Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms

Abstract

P rior studies have emphasized that structural attributes are crucial to simultaneously pursuing exploration and exploitation, yet our understanding of antecedents of ambidexterity is still limited. Structural differentiation can help ambidextrous organizations to maintain multiple inconsistent and conflicting demands; however, differentiated exploratory and exploitative activities need to be mobilized, coordinated, integrated, and applied. Based on this idea, we delineate formal and informal senior team integration mechanisms (e.g., contingency rewards and social integration) and formal and informal organizational integration mechanisms (e.g., cross-functional interfaces and connectedness) and examine how they mediate the relationship between structural differentiation and ambidexterity. Overall, our findings suggest that the previously asserted direct effect of structural differentiation on ambidexterity operates through informal senior team (i.e., senior team social integration) and formal organizational (i.e., cross-functional interfaces) integration mechanisms. Through this richer explanation and empirical assessment, we contribute to a greater clarity and better understanding of how organizations may effectively pursue exploration and exploitation simultaneously to achieve ambidexterity.

Sustainability exploration and sustainability exploitation: from a literature review towards a conceptual framework

“…Research on exploration and exploitation strategies have evolved considerably, to the point where it dominates the literature on organisational learning and strategy (e.g., March, 1991;Vera and Crossan, 2004) as well as studies on innovation (e.g., Jansen et al, 2006). Although both types of activities are essential for organisational survival, they create paradoxical challenges (Jansen et al, 2009). Whereas exploitation enables organisations to engage in refinement, implementation, and efficiency, exploration implements adaptive mechanisms that require experimentation, divergent thinking, search, and innovation (March, 1991).…”

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

“…In the context of acquisitions, ambidextrous organizations will be capable of creating synergies between the acquirer and target to generate valuable future exploitative opportunities (Jansen et al, 2008;Nemanich & Vera, 2009;RaoNicholson et al, 2016). The role played by leadership is undeniably quite pertinent to organizational survival and essential to the development of an ambidextrous organization (Jansen, Tempelaar, Van den Bosch & Volberda, 2009;Cao, Simsek & Zhang, 2010;Rosing, Frese & Bausch, 2011;Tushman et al, 2011). Leader role is important for the development of systems, structures and cultures that support the assimilation of knowledge during mergers (Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006), and successful integration following M&As (Vasilaki, 2011).…”

“…For instance, Jansen et al (2008:22) suggest that "transformational leaders are necessary to force socially integrated teams to critically debate and openly discuss conflicting task issues". Compared with the transactional style, charismatic leadership will be characterised by a higher degree of flexibility in the generation and evolvement of an ambidextrous organization (Jansen et al, 2009;Cao et al, 2010;Rosing et al, 2011). Under a charismatic leader, employees will enjoy more freedom and flexibility and will be able to manage resilience and innovation in face of uncertainty; conversely, transactional style led employees might not be able to effectively engage with uncertainty as they will be used to a task oriented approach to personnel management.…”

Contextual ambidexterity in SMEs: the roles of internal and external rivalry

“…Success in the simultaneous pursuit of alignment and adaptability requires that firms acknowledge the importance of the ways in which managers from different functional areas interact and communicate (Corso et al 2003;Jansen et al 2009;Kyriakopoulos and Moorman, 2004;Palacios et al 2009). Although research on the performance outcomes of ambidexterity (see Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008) and the role of intra-firm knowledge exchange in enabling ambidexterity (Jansen et al 2006; offers insights, it provides limited theoretical understanding of how rivalry conditions (internal and external to the firm) that shape the extent of internal collaboration also influence the performance outcomes of a firm's ambidextrous posture.…”