Building Ambidexterity into an Organization Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
- Copyright© Julian Birkinshaw and Christina Gibson. structural ambidexterity model by separating out the two sets activities. but by building an organization.
- Official Full-Text Publication: Building Ambidexterity into an Organization on ResearchGate, the professional network for scientists.
- Building Ambidexterity into an Organization Case Solution, Building Ambidexterity into an Organization Solution, Building Ambidexterity into an Organization Analysis.
- . Building Ambidexterity Into an Organization. ambidexterity-into-an-organization/an/SMR144-PDF-ENG. with alternative organization.
Summer 2004 Volume 45, Issue. Purchase Options. PDF PDF + Permission to Distribute. Building Ambidexterity Into an Organization. The Ambidextrous Organisation. Building Ambidexterity Into an Organisation, Sloan Management. (2004). The Ambidextrous Organization, Harvard Business Review.
The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by Ro. MEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable. Source Available from: Tobias Hahn "In accordance with previous findings on personal characteristics of managers, such as cognitive abilities for paradoxical thinking (Smith & Tushman, 2. Cohen & Levinthal, 1.
Building Ambidexterity Into Organization Pdf Creator
Building Ambidexterity Into an Organization he technological downturn, political turmoil and economic uncertainty of the last five years have reaffirmed to managers. Description. For a firm to succeed over the long term, it needs to master both adaptability and alignment--an attribute sometimes referred to as ambidexterity. Building Ambidexterity Into an Organization. How can managers begin to think about building contextual ambidexterity into their organizations? Sumantra Ghoshal and.
Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2. CSP. " [Show abstract][Hide abstract]ABSTRACT: The literature on corporate social performance (CSP) advocates that firms address social issues based on instrumental as well as moral rationales. While both rationales trigger initiatives to increase CSP, these rest on fundamentally different and contradicting foundations.
Building on the literature on organizational ambidexterity and paradox in management, we propose in this conceptual paper that ambidexterity represents an important determinant of CSP. We explain how firms achieve higher levels of CSP through the ambidextrous ability to simultaneously pursue instrumentally and morally driven social initiatives. We distinguish between a balance dimension and a combined dimension of ambidexterity, which both enhance CSP through distinct mechanisms. With the balance dimension, instrumental and moral initiatives compensate for each other – which increases the scope of CSP. With the combined dimension, instrumental and moral initiatives supplement each other – which increases the scale of CSP.
The paper identifies the most important determinants and moderators of the balance and the combined dimension to explain the conditions under which we expect firms to increase CSP through ambidexterity. By focusing on the interplay and tensions between different types of social initiatives, an ambidextrous perspective contributes to a better understanding of CSP. Regarding managerial practice, we highlight the role of structural and behavioral factors for achieving higher CSP through the simultaneous pursuit of instrumental and moral initiatives.
Full- text · Article · Jan 2. Organization Studies Source Available from: Sangyoon Yi "Further, individuals who are capable of exploration and exploitation can be situated in an organizational context that can induce them to switch between exploration and exploitation (Birkinshaw and Gibson 2. On a larger scale, organizations may engage in temporal bracketing or cycling between periods of exploration and exploitation – see literatures on organizational search (e. Chen and Katila 2.
Siggelkow and Levinthal 2. Winter and Szulanski 2. Birkinshaw and Gibson 2. Gupta et al. 2. 00.
Boumgarden et al. Nickerson and Zenger 2. Show description][Hide description]DESCRIPTION: Traditionally, routines have been perceived as a primary source of inertia, which slows down organizational change and hinders organizational adaptation.
Advancing prior research on routine dynamics, this study examines how inertia in routines influences the process of organizational adaptation, both in the absence and presence of endogenous change of routines. Contrary to conventional wisdom, our analysis suggests an overlooked mechanism by which routine- level inertia may help, rather than hinder, organization- level adaptation.
We demonstrate this mechanism by using a simple theoretical model in which the organization is characterized as a configuration of interdependent routines, and study the process by which this configuration adapts to cope with its task environment. We find that inertia in routines may engender potentially useful variation in the process of organizational adaptation because reduced rates of routine- level changes may lead to temporal reordering when these changes are implemented. In our nuanced perspective, inertia is not only a consequence of adaptation or selection as perceived in prior research, but also a source of variation that turns out to be useful for adaptation. This logic is helpful to better understand why apparently inertial organizations keep surviving and from time to time exhibit outstanding performance. We conclude by discussing how this advanced understanding of the role of routines in organizational adaptation helps elaborate the theory of economic evolution.
Full- text · Working Paper · Jan 2. Source Available from: Ci- Rong Li "Implications for theory and research First, the findings extend our understanding that transformational CEOs might exert a beneficial influence on firm- level ambidexterity (Nemanich and Vera, 2.
The results showed that the leadership style of transformational CEOs enables shaping fit interfaces between CEOs and top managers, in which individual top managers host contradictions (Smith and Tushman, 2. Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2. Wong, 2. 00. 4). By specifying the effect of CEO transformational leadership on individual- level top manager ambidexterity and its implication on the CEO- top manager interface, this study provides a novel logic for the effect of transformational leadership on organizational ambidexterity and enriches transformational leadership studies, which have conventionally associated transformational leadership with exploration and transactional leadership with exploitation ( Jansen et al., 2.
Vera and Crossan, 2. Show abstract][Hide abstract]ABSTRACT: Purpose. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of CEO transformational leadership in promoting ambidexterity of top managers. This paper posits that connecting CEO transformational leadership with the CEO- top manager interface offers a better explanation of heterogeneity in top manager ambidextrous behavior. Design/methodology/approach. This study is based on a questionnaire survey of 3.
Taiwan manufacturing firms. The findings indicate that transformational CEOs shape the CEO- top manager interface, characterized by senior team behavioral integration, decentralization of responsibilities, long- term compensation, and individual manager risk propensity, and in turn promote ambidexterity at the individual top manager level. Originality/value. Hence, the authors contribute to the existing understanding that transformational CEOs may not only have a beneficial influence on firm- level ambidexterity, but also may be particularly effective in enabling individual- level top managers to simultaneously explore and exploit. Full- text · Article · Nov 2. Leadership & Organization Development Journal Show more.