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 investigate how tacit and explicit acquisition experience influences the outcomes of formal and informal coordination mechanisms on post-merger exploration and show that formal coordination has a negative influence.
Abstract: Post‐acquisition exploration aims at triggering innovation outcomes through newly acquired resources and capabilities. To this end, formal and informal mechanisms contribute to coordinating such exploration goals. As the usefulness of such coordination mechanisms in merger and acquisition (M&A) depends upon transaction experience, we investigate how tacit and explicit acquisition experience influences the outcomes of formal and informal coordination mechanisms on post‐merger exploration. Based on a sample of 115 transactions of German, Austrian, and Swiss acquirers, our results demonstrate that exploration outcomes are fostered through informal coordination mechanisms. Yet the effect is dampened when previous M&A experiences are held tacit. Formal coordination mechanisms show positive influences on post‐acquisition exploration only when acquisition experience is made explicit. In combination with tacit M&A experience, formal coordination has a negative influence. Thus, we contribute to the extant literature by showing which coordination mechanisms can be utilized to foster post‐acquisition exploration and how explicit and tacit M&A experience can be deployed effectively.
25 citations
TL;DR: The importance of integration of supply chain management practices with total quality management (TQM) practices to augment business performance is identified and four different combinations concerning supply chain and TQM were identified in which an enterprise can operate.
Abstract: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the importance of integration of supply chain management practices with total quality management (TQM) practices to augment business performance. The objective of paper is to focus on the two important dimensions, namely, supply chain and TQM of an organization with special reference to the concepts: exploration and exploitation. Design/methodology/approach – In total, 20 variables have been identified (independent variables) which impact business performance (dependent variable). Variables have been extracted into four categories with a combination of two orientations, i.e., exploitation and exploration, with respect to quality management and supply chain practices. Findings – Configurationally four different combinations concerning supply chain and TQM were identified in which an enterprise can operate. This is supported with the four different case studies. Practical implications – This study leads to some interesting practical implications for practic...
25 citations
TL;DR: The findings of this study highlight the importance of interorganizational knowledge flows on organizational development and open the black box of how this relationship can be realized by proposing an intraorganizational LGO as the mediator.
Abstract: A firm cannot effectively relieve the tension in resource allocation for organizational ambidexterity by relying solely on internal resources. External sources of innovation are required. Based on knowledge-based view, this study aims to address the effect of open innovation (OI) on organizational ambidexterity, and explore the internal context that captures the benefits of both inbound and outbound OI. Empirical results from our study on 195 Chinese firms in high-tech industries show that both inbound and outbound knowledge flows are enablers of ambidexterity. Moreover, the benefits of OI for ambidexterity can be fully captured only when the firm has a collective learning goal orientation (LGO). These findings highlight the importance of interorganizational knowledge flows on organizational development and open the black box of how this relationship can be realized by proposing an intraorganizational LGO as the mediator. This study enriches the understanding of the antecedents of ambidexterity by exploring the interplay between internal and external processes.
25 citations
TL;DR: The LEAPFROCS method is presented in this paper to capture the success of integration mechanisms and their application, and the results of the data analysis are validated in discussion with company representatives.
Abstract: This article aims to shed light on mechanisms to integrate a strategy on Corporate Sustainability in companies. The analysis is based on a holistic method derived from organisation theory, organisational behaviour theory and strategic management theory. The process of integration into the organisational system is explored by analysing the coalescence of organisational continuous improvement, structure and culture. The coherent use of integration mechanisms is defined as key for a successful CS integration. The LEAPFROCS method is presented to capture the success of integration mechanisms and their application. The method is tested using empirical data from 2 case studies. The results of the data analysis – the patterns – were validated in discussion with company representatives. The results show that the process of CS integration is company-specific, as is the selection of patterns to create a self-reflection of companies on CS integration catalysing future corporate strategies for improving CS integration into the specific company’s organisational systems.
25 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors developed a conceptual model focusing on the effects of co-production on eco-innovation, the mediating effects of environmental innovation ambidexterity, and the moderating role of institutional pressures.
25 citations