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
Dissertation•
18 Jun 2014
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigate the relationship between entrepreneurial action and performance and find that high technology start-ups face a trade-off between acquisition likelihood and profitability-given-survival while low and medium technology startups faced a tradeoff between survival, profitability, and getting acquired.
Abstract: This dissertation is comprised of three independently standing research papers (chapters 2, 3 and 4) that come together in the common theme of investigating the relationship between entrepreneurial action and performance. The introduction chapter argues that this theme is the main agenda of an entrepreneurial approach to strategy, and provides some background and context for the core chapters. The entrepreneurial approach to strategy falls in line with an array of action-based theories of strategy that trace their economic foundations to the Austrian school of economics. Chapters 2 and 3 take a game theoretical modeling and computer simulation approach and represent one of the first attempts at formal analysis of the Austrian economic foundations of action-based strategy theory. These chapters attempt to demonstrate ways in which formal analysis can begin to approach compatibility with the central tenets of Austrian economics (i.e., subjectivism, dynamism, and methodological individualism). The simulation results shed light on our understanding of the relationship between opportunity creation and discovery, and economic rents in the process of moving towards and away from equilibrium. Chapter 4 operationalizes creation and discovery as exploration and exploitation in an empirical study using data from the Kauffman Firm Survey and highlights the trade-offs faced by start-ups in linking action to different dimensions of performance (i.e., survival, profitability, and getting acquired). Using multinomial logistic regression for competing risks analysis and random effects panel data regression, we find that high technology start-ups face a trade-off between acquisition likelihood and profitability-given-survival while low and medium technology start-ups face a trade-off between survival and profitability-given-survival. Chapter 5 concludes the dissertation by highlighting some of the overall contributions and suggesting avenues for future research.
13 citations
Dissertation•
01 Jun 2011
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present an insight into the management of ambidexterity in such an environment, and identify how multiple knowledge resources are utilised, together with the underlying managerial practices.
Abstract: In this thesis I propose that the literature on ambidexterity does not fully explore the detailed practices by which organisations and managers may achieve both exploitation and exploration. A systematic review identifies that studies have focused principally at the organisation-level, and there is a lack of both empirical and theoretical work at the micro-level of analysis highlighting how ambidexterity may be achieved in practical, complex, working structures. The research addresses these micro-mechanisms in the context of the management of projects, a suitable area in that it can be considered as using defined processes together with the flexibility to overcome particular issues that arise. The contribution of the thesis is that it presents an insight into the management of ambidexterity in such an environment, and identifies how multiple knowledge resources are utilised, together with the underlying managerial practices. The level of analysis is the project (specifically, IT-services projects in a major multinational organisation), using the manager as the unit of analysis. The research question is ‘How is ambidexterity achieved at the level of the project?’ This is an opportunity to explore a practical as well as a theoretical gap, in an increasingly important area of business operations. The first stage of the research examines the managerial role in terms of intellectual capital, using a variety of projects. This shows that the sub-components of IC (human, social and organisational/project capital) can each be understood as having co-existing, orthogonal, exploitative and exploratory elements, an important extension of existing theory. The forms of intellectual capital are interwoven not only with each other, but also with the processes of exploitation and exploration, and to conceive of them as separate is an insufficient theorisation. The findings from the qualitative approach are used to investigate the duality of these concepts and bring greater clarity to our understanding of their operationalisation. .This is followed by eight case studies, each using between three and five managerial respondents, together with project data, used to develop a more fine-grained understanding of ambidexterity in a wide range of industrial settings. This shows different managerial configurations (including ‘distributed’ and ‘point’ ambidexterity – an addition to current theory), together with five key managerial practices to enable project-level ambidexterity, identified in the context of project complexity, critical events and constraints.
13 citations
Dissertation•
01 Jan 2015
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigate how managers orchestrate ambidextrous strategies and how these strategies are shaped by elements of the organisational culture in high technology firms and conclude that middle management ambidexterrous behaviours shaped by cultural resources may be vital for the realisation of improved or sustained competitiveness in organisations.
Abstract: This study is motivated by the growing influence in organisational research on the perspective of culture as a toolkit of resources from which individuals can draw on to develop strategies of action. Research has established that ambidextrous organisations succeed both in incremental and discontinuous innovation. However, there remains a scarcity of study on how managers orchestrate ambidexterity. This thesis extends the ambidexterity research by investigating how managers orchestrate ambidextrous strategies and how these strategies are shaped by elements of the organisational culture in high technology firms. An interpretive case study approach was used to achieve the aims of the study. Focusing on two engineering projects, 55 interviews were conducted alongside documentary reviews and participant observation for 6 months at Brush Electrical Machines Ltd, UK. Analysis of the findings is conducted using thematic analysis to identify common themes and NVivo was used to draw out patterns until relationships among the emerging themes became clearer.
The thesis makes important contributions to the organisational ambidexterity literature by providing useful empirically-driven insights and deconstructing the roles of middle managers in facilitating ambidexterity. The findings of the research indicate that most of the middle managers demonstrated ambidextrous behaviours. These middle level managers enabled their behaviours through diverse cultural resources selected from the organisation s cultural toolkit. Thus, important contributions are made to the literature on organisational culture, specifically on the toolkit perspectives. The thesis takes the perspective that organisational culture should be viewed as heterogeneous and not homogeneous. The study concludes by suggesting that middle management ambidextrous behaviours shaped by cultural resources may be vital for the realisation of improved or sustained competitiveness in organisations.
13 citations