Skip to main content Accessibility help

Perceived mutual impact of strategy and organizational structure: Findings from the high-technology enterprises

  • Agnieszka Zakrzewska-Bielawska (a1)


The paper aims to investigate the relationship between strategy and structure in the high-technology enterprises. The study attempts to ascertain how chief executive officers perceive the impact of strategy on organizational structure, and likewise impact of structure on strategy, at two phases in the innovation process: the phase of innovation exploration; and the phase of innovation exploitation. The research was conducted in 61 high-technology companies based in Poland that operate either in Poland or in the global marketplace. The results show that, during the exploration of innovation, chief executive officers consider that the impact of organizational structure on strategy is stronger than the impact of strategy on structure. During the exploitation of innovations, the impact of strategy on structure is stronger.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Perceived mutual impact of strategy and organizational structure: Findings from the high-technology enterprises
      Available formats

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Perceived mutual impact of strategy and organizational structure: Findings from the high-technology enterprises
      Available formats

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Perceived mutual impact of strategy and organizational structure: Findings from the high-technology enterprises
      Available formats


Corresponding author


Hide All
Alder, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 6189.
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 1126.
Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A new research lens. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 645663.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696717.
Anonymous (2009). High-technology and knowledge based services aggregations based on NACE Rev.2. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from /htec _esms_ an3.pdf.
Ansoff, H. I. (1979). Strategic management. London: Macmillan Press.
Armstrong, C. E., & Shimizu, K. (2007). A Review of approaches to empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 33(6), 959986.
Arora, A., Belenzon, S., & Rios, L. (2014). Make, buy, organize: The interplay between research, external knowledge, and firm structure. Strategic Management Journal, 35(3), 317337.
Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (2011). Super-flexibility for real-time adaptation: Perspectives from Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 53(3), 2139.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 4156.
Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining competitive advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238256.
Bergfors, M., & Lager, T. (2011). Innovation of process technology: Exploring determinants for organizational design. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(5), 11131140.
Bertrand-Cloodt, D., Hagedoorn, J., & Van Kranenburg, H. (2011). The strength of R&D network ties in high-tech sectors-a multi-dimensional analysis of the effects of tie-strength on innovative performance. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(10), 10151030.
Bessant, J. (2003). High involvement innovation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Bierly, P. E., & Daly, P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(4), 493516.
Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2008). Position, leverage and opportunity: A typology of strategic logics lining resources with competitive advantage. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(2–3), 241256.
Binns, A., Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). The ambidextrous CEO. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 7480.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287298.
Borgatti, S. R., & Foster, R. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 9911013.
Boumgarden, P., Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 587610.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 134.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Cantarello, S., Martini, A., & Nosella, A. (2012). A multi-level model for organizational ambidexterity in the search phase of the innovation process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1), 2848.
Cao, Q., Simsek, Z., & Zhang, H. (2010). Modeling the joint impact of the GEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7), 12721296.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chandrasekaran, A., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R. (2012). Antecedents to ambidexterity competency in high technology organizations. Journal of Operations Management, 30(1), 134151.
Chen, R. R., & Kannan-Narasimhan, R. P. (2015). Formal integration archetypes in ambidextrous organizations. R&D Management, 45(3), 267286.
Chen, T. F. (2012). Transforming knowledge into action to reach innovation capacity in high-tech SMEs. International Journal of Innovation & Technology Management, 9(1), 1250005_1—12500_32.
Chunlei, W., Rodan, S., Fruin, M., & Xiaoyan, X. (2014). Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 454514.
Daft, R. L. (2007). Understanding the theory and design of organizations. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western Mason.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555590.
Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3), 413452.
De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2005). Strategy synthesis: Resolving strategy paradoxes to create competitive advantage. London: Thompson Learning.
Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. Kilman, & L. Pondy (Eds.) The management of organizational design (pp. 167188). New York, NY: North Holland.
Dunford, R., Cuganesan, S., Grant, D., Palmer, I., Beaumont, R., & Steele, C. (2013). Flexibility as the rationale for organizational change: A discourse perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(1), 8397.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Sull, D. N. (2001). Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 106116.
Eurostat (2013). Science, technology and innovation in Europe. Luxembourg: Office of the European Union. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from 97/5969406/KS-GN-13-001-EN.PDF.
Fowler, J. G., & Reisenwitz, T. H. (2013). A review of interfirm networks: A deeper understanding of the relationships paradigm. Journal of Business Strategies, 30(1), 2164.
Fredrickson, J. W. (1986). The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 280297.
Galan, J. I., & Sanches-Bueno, M. J. (2009). The continuing validity of the strategy-structure nexus: New findings, 1993-2003. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11), 12341243.
Galbraith, J., Downey, D., & Kates, A. (2002). Designing dynamic organizations: A hands-on guide for leaders at all levels. New York, NY: Amacom.
Galbraith, J., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1986). Strategy implementation: Structure, systems and process. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
Galvin, P., & Arndt, F. (2014). Strategic management: Building depth as well as breadth. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(2), 139147.
Garcia, R., Calantone, R., & Levine, R. (2003). The role of knowledge in resource allocation to exploration versus exploitation in technologically oriented organizations. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 323349.
Gavetti, G., Levinthal, D., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: The power of analogy. Strategic Management Journal, 26(8), 691712.
Germain, R. (1996). The role of context and structure in radical and incremental logistics innovation adoption. Journal of Business Research, 35(2), 117127.
Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741763.
Grant, R. (2003). Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: Evidence from the oil majors. Strategic Management Journal, 24(6), 491517.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693706.
Hagel, J., & Brown, J. S. (2005). The only sustainable edge: Why business strategy depends on productive friction and dynamic specialization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hall, D. J., & Saias, M. A. (1980). Strategy follows structure. Strategic Management Journal, 1(2), 149163.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hatum, A., & Pettigrew, M. (2006). Determinants of organizational flexibility: A study in an emerging economy. British Journal of Management, 17(2), 115137.
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481494.
Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15(Special Issue), 7390.
Helena Chiu, Y., & Lee, T. (2012). Structural embeddedness and innovation performance: Capitalizing on social brokerage in high-tech clusters. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 337348.
Hill, C., & Jones, G. (1992). Strategic management theory. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Huff, A. S., Floyd, S. W., Sherman, H. D., & Terjesen, S. (2009). Strategic management: Logic and action. New York, NY: John Wiley& Sons.
Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797811.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57(4), 351363.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 16611674.
Jansen, J. J. P., Vera, D., & Grossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 518.
Jarvenpaa, S., & Välikangas, L. (2014). Opportunity creation in innovation networks: Interactive revealing practices. California Management Review, 57(1), 6787.
Jayanthi, S., & Sinha, K. K. (1998). Innovation implementation in high technology manufacturing: A chaos-theoretic empirical analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 471494.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy. Text and cases. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Kodama, M. (2006). Knowledge-based view of corporate strategy. Technovation, 26(12), 13901406.
Kortmann, S. (2012). The relationship between organizational structure and organizational ambidexterity: A comparison between manufacturing and service firms. Muenster, Germany: Springer.
Lament, B. T., Williams, R. J., & Hoffman, J. J. (1994). Performance during m-form reorganization and recovery time: The effects of prior strategy and implementation speed. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 153166.
Lazonick, W. (2010). The Chandlerian corporation and the theory of innovative enterprise. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(2), 317349.
Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 535550.
Liefner, I., Wei, Y., & Zeng, G. (2013). The innovativeness and heterogeneity of foreign-invested high-tech companies in Shanghai. Growth & Change, 44(3), 522549.
Lin, E., Lin, T. M. Y., & Bou-Wen, L. (2010). New high-tech venturing as process of resource accumulation. Management Decision, 48(8), 12301246.
Lu, L. Y. Y., & Liu, J. S. (2013). An innovative approach to identify the knowledge diffusion path: The case of resource-based theory. Scientometrics, 94(1), 225246.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of TMT behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646672.
Mahmoudsalehi, M., Moradkhannejad, R., & Safari, K. (2012). How knowledge management is affected by organizational structure. Learning Organization, 19(6), 518528.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 7187.
Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach us? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 313323.
Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2010). Development and return on execution of product innovation capabilities: The role of organizational structure. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(5), 820831.
Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 171195.
Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (2009). Strategy safari. Your complete guide through the wilds of strategic management. Edinburgh: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Moensted, M. (2010). Networking and entrepreneurship in small high-tech European firms: An empirical study. International Journal of Management, 27(1), 1630.
Mom, T. J. M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910931.
Mukkala, K. (2010). The role of regional policies in promoting networking and innovative activity: Evidence from small Finnish high-tech firms. European Planning Studies, 18(7), 10571076.
Myers, P. S. (Ed.) (1996). Knowledge management and organizational design. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Nahm, A. Y., Vonderembse, M. A., & Koufteros, X. A. (2003). The impact of organizational structure on time-based manufacturing and plant performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(3), 281306.
Nambisan, S., & Sawhney, M. (2011). Orchestration processes in network-centric innovation: Evidence from the field. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 4057.
NewCronos (2009). High-tech statistics – progress report. Doc.Eurostat/F4/STI/2009/11. Working Group Meeting on Statistics on Science, Technology and Innovation. Luxembourg.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., & Filippini, R. (2012). The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliometric investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization, 10(4), 450465.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2013). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2013. Innovation for growth. OECD Publishing. Retrieved October 7, 2014, from
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 7481.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185206.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action. California Management Review, 53(4), 521.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324338.
O’Sullivan, K. J., Giraldo, J. P., & Roman, J. A. (2010). The function of knowledge management system in large-scale organizational design. In A. Green, M. Stankosky, & L. Vandergriff (Eds.), Search knowledge management (pp. 7188). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Pearce, J. A., & Robinson, R. B. (2007). Strategic management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531544.
Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (1976). Organizational structure in its context. The Aston programme I. Westmead: Saxson House.
Pujol-Jover, M., & Serradell-Lopez, E. (2013). How to build innovative knowledge high-tech companies: An exploratory analysis of 22@ companies, Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning, January 2013, 9, pp. 344–350.
Quintana-García, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2008). Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification. Research Policy, 37(3), 492507.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375409.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, J., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685695.
Rank, C., Rank, O., & Wald, A. (2006). Integrated versus core-periphery structures in regional biotechnology networks. European Management Journal, 24(1), 7385.
Rasulzada, F., & Dackert, I. (2009). Organizational creativity and innovation in relation to psychological well-being and organizational factors. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2/3), 191198.
Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, structure and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Russo, A., & Vurro, C. (2010). Cross-boundary ambidexterity: Balancing exploration and exploitation in the fuel cell industry. European Management Review, 7(1), 3045.
Russo, M. V. (1991). The multidivisional structure as an enabling device: A longitudinal study of discretionary cash as a strategic resource. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 718733.
Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Shook, C. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). The concept of ‘opportunity’ in entrepreneurship research: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 36(1), 4065.
Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18(1), 2038.
Smith, K. A., Vasudevan, S. P., & Tanniru, M. R. (1996). Organizational learning and resource-based theory: An integrative model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(6), 4153.
Strategor (2001). Management of company. Strategies, structures, decisions, identity. Warsaw: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.
Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial & Corporate Change, 19(5), 13311366.
Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221231.
Van Geenhuizen, M., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). Knowledge virtualization and local connectedness among young globalized high-tech companies. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 79(7), 11791191.
Verdu, A. J., & Gomez-Gras, J. M. (2009). Measuring the organizational responsiveness through managerial flexibility. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(6), 668690.
Volberda, H. W. (1996). Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Studies, 7(4), 359374.
Wadhwa, A., & Kotha, S. (2006). Knowledge creation through external venturing: Evidence from the telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 819835.
Wei, Z., Yi, Y., & Yuan, C. (2011). Bottom-up learning, organizational formalization, and ambidextrous innovation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 314329.
Willoughby, K., & Galvin, P. (2005). Inter-organizational collaboration, knowledge intensity, and the sources of innovation in the bioscience-technology industries. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 18(3), 5673.
Wood, M. S., & McKinley, W. (2010). The production entrepreneurial opportunity: A constructivist perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(1), 6684.
Yang, J. (2012). Innovation capability and corporate growth: An empirical investigation in China. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, 29(1), 3446.
Zelong, W., Yaqun, Y., & Changhong, Y. (2011). Bottom-up learning, organizational formalization, and ambidextrous innovation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 314329.
Zikmund, W., Babin, B., Carr, J., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed