Paradoxes Arising From Pursuing Ambidexterity: meta-synthesis approach

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Allameh Tabatabae University

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba`i University,

3 shahid beheshti university

4 allameh tabataba'e university

Abstract

Objective: The present study was conducted by combining previous research with the aim of providing a comprehensive picture of the paradoxes arising from pursuing ambidexterity as an organizational strategy.
Methodology: The research methodology is qualitative with a meta- synthesis approach. Exploring studies related to ambidexterity paradoxes, 223 studies were evaluated and finally, after multiple screenings of the studies, 45 articles were selected.
Findings: With the help of coding method, 67 codes, 12 concepts and 4 components were identified and validated through Kappa Cohen coefficient. Using seven-step model of Sandelowski and Barroso, the findings of 44 previous studies related to the objectives of the study were reviewed, aggregated, combined and interpreted.
Conclusion: According to the results, paradoxes emerging from pursuing ambidexterity are bundled in four different categories of paradoxes including paradoxes resulted from stakeholders’ interest, paradoxes resulted from control maintenance, paradoxes resulted from resources limitation, paradoxes resulted from innovation system inefficiency.

Keywords

References

  1. Adler, P. S., & Chen, C. X. (2011). Combining creativity and control: Understanding individual motivation in large-scale collaborative creativity. Accounting, organizations and society, 36(2), 63-85.
  2. Akbari, M., & Eivazinejad, S. (2022).Identifying Three Affective Factors In Organizational Ambidexterity: A Systematic Review. raninan Jouornal of Trade Studies (IJTS), 26 (101), 127-156.Persian
  3. Akroyd, C., & Maguire, W. (2011). The roles of management control in a product development setting. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 8(3), 212–237.
  4. Ali, S., Wu, W., & Ali, S. (2021). Managing the product innovations paradox: the individual and synergistic role of the firm inside-out and outside-in marketing capability. European Journal of Innovation Management.
  5. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization science, 20(4), 696-717.
  6. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long range planning, 43(1), 104-122.
  7. Artto, K., Kulvik, I., Poskela, J., & Turkulainen, V. (2011). The integrative role of the project management office in the front end of innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 29, 408–421
  8. Aubert, B. A., Kishore, R., & Iriyama, A. (2015). Exploring and managing the “innovation through outsourcing” paradox. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24, 255–269.
  9. Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2015), “Reflections on the 2013 decade award – ‘exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited’ ten years later”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 497-514 .
  10. Berglund, H., & Sandström, C. (2013). Business model innovation from an open systems perspective: structural challenges and managerial solutions. International Journal of Product Development, 18(3-4), 274-285.
  11. Bisbe, J., & Malagueño, R. (2009). The choice of interactive control systems under different innovation management modes. European Accounting Review, 18(2), 371-405.
  12. Blank, T. H., & Naveh, E. (2019). Managing Creativity and Process Tensions in Innovation. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 47(4), 15-17.
  13. Brattström, A., & Richtnér, A. (2014). Good cop–bad cop: Trust, control, and the lure of integration. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 584–598.
  14. Breunig, K. J., Aas, T. H., & Hydle, K. M. (2014). Incentives and performance measures for open innovation practices. Measuring Business Excellence, 18(1), 45–54
  15. Brühl, R., Horch, N., & Osann, M. (2010). Improving integration capabilities with management control. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 385–408.
  16. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley
  17. Canonico, P., & Söderlund, J. (2010). Getting control of multi-project organizations: Combining contingent control mechanisms. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 796–806.
  18. Cao, R., & Jiang, R. (2022). Resolving strategic dilemmas in ambidextrous organizations: An integrated second-order factor model perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 655.
  19. Carter, W. R., Davis, P. E., Herchen, J. L., & Chandna, V. (2013). Pitfalls and paradoxes: Coping with the capabilities-rigidities dilemma in whole networks. Journal of Business Strategies, 30(2), 97–119
  20. Carvajal Pérez, D., Le Masson, P., Weil, B., Araud, A., & Chaperon, V. (2020). Creative heritage: Overcoming tensions between innovation and tradition in the luxury industry. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29, 140-151
  21. Cautela, C., & Zurlo, F. (2011). Managing the five tensions of the design process. Design Management Review, 22(3), 6–14.
  22. Cecchini, S., & Bernal, M. E. (2018). Social innovation in Latin America and the Caribbean. Atlas of Social Innovation, New Practices for a Better Future, SI-Drive.
  23. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi‐dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of management studies, 47(6), 1154-1191.
  24. Dougherty, “Organizing for Innovation,” In: S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. R. Nord, Eds, Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1996, pp. 424-439.
  25. Davila, T. (2000). An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems’ design in new product development. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(4), 383–409.
  26. Dieste, M., Sauer, P. C., & Orzes, G. (2022). Organizational tensions in industry 4.0 implementation: A paradox theory approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 108532.
  27. Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The management of organization, 1(1), 167-188.
  28. Ecker, B., van Triest, S., & Williams, C. (2013). Management control and the decentralization of R&D. Journal of Management, 39(4), 906–927.
  29. Eldridge, S., van Iwaarden, J., van der Wiele, T., & Williams, R. (2014). Management control systems for business processes in uncertain environments. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 31(1), 66–81
  30. Etemadi, H., Tari, G., Rasaiian, A. (2012). TQM Paradoxes and their Strategies. Rahbord Tousee, 7(3). Persian
  31. Fourné, S., Rosenbusch, N., Heyden, M., & Jansen, J. (2019). Structural and Contextual Approaches to Ambidexterity. European Management Journal.
  32. Fragkandreas, T. (2017). Innovation paradoxes: a review and typology of explanations. Prometheus, 35(4), 267-290.
  33. Frattini, F., & Massis, A. D. (2016). Family-Driven Innovation: Resolving the Ability and Willingness Paradox to Unlock the Innovation Potential of FB. European Business Review.
  34. Frow, N., Marginson, D., & Ogden, S. (2005). Encouraging strategic behaviour while maintaining management control: multi-functional project teams, budgets, and the negotiation of shared accountabilities in contemporary enterprises. Management Accounting Research, 16(3), 269-292.
  35. Ghorehjili, S., Rahmati , M, H., PourKarimi, J. (2020). Presentation of the Ambidextrous leadership Model of Universities Based on Grounded Theory (Case Study: Tehran State University). Quarterly Journal of Public Organzations Management, 8(2, 143-168. Persian
  36. Ghorehjili, S., Rahmati, M, H., and Pourkarimi, J. (2019). Ambidexterity leadership Components: A Meta-synthesis Study. Teaching in Marine Sciences, 6(1), 123-138. Persian
  37. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
  38. Gieske, H., Duijn, M., & Van Buuren, A. (2020). Ambidextrous practices in public service organizations: Innovation and optimization tensions in Dutch water authorities. Public Management Review, 22(3), 341-363.
  39. Goodale, J. C., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Operations management and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of operations control on the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation performance. Journal of operations management, 29(1-2), 116-127.
  40. Henri, J.-F. (2006). Management control systems and strategy: A resource[1]based perspective. Accounting, Organization and Society, 31(6), 529–558.
  41. Hodgson, D., & Briand, L. (2013). Controlling the uncontrollable: ‘Agile’ teams and illusions of autonomy in creative work. Work, employment and society, 27(2), 308–325.
  42. Ingram, A. E., Lewis, M. W., Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2008, August). Innovation Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Toward A Collective Paradox Frame. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2008, No. 1, pp. 1-6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
  43. Jelinek, M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). The innovation marathon: Lessons from high technology firms. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  44. Kaneko, R., & Sanchez, O. (2022, January). BUILDING IT AMBIDEXTERITY IN PARADOXICAL TIMES: THE ROLE OF IT PROJECT AMBIDEXTERITY. In Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  45. Karrer, D., & Fleck, D. (2015). Organizing for ambidexterity: A paradox[1]based typology of ambidexterity-related organizational states. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 12, 365-383.
  46. Kassotaki, O. (2022). Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research. SAGE Open, 12(1), 21582440221082127
  47. Kmet, L. M., Cook, L. S., & Lee, R. C. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields.
  48. Lane, C., & Lup, D. (2015). Cooking under fire: Managing multilevel tensions between creativity and innovation in haute cuisine. Industry and Innovation, 22(8), 654-676.
  49. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research policy, 43(5), 867-878.
  50. Lavie, D., Stettner, U. and Tushman, M.L. (2010), “Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 109-155.
  51. Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G. E., & Green, S. G. (2002). Product development tensions: Exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 546-564.
  52. Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G. E., & Green, S. G. (2002). Product development tensions: Exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 546-564.
  53. Li, X. (2019). Is “Yin-Yang balancing” superior to ambidexterity as an approach to paradox management?. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(1), 17-32.
  54. Lövstål, E., & Jontoft, A. M. (2017). Tensions at the intersection of management control and innovation: a literature review. Journal of Management Control, 28(1), 41-79.
  55. Malekzadeh, G., Taqizadeh, Q., and Malekzade, M. A. (2017). Investigation of the Mental Patterns of Technology Incubators Managers about Factors Affecting on Organizing and Innovation Paradox, Management Improvement Quarterly. 11 (3), 45-76. Persian
  56. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 268–305
  57. Mikkers, M., & Ryan, P. (2016). Optimisation of healthcare contracts: Tensions between standardisation and innovation: comment on" Competition in healthcare: Good, bad or ugly?". International journal of health policy and management, 5(2), 121.
  58. Mundy, J. (2010). Creating dynamic tensions through balanced use of management control systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(5), 499–523.
  59. O’Dwyer, C., Sweeney, B., & Cormican, K. (2017). Embracing Paradox and Conflict: Towards a Conceptual Model to drive Project Portfolio Ambidexterity. Procedia computer science, 121, 600-608.
  60. O'Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
  61. Ouyang, T., Cao, X., Wang, J., & Zhang, S. (2020). Managing technology innovation paradoxes through multi-level ambidexterity capabilities. Internet Research.
  62. 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.
  63. Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2016). In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial reactions to innovation–efficiency tensions. human relations, 69(9), 1791-1822.
  64. Patrick, H. (2018). Nested tensions and smoothing tactics: An ethnographic examination of ambidexterity in a theatre. Management Learning, 49(5), 559-577.
  65. Perez-Freije, J. and Enkel, E. (2007), “Creative tension in the innovation process: how to support the right capabilities”, European Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 11-24
  66. Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 189–198.
  67. Ritala, P., & Stefan, I. (2021). A paradox within the paradox of openness: The knowledge leveraging conundrum in open innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 281-292.
  68. Roberts, J. P., Fisher, T. R., Trowbridge, M. J., & Bent, C. (2016, March). A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. In Healthcare, 4(1), 11-14.
  69. Rosales, V., Gaim, M., Berti, M., & e Cunha, M. P. (2022). The rubber band effect: Managing the stability-change paradox in routines. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 38(2), 101194.
  70. Sandelowski, M & ,.Barroso, J. (2003). Toward a metasynthesis of qualitative findings on motherhood in HIV‐positive women. Research in Nursing & Health, 26(2), 153–170.
  71. Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Khazanchi, S. (2017). Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 463-488.
  72. Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
  73. Smith, W., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403
  74. Syed, T. A., Blome, C., & Papadopoulos, T. (2020). Resolving paradoxes in IT success through IT ambidexterity: The moderating role of uncertain environments. Information & Management, 57(6), 103345.
  75. Tatikonda, M. V., & Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Successful execution of product development projects: Balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process. Journal of operations management, 18(4), 401-425.
  76. Vettorello, M., Eisenbart, B., & Ranscombe, C. (2020, May). Paradoxical tension: Balancing contextual ambidexterity. In Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 1385-1394). Cambridge University Press.
  77. Vettorello, M., Eisenbart, B., & Ranscombe, C. (2020, May). Paradoxical tension: Balancing contextual ambidexterity. In Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 1385-1394). Cambridge University Press.
  78. Virta, S., & Malmelin, N. (2017). Ambidextrous tensions: Dynamics of creative work in the media innovation process. The Journal of Media Innovations, 4(1), 44-59.
  79. Wu, J., Wood, G., Chen, X., Meyer, M., & Liu, Z. (2020). Strategic ambidexterity and innovation in Chinese multinational versus indigenous firms: The role of managerial capability. International Business Review, 29(6), 101652 .
  80. Yazdanshenas, M. (2018). Effect of Ambidextrous Leadership on Work Attitudes; Moderating Role of Social Capital and Self-efficacy. Social Capital Management, 4(4), 527-545, Persian
  81. Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible leadership: Creating value by balancing multiple challenges and choices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
  82. Zeng, D., Hu, J., & Ouyang, T. (2017). Managing innovation paradox in the sustainable innovation ecosystem: A case study of ambidextrous capability in a focal firm. Sustainability, 9(11), 2091.
  83. Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 May 2022
  • Revise Date: 18 July 2022
  • Accept Date: 23 July 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics