Building an Ambidextrous Organisation

Birkinshaw, Julian; Gibson, Christina B.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1306922

Cited by 93 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, it is argued that it is inefficient to let upper management decide on how to divide up the time of employees between exploration and exploitation. Also, it is argued that structural ambidexterity is better suited for larger firms, while smaller firms lack the slack resources and number of hierarchical levels to attain structural ambidexterity (Birkinshaw, 2006;Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004a;2004b;Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004;Lubatkin et al, 2006).…”

Section: Organizational Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, an approach other than structural ambidexterity has focused on how organic and mechanistic features can be combined within every organizational unit throughout the firm to create a behavioral context that enables and encourages individuals to make their own judgments about how to divide their time between exploratory and exploitative activities in the course of their day-to-day work (Adler and Borys, 1996;Adler et al, 1999;Birkinshaw, 2006;Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004a;2004b;Jansen, Van den Bosch, and Volderba, 2005b;Sheremata, 2000). What I call 'individual ambidexterity' 'emerges from choices made by individuals, not from the strategic decisions made by senior executives' (Birkinshaw, 2006).…”

Section: Individual Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Through decentralization, employees may lose the discipline to efficiently pursue their work. They may invest too much time in imagination and trial and error (Adler et al, 1999;Benner and Tushman, 2003;Birkinshaw, 2006;Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004a;2004b;Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004;Jansen et al, 2005a;2006;Raisch et al, 2009;Roberts, 2007;Sheremata, 2000;Tushman and O'Reilly, 1996). Thus, the 'specification of clear limits beyond which the individual must no stray' is required (Birkinshaw, 2006).…”

Section: Individual Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A further mechanism to make sure that employees balance their exploratory and exploitative activities is to give them incentives for both types of activities through employee appraisal and performance-based pay (Birkinshaw, 2006;Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004a, 2004bGibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). Exploration requires collaboration among employees as well as the development of a broad range of skills, which are hard to measure objectively.…”

Section: Individual Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, the importance of employee selection and training to enable employees to fulfill exploratory as well as exploitative tasks has been highlighted (Adler et al, 1999;Birkinshaw, 2006;Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004a, 2004bGibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). To foster exploratory skills, employee selection and training should lay stress on a broad range of skills, including problem-solving skills, skills that allow employees to understand the entire production process, and skills that are usable in a variety of positions in the firm.…”

Section: Individual Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Hybrid strategy and firm performance: The moderating role of individual and technological ambidexterity

Mahr¹

2010

Aligning Information Technology, Organization, and Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is discussed whether hybrid strategies are beneficial or detrimental to a firm's performance, because hybrid strategies lead to organizational tensions that arise from the simultaneous pursuit of distinct strategic activities. However, existing studies on the relationship between hybrid strategy and firm performance have largely neglected the role of the organizational architecture. This study tests the hypothesis that an ambidextrous organizational architecture positively moderates the relationship between a hybrid strategy and firm performance. Particularly, the roles of specific organization structures and HRM practices (individual ambidexterity) and information and communication technologies (technological ambidexterity) are assessed. Further, a hybrid strategy's performance impact is defined in two distinct ways and measured relative to three different comparison groups, that is, the entire sample, no-emphasis strategies, and pure strategies. A novel multi-source dataset on German and Polish manufacturing firms is constructed from three independent sources, including a dataset on objective firm performance indicators. Evidence is found that a hybrid strategy positively impacts firm performance in the presence of organizational ambidexterity, but negatively impacts firm performance in the absence of organizational ambidexterity. These findings are robust across two types of organizational ambidexterity, three different comparison groups, and further robustness tests.

show abstract

Section: Organizational Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Individual Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Individual Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Individual Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Individual Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Hybrid strategy and firm performance: The moderating role of individual and technological ambidexterity

Mahr¹

2010

Aligning Information Technology, Organization, and Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Guidance for Health Care Leaders During the Recovery Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCEThe COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global test of health leadership of our generation. There is an urgent need to provide guidance for leaders at all levels during the unprecedented preresolution recovery stage. OBJECTIVETo create an evidence-and expertise-informed framework of leadership imperatives to serve as a resource to guide health and public health leaders during the postemergency stage of the pandemic. EVIDENCE REVIEWA literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase revealed 10 910 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that included the terms leadership and variations of emergency, crisis, disaster, pandemic, COVID-19, or public health. Using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guideline for consensus statement development, this assessment adopted a 6-round modified Delphi approach involving 32 expert coauthors from 17 countries who participated in creating and validating a framework outlining essential leadership imperatives. FINDINGS The 10 imperatives in the framework are: (1) acknowledge staff and celebrate successes;(2) provide support for staff well-being; (3) develop a clear understanding of the current local and global context, along with informed projections; (4) prepare for future emergencies (personnel, resources, protocols, contingency plans, coalitions, and training); (5) reassess priorities explicitly and regularly and provide purpose, meaning, and direction; (6) maximize team, organizational, and system performance and discuss enhancements; (7) manage the backlog of paused services and consider improvements while avoiding burnout and moral distress; (8) sustain learning, innovations, and collaborations, and imagine future possibilities; (9) provide regular communication and engender trust; and (10) in consultation with public health and fellow leaders, provide safety information and recommendations to government, other organizations, staff, and the community to improve equitable and integrated care and emergency preparedness systemwide. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCELeaders who most effectively implement these imperatives are ideally positioned to address urgent needs and inequalities in health systems and to cocreate with their organizations a future that best serves stakeholders and communities.

show abstract

Organizational transition management of circular business model innovations

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars and practitioners across fields increasingly recognize that business models for the circular economy may be an effective lever for solving ecological persistent problems such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and growing natural resource scarcity. Despite a growing interest in the potential of circular business models, interconnections between the organizational dimensions of firms and their business model innovation processes remain underexplored. Based on problem‐centered expert interviews with business consultants experienced in circular business development, this study creates a conceptual model that offers structured knowledge about why firms steadily reproduce linear BMs and how incumbents manifest themselves as a constant linear‐oriented value creation system. The model also demonstrates organizational conditions and management strategies that frustrate the reproduction of linear BMs and, thus, enable initial moves towards CBM innovation. Building on this, the article provides a set of propositions on how an organizational transition management may be configured and what incumbents require to successfully navigate circular business model innovation. The findings provide a foundation for a contemporary understanding of circular business model transition management, which simultaneously serve as impulses for future research investigations.

show abstract

Building an Ambidextrous Organisation

Cited by 93 publications

References 1 publication

Hybrid strategy and firm performance: The moderating role of individual and technological ambidexterity

Hybrid strategy and firm performance: The moderating role of individual and technological ambidexterity

Guidance for Health Care Leaders During the Recovery Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Organizational transition management of circular business model innovations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About