Escaping real (non-benign) competency traps: linking the dynamics of organizational structure to the dynamics of search

Focusing on the effect that organizational structure exerts on organizational search, we show under which conditions a change in structure increases performance even in stable environments. We model five different organizational structures (centralized, decentralized, ambidextrous, hybrid and team-based) and study with the help of an agent-based simulation whether transitions among these structures are beneficial. We find that sequences of structures can achieve higher performance than fixed structures. Alternative structures differ in their competency traps or sets of sticking points, that is the sets of points at which a search process in a given structure will terminate. As a result, a shift in structure may dislodge an organization from its current configuration of choices and provoke further search. Changes in organizational structure effectively differentiate between settings in which remaining at a competency trap is in fact a trap and settings in which remaining at a competency trap indicates competence. In particular, a shift in organizational structure differentially sorts among more or less favorable sticking points, as sticking points that are common to two structures tend to be higher-performing. Thus, behavior that remains inert when structures change will tend to be associated with particularly high-performing sticking points. Moreover, behavior should be dislodged from the prior sticking point, this provides a favorable starting point for subsequent search. Consequently, a shift in organizational structure need not be a response to new environmental contingency, but a mechanism to overcome the challenge of competency traps as well.

[1]  Jack A. Nickerson,et al.  Being Efficiently Fickle: A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Choice , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[2]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  The Evolution of Intracorporate Domains: Divisional Charter Losses in High-Technology, Multidivisional Corporations , 1996 .

[3]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Speed and Search: Designing Organizations for Turbulence and Complexity , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[4]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  A model of adaptive organizational search , 1981 .

[5]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design , 2003, Manag. Sci..

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

[7]  Robert A. Burgelman Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field Research , 1991 .

[8]  Nicolaj Siggelkow Evolution toward Fit , 2002 .

[9]  Nicolaj Siggelkow Change in the Presence of Fit: the Rise, the Fall, and the Renaissance of Liz Claiborne , 2001 .

[10]  M. Shubik,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. , 1964 .

[11]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Modeling Organizational Adaptation as a Simulated Annealing Process , 1996 .

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

[13]  R. Grant Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (17), pp. , 1996 .

[14]  Henry Mintzberg Musings on management. Ten ideas designed to rile everyone who cares about management. , 1996, Harvard business review.

[15]  J. Ruiz Moreno [Organizational learning]. , 2001, Revista de enfermeria.

[16]  Frobisher Crescent Change and Complementarities in the New Competitive Landscape: A European Panel Study, 1992-1996 , 1999 .

[17]  Jan W. Rivkin Imitation of Complex Strategies , 2000 .

[18]  Henry A. Kissinger,et al.  Strategy and Organization , 1957 .

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

[20]  A. Pettigrew,et al.  Change and Complementarities in the New Competitive Landscape: A European Panel Study , 1999 .

[21]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

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

[23]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  The origins of order , 1993 .

[24]  Todd R. Zenger Crafting Internal Hybrids: Complementarities, Common Change Initiatives, and the Team-Based Organization , 2002 .

[25]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Economics, Organization and Management , 1992 .

[26]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Patching. Restitching business portfolios in dynamic markets. , 1999, Harvard business review.

[27]  Daniel A. Levinthal Adaptation on rugged landscapes , 1997 .

[28]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The Structuring of Organizations , 1979 .

[29]  S. Winter,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.by Richard R. Nelson; Sidney G. Winter , 1987 .

[30]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization , 1990 .

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

[32]  F. Warren McFarlan,et al.  Charles Schwab Corporation (A) , 1999 .

[33]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[34]  D. Leonard-Barton CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[35]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Landscape Design: Designing for Local Action in Complex Worlds , 1999 .

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

[37]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Organizational sticking points on NK Landscapes , 2002, Complex..

[38]  Giovanni Dosi,et al.  The structure of problem-solving knowledge and the structure of organisations , 2000 .