Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T08:33:38.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combining Structural and Sequential Ambidexterity: A Configurational Approach Using fsQCA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2023

Xiuxia Sun ,
Na Rong ,
Mouxuan Sun  and
Fangwei Zhu
Xiuxia Sun
Affiliation:
Dalian University of Technology, China
Na Rong
Affiliation:
Dalian University of Technology, China
Mouxuan Sun*
Affiliation:
Dalian University of Technology, China
Fangwei Zhu
Affiliation:
Dalian University of Technology, China
*
Corresponding author: Xiuxia Sun (sunxiuxia@dlut.edu.cn)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Structural and sequential ambidexterity are proved to be two prevalent approaches in managing tension between exploration and exploitation. Dominant studies have treated the two approaches as mutually exclusive but have provided less insight about their combination, and the organizational configurations that advance such combination, which is a major meaningful gap explored in the current study. This study aims to explore the configurations of organization design choices to combine structural and sequential approaches from a holistic perspective. We apply fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to analyze the empirical data collected from 102 firms in China. The results show that firms attain high ambidexterity with both separated and blended configurations. Blended ones demonstrate that the structural and sequential approaches can be combined in a way that one approach dominates and the other subordinates. Organizational design mechanisms regarding the configurations for combining structural and sequential approaches are concluded as multielements (complements and substitutes) and multilevels (fit and interaction). These findings are also interpreted through the Chinese ‘Yin-Yang’ framework, which introduces ‘Yin-Yang balancing’ into the ambidexterity literature.

摘要

结构双元与时序双元被证明是缓解组织的探索和利用战略之间冲突关系的两种常见方法。现有的研究认为这两种方法是相互排斥的，对两者的组合以及促进这种组合的组织构型缺乏关注。本研究旨在从整体的角度探索组织设计选择的构型，以实现结构与时序双元的有机联结。本研究运用模糊集定性比较分析(fsQCA)的方法，对102家中国企业的实证数据进行了分析。结果表明，企业可以通过分离构型或混合构型取得高组织双元。其中，混合构型意味着，结构双元和时序双元以一种方法占主导地位、另一种方法为从属的方式进行组合。关于联结结构双元与时序双元构型的组织设计机制被总结为多要素(补充和替代)和多层次(匹配和交互)。最后，本研究尝试将“阴阳平衡”引入双元研究，用中国的“阴阳”框架来解释研究发现。

Keywords

configurationexploitationexplorationfsQCAorganizational ambidexterity组织双元探索利用构型模糊集定性比较分析
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , August 2023 , pp. 803 - 837
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Deputy Editor Peter Ping Li

References

REFERENCES

Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. 1999. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1): 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augier, M., March, J. G., Rhee, M., & Zhou, X. 2012. Management and Organization Review Special Issue on ‘Ambiguity and decision making in Chinese organizations and thought’. Management and Organization Review, 8(1): 247–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auh, S., & Menguc, B. 2005. Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12): 1652–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 238–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2015. Reflections on the 2013 decade award –‘Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited’ ten years later. Academy of Management Review, 40(4): 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. 2014. Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3): 364–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierly, P. E. III, & Daly, P. S. 2007. Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(4): 493–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. B. 2004. Building ambidexterity into an organization. Sloan Management Review, 45(4): 47–55.Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. 2013. Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blarr, W. H. 2012. Organizational ambidexterity: Implications for the strategy-performance linkage. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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): 587–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's academy for entrepreneurial leadership historical research reference in entrepreneurship. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Cannaerts, N., Segers, J., & Warsen, R. 2020. Ambidexterity and public organizations: A configurational perspective. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3): 688–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. 2009. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4): 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J., & Liu, L. 2020. Reconciling temporal conflicts in innovation ambidexterity: The role of TMT temporal leadership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(8): 1899–1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, D. 2011. Predicting stakeholder orientation in the multinational enterprise: A mid-range theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 694–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, D., Zollo, M., & Hansen, M. T. 2012. Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6): 1429–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunha, M. P. E., Bednarek, R., & Smith, W. 2019. Integrative ambidexterity: One paradoxical mode of learning. The Learning Organization, 26(4): 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daft, R. L. 2001. Essentials of organization theory & design. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Educational Publishing.Google Scholar
Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. 1993. Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1196–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, Y., & Kim, P. H. 2021. One size does not fit all: Strategy configurations, complex environments, and new venture performance in emerging economies. Journal of Business Research, 124: 272–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, R. B. 1976. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization, 1(1): 167–188.Google Scholar
Ebben, J. J., & Johnson, A. C. 2005. Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(13): 1249–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. 2010. CROSSROADS–Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6): 1263–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiss, P. C. 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1180–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiss, P. C. 2011. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiss, P. C., Marx, A., & Cambré, B. 2013. Configurational theory and methods in organizational research: Introduction. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Flynn, E. J. 1999. World class manufacturing: An investigation of Hayes and Wheelwright's foundation. Journal of Operations Management, 17(3): 249–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, N. J., & Kirkegaard, M. F. 2020. Blended ambidexterity: The copresence of modes of ambidexterity in William Demant Holding. Long Range Planning, 53(6): 102049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, A. S., Campbell, J. T., Djurdjevic, E., Johnson, R. E., & Rosen, C. C. 2018. Fuzzy profiles: Comparing and contrasting latent profile analysis and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis for person-centered research. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4): 877–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galbraith, J. R. 2014. Designing organizations: Strategy, structure, and process at the business unit and enterprise levels. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
García-Granero, A., Fernández-Mesa, A., Jansen, J. J., & Vega-Jurado, J. 2018. Top management team diversity and ambidexterity: The contingent role of shared responsibility and CEO cognitive trust. Long Range Planning, 51(6): 881–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. 1995. Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1): 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghemawat, P., & Ricart Costa, J. E. I. 1993. The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2): 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greckhamer, T. 2011. Cross-cultural differences in compensation level and inequality across occupations: A set-theoretic analysis. Organization Studies, 32(1): 85–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greckhamer, T. 2016. CEO compensation in relation to worker compensation across countries: The configurational impact of country-level institutions. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4): 793–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. 2018. Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 16(4): 482–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, E. G., Wicki, S., & Schaltegger, S. 2019. Structural ambidexterity, transition processes, and integration trade-offs: A longitudinal study of failed exploration. R&D Management, 49(4): 484–508.Google Scholar
Harris, M., & Wood, G. 2020. Ambidextrous working in health and social care services: A configurational view. Long Range Planning, 53(6): 102051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Z., & Wong, P. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4): 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, S. A., & Birkinshaw, J. 2014. Ambidexterity and survival in corporate venture units. Journal of Management, 40(7): 1899–1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, S., Battisti, M., & Pickernell, D. 2021. CEO regulatory focus as the microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Research, 125: 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., Simsek, Z., & Cao, Q. 2012. Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11): 1286–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2008. Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5): 982–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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): 797–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. 2013. Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauppila, O. 2010. Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8(4): 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, S. 2012. The relationship between organizational structure and organizational ambidexterity: A comparison between manufacturing and service firms: Vol. 1. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, S., Gelhard, C., Zimmermann, C., & Piller, F. T. 2014. Linking strategic flexibility and operational efficiency: The mediating role of ambidextrous operational capabilities. Journal of Operations Management, 32(7–8): 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, R., & Fiss, P. C. 2009. Comparative organizational analysis across multiple levels: A set-theoretic approach. In King, B. G., Felin, T., & Whetten, D. A. (Eds.), Studying differences between organizations: Comparative approaches to organizational research: 91–116. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1): 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leavitt, H. J. 1965. Applied organizational change in industry, structural, technological and humanistic approaches. In March, J. G. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations: 1144–1170. Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 1998. Towards a geocentric framework of organizational form: A holistic, dynamic and paradoxical approach. Organization Studies, 19(5): 829–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2008. Toward a geocentric framework of trust: An application to organizational trust. Management and Organization Review, 4(3): 413–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2014. The unique value of Yin-Yang balancing: A critical response. Management and Organization Review, 10(2): 321–332.Google Scholar
Li, P. P. 2016. Global implications of the indigenous epistemological system from the East: How to apply Yin-Yang balancing to paradox management. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(1): 42–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P., Leung, K., Chen, C. C., & Luo, J. 2012. Indigenous research on Chinese management: What and how. Management and Organization Review, 8(1): 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, L., & Leitner, D. 2012. Simultaneous pursuit of innovation and efficiency in complex engineering projects – A study of the antecedents and impacts of ambidexterity in project teams. Project Management Journal, 43(6): 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. 2006. Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5): 646–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 1981. Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4): 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 1996. Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2): 278–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A., Keller, A., & Fortwengel, J. 2019. Introducing conflict as the microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity. Strategic Organization, 17(1): 38–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, I. P., Lawrence, T. B., Wixted, B., & Gordon, B. R. 2010. A multidimensional conceptualization of environmental velocity. Academy of Management Review, 35(4): 604–626.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1175–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, H. 1980. Structure in 5's: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science, 26(3): 322–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. 2017. Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1): 255–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mom, T. J. M., Chang, Y., Cholakova, M., & Jansen, J. J. P. 2018. A multilevel integrated framework of firm HR practices, individual ambidexterity, and organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management, 45(7): 3009–3034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., & Filippini, R. 2012. The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization, 10(4): 450–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ordanini, A., Parasuraman, A., & Rubera, G. 2014. When the recipe is more important than the ingredients: A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of service innovation configurations. Journal of Service Research, 17(2): 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A. III, & Tushman, M. L. 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4): 74–83.Google ScholarPubMed
O'Reilly, C. A. III, & Tushman, M. L. 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A. III, & Tushman, M. L. 2013. Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz De Guinea, A., & Raymond, L. 2020. Enabling innovation in the face of uncertainty through IT ambidexterity: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of industrial service SMEs. International Journal of Information Management, 50: 244–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Y., Pavlou, P. A., & Saraf, N. 2020. Configurations for achieving organizational ambidexterity with digitization. Information Systems Research, 31(4): 1376–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. 2013. Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5): 1420–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. F. 1980. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program Electronic Library and Information Systems, 14(3): 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto, I. M., & Pilar Pérez Santana, M. 2012. Building ambidexterity: The role of human resource practices in the performance of firms from Spain. Human Resource Management, 51(2): 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C. C. 2000. Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. C. 2006. Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3): 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C. C. 2009. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3): 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4): 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. 2008. Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. 2003. Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science, 49(3): 290–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safizadeh, M. H., Ritzman, L. P., Sharma, D., & Wood, C. 1996. An empirical analysis of the product-process matrix. Management Science, 42(11): 1576–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. 2012. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. 2010. Crossroads–organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(6): 1251–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheremata, W. A. 2000. Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of Management Review, 25(2): 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simsek, Z. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4): 597–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, N. 2007. Guide to organisation design: Creating high-performing and adaptable enterprises: Vol. 10. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. 2013. Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3): 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. III 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4): 8–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 171–222.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L., Smith, W., Wood, R., Westerman, G., & O Reilly, C. 2003. Innovation streams and ambidextrous organizational designs: On building dynamic capabilities. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 03–106, March 2003.Google Scholar
van de Wetering, R., Mikalef, P., & Helms, R. 2017. Driving organizational sustainability-oriented innovation capabilities: A complex adaptive systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28: 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volberda, H. W. 1996. Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(4): 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, S. L., Luo, Y., Maksimov, V., Sun, J., & Celly, N. 2018. Achieving temporal ambidexterity in new ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 56(4): 788–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilden, R., Devinney, T. M., & Dowling, G. R. 2016. The architecture of dynamic capability research identifying the building blocks of a configurational approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 997–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, A., Hill, S. A., Birkinshaw, J., & Jaeckel, M. 2020. Complements or substitutes? A microfoundations perspective on the interplay between drivers of ambidexterity in SMEs. Long Range Planning, 53(6): 101927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar