Abstract
There has been increasing interest in the interaction effect between organizational learning strategies and environmental characteristics on organizational performance. However, the interaction effect as well as the effect of competition among learning strategies has rarely been investigated comprehensively through a computational model. The purpose of this paper is to develop theoretical propositions that incorporate both the organizational learning perspective and the population ecology perspective with regard to whether the effect of organizational learning strategies is contingent on different environmental conditions under which they compete with one another. In the simulation model, we considered four competing learning strategies: pure exploitation, pure exploration, and structural and temporal ambidexterity. We also considered two environmental characteristics: population density and turbulence, where turbulence was defined in two ways. Based on the simulation results, we developed five propositions. The discussion suggests that different learning strategies may be related to different within-group variance of performance, indicating the importance of considering organizational performance at both organization and population level. Also, environmental turbulence that affects the efficacy of exploitative adaptation and the shape of a niche may have different consequences on competing organizations. We concluded by discussing the limitations of this study and future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Designing a fully adaptive organization might be another interesting research topic, but it is beyond the scope of this study.
Exchange of two dimensions means 1/6 of an organization’s occupied dimensions are exchanged in each iteration. It is not clear from the empirical literature what portion of organizational structure is dedicated to exploration. So, the parameter was set simply to distinguish this strategy from pure exploration or temporal ambidexterity.
There is no information on how frequently organizations change revolutionarily. The probability of 0.05 was set to allow any potential variance within organizations with this strategy to be detected. Too low a probability would not allow it.
A caveat is that this model suggests an extreme case of revolutionary and blind exploration: in the real world, organizations may not incur this level of revolutionary change and may be more intelligent and strategic, although the effect of strategic change is often in question (Amburgey et al. 1993; Hannan and Freeman 1984; Henderson and Clark 1990; Mezias and Lant 1994).
References
Aldrich HE, Ruef M (2006) Organizations evolving, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Amburgey TL, Kelly D, Barnett WP (1993) Resetting the clock: the dynamics of organizational change and failure. Adm Sci Q 38:51–73
Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ Sci 20:696–717
Barnett WP (1990) The organizational ecology of a technological system. Adm Sci Q 35:31–60
Barnett WP, Carroll GR (1995) Modeling internal organizational change. Annu Rev Sociol 21:217–236
Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2002) Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Adm Sci Q 47:676–709
Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28:238–256
Burgelman RA (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: theory and field research. Organ Sci 2:239–262
Burgelman RA (2002) Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Adm Sci Q 47:325–357
Carroll GR (1985) Concentration and specialization: dynamics of niche width in populations of organizations. Am J Sociol 90:1262–1283
Carroll GR, Hannan MT (2000) The demography of corporations and industries. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Gersick CJG (1991) Revolutionary change theories: a multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Acad Manag Rev 16:10–36
Gupta AK, Smith K, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 49:693–706
Hannan MT, Freeman J (1977) The population ecology of organizations. Am J Sociol 82:929–964
Hannan MT, Freeman J (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. Am Sociol Rev 49:149–164
Harrison JR, Lin Z, Carroll GR, Carley KM (2007) Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Acad Manag Rev 32:1229–1245
He ZL, Wong PK (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15:481–494
Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Adm Sci Q 35:9–30
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
Jansen JJP, Van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Manag Sci 52:1661–1674
Katila R, Ahuja G (2002) Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad Manag J 45:1183–1194
Knott AM (2002) Exploration and exploitation as complements. In: Choo CW, Bontis N (eds) The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 339–358
Lant TK, Mezias SJ (1992) An organizational learning model of convergence and reorientation. Organ Sci 3:47–71
Lavie D, Rosenkopf L (2006) Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Acad Manag J 49:797–818
Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman ML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad Manag Ann 4:109–155
Lee GK, Cole R (2003) From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: the case of the Linux kernel development. Organ Sci 14:633–649
Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Manag Sci 43:934–950
Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strateg Manag J 14:95–112
Levinthal DA, Posen HE (2007) Myopia of selection: does organizational adaptation limit the efficacy of population selection? Adm Sci Q 52:586–620
Levinthal DA, Warglien M (1999) Landscape design: designing for local action in complex worlds. Organ Sci 10:342–357
Levitt B, March JG (1988) Organizational learning. Annu Rev Sociol 14:319–340
Lin Z, Yang H, Demirkan I (2007) The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Manag Sci 53:1645–1658
March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:71–87
March JG (1994) The evolution of evolution. In: Baum JAC, Singh JV (eds) Evolutionary dynamics of organizations. Oxford University Press, NY, pp 39–49
Mezias SJ, Lant TK (1994) Mimetic learning and the evolution of organizational populations. In: Baum JAC, Singh JV (eds) Evolutionary dynamics of organizations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 179–198
Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Posen HE, Levinthal DA (2012) Chasing a moving target: exploitation and exploration in dynamic environments. Manag Sci 58:587–601
Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2003) Balancing search and stability: interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Manag Sci 49:290–311
Romanelli E (1999) Blind (but not unconditioned) variation. In: Baum JAC, McKelvey B (eds) Variations in organization science: in honor of Donald T. Campbell. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 79–91
Ruef M, Scott WR (1998) A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Adm Sci Q 43:877–879
Tushman ML, Romanelli E (1985) Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In: Staw B, Cummings L (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol 7. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 171–222
Voss GB, Sirdeshmukh D, Voss ZG (2008) The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 51:147–164
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, T. Environmental turbulence, density, and learning strategies: when does organizational adaptation matter?. Comput Math Organ Theory 21, 437–460 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-015-9192-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-015-9192-y