Ambidexterity into an Organisation

Conceptual Understanding of Organizational Ambidexterity

The limits of organizational capabilities development of a company bounded by uncertainty are complemented by organizational ambidexterity. Innovative ambidexterity that aims for simultaneous and balanced exploitation and exploration (Duncan, 1976; Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Raisch et al., 2009; Tushman and O’Reilly III, 1996; O’Reilly III and Tushman, 2013) can be utilized as another organizational adaptation strategy by a firm to face the dynamics of environmental change. In addition, organizational ambidexterity can also be an alternative strategic option. Organizational ambidexterity differs from balanced and simultaneous innovation strategies discussed from an aspect of knowledge management in that it attempts to alleviate the tensions that may arise in organizations from having to choose both exploitation and exploration in organizational management (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009). Organizational ambidexterity has twofold postures such as structural ambidexterity and contextual ambidexterity. Unlike structural ambidexterity, in which dual organizational features are combined for innovative activities such as exploitation and exploration, contextual ambidexterity is understood as a series of actions undertaken by organizational members to realize alignment and adaptability at the same time in accordance with a common goal (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Raisch et al., 2009).

The attributes of a company’s organizational ambidexterity stem from its dynamic organizational capabilities that are emphasized as an alternative resort to manage environmental dynamics. Firms that overcome the existing inertia and resistance to adjust to new market environments and respond with appropriate routines are those that sense the external environmental conditions and seize opportunities while adjusting organizational routines (Teece, Pisano and Shuen, 1997; Zollo and Winter, 2002; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000) according to the demands of the environment–structure–strategy fit (Easterby-Smith and Prieto, 2008, Grant, 1996, Miles et al., 1978). Both sensing and seizing capabilities enable firms to recognize changes in the environment that degrade organizational stability and stimulate organizational adaptation in the process of searching for flexibility in the current routine and survival plans. At the same time, reconfiguring capacity contributes not only to the development of high-productivity processes and the calibration of organizational goals with environmental conditions, but also to the repairing of cracks between structure and strategy caused by changes in routine. In this way, dynamic organizational capacities help to minimize adjustment costs brought about by organizational inertia and resistance, and in the deconstruction and reconvergence of existing routines (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000).

Unlike the efforts made in expanding organizational capacity, there remains a need for the recognition and commercialization of the emergent fit process.

Unlike the efforts made in expanding organizational capacity, there remains a need for the recognition and commercialization of the emergent fit process. Through flexible management systems, firms are able to swiftly prioritize the order of work according to the demands of the market, even in current unstable global business environments. In addition, an effective alignment system must ensure firm employees are made aware of the revised organizational goals, eliminating the negative effects that uncertainty may present for the management of the firm. Furthermore, the role of organizational innovation will not only be one of responding to environmental changes, but also enabling the firm’s management system to pave the way for change.

Other attributes of organizational ambidexterity can be found in alignment and adaptation. These firms must study the changing environmental context in order to respond flexibly to market changes, doing away with obsolete systems, quickly adjusting business priorities and redesigning routines as part of its adaptation mechanism. Thus, strategic learning for the redesign of existing routines and businesses learning for the consolidation and optimization of routines both serve to tighten the roles and functional units of an organization (Cheng and Fu, 2013; Kuwada, 1998; Yan et al., 2016). Firms must flexibly select organizational goals and share them with employees, while operating alignment activities in the most efficient way possible, ultimately minimizing the effects of business uncertainty (Cheng and Fu, 2013).

The potential opportunity gain from organizational ambidexterity is often associated with high uncertainty. In these contexts, the model of organizational capabilities that has traditionally been used is limited, while organizational ambidexterity alleviates the negative impact of uncertainty through flexibility, initiative and the readjustment and agreement of goals among organizational members in the face of environmental change.

Firms often consider the tradeoff between alignment and adaptability in the face of uncertainty (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Weigelt and Sarkar, 2012). For global firms, alignment can help to improve their understanding of their own overall company objectives, which is associated with effective management trends at every stage along the chain (Lee, 2004; Weigelt and Sarkar, 2012). Adaptability enables the prioritization of specific needs which, in turn, reduces the coordination costs in the context of organizational uncertainty (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). However, the dichotomous consideration of organizational ambidexterity prevents organizational initiative and can lead to organizational tension and risk at the managerial level. As a result, firms must adopt a strategy that enables them to acquire both alignment and adaptability simultaneously in cultivating their organizational ambidexterity. Firms must not only establish a clear organizational objective and maintain a flexible management system in a high-performance context, but also furnish their employees with challenges and learning opportunities (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004).

Pathways to Organizational Ambidexterity: Diagnose your organizational context

The first step of building ambidexterity into an organization is to diagnose the organizational context. For executives who are seeking to build an ambidextrous organization, Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004) present the following diagnostic tool that quantitatively diagnoses current performance and management status.

Source: BIRKINSHAW & GIBSON (2004), p. 53.

Diagnosing Organizational Context.pdf

PDF 다운로드 • 44KB

References

Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M. W. (2009) ‘Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation’, Organization Science, 20(4), pp. 696-717.

Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004) ‘Building an ambidextrous organization’, MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), pp. 47-55.

Cheng, J.-H. and Fu, Y.-C. (2013) ‘Inter-organizational relationships and knowledge sharing through the relationship and institutional orientations in supply chains’, International Journal of Information Management, 33(3), pp. 473-484.

Duncan, R. B. (1976) ‘The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation’, The Management of Organization, 1(1), pp. 167-188.

Easterby-Smith, M. and Prieto, I. M. (2008) ‘Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management: an integrative role for learning?’, British Journal of Management, 19(3), pp. 235-249.

Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000) ‘Dynamic capabilities: what are they?’, Strategic Management Journal, 20(10-11), pp. 1105-1121.

Gibson, C. B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004) ‘The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity’, Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), pp. 209-226.

Grant, R. M. (1996) ‘Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration’, Organization Science, 7(4), pp. 359-467.

Kuwada, K. (1998) ‘Strategic learning: The continuous side of discontinuous strategic change’, Organization Science, 9(6), pp. 719-736.

Lee, H. L. (2004) ‘The triple-A supply chain’, Harvard Business Review, 82(10), pp. 102-113.

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D. and Coleman, H. J. (1978) ‘Organizational strategy, structure, and process’, Academy of Management Review, 3(3), pp. 546-562.

O’Reilly III, C. A. and Tushman, M. L. (2013) ‘Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), pp. 324-338.

Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G. and Tushman, M. L. (2009) ‘Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance’, Organization Science, 20(4), pp. 685-695.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) ‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management’, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 509-533.

Tushman, M. and Romanelli, E. (1985) ‘Organizational evolution: Interactions between external and emergent processes and strategic choice’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 8(1), pp. 171-222.

Tushman, M. L. and O’Reilly III, C. A. (1996) ‘The ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change’, California Management Review, 38(4), pp. 8-30.

Weigelt, C. and Sarkar, M. (2012) ‘Performance implications of outsourcing for technological innovations: managing the efficiency and adaptability trade‐off’, Strategic Management Journal, 33(2), pp. 189-216.

Yan, M. Yu, Y. and Dong, X. (2016) ‘Contributive roles of multilevel organizational learning for the evolution of organizational ambidexterity’, Information Technology & People, 29(3), pp. 647-667.

Zollo, M. and Winter, S. G. (2002) ‘Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities’, Organization Science, 13(3), pp. 339-351.