Formal Integration Archetypes in Ambidextrous Organizations

Research suggests that organizational ambidexterity, an organization's capacity to pursue both exploratory and exploitative activities, is critical to firm innovation and performance. Extant research primarily emphasizes several firm‐level informal integration mechanisms, such as creating a common vision and relying on social integration, for integrating structurally ambidextrous units. Research has largely ignored, however, the formal mechanisms by which organizations have integrated such units. In this inductive study, using archival and interview data from organizations in Silicon Valley, we address this gap by identifying the formal integration archetypes that enable core business units to collaborate with new venture units to incubate new businesses. The four integration archetypes that enable collaboration vary along two key dimensions: who initiates new ventures and when collaboration is solicited. We identify formal administrative and resource mechanisms that enable such collaboration. We combine the disparate literatures of temporal and spatial separation of ambidextrous structures, and demonstrate how these must be combined at the business unit and new venture levels of analysis to achieve integration. The practical contribution of this study lies in identifying suitable contexts in which each of these archetypes can be utilized by practitioners for reintegrating new venture projects developed in separate structures.

[1]  Adler,et al.  Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system , 1999 .

[2]  R. Coile Competing by design. , 2002, Physician executive.

[3]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators , 2008 .

[4]  Richard Leifer,et al.  Using Simultaneous Structures to Cope With Uncertainty , 1983 .

[5]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma , 2007 .

[6]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Organization and environment , 1967 .

[7]  M. Gibbert,et al.  What passes as a rigorous case study , 2008 .

[8]  N Celly,et al.  Strategic ambidexterity and performance in international new ventures , 2008 .

[9]  Faïz Gallouj,et al.  Patterns of innovation organisation in service firms: postal survey results and theoretical models , 2001 .

[10]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma , 2007 .

[11]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The myopia of learning , 1993 .

[12]  Julian Birkinshaw,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[13]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The interplay between exploration and exploitation. , 2006 .

[14]  Michael L. Tushman,et al.  Technology Cycles, Innovation Streams and Ambidextrous Organizations , 1997 .

[15]  C. Gilbert Unbundling the Structure of Inertia: Resource Versus Routine Rigidity , 2005 .

[16]  D. Seidl,et al.  Strategy as Practice , 2012 .

[17]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[18]  W. Ouchi The Relationship Between Organizational Structure and Organizational Control. , 1977 .

[19]  Zeki Simsek,et al.  A Typology for Aligning Organizational Ambidexterity's Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes , 2009 .

[20]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[21]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited , 2003 .

[22]  Boris Durisin,et al.  A Study of the Performativity of the “Ambidextrous Organizations” Theory: Neither Lost in nor Lost before Translation , 2012 .

[23]  Frans van den Bosch,et al.  Structural differentiation and corporate venturing : the moderating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms , 2009 .

[24]  Michael Tushman,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: IBM and Emerging Business Opportunities , 2009 .

[25]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[26]  A. Chandler,et al.  Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 , 1994 .

[27]  E. Nijssen,et al.  Exploring product and service innovation similarities and differences , 2006 .

[28]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change , 1996 .

[29]  Bill Gillham,et al.  Case Study Research Methods , 2000 .

[30]  R. Leifer,et al.  Research Notes. USING SIMULTANEOUS STRUCTURES TO COPE WITH UNCERTAINTY. , 1983 .

[31]  Sebastian Kortmann,et al.  The relationship between organizational structure and organizational ambidexterity: a comparison between manufacturing ans service firms , 2012 .

[32]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[33]  Catherine L. Wang,et al.  Ambidextrous Organizational Culture, Contextual Ambidexterity and New Product Innovation: A Comparative Study of UK and Chinese High‐Tech Firms , 2014 .

[34]  J. Jarillo,et al.  The Evolution of Research on Coordination Mechanisms in Multinational Corporations , 1989 .

[35]  Anish A. Tolia,et al.  Network Working Group Bgp-mpls Ip Virtual Private Network (vpn) Extension for Ipv6 Vpn Bgp-mpls Ip Vpn Extension for Ipv6 Vpn , 2006 .

[36]  Iris Xiaohong Quan,et al.  Local and global networks of immigrant professionals in Silicon Valley , 2002 .

[37]  M. Tushman,et al.  The ambidextrous organization. , 2004, Harvard business review.

[38]  Jay R. Galbraith Designing Complex Organizations , 1973 .

[39]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[40]  Trudy Heller,et al.  Loosely Coupled Systems for Corporate Entrepreneurship : Imagining and Managing the Innovation Project/Host Organization Interface , 1999 .

[41]  Sebastian Raisch Balanced Structures: Designing Organizations for Profitable Growth , 2008 .

[42]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams , 2005 .

[43]  A. Tiwana Does interfirm modularity complement ignorance? A field study of software outsourcing alliances , 2008 .

[44]  Mona J. Fitzsimmons,et al.  New Service Development: Creating Memorable Experiences , 1999 .

[45]  C. Gibson,et al.  THE ANTECEDENTS , CONSEQUENCES , AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY , 2004 .

[46]  O. Gassmann,et al.  Implementing Radical Innovation in the Business: The Role of Transition Modes in Large Firms , 2012 .