Search results

The purpose of this paper is to define co-exploitation, co-exploration, and alliance ambidexterity from the perspective of organizational learning; to analyze how knowledge bases, structural arrangements, and control mechanisms of R&D alliances influence co-exploitation and co-exploration; and to discuss how to achieve alliance ambidexterity by managing paradoxes around knowledge bases, structural arrangements, and control mechanisms.

This is a conceptual paper focussing on how to balance exploitation and exploration at the alliance level through managing three paradoxes of cooperation: similarity vs complementarity, integration vs modularity, and contracts vs trust.

While technological similarity, structural integration, and contracts are more likely to promote co-exploitation, technological complementarity, structural modularity, and trust are more likely to facilitate co-exploration. Alliance ambidexterity, which is beneficial for alliance performance, derives from either the combination of technological complementarity, structural integration, and contracts, or the combination of technological similarity, structural modularity, and trust temporally.

Researchers should analyze the possibility of building alliance ambidexterity in other types of interorganizational relationships, and find other possible antecedents of interorganizational learning.

Managers should not simply treat R&D alliances as one of exploratory interorganizational relationships, but pay equal attention to co-exploitation and co-exploration. To achieve this balance, practitioners should combine technological complementarity with structural integration and contracts, or integrate technological similarity with structural modularity and trust.

This paper is one of the first contributions that analyze how an R&D alliance could gain its ambidexterity through the management of nested cooperation paradoxes.

The purpose of this paper is to combine secondary sources and interviews with Chinese suppliers to explore the structural paradox faced by retail multinational firms in China as they balance the competing demands of standardization and localization. The authors describe the challenges faced by two retail giants, Walmart and Carrefour, as they attempt to replicate in China their lean retailing successes elsewhere in the world.

This is a comparative study of Walmart's and Carrefour's ventures into the Chinese market, largely based on publicly available secondary sources, but also incorporating interviews with three Chinese nationals engaged in supplying these firms.

Walmart and Carrefour have so far failed to extend their oligopolistic dominance to the Chinese market. Walmart has stressed its well‐known standardization of operations, whereas Carrefour has better adapted to the Chinese economic culture. Issues identified are: the formation of partnership alliances and their impact on store location choice; the effect of under‐developed infrastructure on distribution and logistics; the unique Chinese business culture – guanxi (using social capital to build business relationships) and its influence on supplier relationships; the variety of consumer behavior and its effect on procurement and sourcing; and an immature information technology environment which impedes information sharing between supply chain partners. While both firms have had some degree of success, neither has been able to match the combined growth of their larger Chinese competitors.

The authors are cautious in drawing normative conclusions or making predictions about the future. Both firms face significant obstacles as they challenge China's largest domestic retailers.

Many multinational corporations are aware of the topology of the Chinese market, what they lack is an in‐depth understanding and the skills needed for effective operations. This paper discusses the effectiveness of the strategies adopted by two leading global retailers as they attempt to resolve the paradox presented by the competing demands for standardization and localization and includes information provided by three of Walmart's and Carrefour's local Chinese suppliers.

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of paradoxical leader behavior (PLB) on leader effectiveness (LE). The authors propose an underlying mechanism of this relationship and examine if the stated relationship is moderated by job-related and structural uncertainty in the organization.

The authors draw on survey data from 127 employees working in public and privately owned organizations and analyze data using AMOS and SPSS.

Results offer partial support to the authors’ hypotheses indicating that paradoxical leader behavior is positively associated to LE. As expected, the relationship is negatively moderated by structural uncertainty indicating that LE is weakened where there is structural uncertainty in the organization. However, in contrast to our other assumption, the authors find a positive (rather than negative) moderating role of job-related uncertainty in the PLB–LE relationship.

Paradoxes are everywhere and inherently embedded in complex and dynamic organizational systems. To deal with paradoxes, organizational leaders often seek to act paradoxically. However, not every leader has a paradoxical mindset, and where a leader has such, it remains unclear if they will prove to be effective leaders. What can further influence the effectiveness of such leaders is the uncertainty that organizations face in the today’s dynamic environments. In this study, the authors contribute to paradox theory and the paradoxical leadership literature by unfolding the boundary conditions which can influence paradoxical leader’s effectiveness.

Since a single environmental strategy is not sufficient to deal with the various institutional forces that firms are facing, this study proposes ambidextrous environmental strategy and aims to explore its drivers. Based on the awareness-motivation-capability (AMC) framework and resource orchestration theory, the authors investigate the configurational effects of perceived institutional force, green intellectual capital (GIC) and paradox cognition on achieving ambidextrous environmental strategy.

To explore these configurational effects, this study uses two-waved survey data from 317 Chinese manufacturing firms and the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) method.

There are three equivalent configurational paths leading to ambidextrous environmental strategy. The findings suggest that firms with paradox cognition can better orchestrate GIC to achieve ambidextrous environmental strategy under different perceived institutional force. This study also finds three substitution effects between distinct conditions.

This study contributes to the existing literature by introducing the concept of ambidexterity into the field of environmental strategy and using the AMC framework to explore the configurational paths driving ambidextrous environmental strategy.

The purpose of this paper is to offer an alternative framework and solution for balancing exploitation–exploration tensions and their management.

A case study method was adopted to uncover what underlies tensions and contradictions between exploitation–exploration that emerge for Chinese manufacturing companies due to the competitive global environment and their latecomer disadvantages when they source new technologies by cross-border mergers and acquisitions. The acquiring firm that acquires two companies is thus not a single but a cross-case study.

The authors present three contradictory points needing to be balanced and according to which three paradoxes emerge: exploitation from a similar knowledge base and innovation from a complementary knowledge base, efficiency and flexibility, as well as profit and breakthroughs. The authors theorize how paradoxical integration helps manage these interwoven tensions. Further, the assimilate-integration-apply (AIA) path suggests a new behavior logic and path choice for Chinese companies when they follow an ambidextrous strategy.

This paper has implications for future research and for companies’ everyday practice on ambidexterity in Chinese society.

The authors combine ambidexterity perspective and AIA path with linkage-leverage-learning (LLL) to offer an alternative framework and solution for balancing exploitation–exploration paradoxes in EE firms’ internationalization to increase LLL’s explanatory power.

The purpose of this paper is to advance the understanding of paradoxes, underlying tensions and potential management strategies when integrating digital technologies into existing lean-based production systems (LPSs), with the aim of achieving synergies and fostering the development of production systems.

This study adopts a collaborative management research (CMR) approach to identify patterns of organisational tensions and paradoxes and explore management strategies to overcome them. The data were collected through interviews and focus group interviews with experts on lean and/or digital technologies from the companies, from documents and from workshops with the in-case researchers.

The findings of this paper provide insights into the salient organisational paradoxes embraced in the integration of digital technologies in LPS by identifying different aspects of the performing, organising, learning and belonging paradoxes. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate the intricacies and relatedness between different paradoxes and their resolutions, and more specifically, how a resolution strategy adopted to manage one paradox might unintentionally generate new tensions. This, in turn, calls for either re-contextualising actions to counteract the drift or the adoption of new resolution strategies.

This paper adds perspective to operations management (OM) research through the use of paradox theory, and we (1) provide a fine-grained perspective on why integration sometimes “fails” and label the forces of internal drift as mechanisms of imbalances and (2) provide detailed insights into how different management and resolution strategies are adopted, especially by identifying re-contextualising actions as a key to rebalancing organisational paradoxes in favour of the integration of digital technologies in LPSs.

The purpose of the paper is to advance a framework that can analyze the impact of the egocentric alliance network on firm ambidextrous innovation holistically. On this purpose, the framework involves and integrates structural holes (SH), alliance functional diversity (AFD) and alliance partner geographical diversity (APGD) that measure network characteristics from structural, relational and nodal perspectives, respectively.

The authors collected multi-source matching panel data including alliance deals, technical patents and financial information during 2000–2017 of the 106 top high-tech firms in the computer, communications, electronics and biopharmaceutical industries and conducted a three-way interaction model to uncover the complex mechanisms from a contingency perspective.

Empirical results show that SH as structural capital is positive to both exploitative and exploratory innovation. Both AFD as relational capital and APGD as cognitive capital positively moderate the SH-exploitative innovation nexus rather than the SH-exploratory innovation nexus. APGD and AFD co-moderate the relationship between SH and firm ambidextrous innovation in the way that when APGD and AFD are both high, SH has the strongest positive impacts on firm exploitative and exploratory innovation.

This research provides new insights into the benefit-cost paradox of the structural brokerage position (SH) by uncovering relational (AFD) and nodal (APGD) network characteristics that impact the trade-off. Also, it contributes to social capital theory by differentiating three dimensions of network capital (structural, relational and cognitive capital) and integrating them into ambidextrous innovation research. Finally, the findings give firms enlightenment to configure their egocentric alliance network for innovation ambidexterity.

This paper aims to provide empirical evidence concerning the process by which micro‐processes develop and maintain three organizational capabilities: technical and productive capabilities and the capability to engender trust among employees.

The research employs in‐depth case study to provide a longitudinal study spanning 37 years (1971‐2008). The material was collected from available company documents and semi‐structured interviews. In total, 151 interviews were collected from members of the workforce, union leaders, managers, advisors, suppliers, and contractors.

The paper illustrates three characteristics of capabilities: problem solving and complexity, practicing and success, and reliability over time. Additionally, it also illustrates the organizational capability paradox by narrating specific events and illustrating three of its causes: path dependency and lock in, structural inertia, and the absence of a capability dynamization function. The case study suggests that it is helpful to consider the construction of a capability and its dynamization as two separate functions that a company should develop simultaneously.

Limitations derive from case study research methodology, such as difficulty of generalization.

The results suggest that the development of a capability and the dynamization of the system should be understood as two counterbalanced processes that function together according to a dual logic. This is an alternative approach to the concept of the dynamic capabilities of an organization.

Post-structural autoethnography is untidy. Our ability to write about our own experience is hindered both by the very idea of “the self” as well as by the hope that, even if such a thing exists, we could possibly know it. Rather than abnegate self-writing, however, in this chapter the author uses the construct of story-as-identity in order to create a kind of map of the self – a map that can be used to trouble tidy notions of the autonomous “I”. Specifically operating out of a context of racial identity, the author – a white man – (re)tells several stories from his experience, introducing three questions that are central to the idea he is calling narrative mining: a method to get behind the paradox of post-structural autoethnography (Gannon 2006) and the barriers to autoethnography (Wamsted 2012). In this act, he is accessing something close to an authentic self – not what we say we believe about who we are, but something approaching our actual operating systems. Two stories are (re)told – the story of his first racial memory and the story of his first black friend – and a demonstration of how autoethnographers could trouble tidy notions of the self is provided in the form of an exploration of the three questions. The chapter closes with a look at how narrative mining could be of benefit not only to autoethnographers but also to the education community writ large; operating in alterity is a fundamental skill for the public school teacher, and this method could be a powerful tool for both pre- and in-service teachers.

Although there has been substantial academic and practitioner interest into innovative structural arrangements, the study of structural transformation and the structural practices of small to medium‐sized organizations in traditional industries has been relatively ignored. This article presents empirical evidence of a company that changed its organizational structure from a traditional bureaucracy to a structure that was fundamentally different from those of other firms within its industry. The changed structure was characterized by many novel attributes such as devolved responsibility, empowerment, community orientation and a lack of hierarchy. Although there was some evidence to suggest that the structure had positive performance implications, the study also finds that the content, context and process of change were influenced by a dominant managing director such that the outcomes masked underlying political issues. The article concludes by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of the findings.