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
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present and test a conceptual framework to aid in understanding and explaining the relationship between sustainability practices and organisational performance, which is based on the notion of exploitation and exploration concepts.
Abstract: The purpose of this research is to present and test a conceptual framework to aid in understanding and explaining the relationship between sustainability practices and organisational performance. The relevant theoretical insights are presented first, followed by a discussion of the relationship between quality management and sustainability. An extensive literature review is conducted on key intersections of quality management and sustainability. The research further investigates the dimensions of sustainability practices through the review. It develops a reliable and valid instrument for the sustainability practice constructs, which could be beneficial for both practitioners and academicians. Based on the notion of exploitation and exploration concepts, the research delineates sustainability practices and proposes causal relationships between sustainability practices and organisational performance.
Furthermore, the conceptual framework is further discussed in terms of different outcomes related to sustainability performance, quality performance and business performance. One of the primary propositions of this framework is that the alternative relationships between sustainability practices (exploitation and exploration) and organisational performance depend on different factors, including environmental uncertainty, competitiveness, long-term orientation and institutional approaches. Therefore, the research is an attempt to cover the relatively less empirically explored area of the dynamics of corporate sustainability and organisational performance.
The empirical data for this study was drawn from a large-scale international survey based on the following countries: Slovenia, Spain, Serbia, Poland, and Germany. A total of 247 organisations participated in the survey.
The outcome of regression analyses provides the evidence that sustainability practices positively and significantly influence organisational performance. Regarding the antecedents of sustainability practices, our findings suggest that the main enablers for the successful adoption of sustainable practices are the support of top management, the integration of sustainability into vision and strategy, and the establishment of a sustainability centred culture.
Furthermore, empirical evidence from this research also confirmed the existence of ambidextrous orientation, suggesting that organisations that are able to simultaneously pursue exploratory and exploitative sustainability practices can also expect performance benefits. However, the results indicate that when organisations maintain relatively high levels of exploratory and exploitative practices, significant relationship between sustainability practices and organisational performance seems to disappear.
The results of the MANOVA analysis indicate that there are significant mean differences in organisational performance measures for low and high levels of sustainability practices. Therefore, by focusing on exploration and exploitation practices, organisations can expect to achieve higher performance outputs and outcomes. In addition to the direct influence of sustainability practices on the organisational performance, results also revealed that the innovation performance serves as a mediator in the relationship between sustainability practices and financial and market performance. This suggests that greater engagement in sustainability exploration and sustainability exploitation leads to greater innovation performance, which in turn leads to greater financial and market performance.
The results also support the contingency and institutional view with regard to the relationship between sustainability practices and performance rather than relying upon a ‘universal’ view of sustainability practices. For example, the results show that in moderate environmental contexts (moderate competitiveness and uncertainty) sustainability exploitation practices seem to be a predominant predictor of organisational performance. However, it appears that when the level of competitiveness increases, sustainabi
17 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to analyze the existing literature on continuous improvement (CI) initiatives and dynamic capabilities (DCs) development to explore the question whether CI initiatives foster development of DCs in organizations.
Abstract: This study aims to analyse the existing literature on continuous improvement (CI) initiatives and dynamic capabilities (DCs) development to explore the question whether CI initiatives foster development of DCs in organisations.,A systematic literature review (SLR) was undertaken. Four databases were included in the structured searches (EBSCOhost, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, ProQuest and Emerald Insight), 19 studies were finally included and analysed in detail.,The results obtained identify issues such as a growing trend in the publication of studies, the dominant position of the USA and the predominance of empirical papers. The literature was classified according to whether it presents CI as a DC in itself, as an enabler of DC or as a result of the DC. The main critical success factors to be implemented in CI initiatives (CII) were also identified, to enhance the development of DCs. Finally, based on the analysis of the specific DC literature, ten theoretical propositions for possible future research have been developed.,CII such as Lean Management, Six Sigma and Total Quality Management have been widely implemented in organisations. Despite their reputation, the effects of these initiatives on long-term benefits remain debated, this motivates the SLR of CII and DC. The DC theory tackles the question of how firms can sustain their advantage and profits in the long term, making this perspective ideal for tackling controversy on the benefits of CII.
17 citations
TL;DR: In simple and stable environments, organizational adaptation is enhanced by an external focus but in complex and turbulent environments, such external focus is counterproductive and the ability of organizations to adapt is conditioned as much or more by the focus of search than by its scope.
Abstract: This paper explores how the rules that guide search affect organizational adaptation in complex and turbulent environments. Our consideration of such rules extends beyond search scope—i.e., exploitation of current technologies vs. exploration of new technologies—to include focus on competition. We consider two types of competitive focus—i.e., external, where the choice of focal technology to be improved is influenced by information about other organizations and internal, where it is not influenced by others. We refer to this expanded set of rules as managerial selection and vary it to explore how it affects organizational adaptation. Employing an agent based simulation model, built on the framework of NKC fitness landscapes, we consider multiple types of interdependencies within and between technologies and across competitors. We show that in the presence of these multiple interdependencies, the ability of organizations to adapt is conditioned as much or more by the focus of search than by its scope. In particular, we observe that in simple and stable environments, organizational adaptation is enhanced by an external focus but in complex and turbulent environments, such external focus is counterproductive.
17 citations
TL;DR: The hierarchical and holistic system view offered in this research suggests greater importance for second-order ambidexterity and capabilities of top managers for exercising cognitive, behavioral and process leadership complexity.
Abstract: Purpose – The aim of this paper is to deconstruct the organizational capability of ambidexterity into a typology of hierarchical dimensions that includes each type’s enabling mechanisms and capabilities. Design/methodology/approach – This work reviews and integrates extant literature on ambidexterity and the hierarchy of capabilities to distinguish dimensions of ambidexterity and link each type to capabilities identified in prior research. Findings – A hierarchy involving zero-, first- and second-order ambidexterity is developed. Mechanisms and capabilities for creating and sustaining each type of ambidexterity are described. Research limitations/implications – As only an initial and conceptual foray toward the purpose stated above, this research does not attempt to argue a comprehensive theoretical framework. Nor does it intend to extend or propose new theory regarding the origins of ambidexterity capabilities or the specific causal relationships between them. Practical implications – Although prior lite...
17 citations
TL;DR: Based on organizational ambidexterity theory and knowledge-based view, the authors presented a conceptual framework that links organizational ambidesterity, open innovation, and innovation performance.
Abstract: Based on organizational ambidexterity theory and knowledge-based view, this study presents a conceptual framework that links organizational ambidexterity, open innovation and innovation performance...
17 citations