A joint analysis of determinants and performance consequences of ambidexterity

Références bibliographiques

• Adler, P.S., Borys, B., Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive. Adm. Sci. Q. 41 (1996), 61–89.
• Akan, O., Allen, R.S., Helms, M.M., Spralls, S.A. III, Critical tactics for implementing Porter's generic strategies. J. Bus. Strateg. 27 (2006), 43–53.
• Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.W., Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ. Sci. 20 (2009), 696–717.
• Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Market. Res. 14 (1977), 396–402.
• Atuahene-Gima, K., Resolving the capability–rigidity paradox in new product innovation. J. Market. 69 (2005), 61–83.
• Aug, S., Menguc, B., Balancing exploration and exploitation: the moderating role of competitive intensity. J. Bus. Res. 58 (2005), 1652–1661.
• Barclay, D., Higgins, C., Thompson, R., The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling, personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technol. Stud. 2 (1995), 285–309.
• Benner, M.J., Tushman, M.L., Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Manage. Rev. 28 (2003), 238–256.
• Birkinshaw, J., Gupta, K., Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 27 (2013), 287–298.
• Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G., Lee, J.N., Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quart. 29 (2005), 87–111.
• Bonesso, S., Gerli, F., Scapolan, A., The individual side of ambidexterity: do individuals’ perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off?. Eur. Manage. J. 32 (2014), 392–405.
• Burgers, J.H., Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., Structural differentiation and corporate venturing: the moderating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms. J. Bus. Ventur. 24 (2009), 206–220.
• Burns, T., Stalker, G.M., The Management of Innovations. 1961, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Burton, R.M., Obel, B., Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design. The Dynamics of Fit. 3rd ed., 2005, Springer, New York.
• Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., Zhang, H., Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organ. Sci. 20 (2009), 781–796.
• Cao, Q., Simsek, Z., Zhang, H., Modelling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. J. Manage. Stud. 47 (2010), 1272–1296.
• Chin, W.W., Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling. MIS Quart. 22 (1998), vii–xvi.
• Chin, W.W., The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling. Marcoulides, G.A., (eds.) Modern Methods for Business Research, 1998, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, 295–336.
• Chin, W.W., PLS-Graph User's Guide Version 3.0. 2001 Unpublished (http://www.pubinfo.vcu.edu/carma/Documents/OCT1405/PLSGRAPH3.0Manual.hubona.pdf).
• Chin, W.W., Gopal, A., Adoption intention in GSS: relative importance of beliefs. Data Base Adv. 26 (1995), 42–63.
• Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R., A partial least squares latent variable modelling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inform. Syst. Res. 14 (2003), 189–217.
• Croteau, A.M., Bergeron, F., An information technology trilogy: business strategy, technological deployment and organizational performance. J. Strateg. Inform. Syst. 10 (2001), 77–99.
• Csaszar, F.A., An efficient frontier in organization design: organizational structure as a determinant of exploration and exploitation. Organ. Sci. 24 (2013), 1083–1101.
• Damanpour, F., Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad. Manage. J. 34 (1991), 555–590.
• De Visser, M., de Weerd-Nederhof, P., Faems, D., Song, M., Van Looy, B., Visscher, K., Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: a firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on innovation performance. Technovation 30 (2010), 291–299.
• Dess, G.G., Beard, D.W., Dimensions of organizational task environments. Adm. Sci. Q. 29 (1984), 52–73.
• Diamantopoulos, A., Winklhofer, H.M., Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. J. Marketing Res. 38 (2001), 269–277.
• Diaz-Fernandez, M., Pasamar-Reyes, S., Valle-Cabrera, R., Human capital and human resource management to achieve ambidextrous learning: a structural perspective. Bus. Res. Quart. 20 (2017), 63–77.
• Dillman, D.A., Mail and Internet Surveys. The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed., 2000, John Wiley, New York.
• Eisenhardt, K., Furr, N., Bingham, C., Microfoundations of performance: balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organ. Sci. 21 (2010), 1263–1273.
• Filippini, R., Güttel, W.H., Nosella, A., Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge management initiatives. J. Bus. Res. 65 (2012), 317–324.
• Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1981), 39–50.
• Fornell, C., Lorange, P., Roos, J., The cooperative venture formation process: a latent variable structural modelling approach. Manage. Sci. 36 (1990), 1246–1255.
• Foss, N.J., Lyngsie, J., Zahra, S.A., Organizational design correlates of entrepreneurship: the roles of decentralization and formalization for opportunity discovery and realization. Strateg. Organ. 13 (2015), 32–60.
• Fredrickson, J.W., The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Acad. Manage. Rev. 11 (1986), 280–297.
• Gibson, C.B., Birkinshaw, J., The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Manage. J. 47 (2004), 209–226.
• Gilbert, C.G., Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Acad. Manage. J. 48 (2005), 741–763.
• Goossen, M.C., Bazazzian, N., Consistently capricious: simultaneous and sequential exploration and exploitation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the DRUID Academy, 2012.
• Govindarajan, V., A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level: integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy. Acad. Manage. J. 31 (1988), 828–853.
• Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., Shalley, C.E., The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad. Manage. J. 49 (2006), 693–706.
• Hage, J., Aiken, M., Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Adm. Sci. Q. 12 (1967), 72–92.
• Harrison, D.A., Mclaughlin, M.E., Coalter, T.M., Context, cognition, and common method variance: psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 68 (1996), 246–261.
• He, Z.L., Wong, P.K., Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ. Sci. 15 (2004), 481–494.
• Hempel, P.S., Zhang, Z.X., Han, Y., Team empowerment and the organizational context: decentralization and the contrasting effects of formalization. J. Manage. 38 (2012), 475–501.
• Herhausen, D., Unfolding the ambidextrous effects of proactive and responsive market orientation. J. Bus. Res. 69 (2016), 2585–2593.
• Hill, S.A., Birkinshaw, J., Ambidexterity and survival in corporate venture units. J. Manage. 40 (2014), 1899–1931.
• Hughes, M., Martin, S.L., Morgan, R.E., Robson, M.J., Realizing product-market advantage in high-technology international new ventures: the mediating role of ambidextrous innovation. J. Int. Market. 18 (2010), 1–21.
• Jansen, J.J.P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of transformational leadership. J. Manage. Stud. 45 (2008), 982–1007.
• Jansen, J.J.P., Simsek, Z., Cao, Q., Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strateg. Manage. J. 33 (2012), 1286–1303.
• Jansen, J.J.P., Tempelaar, M.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organ. Sci. 20 (2009), 797–811.
• Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: the impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Bus. Rev. 57 (2005), 351–363.
• Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., Exploration innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Manage. Sci. 52 (2006), 1661–1674.
• Johari, J., Yahya, K.K., Linking organizational structure, job characteristics, and job performance constructs: a proposed framework. Int. J. Bus. Manage. 4 (2009), 145–152.
• Junni, P., Sarala, R., Taras, V., Tarba, S., Organizational ambidexterity and performance: a meta-analysis. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 27 (2013), 299–312.
• Junni, P., Sarala, R., Tarba, S., Liu, Y., Cooper, C., Guest editors’ introduction: the role of human resources and organizational factors in ambidexterity. Hum. Resour. Manage. 54:S1 (2015), S1–S28.
• Katila, R., Ahuja, G., Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behaviour and new product introduction. Acad. Manage. J. 45 (2002), 1183–1194.
• Keller, T., Weibler, J., What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager: linking leadership and cognitive strain to balancing exploration and exploitation. J. Leader. Organ. Stud. 22 (2015), 54–71.
• Khandwalla, P.N., The Design of Organizations. 1977, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
• Kim, T., Rhee, M., Exploration and exploitation: internal variety and environmental dynamism. Strateg. Organ. 7 (2009), 11–41.
• Laureiro-Martínez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N., Zollo, M., Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: an fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strateg. Manage. J. 36 (2015), 319–338.
• Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J.W., Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 12 (1967), 1–47.
• Lee, H., Choi, B., Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 20 (2003), 179–228.
• Lee, J., Miller, D., Strategy, environment and performance in two technological contexts: contingency theory in Korea. Organ. Stud. 17 (1996), 729–750.
• Lee, K., Woo, H.G., Joshi, K., Pro-innovation culture, ambidexterity and new product development performance: polynomial regression and response surface analysis. Eur. Manage. J. 35 (2017), 249–260.
• Leonard-Barton, D., Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strateg. Manage. J. 13 (1992), 111–125.
• Levinthal, D.A., March, J.G., The myopia of learning. Strateg. Manage. J. 14 (1993), 95–112.
• Liao, Y.S., The effects of knowledge management strategy and organization structure on innovation. Int. J. Manage. 24 (2007), 53–60.
• Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., Veiga, J.F., Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioural integration. J. Manage. 32 (2006), 646–672.
• Lukas, B.A., Tan, J.J., Hult, G.T.M., Strategic fit in transitional economies: the case of China's electronics industry. J. Manage. 27 (2001), 409–429.
• March, J.G., Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2 (1991), 71–87.
• March, J.G., Simon, H.A., Organizations. 1958, John Wiley, New York.
• Mason, C., Perreault, W.D. Jr., Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. J. Market. Res. 28 (1991), 268–280.
• Mihalache, O.R., Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A., Volberda, H.W., Top management team shared leadership and organizational ambidexterity: a moderated mediation framework. Strateg. Entrepreneurship J. 8 (2014), 128–148.
• Miller, D., Environmental fit versus internal fit. Organ. Sci. 3 (1992), 159–178.
• Miller, D., Dröge, C., Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Adm. Sci. Q. 31 (1986), 539–560.
• Mom, T.J.M., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organ. Sci. 20 (2009), 812–828.
• Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., Konno, N., SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Plann. 33 (2000), 5–34.
• Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., Filippini, R., The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: a bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strateg. Organ. 10 (2012), 450–465.
• Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory. 1978, McGraw-Hill, New York.
• O'Reilly, C., Tushman, M., Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator's dilemma. Res. Organ. Behav. 28 (2008), 185–206.
• O'Reilly, C., Tushman, M., Organizational ambidexterity in action: how managers explore and exploit. Calif. Manage. Rev. 53 (2011), 5–22.
• O'Reilly, C., Tushman, M., Organizational ambidexterity: past, present and future. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 27 (2013), 324–338.
• Pelham, A.M., Wilson, D.T., A longitudinal study of the impact of market structure, firm structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on dimensions of small-firm performance. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 24 (1996), 27–43.
• Pertusa-Ortega, E.M., Zaragoza-Sáez, P., Claver-Cortés, E., Can formalization, complexity, and centralization influence knowledge performance?. J. Bus. Res. 63 (2010), 310–320.
• Podsakoff, N.P., Shen, W., Podsakoff, P.M., The role of formative measurement models in strategic management research: review, critique, and implications for future research. Res. Methodol. Strateg. Manage. 3 (2006), 197–252.
• Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (2003), 879–903.
• Powell, T.C., Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strateg. Manage. J. 13 (1992), 119–134.
• Powell, T.C., Dent-Micallef, A., Information technology as competitive advantage: the role of human, business, and technology resources. Strateg. Manage. J. 18 (1997), 375–405.
• Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J. Manage. 34 (2008), 375–409.
• Sheremata, W.A., Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Acad. Manage. Rev. 25 (2000), 389–408.
• Sidhu, J.S., Volberda, H.W., Commandeur, H.R., Exploring exploration orientation and its determinants: some empirical evidence. J. Manage. Stud. 41 (2004), 913–932.
• Simsek, Z., Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding. J. Manage. Stud. 46 (2009), 597–624.
• Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J.F., Souder, D., A typology for aligning organizational ambdexterity's conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. J. Manage. Stud. 46 (2009), 864–894.
• Sinden, J.E., Hoy, W.K., Sweetland, S.R., An analysis of enabling school structure. Theoretical, empirical, and research considerations. J. Educ. Admin. 42 (2004), 462–478.
• Spanos, Y.E., Lioukas, S., An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: contrasting Porter's competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective. Strateg. Manage. J. 22 (2001), 907–934.
• Stettner, U., Lavie, D., Ambidexterity under scrutiny: exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions. Strateg. Manage. J. 35 (2014), 1903–1929.
• Tushman, M.L., O'Reilly, C., Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Manage. Rev. 38 (1996), 8–30.
• Van Looy, B., Martens, T., Debackere, K., Organizing for continuous innovation: on the sustainability of ambidextrous organizations. Creat. Innov. Manage. 14 (2005), 208–221.
• Venkatraman, N., Lee, C.H., Iyer, B., Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: a longitudinal test in the software sector. 2007 Unpublished manuscript (earlier version presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, 2005).
• Venkatraman, N., Ramanujam, V., Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Acad. Manage. Rev. 11 (1986), 801–814.
• Vlaar, P.W.L., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., Coping with problems of understanding in interorganizational relationships: using formalization as a means to make sense. Organ. Stud. 27 (2006), 1617–1638.
• Volberda, H.W., Lewin, A.Y., Co-evolutionary dynamics within and between firms: from evolution to co-evolution. J. Manage. Stud. 40 (2003), 2111–2136.
• Von Krogh, G., Care in knowledge creation. Calif. Manage. Rev. 40 (1998), 133–153.
• Wei, Z., Yi, Y., Guo, H., Organizational learning ambidexterity, strategic flexibility, and new product development. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 31 (2014), 832–847.
• Wei, Z., Yi, Y., Yuan, C., Bottom-up learning, organizational formalization, and ambidextrous innovation. J. Organ. Change Manage. 24 (2011), 314–329.
• White, J.C., Conant, J.S., Echambadi, R., Marketing strategy development styles, implementation capability, and firm performance: investigating the curvilinear impact of multiple strategy-making styles. Market. Lett. 14 (2003), 111–124.
• Wouters, M., Wilderom, C., Developing performance-measurement systems as enabling formalization: a longitudinal field study of a logistics department. Account. Organ. Soc. 33 (2008), 488–516.
• Wu, Y., Wu, S., Managing ambidexterity in creative industries: a survey. J. Bus. Res. 69 (2016), 2388–2396.
• Zhang, H., Wu, F., Cui, A.S., Balancing market exploration and market exploitation in product innovation: a contingency perspective. Int. J. Res. Market. 32 (2015), 297–308.
• Zott, C., Amit, R., The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance. Strateg. Manage. J. 29 (2008), 1–26.