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 paper, the authors empirically tested the proposed model in cross-sectional design by employing a sample of 101 top managers, using partial least squares structural equation modelling, and found that top managers' paradoxical frames encourage the engagement in cognitive differentiation and integration.
29 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the significance of knowledge exploration and exploitation activities in an organisation's ambidexterity context, along with how they affect the creation of an affective commitment in the workforce.
Abstract: Purpose
Ambidexterity refers to the tension between two different business models within the same organisation. This paper examines the significance of individuals’ knowledge exploration and exploitation activities in an organisation’s ambidexterity context, along with how they affect the creation of an affective commitment in the workforce. The study then investigates how an organisation’s ambidexterity vision contributes to employees’ affective commitment to learning.
Design/methodology/approach
These relationships are examined through an empirical investigation of 219 employees in the financial sector, using structural equation modelling validated by factor analysis.
Findings
The results indicate that for a firm to successfully achieve ambidexterity, its managers need to explicitly work to nurture a context where explorative and exploitative activities take place simultaneously. Another relevant contribution of this study has been addressing the impact that explorative and exploitative activities may have on affective commitment. The results suggest that while the effect of the ambidexterity context on the affective commitment by way of explorative activities is statistically insignificant, the effects of exploitative activities on affective commitment are statistically significant.
Originality/value
While the extant literature provides useful insights into the relationship between contextual ambidexterity and organisational performance, the relationship between ambidexterity and affective commitment has been less researched. This study has shown that an ambidexterity context is a key component in the process of combining knowledge structures in ways which are appropriate for both exploring value of that knowledge for the company and being effective in exploiting its memory.
29 citations
TL;DR: Examining the importance of intra-organizational social capital, in terms of their cognitive, affective and relational dimensions, for explorative and exploitative learning in project-based organizations, confirms that knowledge integration is beneficial for both exploratory and exploitive learning and thus that R&D organizations may be thus ambidextrous in their knowledge management.
Abstract: This paper aims to examine how the different dimensions of project members’ intra-organizational social capital – cognitive, affective and relational – facilitate knowledge integration in project-based organizations, and how knowledge integration, in turn, impacts explorative and exploitative learning.,Based on an analysis of 129 R&D Spanish organizations, the study analyzes the interconnections between the different dimensions of social capital and how they affect to knowledge integration as antecedent of explorative and exploitative learning in project-based organizations.,Results confirm that knowledge integration is beneficial for both exploratory and exploitive learning and thus that R&D organizations may be thus ambidextrous in their knowledge management. Related to the three dimensions of social capital, only the cognitive dimension (shared vision) has a significant impact on knowledge integration. However, the analysis confirms the interconnections between the three dimensions of social capital: the relational dimension (social interaction ties) and the cognitive dimension (shared vision) have significant effect on the relational one (trust), and the relational dimension also has an influence on the cognitive dimension. The model proposed in this study thus shows an acceptable capacity to discern the different influence of the dimensions of internal social capital on knowledge integration and, subsequently, ambidextrous learning.,This paper examines the importance of intra-organizational social capital, in terms of their cognitive (shared vision), relational (trust) and structural (social interaction ties) dimensions, for explorative and exploitative learning in project-based organizations. The analysis takes the baton of previous literature where is suggested that the three dimensions of social capital are interlocked and not just need to be considered simultaneously.
29 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the relationship between an international ambidexterity strategy and corporate sustainability in emerging market multinational enterprises (EMNEs) has been explored, which highlighted the paradox perspective.
Abstract: Corporate sustainability (CS) is receiving considerable attention from emerging market multinational enterprises (EMNEs), playing an important role in the globalized market. However, theoretical and empirical knowledge about how EMNEs address CS is still scant, and the relationship between internationalization and CS has not been widely explored. This study aims to fill this gap, evaluating the relationship between an international ambidexterity strategy and CS in EMNEs, which highlighted the paradox perspective. Then we develop three hypotheses in which we argue how the dynamic capabilities underpinning international ambidexterity could be considered a driver of CS in EMNEs. We test the developed hypotheses against data from 300 Chinese EMNEs obtained by a survey. Our results contribute to shape ambidextrous international strategies and to consider CS as a springboard for the strategic intent to systematically and recursively outperform global competition. Testing a measurement scale of international ambidexterity, we suggest structural ambidexterity as a strategic option of internationalization that allows the achievement of economic, social, and environmental sustainability objectives.
29 citations