Ambidextrous organization

Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization’s ability to be efficient in their management of today’s business and also adaptable for coping with tomorrow’s changing demands.^[1]

Overview

Origin and Development

Duncan (1976) was the first to use the term organizational ambidexterity.^[2] However, it was March’s (1991) article, “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning” that has been credited for developing and generating greater interest in this concept, especially in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century.^[1][3]

Different Ambidextrous Models

Some scholars as well as practitioners have argued that established companies simply lack the flexibility to explore new territories. Others suggest that big companies should adopt a venture capital model- funding exploratory expeditions but otherwise not interfering too much with their operations. Another suggestion is for the use of cross-functional teams to achieve breakthrough innovations. Still others have suggested that a company may be able to alternate between different organizational models, focusing on exploitation and exploration at different time periods.^[4]

Organizational ambidexterity can be considered primarily from two angles. The first is architectural or structural ambidexterity which uses dual structures and strategies to differentiate efforts towards exploitation and exploration. The second is contextual ambidexterity which uses behavioural and social means to integrate exploitation and exploration, even at the organizational unit level. Contextual ambidexterity was first defined in Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) and has been recently described in Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009).^[5][6] Senior managers may be key for facilitating the context and social base for ambidexterity. Noting that ambidextrous organizations require significant amount of mobilization, coordination, and integration activities to maintain both exploitation and exploration, Jansen et al. (2009) found that the informal, social integration of the senior team as well as the cross-functional interfaces of the formal organization contribute to the success of structural differentiation on organizational ambidexterity.^[7]

See also

Ambidexterity Communities of innovation Contingency Theory Organization design Organizational learning Organizational structure

Knowledge management Tacit knowledge

References

1. ^ ^{a b} Raisch, S. and J. Birkinshaw. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management 34 (3) 375-409
2. ^ Duncan, R. 1976. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. Killman, R. H., L. R. Pondy, and D. Sleven (eds.) The Management of Organization. New York: North Holland. 167-188.
3. ^ March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2 (1) 71-87.
4. ^ O’Reilly, C. A. and M. L. Tushman. 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review 82 (4) 74-81.
5. ^ Andriopoulos, C. M. and M. W. Lewis. 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science 20 (4) 696-717.
6. ^ Gibson, C. B. and Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal 47(2) 209-226.
7. ^ Jansen, J. J. P., M. P. Tempelaar, F. A. J. van den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda. 2009. Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science 20 (4) 797-811.

External links