Organizing for ambidexterity: a paradox-based typology of ambidexterity-related organizational states.
| Autor | Karrer, Daniel |
| Cargo | Report |
Introduction
Organizational ambidexterity has received a lot of attention in strategic management literature. The number of studies on this topic in leading management journals has steadily increased over time, constituting one of the most enduring ideas in organization sciences (Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, & Tushman, 2009). The construct's core proposition states that an organization's success hinges on its ability to exploit its current capabilities while simultaneously exploring fundamental new competencies (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). Moreover, the construct is potentially relevant to explain why empirical data shows that only a few organizations have been successful in balancing contradictory pressures of short-term profits and long-term survival (Aldrich & Rueff, 1999; Coad, 2009; Coad & Tamvada, 2008; Feser, 2012; O'Reilly, Harreld, & Tushman, 2009; Simonetti, 1996; Stubart & Knight, 2006). The expanding literature on the construct offers a lot of common ground for researchers. However, it still includes open questions that call for further research.
For instance, there is a lot of common ground concerning what organizational ambidexterity is. Generally understood as the catalyst for the current interest in the construct (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008), March's (1991) landmark paper essentially proposed that exploitation and exploration are two fundamentally different types of activities which firms divide their attention and resources between. Actually, literature on the topic builds on March's (1991) seminal notion that organizational ambidexterity is defined by a firm's ability to effectively balance both exploration (such as refinement, efficiency, selection and implementation) and exploitation (such as search, variation, experimentation and discovery).
Also, it is widely accepted that the reason why firms should become ambidextrous has to do with the connection between organizational ambidexterity and long-term success. Although studies have pointed out the need to clarify this link through longitudinal efforts (Cao, Gedajlovic, & Zhang, 2009; Simsek, 2009) in order to avoid tautological claims often associated with the resource-based view (Priem & Butler, 2001; Williamson, 1999; Winter, 2003; Zott, 2003), the assertion that organizational ambidexterity contributes to a firm's healthy longevity is hardly challenged. Moreover, large-scale empirical studies have complemented conceptual work providing evidence of organizational ambidexterity's general association with performance (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; He & Wong, 2004; Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006).
However, there still are open questions demanding further research. These include issues associated with how organizations become ambidextrous, such as identifying the likely requirements for organizations to become ambidextrous and understanding how ambidexterity may emerge as an organizational property, as well as exploring likely connections of the ambidexterity property and organizing a firm's activities and work.
Even though several studies have provided piecemeal examples (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2011) or tackled ambidexterity's emergence in specific situations, such as in new product development efforts (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Chang, Hughes, & Hotho, 2011), the field still lacks a comprehensive understanding of how organizations foster and sustain ambidexterity as an organizational property. Perhaps Gupta, Smith and Shalley (2006, p. 697) put it best when they noted that, "although near consensus exists on the need for balance of exploitation and exploration, there is considerably less clarity on how this balance can be achieved". Research to date has typically employed only one variable to explain organizational ambidexterity, such as dual structures (Benner & Tushman, 2003), behavioural context (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), or top management team (TMT) behavioural integration (Lubatkin et al., 2006). Lacking integrative models spanning multiple levels of analysis (Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2006), previous studies thus far 'have not generated an overarching theory' to explain organizational ambidexterity (Simsek, 2009).
Aiming at contributing understanding on how organizations become ambidextrous over time, we have scrutinized the nature of the ambidexterity construct, identified two requirements for organizations to become ambidextrous, and explored issues related to organizing for ambidexterity. We propose two necessary conditions for developing ambidexterity: fostering paradox-coping tactics as well as precluding paradox-related traps. The interplay of these two conditions gives rise to a typology of four ambidexterity-related states, entailing distinct organizing features.
The envisaged contribution includes three main aspects. First, we suggest that the paradox notion properly addresses the distinct characteristics of the tension-like relationship between exploration and exploitation (namely its mutual complementarities and opposition). Second, we identify two necessary conditions for fostering and sustaining organizational ambidexterity: employing paradox-coping tactics and avoiding specific paradox-related traps. Third, we derive four different organizational states, whose formation depends on how the necessary conditions are addressed. A four-state typology organizes these states, whose strengths and deficiencies vis-a-vis organizing for ambidexterity differ among states.
Investigating the Nature of the Tension between Exploration and Exploitation
Tensions such as the one shown in the organizational ambidexterity construct (between exploration and exploitation) are not new in the strategic management field. At the heart of several strategic issues, a fundamental tension between apparent opposites can be identified (DeWit & Meyer, 2010). These tensions span multiple analytical levels and cannot be eliminated because they are inherent to the very subject matter (Dougherty & Hardy, 1996). Selected examples in Table 1 illustrate some of the tensions that can be identified in the strategic management literature.
Concerning the strategy process, a well-known tension-like relationship refers to deliberate, top-down strategic planning and emergent, bottom-up strategy formation (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). Another common tension in the literature regards continuous, incremental, piecemeal renewal and discontinuous, disruptive innovations and technological change renewal (Christensen & Raynor, 2013).
Tensions regarding strategy content include the very tension that lies ate the heart of the organizational ambidexterity construct; i.e. between exploration of current capabilities and the exploration of new ones (March, 1991). Another firm level tension--commitment to specific choices and the value of flexibility (Ghemawat, 1991)--touches upon path dependence in strategizing.
At the industry level, a widely known tension concerns the degree of competition and collaboration within an industry (Brandenburger & Nablebuff, 1995). Another one pertains to the behavior of firms in a focal industry, which may emphasize compliance with industry standards and best practices (thus producing isomorphism among companies) or choosing to strive for uniqueness (producing heterogeneity). The isomorphism-heterogeneity tension nurtures the debate between two conceptual perspectives: the resource-based view (Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 2003) and institutionalism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
As for strategy purpose, the discussion concerning top management duties-maximizing shareholders value or satisfying stakeholders needs (Doyle, 1994)--illustrates organizational purpose-related tensions.
Over time, the above mentioned tensions have developed into different fields of study that embrace multiple conceptual perspectives. Moreover, they do not share one single conceptual nature, as the relationship between the opposing poles may have distinct characteristics.
Possible conceptualizations of tensions within Strategic Management
The relationship between opposing poles within a given strategic tension may be conceptualized in several ways: as trade-offs, puzzles, dilemmas and paradoxes. Each conceptualization offers different perspectives on the nature of the relationship between the poles, bringing about implications regarding the way organizations must cope with each tension.
Qualifying a tension as trade-off implies the occurrence of numerous different combinations between two apparent opposites, none of which is inherently superior to all others (DeWit & Meyer, 2010). The tension between responsiveness and synergy in multi-business firms could be characterized as a trade-off: when organizations navigate through highly uncertain environments, the balance between these two poles could be dynamically and continuously adjusted through time, depending on organizational learning rates (Posen & Levinthal, 2012). Another tension that could be characterized as a trade-off is the one between cooperation and competition: both poles are always present--competition relates to increasing the organization's market share, while cooperation refers to increasing the size of the market itself (Brandenburger & Nablebuff, 1995). For a trade-off, although the poles of a tension have an opposing relationship, both poles can be present at the same time, and the challenge is to fine-tune the partial fulfillment of each pole.
Associating a tension with the notion of puzzle (DeWit & Meyer, 2010) conveys the idea that management faces a challenging problem with a finite number of defined (but not necessarily known) optimal solutions. It can be said, then, that organizational navigation through stable, low uncertainty, merciful environments could benefit from the puzzle concept: organizations may be able to survive for a long, indefinite amount of time by applying a single solution: establishing itself on a specialized niche or efficiently exploiting their initial success...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
