Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Standardized individuality versus individualized standardization: the role of the context in structurally ambidextrous organizations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Review of Managerial Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sustaining success requires the integration of the contradicting aims of short-term efficiency and long-term innovation. Coupling exploitation and exploration is therefore a major challenge for organizations. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) suffer particularly from resource constraints for nurturing both learning modes concurrently. In this paper, we draw on empirical case-study evidence of a globally operating SME to show how managing the interplay of organizational structure and context enables firms to combine exploration and exploitation for achieving ambidexterity. Our findings show that creating ambidexterity requires firms to manage different tensions on multiple levels. In particular, we distinguish between the learning dimension and the flexibility dimension of ambidexterity. The learning dimension refers to balancing incremental and radical innovations, while the flexibility dimension refers to balancing alignment and adaptability in terms of a firm’s organizational design. Both dimensions have to be balanced simultaneously to create organizational ambidexterity. We show how the creation of a common frame of reference enables the behavioral integration of exploration and exploitation and the formation of knowledge bridges at multiple levels of the organization in a structurally ambidextrous firm. Further, our findings suggest that dealing with tensions between incremental/radical innovation and adaptability/alignment refers to managing a “second-order”-balance between exploration and exploitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abernathy WJ (1978) The productivity dilemma roadblock to innovation in the automobile industry. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine D (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ Sci 10:43–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler PS, Benner M, Brunner DJ, MacDuffie JP, Osono E, Staats BR, Takeuchi H, Tushman ML, Winter SG (2008) Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. J Oper Manag 27:99–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ Sci 20:696–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote L (1999) Organizational learning: creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Springer, Norwell, MA

  • Baden-Fuller C, Winter SG (2005) Replicating organizational knowledge: principles or templates?. Jena: Max Planck Institute of Economics/Evolutionary Economics Group. Papers on Economics and Evolution: 1–40

  • Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2002) Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Adm Sci Q 47:676–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploration, exploitation, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28:238–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradach J (1997) Using the plural form of management of restaurants chains. Adm Sci Q 42:276–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1997) The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Adm Sci Q 42:1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao Q, Gedajlovic E, Zhang H (2009) Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organ Sci 20:781–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough H, Rosenbloom RS (2002) The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Ind Corp Change 11:529–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen CM (1997) The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (MA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Combs JG, Michael SC, Castrogiovanni GJ (2004) Franchising: a review and avenues to greater theoretical diversity. J Manag 30:907–931

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Weick KE (1984) Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Acad Manag Rev 9:284–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggers JP, Kaplan S (2013) Cognition and capabilities: a multi-level perspective. Acad Manag Ann 7:293–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14:532–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM, Graebner M (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50:25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM, Furr NR, Bingham CB (2010) Microfoundations of performance: balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organ Sci 21:1263–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flick U, von Kardorff E, Steinke I (2004) A companion to qualitative research. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank H, Güttel WH, Weismeier-Sammer D (2010) Ambidexterity in Familienunternehmen—Die Top-Management-Familie als Innovationsinkubator. Managementforschung 20:183–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Froschauer U, Lueger M (2003) Das qualitative interview. WUV, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manag J 47:209–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert CG (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Acad Manag J 48:741–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert CG (2006) Change in the presence of residual fit: can competing frames coexist? Organ Sci 17:150–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 49:693–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güttel WH, Konlechner S (2009) Continuously hanging by a thread: dynamic capabilities in ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 61:150–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Güttel WH, Konlechner S, Müller B, Trede J, Lehrer M (2012) facilitating ambidexterity in replicator organizations: artifacts in their role as routine-recreators. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 64:187–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey J, Pettigrew A, Ferlie E (2002) The determinants of research group performance: towards mode 2. J Manag Stud 39:747–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He Z-L, Wong P-K (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15:481–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmqvist M (2004) Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical study of product development. Organ Sci 15:70–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen AC, Tsang EWK (2005) Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Acad Manag Rev 30:146–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, George G, Van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2008) Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of transformational leadership. J Manag Stud 45:982–1007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, Tempelaar MP, Van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organ Sci 20:797–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jick TD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm Sci Q 24:602–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus S, Harms R, Fink M (2011) Family firm research: sketching a research field. Int J Entrep Innov Manag 13:32–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus S, Pohjola M, Koponen A (2012) Innovation in family firms: an empirical analysis linking organizational and managerial innovation to corporate success. Rev Manag Sci 6:265–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman M (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad Manag Ann 4:109–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton D (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strateg Manag J 13:111–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strateg Manag J 14:95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin MH, Simsek Z, Ling Y, Veiga JF (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small-to-medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. J Manag 32:646–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig R (2008) Schmuck-Design der Moderne—Modern Jewellery Design. Arnoldsche, Stuttgart 2008

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles M, Huberman M (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

  • Mom TJM, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2007) Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: the influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. J Manag Stud 44:910–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mom TJM, Van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organ Sci 20:812–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA, Harreld JB, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: IBM and emerging business opportunities. Calif Manag Rev 51:75–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Res Organ Behav 28:185–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S (2008) Balanced structures: designing organizations for profitable growth. Long Range Plann 41:483–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J Manag 34:375–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ Sci 20:685–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL (2004) Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strateg Manag J 25:201–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez R, Mahoney J (1996) Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strateg Manag J 17:63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidhu JS, Commandeur HR, Volberda HW (2007) The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organ Sci 18:20–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N (2007) Persuasion with case studies. Acad Manag J 50:20–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek Z, Heavey C, Veiga JF, Souder D (2009) A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. J Manag Stud 46:864–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith WK, Tushman ML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams. Organ Sci 16:522–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas M, Gavetti G (2000) Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging. Strateg Manag J 21:1147–1162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner N, Swart J, Maylor H (2012) Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: a review and research agenda. Int J Manag Res 15:317–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38:8–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter SG (1995) Four Rs of Profitability: Rents, Resources, Routines, and Replication. In: Montgomery C (ed) Resource-based and Evolutionary theories of the firm: towards a synthesis. Boston (MA), pp 147–178

  • Winter SG, Szulanski G (2001) Replication as Strategy. Organ Sci 12:730–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

Download references

Acknowledgments

The helpful comments of Catherine Gundolf and two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. Financial support was graciously provided by funds of the Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Anniversary Fund, project number: 13798).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Human Resource and Change Management, Johannes Kepler-University Linz, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040, Linz, Austria

    Wolfgang H. Güttel & Stefan W. Konlechner

  2. Institut für Marketing und Medien, University Hamburg, Welckerstraße 8, 20354, Hamburg, Germany

    Julia K. Trede

Authors
  1. Wolfgang H. Güttel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan W. Konlechner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julia K. Trede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang H. Güttel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Güttel, W.H., Konlechner, S.W. & Trede, J.K. Standardized individuality versus individualized standardization: the role of the context in structurally ambidextrous organizations. Rev Manag Sci 9, 261–284 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-014-0156-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-014-0156-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation