Explaining the effect of context and organizational architecture on the development of individual ambidexterity in knowledge-based companies

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• roya shakeri ¹
• Hossein Rahmanseresht ²
• Soran Mowlaie ³
• mehdi abdolmaleki ⁴

¹ Faculty of Humanities, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran

² Professor of Organization Theories and Strategic Management, Faculty of Management, Allame Tabataba'ee University, Tehran, Iran

³ Ph.D. Student in Business Management, Head of Recruitment & Staffing Department, Oil Industries Commissioning and Operation Company, Tehran, Iran

⁴ Lecturer, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Kurdistan University, Sanandaj, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/tmj.2021.30393.0

Abstract

1- INTRODUCTION
The organizations of the present century are complex and are integrated systems consisting of processes, organizational units, people, information, and supporting technologies, as well as dependencies and connections between different elements. recognizing, engineering, and managing these social, technical, and infrastructural dimensions is critical to achieving and maintaining the efficiency of organizations. in recent years, the rapid and continuous course of events has gradually transformed the boundaries and dynamics of the business environment, and all institutions are increasingly confronted with new, unexpected, and far-reaching challenges. in dynamic markets, companies need to constantly explore new opportunities in addition to exploiting existing resources. therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of organizational ambivalence stimuli and drivers on individual ambivalent behaviors in order to fully benefit from the benefits and advantages of ambivalent for an organization. the present study has been conducted to address this research gap.
2-THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Previous research in the field of organizational ambiguity has emphasized the importance of organizational architecture, including 1 establishing separate task units focused on exploration or utilization, 2) integrating mechanisms that facilitate knowledge flows and coordination between units. this spatial and physical separation in different organizational units seeks to avoid friction between conflicting demands and interests between exploration and exploitation activities. the orientation of business units is towards exploration (for example, research and development unit) or exploitation and profitability (for example, production unit). the orientation of units should be aligned to reach organizational synergy. in addition to work ethic and discipline, individuals need access to sufficient resources to engage in exploration and exploitation activities. employees should have enough freedom to acquire the resources they want to advance their innovative actions across the organizational hierarchy. if such resources are provided, more exploration and for-profit activities will be possible. trust is another prerequisite for knowledge sharing and, as a result, knowledge flows are highly dependent on trust among all participants in the knowledge transfer debate. knowledge renewal and overflows from other people are of the main antecedents of exploration and exploitation activities.
3- METHODOLOGY
This study is a descriptive cross-sectional survey. and in regard to the application of the results, it is among the applied research. the statistical population of the study includes all 303 senior managers and experts of active knowledge-based companies located in sanandaj science and technology park. given the population size, the sample size was calculated and applied according to cochran's formula equal to 170. after distributing 181 questionnaires by simple random sampling method, 170 questionnaires were returned with a response rate of 94%.
4- RESULTS & DISCUSSION
In accordance with hypothesis 1, research results indicated that organizational architecture reinforces the use of individual dual power in knowledge-based organizations. therefore, it can be said that organizational architecture is capable of stimulating exploratory and for-profit behaviors. by integrating exploration and for-profit units, organizations perform both activities simultaneously and balance them within their borders through the active integration of senior management teams. the results of testing the second hypothesis indicated that the organizational context accelerates the use of individual duality in knowledge-based organizations. accordingly, it can be said that the organizational context can create a culture that everyone is trying to grow the other and help the development of the organization by influencing each other. these companies encourage employees to take creative action and cultivate a variety of perspectives that ultimately lead to larger perceptual mindsets and the achievement of original ideas.
 
5- CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS
Selecting the appropriate architectural framework has a significant impact on organizational productivity. a number of researchers have argued that sustainable organizational performance is dependent on exploiting existing capabilities and discovering new opportunities (i.e., dual power) in environmental dynamics and change. dualism is a concept that has been studied for years from the perspective of various fields including strategic management, organizational behavior, marketing, etc. however, overcoming ambiguity is not easy, as the explorative and for-profit behaviors often compete with each other. to cope with this situation, several organizational solutions have been proposed such as innovative culture. when managers create an innovative culture in their organizations, they must analyze the current state of exploitation and exploration activities, create a strategic profile of both, and identify their innovation goals. in fact, they have to consider their organization's future approach choose the right profile for exploitation and exploration to achieve their innovation goals.

Keywords

• Organizational Context
• Organizational Architecture
• Individual Ambidexterity
• Knowledge-based Firms

References

References

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation, Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.

Baker, T.; Hunt, T., & Hawes, J. (1999). Marketing strategy and organizational culture. Journal of Marketing Management, 9(2), 32–46.

Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited, Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.

Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization, MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47–55.

Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies, Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298.

Birkinshaw, J.; Zimmermann, A., & Raisch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives, California Management Review, 58(4), 36–58.

Blindenbach-Driessen, F., & Van Den Ende, J. (2014). The locus of innovation: the effect of a separate innovation unit on exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity in manufacturing and service firms, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(5), 1089–1105.

Brattström, A.; Löfsten, H., & Richtnér, A. (2015). Similar, yet different: a comparative analysis of the role of trust in radical and incremental product innovation, International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(04), 135-143.

Ebrahimpour, M.; Mostafa, M., & Hosmand, M. (2015). The effect of innovation ambidexterity on export knowledge and performance of new products in export markets, Journal of Science & Technology Parks and Incubators, 11(42), 49-56. (in Persian)

Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: the dimensions of quality of management, Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 91–112.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity, Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.

Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A Little creativity goes a long way: an examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes, Journal of Management, 30(4), 453–470.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations, Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473–496.

Haghighi, M.; Dehghani Soltani, M., & Farsizadeh, H. (2017). Explaining the role of organizational ambidexterity in the impact of pro-innovation culture and organizational memory on new product development performance, Public Management Researches, 10(38), 197-223. (in Persian)

He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis, Organization science, 15(4), 481-494.

Huang, J., & Kim, H. J. (2013). Conceptualizing structural ambidexterity into the innovation of human resource management architecture: the case of LG electronics, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(5), 922–943.

 Jansen, J. J. P.; Tempelaar, M. P.; Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms, Organization Science, 20(4), 797–811.

Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance, Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408–417.

Justin, J. P.; Jansen, P.; Tempelaar, J.; Van den, B., & Henk, W. (2008). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms, Organization Science, 20(4), 1-15.

Junni, P.; Sarala, R.; Taras, V., Tarba, S. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: a meta- analysis, Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312.

Kammerlander, N.; Burger, D.; Fust, A., & Fueglistaller, U. (2015). Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized enterprises: The effect of CEOs’ regulatory focus, Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 582–602.

Lavie, D.; Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109-155.

Lin, Z.; Yang, H., & Demirkan, I. (2007). The Performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing, Management Science, 53(10), 1645–1658.

Lubatkin, M. H.; Simsek, Z.; Ling, Y.; & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration, Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.

Manteghei, M.; Taghizadeh, M.; Safardoost, A., & Rozesara, M. (2015). Analysis of organizational ambidexterity role in spin off's creation growth and success, Journal of Industrial Technology Development, 13(26), 17-28. (in Persian)

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning, Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

Martín-de, G.; Delgado-Verde, M.; Navas-López, J. E., & Cruz-González, J. (2013). The moderating role of innovation culture in the relationship between knowledge assets and product innovation technol. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(2), 351–363.

Maslach, D. (2016). Change and persistence with failed technological innovation, Strategic Management Journal, 37(4), 714-723.

McCarthy, I. P., & Gordon, B. R. (2011). Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control system approach, R&D Management, 41(3), 240–258.

Miller, K. D.; Zhao, M., & Calantone, R. J. (2006). Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to march’s exploration-exploitation model, Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 709–722.

mom, t. j. m.; fourné, s. p. l., & jansen, j. j. p. (2015). managers’ work experience, ambidexterity, and performance: the contingency role of the work context, Human Resource Management, 54(S1), 133–153.

Mom, T. J. M.; Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: the influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows, Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910–931.

Mom, T. J. M.; Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms, Organization Science, 20(4), 812–828.

Moradi, M.; Ebrahimpour, M., & Mombaine, M. (2013). Explaining organizational ambidexterity as a new concept in the management of knowledge based organizations, Journal of Science & Technology Parks and Incubators, 10(40), 49-56. (in Persian)

Moradi, M.; Yakideh, K., & Madani, F. (2016). Organizational culture ambidexterity and performance: the critical role of organizational ambidexterity, Organizational Culture Management, 13(4), 1245-1266. (in Persian)

Nagarajan, P. (2010). Enterprise architecture ontology: a shared vocabulary for efficient decision making for software development organizations. master thesis. the ohio state university, Ohio.

Nightingale, D., & Rhodes, D. (2004). Enterprise systems architecting: emerging art and science within engineering systems, MIT Engineering Systems, 8(3), 45–63.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma, Research in Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 185–206.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future, Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.

Pourteymour, F., & Jamshidi, L. (2015). Investigate the innovative performance through emerging knowledge-based companies in Semnan University Incubator', Journal on Industry and University, 7(23), 37-52. (in Persian)

Prabhu, J. C.; Chandy, R. K., & Ellis, M. E. (2005). The Impact of acquisitions on innovation: poison pill, placebo, or tonic, Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 114–130.

Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators, Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.

Raisch, S.; Birkinshaw, J.; Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance, Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.

Schultz, C.; Schreyoegg, J., & Von Reitzenstein, C. (2013). The moderating role of internal and external resources on the performance effect of multitasking: Evidence from the R&D performance of surgeons, Research Policy, 42(8), 1356–1365.

Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding, Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597–624.

Simsek, Z.; Heavey, C.; Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity's conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 864-894.

Sitkin, S. B.; See, K. E.; Miller, C. C.; Lawless, M. W., & Carton, A. M. (2011). The Paradox of stretch goals: organizations in pursuit of the seemingly impossible, Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 544–566.

Spisak, B. R.; Grabo, A. E.; Arvey, R. D., & Van Vugt, M. (2014). The age of exploration and exploitation: younger-looking leaders endorsed for change and older-looking leaders endorsed for stability, The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 805-816.

Srivastava, A.; Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering Leadership in management teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance, Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.

Stadler, C., Rajwani, T., & Karaba, F. (2014). Solutions to the exploration/exploitation dilemma: networks as a new level of analysis, International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(2), 172–193.

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The Influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities, Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.

Tuncdogan, A.; Van Den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2015). Regulatory focus as a psychological micro-foundation of leader's exploration and exploitation activities, The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 838–850.

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). The Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change, California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

Yadollahi Farsi, J.; Zarea H., & Hejazi, S. R. (2012). Identifying effective ambidexture’s components on commercialization of academic research in universities, Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 18(1), 69-90. (in Persian)

Zandi, F., & Tavana, M. (2012). A fuzzy group multi-criteria ea framework selection, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 1165-1173.