Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:33:55.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PARADOXICAL TENSION: BALANCING CONTEXTUAL AMBIDEXTERITY

Part of: Design Innovation, Information and Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

M. Vettorello ,
B. Eisenbart  and
C. Ranscombe
M. Vettorello*
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
B. Eisenbart
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
C. Ranscombe
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
*
*[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The concepts of high-velocity, complexity and interdependency are nowadays vividly discussed in design-led innovation management. Design organisations seek to manage innovation in a more dynamic way to ensure competitive advantage and long-term competitiveness. Contextual ambidexterity is advised to be a dynamic capability that can facilitate firms to effectively manage incremental and radical innovation alike. This paper proposes an approach that focuses on the individual and the underlying thinking which bases its foundations on ambidextrous leadership, abductive reasoning and strategic fit.

Keywords

innovation managementdesign theorydesign strategyambidexterityabductive reasoning
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1385 - 1394
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Adler, P.S., Goldoftas, B. and Levine, D.I. (1999), “Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system”, Organization science, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M.W. (2009), “Exploitation-exploration tensions and organisational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation”, Organisation Science, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 696–717.10.1287/orsc.1080.0406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arruda, W. (2016), 9 Differences Between Being A Leader and A Manager, Forbes, available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamarruda/2016/11/15/9-differences-between-being-a-leader-and-a-manager/#2f515aa84609Google Scholar
Assink, M. (2006), “Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: A conceptual model”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9, pp. 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060610663587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auh, S. and Menguc, B. (2005), “Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity”, Journal of business research, Vol. 58 No. 12, pp. 1652–1661.10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, J. and Felin, T. (2013), “What are microfoundations?”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 27 No. 2.10.5465/amp.2012.0107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003), “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28, pp. 238–256.10.5465/amr.2003.9416096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, W. (1989), Why Leaders can't Lead, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004a), “Building ambidexterity into an organization”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 47–55.Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004b), “The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209–226.Google Scholar
Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997), “The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations”, Admin. Sci. Quart, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 1–3.10.2307/2393807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. and Zhang, H. (2009), “Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caspin-Wagner, K., Ellis, S. and Tishler, A. (2012), “Balancing exploration and exploitation for firm's superior performance: The role of the environment”, Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management.Google Scholar
Christensen, C.M. (2003), The Innovator's Dilemma, Harper Business Essentials, New York.Google Scholar
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1987), Charismatic Leadership in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
De Bono, E. (2009), Lateral thinking: creativity step by step, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Devinney, T.M. (2013), “Is microfoundational thinking critical to management thought and practice?”, The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 81–84. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, A., Garbuio, M. and Lovallo, D. (2016), “Generative sensing in design evaluation”, Design Studies, Vol. 45, pp. 68–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, A., Lovallo, D. and Mounarath, R. (2015), “The effect of abductive reasoning on concept selection decisions”, Design Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 37–58.10.1016/j.destud.2014.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. (2011), “The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application”, Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresch, A., Lacerda, D.P. and Antunes, J.A.V. (2015), “‘Design Science Research”, In: Dresch, A., Lacerda, D.P. and Antunes, J.A.V. Jr (Eds.), Design Science Research, Springer International Publishing, pp. 67–102.10.1007/978-3-319-07374-3_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, R. (1976), “The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation”, In: Kilman, R.H., Pondy, L.R. and Stevens, D. (Eds.), The Management of Organization Design, North Holland, New York, pp. 167–188.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, M., Furr, N. and Bingham, C. (2010), “CROSSROADS - Microfoundations of Performance: Balancing Efficiency and Flexibility in Dynamic Environments”, Organization Science, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1263–1273. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: Organisational Capability as Knowledge Integration”, Organisation Science, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 375–387.10.1287/orsc.7.4.375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamel, G. (2002), Leading the revolution, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
He, Z. and Wong, P. (2004), “Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis”, Organization Science, Vol. 15, pp. 481–494.10.1287/orsc.1040.0078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junni, P. et al. (2013), “Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 299–312.10.5465/amp.2012.0015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katila, R. and Ahuja, G. (2002), “Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 1183–1194.Google Scholar
Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M.W. and Boyer, K.K. (2007), “Innovation-supportive culture: The impact of organizational values on process innovation”, Journal of operations management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 871–884.10.1016/j.jom.2006.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knott, A.M. (2002), “Exploration and exploitation as complements”, In: Bontis, N. and Choo, C.W. (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 339–358.Google Scholar
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), “Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology”, Organisation Science, Vol. 3 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraner, J. (2018), Innovation in High Reliability Ambidextrous Organizations: Analytical Solutions Toward Increasing Innovative Activity, Springer International Publishing: Imprint: Springer, Cham.10.1007/978-3-319-74926-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, H.E. et al. (2013), “Managing the Exploitation/Exploration Paradox: The Role of a Learning Capability and Innovation Ambidexterity”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00998.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovas, B. and Ghoshal, S. (2000), “Strategy as guided evolution”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 875–896.10.1002/1097-0266(200009)21:9<875::AID-SMJ126>3.0.CO;2-P3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G.A. (2015), Zone to Win: Organizing to Compete in an Age of Disruption, Diversion Books, New York.Google Scholar
Mumford, M.D. et al. (2000), “Leadership skills: Conclusions and future directions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 155–170.10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00047-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, J., Ledwith, A. and Bessant, J. (2015), “Selecting Early-Stage Ideas for Radical Innovation: Tools and Structures”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 58, pp. 36–44. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5804260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosella, A., Cantarello, S. and Filippini, R. (2012), “The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 450–465.10.1177/1476127012457979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, G.C. (2008), “Major Innovation as a Dynamic Capability: A Systems Approach”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00304.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. and Tushman, M. (2008), “Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 185–206.10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. and Tushman, M. (2011), “Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How managers explore and exploit”, California Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 5/6, pp. 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. and Tushman, M. (2013), “Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future”, AMP, Vol. 27, pp. 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paap, J. and Katz, R. (2004), “Anticipating disruptive innovation”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 13–22.10.1080/08956308.2004.11671647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008), “Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S. et al. (2009), “Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance”, Organ. Sci., Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 685–695.10.1287/orsc.1090.0428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothaermel, F.T. and Deeds, D.L. (2004), “Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development”, Strategic management journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 201–221.10.1002/smj.376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salampasis, D., Mention, A.-L. and Torkkeli, M. (2015), “Trust embeddedness within an open innovation mindset”, International Journal of Business and Globalisation, Vol. 14, pp. 32–57. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2015.066099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, L. (2000), “Multiple realizations”, Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 97 No. 12, pp. 635–654.10.2307/2678460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidhu, J.S., Volberda, H.W. and Commandeur, H.R. (2004), “Exploring Exploration Orientation and its Determinants: Some Empirical Evidence”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 913–932. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00460.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simsek, Z. (2009), “Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Understanding”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 597–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simsek, Z. et al. (2009), “‘A typology for aligning organisational ambidexterity's conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes’”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 864–894.10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W.K. and Lewis, M.W. (2011), “Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing”, Academy of management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 381–403.Google Scholar
Tighe, S. (2019), Rethinking Strategy: How to anticipate the future, slow down change, and improve decision making, John Wiley & Sons, Richmond, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Turner, N., Swart, J. and Maylor, H. (2013), “Mechanisms for Managing Ambidexterity: A Review and Research Agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. and O'Reilly, C. (1996), “The ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change”, Calif. Management Rev, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 8–30.10.2307/41165852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. et al. (2010), “Organizational designs and innovation streams”, Industrial and corporate change, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 1331–1366.10.1093/icc/dtq040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Leadership Network (2016), Innovation The Dyson Way, The Leadership Network, available at https://theleadershipnetwork.com/article/innovation-dyson-reimagining-appliances.Google Scholar
Uzzi, B. (1997), “Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness”, In: Granovetter, M. and Swedberg, R. (Eds.), The Sociology of Economic Life, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 207–238.Google Scholar
Vettorello, M., Eisenbart, B. and Ranscombe, C. (2019), “Toward Better Design-Related Decision Making: A Proposal of an Advanced OODA Loop”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design. Cambridge University Press, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2387–2396. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.245Google Scholar