Влияние организационной амбидекстрии на эффективность деятельности многопрофильных промышленных предприятий

Arkady V. Trachuk; Alexander V. Kolobov; Natalia V. Linder

doi:10.21638/spbu18.2024.106

Authors

Arkady V. Trachuk Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Russia; JSC Goznak, Russia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2188-7192
Alexander V. Kolobov Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Russia; JSC Severgroup, Russia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9003-7805
Natalia V. Linder Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Russia; JSC Goznak, Russia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4724-2344

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu18.2024.106

Abstract

Goal: to identify an optimal set of tools that allow multibusiness diversified enterprises to achieve organizational ambidexterity to assess two aspects of improvement activities — search and operational. The second goal is to establish the influence of organizational ambidexterity on the efficiency of doing business by multibusiness diversified enterprises.

Metodology: the search for the optimal set of tools was carried out by the construction of regression models and using mathematical optimization methods. The impact of operational ambidexterity on a company performance was assessed by means of statistical tests. The empirical basis of the study became 327 completed projects in 16 multibusiness diversified enterprises in the manufacturing industry.

Findings: a model has been developed that allows to select the optimal set of tools in order to improve production and form the basis for the development of new types of activities, i.e. to achieve organizational ambidexterity. The study showed that the effectiveness of search activities influences mostly labor productivity and the number of new competencies, while the improvement of operational activities affects the share of products certified according to the international standards in the enterprise's total production volume and the quantity of new competencies of the organization’s employees aimed to achieve organizational ambidexterity.

Originality and contribution of the authors: the study identifies the conditions for achieving organizational ambidexterity by multibusiness enterprises. A new model has been proposed to determine the optimal set of tools for improving production and developing new types of activities that ensure the achievement of organizational ambidexterity and the increase of efficiency in multibusiness diversified enterprises.

Keywords:

diversified industrial enterprises, industry, organizational ambidexterity, efficiency, improvement of current and search activities, adaptability, productivity

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Литература на русском языке

Глухов В. В., Колобов А. В., Игумнов Е. М. 2020. Методика оптимизации набора инструментов для повышения эффективности бизнес-системы. Научно-технические ведомости Санкт-Петербургского государственного политехнического университета. Экономические науки 13 (5): 95–105.

Трачук А. В., Линдер Н. В. 2020. Влияние технологий индустрии 4.0 на повышение производительности и трансформацию инновационного поведения промышленных компаний. Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент 11 (2): 132–149.

References in Latin Alphabet

Ansah M. O., Addai-Boamah N., Bamfo A. B., Ry-Kottoh L. A. 2021. Organizational ambidexterity and financial performance in the banking industry: Evidence from a developing economy. Journal of Financial Services Marketing 1–14.

Aoki K., Wilhelm M. 2017. The role of ambidexterity in managing buyer–supplier relationships: The Toyota case. Organization Science 28 (6): 1080–1097.

Benner M. J., Tushman M. L. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review 28 (2): 238–256.

Birkinshaw J., Lingblad M. 2005. Intra-firm competition and charter evolution in the multi-business firm. Organization Science 16: 674–686.

Birkinshaw J., Zimmermann A., Raisch S. 2016. How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California Management Review 58 (4): 36–58.

Bititci U., Garengo P., D€orfler V., Nudurupati, S. 2012. Performance measurement: Challenges for tomorrow? International Journal of Management Reviews 14 (3): 305–327.

Boumgarden P., Nickerson J., Zenger T. R. 2012. Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal 33 (6): 587–610.

Božič K., Dimovski V. 2019. Business intelligence and analytics use, innovation ambidexterity, and firm performance: A dynamic capabilities perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 28 (4): 101578.

Brix J. 2019. Ambidexterity and organizational learning: Revisiting and reconnecting the literatures. Learning Organization 26 (4): 337–351.

Chakma R., Paul J., Dhir S. 2021. Organizational ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 71: 121–137.

Chen Y. 2017 Dynamic ambidexterity: How innovators manage exploration and exploitation. Business Horizons 60 (3): 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.01.001

De Clercq D., Dimov D. 2008. Internal knowledge development and external knowledge access in venture capital investment performance. Journal of Management Studies 45 (3): 585–612.

Dezi L., Ferraris A., Papa A., Vrontis D. 2021. The role of external embeddedness and knowledge management as antecedents of ambidexterity and performances in Italian SMEs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 68 (2): 360–369.

Dranev Y., Izosimova A., Meissner D. 2020. Organizational ambidexterity and performance: Assessment approaches and empirical evidence. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 11: 676–691.

Filippetti A., Archibugi D. 2011. Innovation in times of crisis: National Systems of Innovation, structure, and demand. Research Policy 40 (2): 179–192.

Fragoso R., Scazziota V., Guerrazzi L., Quaresma R., Casas Novas J. 2023. Innovation ambidexterity and firm performance: The moderating effects of contextual factors. Entrepreneurship Research Journal 27 (4): 633–657. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2022-0138

Fu N., Flood P. C., Morris T., Read M. 2016. Organizational ambidexterity and professional firm performance: The moderating role of organizational capital. Journal of Professions and Organization 3 (1): 1–16.

Galunic D. C., Eisenhardt K. M. 2001. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal 44: 1229–1249.

Geerts A., Leten B., Belderbos R., Van Looy B. 2018. Does spatial ambidexterity pay off? On the benefits of geographic proximity between technology exploitation and exploration. Journal of Product Innovation Management 35 (2): 151–163.

Gianzina-Kassotaki O. 2017. Leadership and ambidexterity: A multilevel analysis of the aerospace and defense organizations. PhD thesis (Management). Warwick Business School. [Electronic resource]. http://wrap.warwick. ac.uk/95904/1/WRAP_Theses_Gianzina-Kassotaki_2017.pdf (accessed: 21.04.2023).

Gianzina-Kassotaki O. 2019. Ambidextrous leadership in the high technology organizations. Organizational Dynamics 48 (2): 37–43.

Gibson C. B., Birkinshaw J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal 47 (2): 209–226.

Gonzalez R. V. D., De Melo T. M. 2018. The effects of organization context on knowledge exploration and exploitation. Journal of Business Research 90: 215–225.

Han M. 2007. Achieving superior internationalization through strategic ambidexterity. Journal of Enterprising Culture 15 (1): 43–77.

Han M., Celly N. 2008. Strategic ambidexterity and performance in international new ventures. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 28 (4): 335–349.

He Z.-L., Wong P.-K. 2004. Exploration vs exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science 15 (4): 481–494.

Hirst G., van Knippenberg D., Zhou Q., Zhu C. J., Tsai P. C.-F. 2018. Exploitation and exploration climates’ influence on performance and creativity: Diminishing returns as function of self-efficacy. Journal of Management 44 (3): 870–891.

Huang J., Kim H. J. 2013. Conceptualizing structural ambidexterity into the innovation of human resource management architecture: The case of LG Electronics. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24 (5): 922–943.

Huang S., Cummings J. 2011. When critical knowledge is most critical: Centralization in knowledge-intensive teams. Small Group Research 42 (6): 669–699.

Hwang B. N., Lai Y. P., Wang C. 2023. Open innovation and organizational ambidexterity. European Journal of Innovation Management 26 (3): 862–884.

Iborra M., Safón V., Dolz C. 2020. What explains the resilience of SMEs? Ambidexterity capability and strategic consistency. Long Range Planning 53 (6): 101947.

Ijigu A. W., Alemu A. E., Kuhil A. M. 2023. High-Performance work system and employee work performance: A moderated mediation model of ambidextrous leadership and employee ambidexterity. International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management 18 (1).

Jacobs M., Maritz R. 2020. Dynamic strategy: Investigating the ambidexterity–performance relationship. South African Journal of Business Management 51 (1): 1–14.

Jansen J. J., Van Den Bosch F. A., Volberda H. W. 2006. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science 52 (11): 1661–1674.

Jansen J., Simsek Z., Cao Q. 2012. Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal 33 (11): 1286–1303.

Junni P., Sarala R., Taras V., Tarba S. 2013. Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives 27 (4): 299–312.

Junni P., Sarala R., Tarba S., Liu Y., Cooper C. 2015. Guest editors’ introduction: The role of human resources and organizational factors in ambidexterity. Human Resource Management 54 (S1): S1–S28.

Katila R., Ahuja G. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal 45 (6): 1183–1194.

Kauppila O. 2010. Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization 8 (4): 283–312.

Kortmann S. 2014. The mediating role of strategic orientations on the relationship between ambidexterity-oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management 32 (5): 666–684.

Koufteros X., Verghese A., Lucianetti L. 2014. The effect of performance measurement systems on firm performance: A cross-sectional and a longitudinal study. Journal of Operations Management 32 (6): 313–336.

Lee S., Meyer-Doyle P. 2017. How performance incentives shape individual exploration and exploitation: Evidence from Microdata. Organization Science 28 (1): 1–18.

Limaj E., Bernroider E. W. 2019. The roles of absorptive capacity and cultural balance for exploratory and exploitative innovation in SMEs. Journal of Business Research 94: 137–153.

Lubatkin M. H., Simsek Z., Ling Y., Veiga J. 2006. Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management 32 (5): 646–672.

Luger J., Raisch S., Schimmer M. 2018. Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science 28 (3): 449–470.

March J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2 (1): 71–87.

Martini A., Neirotti P., Aloini D. 2015. Finding the way to ambidexterity: Exploring the relationships among organizational design, knowledge creation and innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management 19 (4): 32.

Mueller V., Rosenbusch N., Bausch A. 2013. Success patterns of exploratory and exploitative innovation: A meta-analysis of the influence of institutional factors. Journal of Management 39 (6): 1606–1636.

Muller-Stewens B., Widener S. K., Möller K., Steinmann J. C. 2020. The role of diagnostic and interactive control uses in innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society 80: 1–21.

O’Reilly C. A., Tushman M. L. 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior 28: 185–206.

Ossenbrink J., Hoppmann J., Hoffmann V. H. 2019. Hybrid ambidexterity: How the environment shapes incumbents’ use of structural and contextual approaches. Organization Science 30 (6): 1319–1348. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1286

Papachroni A., Heracleous L., Paroutis S. 2015. Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Building a novel research agenda. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 51 (1): 71–93.

Peng M. Y. P., Lin K. H., Peng D. L., Chen P. 2019. Linking organizational ambidexterity and performance: The drivers of sustainability in high-tech firms. Sustainability 11 (14): 3931.

Porter M. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review 74 (6): 61–78.

Raisch S., Birkinshaw J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes and moderators. Journal of Management 34 (3): 375–409.

Raisch S., Tushman M. 2016. Growing new corporate businesses: From initiation to graduation. Organization Science 27 (5): 1237–1257.

Randhawa K., Nikolova N., Ahuja S., Schweitzer J. 2021. Design thinking implementation for innovation: An organization’s journey to ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management 38 (6): 668–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12599

Sarkees M., Hulland J. 2009. Innovation and efficiency: It is possible to have it all. Business Horizons 52 (1): 45–55.

Simsek Z., Heavey C., Veiga J., Souder D. 2009. A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Management 46 (5): 865–894.

Smith W. 2014. Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal 57 (6): 1592–1623.

Smith W., Erez M., Jarvenpaa S., Lewis M., Tracey P. 2017. Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organization studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organization Studies 38 (3–4): 303–317.

Syed T. A., Blome C., Benitez J., Papadopoulos T. 2023. The role of managerial activities in achieving Information technology ambidexterity and new product development performance in small and medium-sized enterprises. European Journal of Information Systems 33 (2): 97–122.

Tushman M. L., O’Reilly C. A. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review 38 (4): 8–30.

Tushman M. L., O’Reilly C. A. 1997. Winning through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal. Harvard Business Press: Boston.

Tushman M. L., O’Reilly C. A. 2013. Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Perspectives 27 (4): 324–338.

Venugopal A., Krishnan T. N., Upadhyayula R. S., Kumar M. 2020. Finding the microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity — Demystifying the role of top management behavioural integration. Journal of Business Research 106 (August): 1–11.

Venugopal K., Hentzschel F., Valkiūnas G., Marti M. 2020. Plasmodium asexual growth and sexual development in the haematopoietic niche of the host. Nature Reviews Microbiology 18 (3): 177–189.

Wilden R., Hohberger J., Devinney T. M., Lavie D. 2018. Revisiting James March (1991): Whither exploration and exploitation? Strategic Organization 16 (4): 352–369.

Yan M., Yu Y., Dong X. 2016. Contributive roles of multilevel organizational learning for the evolution of organizational ambidexterity. Information Technology & People 29 (3): 647–667.

Yoshikuni A. C., Dwivedi R., Dwivedi Y. K. 2024. Strategic knowledge, IT capabilities and innovation ambidexterity: Role of business process performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems 124 (2): 915–948.

Zouaghi F., Sánchez M., Martínez M. G. 2018. Did the global financial crisis impact firms’ innovation performance? The role of internal and external knowledge capabilities in high and low tech industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 132: 92–104.

Translation of references in Russian into English

Glukhov V. V., Kolobov A. V., Igumnov E. M. 2020. Methodology for optimizing a set of tools to improve the efficiency of a business system. Scientific and Technical Bulletin of St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University. Economic Sciences 13 (5): 95–105. (In Russian)

Trachuk A. V., Linder N. V. 2020. The impact of industry 4.0 technologies on productivity improvement and transformation of innovative behavior of industrial companies. Strategic Decisions and Risk Management 11 (2): 132–149.