Combining organizational change management and organizational ambidexterity using data transformation

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a practicable data-driven theory for the implementation and management of organizational change by combining the organization ambidexterity research and the organization change management research. Design/methodology/approach This study is based on the qualitative approach and uses a single case (in-depth investigation approach) study to come up with a data-driven theory, which is usable in the context of organizational change management and organizational ambidexterity (OA). Besides, in-depth interviews of change management practitioners, this study uses various sources of secondary information. Findings The study finds that owing to the reactive, ad hoc, and discontinuous nature of change often triggered by external factors or internal crisis within the organization, an organization need to continually engage with the existing data. The outcome must be driven toward preparing for the change through data engagement, implementation and reinforcement. The authors found that in order to be successful it is essential to have a strategy, set-up the right operating model, be clear on the scope of the change management work-stream and continuously monitor the progress through defined milestones and acceptance criteria. For companies targeting to achieve competitive differentiation through ambidexterity, a well-grounded change management program is the key for the success. Originality/value The study suggests that there is little work combining organizational change management and OA from a practitioner’s point of view. Accordingly, the authors propose a new data-driven organizational change management theory, which the authors term as the tripod theory for organizational change management. A practitioner’s perspective on the topic using a case study of an insurance company’s data transformation and a framework for structuring the change management program makes a meaningful contribution to the existing literature.

A knowledge-based view of people and technology: directions for a value co-creation-based learning organisation

“…As several authors stated, HRM and Technological Infrastructures could affect companies performances (Florkowski, 2018;Macke and Genari, 2019). HRM, for example, fosters knowledge sharing at individual and organizational level (Mitra et al, 2019;Zhao and Wang, 2013), which, in turn, improves companies performances (Armstrong, 2000). KM generally described as the missing link between HRM strategies and organisational learning.…”

Managing Change and Managerial Innovation towards Employees Satisfaction at Workplace

“…In modern times, the rapid changes in the macroenvironment of many businesses have led to the necessary adjustments that businesses have to make to adapt to new conditions. Management of change can be identified as the strategies and tactics that management employs to ensure the most efficient and effective application of a chosen strategy [26]. The successfulness of an organization necessitates continuous change in alignment with a substantial developmental orientation, in terms of customer needs, technological breakthroughs and governmental regulations [19], [20], [21], [22].…”

“…Romanelli and Tushman (1994) [25], denoted that it is highly unlike a stability at the today competitive entrepreneurial environment, thus, firms have prepared to undoubtfully confront revolutionary managing changes. While some changes are limited in scope and complexity (such as adding a new sales representative to an already large sales force), others are more extensive (such as the acquisition of a new company) [26]. Thus, depending on the importance of organizational change, we distinguish first-order and second-order changes.…”

Leveraging Knowledge Sharing and Innovation Towards Resilient Competitive Advantage:

“…The next step is to test innovation as the mediating variable (see Table 3). Based on the VAF criteria which is VAF <0.20 (no mediation), 0.20-0.80 (partial mediation) and> 0.80 (full mediation) [44]. We calculated Variance Accounted For (VAF).…”