The contingent effects of differentiation and integration on corporate entrepreneurship

Abstract

This paper develops a contingency view regarding the effects of structural differentiation and integration on levels of corporate entrepreneurship. Integrating notions of benefits and costs resulting from integration with structural contingency theory, we argue that the joint effects of structural differentiation and integration on corporate entrepreneurship levels are moderated by organizational size and environmental dynamism. Our findings from a time-separated sample demonstrate that in smaller organizations and more dynamic environments, the positive effects of integration on the structural differentiation-corporate entrepreneurship relationship strongly diminish. As such, with this research we begin to identify contingencies that influence the corporate entrepreneurship levels observed among firms striving to balance the needs for structural differentiation and integration. a All items were measured on a seven-point scale, anchored by 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. b Item deleted after factor analysis; ® reversed item.

What Makes Firms Innovative? The Role of Social Capital in Corporate Innovation

“…With this support, an organization's members may become more loyal to the organization [64,78] and this interaction among the organization's members, through education and training, can trigger the sharing of vision and codes [79,80]. The members concur through social interaction, which, in turn, compels them to share their values, attitudes, and goals [81,82]. Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:…”

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

“…Having said that structural separation is considered a key pathway to organizational ambidexterity, such approach can be less productive or even counterproductive for resourceconstrained organizations (e.g., Burgers & Covin, 2016;Fourné et al, 2019;Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997;Gupta et al, 2006;Hill & Birkinshaw, 2014;Lubatkin et al, 2006;Martin et al, 2019;Patel et al, 2013). For instance, numerous scholars (Chen & Kannan-Narasimhan, 2015;Gassmann et al, 2012;Gatignon & Xuereb,1997;Gupta et al,2006;Raisch & Tushman, 2016) argued that large firms having greater resource availability, are able to proceed for structural ambidexterity by creating subsets of their operations and staff, giving them due support to carry out either exploration or exploitation in more clearly defined boundaries within their respective units.…”

“…Although structural approach to ambidexterity has received support in primary studies (e.g. Agostini et al, 2016;Pertusa-Ortega, & Molina-Azorín, 2018), however concerns were raised about its feasibility for resource-constrained organizations (e.g., Burgers & Covin, 2016;Fourné, Rosenbusch, Heyden, & Jansen, 2019;Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997;Gupta, Smith & Shalley, 2006;Hill & Birkinshaw, 2014;Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga ,2006;Lyytinen, Rose & Yoo, 2010;Martin, Keller, & Fortwengel, 2019;Patel, Messersmith, & Lepak, 2013).…”

Ambidextrous Leadership, Social Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Operational Performance

“…Second, action plans and departments can be synchronized by integrating senior managers. Finally, coordination and control mechanisms such as regular scheduled meetings are necessary [75][76][77]. Table 1 lists the articles on the relationships between ambidextrous leadership and various contingent elements.…”

“…Second, action plans and departments can be synchronized by integrating senior managers. Finally, coordination and control mechanisms such as regular scheduled meetings are necessary [76][77][78].…”