Employing Ambidexterity As A Tool Aiding Success In
Michelin Starred Restaurants.
Author: Nils Engelman, 11152265
Supervisor: Dr. B. Szatmari, University of Amsterdam Second reader: Dr. W. van der Aa, University of Amsterdam
Program: Master Business Administration, Entrepreneurship & Innovation track
Course: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Thesis
2 Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Nils Engelman who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3 Abstract
Why are Michelin starred restaurants so successful? Based on reviewing the literature, success within such a context is not primarily based on financial measures. Indicators as survival and output excellency are imperative to such restaurants. Considering long term survival and excelling in both explorative and exploitive excellence are fundamentally attached to the practice of ambidexterity. Such a perspective on practices in Michelin starred restaurants holds promise in unveiling knowledge on how success within this context is obtained. To address this topic the following research question was drafted: “How is ambidexterity managed in Michelin starred restaurants?”. In a case study that includes eleven purposefully selected Michelin starred restaurants, explorative, exploitative, integrative and separative actions are found. The integration and separation confine themselves to individual and team/organizational level, indicating the relevance of human interaction in this context. The relation between exploration and exploitation is confirmed within the research, however the importance of integration and separation are only partially supported. However, it is argued that in the context of ambidexterity as a dynamic capability that the ambiguity results in a harder to copy practice. Therefore, ambiguity can be seen as an enabler of a competitive advantage.
Keywords
4 Preface
First of all, I would like to use this opportunity to express a disclaimer that this research is in not intended as a guild on getting a Michelin star. Getting such a star depends on the judging of qualified Michelin inspectors on criteria that are still obscure for the observer. Even if the facts in this research contribute, they are by no means exclusive. The chefs that I have met were all hardworking dedicated people with a passion for their job, driven by the desire to deliver the best possible every night. Or as one of the chefs stated: “Every day is like
championship football; you have to bring your top game every day” (case 10). Stating that
ambidexterity is the sole reason of success would not do them justice.
My graduation project would not have been a success without the help of many others. I want to take this opportunity to thank them all. First, I want to thank my supervisor, Balazs Szatmari, who was there for me in times of need and put up with my stress and insecurities. Secondly I want to thank the people of Heron Utrecht. Working in this restaurant inspired me to choose a subject close to my passions and helped me a great deal in getting to know the culinary industry. Additionally, Joyce, Viktor, Bobby and Jord, were always there to answer my questions and helped me with sample interviews. Thirdly I want to thank the restaurants that have contributed in the research. Without Chef Richard van Oostenbrugge of Bord’eau, Chef Hans Snijders of Chateau Neercanne, Chef Rene Tichelaar of de Gieser Wildeman, Chef Steven Klein Nijenhuis of Herberg onder de Linden, Chef Niels van Dooijeweert of Het Koetshuis, Chef Jannis Brevet and Maitre Claudia Brevet of Inter Scaldes, Chef Egon van Hoof of MOS, Chef Edwin Soumang of One, Business manager Joey de Kruijf and Chef Cuisine Vincent van der Zalm of Parkheuvel, Chef Mike Vrijdag of Strandlodge and Chef Eric Swaghoven of Valuas, I would not have been able to learn so much in such a short time.
5 Table of content Statement of originality ... 2 Abstract ... 3 Preface ... 4 Introduction ... 7 Literature review ... 10
The culinary industry ... 10
Business success and a Michelin star ... 11
A brief introduction to the concept of ambidexterity. ... 13
Ambidexterity ... 15
Exploration and Exploitation ... 17
Separation ... 22
Integration ... 24
Pivoting role of management ... 25
Proposition framework ... 28
Ambidexterity in a Michelin starred restaurant ... 28
Ambidextrous management ... 30
Method ... 33
Research design ... 33
Sampling ... 37
6
Results ... 40
How restaurants explore and exploit ... 40
Ambidexterity and the relation to success ... 44
Managing ambidexterity: Separation and Integration ... 45
Managing ambidexterity moderation success. ... 49
Validating the answers ... 50
Discussion ... 51
Theoretical perspective and interpretation ... 51
Conclusion, impact and future research ... 59
Conclusion ... 59
Literature contributions ... 60
Managerial implication ... 61
Limitations and further research ... 63
References ... 65
Appendix ... 76
Appendix 1, Protocol ... 76
Appendix 2, Data gathered ... 83
Appendix 3, Invitation ... 84
Appendix 4, Final coding structure ... 85
7 Introduction
The culinary industry is characterized by its pursuit of excellence and culinary creativity, (Ferguson, 1998) and the strong influence of external reviewing authorities such as the Michelin guild and Gault Millau guild (Durand, Rao, & Monin, 2007; Snyder & Cotter, 1998). Even though the industry appeals to many, it has been given little attention in academic work in relation to business studies (Lane & Lup, 2015; Svejenova, Mazza, & Planellas, 2007). Furthermore, the scarce attention that it has received up until now originated from multiple fields of study. Fields as for example sociology (Ferguson, 1998), hospitality (Johnson, Surlemont, Nicod, & Revaz, 2005), organizational studies (Gomez & Bouty, 2011), business models (Svejenova, Planellas, & Vives, 2010) and innovation (Svejenova et al., 2007) have taken some interest but key questions remain to be answered. This research aims to unveil some of this knowledge by subjecting the Dutch culinary industry to research with the goal to unveil some of the factors that attribute to success. Researching successful organizations in the industry can therefore yield insights in what is crucial in this industry.
With the influential publication of March (1991) on simultaneous exploration and exploitation as ability to achieve a competitive advantage, the field of ambidexterity (sometimes also referred to as organizational ambidexterity) was born. The publications on an ambidextrous organization have gained much attention, indicating its appeal (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013). Many insights were gained in researching the forms of ambidexterity, the transition to ambidexterity, the benefits of ambidexterity and the influence of ambidexterity (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013; Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2006; Junni, Sarala, Taras, & Tarba, 2013; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013). The construct is seen as an important contributor to success. The influence it has, and how it must be managed is however dependent on contingencies that vary greatly between industries (Junni et al., 2013). Research until today has been too scattered. To further
8 advance the field, setting specific research is required (Junni et al., 2013). Thus, knowledge can be gained by subjecting specific fields to research to build a context-specific understanding of how ambidexterity functions.
Combining a field that has received little attention, in respect of the business literature with a concept that requires contingency specific research, can greatly contribute to the understanding of both. Because the topic is little researched but leans on a well-researched topic this study is conducted in a deductive qualitative matter to get rich data on how ambidexterity functions but without losing out on the wealth of information that is already gathered in the ambidexterity literature. This results in a deep understanding of the forces at play and helps to extend the limited understanding from very little previous research in this specific context (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012). To do so the research question: “How
is ambidexterity managed in Michelin starred restaurants?” was drafted and a proposition
framework was build up to aid the research in answering this question.
With this in mind, eleven successful cases in the haute cuisine industry were researched on how they engage in ambidextrous practices such a deep understanding of how the concept functions and of how much influence it has. By interviewing the chefs and collecting additional documentations and observations this resulted in knowledge on a fundamental part of success in the culinary industry, being long term survival and operational excellence. These insights can contribute to build an understanding of why some gain a competitive advantage and ultimately can be used as a management tool to influence success on a practical level. Attributing to the literature of ambidexterity, the research gained knowledge on how the concept functions in a context that is not yet explored. Because of such contextual understanding, the work in search for a more rigorous understanding can continue. Furthermore, a big contribution is made to the literature regarding the culinary field. By adding a new perspective, that of ambidexterity as one of the reasons some restaurants are better than others, managers of
9 restaurants can use the outcomes as a tool in achieving. Managers can build upon this research by aiming to embed explorative and exploitive activities described while managing paradoxes by incorporating integrative and separative activities.
The paper is structured in sx sections. First, the research is scoped by a literature review. Second, building on the research question that is derived from the literature a proposition framework is drafted. The third section consists of the method and describes the approach that was used in conducting the research. In the fourth section the results are presented and in the fifth these results are discussed. Closing this paper is the sixth section where through a conclusion all parts are brought together.
10 Literature review
To build up the study and to put it into perspective with existing literature, a literature review was conducted. The literature review starts with an introduction into the culinary industry and in ambidexterity which is followed by a review of the definition of ambidexterity. Next an elaborate description of its different constructs is provided, closing with a definition of success in the culinary industry to scope the research.
The culinary industry
The culinary industry has been around in some rudimental form since the beginning of human civilization (Sonnenfeld, Flandrin, & Montanari, 2013). However, the current form with at top of the industry the haute cuisine is thought to have originated from the cooks of aristocrats relatively recently (Svejenova et al., 2007). Since the early nineteenth century this industry has been taking form and has slowly grown and through multiple unstable periods, such as the emerging of nouveau cuisine, and became the industry that we know today (Ferguson, 1998; Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003; Svejenova et al., 2007).
The Netherlands at the moment count 14905 restaurants throughout the country (CBS, 2017). This number accounts for all types of restaurants, no matter what style or focus such restaurant pursues. As seen from the definition of Ferguson (1998), the top of this industry is defined by those that pursue excellence and culinary creativity no matter what their style or focus is. In determining success, external evaluations in the form of guilds have a powerful influence (Durand et al., 2007; Snyder & Cotter, 1998). Restaurants that are mentioned by such an appreciation system are generally regarded, by both the public and the market, as the crème de la crème (Gomez & Bouty, 2011; Rao et al., 2003). The most prominent system, which has the greatest impact, is that of the Michelin stars (Gomez & Bouty, 2011; Rao et al., 2003). Because of this, the Michelin rating system was used as the basis for scoping this research.
11 In the Netherlands there are currently 106 Michelin starred restaurants (85 one star restaurants, 19 two star restaurants, and 2 three star restaurants) (based on: Michelin, 2016b). The possession of such a star is thus rare, considering 0.7% of all restaurants have obtained this status. No wonder that being rewarded a star is therefore often perceived as a life achievement (Johnson et al., 2005). Combining the reputation and the output criteria it is clear why Michelin starred restaurants are seen as the best of their trades.
Business success and a Michelin star
Traditionally the field of business defines success as a maintained higher than average ROI (Combs, Russell Crook, & Shook, 2005). Empirical studies of Johnson and colleagues (2005) and Snyder and Cotter (1998) suggest that the difference of a star can mean an increase or decrease in sales up to 50%. However, profit margins do not grow at the same rate and often do not entail more than 5% of the revenue (Johnson et al., 2005).
Nonetheless, such a financial approach does not really seem to drive Michelin starred restaurants (Johnson et al., 2005). Key to measuring performance is persisting superior output and long term survival (Ottenbacher & Harrington, 2007). Such an approach is not uncommon in for example many subsistence (Toledo-López, Díaz-Pichardo, Jiménez-Castañeda, & Sánchez-Medina, 2012) and organizations in the art sector (Turbide & Laurin, 2009), who do not see profit as key performance indicator. Putting focus on these non-financial measures is related to a more operational perspective of measuring performance (Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986).
Thus, the quality of service, and the age of a restaurant as proxy for survival are better indicators of success. Evidence to support such orientation of success in Michelin starred restaurants can be found in two sources. First are the criteria for obtaining a star from Michelin themselves. Michelin is traditionally quite vague about what makes a restaurant worth none,
12 one, two or three stars, but after critique they have become slightly more open. According to their account the Michelin stars are awarded through an inspection process that has six core values, anonymity, interdependence, expertise, reliability, passion, and quality (Michelin, 2016b). The ranking of the stars is described as: one star - “A very good restaurant in its
category”, two stars – “Excellent cooking, worth a detour”, and three stars – “Exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey” (Michelin, 2016c). As is shown below by the criteria of
Michelin, output quality is very important in obtaining a Michelin star. The rewarding of such a star does thus not depend on financial results. To evaluate the restaurants Michelin uses five criteria (Michelin, 2016a):
“1.Quality of the products
2. Mastery of flavour [sic] and cooking techniques 3. The personality of the chef in his cuisine
4. Value for money
5. Consistency between visits”
The second evidence supporting such claim comes from the average amount of years current Michelin star restaurants have their star. At the moment the average time restaurants possess a star is over twelve years (Calculated on the basis of: Brandligt, 2016a; Brandligt, 2016b; Brandligt, 2016c; Brandligt, 2016d; Brandligt, 2016e; Brandligt, 2016f; Brandligt, 2016g; Brandligt, 2016h; Brandligt, 2016i; Brandligt, 2016j; Brandligt, 2017; Michelin, 2016b). Considering the average life expectancy of a restaurant in the Netherlands which is a little over ten years (Bedrijfschap Horeca en Catering, 2014), and the years before, between and after obtaining a star are not calculated, the lifespan of such a restaurant seems to be longer than average. Although this is a tentative conclusion, it offers an insight in what it means to obtain a Michelin star in terms of business success.
13 This focus on survival and output quality is a strong argument why the research is scoped to the relation between ambidexterity and success in the culinary industry. Ambidexterity is the practice of exploring and exploiting simultaneously with the goal of being effective in current day business and still be flexible to changes occurring in its environment (Gupta et al., 2006; Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). This thus encompasses both a focus on quality and a focus on long term survival. To show the relation of ambidexterity to Michelin starred restaurants the literature is reviewed and linked to restaurant practices. But first, to place the relation in context, a brief introduction of ambidexterity is provided.
A brief introduction to the concept of ambidexterity.
The world is always changing. One of the first who described this process in relation to organizations was Schumpeter (1934). In his view innovation changes the dominant design through the emergence of a new combination. This results in a destruction of the existing order and results in a temporary advantage for the innovator vis-à-vis a disadvantage for the existing order. In other words, an innovation disrupts the status quo and has a serious effect on the profitability of an organization. Therefore, it is key to an organization’s survival to innovate, to gain the momentum or to catch up with the new. However, because the market is not in a constant state of change, a secondary factor is of the same importance. For an organization to gain a competitive advantage in the current (i.e. static) order it must utilize its assets (Barney, 1991) and position (Porter, 1985) in an effective way.
A fundamental insight in the organizational literature is the need of different structures for both factors (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013). For example, Burns and Stalker (1961) found different structures in organizations operating in a relative stable environment and organizations that operate in a more dynamic environment. The former organization materialized in a formal and hierarchical design, and the latter is an informal and flat design, indicating that a different
14 strategy requires a different structure. As Schumpeter (1934) has shown, periods of stability are disrupted by new realities. It therefore becomes logical that, to cope with these changes, an organization must react and change its structure in order to survive. However, as for example Christenson (1995) and Tripas and Gavetti (2000) find, most organizations fail in switching from strategy and structure when disruption happens under the influence of for example inertia (Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000), capability destruction (Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000), and value networks (Christensen & Rosenbloom, 1995).
The first to propose the solution of balancing both factors was March (1991). In his work, he describes the paradoxical relationship from what he names the exploration and exploitation trade-off. In this trade-off, exploration is the act of searching the new and consists of activities as “variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, innovation” (March, 1991, p. 71). Exploitation on the other hand is the act of achieving efficiency in using resources that consist of activities as “refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection,
implementation, execution” (March, 1991, p. 71). The paradoxical nature of the activities
involved results in a trade-off in resource allocation, and proves a barrier between balancing the two acts. The resources committed to one of the two activities are difficult to untangle due to the difference in structures, processes, strategies, capabilities, and cultures required for both activities (He & Wong, 2004). To avoid being rendered obsolete, an organization must engage in the activity of exploration next to the practice of exploitation. However, organizations often fail to do so because exploration is inefficient in nature (Levinthal & March, 1993). Structural and strategical changes that are required do not happen because management is prone to focus on the short-term profit over long term gains.
Building on this notion Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) proposed that although the majority of organizations fail in balancing exploration and exploitation, it can be managed. They considered the ability to manage simultaneous the activities of exploration and
15 exploitation as an outcome of what they call the ambidextrous organization (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). Such an organization has the capability to fully utilize the resource potential during a period of stability and react or create a change in the environment of the organization. Thereby such an organization is able to gain a competitive advantage. This instigated a spur of research that is growing till today (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013).
Ambidexterity
Although the concept started off relatively straightforward, today the topic is surrounded by fuzziness (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013; Cao, Gedajlovic, & Zhang, 2009; Gupta et al., 2006; Nosella, Cantarello, & Filippini, 2012; Turner, Swart, & Maylor, 2013). Part of the problem, as Simsek (2009) observes, is the diversity of research areas that make use of the term ambidexterity. He finds that ambidexterity is used in the fields of strategic management, innovation and technology management, organizational learning, organization theory and behavior and operations management. Due to the diversity of the field, the concept of ambidexterity gets diluted. Confirming this finding in their literature review, Turner and colleagues (2013) find a high diversity in the definition of the concept of ambidexterity. Therefore, it is useful to review the main definitions used and scope them to the context of this research preventing ambiguity.
At the start of the research field, as mentioned above, is the work of Tushman and O’Reilly (1996). They define ambidexterity as an innovation perspective; “able to manage both
incremental and revolutionary change” (p. 8). Although this is exactly the core of what
ambidexterity is, this definition falls short because it does not address the question on how such an ability is made or maintained. In following work of both authors the definition varies often but mostly includes exploration and exploitation (e.g. Benner & Tushman, 2003; O’Reilly &
16 Tushman, 2008; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2011). These activities too encompass both incremental and revolutionary change, but include additional activities that are not directly related to innovation or change. In more recent work they come up with a definition that incorporates both the importance of the innovation perspective, and the activity perspective;
“Organizational ambidexterity refers to the ability of an organization to both explore and exploit—to compete in mature technologies and markets where efficiency, control, and incremental improvement are prized and to also compete in new technologies and markets where flexibility, autonomy, and experimentation are needed”(O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013, p. 2).
This definition provides a more complete view that encompasses multiple activities. However, framed this way the definition seems mostly focused on different business activities, not the changes within a market. This is a limitation in respect of the context of this research because an industry that sells food is not likely to become obsolete but is still likely to be subjected to change. Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) define ambidextrous as an organization that is:
“aligned and efficient in their management of today’s business demands, while also adaptive enough to changes in the environment that they will still be around tomorrow” (p. 209).
The definition of Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) can be seen as especially useful in the context of this research because it encompasses the core of what is an important performance indicator, operations. Being aligned and adaptive can be interpreted as business processes in
17 which performance is seen as being the best in what you do and maintaining such an operation that you remain so in the future. However, this definition does not enclose on what it is that makes an organization ready for the future and aligned with the needs of today. Because of the limitations the presented definition which is used within the context of this research is therefore a synthesis of that of Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004), and O'Reilly & Tushman (2013):
“Organizational ambidexterity refers to the ability of an organization to both explore and exploit in such a way that it is aligned and efficient in their management of today’s business demands, while also adaptive enough to changes in the environment that they will still be around tomorrow”
Exploration and Exploitation
As is shown with the choice of definition, a lot depends on exploring and exploiting. Answering what these measures are beyond the definition of March (1991) and what impact does a dual focus have provides many insights in how ambidexterity plays out in real life context. Such insights are needed to ensure valid measures later. For this reason, the definition is given below.
Exploration. Recapping March (1991, p. 71) his definition of exploration the term
encompassed activities as: “variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery,
innovation” The goal of such activities is to discover and adapt to the changing demands of the
market. Such activities are important because the culinary industry is a dynamic and competitive field to operate in (Ottenbacher & Harrington, 2007). Without such activities, a restaurant would become outdated and thus is not adaptive to its environment.
18 Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, and Veiga (2006) define exploration as a process consisting of: (1) Looking for new techniques by looking outside of the box, (2) success is based on those new inventions, (3) creates innovative products and services for the organization, (4) always stay alert to satisfy customer needs in a creative way, (5) steps into new market segments, and (6) new customer groups are targeted. They thus provide a scope for what explorative activities encompass.
These six activities aid an organization in focusing on the right kind of activities, but they may not all be appropriate in the context of the culinary industry because the key to their survival is not venturing in new markets, but to deal with the changes in their own industry (see also the introduction). However, until now the key to exploration remains undefined. The key to the process of exploration is a structured organizational approach to an evolutionary process (March, 1991). In this process variation, selection and retention play an important role. In this sense, it closely resembles the innovation process that current creativity and innovation scholars find. In this literature an organizational idea runs through a phase of creation (creativity), must get selected by higher management to gain support and then follows through to the phase of implementation (innovation) (e.g.: Klein & Knight, 2005; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017; West, 2002).
However, when taking a closer look at this innovation process, it becomes clear that it is not the whole process that fits within exploration activities. In the first phase of idea generation variation plays an important role, which requires flexibility (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017), openness (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017) and diversity (West, 2002). However, the last phase, that of implementation is dependent on skills, cohesion, choice and efficiency (Klein & Knight, 2005; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017; West, 2002). These characteristics are not in line with the definition of March (1991) and better fit the activities of exploitation (see next section). Therefore, not the whole process of creativity and innovation as
19 is described in literature must be seen as exploration. To put it in other words, within this research the activity of variation is defined as exploration where the actual implementation, and thus the selection and retention, is seen as an exploitative activity.
To further scope exploration, creativity must be defined. In the context of culinary institutes the definition that is drafted by Schumpeter (1934) as the process of search and recombination. This definition is useful because in the culinary industry the major outcome of innovation is a new dish that has been cooked differently, served differently, uses new ingredients or by using a superior quality of products where no one else has access to (Petruzzelli & Savino, 2014). These outcomes can be seen as four of the five types of innovation described by Schumpeter (1934, p 66): “a new good”, “a new method of production”, “a new
market”, “a new source of supply of raw materials”, and “the carrying out of a new organization of any industry”.
Using a new ingredient is an example of getting a new good, using a more superior quality of product relates to a new source of supplies, the new cooking techniques as a new production method and the new way of serving as a new organization because it changes the norm on how service normally functions. A good example is serving the dish at the table, requiring table preparation. The only remaining category is that of venturing in new markets. Although the research of Petruzzelli & Savino, (2014) did not include this type of combination, such activities can often be observed. Many restaurants include a hotel, a bistro and join commercial weeks such as the Restaurantweek and Dining with the Stars. These activities are an attempt to attract customers who live further away, want less “fancy food” and are price conscious. The Schumpeterian definition is therefore a useful one.
Exploitation: The definition of exploitation is useful, the second type of activities must
20
production, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution”. The structure underlying
exploitation is one of control and bureaucracy. Lubatkin and Colleagues (2006) too find that there are six activities to exploitation. These items exist of: (1) a commitment to lowering cost and increasing quality, (2) increasing the consistency because the outcome is more reliable, (3) automation in production and operations (4) monitoring current customer satisfaction (5) fine tuning the current offer to customer expectations (6) deeper penetration in the existing customer base.
O’Reilly and Tushman’s (2011) find that exploitation is based on the improvement of profit rates. As they later frame, exploitation revolves around incremental innovation (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013), and is centered around changes that fit within the current technologies a company holds. However, in the context of haute cuisine restaurants such a framing might not suffice. As explained in the introduction, the main focus of most restaurants is not on their profitability, but on maintaining and or improving it (Johnson et al., 2005). Without a doubt, making a profit is key for survival in the long run. Johnson et al (2005) note on this that as chefs achieve a position that is valued by them, they quickly learn how to manage their financials, otherwise they will not make it. However, remaining at the top professionally is of greater importance to them. This is in line with other findings. Balazs (2002) argues that success for a chef depends on the long term superior performance. Ottenbacher and Harrington (2007) argue that today’s success depends on the high skills of the chefs and the constant quality of products and services. It therefore is crucial to utilize their skills and maintain a superior output of products while remaining financially healthy. Exploitive activities are therefore directed at maintaining this high quality to ensure alignment with expectations of the current market.
Furthermore, as became clear from the previous paragraph, innovation implementation is too an exploitative quality. Innovation often fails because it does not fit with the routine of current business, requires skills and often has low quality output (Klein & Knight, 2005). This
21 often disrupts current processes and reduces output quality. It is therefore important that implementation is done in such a way that it does not disrupt the companies functioning too much and the restaurant can thus gain from a creation. Therefore, we will consider it a part of exploitation. Having shown the use of both exploration and exploitation in a culinary perspective demonstrates the use and potential relation of ambidexterity to successful restaurants in this industry.
Paradoxical nature
Defining the use of both exploration and exploitation in context is a useful start but does not provide the full perspective. Focusing on these two goals sounds easy, but in practice requires paradoxical activities (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013). To illustrate this in context of the culinary industry resource allocation can be used as an example. An important resource for both exploration and exploitation is time. Creativity depends on free time and decreases under time constraints (Amabile, Hadley, & Kramer, 2002). However, creating a constant high output quality is associated with the execution of many activities which takes up most of the chef’s time (Balazs, 2002). This compresses the time that is free for creativity and reduces the effectiveness of such an activity. On the other hand, devoting too much time on creativity leads to lack of time for execution.
This illustrates the need for an engineered solution which ensures that both activities can be run (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013; Junni et al., 2013; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013). The biggest contribution an ambidextrous perspective has to offer is that it offers insight on how to engineer a solution in which both exploration and exploitation is managed (Markides, 2013).
22
Separation
As is shown by many, implementing ambidexterity in practice is something that is not carried out easily (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013; March, 1991; Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996; Voss & Voss, 2013). Multiple orientations can be recognized in forming an organization that is structured in such a way that organizational ambidexterity can be achieved (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013). O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) describe three forms in their literature review:
First is the sequential form. This form is based on the work of Duncan (1976) who argued in the line of Schumpeter (1936) that an organization adapts its structure over time to meet the needs of its environment. Basic premise of this work is that an organization changes over long periods of time between exploration and exploitation. Examples of research to this kind of ambidexterity are rare because it involves a longitudinal approach to show how an organization reacts to environmental changes (e.g. Tripsas, 1997). However, some authors have proposed that this solution provides benefit because an organization can commit all resources to a single activity which might be especially useful in stable industries and smaller organizations where resources are limited (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013; Rosenkopf & Nerkar, 2001). The relevance of this construct to the culinary industry has unfortunately little academic evidence to support a claim. However, including this form in researching the relation can be beneficial. It seems logical that some of the restaurants that are time constrained use such a tactic.
The second form is structural ambidexterity, which is the separation of exploration and exploitation into different operational units. This form is the key contribution of Tushman and O’Reilly (1996). Within this form two separate units are created that are tasked with the different activities of exploration and exploitation. A large number of studies follow this stream
23 of thoughts and it has resulted in a large basis of research (e.g. He & Wong, 2004; Jansen, George, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2008; Lubatkin et al., 2006).
Evidence for the use of this form is plenty in the literature of the culinary industry (Lane & Lup, 2015), especially in research aimed at the top of the field. Case studies of famous restaurants describe the use of the structural form, without tying it to ambidextrous practices. For example, in the description of two of the top restaurants in Italy, Slavich, Cappetta, and Salvemini (2014) find that a separate team is tasked with the invention of new dishes.
The third form is contextual ambidexterity, which is based on the work of Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004). Ambidexterity in this form is not dependent on different structures but on contingencies in the environment. The same organizational part is devoted to both exploitation and exploration and switches activities over time. Note that this is fundamentally different from the sequential form because both activities are carried out within the same organizational structure in a relatively short time, and by all levels of the organization (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013).
The use of this in culinary context can be observed in studies of for example Ottenbacher and Harrington (2007). In their study to the innovation process they describe that a chef must make time to be creative by separating himself from his day to day tasks and thus employs contextual ambidexterity practices.
Not all literature agrees with the three separate forms. For example, Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009) only recognize the distinction between architectural (structural) and contextual ambidexterity. Some arguments can be made to not include the sequential form as an ambidextrous form. However, as argued, especially in the context of limited resource organizations including this perspective can result in important insights. The precise form of separation which is used is likely to differ among the restaurants because the appropriate amount of differentiation is dependent on the situation (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013; Raisch,
24 Birkinshaw, Probst, & Tushman, 2009). Therefore, an explorative research must include all three forms of separation to ensure that all the evidence can be collected.
Integration
Although separation of activities can be very beneficial for focusing on two goals simultaneously, it is not by itself the full story. Just separating the two activities leads to two different organizations, which on their own engage in one of the two activities without any ties to the other (Jansen, Tempelaar, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009). Especially with the structural form such problems exist (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013). However, integration is a too vital component for contextual ambidexterity which can be defined as integrative ambidexterity (Raisch et al., 2009). To achieve contextual ambidexterity it is necessary to engage in different types of behaviors which can be enabled through structural means (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Additionally, top management must integrate the separate behavior in order to succeed (Lubatkin et al., 2006).
Thus, the integration mechanisms between the two are crucial (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Markides, 2013). These bind the organization on all levels together. Markides (2013) finds in his review of the literature that 30 different possible integration mechanisms exist. However, because his research is aimed at expanding ambidexterity in the context of business models, this list is by no means complete but limited to the use in business model context. An exhaustive list of integration mechanisms simply does not exist for the use of specific mechanisms is highly context dependent (Jansen et al., 2009; Markides, 2013; Turner et al., 2013). Listing such mechanisms therefore does not offer benefits. Instead, looking at the different types holds more additional value. Lane and Lup (2015) find that chefs use a whole range of integrative actions that are important to the chefs in managing paradoxes coming from the pursuit of different goals.
25 Further aiding to the diffusion is the multilevel aspect of the construct. Measuring ambidexterity can occur on individual level, team level and organizational level (Junni et al., 2013). The measures described by Jansen and colleagues (2009) are both formal and informal, team and organizational integration mechanisms and consist of for example reward systems, integration systems, cross-functional integration and connectedness to ensure alignment. On the other hand, in the context of individual ambidexterity such mechanisms must resolve conflict in roles (Smith & Tushman, 2005) and paradoxes in thinking (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004). Lane and Lup (2015) also find that such multilevel mechanisms exist, they distinguish both an individual chef’s level and an organizational level.
The description of both types of integration mechanism is relevant in the context of this research because as shown above signs of both structural and contextual ambidexterity are present. This makes it likely that both can play a role within successful restaurants in the culinary industry. Therefore, considering both types of integration mechanisms offers a useful perspective in how ambidexterity is managed within successful restaurants.
Pivoting role of management
Achieving ambidexterity within an organization requires a process that distinguishes organizations from each other (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013). If such a differentiation is not used, studying ambidexterity holds no additional value in success. In this case, the study of ambidexterity is just a description of what an organization does without contributing to the description of success. Therefore, it can only be of value when an organization holds an advantage over its competitors, and is able to maintain such a position (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2011). In this sense ambidexterity must be seen as a dynamic capability, because it encompasses
26 the unique ability to successfully explore and exploit simultaneously. The work of O'Reilly and Tushman (2013) too addresses this analogy. They argue in that as a dynamic capability is defined as “the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external
competencies to address rapidly changing environments” (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997, p.
516) and recognize the central role management has in this.
Quite elegantly put by Birkinshaw and Gibson (2013, p. 293), “why else do we need
managers other than to help organizations do the things that do not come naturally to them?”.
As is elaborated in the first paragraph, simultaneously exploring and exploiting is hard to achieve for several reasons and just because of the role management play their task is to enable or achieve an ambidextrous organization through managing its dynamics. Put in other words, management is responsible for obtaining and maintaining the ability to be ambidextrous and thereby creating a competitive advantage. To translate this to the context such an insight would mean that chefs benefit over others in the industry by using ambidexterity. This at least partially explains their success. Such claim is supported in the culinary literature (Balazs, 2002; Pratten, 2003; Zopiatis, 2010)
Combining these insights with the focus on survival and quality of output is a strong argument why the research is scoped to the relation between ambidexterity and success in the culinary industry. However, little research has been done on how ambidexterity plays out within the context. Therefore, the following main question is drafted
27 Answering this question results in two mayor contributions to the literature. First, we can establish a link between ambidexterity and Michelin starred restaurants by looking for explorative and exploitive activities. And secondly we can contribute to literature how, when present, ambidexterity is managed within the culinary industry from a chef’s perspective. In order to answer this question a proposition framework is drafted based on the literature review above (see figure 1). In the following section argumentation will be provided on why this framework has been adopted.
28 Proposition framework
Building on the literature a proposition framework results in a general take on ambidexterity. However, the concept is highly dependent on contingencies within the industry (Junni et al., 2013). Therefore, the relevance of the propositions is explained in context, thus arguing how ambidexterity functions within Michelin starred restaurants.
Ambidexterity in a Michelin starred restaurant
The first two propositions are related to both the explorative and exploitative activities. As explained in the literature these concepts are the basis of ambidexterity. Without it, a restaurant would simply not be ambidextrous. The reasoning why such activities are expected to be present is two-sided.
The first is related to literature on innovation. Ottenbacher and Harrington (2007) provide the first evidence of the importance of ambidexterity. In their piece on innovation in Michelin starred restaurants they map the steps which chefs go through in their creative process. The basic premise of the work is that chefs need to innovate. Ottenbacher and Harrington (2007) argue that innovation is crucial because new restaurants enter the market every day, bringing with them new concepts and ideas. Furthermore, the nature of the industry prevents an innovation to be shielded from imitation. To maintain a highly competitive menu, they therefore are in a constant search for the new (see also: Durand et al., 2007; Fauchart & Von Hippel, 2008; Svejenova et al., 2007). However, maintaining a star requires those innovations to be of the highest level imaginable. Thus, practice requires much attention and a high degree of skills. These findings support the claim that ambidexterity is a highly relevant practice in the culinary industry because of the constant pressure to explore the new, but remain on the same level of quality and thus ensuring exploitation of current skill.
29 The second paper by Petruzzelli and Savino (2014) supports such claim. In this paper, it is described how the process of search, recombination and innovation in the Danish restaurant Noma, where Rene Redzepi is the chef de cuisine, plays out. Besides observing the role of innovation, they both observe and find in the literature that everything must be perfect. Stressing quality is important but innovation is just as vital closely resembles the claims of the ambidexterity literature (i.e. stressing the need for both exploration and exploitation).
Third, Lane and Lup (2015) find both on personal and organizational level that chefs in Michelin starred restaurants must engage in both creative and organizational activities. These activities differ because for the creative part freedom is needed while at organizational level a more controlled approach is required. Thus, chefs must engage in both exploitation and exploration. Without skills enabling such actions, the chefs would never have become successful (Pratten, 2003).
The second argument is that the nature of the criteria that are described by Michelin combined (as are displayed in the previous paragraph) are highly related to both exploration and exploitation. The first (quality of products), the second (mastery of flavor and cooking techniques), the fourth (value for money) and the fifth (consistency between visits) criteria are linked to exploitative activities such as standardization, efficiency and technical perfection because the focus on resource maximization and consistent output. The second (mastery of flavor and cooking techniques) and third (personality of the chef) criteria are related to explorative activities because the personality of a chef can only be achieved through creativity, and because mastering flavors and techniques can only be achieved when these are discovered before they are mastered. Looking for success on these criteria is thus highly likely to involve ambidextrous practices.
30 Thus, summing up the literature, a Michelin starred restaurant is likely to engage in both exploration and exploitation activities because obtaining a star and being on top depend on them. Therefore, the following proposition was crafted.
Proposition 1a and 1b: As top of the culinary industry Michelin starred restaurants engage in exploration activities and exploitation activities.
Proposition 2: As the top of the culinary industry Michelin starred restaurants chefs use ambidexterity as a tool to be successful.
Ambidextrous management
As seen in the literature, the activities of separation and integration are important to ambidexterity because without such management the paradoxical nature can get in the way of being simultaneously exploring and exploiting. Therefore, it is theoretical likely that chefs engage in such activities. Support for this claim in context of the culinary industry can be found in the literature regarding Michelin starred restaurants.
In the first paper, a case study of three star Michelin-chef Ferran Adria of El Buli (the legendary chef that changed the world with his famous style of molecular cooking) Svejenova and colleagues (2007) describe the influence of the restaurant as an institutional entrepreneur through the process of creativity, theorization, reputation, and dissemination. In their approach they describe how the idea generation is separated from the normal production line to ensure that the creative activities do not disrupt the quality of work. This closely resembles which has
31 been described as structural ambidexterity, where the two activities are separated but linked through all kinds of connecting mechanisms (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2004). According to Svejenova and colleagues (2007) such a separation is necessary to ensure both flows, which are of equal importance for the restaurant.
The second paper by Petruzzelli and Savino (2014) is also a case study. In this paper it is described how the process of search, recombination and innovation in the Danish Michelin starred restaurant Noma, where Rene Redzepi is the chef de cuisine, plays out. Besides observing the role of innovation, they both observe and find in the literature that everything must be perfect. Stressing quality is important but that innovation is just as vital closely resembles the claims of the ambidexterity literature (i.e. stressing the need for both exploration and exploitation).
Third, the work of Lane and Lup (2015) who describe the innovation process and tensions between creativity and innovation in Michelin starred restaurants. In their study they find that the success of the whole process depends on two points, separation and integration. They describe on multiple levels how the chef copes with tensions that result from the paradoxical nature of exploiting (innovation) and exploring (creativity). Their findings support integration and separation as the way to deal with individual level tensions between different roles and performance level tensions that arise from competition over resources. Furthermore, they find that it is not only structural separation, but also contextual for they separate the different phases indicating other forms of ambidexterity are also used. Even though they do not extend their findings to the full range of business, it provides strong support for both types of managing ambidexterity.
The last paper that offers insights in managing separation and integration in the specific context is the work of Slavich and colleagues (2014). They find that two of the most successful Italian chefs (Davide Scabin with Combal. Zero and Moreno Cedroni with Madonnina del
32 Pescatore, who both have obtained two Michelin stars) use structural separation to stay creative while staying focused on a high quality. However, crucial to keep both functioning and not drifting apart is to keep communication open to integrate the two departments. This shows again the use of separation and integration in context of Michelin starred restaurants.
Finally, Ottenbacher and Harrington, (2007) describe an innovation process among twelve Michelin starred restaurants in Germany in which creativity and exploration is the responsibility of the chef. They recognize that the chef in some occasions separates himself from daily practice to invent new dishes. Implementation however depends on the integration across the restaurant through a learning perspective. The chefs described that training was the most important tool for them to use in this context. Thus, again supporting both the importance of integration and separation.
When we sum up the literature we can see that separation and integration as activities are important factors for Michelin starred chefs. However, a full view is still missing. Therefore, the following propositions are used.
Proposition 3a and 3b: As the top of the culinary industry, Michelin starred restaurants engage in separation and integration activities.
Proposition 4: As the top of the culinary industry, Michelin starred restaurant chefs use ambidextrous management to positively moderate the link between ambidexterity and success.
33 Method
Research design
Until now the usability and effect of ambidexterity in the context of the culinary industry remains unexplored. The goal is therefore to explore the relation between ambidexterity and success in the culinary industry. Since Michelin starred restaurants are seen as the most successful of their trade the research question used is:
“How is ambidexterity related to Michelin starred restaurants?”
To answer this question a deductive qualitative approach was adopted. The deductive approach allowed for a careful pre-proposed propositions framework which identifies the relations between different constructs within the research based on literature, making it easier, more focused, more generalizable and provided a higher construct validity (Yin, 2011; Yin, 2013). Furthermore, gathering data qualitatively in a predefined context allowed for meaningful and deep understanding, exactly what is useful in the context of an explorative research (Saunders et al., 2012). This resulted in a deepened theoretical perspective (Saunders et al., 2012), and provided direction to the research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010).
However, problematic with this approach is that it may result in a too narrow view and lead to biases, especially in the context of a qualitative research (Eisenhardt, 1989). But, as Yin (2011) also notes, such biases can be prevented when the initial results are accessed fairly. When the pre-composed framework does not match reality, it must be substituted by the new findings. This thus allows testing the framework, and using the data to confirm, to reshape or to completely redraft the framework in building and extending theory. In the end, the choice must fit the logic of the research (Pratt, 2009). In our case the underlying logic was to extend
34 the existing knowledge by exploring a well-researched subject in a different context. As Junni and colleagues (2013) found, the field is diffused enough as it is. Not incorporating existing knowledge would have resulted in a loss of rigor within the research.
The strategy chosen for the gathering of data was holistic multiple case study. The motivation for this is that a multiple case strategy yields more generalizable insights by testing the constructs in multiple situations (Yin, 2013). By applying a theoretical replication approach, variety was incorporated to strengthen the conclusions (Yin, 2013). The sampling approach will be a theoretical one, and will be as heterogeneous as possible, which supports the generalizability of this study (Flyvbjerg, 2006). By looking for the maximum of variation the theory can be tested in various contexts, and under specific circumstances. To validate the relation between ambidexterity and success, variety is built in the research. The variety was based on two assumptions. First being a difference in age with the reasoning that ambidexterity is a dynamic capability. Such a capability is built over time (Teece et al., 1997), thus the longer a company exists, the more time it has had to put effective ambidextrous capabilities in place (Jansen et al., 2009). Second is the number of stars. This is used because stars provide a judgment on how well a company performs in the culinary industry (Michelin, 2016a). And because ambidexterity is linked to success in the culinary industry, differentiation on the number of stars, links to difference in the levels of ambidexterity reached.
Measuring ambidexterity in the context of a qualitative study is obscured because no numerical data is collected. Therefore, any decision on how much ambidexterity a restaurant employs would be tentative. However, key to what level of ambidexterity a company obtains is the implementation of integration mechanisms with the use of separative measures (Jansen et al., 2009). Such mechanisms are important to manage paradoxes and prevent conflicts and tensions as is observed by Lane and Lup (2015) in relation to the innovation process (where creativity is depicted as explorative and innovation as exploitative). By incorporating questions
35 on whether they perceive difficulty in achieving some outcomes (Jansen et al., 2009), being aware of some actions conflicting while not being able to solve it (Gilbert, 2005) or problems with dedicating resources to a certain activity (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013), an alternative for measurement is incorporated to observe variance.
This approach is in line with the proposition framework because in the framework separation and integration are depicted as moderators. Literature states that these managing activities are important to resolve paradoxes and thus the moderating factor can be seen as a reduction of problems with managing the paradoxes increasing success. Therefore, the observation of problems related to ambidexterity can scrupulously serve as a proxy for measuring success in restaurants.
The holistic approach is used because even though there are multiple levels within the organization, key to the whole operation is the chef (Balazs, 2002). The interrelatedness to the chef within the unit of analysis makes one of the primary issues of an embedded approach relevant. Within such research the researcher must however guard himself against focusing on one unit over the others (Yin, 2013). Care was taken to prevent this common pitfall by not over focusing on his personal or organizational activities.
Contributing to the credibility, the research is the admission of multiple sources of data to effectuate triangulation (Tracy, 2010). Therefore, multiple sources of data were used. Data collection occurred in a parallel fashion, because no time variable is included in the design. Furthermore, the research is conducted in a time constrained setting, therefore a longitudinal or sequential approach are not feasible. The downside is that only indirect evidence could be observed from the sequential form of ambidexterity. Finding such evidence thus would yield inconclusive results and a call for a longitudinal study. See the discussion for further information.
36 To aid the data collection a case study protocol was drafted. This helped collecting the right data, in the right manner, thereby increasing the reliability of the study (Yin, 2013). The full protocol can be found in appendix 1.
The main means of collecting data besides theoretical analysis was by interviewing Michelin starred chefs. By using semi-structured interviews, rich data was collected on the chef’s perspectives, while ensuring that the data collected stays within the required scope (Leech, 2002). As part of the case study protocol an interview protocol was drafted ensuring a general structure and boundaries. This increased the reliability of the results gathered (Leech, 2002). Interviews took place in their “home” setting to guarantee a safe environment. Questions covered all propositions as can be seen in Table 2. Furthermore, the interviews were administered in Dutch (the native language of the chefs in the sample). The interviews lasted between 53 minutes and 79 minutes with an average of 62 minutes. All interviews were transcribed as displayed in appendix 5.
The other sources of data are archival of nature, indirect and direct observations fitting with what Yin (2013) describes as sources for effective triangulation. Where possible the data of menu’s, reviews, Michelin reviews and other data that has been brought up in interviews will be collected. These sources are analyzed through pattern matching and coding to aid or confront the statements made by the chefs (Yin, 2013). Every contribution was handled according the case study protocol to ensure reliable recording. In appendix 2 an overview of all data collected is provided.
To finalize the protocol a pilot case was executed. The case was selected because of its qualities (being rated as one of the best restaurants in Utrecht at the moment on Iens) that are alike the real cases. Furthermore, the case was easily accessible because of pre-existing ties. The use of a pilot case helps eradicating unclarities and problems (Yin, 2013). This helped reframe some of the questions and construct in a way that fitted the language of the target group.
37
Sampling
To gather cases for the report an email was sent to 100 Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands. This email invited them to contribute to the research (the email can be found in appendix 3). After two rounds of reminders 39 chefs had answered the email of which 21 answered that they were willing to cooperate. From this replies sixteen cases were selected to obtain variance in the two criteria set up (number of stars and age). However, no cooperation was obtained from three starred restaurants, so these were not included in the sample. Of the sixteen selected cases another five cases dropped from the sample as a result of planning issues. This resulted in a limited amount of cases on some ends of the variance (mostly in the form of two starred restaurants). However, at least one case of each end was included, thus resulting in enough variation. A complete overview of the cases is depicted in table 1.
Table 1. Case description
Case Stars Existing (over 10
years) Owner
Number of interviewees
Other
activities Position
Case 1 1 Yes No 1 No Chef
Case 2 1 Yes Yes 1 Yes Chef
Case 3 1 No Yes 1 Yes Chef
Case 4 1 No Yes 1 No Chef
Case 5 2 No No 1 Yes Chef
Case 6 1 Yes Yes 1 Yes Chef
Case 7 1 Yes Yes 1 No Chef
Case 8 1 Yes No 1 Yes Chef
Case 9 1 No Yes 1 No Chef
Case 10 2 Yes No 2 No Chef/maître
Case 11* 2 Yes Yes 2 Yes Chef/maître
*Interview conducted through the mail
The cases consisted of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands, focusing on the chef de cuisine (senior leader within the restaurant). In two cases the maître joined the interview because they were key to the theme of the interview according to the chef. In one case the interview was conducted on paper, using the interview protocol as open questionnaire. After careful analysis for usability and validity the interview was included.
38
Data analysis
To analyze the results, a codebook was drafted based on literature and in line with the proposition framework used in this study to organize and reduce data in such a way that analysis became possible (Lockyer, 2004). This predesigned approach ensured a focused approach, aided in collecting the right data and ensured the right kind of data for the used analysis (Yin, 2013). Furthermore, to ensure a thorough approach the codes are in line with the conditions proposed by Bourque (2004). This means that the codes were designed to be exhaustive, mutually exclusive, contained a residual other code, included missing data coding and prevented heaping all data in one category.
The codebook was then applied to the transcripts. Units of data were matched with the coding and then with the framework. Data that did not fit within the codes was organized in three categories of residual codes to ensure a thorough approach and for later validity checks (Bourque, 2004). The codes were separated in non-usable, potential rival explanation and potentially influential. These separate coding’s allow for rival explanation analysis, and aid in the generalizability of the study (Yin, 2013). The main coding structure is displayed in appendix 2, the protocol.
Table 2. Propositions and analytical tool
Proposition Description Type of Questions Tools
Proposition 1a and 1b:
As the top of the culinary industry Michelin starred restaurants engage in exploration activities and exploitation activities.
How do you engage in ..? With what? What is
important to..?
Codebook*, open coding**, axial
coding** Proposition 2
As the top of the culinary industry Michelin starred restaurants chefs use ambidexterity as a tool to be successful.
Why do you engage in …? Why is it important? Can
you do without ..? Selective coding** and Pattern matching* Proposition 3a and 3b
As the top of the culinary industry Michelin starred restaurants engage in separation and integration activities.
How do you engage in ..? With what? What is
important to..?
Codebook*, open** coding, axial
coding** Proposition 4
As the top of the culinary industry Michelin starred restaurant chefs use ambidextrous management to positively moderate the link between ambidexterity and success.
How often do you engage in …? Is … more important
than …?
Selective coding** and Pattern
matching*
39 Coded data from each transcript was then compiled in separate tables and being stored individually. With this data, the appropriate analysis was conducted to find support for the four propositions. Each proposition was tested using different methods, which are displayed in table 2. The first and the third consisted of a method that is generally more related to a grounded theory approach than to a case study (Saunders et al., 2012). The choice for such an approach is based on the limited knowledge of how the researched phenomena play a role in the culinary industry. However, to stay in line with the proposition network the basis of the open coding approach was the code from the codebook (Yin, 2013). The second and the fourth propositions encompass the relation of the phenomena in the first two propositions and their relation to success and thus depending on the relations that can be derived from the data. To find relation in the data, a grounded theory approach has been used which furthermore has been compared to the drafted framework using a pattern matching approach. A total of 51 unique codes were created during the process, incorporating 870 units of data. An overview of the final coding structure is displayed in appendix 4.
40 Results
The results section is structured aligned with the propositions that were drafted. The first paragraph elaborates on the categories observed in the data in relation to exploration and exploitation. The second paragraph concerns the relation of exploration and exploitation to success. The third paragraph elaborates on the categories observed in the data regarding separation and integration. The fourth focusses on establishing a relation between integration and separation to success. The fifth and last provides an validation of the findings.
How restaurants explore and exploit
To find support for proposition 1a and 1b, the data was analyzed in relation to exploration and exploitation. In all cases both exploration and exploitation activities were found to be executed simultaneously. The categories with activities found in the context of the culinary industry are described separately underneath.
Exploration: A total of nine categories containing coding regarding exploration were
created. Frequency of these activities ranged from only once in the eleven cases to ten of the eleven cases. The different categories and their frequency are depicted in table 3. One of the categories concerned data in regard of later propositions (importance).
Exploring activities encompassed different aspects of the restaurant. Most often found was exploring new dishes (11), new ways of serving (7) and model changes (2). To the question on how often they engaged in such activities, most had difficulty answering: ten of them in the end described it as a continuous process. In the other case creativity was delegated to another level and was not the main focus of the chef’s own activities. However, this delegating resulted in a continue focus of change. Therefore, support was found that all chefs continuously engaged in explorative activities thus providing support for proposition 1a.
