Ambidextrous design and public organizations: a comparative case study

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how public cultural organizations use ambidextrous design to balance exploitation and exploration given their organizational structure that mainly stimulates exploitation. Design/methodology/approach The authors use an abductive methodology and, perform an in-depth comparative case study. The data sample consists of two Belgian public cultural centers located in the Flemish area. In all, 21 semi-structured interviews where analyzed using Nvivo. Findings Results show, first, that although both cases have the same formal organization chart, their informal structure differs. Second, both cases have a different point of view toward exploitation and exploration. Third, no “pure” ambidextrous designs were found. Finally, the paper formulates theoretical propositions for ambidexterity and public sector research. Research limitations/implications Limitations of this paper are threefold. First, the authors only compared two cases, so generalization of the findings is limited. Second, although the authors managed to make contributions to ambidexterity and public sector research, theory building is not finished. Finally, researchers have to improve empirical evidence focusing on which design elements lead toward ambidextrous public organizations. Originality/value This paper makes a threefold contribution to ambidexterity literature and public sector research. First, the focus on public sector organizations is a rarely taken approach in ambidexterity research. Second, the specific use of ambidextrous design attributes to the limited public sector research that has focused on ambidexterity. Third, the focus on small organizations with limited resources is a rarely taken focus in ambidexterity and public sector research.

Ambidextrous practices in public service organizations: innovation and optimization tensions in Dutch water authorities

“…We discuss antecedents of organizational ambidexterity identified in previous research (e.g. Junni et al 2015;Smith and Umans 2015;Plimmer, Bryson, and Teo 2017;Cannaerts, Segers, and Henderickx 2016;Bryson, Boal, and Rainey 2008;Palm and Lilja 2017). We then present the results of the focus group discussions, and discuss the ambidextrous configurations that surfaced when we confronted the different practices of the low, moderate and high ambidextrous RWAs, and the interrelation and mutual reinforcement of organizational antecedents.…”

“…In low ambidextrous RWA no ambidextrous design (Cannaerts, Segers, and Henderickx 2016) is in place at all. Moderately ambidextrous RWAs apply a structural and temporal approach (Raisch and Birkinsaw 2009), installing an innovation unit or team and an innovation policy that support the invention phase of innovation, and carrying out innovation as separate projects.…”

“…Exploitation or optimization is associated with enhancing efficiency and alignment of current operations to maintain or enhance short-term performance, by incremental improvement of existing designs, products and services for existing clients (e.g. Gupta, Smith, and Shalley 2006;Jansen, van den Bosch, and Volberda 2006;Cannaerts, Segers, and Henderickx 2016;Plimmer, Bryson, and Teo 2017). In public sector research innovation is generally conceptualized as the implementation of a new concept, breaking with existing mindsets, generating new knowledge, risk-taking and experimentation, in discontinuity with the past, in order to create public value (e.g.…”

“…Sarkees and Hulland 2009;Plimmer, Bryson, and Teo 2017). High levels of centralization, formalization, and specialization stimulate optimization, whereas low levels of centralization, formalization, and specialization foster innovative environments (O'Reilly and Tushman 2013;Cannaerts, Segers, and Henderickx 2016). Andrews et al (2009) analyse organizational strategies of PSOs and find that 'prospecting organizations' (Miles and Snow 1978), that continually search for new opportunities and experiment with responses to emerging trends, are positively correlated with decentralization, while 'defenders' (Miles and Snow 1978), that take a conservative view on new developments and focus on improving the efficiency of their existing operations, are positively correlated with hierarchical authority.…”

“…Smith and Umans 2015;Choi and Chandler 2015;Gieske, van Meerkerk, and van Buuren 2018;Boukamel and Emery 2017;Kobarg et al 2017;Plimmer, Bryson, and Teo 2017), still a lot remains unknown on ambidextrous practices of PSOs and on how organizational antecedents shape these practices (Palm and Lilja 2017;Bryson, Boal, and Rainey 2008). Ambidextrous practices of similar PSOs can differ widely due to a different strategic intent, culture, managerial focus and informal routines (Cannaerts, Segers, and Henderickx 2016;Smith and Umans 2015).…”