مقاله سال ۲۰۱۶

Innovation is seen as a key means of growth, differentiation and performance; but the challenges and tensions involved, particularly under efficiency pressures, have made it a challenging capability to accomplish (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). Organizational ambidexterity has been proposed as a way for organizations to accommodate the tensions arising from simultaneous exploration and exploitation. One dominant approach involves structural ambidexterity, where exploratory units are separated from the broader organization to allow them to align their competencies toward accomplishing innovation (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Through structural separation, flexible ‘innovative units’ explore new areas for growth whereas more formal ‘operational units’ ensure efficient operations in the existing business (Benner and Tushman, 2003; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2004; Turner et al., 2013). This organizational design is prevalent in companies that seek to develop and support a new business (Raisch, 2008), and has been associated with increased levels of innovation and positive financial returns (Simsek, 2009; Uotila et al., 2009).

While we have broad directions about how ambidexterity can be pursued, we do not have a clear idea of how organizations implement these suggestions. “While theoretical concepts have been presented for balanced structures, much less is known about how organizations deploy and execute these solutions” (Raisch, 2008: 483). Further, ambidexterity can be seen as a dynamic capability that is challenging to develop (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2008; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013). Organizational dysfunctions such as inertia or politics can derail the development of particular capabilities. Since most studies have focused on firms that have successfully implemented ambidexterity (Lavie et al., 2010; Stadler et al., 2014), a focus on how ambidextrous capabilities can be disrupted becomes potentially fruitful.

Further, a more recent focus of ambidexterity research is how firms aim to develop innovative capabilities via engagement with a broader network of firms, through strategic alliances (Kauppila, 2010; Stadler et al., 2014). Often there are tensions when firms attempt to integrate innovations originating from the network, in their own operations (Srivastava and Gnyawali, 2011). Stadler et al. (2014: 183) suggest that network theory can help us understand how structural ambidexterity can be more effective, by suggesting the creation of social ties as bridging mechanisms between explorative and exploitative units. Such a suggestion assumes that tensions between the explorative subsidiary and the parent organization could be in some way analogous to tensions between the network and a focal firm. If so, this analogy can shed light on the difficulties of integrating inventions originating in explorative subsidiaries with the exploitative operations. The above considerations point to the following research focus that guided our work: What are the challenges that can be faced when implementing structural ambidexterity?