Advertisement

Review of Managerial Science

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 261–284 | Cite as

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

  • Wolfgang H. GüttelEmail author
  • Stefan W. Konlechner
  • Julia K. Trede
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Ambidexterity Exploration Exploitation Alignment Adaptability Organizational learning 

JEL Classification

M14 O31 O32 

Notes

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).

References

  1. Abernathy WJ (1978) The productivity dilemma roadblock to innovation in the automobile industry. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine D (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ Sci 10:43–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 27:99–113Google Scholar
  4. Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ Sci 20:696–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argote L (1999) Organizational learning: creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Springer, Norwell, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. 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: 1–40Google Scholar
  7. Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2002) Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Adm Sci Q 47:676–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploration, exploitation, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28:238–256Google Scholar
  9. Bradach J (1997) Using the plural form of management of restaurants chains. Adm Sci Q 42:276–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1997) The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Adm Sci Q 42:1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cao Q, Gedajlovic E, Zhang H (2009) Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organ Sci 20:781–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 11:529–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christensen CM (1997) The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (MA)Google Scholar
  14. Combs JG, Michael SC, Castrogiovanni GJ (2004) Franchising: a review and avenues to greater theoretical diversity. J Manag 30:907–931Google Scholar
  15. Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, London, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  16. Daft RL, Weick KE (1984) Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Acad Manag Rev 9:284–295Google Scholar
  17. Eggers JP, Kaplan S (2013) Cognition and capabilities: a multi-level perspective. Acad Manag Ann 7:293–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14:532–550Google Scholar
  19. Eisenhardt KM, Graebner M (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eisenhardt KM, Furr NR, Bingham CB (2010) Microfoundations of performance: balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organ Sci 21:1263–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flick U, von Kardorff E, Steinke I (2004) A companion to qualitative research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Frank H, Güttel WH, Weismeier-Sammer D (2010) Ambidexterity in Familienunternehmen—Die Top-Management-Familie als Innovationsinkubator. Managementforschung 20:183–222Google Scholar
  23. Froschauer U, Lueger M (2003) Das qualitative interview. WUV, WienGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manag J 47:209–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilbert CG (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Acad Manag J 48:741–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilbert CG (2006) Change in the presence of residual fit: can competing frames coexist? Organ Sci 17:150–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 49:693–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Güttel WH, Konlechner S (2009) Continuously hanging by a thread: dynamic capabilities in ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 61:150–172Google Scholar
  29. 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 64:187–203Google Scholar
  30. Harvey J, Pettigrew A, Ferlie E (2002) The determinants of research group performance: towards mode 2. J Manag Stud 39:747–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. He Z-L, Wong P-K (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15:481–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holmqvist M (2004) Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical study of product development. Organ Sci 15:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Inkpen AC, Tsang EWK (2005) Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Acad Manag Rev 30:146–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 45:982–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jansen JJP, Tempelaar MP, Van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organ Sci 20:797–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jick TD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm Sci Q 24:602–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kraus S, Harms R, Fink M (2011) Family firm research: sketching a research field. Int J Entrep Innov Manag 13:32–47Google Scholar
  38. 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 6:265–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman M (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad Manag Ann 4:109–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leonard-Barton D (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strateg Manag J 13:111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strateg Manag J 14:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 32:646–672Google Scholar
  43. Ludwig R (2008) Schmuck-Design der Moderne—Modern Jewellery Design. Arnoldsche, Stuttgart 2008Google Scholar
  44. March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miles M, Huberman M (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 44:910–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 20:812–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Reilly CA, Harreld JB, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: IBM and emerging business opportunities. Calif Manag Rev 51:75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Res Organ Behav 28:185–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Raisch S (2008) Balanced structures: designing organizations for profitable growth. Long Range Plann 41:483–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J Manag 34:375–409Google Scholar
  52. Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ Sci 20:685–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL (2004) Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strateg Manag J 25:201–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sanchez R, Mahoney J (1996) Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strateg Manag J 17:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 18:20–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Siggelkow N (2007) Persuasion with case studies. Acad Manag J 50:20–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simsek Z, Heavey C, Veiga JF, Souder D (2009) A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. J Manag Stud 46:864–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith WK, Tushman ML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams. Organ Sci 16:522–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tripsas M, Gavetti G (2000) Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging. Strateg Manag J 21:1147–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Turner N, Swart J, Maylor H (2012) Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: a review and research agenda. Int J Manag Res 15:317–332Google Scholar
  61. Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38:8–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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 147–178Google Scholar
  63. Winter SG, Szulanski G (2001) Replication as Strategy. Organ Sci 12:730–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang H. Güttel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stefan W. Konlechner
    • 1
  • Julia K. Trede
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Human Resource and Change ManagementJohannes Kepler-University LinzLinzAustria
  2. 2.Institut für Marketing und MedienUniversity HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations