Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Origin and Development: Organizational Ambidexterity Refers To An Organization's Ability To Be Efficient in Its

    Uploaded by

    Capugiu Rebecca
    Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization's ability to both efficiently manage current business demands through exploitation techniques, while also adapting to changing demands through exploration techniques. It requires balancing exploration, such as experimentation and innovation, with exploitation, such as efficiency and execution. Just as being ambidextrous means using both hands equally, organizational ambidexterity means using both exploration and exploitation equally to be successful.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Origin and Development: Organizational Ambidexterity Refers To An Organization's Ability To Be Efficient in Its

    Uploaded by

    Capugiu Rebecca
    9 views2 pages
    Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization's ability to both efficiently manage current business demands through exploitation techniques, while also adapting to changing demands through exploration techniques. It requires balancing exploration, such as experimentation and innovation, with exploitation, such as efficiency and execution. Just as being ambidextrous means using both hands equally, organizational ambidexterity means using both exploration and exploitation equally to be successful.

    Original Title

    ambidextrous team

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization's ability to both efficiently manage current business demands through exploitation techniques, while also adapting to changing demands through exploration techniques. It requires balancing exploration, such as experimentation and innovation, with exploitation, such as efficiency and execution. Just as being ambidextrous means using both hands equally, organizational ambidexterity means using both exploration and exploitation equally to be successful.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    9 views2 pages

    Origin and Development: Organizational Ambidexterity Refers To An Organization's Ability To Be Efficient in Its

    Uploaded by

    Capugiu Rebecca
    Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization's ability to both efficiently manage current business demands through exploitation techniques, while also adapting to changing demands through exploration techniques. It requires balancing exploration, such as experimentation and innovation, with exploitation, such as efficiency and execution. Just as being ambidextrous means using both hands equally, organizational ambidexterity means using both exploration and exploitation equally to be successful.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization's ability to be efficient in its management of

    today's business and also adaptable for coping with tomorrow's changing demand. Just as
    being ambidextrous means being able to use both the left and right hand equally, organizational
    ambidexterity requires the organizations to use both exploration and exploitation techniques to be
    successful.

    Contents

     1Origin and development


     2Ambidextrous organizational designs and organizational ambidexterity
     3Structural and behavioral mechanisms that lead to organizational ambidexterity
     4Antecedents of organizational ambidexterity
     5Outcomes of organizational ambidexterity
     6Related moderators between organizational ambidexterity and organizational outcomes
     7Levels of ambidexterity
     8Ambidextrous leadership
     9Controversy and future directions
     10See also
     11References
     12Further reading

    Origin and development[edit]


    Organizational ambidexterity was defined as an organization's ability to be aligned and efficient in its
    management of today's business demands as well as being adaptive to changes in the environment at
    the same time.[1] This term of organizational ambidexterity was first used by Duncan,[1] however, it
    was March[2] that had been credited for developing and generating greater interest in this concept,
    especially in the late 20th and early 21st century. Ambidexterity in an organization is achieved by
    balancing exploration and exploitation, which allows the organization to be creative and adaptable, while
    also continuing to rely on more traditional, proven methods of business.[2] Exploration includes things
    such as search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, flexibility, discovery or innovation, whereas
    exploitation includes such things as
    refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, and execution.[2] Companies that
    focus only on exploration face the risk of wasting resources on ideas that may not prove useful or never
    be developed. On the other hand, companies that focus only on exploitation may accept status
    quo performance and products and fail to reach optimal levels of success.
    Organizational ambidexterity is defined broadly, and several other terms are also highly related or
    similar to the construct of ambidextrous organization, including organizational learning, technological
    innovation, organizational adaptation, strategic management, and organizational design. Things such as
    reconciling exploitation and exploration, the simultaneity of induced and autonomous strategy
    processes, synchronizing incremental and discontinuous innovation, and balancing search and stability
    also tend to refer to the same underlying construct as ambidextrous organization.[3]
    There are studies on how structural and behavioral mechanisms affect organizational ambidexterity and
    studies on how ambidextrous organizational designs affect organizational ambidexterity. Whereas
    earlier studies on structural and behavioral mechanisms regarded the trade-offs between exploration
    and exploitation to be insurmountable, more recent research has paid attention to a range of
    organizational solutions to engender the existence of ambidexterity. One recent hot research topic in
    this area focused on the leadership characteristics that enable organizations to manage the
    contradictions that they face and achieve ambidexterity,[4][5][6] which is the origin of the concept
    ‘ambidextrous leadership’. Several antecedents, outcomes of organizational ambidexterity as well as
    related moderators have also been identified in the studies on structural and behavioral mechanisms.
    Ambidextrous organizational designs and organizational
    ambidexterity[edit]
    The studies on "ambidextrous organizations" take the organization as the unit of analysis and
    ambidextrous organizing is conceptualized as the simultaneous pursuit and combination of incremental
    and discontinuous innovation. [7][8][9] "Ambidextrous organizations" are needed if the failure to balance
    exploitation and exploration is to be overcome: "the ability to pursue simultaneously both incremental
    and discontinuous innovation results from hosting multiple contradictory structures, processes, and
    cultures" (Tushman and O'Reilly, 1996: page 24).[10] It has been empirically found that competence
    exploitation is negatively related to radical innovation performance whereas the effect for competence
    exploration is positive; competence exploration will be more valuable to the firm when it is matched with
    lower levels of competence exploitation, and vice versa.[11] It has been theorized that the "ambidextrous
    organization" does not solve the tension between alignment and adaptability but allows for coping with
    the tension between different types of alignment in order to produce incremental and discontinuous
    innovation. "Ambidextrous organizations" do not alternate between exploration and exploitation, but they
    do both simultaneously.[12] There's work that empirically investigates the processes of ambidextrous
    organizing by analyzing the implementation of the "ambidextrous organizations" concept in order to
    study whether there is evidence on how companies applying the concepts (suggested by "ambidextrous
    organizations" proponents) actually manage the processes of exploitation and exploration.[13]

    Structural and behavioral mechanisms that lead to


    organizational ambidexterity[edit]
    Organizational ambidexterity can be considered primarily from two angles. One is architectural or
    structural ambidexterity, which uses dual organizational structures and strategies to differentiate efforts
    towards exploitation and exploration.[14][15][16] Structural ambidexterity includes dual parts, with one part
    focusing on exploitation and the other focusing on exploration. It's also known as the spatial separation
    of the dual strategies concepts outlined above. The other approach is contextual ambidexterity, which
    uses behavioral and social means to integrate exploitation and exploration at the organizational unit
    level.[17][18] Contextual ambidexterity is a balanced type that takes a mid-level position between
    exploitation and exploration, also known as parallel structures or hybrid strategies.
    Although both angles are related to the theme of organizational ambidexterity, they strongly differ in the
    way how they are configured. There has always been a debate of which of the two different approaches
    is right. The dual type allows both discrete orientations and fit across dimensions at the unit level but
    creates a misfit between organizational units. Some researchers argued that inconsistent structures
    may lead to low performance.[19][20] There are also some researchers trying to investigate the external and
    internal contingencies under which different configurations can be found. One factor would be the speed
    and type of technological change that organizations confront. On the other hand, the balanced type (i.e.
    contextual ambidexterity) is consistent with the systems approach of fit across multiple dimensions,[21]
    [22]
     but contradicts the opinion that organizational choice is discrete.[23][24] In an environment where
    changes are slow, there will be sufficient time to react to the radical changes by constructing dual
    structures and strategies. However, in a high-competitive environment, balanced structures may be
    better prepared to deal with the constant need for alignment.[3] In future studies, the different
    organizational ambidexterity configurations can be compared to find a better solution for dealing with the
    exploitation and exploration paradox.

    You might also like