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
Journal Article•
TL;DR: This study comprehensively overview application areas, conceptualizations, antecedents for, and outcomes of ambidexterity in IS research, and presents the current state of research in each stream.
Abstract: Organizations that are not efficient and innovative today quickly become irrelevant tomorrow. Ambidexterity (i.e., simultaneously conducting two seemingly contradicting activities, such as exploitation and exploration) helps organizations to overcome this challenge and, hence, has become increasingly popular with manifold applications in information systems (IS) research. However, we lack a systematic understanding of ambidexterity research, its research streams, and their future trajectory. Hence, we conduct a systematic literature review on ambidexterity in IS research and identify six distinct research streams that use an ambidexterity lens: IT-enabled organizational ambidexterity, ambidextrous IT capability, ambidexterity in IS development, ambidextrous IS strategy, ambidextrous inter-organizational relationships, and organizational ambidexterity in IS. We present the current state of research in each stream. More so, we comprehensively overview application areas, conceptualizations, antecedents for, and outcomes of ambidexterity. Hence, this study contributes to the emergent theme of ambidexterity in IS research.
18 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this article, the authors reveal the process behind the growth and emergence of an entrepreneurial firm's outstreaming business units, and the consequences for the wider corporation, revealing that out-streaming involves four steps: exploration in the form of vertical integration to make an input for internal supply that was previously being purchased from external suppliers, exploitation by selling the input to external customers, exploration by catering to the idiosyncratic needs of external customers; and exploitation of the new resources and capabilities by improving the firm's products and services.
Abstract: This study reveals the process behind the growth and emergence of an entrepreneurial firm’s outstreaming business units, and the consequences for the wider corporation. It appears that outstreaming involves four steps: (1) exploration in the form of vertical integration to make an input for internal supply that was previously being purchased from external suppliers; (2) exploitation by selling the input to external customers; (3) exploration by catering to the idiosyncratic needs of external customers; and (4) exploitation of the new resources and capabilities by improving the firm’s products and services. Uncovering this process contributes to a growing literature identifying how changes in vertical architecture can enable a firm to explore and exploit within and across domains, and evolve its core business from supplying components to delivering integrated products.
18 citations
TL;DR: Zhang et al. as mentioned in this paper proposed locational ambidexterity as a location-specific factor based on an operation flexibility perspective, and explored why and how multinational corporations (MNCs) proactively deal with uncertainty by valuing LOCAL AME in making location decisions.
Abstract: Purpose
This paper proposes locational ambidexterity as a location-specific factor based on an operation flexibility perspective, and explores why and how multinational corporations (MNCs) proactively deal with uncertainty by valuing locational ambidexterity in making location decisions.
Design/methodology/approach
Location choice data for foreign direct investment (FDI) at a sub-national level in China is used to test the role of locational ambidexterity.
Findings
We find that FDI generally prefers locations with high ambidexterity. Moreover, investments from a heterogeneous country context are more sensitive to locational ambidexterity than those from a similar country context. However, there is no significant evidence that wholly owned investments favor locational ambidexterity more than do international joint ventures.
Research limitations/implications
An alternative operationalization of locational ambidexterity may be needed. Future research could explore the sources of locational ambidexterity, identify other firm- and industry-level factors that could alter the value of ambidexterity, investigate how MNCs integrate locational ambidexterity into organization-specific option creation strategies and test the ambidexterity perspective with micro-level location choice data.
Practical implications
Locational ambidexterity may reduce the overall risk and adjustment cost of future changes. FDI may choose a location with high ambidexterity, i.e. a balanced portfolio of location-specific determinants, under uncertainty about the future.
Originality/value
Drawing on the notion of location flexibility from Buckley and Casson (1998), this study identifies a new location character, locational ambidexterity, and proposes that MNCs address uncertainty by choosing ambidextrous locations that offer more flexibility for MNCs to change or respond to potential volatility. Selecting locations with high ambidexterity is thus an alternative and complement to the organization-specific flexibility creation strategies suggested by the literature on real option and flexibility.
18 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated different configurations of planning practices and performance considering main firm characteristics in a dynamic and uncertain industry and found that both age and size jointly and singularly influence successful configurations.
18 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a research design, referred to as CARE, aimed at building a bridge from rigor to relevance, and vice versa, and offer a template for conducting rigorous research with immediate impact, contributing to solving issues that businesses are struggling with through a design that facilitates causal inference.
Abstract: The rigor-versus-relevance debate in the world of academia is, by now, an old-time classic that does not seem to go away so easily. The grassroots movement Responsible Research in Business and Management, for instance, is a very active and prominent advocate of the need to change current research practices in the management domain, broadly defined. One of its main critiques is that current research practices are not apt to address day-to-day management challenges, nor do they allow such management challenges to feed into academic research. In this paper, we address this issue, and present a research design, referred to as CARE, that is aimed at building a bridge from rigor to relevance, and vice versa. In so doing, we offer a template for conducting rigorous research with immediate impact, contributing to solving issues that businesses are struggling with through a design that facilitates causal inference.
18 citations