Standardized individuality versus individualized standardization: the role of the context in structurally ambidextrous organizations

Güttel, Wolfgang H.; Konlechner, Stefan; Trede, Julia K.

doi:10.1007/s11846-014-0156-2

Cited by 30 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In sustainable and innovative firms, structural ambidextrous capability may reduce firm conflicts to improve efficiency (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). Contextual ambidextrous capability may reduce integration costs (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004;Güttel, Konlechner, & Trede, 2015), while coordinated ambidextrous capability is beneficial in balancing differing business strategies and in reducing conflicts (Chen et al, 2014;Du et al, 2013 Given that sustainable innovation implies "a collective commitment of care for the future through responsible stewardship of science and innovation in the present" (Owen et al, 2013, p. 30) to achieve sustainable innovations, companies must effectively balance corporate objectives with environmental and social expectations (Zeng, Hu, & Ouyang, 2017…”

Section: Ambidextrous Capabilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contextual ambidextrous capability may reduce integration costs(Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004;Güttel, Konlechner, & Trede, 2015), while coordinated ambidextrous capability is beneficial in balancing differing business strategies and in reducing conflicts(Chen et al, 2014;Du et al, 2013;Martinez-Conesa, Soto-Acosta, & Carayannis, 2017;Soto-Acosta, Popa, & Martinez-Conesa, 2018). Contextual ambidextrous capability may reduce integration costs(Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004;Güttel, Konlechner, & Trede, 2015), while coordinated ambidextrous capability is beneficial in balancing differing business strategies and in reducing conflicts(Chen et al, 2014;Du et al, 2013;Martinez-Conesa, Soto-Acosta, & Carayannis, 2017;Soto-Acosta, Popa, & Martinez-Conesa, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review

Cillo

Petruzzelli

Ardito

et al. 2019

Corp Soc Responsibility Env

362

226

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to adhere to the concept of sustainable development, firms are increasingly expected to develop innovations that reconcile economic, environmental, and social goals (i.e., sustainable innovations). However, achieving this goal is not straightforward, and although several studies have attempted to improve our understanding of sustainable innovation, a systematization of extant findings is lacking. Therefore, this paper conducts a literature review with the objective of organizing previous research regarding sustainable innovation. A systematic approach is adopted, identifying 69 relevant articles. These articles are organized according to three key perspectives: internal managerial, external relational, and performance evaluation. The results demonstrate that the first perspective, incorporating diverse managerial aspects, is the most considered, whereas the second and third perspectives remain underdeveloped. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research. KEYWORDS sustainable development, sustainable innovation, systematic literature review

show abstract

Section: Ambidextrous Capabilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review

Cillo

Petruzzelli

Ardito

et al. 2019

Corp Soc Responsibility Env

362

226

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A review of three typologies of ambidextrous capabilities in existing research is shown in Table 2. There is a structural ambidextrous capability, which divides two paradoxical businesses into different units [2,40]; a contextual ambidextrous capability, which makes individuals gain two behaviors simultaneously in a certain culture [41,42]; and a coordinated ambidextrous capability, which creates an integrated top management team [16,39].…”

Section: Ambidextrous Capability For Sustainable Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Innovation Paradox in the Sustainable Innovation Ecosystem: A Case Study of Ambidextrous Capability in a Focal Firm

Zeng

Ouyang

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To achieve sustainable development, focal firms should balance two paradoxical kinds of innovation activities: exploitative and exploratory ones. Published works found that ambidexterity is an effective way to resolve paradoxical tensions, but few in-depth studies have been conducted to explore the innovation paradox of focal firms in the innovation ecosystem from an ambidextrous capability perspective. This paper takes China Spacesat Co., Ltd. as the case to study focal firms' management of innovation paradoxes in the sustainable innovation ecosystem and finds that: (1) Sustainable innovation is an ecosystem in which focal firms' internal functional departments, including the product department, technical center, and Makers' groups, cooperate with external organizations, including component suppliers, scientific research institutes, and government departments, closely and complementarily; (2) In the exploitative and exploratory innovations of complex products, focal firms in the sustainable innovation ecosystem mainly confront three paradoxes: profit drive vs. breakthroughs in the strategic intent of sustainable innovation of the profit-driven model, tight vs. loose coupling of sustainable innovation, and sustainable innovation driven by discipline vs. that by passion; (3) Focal firms in the innovation ecosystem resolve these three innovation paradoxes with structural, contextual, and coordinated ambidextrous capabilities, and build innovation paradox management mechanisms with three steps in sequence, namely by establishing dual sustainable strategic innovation units, strengthening sustainable organizational ties between the internal and external, while co-creating and sharing innovation values, and, finally, promoting the formation and development of their sustainable innovation ecosystem. This paper complements and enriches the innovation ecosystem and ambidextrous capability theory, providing significant practical guidance to the sustainable development of aerospace enterprises.

show abstract

“…Isto é, que as duas capacidades podem ser executadas simultaneamente por um grupo de trabalho ou um único funcionário (GIBSON; BIRKINSHAW, 2004). Nesse contexto, os indivíduos são capazes de dividir seus tempos entre exploitation e exploration (MENGLING; YAN;XIAOYING, 2016;GUTTEL;KONLECHNER;TREDE, 2015). Assim, os funcionários têm o desafio de balancear as tarefas de forma a alternar entre as duas capacidades.…”

Section: Como Superar O Trade-off?unclassified

Estratégia Ambidestra Em Redes De Restaurantes: O Dilema “Padronização vs Inovação”

Vargas¹,

Monteiro²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Doi: alcance.v25n1(Jan/Abr).p20-37 RESUMO Restaurantes que se expandem por meio de replicação enfrentam dois desafios: a busca por exploration e exploitation. De um lado, exploration está ligada à ideia de criação de novos processos e rotinas de inovação. Por outro, exploitation é a capacidade de aperfeiçoar processos já existentes, ou seja, de padronizar rotinas bemsucedidas. Perseguir simultaneamente essas duas capacidades é possuir uma estratégia ambidestra. Diante desse dilema, existem duas formas de ambidestria: contextual e estrutural. A ambidestria contextual parte da premissa que exploration e exploitation podem ser desempenhadas pelo mesmo indivíduo ou equipe de trabalho. A ambidestria estrutural, por sua vez, consiste na separação formal de estruturas organizacionais dedicadas à exploration/exploitation. Este estudo procura responder de que forma ocorre o gerenciamento de estratégias ambidestras em redes de restaurantes, tendo como ponto de partida o trade-off entre inovação e padronização. Realizou-se uma pesquisa qualitativa, baseada no método de estudo de caso, analisando nove redes de restaurantes do Rio de Janeiro, a partir da percepção de seus gestores estratégicos. Foi possível identificar dois níveis de ambidestria estrutural nas redes: a natural e a deliberada. De forma análoga, o estudo encontrou diferentes graus de engajamento das redes com a estratégia ambidestra na forma contextual: na cúpula da empresa, na unidade dos restaurantes e no nível individual dos funcionários das unidades. ABSTRACTRestaurants that expand through replication face two challenges: the pursuit of exploration and exploitation. On one hand, exploration is linked to the idea of creating new processes and routines i.e. innovation. On the other hand, exploitation is the ability to refine existing processes, i.e. to standardize successful routines. An ambidextrous strategy simultaneously pursues these two capabilities. Companies have two ways to promote ambidexterity. Contextual ambidexterity assumes that the same group can perform both exploration and exploitation. Structural ambidexterity, meanwhile, involves the formal separation of organizational structures dedicated to exploration/exploitation. This study seeks to understand how restaurant chains promote ambidextrous strategies, taking as its point of departure the trade-off between innovation and standardization. A qualitative study was Disponível em: www.univali.br/periodicos ISSN: 1983-716XRevista Alcance -Eletrônica -vol. 25 -n. 1 -Jan./Abr. 2018 21 conducted, based on the case study method, analyzing nine restaurant chains in the city of Rio de Janeiro from the perceptions of their strategic managers. This study was able to identify two levels of structural ambidexterity in restaurant chains: natural and deliberate. Similarly, different degrees of engagement were found with the ambidextrous strategy in contextual form: the company management, the restaurant unit, and at individual level, with the employees of the unit. RESUMENRestaurantes que se expanden por medi...

show abstract

Standardized individuality versus individualized standardization: the role of the context in structurally ambidextrous organizations

Cited by 30 publications

References 48 publications

Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review

Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review

Managing Innovation Paradox in the Sustainable Innovation Ecosystem: A Case Study of Ambidextrous Capability in a Focal Firm

Estratégia Ambidestra Em Redes De Restaurantes: O Dilema “Padronização vs Inovação”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About