-term innovation. Coupling exploitation and exploration is therefore a major challenge for organizations. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) suffer particularly from resource constraints for nurturing both learning modes concurrently. In this paper, we draw on empirical case-study evidence of a globally operating SME to show how managing the interplay of organizational structure and context enables firms to combine exploration and exploitation for achieving ambidexterity. Our findings show that creating ambidexterity requires firms to manage different tensions on multiple levels. In particular, we distinguish between the learning dimension and the flexibility dimension of ambidexterity. The learning dimension refers to balancing incremental and radical innovations, while the flexibility dimension refers to balancing alignment and adaptability in terms of a firm’s organizational design. Both dimensions have to be balanced simultaneously to create organizational ambidexterity. We show how the creation of a common frame of reference enables the behavioral integration of exploration and exploitation and the formation of knowledge bridges at multiple levels of the organization in a structurally ambidextrous firm. Further, our findings suggest that dealing with tensions between incremental/radical innovation and adaptability/alignment refers to managing a “second-order”-balance between exploration and exploitation.
32 citations
TL;DR: An analysis about the existing literature on one of the ‘topics’ which is currently raising greater interest among scholars and researchers in the fields of strategic management and organization science, namely: organizational ambidexterity is shown.
Abstract: The present research work shows the results of an analysis about the existing literature on one of the `topics' which is currently raising greater interest among scholars and researchers in the fields of strategic management and organization science, namely: organizational ambidexterity. More precisely, and seeking to identify and visualize the intellectual structure or knowledge base of the research developed in relation to this construct, a decision was made to analyze a total of 283 research papers which appeared after the publication in the journal California Management Review in the summer of 1996 of the seminal work by Tushman and O'Reilly III entitled `Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change,' where these authors suggested that organizations need to explore and exploit simultaneously if they want to be ambidextrous. As for the methodology applied, it was based on the utilization of bibliometric techniques--particularly citation analyses and author co-citation analyses and social networks analysis.
32 citations