Ambidexterity: a possible balance to manage complexity

  • Received July 13, 2017;
    Accepted August 16, 2017;
    Published January 29, 2018
  • Author(s)
    Massimo Franco
    ORCID Researcher ID , Alberto Cerimele
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/kpm.02(1).2018.01
  • Article Info
    Volume 2 2018, Issue #1, pp. 1-12
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    1 articles
  • 1780 Views
  • 338 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

The present article originates from the effort to answer the following question: is it possible for an organizational structure to steer between organizational routines and Black Swans? (Taleb, 2007). Unexpected, unique and low-frequency events are “unknown variable” that, despite the planning and precautions deployed, catch an organization off-guard, and might have catastrophic consequences. Unexpected events impact organizations, undermining the knowledge and redefining the list of competences that an organization needs in order to be competitive. The main goal of the present article is to shed light on the role and the challenges that firms undertake in their defining moments of adaptation of their organizational assets – the structure –. The rational pattern of adaptation is exemplified by the use of ambidextrous organizational structures, which focus on activities that can be defined as exploration and exploitation. Within the analysis of “the science of complexity”, parallels, paradoxes and metaphors representing a synthesis of a largely shared doctrine will be investigated: firms need to utilize known variables, or sometimes unknown ones, that are inevitably complex, in order to find the right fit, react swiftly to change, successfully compete, and obtain results.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Bonazzi, G. (2008). Storia del pensiero organizzativo. 14th ed., Milano: Franco Angeli.
    • Adriaenssen, D., & Johannessen, J-A. (2015). Conceptual generalization: methodological reflections in social science a systemic viewpoint. Kybernetes, 44(4), 588-605.
    • Albino, V., Carbonara, N., & Giannoccaro, I. (2005). Organizzazioni e complessità. Muoversi tra ordine e caos per affrontare il cambiamento. Milano: Franco Angeli.
    • Baccarani, C. (2010). Complessità e intelligenza manageriale. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 81(10), 97-111.
    • Baccarani, C. (1991). Qualità e governo dell’impresa. Singergie Italian Journal of Management, 7, 37-56.
    • Becker, M. C. (2004). Organizational routine: a review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(3), 643-677.
    • Benner, M., & Tushman, M. (2003). Exploitation, exploration and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256.
    • Costa, G., & Giannecchini, M. (2013). Risorse Umane. Persone, relazioni e valore. Terza Edizione, Milano: McGraw-Hill.
    • Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1995). Venti di cambiamento organizzativo: come le idee si trasformano in oggetti e azioni, in Bacharach, S., & Gagliardi P. (1995). Il pensiero organizzativo europeo. Milano: Guerini Editore.
    • Daft, R. L. (2010). Organizzazione Aziendale, 4a ed., Milano: Apogeo, Milano.
    • De Toni, A. F. (2010). Teoria della complessità e implicazioni manageriali: verso l’auto-organizzazione. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 81(10), 77-96.
    • De Toni, A. F., & Bernardi, E. (2009). Il pianeta degli agenti. Teoria e simulazione ad agenti per cogliere l’economia complessa. Torino: Utet Università.
    • Depew, D. J., & Weber B. H. (1995). Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Geneaology of Natural Selection. Cambridge: MIT Press, Cambridge.
    • Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation, In R. H. Killman, L. R. Pondy, & D. Sleven (Eds.). The management of organization, 1, 167-188.
    • Emirbayers, M., & Mishce, A. (1998). What is an agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023.
    • Faggioni, F., & Simone C. (2009). Le declinazioni della complessità. Ordine, caos e sistemi complessi. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 79(09) 3-45.
    • Frigotto, M. L., & Narduzzo, A. (2016). Sbiancare il cigno nero? Strategie e competenze manageriali per riconoscere il nuovo. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 34(99), 345-363.
    • Gersick, C. J., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performaning groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision processes, 47, 65-97.
    • Gharajedaghi, J. (1999). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity. Boston: Butterworth- Heineman.
    • Gibson, C. B., & Birnikshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
    • Grandori, A. (1995). Organizzazione delle attività economiche. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. R. (1983). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociology Review, 29, 149-164, 1983.
    • Kortmann, S. (2012). The relationship between organizational structure and organizational ambidexterity: A comparison between manufacturing and service firms. Springer Science & Business Media.
    • Langenmayr, F. (2016). Organizational memory as a function. The construction of past, present and future in organisations. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
    • Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1990). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1990.
    • Mainzer, K. (1997). Thinking in Complexity: The Complex Dynamics of Matter, Mind and Mankind, 3a ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.
    • 27. Miglietta, A. (2010). Nuove visioni dell’impresa dopo la grande crisi: prime riflessioni. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 81(10), 31-49.
    • Nonaka, I. (1988). Creating Organizational Order out of Chaos: Self-Renewal in Japanese Firms. California Management Review, 30(3), 57-73.
    • O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
    • O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard business review, 82(4), 74-81.
    • Ocasio, W. (1997). Toward and attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 187-206.
    • Olik, J. K., Vinitzky-Seroussi, V., & Levy, D. (2011). The collective memory reader. New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Pascale, R. T. (1992). Il management di frontiera. Come le aziende più intelligenti usano conflitti e tensioni per diventare leader. Milano: Sperling & Kupfer.
    • Pascale, R. T., Millemann, M., & Gioja, L. (2000). Surfing the edge of chaos. The laws of nature and the new laws of business. New York: Three Rivers Press.
    • Pennings, J. M. (1992). Structural Contingency Theory: A Reappraisal. Research in Organizazional Behavior, 14, 267-390.
    • Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociologican Review, 48(2), 147- 160.
    • Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409.
    • Repur, C. (2009). Attentional triangulation: learning from unexpected rare crises. Organizational Science, 20(5), 876-893.
    • Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
    • Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan. The impact of the highly improbable, New York: Random House.
    • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organization in action: social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    • Turner, B. A, & Pidgeon, N. (1997). Man-Made disasters. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
    • Tushman, M. L., Smith, W. K., & Binns, A. (2011). The ambidextrous CEO. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 74-80.
    • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). The ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-30.
    • Vicari, S. (1998). La creatività dell’impresa. Tra caso e necessità. Milano: Etas, Milano.
    • Vicari, S., & Troilo, G. (2003). Creativitàorganizzativa e generazione di conoscenza: il contributo della teoria dei sistemi cognitivi. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 61-62(03), 189-211.
    • Von Bertanffy, L. V. (1969). General theory of systems. N. York, George Braziller. Trad. it. Teoria generale dei sistemi. Milano: ISEDI.
    • Wadhwani, R. D., & Bucheli, M. (2014). The Future of the Past in Management and Organization Studies. Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. New York: Oxford.
    • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. London: Sage.
    • Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the Unexpected. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    • Zamarian, M. (200). Le routine organizzative. Percorsi di apprendimento e riproduzione. Torino: Utet Libreria.
Related Articles

  • Factors affecting employee turnover and sound retention strategies in business organization: a conceptual view

    Chowdhury Abdullah Al Mamun , Md. Nazmul Hasan doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(1).2017.06
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 15, 2017         Issue #1         pp. 63-71 Views: 14135 Downloads: 5685 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    “Employee turnover” as an expression is broadly used in business organization. Despite the fact that several studies have been performed on this topic, little research has been conducted on examining the causes and leading factors of turnover as well, as advising some feasible approaches, which can be applied by bosses to ensure that employees will continue in their respective organizations to enhance organizational effectiveness and productivity. The main purpose of this study is to determine the reasons and key factors in the perspectives of the relevant literature and identify to the intention of employee turnover. This conceptual paper also suggests various possible strategies on how to minimize the turnover and retain employees in the organizations. Hence, the paper has proposed a conceptual framework that shows the major variables in explaining the phenomenon of employee turnover and addressing sound retention strategies to handle these issues.

  • Influence of employee-manager relationship on employee performance and productivity

    Nosipho Pearl DlaminiORCID , Sachin SuknunanORCID , Anrusha BhanaORCID Researcher ID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.20(3).2022.03
    Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 20, 2022         Issue #3         pp. 28-42 Views: 2366 Downloads: 557 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    Organizational performance can be seen as dependent on employee job performance and productivity. One of the factors that influence employee job performance and productivity is the working relationship between employees and their managers. This paper examines the influence of the relationship between employees and their managers on enhancing employee performance and productivity. The study was conducted in a financial organization based in Durban (South Africa). A quantitative approach was utilized with a census method targeting a total population of 40 administrative employees. A questionnaire was constructed based on the research aims and was administered to all 40 respondents. As a result, the response rate was 65%. Key findings indicated that the relationship between managers and employees did affect employee performance and productivity. A positive relationship with a manager is closely linked to increased motivation and performance, while a negative relationship is linked with poor performance. An overall negative impact and high level of dissatisfaction amongst employees were found due to the current bureaucratic management style that managers adopt in their organization. Thus, it makes employees less productive and decreases their work performance. Furthermore, it was found that employees’ perception of their relationship with managers plays a significant role in predicting job performance. Recommendations for a better working relationship to promote employee performance and productivity include manager-employee training, team building activities, skills development programs for managers, employee rewards and recognition, increased communication platforms, and more consideration for employee well-being.

  • Multi-agent modeling and simulation of a stock market

    Mohamed Amine SouissiORCID , Khalid BensaidORCID , Rachid Ellaia doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(4).2018.10
    Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 15, 2018         Issue #4         pp. 123-134 Views: 2102 Downloads: 922 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The stock market represents complex systems where multiple agents interact. The complexity of the environment in the financial markets in general has encouraged the use of modeling by multi-agent platforms and particularly in the case of the stock market.
    In this paper, an agent-based simulation model is proposed to study the behavior of the volume of market transactions. The model is based on the case of a single asset and three types of investor agents. Each investor can be a zero intelligent trader, fundamentalist trader or traders using historical information in the decision making process. The goal of the study is to simulate the behavior of a stock market according to the different considered endogenous and exogenous variables.

Download Preview
Close
Knowledge and Performance Management
Knowledge and Performance Management