Management of paradox: a comparative study of managerial practices in Korean and Japanese firms

Yoon, Se Joon; Chae, Yeon Joo

doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.560885

Cited by 26 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The response rate in this study is comparable to that reported in previous ambidexterity and HR studies (e.g., Wang & Rafiq, 2014;Yoon & Chae, 2012).…”

Section: Sample and Proceduressupporting

confidence: 80%

“…The finding of a positive relationship between influence tactic ambidexterity and managers' task performance further suggests that multinational corporations should design and develop high-commitment HRM practices (McClean & Collins, 2011) oriented towards enhancing the development of ambidextrous managers (e.g., Medcof & Song, 2013; developing a compensation system and giving incentives in order to generate ambidextrous employees (Yoon & Chae, 2012). Such motivation-enhancing HRM practices are likely to make managers feel the positive sense of stretch, which is a necessary prerequisite for generating ambidexterity in organizations (Ahammad et al, 2015).…”

Section: Practical Implications For Managers and Hrmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The role of managers in resolving tensions related to such opposing and incompatible organizational goals is critical (Mom, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2007;Yoon & Chae, 2012). In order for managers to consistently meet task objectives, they need to assume multiple roles, effectively tackle contradictory tasks and achieve short and a long term goals that stem from their job description (Smith & Tushman, 2005).…”

Section: The Effects Of Hard and Soft Influence Tactics On Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Hard, soft or ambidextrous? Which influence style promotes managers’ task performance and the role of political skill

Kapoutsis

Papalexandris

Thanos

2016

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hard, soft or ambidextrous? Which influence style promotes managers' task performance and the role of political skillAmbidexterity at the manager level focuses on the crucial, but underexplored, role of managers' knowledge, skills, and behaviors to address competing demands and promote organizational ambidexterity. As such, to successfully complete their assigned duties, managers need to employ the appropriate interpersonal style and calibrate their behavior to different contextual demands. This study highlights the role of the individual in the ambidexterity process by introducing the concept of influence tactic ambidexterity, to denote the frequent use of both hard and soft influence and investigating its role on task performance. Drawing on the literature on ambidexterity and HRM, we analyze data from a sample of 172 middle managers and their corresponding 68 supervisors working for multinational organizations, and provide evidence that influence tactic ambidexterity relates to higher levels and less variation in managers' task performance compared to the sole use of either hard or soft tactics. Our findings also show that political skill positively moderates the relationship between influence tactic ambidexterity and a manager's task performance. Therefore, this study suggests that influence tactic ambidexterity and political skill can be considered valuable HR assets for managers.

show abstract

“…The response rate in this study is comparable to that reported in previous ambidexterity and HR studies (e.g., Wang & Rafiq, 2014;Yoon & Chae, 2012).…”

Section: Sample and Proceduressupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Practical Implications For Managers and Hrmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Effects Of Hard and Soft Influence Tactics On Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hard, soft or ambidextrous? Which influence style promotes managers’ task performance and the role of political skill

Kapoutsis

Papalexandris

Thanos

2016

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ambidexterity is defined as the organizational ability to engage in the dual aspects of organizational growth-namely, exploration and exploitation (Jansen et al, 2008;Nemanich & Vera, 2009;Junni et al, 2013). It has also been linked with management paradox (Yoon & Chae, 2012). In the context of acquisitions, ambidextrous organizations will be capable of creating synergies between the acquirer and target to generate valuable future exploitative opportunities (Jansen et al, 2008;Nemanich & Vera, 2009;RaoNicholson et al, 2016).…”

Section: Leadership and Ambidexteritymentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of leadership on organizational ambidexterity and employee psychological safety in the global acquisitions of emerging market multinationals

Rao‐Nicholson

Khan

Akhtar

et al. 2016

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the impact of leadership on organizational ambidexterity and employee psychological safety based on a sample of 105 global acquisitions of emerging market multinationals. The findings suggest that, compared to the transactional and laissez faire ones, the charismatic leadership style is more significantly related with organizational ambidexterity and employee psychological safety. The results also suggest that transactional leadership is more positively related to ambidexterity and employee psychological safety than 2 laissez faire leadership. In addition, organizational ambidexterity is directly and positively associated with employee psychological safety. The implications of these results for both research and practice are discussed in the paper.

show abstract

“…Contextual challenges in the innovation process refer to how exploration and exploitation in innovation networks are managed within spatial, institutional, political, and technological boundaries (Mueller et al, 2013;Schemeil, 2013). When comparing differences between Japanese and Korean firms, for instance, Yoon and Chae (2012) show how decision making structures (decentralisation and control) depend on the nature of the external environment, and that market, clan and bureaucracy influence the management designs to manage paradoxes (different management styles of exploration and exploitation). More fundamentally, Mueller et al (2013) show how institutional factors, like national culture (e.g.…”

Section: Journal On Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder roles for fostering ambidexterity in Sub-Saharan African agricultural netchains for the emergence of multi-stakeholder cooperatives

Perdomo

Farrow²,

Trienekens

et al. 2016

Journ. Chain and Network Sc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Sub-Saharan African smallholder agricultural sector faces multiple and usually complex challenges, which can potentially be overcome by collective action. Smallholder farmers and other value chain stakeholders can tackle temporal, structural and contextual challenges by joining multi-level innovation networks to benefit collectively from shared information, knowledge, improved capacities and economies of scale in a process of innovation. Ambidexterity is a capability of innovation networks to balance exploration and exploitation dynamics in an innovation process, and is applicable at multiple levels: individuals, leaders, champions, teams and clusters. In the paradigm of open innovation, these levels become intertwined in hybrid social structures of innovation netchains. The objective of this paper is to describe the roles and identify the stakeholders that play those roles in an innovation process. We present case studies on farmer groups who participate in collective action and we compare multi-stakeholder platforms with other configurations of actors that tackle challenges in potato netchains in three Sub-Saharan African countries. We track and analyse innovation trajectories for six cases adapting netchain analysis techniques linking roles with the challenges faced at particular stages of each innovation trajectory. We find three management designs for fostering exploration and exploitation: (1) exploratory or exploitative management designs for small innovation networks; (2) exploitative management designs for larger networks; and (3) ambidextrous management designs for multi-stakeholder networks. Traditional roles played by managers are identified to manage exploration and exploitation in an ambidextrous way, but also evidence of roles of civil society actors facilitating collective action for the emergence of multi-stakeholder cooperatives. Since ambidexterity is about dynamism, we identified three types of mobility to be fostered when tackling challenges in an innovation process: (1) mobility-dynamism of the innovation process over time; (2) structural-knowledge mobility in innovation networks; and (3) boundary mobility.

show abstract

Management of paradox: a comparative study of managerial practices in Korean and Japanese firms

Cited by 26 publications

References 32 publications

Hard, soft or ambidextrous? Which influence style promotes managers’ task performance and the role of political skill

Hard, soft or ambidextrous? Which influence style promotes managers’ task performance and the role of political skill

The impact of leadership on organizational ambidexterity and employee psychological safety in the global acquisitions of emerging market multinationals

Stakeholder roles for fostering ambidexterity in Sub-Saharan African agricultural netchains for the emergence of multi-stakeholder cooperatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About