Organizational ambidexterity

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organizational ambidexterity (aka. Ambidexterity, lat. "Both right") describes the ability of organizations to be efficient and flexible at the same time. Ambidexterity (from Latin ambo "both" and dextera "right hand" ) from the word origin therefore means ambidexterity and to the importance of integrating within the organizational ambidexterity Exploitation (utilization of existing) and exploration illustrate (exploration again).

Classification and definition

The term organizational ambidexterity or ambidextrous organization has been used since 1976. It is to be distinguished from ambidexterity in the medical sense, which refers to the phenomenon of two-handedness. Since 1976 the term has been subject to different definitions, which are essentially very similar. Raisch and Birkinshaw define organizational ambidexterity as an organizational ability to be aligned and efficient with today's business concerns and at the same time adaptable to environmental changes. According to O'Reilly III and Tushman, ambidexterity is the ability of a company to research ( exploration ) and optimize ( exploitation ) at the same time in order to be adaptable in the long term. However, these two tasks require completely different framework conditions, see table.

Ambidexterity or ambidextrous behavior, pursues exploitation and exploration at the same time, in order to be successful in the short and long term.
exploration Exploitation
target Learning & innovation,

to meet long-term customer needs

Yields & efficiency,

to meet short-term customer requests

Fields of action creative and versatile development of new products, services and businesses efficient and effective handling of existing products, services and transactions
Type of innovation radical innovation incremental innovation
Standards Innovation, growth, milestones Costs, profit, margins, productivity
Organizational structures adaptable, agile, non-routine, organic formal, routine, mechanical
Culture and behavior Taking risks, speed, flexibility, experimentation Efficiency, low risk, stability, high quality
Leadership style Visionary, involving Authoritarian, top-down
Employee type Entrepreneurs, generalists Implementers, specialists

Design variants of ambidexterity

Within organizational ambidexterity, a distinction is made between temporal, contextual and structural ambidexterity.

Temporal ambidexterity describes a sequential change between an exploratory organizational structure and an exploitative one or vice versa. The difference to contextual and structural ambidexterity is that organizations perceive exploitation and exploration one after the other instead of simultaneously. Within a company's history, the organization is initially designed exploratively and over time and its growth more and more exploitative in order to carry out the established business with greater efficiency. The process can repeat itself over time, for example because the business has to be rebuilt due to new competitors or crises.

Contextual ambidexterity describes the duality of different organizational factors (e.g. leadership, values, norms etc.) within a constant structure dynamically, i.e. H. to steer depending on the task. An example of contextual ambidexterity is Google's 80/20 rule , which says that Google employees should spend 20% of their working hours on innovative topics that have nothing to do with day-to-day business. The challenge in contextual ambidexterity is to shape the various organizational factors in such a way that the behavior and skills of employees develop (further) to accept, permit and deal productively with the conflicting approaches of exploitation and exploration. On the part of the management, it is therefore important to ensure an optimal balance between these two approaches. Contextual ambidexterity is often used in research-intensive areas and late growth phases of young companies, when a purely exploratory approach can no longer guarantee the necessary process security for significant growth.

Structural ambidexterity describes the approach to implement the conflicting procedures of exploitation and exploration with the help of dual structures in the company. For this purpose, differentiated organizational units are created, each dealing with replication (exploitation) and innovation (exploration). According to this definition, units that specialize in exploitation are more shaped by formalization, hierarchy and structure. On the other hand, units that specialize in exploration have start-up- like structures, i.e. they are more informal, experimental, autonomous and risk-tolerant. The challenge of structural ambidexterity is to create a suitable structural demarcation between the two organizational units without completely separating them from one another. One approach how companies can achieve this describes the concept of embedded entrepreneurial teams , with the help of which the desired exchange and mutual learning from one another are enabled and thus an optimal transfer effect (spill-over) is achieved.

Organizational ambidexterity, as an independent subject area in business administration , is part of organizational theory and can be viewed from the perspectives of organizational learning, technology management, strategic management, change management and knowledge management .

Ambidexterity in Practice

Ambidexterity helps established companies to continuously develop and thus not to be disrupted by paradigm shifts.

Take electromobility , for example - as part of the upcoming paradigm shift from conventional drives, such as gasoline or diesel drives, to electrified drives, vehicle manufacturers are facing major challenges. Ambidextrous management of mature (exploitation) and young technologies (exploration) can be a suitable means for vehicle manufacturers to deal with the changing framework conditions from ecology (rising oil prices ), politics ( regulation of CO 2 emissions) and society ( new mobility needs such as car sharing ) successfully and sustainably.

Take plant and mechanical engineering as an example - for decades, plant and mechanical engineering companies have been exposed to ever greater global competition and cost pressure. As a result, R&D areas were primarily geared towards exploitation and only focused on improving existing products. Companies with ambiguous capabilities use the profits from the existing business (exploitation) and digitize their products and processes through software solutions (exploration) in order to differentiate themselves from the competition through new offers and business models instead of just being exposed to a price war.

literature

  • Adler, PS / Benner, M. / Brunner, DJ et al. (2009): Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. In: Journal of Operations Management. Vol. 29, No. 27, pp. 99-113.
  • Adler, PS / Goldoftas, B. / Levine, DI (1999): Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System. In: Organizations Science. Volume 10, No. 1, pp. 43-68.
  • Becker, H. (2006): Phenomenon Toyota , Heidelberg.
  • Benner, M. / Tushman, ML (2003): Exploitation, Exploration and Process Management: The Production Dilemma Revisited. In: Academy of Management Review. Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 238-256.
  • Birkinshaw, J. / Gibson, C. (2004): Building Ambidexterity Into an Organization. In: MIT Sloan Management Review. Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 47-57.
  • Gibson, CB / Birkinshaw, J. (2004): The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. In: Academy of Management Journal. Volume 47, No. 2, pp. 209-226.
  • He, Z.-L./ Wong, P.-K. (2004): Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. In: Organization Science. Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 481-494.
  • Jansen, JJP (2005): Ambidextrous Organizations, A Multiple-Level Study of Absorptive Capacity, Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation and Performance , Rotterdam.
  • Levinthal, DA / March, JG (1993): The myopia of learning. In: Strategic Management Journal. 13th vol., No. 14, pp. 95-112.
  • Liker, JK (2008): The Toyota Way, 14 management principles of the world's most successful automotive company , 5th edition, Munich.
  • Looy, B. van / Martens, T. / Debackere, K. (2005): Organizing for Continuous Innovation: On the Sustainability of the Ambidextrous Organization. In: Creativity and Innovation Management , 14th vol., No. 3, pp. 208–221.
  • Lubatkin, MH / Simsek, Z. / Ling, Y. et al. (2006): Ambidexterity and Performance in Small- to Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration. In: Journal of Management . Volume 32, No. 5, pp. 646-672.
  • O'Reilly III, CA / Tushman, ML (2008): Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior 28 (2008) 185-206.
  • March, JG (1991): Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. In: Organization Science , Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 71-87.
  • Oelsnitz, D. von der / Hahmann, M. (2003): Wissensmanagement , Stuttgart.
  • Proff, H. et al. (Ed.) (2012): Future developments in mobility , Wiesbaden.
  • Raisch, S. / Birkinshaw, J. (2008): Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators. In: Journal of Management. Volume 34, No. 3, pp. 375-409.
  • Raisch, S. / Birkinshaw, J. / Gilbert Probst et al. (2009): Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance. In: Organization Science. 20th vol., No. 4, pp. 685-695.
  • Schulze, Patrick (2009): Balancing exploitation and exploration. Organizational antecedents and performance effects of innovation strategies. 1st edition Wiesbaden: Gabler.
  • Takeuchi, H. / Osono, E. / Shimi, N. (2008): Strategies - What makes Toyota special. In: Harvard Business Manager. Volume 30, No. 9, pp. 30-41.
  • Teece, D / Pisano, G. / Shuen, G. (1997): Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. In: Strategic Management Journal. 18: Vol., No. 7), pp. 509-533
  • Trojan, J. (2006): Strategies for Preserving Knowledge. To secure sustainable competitive advantages. Munich.
  • Tushman, ML / Anderson, P. (1997): Managing Strategic Innovation and Change. In: Oxford University Press. Pp. 3-23.
  • Tushman, ML / O'Reilly, CA (1996): Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. In: California Management Review. Volume 38, No. 4, pp. 8-30.
  • Tushman, ML / Smith, W. / Wood, R. et al. (2002): Innovation Streams and Ambidextrous Organizational Designs: On Building Dynamic Capabilities. Harvard Business School, Working Paper.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ See Raisch et al. (2008), p. 375.
  2. ↑ See O'Reilly III et al. (2008), p. 185.
  3. ↑ Olivan, Patrick: Method for the organizational design of radical technological developments, taking into account ambidexterity . Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag, 2019, ISBN 978-3-8396-1514-0 , p. 34 , doi : 10.18419 / opus-10639 ( uni-stuttgart.de [accessed on March 29, 2020]).
  4. ↑ Gibson, CB, Birkinshaw J .: The Antecedents, Consequences, And Mediating Role Of Organizational Ambidexterity . Ed .: Academy of Management Journal. tape 47 , 2004, p. 209-226 .
  5. ↑ Gard, Jérôme, Faculteit der Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen: Corporate venture management in SMEs: evidence from the German IT consulting industry. Retrieved April 11, 2018 .
  6. ^ Schaffhausen, Steffen: Seminar paper: Ambidexterity at Toyota. In: Wikiversity. June 2010, accessed March 29, 2020 .
  7. ↑ Olivan, Patrick: Method for the organizational design of radical technological developments, taking into account ambidexterity . Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag, 2019, ISBN 978-3-8396-1514-0 , doi : 10.18419 / opus-10639 ( uni-stuttgart.de [accessed on March 29, 2020]).