An investigation of the performance consequences of alignment and adaptability: contingency effects of decision autonomy and shared responsibility

This research investigates the moderating role of organizations' structural context on the performance outcomes of the firm's alignment and adaptability pursuits. It focuses in particular on the role of decision autonomy and shared responsibility, and posits that these structural features exert opposing influences on the effect of alignment and adaptability on performance. Using a sample of more than 200 Canadian-based firms, this study finds that at higher levels of decision autonomy, the positive relationship between alignment and performance becomes weaker, and the positive relationship between adaptability and performance becomes stronger. Furthermore, at higher levels of shared responsibility, the positive relationship between adaptability and performance strengthens. Thus, the study offers structure-based explanations for the challenge that organizations face when they attempt to reap the benefits of alignment and adaptability simultaneously.

[1]  Anthony Di Benedetto,et al.  Managerial Trust in New Product Development Projects: Its Antecedents and Consequences , 2009 .

[2]  H. Klein.  Further evidence on the relationship between goal setting and expectancy theories. , 1991 .

[3]  Robert Phaal,et al.  Towards an Integrated Framework for Managing the Process of Innovation , 2009 .

[4]  Geon-Cheol Shin,et al.  Project Management Characteristics and New Product Survival , 2003 .

[5]  Jan Kratzer,et al.  Systematic Design Methods and the Creative Performance of New Product Teams: Do They Contradict or Complement Each Other? , 2007 .

[6]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[7]  Significant Issues for the Future of Product Innovation , 1995 .

[8]  Carole A. Ames,et al.  Competitive Versus Cooperative Reward Structures: The Influence of Individual and Group Performance Factors on Achievement Attributions and Affect , 1981 .

[9]  Robert E. Hoskisson,et al.  Cooperative Versus Competitive Structures in Related and Unrelated Diversified Firms , 1992 .

[10]  David Wilemon,et al.  Team member experiences in new product development: views from the trenches , 2003 .

[11]  Marianne W. Lewis.  Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide , 2000 .

[12]  Bou-Wen Lin,et al.  The Effects of Environment, Knowledge Attribute, Organizational Climate, and Firm Characteristics on Knowledge Sourcing Decisions , 2004 .

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

[14]  M. Lubatkin,et al.  Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration , 2006 .

[15]  David W. Gerbing,et al.  An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment , 1988 .

[16]  K. Klein,et al.  The Challenge of Innovation Implementation , 1996 .

[17]  E. Autio,et al.  SOCIAL CAPITAL, KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION, AND KNOWLEDGE EXPLOITATION IN YOUNG TECHNOLOGY-BASED FIRMS , 2001 .

[18]  B. Dyer,et al.  Innovation strategy and the R&D-marketing interface in Japanese firms: a contingency perspective , 1995 .

[19]  A. Denisi,et al.  The impact of ratee's disability on performance judgments and choice as partner: The role of disability–job fit stereotypes and interdependence of rewards. , 1998 .

[20]  C. Bartlett,et al.  Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management , 2007 .

[21]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[22]  Jeffrey D. Ford,et al.  Logics of Identity, Contradiction, and Attraction in Change , 1994 .

[23]  G. Yukl,et al.  Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers , 1999 .

[24]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[25]  Haiyang Li,et al.  Product Innovation Strategy and the Performance of New Technology Ventures in China , 2001 .

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

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

[28]  M. Bloom,et al.  The Performance Effects of Pay Dispersion on Individuals and Organizations , 1999 .

[29]  Robert E. Hoskisson,et al.  Strategy and Structure in the Multiproduct Firm , 1987 .

[30]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Special Issue: Organizational Design: Organization Design and Effectiveness over the Innovation Life Cycle , 2006, Organ. Sci..

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

[32]  P. Adler,et al.  Flexibility Versus Efficiency? a Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System , 1999 .

[33]  J. Brockner,et al.  When Trust Matters: The Moderating Effect of Outcome Favorability , 1997 .

[34]  R. Peterson,et al.  Task Conflict snd Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams:The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust. , 1998 .

[35]  A. Coughlan,et al.  International Market Entry and Expansion via Independent or Integrated Channels of Distribution , 1987 .

[36]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[37]  Bart Van Looy,et al.  Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: A firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on innovation performance , 2010 .

[38]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Understanding Variation in Managers' Ambidexterity: Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of Formal Structural and Personal Coordination Mechanisms , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[39]  Pedro Ortín-Ángel,et al.  R&D Managers' Adaptation of Firms' HRM Practices , 2009 .

[40]  Carol T. Kulik,et al.  Old Friends, New Faces: Motivation Research in the 1990s , 1999 .

[41]  Jinhong Xie,et al.  The Impact of Cross‐Functional Joint Involvement Across Product Development Stages: An Exploratory Study , 1998 .

[42]  Oscar Hauptman,et al.  Managing integration and coordination in cross‐functional teams: an international study of Concurrent Engineering product development , 1999 .

[43]  Christen Rose-Anderssen,et al.  New Product Development as a Complex Adaptive System of Decisions , 2006 .

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

[45]  Jinhong Xie,et al.  Antecedents and Consequences of Goal Incongruity on New Product Development in Five Countries: A Marketing View , 2003 .

[46]  Michael Song,et al.  The role of suppliers in market intelligence gathering for radical and incremental innovation , 2009 .

[47]  R. Drabman,et al.  Sociometric and disruptive behavior as a function of four types of token reinforcement programs. , 1974, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[48]  Riki Takeuchi,et al.  When Does Decision Autonomy Increase Expatriate Managers' Adjustment? An Empirical Test , 2008 .

[49]  Icek Ajzen,et al.  From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior , 1985 .

[50]  Robert E. Hoskisson,et al.  Multidivisional Structure and Performance: The Contingency of Diversification Strategy , 1987 .

[51]  Bou-Wen Lin,et al.  Contingency View on Technological Differentiation and Firm Performance: Evidence in an Economic Downturn , 2007 .

[52]  Jae-Hyeon Ahn,et al.  Reward systems for intra-organizational knowledge sharing , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[54]  B. Looy,et al.  Organizing for Continuous Innovation: On the Sustainability of Ambidextrous Organizations , 2005 .

[55]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  THE ANTECEDENTS, CONSEQUENCES AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY , 2004 .

[56]  Michael Song,et al.  Conflict management and innovation performance: An integrated contingency perspective , 2006 .

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

[58]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  Knowledge Exchange and Combination: The Role of Human Resource Practices in the Performance of High-Technology Firms , 2006 .

[59]  Rajesh Sethi,et al.  Superordinate identity in cross-functional product development teams: Its antecedents and effect on new product performance , 2000 .

[60]  Rajesh Sethi,et al.  Can Quality‐Oriented Firms Develop Innovative New Products? , 2009 .

[61]  Qing Cao,et al.  Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[62]  P. Ghemawat,et al.  Organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency, The , 1993 .

[63]  J. Rossiter,et al.  The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs , 2007 .

[64]  Anil K. Gupta,et al.  Resource Sharing Among Sbus: Strategic Antecedents and Administrative Implications , 1986 .

[65]  Michael Song,et al.  Factors for Improving the Level of Knowledge Generation in New Product Development , 2006 .

[66]  Robert Albanese,et al.  Rational Behavior in Groups: The Free-Riding Tendency , 1985 .

[67]  Clark G. Gilbert,et al.  Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist? , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[68]  Birgit Verworn,et al.  The Fuzzy Front End of Japanese New Product Development Projects: Impact on Success and Differences between Incremental and Radical Projects , 2007 .

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

[70]  R. Wageman.  Interdependence and Group Effectiveness , 1995 .

[71]  X. Song,et al.  Innovation Strategy and Sanctioned Conflict: A New Edge in Innovation? , 1998 .

[72]  E. McDonough.  Investigation of Factors Contributing to the Success of Cross-Functional Teams , 2000 .

[73]  Ramón Valle Cabrera,et al.  Managing Functional Diversity, Risk Taking and Incentives for Teams to Achieve Radical Innovations , 2007 .

[74]  Richard DeMartino,et al.  Organizing for Radical Innovation: An Exploratory Study of the Structural Aspects of RI Management Systems in Large Established Firms, Journal of Product , 2006 .

[75]  Eric M. Olson,et al.  Organizing for effective new product development: The moderating role of product innovativeness. , 1995 .

[76]  David B. Balkin,et al.  Effectiveness of Individual and Aggregate Compensation Strategies , 1989 .

[77]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[78]  Jinhong Xie,et al.  Does Innovativeness Moderate the Relationship between Cross-Functional Integration and Product Performance? , 2000 .

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

[80]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[81]  Peter J. Lane,et al.  Strategizing Throughout the Organization: Managing Role Conflict in Strategic Renewal , 2000 .

[82]  Abbie Griffin,et al.  Voices from the field: How exceptional electronic industrial innovators innovate , 2009 .

[83]  J. March.  Continuity and Change in Theories of Organizational Action , 1996 .

[84]  J. Wagner.  Studies of Individualism-Collectivism: Effects on Cooperation in Groups , 1995 .

[85]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation and Peformance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[86]  C. Collins,et al.  STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICES, TOP MANAGEMENT TEAM SOCIAL NETWORKS, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: THE ROLE OF HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICES IN CREATING ORGANIZATIONAL COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE , 2003 .

[87]  J. P. Daly,et al.  The role of fairness in implementing large‐scale change: Employee evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations , 1994 .