Ambideksteritas Organisasional: Isu Riset Dan Anteseden

Vitradesie Noekent(1*)

(1) Fakultas Ekonomi
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

There are two main issues in organizational ambidexterity.  Firstly, structure-based organizational ambidexterity argued that the tension between exploration and exploitation can reconcile by creating the separated organizational structure for different activity.  Secondly, contextual-based organizational ambidexterity stressed the influence of organizational context to create behavior for balancing exploration and exploitation activities.  This article argue that he structural dimension and organizational behavior will produce micro foundation which is the interaction between both dimension will produce exploration and exploitation processes as organizational outcome.

Keywords

organizational ambidexterity, exploration, exploitation, micro foundation

Full Text:

PDF

References

Anderson, N., & Gasteiger, R. M. (2007). 24 Helping creativity and innovation thrive in organizations: functional and dysfunctional perspectives. Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms, 422.

Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652-1661.

Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability—rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61-83.

Baum, J. A., Li, S. X., & Usher, J. M. (2000). Making the next move: How experiential and vicarious learning shape the locations of chains' acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 766-801.

Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676-707.

Bodwell, W., & Chermack, T. J. (2010). Organizational ambidexterity: Integrating deliberate and emergent strategy with scenario planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 193-202.

Christensen, T. J. (1997). Perceptions and alliances in Europe, 1865–1940. International Organization, 51(01), 65-97.

De Visser, M., de Weerd-Nederhof, P., Faems, D., Song, M., Van Looy, B., & Visscher, K. (2010). Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: A firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on innovation performance. Technovation, 30(5), 291-299.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they?. Strategic management journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.

Fang, C., Lee, J., & Schilling, M. A. (2010). Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science, 21(3), 625-642.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.

Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045-1057.

Güttel, W. H., & Konlechner, S. W. (2009). Continuously hanging by a thread: Managing contextually ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Business Review, 61, 150-171.

Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of management journal, 49(4), 693-706.

Han, M., & Celly, N. (2008). Strategic ambidexterity and performance in international new ventures. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 25(4), 335-349.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American sociological review, 149-164.

He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4), 481-494.

House, C. H., & Price, R. L. (2009). The HP Phenomenon.

Im, G., & Rai, A. (2008). Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Science, 54(7), 1281-1296.

Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007.

Kang, S. C., & Snell, S. A. (2009). Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: a framework for human resource management. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 65-92.

Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic organization, 8(4), 283-312.

O Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard business review, 82(4), 74-83.

Li, C. R., Lin, C. J., & Chu, C. P. (2008). The nature of market orientation and the ambidexterity of innovations. Management Decision, 46(7), 1002-1026.

Li, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Schoenmakers, W. (2008). Exploration and exploitation in innovation: Reframing the interpretation. Creativity and innovation management, 17(2), 107-126.

Lin, Z., Yang, H., & Demirkan, I. (2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management science, 53(10), 1645-1658.

Louçã, F., & Mendonça, S. (2002). Steady change: the 200 largest US manufacturing firms throughout the 20th century. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 817-845.

Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of management, 32(5), 646-672.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.

Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers' ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812-828.

Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401-1423.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American Economic Review, 72(1), 114-132.

Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 19-33.

O Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard business review, 82(4), 74-83.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185-206.

Stubbart, C. I., & Knight, M. B. (2006). The case of the disappearing firms: empirical evidence and implications. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(1), 79-100.

Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685-695.

Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. (2014). A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization Science, 25(6), 1860-1877.

Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strategic management journal, 25(3), 201-221.

Rothaermel, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization science, 20(4), 759-780.

Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522-536.

Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative science quarterly, 501-524.

Teece, D. J. (1982). Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(1), 39-63.

Tushman, M. L., Virany, B., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Executive succession, strategic reorientations, and organization evolution: The minicomputer industry as a case in point. Technology in Society, 7(2-3), 297-313.

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-28.

Tushman, M. L., Charles O’Reilly, Harreld, B. (2013). Leading Strategic Renewal: Proactive Punctuated Change through Innovation Streams and Disciplined Learning.

Venkatraman, N., Lee, C. H., & Iyer, B. (2007). Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: A longitudinal test in the software sector. In Unpublished Manuscript (earlier version presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, 2005).

Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Tekie, E. B. (2006). Managing purposeful organizational misfit: Exploring the nature of industry and organizational misfit to enable strategic change. Journal of Change Management, 6(3), 257-276.

Volberda, H. W., & Lewin, A. Y. (2003). Co‐evolutionary dynamics within and between firms: From evolution to co‐evolution. Journal of management studies, 40(8), 2111-2136.

Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic management journal, 24(10), 991-995.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180.

Zott, C. (2003). Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm performance: insights from a simulation study. Strategic management journal, 24(2), 97-125.

DOI: 10.23917/benefit.v1i2.3253

Article Metrics

Abstract view(s): 897 time(s)
PDF: 1765 time(s)

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.