Paradoks eksploracji i eksploatacji - ambidexterity w zarządzaniu strategicznym

• Autorzy: Agnieszka Zakrzewska-Bielawska

Warianty tytułu

Exploration and Exploitation Paradox: Ambidexterity in Strategic Management

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

W artykule podjęto problem ambidexterity jako strategicznej zdolności organizacji do zarządzania paradoksem eksploracji i eksploatacji. Poszukiwanie nowych możliwości (eksploracja) oraz wykorzystywanie i doskonalenie istniejących kompetencji (eksploatacja), mimo iż są sprzecznymi procesami organizacyjnymi, to nie wykluczają się, a wręcz przeciwnie, pozytywnie ze sobą oddziałują, gdyż oba są potrzebne, by organizacja mogła przetrwać i rozwijać się. W opracowaniu wyjaśniono różnice pomiędzy eksploracją i eksploatacją, określono sposoby poszukiwania równowagi pomiędzy nimi oraz przedstawiono wyniki badań nad ambidexterity z perspektywy wybranych problemów zarządzania strategicznego, w tym orientacji strategicznej, procesu tworzenia i implementacji strategii, wyborów produktowo-rynkowych, osiągania trwałej bądź czasowej przewagi konkurencyjnej czy elastyczności strategicznej(abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

The paper explains differences between exploration and exploitation processes, identifies how a balance between them is achieved and presents the results of ambidexterity from the perspective of selected problems of strategic management, including strategic orientation, process of strategy creation and implementation, product-market choices, achieving a sustainable or temporary competitive advantage and strategic flexibility(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Eksploatacja; Paradoks; Zarządzanie strategiczne

EN

Exploitation; Paradox; Strategic management

• Czasopismo: Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu
• Rocznik: 2016
• Numer: nr 420 Strategie. Procesy i praktyki
• Strony: 435--449

Twórcy

autor

Agnieszka Zakrzewska-Bielawska

• Politechnika Łódzka

Bibliografia

• Andriopoulos C., Lewis M.W., 2009, Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation, Organization Science, vol. 20, no. 4, s. 696-717.
• Beer M., 2009, High Commitment, High Performance: How to Build a Resilient Organization for Sustained Competitive Advantage, Jossey-Bass, Hoboken, NJ.
• Berchtold S., Pircher R., Stadler C., 2010, Global integration versus local adaptation: A case study of Austrian MNCs in Eastern Europe, European Journal of International Management, vol. 4, no. 5, s. 524-549.
• Birkinshaw J., Gupta K., 2013, Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies, The Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 27, no. 4, s. 287-298.
• Bodwell W., Chermack T.J., 2010, Organizational ambidexterity: Integrating deliberate and emergent strategy with scenario planning, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 77, no. 2, s. 193-202.
• Bratnicka K., 2015, Reconsideration of organizational ambidexterity: A dialectical multilevel approach, International Journal of Contemporary Management, vol. 13, no. 4, s. 67-82.
• Burgelman R.A., 2002, Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 2, s. 325-357.
• Cantarello S., Martini A., Nosella A., 2012, A multi-level model for organizational ambidexterity in the search phase of the innovation process, Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 21, no. 1, s. 28-48.
• Cao Q., Gedajlovic E., Zhang H., 2009, Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects, Organization Science, vol. 20, no. 4, s. 781-96.
• Cao Q., Simsek Z., Zhang H., 2010, Modelling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 47, no. 7, s. 1272-1296.
• Carmeli A., Halevi M.Y., 2009, How top management team behavioral integration and behavioural complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 2, s. 207-218.
• Chen R.R., Kannan-Narasimhan R.P., 2015, Formal integration archetypes in ambidextrous organizations, R&D Management, vol. 45, no. 3, s. 267-286.
• Clegg S.R., Da Cunha J.V., Cunha M.P., 2002, Management paradoxes: A relational view, Human Relations, vol. 55, no. 5, s. 483-503.
• Csaszar F.A., 2013, An efficient frontier in organization design: Organizational structure as a determinant of exploration and exploitation, Organization Science, vol. 24, no. 4, s. 1083-1101.
• Czakon W., 2012, Równowaga a wzrost - relacja odwróconego U w naukach o zarządzaniu, Przegląd Organizacji, no. 10, s. 7-10.
• Dameron S., Torset C., 2014, The discursive construction of strategists' subjectivities: Towards a paradox lens on strategy, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 51, no. 2, s. 291-319.
• De Wit B., Meyer R., 2007, Synteza strategii, PWE, Warszawa.
• Duncan R.B., 1976, The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation, [w:] R.H. Kilmann, L.R. Pondy, D. Slevin (red.), The Management of Organization Design, North-Holland, New York.
• Dutta S.K., 2012, Dynamic capabilities: Fostering ambidexterity, Journal of Indian Management, vol. 2, s. 81-91.
• Dutta S.K., 2013, Market orientation ambidexterity, SCMS Journal of Indian Management, vol. 10, no. 1, s. 54-66.
• Eisenhardt K.M., Martin J., 2000, Dynamic capabilities: What are they?, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 10-11, s. 1105-1121.
• Filippini R., Güttel W.H., Nosella A., 2012, Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge management initiatives, Journal of Business Research, vol. 65, no. 3, s. 317-324.
• Gibson C.B., Birkinshaw J., 2004, The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 47, no. 2, s. 209-226.
• Gilbert D.H., Smith A.C., Sutherland F., 2015, Osmotic strategy: Innovating at the core to inspire at the edges, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 44, no. 3, s. 217-225.
• Gruszczyńska-Malec G., Rutkowska M., 2014, Refleksje nad paradoksami w procesie motywacji do pracy, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, Studia Ekonomiczne nr 183, s. 86-96.
• Gupta A.K., Smith K.G., Shalley C.E., 2006, The interplay between exploration and exploitation, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 49, no. 4, s. 693-706.
• Han M., Celly N., 2008, Strategic ambidexterity and performance in international new ventures, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, vol. 25, no. 4, s. 335-349.
• He Z.L., Wong P.K., 2004, Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis, Organization Science, vol. 15, no. 4, s. 481-494.
• Huy O.N., 2002, Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 47, no.1, s. 31-69.
• Jansen J.J., Tempelaar M.P., Van den Bosch F.A., Volberda H.W., 2009, Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms, Organization Science, vol. 20, no. 4, s. 797-811.
• 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, vol. 52, no. 11, s. 1661-1674.
• Kang S., Snell S.A., 2009, Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: A framework for human resource management, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 46, no. 1, s. 65-92.
• Keller T., Weibler J., 2015, What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager: Linking leadership and cognitive strain to balancing exploration and exploitation, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, s. 54-71.
• Kollmann T., Kuckertz A., Stöckmann C., 2009, Continuous innovation in entrepreneurial growth companies: Exploring the ambidextrous strategy, Journal of Enterprising Culture, vol. 17, no. 3, s. 297-322.
• Kriz A., Voola R., Yuksel U., 2014, The dynamic capability of ambidexterity in hypercompetition: qualitative insights, Journal of Strategic Marketing, vol. 22, no. 4, s. 287-299.
• Lavie D., Stettner U., Tushman M.L., 2010, Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations, The Academy of Management Annals, vol. 4, no. 1, s. 109-155.
• Levinthal D.A., March J.G., 1993, The myopia of learning, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 14, no. S2, s. 95-112.
• Lubatkin M.H., Simsek Z., Ling Y., Veiga J.F., 2006, Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration, Journal of Management, vol. 32, no. 5, s. 646-672.
• Magnusson M., Martini A., 2008, Dual organizational capabilities: From theory to practice. The next challenge for continuous innovation, International Journal of Technology Management, Special Issue on Dual Organizational Capabilities, vol. 42, no. 1-2, s. 1-19.
• March J.G., 1991, Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning, Organization Science, vol. 2, no. 1, s. 71-87.
• Martini A., Laugen B.T., Gastaldi L., Corso M., 2013, Continuous innovation: towards a paradoxical, ambidextrous combination of exploration and exploitation, International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 61, no. 1, s. 1-22.
• Menguc B., Auh S., 2008, The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on the ambidexterity- firm performance relationship for prospectors and defenders, Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 37, no. 4, s. 455-470.
• Miron E., Erez M., Naveh E., 2004, Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other?, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 25, no. 2, s. 175-199.
• Mom T.J.M., Van den Bosch F.A.J., Volberda H.W., 2009, Understanding variation in managers' ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms, Organization Science, vol. 20, no. 4, s. 812-828.
• Niemczyk J., 2011, Czy już nowy paradygmat, czyli o zmianach pola gry w zarządzaniu strategicznym, Przegląd Organizacji, nr 6, s. 3-6.
• Nosella A., Cantarello S., Filippini R., 2012, The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliometric investigation into the state of the art, Strategic Organization, vol. 10, no. 4, s. 450--465.
• O'Cass A., Heirati N., Ngo L.V., 2014, Achieving new product success via the synchronization of exploration and exploitation across multiple levels and functional areas, Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 43, no. 5, s. 862-872.
• O'Reilly C.A., Tushman M.L., 2004, The ambidextrous organization, Harvard Business Review, vol. 82, no. 4, s. 74-81.
• O'Reilly C.A., Tushman M.L., 2008, Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma, Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 28, s. 185-206.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15611/pn.2016.420.37