Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T01:00:53.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pure structures or ambidextrous configurations? A grounded theory of knowledge-focused organizational design in innovative ventures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Virginia Bodolica Open the ORCID record for Virginia Bodolica [Opens in a new window]  and
Martin Spraggon
Virginia Bodolica*
Affiliation:
The Said T. Khoury Chair of Leadership Studies, School of Business Administration, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Martin Spraggon
Affiliation:
Dean of School of Business and Quality Management, Hamdan Bin Mohammed Smart University (HBMSU), Dubai, United Arab Emirates
*
*Corresponding author. Virginia Bodolica, E-mail: virginia.bodolica@hec.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Extant literature remains inconclusive with regard to optimal structural designs for sustaining effective knowledge flows, boosting innovativeness, and achieving superior performance in organizations. We contribute to the ongoing debate on formal, informal, and ambidextrous configurations in the specific context of small high-tech innovators. Adopting an inductive approach to theory building, we explore the factors that account for the variation in knowledge-focused designs across sample firms. In our study, innovative ventures rely on pure formal and informal organizational designs but also attempt to mix both, suggesting that gains from ambidexterity are not ubiquitous. Our analysis unveils that the pursuit of a given structural configuration results from a set of operating contingencies and a deliberate managerial effort to align firm idiosyncrasies with desired strategic outcomes. We advance a grounded theory of knowledge-focused organizational design in small high-tech innovators and formulate propositions that may be tested in future inquiries in the field.

Keywords

Ambidexterityconfigurationfit or alignmentformal–informal structureinnovationknowledge managementorganizational design
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , July 2021 , pp. 626 - 649
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Both authors contributed equally and authors are listed in alphabetical order.

References

Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alegre, J., Sengupta, K., & Lapiedra, R. (2013). Knowledge management and innovation performance in a high-tech SMEs industry. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 454–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, B. L. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Allyn & Bacon: Needham Heights.Google Scholar
Bock, A. J., Opsahl, T., George, G., & Gann, D. M. (2012). The effects of culture and structure on strategic flexibility during business model innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 49(2), 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodolica, V., & Spraggon, M. (2018). An end-to-end process of writing and publishing influential literature review articles: Do's and don'ts. Management Decision, 56(11), 2472–2486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodolica, V., & Spraggon, M. (2020). Leadership in times of organizational decline: A literature review of antecedents, consequences and moderators. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-04-2020-2123Google Scholar
Bodolica, V., Spraggon, M., & Zaidi, S. (2015). Boundary management strategies for governing family firms: A UAE-based case study. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 684–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Creativity versus structure: A useful tension. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 93–94.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D., & Eisenhardt, K. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claver-Cortés, E., Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., & Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2012). Characteristics of organizational structure relating to hybrid competitive strategy: Implications for performance. Journal of Business Research, 65, 993–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, G., & O'Connor, R. (2007). Using grounded theory to understand software process improvement: A study of Irish software product companies. Information and Software Technology, 49, 654–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Giau, A., Foss, N. J., Furlan, A., & Vinelli, A. (2020). Sustainable development and dynamic capabilities in the fashion industry: A multi-case study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27, 1509–1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davila, G. A., Andreeva, T., & Varvakis, G. (2019). Knowledge management in Brazil: What governance mechanisms are needed to boost innovation? Management and Organization Review, 15(4), 857–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danneels, E. (2002). The Dynamics of Product Innovation and Firm Competencies. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dover, P. A., & Dierk, U. (2010). The ambidextrous organization: Integrating managers, entrepreneurs and leaders. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(5), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebben, J. J., & Johnson, A. C. (2005). Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(13), 1249–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, C., & Peppard, J. (1997). Operationalizing strategy through process. Long Range Planning, 30(5), 753–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, C., Lee, J., & Schilling, M. A. (2010). Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science, 21(3), 625–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2015). Organizational design correlates of entrepreneurship: The roles of decentralization and formalization for opportunity discovery and realization. Strategic Organization, 13(1), 32–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredrickson, J. W. (1986). The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review, 11, 280–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, L., & Smith, D. (1987). Congruence, contingency, and theory building. Academy of Management Review, 12, 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A. (2005). The psychology of behavior at work. The individual in the organization. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Gardiner, C. M. (2016). Knowledge sharing success and resistance in an engineering department: A case study. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(2), 254–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gault, F., & Earl, L. (2004). Innovative Firms: A Look At Small Firms, Working paper, Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 88F0006XIE – No. 010, May, 1–39.Google Scholar
Gioia, D. A., Price, K. N., Hamilton, A. L., & Thomas, J. B. (2010). Forging an identity: An insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, C. (2006). Absorptive capacity, knowledge management and innovation in entrepreneurial small firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 12(6), 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulati, R., & Puranam, P. (2009). Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organization Science, 20(2), 422–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guntamukkala, V., Wen, H. J., & Tarn, J. M. (2006). An empirical study of selecting software development life cycle models. Human Systems Management, 25, 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, S. A., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Strategy-organization configurations in corporate venture units: Impact on performance and survival. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 423–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Im, G., & Rai, A. (2008). Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Science, 54, 1281–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkinen, H. T., Kianto, A., & Vanhala, M. (2015). Knowledge management practices and innovation performance in Finland. Baltic Journal of Management, 10(4), 432–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Industry Canada (2018). Canadian ICT Sector Profile. August.Google Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, J., & Buxmann, P. (2012). Organizational design of IT supplier relationship management: A multiple case study of five client companies. Journal of Information Technology, 27, 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keil, T., Autio, E., & George, G. (2008). Corporate venture capital, disembodied experimentation and capability development. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1475–1505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1986). Personality, culture, and organization. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurkkio, M., Frishammar, J., & Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Where process development begins: A multiple case study of front-end activities in process firms. Technovation, 31, 490–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. Y., Park, Y.-R., Ghauri, P. N., & Park, B. I. (2014). Innovative knowledge transfer patterns of group-affiliated companies: The effects on the performance of foreign subsidiaries. Journal of International Management, 20(2), 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. Y., Seo, Y., Jeung, W., & Joon-ho, K. (2019). How ambidextrous organizational culture affect job performance: A multilevel study of the mediating effect of psychological capital. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(6), 860–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leyer, M., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J., & Pisani, F. (2017). The influence of process-oriented organizational design on operational performance and innovation: A quantitative analysis in the financial services industry. International Journal of Production Research, 55(18), 5259–5270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, K. D. (1988). Achieving organizational congruency through organizational design. Technovation, 8(1), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2020). Parallel play: Startups, nascent markets, and effective business model design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(2), 483–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijaard, J., Brand, M. J., & Mosselman, M. (2005). Organizational structure and performance in Dutch small firms. Small Business Economics, 25(1), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2010). Development and return on execution of product innovation capabilities: The role of organizational structure. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 820–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, A. A. (2007). A distributed cognition perspective on newcomers’ change processes: The management of cognitive uncertainty in two investment banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 507–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miner, A. S., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning: A field study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 304–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mom, T., Van Den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2007). Investigating managers' exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 910–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naveh, E. (2007). Formality and discretion in successful R&D projects. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okhuysen, G. O., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13(4), 370–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostroff, C., & Schmitt, N. (1993). Configurations of organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1345–1361.Google Scholar
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research: Evaluation methods. Boston, MA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Perez-Valls, M., Cespedes-Lorente, J., & Moreno-Garcia, J. (2016). Green practices and organizational design as sources of strategic flexibility and performance. Business Strategy and Environment, 25(8), 529–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puranam, P., Raveendran, M., & Knudsen, T. (2012). Organization design: The epistemic interdependence perspective. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 419–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randolph, W., Sapienza, H., & Watson, M. A. (1991). Technology–structure fit and performance in small businesses: An examination of the moderating effects of organizational states. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rank, O. N. (2008). Formal structures and informal networks: Structural analysis in organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24, 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, S. E., & de Brentani, U. (2004). The fuzzy front end of new product development for discontinuous innovations: A theoretical model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(3), 170–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity's conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 864–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2000). Strategy type and performance: The influence of sales force management. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 813–829.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V. (2008). Knowledge creation processes in small innovative hi-tech firms. Management Research News, 31(11), 879–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V. (2012). A multidimensional taxonomy of intra-firm knowledge transfer processes. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1273–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V. (2017). Collective tacit knowledge generation through play: Integrating socially distributed cognition and transactive memory systems. Management Decision, 55(1), 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V. (2018). A practice-based framework for understanding (informal) play as practice phenomena in organizations. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(6), 846–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O'Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1331–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z., Wang, N., Cao, J., & Ye, X. (2016). The impact of intellectual capital – knowledge management strategy fit on firm performance. Management Decision, 54(8), 1861–1885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerman, G., McFarlan, W., & Iansiti, M. (2006). Organization design and effectiveness over the innovation lifecycle. Organization Science, 17(2), 230–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Zhou, S. S., Zhou, A. J., Feng, J., & Jiang, S. (2019). Dynamic capabilities and organizational performance: The mediating role of innovation. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(5), 731–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar