Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators

Raisch, Sebastian; Birkinshaw, Julian

doi:10.1177/0149206308316058

Cited by 1,879 publications

(2,193 citation statements)

References 146 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,964

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore the flexibility of these arrangements and how they operate across all levels of the collaborationfrom the project(s) to the 'organisation' or network as a whole -will help explain a collaboration's ability to ensure appropriately resourced activity and the capacity to respond to wider issues and pressures as they arise. It has been suggested that an organisation's ambidexterity, that is its ability to be aligned and adapt to demands, has been found to be a prerequisite of organisational survival and success, 121 and arguably for its resilience too. The way in which concepts such as these might transfer to a 'constellation of interconnected practices' 122 such as CLAHRCs, is in their potential to explain how these networks evolve and then sustain themselves (or not).…”

Section: Discussion Conclusion and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective action for knowledge mobilisation: a realist evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care

Rycroft‐Malone

Burton

Wilkinson

et al. 2015

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe establishment of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) was the culmination of a number of policy initiatives to bridge the gap between evidence and practice. CLAHRCs were created and funded to facilitate development of partnerships and connect the worlds of academia and practice in an effort to improve patient outcomes through the conduct and application of applied health research.ObjectivesOur starting point was to test the theory that bringing higher education institutions and health-care organisations closer together catalyses knowledge mobilisation. The overall purpose was to develop explanatory theory regarding implementation through CLAHRCs and answer the question ‘what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances?’. The study objectives focused on identifying and tracking implementation mechanisms and processes over time; determining what influences whether or not and how research is used in CLAHRCs; investigating the role played by boundary objects in the success or failure of implementation; and determining whether or not and how CLAHRCs develop and sustain interactions and communities of practice.MethodsThis study was a longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative case studies, incorporating stakeholder engagement and formative feedback. Three CLAHRCs were studied in depth over four rounds of data collection through a process of hypothesis generation, refining, testing and programme theory specification. Data collection included interviews, observation, documents, feedback sessions and an interpretive forum.FindingsKnowledge mobilisation in CLAHRCs was a function of a number of interconnected issues that provided more or less conducive conditions for collective action. The potential of CLAHRCs to close the metaphorical ‘know–do’ gap was dependent on historical regional relationships, their approach to engaging different communities, their architectures, what priorities were set and how, and providing additional resources for implementation, including investment in roles and activities to bridge and broker boundaries. Additionally, we observed a balance towards conducting research rather than implementing it. Key mechanisms of interpretations of collaborative action, opportunities for connectivity, facilitation, motivation, review and reflection, and unlocking barriers/releasing potential were important to the processes and outcomes of CLAHRCs. These mechanisms operated in different contexts including stakeholders’ positioning, or ‘where they were coming from’, governance arrangements, availability of resources, competing drivers, receptiveness to learning and evaluation, and alignment of structures, positions and resources. Preceding conditions influenced the course and journey of the CLAHRCs in a path-dependent way. We observed them evolving over time and their development led to the accumulation of different types of impacts, from those that were conceptual to, later in their life cycle, those that were more direct.ConclusionsMost studies of implementation focus on researching one-off projects, so a strength of this study was in researching a systems approach to knowledge mobilisation over time. Although CLAHRC-like approaches show promise, realising their full potential will require a longer and more sustained focus on relationship building, resource allocation and, in some cases, culture change. This reinforces the point that research implementation within a CLAHRC model is a long-term investment and one that is set within a life cycle of organisational collaboration.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Conclusion and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective action for knowledge mobilisation: a realist evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care

Rycroft‐Malone

Burton

Wilkinson

et al. 2015

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scholars indicate that contextual factors such as senior team integration helps in balanced resource allocation, forms cross-fertilization and synergies towards ambidextrous activities (e.g., Jansen et al 2008), and the ambidexterity performance link is also suggested to be the outcome of contextual variables and it is positively related to performance (Junni et al, 2013). The ability of the senior leadership teams to adopt to conflicting demands between old and new activities is a key indicator of organization success , and ambidexterity requires leaders with stock of behavioural skills (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008).…”

Section: Leadership and Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of leadership on organizational ambidexterity and employee psychological safety in the global acquisitions of emerging market multinationals

Rao‐Nicholson

Khan

Akhtar

et al. 2016

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the impact of leadership on organizational ambidexterity and employee psychological safety based on a sample of 105 global acquisitions of emerging market multinationals. The findings suggest that, compared to the transactional and laissez faire ones, the charismatic leadership style is more significantly related with organizational ambidexterity and employee psychological safety. The results also suggest that transactional leadership is more positively related to ambidexterity and employee psychological safety than 2 laissez faire leadership. In addition, organizational ambidexterity is directly and positively associated with employee psychological safety. The implications of these results for both research and practice are discussed in the paper.

show abstract

“…This introduces a particular type of leadership challenge, as managers must confront and overcome both personal and organizational needs for consistency (Eisenhardt & Brown, 1997;O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013;Smith & Tushman, 2005). Senior executives, in particular, are regarded as playing an important role in helping organizations to attend to contradictory demands and to foster ambidexterity (see, for example, Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013;Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004;Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006;O'Reilly & Tushman, 2011;Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008;Smith & Tushman, 2005). Rather than attempting to align and resolve the conflicting demands of exploration and exploitation, executive leaders need to embrace divergence and build the capacity to attend simultaneously to competing and conflicting demands (Smith & Lewis, 2011), combining the attributes of rigorous cost cutters and of freethinking entrepreneurs (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013;Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996).…”

Section: Ambidexterity Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editor, Executive and Entrepreneur

Lillegraven

Wilberg

2016

Nordicom Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To survive in today's increasingly complex business environments, firms must embrace strategic paradoxes: contradictory yet interrelated objectives that persist over time. This can be one of toughest of all leadership challenges, as managers must accept inconsistency and contradictions. In this article, we develop and empirically test a set of hypotheses related to ambidexterity, a key example of a paradoxical strategy. Through our analysis of data from a survey of executive leaders, we find a link between organizational ambidexterity and strategic planning, suggesting that the complexities of navigating in explorative ventures require more explicit strategy work than the old certainties of a legacy business. We identify and discuss inherent paradoxes and their implications for firm performance in 22 industry-specific strategies, where empirical industry data shows a pattern of conflict between explorative growth strategies and exploitative profit strategies. We argue that this is just one of the inherent paradoxes in the ambidexterity construct.

show abstract

Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators

Cited by 1,879 publications

References 146 publications

Collective action for knowledge mobilisation: a realist evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care

Collective action for knowledge mobilisation: a realist evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care

The impact of leadership on organizational ambidexterity and employee psychological safety in the global acquisitions of emerging market multinationals

Editor, Executive and Entrepreneur

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About