Options
Alexander Zimmermann
Title
Prof. Dr.
Last Name
Zimmermann
First name
Alexander
Email
alexander.zimmermann@unisg.ch
Phone
+41 71 224 2025
Now showing
1 - 8 of 8
-
PublicationHow Do Firms Adapt to Discontinuous Change? : Bridging the Dynamic Capabilities and Ambidexterity Perspectives(Haas School of Business, University of California, 2016-08-01)
Scopus© Citations 224 -
PublicationFrom Separation to Integration : How Compensatory Structuring Reconciles Exploration and ExploitationPrior research suggests that the ability to reconcile exploration and exploitation (i.e., ambidexterity) may foster firms' long-term success. The two activities, however, require fundamentally different structures with regard to centralization, formalization, and specialization. To overcome these tensions, researchers proposed the separation of consistently-structured explorative (i.e., mechanistic) and exploitative (i.e., organic) organizational domains. We develop an alternative solution by arguing that compensatory structuring - the ability to deploy seemingly inconsistent configurations of centralization, formalization, and specialization - may serve to reconcile exploration and exploitation within and across a single organizational domain. Our study of 190 SMEs supports this hypothesis and further reveals that different compensatory structures have varying effects on ambidexterity. Our findings extend prior theory by showing how structuring may not only be used to separate, but also to integrate paradoxical objectives.Type: conference paper
-
PublicationFrom Differentiation to Reconciliation : How Compensatory Structuring Reunites Exploration and Exploitation in SMEsPrior studies assume that organizational structuring should align the dimensions of centralization, formalization, and specialization, resulting in exploratory organic structures, or exploitative mechanistic structures. Accordingly, researchers argue that exploration and exploitation need to be pursued in distinct organizational domains. Alternatively, we suggest that compensatory structuring (the ability to combine structural characteristics that fosters different strategic orientations) may allow reconciling the two activities' conflicting demands within a single organizational domain. Based on a study of 184 SMEs, we find a positive effect of compensatory structuring on ambidexterity, which is mediated by the behavioral context. We contribute to ambidexterity theory by discussing the insight that structuring may not only be used to differentiate, but also to reconcile exploration and exploitation.Type: conference paper
-
PublicationLeading to Ambidexterity : The Direct and Indirect Effects of Behavioral Complexity in SMEs and Business UnitsPrior studies argue that behaviorally complex managers may contribute to an organizational unit's ambidexterity. While some suggest that such managers reconcile exploration and exploitation directly, others propose that they foster both activities indirectly by framing an ambidextrous behavioral context. We hypothesize that these direct and indirect processes are not independent alternatives, but are interrelated. Based on two samples, we find that SMEs' managers affect unit-level ambidexterity directly and indirectly, while those of larger corporations' business units only have an indirect effect. Our study extends and reconciles the literature on managerial and contextual ambidexterity, as well as that on individual-level and unit-level ambidexterity. The insight that the effectiveness of different paths to ambidexterity may depend on the type of organization under study, is further discussed.Type: conference paper
-
PublicationA Revised Blueprint of the Ambidextrous Organization : Reuniting Structural and Contextual TheoriesOrganizational ambidexterity research has remained divided into two disparate streams. While structural ambidexterity scholars argue that exploitation-exploration tensions can be reconciled by creating separate structural contexts for exploration, contextual ambidexterity research suggests establishing behavioral contexts that allow pursuing both activities within the mainstream organization. In this paper, we argue that both structural and behavioral dimensions define organizational contexts and that it is the interplay between the two that leads to organizational outcomes such as exploitative and explorative processes. Based on a Qualitative Comparative Analysis of 15 work units in three ambidextrous firms, we provide a set-theoretic model of how structural and behavioral context elements are combined to organizational context configurations that enable exploitation, exploration, or both. Based on these findings, we integrate prior theorizing from structural and contextual ambidexterity scholars to establish a revised blueprint of the ambidextrous organization.Type: conference paperVolume: Paper 1646
-
PublicationAmbidexterity in Inter-Firm Relationships: Governance Structures and Knowledge ProcessesResearch has paid scant attention to how firms achieve ambidexterity within inter-organizational relationships. In this study, we argue that firms make use of distinct governance mechanisms that arise from different inter-firm relationship types to enable exploitative and explorative knowledge processes. Drawing upon an inductive study of cooperative new product development projects, we find that vertical relationships with suppliers were related to high levels of formal control and low levels of partner integration. This contributed to unilateral exploitation and exploration processes. Conversely, horizontal relationships with competitors were related to high levels of partner integration and low levels of formal control. This contributed to mutual exploitation and exploration processes. While both types of inter-firm relationships may enable ambidexterity, firms have to select the type of relationship that provides a supportive configuration of governance mechanisms for the desired knowledge processes.Type: conference paper
Scopus© Citations 2 -
PublicationConfigurational aspects of supplier integration in New Product developmentThis paper develops propositions that try to establish a link between the organizational design characteristics of the collaborative research teams and the different innovation types and their interaction effect on the outcome of the collaborative New Product Development (NPD) process. It will be argued that structural separation of the collaborative research unit and radical innovations as well as structural integration and incremental innovations will have a positive interaction effect on the NPD project outcome. Furthermore, heavyweight teams as well as autonomous teams together with market disrupting innovations and lightweight teams together with market sustaining innovations will be introduced as having a positive interaction effect on the collaborative NPD outcome. The contingency factor of the environment will be introduced as a moderator on the interaction effect. Thus, the framework introduced in the paper offers a new perspective on the phenomenon of NPD collaboration and has implications for management practice.Type: conference paper
-