Structural Ambidexterity: Exploring Alternative Pro-Ambidexterity Conducive Structural Designs for Recourse-Constrained Organizations

Abstract

Organizational ambidexterity is of paramount importance for the long term success of business organizations operating in an uncertain and dynamic environment. Although the role of a structure by means of structural differentiation (structural ambidexterity) advocated and supported for attaining organizational ambidexterity, however, it has also received criticism for being counterproductive for recourse-constrained organizations. Despite the fact, less focus has been devoted to finding alternative organizational structural design approaches for predicting organizational ambidexterity in resource-deficient organizations. To heed such persisting knowledge gap, this study highlighted four possible alternative organizational structural designs that may be useful for resolving the exploration and exploitation tension and attaining organizational ambidexterity in resource-constrained originations. Such an effort will serve as a reference for future conceptual and empirical research in organizational design and ambidexterity literature.

The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry

“…EF can help employees perform their tasks, solve current problems, and improve organizational routines. Therefore, EF can promote exploitation innovation through the improvement of current products, in addition to promoting the improvement of current tasks, which means that it can favor exploitation efforts (Marri et al, 2020;Pertusa-Ortega & Molina-Azorín, 2018). Hoy and Sweetland (2001) affirmed that some of the characteristics of enabling rules and procedures are evoked in the participation of an interactive dialogue, seeing problems as opportunities, learning from errors, facilitating problem resolution, and creating relevant characteristics in the organization (e.g., job security, a more professional perspective, and greater employee participation).…”

“…This type of formalization is very similar to traditional models of control that focus on the net fulfillment of planned standards (Ahrens & Chapman, 2004) and inhibit the potential for constructive organizational change. It is associated with bureaucratic obstacles that limit innovation and flexibility (Marri et al, 2020). Instead of promoting organizational learning, CF can discourage employees from the experimentation necessary to address ambiguities (Shahzadi & Khurram, 2020) and restrict the creation of new knowledge, enforcing compliance and limiting the flexibility to move away from current skills and routines (Pertusa-Ortega & Molina-Azorín, 2018).…”

“…So, EF allows employees to understand their own tasks and encourages them to participate in creative processes and explore new processes and activities. It maintains the flexibility to learn from mistakes, and turn them into opportunities, thus driving innovation (Marri et al, 2020). Therefore, it can favor exploration.…”

“…Researchers have proposed that formalization promotes exploration and exploitation activities, but it also depends on the level of formalization adopted by the organization (Jansen et al, 2006; Marri et al, 2020). Formalization implies that procedures can store knowledge and information.…”

“…EF can help employees perform their tasks, solve current problems, and improve organizational routines. Therefore, EF can promote exploitation innovation through the improvement of current products, in addition to promoting the improvement of current tasks, which means that it can favor exploitation efforts (Marri et al, 2020; Pertusa-Ortega & Molina-Azorín, 2018).…”