1
Thesis
Amsterdam Business School
University of Amsterdam
How can organizational culture facilitate contextual organizational ambidexterity?
P a t r i c k L e m m e n s 1 0 9 9 8 3 3 0
E x e c u t i v e P r o g r a m i n M a n a g e m e n t S t u d i e s – S t r a t e g y T r a c k
S u b m i s s i o n d a t e : 3 1s t o f A u g u s t 2 0 1 7
V e r s i o n : D 1 . 0 F i n a l V e r s i o n
2
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Patrick Lemmens 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
Table of contents
Abstract ... 6
1 Introduction ... 7
2 Main concepts and preliminary conceptual framework ... 11
2.1 Organizational ambidexterity... 11
2.2 Structural and contextual organizational ambidexterity ... 12
2.3 Organizational culture ... 14
2.4 Prelimenary conceptual framework ... 14
3 Research methodology ... 16
3.1 Research design ... 16
3.2 Data collection ... 16
3.3 Measurement of constructs ... 18
3.4 Data analysis ... 20
3.5 Reliability and validity ... 21
3.5.1 Reliability ... 21
3.5.2 Validity ... 22
4 Cases ... 23
4.1 Commercie (COMM) ... 23
4
4.3 Service and Operations (S&O) ... 27
4.4 Besturing en Operatie (BO) ... 28
4.5 Netwerkontwerp (NO) ... 30
4.6 Final results cases ... 32
5 Cross case analysis ... 33
5.1 Main findings on exploitation ... 34
5.2 Main findings on exploration ... 35
5.3 Theoretical framework ... 37
6 Discussion and conclusion ... 37
6.1 Discussion ... 38 6.2 Contributions ... 40 6.3 Limitations ... 40 6.4 Conclusion ... 41 7 References ... 42 8 Appendices ... 46 8.1 Sampling ... 46 8.2 Transcripts ... 48 8.2.1 01.01 – BO – Vincent Verbeet ... 48 8.2.2 01.02 – BO – Jantina Woudstra ... 52
8.2.3 02.01 – COMM – Joost Bosma ... 59
5
8.2.5 02.03 – COMM – Ron Schneider ... 78
8.2.6 03.01 – INT – Kaj Mook ... 83
8.2.7 03.02 – INT – Ron Heeren ... 90
8.2.8 03.03 – INT – Marjon Kaper ... 96
8.2.9 03.04 – INT – Sofie Drijver ... 101
8.2.10 04.01 – SO – Mirjam Kop ... 106 8.2.11 04.02 – SO – Kees Nieuwenbroek ... 114 8.2.12 05.01 – NO – Tijmen Vloet ... 120 8.2.13 05.02 – NO – Ramon Lentink ... 127 8.3 OGSM ... 133 8.3.1 Besturing en Operatie ... 133 8.3.2 Commercie ... 134 8.3.3 International ... 135
8.3.4 Service and Operations ... 136
8.3.5 Netwerkontwerp ... 137
8.4 Interview topic guide ... 138
8.5 Organizational culture profile item set ... 139
6
ABSTRACT
Is it possible to influence an organization’s life expectancy through culture? Following
organizational ambidexterity literature, organizations can increase their odds for long term survival by simultaneously pursuing exploitation and exploration. Most research on organizational ambidexterity focuses on structural separation between exploitation and exploration (i.e. structural organizational ambidexterity). This study will focus on the relation between cultural antecedents that influence the degree of contextual organizational ambidexterity in an organization.
In order to build a theory about the relation between culture and contextual organizational ambidexterity this study uses the case study approach. This method is used to focus on relations within single settings. The cases selected are business units within one organization. Data was
collected through 13 interviews and 5 documents. Next, cases and cross case analysis are conducted to build a theory on how contextual organizational ambidexterity is influenced through culture. Results show that all four antecedents of culture positively influence the degree of exploitation. The degree of exploration can be addressed through support and strength, but since there is a mediating effect only in commercial environments. These outcomes mean that managers can organize facilitating contextual organizational ambidexterity through culture.
7
1 INTRODUCTION
According to O’Reilly & Tushman (2011: P5) “no more than a handful of organizations have survived for a period over more than one hundred years1”. This implies that the average organization has a limited life expectancy. It made me curious about the reasons why an organization seems to have a limited life expectancy. Through this research, I will look into increasing the chance for long term survival of organizations. The reason why some organizations are able to achieve a long term life expectancy can be dependent on their ability to cope with environmental changes over time. The success factors based upon which an organization extracted their right to exist, might shift over time and can lead to a mismatch between their competencies and their environment. This mismatch can, over a period of time, turn into the reason why an organization does not survive.
Addressing the issue from another perspective Hannan & Freeman (1977) researched the population ecology of organizations in their paper. They focus on inertial pressures and how the inertial strength within an organization influences the selection in populations of organizations. When this strength becomes too high, organizations are more likely to be outperformed within the
population of organizations. In a later paper Hannan & Freeman (1984) write about inertia and the fact that developing a certain level of inertia is inevitable for organizations. But although inertia is a byproduct of selection within the population ecology selection, it is highly recommended to avoid high levels of inertia in order to remain able to adapt to changing environments. When failing to do so, the chance increases that an organization is out selected by other organizations. Flier et al. (2003) wrote a paper on how, and if, organizations and environments are able to adapt to their environments by renewing themselves. Flier et al. (2003) state a proposition based on population ecology. In this view variation, retention and selection are the main drivers on organizational change. When taking
1 Charles I. Stubbart and Michael B. Knight, “The Case of the Disappearing Firms: Empirical Evidence and Implications,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27/1 (February 2006): 79-100. Rajshree Agarwal and Micheal Gort, “The Evolution of Markets and Entry, Exit, and Survival of Firms,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 78/3 (august 1996): 489-498.
8 population ecology in consideration, Flier et al. (2003) state that incumbent organizations are more likely to act upon exploitation rather than exploration in order to stay aligned with their environment.
James March (1991) found that organizations need to balance their resources between addressing current activities versus trying to create new activities. Therefore organizations need to keep
exploring new opportunities while also focusing on their core business. Levinthal & March (1993) add to this that finding a balance that works best is the hardest part. An organization can focus too much on exploitative activities and thus forget to make sure they have a business model for the future. On the other hand, they might focus too much on explorative activities and forget to make sure they keep on gaining enough advantage to remain profitable. Research shows that having a certain level of organizational ambidexterity is one of the main reasons organizations survive longer periods of time. In this view the adaptability of the organization is the main reason why organizations are able to survive and stay successful. According to O’Reilly & Tushman (2011) one of the main questions still to be answered is how managers can address this need for organizations to engage in both explorative and exploitative activities. O’Reilly & Tushman (P20) state that “there exists a gap in understanding how organizational ambidexterity is actually managed within organizations.” How to do so can also be different between organizations.
According to Gibson & Birkenshaw (2004) organizational ambidexterity has been mostly looked at from a structural perspective. Gibson & Birkenshaw (2004) refer to the article of Duncan (1976) where organizational ambidexterity was first mentioned. Duncan (1976) states that certain dedicated parts of an organization focus on either alignment or adaptation. According to Gibson & Birkenshaw (2004) this is referred to as structural organizational ambidexterity. Next to this structural character of organizational ambidexterity, Gibson & Birkenshaw (2004) introduce a new concept of organizational ambidexterity called contextual organizational ambidexterity: “Contextual because it arises from features of its organizational context. Contextual organizational ambidexterity is the behavioral
9 capacity to simultaneously demonstrate alignment and adaptability across an entire business unit.” (Gibson & Birkenshaw (2004: P209).
Contextual organizational ambidexterity is defined as “interplay of system capacities for
alignment and adaptability” (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004: P211). In some organizations, exploitation and exploration is explicitly separated. When one part of the organization is dedicated to explorative activities and a different part of the organization is dedicated to exploitative activities, this is called structural organizational ambidexterity. It is called contextual organizational ambidexterity when the exploitative and explorative activities are not separated. This means that each part of an organization consists of both exploitation and exploration. These parts have their own balance in the level of contextual organizational ambidexterity. Studies like Adler et al. (1999) and Hedlund & Ridderstrale (1997) show that, rather than separating capacities by structural organizational ambidexterity,
stimulating dual capabilities within one unit are needed. The link with culture is mentioned by Gibson & Birkenshaw (2004): “Organization context has important similarities to the related concepts of structural context, organization culture, and organization climate.” (Gibson & Birkenshaw, 2004: P2012). This implies that an organizations’ culture and climate can have a significant role in the level of contextual organizational ambidexterity.
The cultural aspect is further mentioned in the summarizing paper of O’Reilly and Tushman (2013). Building on the research available, O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) summarize the field of organizational ambidexterity research in their paper “Organizational ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future”. In this paper they construct an overview in the field of research of organizational
ambidexterity.O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) emphasize the gap about the lack of knowledge in how organizational ambidexterity is managed. One particular aspect they mention is the organizational culture of an organization. According to several research papers (Goia, Patvardhan, Hamilton & Colrey, 2013; Chatman, Caldwell, O’Reilly & Doerr, 2013; Schultz and Hernes, 2013) organizational culture may be an important strategic capability in hosting ambidextrous designs over time. At the end
10 of their summarizing paper, O’Reilly & Tushman (2013) emphasize that the question remains how leaders can promote new cultures and identities that accommodate organizational ambidexterity. O’Reilly & Tushman (2013) explain why this is important by using Tripsas’ (2013) research about the example of Fuji and Polaroid when they dealt with digital imaging. In this research it became clear that Polaroid did indeed try to embrace digital imaging. But due to cultural aspects, being focused on production instead of software development, Polaroid was unable to create an advantage in this market.
This research will build a theory to determine what cultural aspects have an influence on the level of contextual organizational ambidexterity by answering the following question:
“How can organizational culture facilitate contextual organizational ambidexterity?”
In the next sections of this thesis the main concepts will be addressed and explained to the means of building a preliminary conceptual framework how culture relates to contextual organizational ambidexterity. Thereafter, a section explains how data was collected, the research was conducted and analysis took place. These analysis show results in the sections following the research section in which the cases are being presented followed by the cross case analysis. At the end of this thesis there is a section containing a discussion and conclusion.
11
2 MAIN CONCEPTS AND PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
2.1 ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY
March (1991) wrote a paper about exploitation and exploration in the context of organizational learning. In this paper the organizational learning aspect of exploration vs. exploitation is being addressed. One field of studies in organizational adaptation is the balance between exploiting current activities and exploring new opportunities. (Schumpeter 1934; Holland, 1975; Kuran, 1988). According to March (1991) there are four aspects that determine what exploitation is about: efficiency, control, certainty, and variance reduction. The four aspects determining exploration are search, discovery, autonomy, and innovation. March (1991) adds to this that making a choice between the two, exploitation and exploration, is both explicit and implicit. Explicit choices are found in calculated decisions about alternative investments and competitive strategies. Implicit choices are buried in many features of organizational forms and customs (March 1991). Duncan (1976) first used the term organizational ambidexterity when he suggested that in order to strive for long term organizational survival, organizations need to be able to both exploit and explore. When O’Reilly & Tushman (1996) reviewed the performance of organizations over longer period of time, they stated that organizations need to be able to both exploit and explore at the same time. O’Reilly & Tushman (2013) find that organizational ambidexterity has an explicit relation to how organizations perform. “Organizational ambidexterity has been shown to be positively associated to sales growth2, subjective ratings of performance3, innovation4, market valuation as measured by Tobin’s Q5, and firm
2 Auh & Menguc, 2005; Caspin-Wagner, Ellis & Tishler, 2012; Geerts, Blindenbach-Driessen & Gemmel, 2010; Han & Celly, 2008; He & Wong, 2004; Lee, Lee & Lee, 2003; Nobeoka & Cusumano, 1997; Venkatraman, et al., 2006; Zhiang, Yang & Demirkan, 2007.
3 Bierly & Daly, 2007; Burton, O’Reilly & Bidwell, 2012; Cao, Gedajlovic & Zhang, 2009; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling & Veiga, 2006; Markides & Charitou, 2004; Masini, Zollo & Wassenhove, 2004; Schulze, Heinemann & Abedin, 2008.
12 survival6”. O’Reilly & Tushman (2013: P5). O’Reilly & Tushman (2011) further state that organizational ambidexterity has to be viewed from the perspective of dynamic capabilities. The study of Jansen et al. (2009) contributes to this view that they recognize organizational ambidexterity as a dynamic capability. In this way organizational ambidexterity is reflected in a complex set of decisions and routines that enable the organization to sense and seize new opportunities through reallocation of organizational assets. Organizational ambidexterity requires managers to accomplish two critical tasks; sense changes in their competitive environment and seize them by reconfiguring assets to meet new challenges (Harreld et al., 2007).
2.2 STRUCTURAL AND CONTEXTUAL ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY
Organizational ambidexterity is a theme in recent literature and is therefore a field that is still far from maturity. However, the research has been focusing mostly on the structural aspect of
organizational ambidexterity. Duncan (1976) started the discussion in his paper about the ability to shift resources between both exploitation and exploration within an organization in order to address the tension between exploiting and exploring. Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) first argued that in order to achieve organizational ambidexterity, exploiting and exploring should be separated in different units and by doing so embed ambidexterity in the structure of an organization. Both units should have their own organizational assets in order to address either exploitative or explorative activities. The amount of research on structural organizational ambidexterity is very high. Studies on structural organizational ambidexterity have been done on organizational performance (He & Wong, 2004). Furthermore, a large amount of research has been done on organizational ambidexterity, performance
4 Adler, Goldoftas & Levine, 1999; Burgers, Jansen, Van den Bosch & Volberda, 2009; Eisenhardt & Tabrizi,
1995; Katila & Ahuja, 2002; McGrath, 2001; Phene, Tallman & Almeida, 2012; Rothaermel & Alexandre, 2008; Rothaermel & Deeds, 2004; Sarkees & Hulland, 2009; Tushman, Smith, Wood, Westerman & O’Reilly, 2010; Yang & Atuahene-Gima, 2007.
5 Goosen, Bazzazian & Phelps, 2012; Uotila, Maula, Keil & Shaker, 2008; Wang & Li, 2008.
6 Cottrell & Nault, 2004; Hensmans & Johnson, 2007; Hill & Birkinshaw, 2010; Laplume & Dass, 2012; Kauppila, 2010; Mitchell & Singh, 1993; Piao, 2010; Tempelaar & Van de Vrande, 2012; Yu & Khessina, 2012.
13 of organizations and the determinants of organizational ambidexterity (Jansen, J. J., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009).
In 2004 for the first time research about organizational ambidexterity focused on the fact that it consists of more than just this one, structural, aspect. Gibson & Birkenshaw (2004) introduced the term contextual organizational ambidexterity which they define as: “the behavioral capacity to simultaneously demonstrate alignment and adaptability across an entire business unit” (Gibson & Birkenshaw 2009: P209). Contextual organizational ambidexterity has several differences in
comparison to structural organizational ambidexterity. With contextual organizational ambidexterity the focus is more on individual level when it comes to address exploitative or explorative activities. As described by Gibson & Birkenshaw (2004), contextual organizational ambidexterity is defined by levels of stretch, discipline, support, and trust (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004: P213). What these four antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity are is also mentioned in the paper of Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004): “Establishment of a shared ambition, the development of a shared ambition, the development of a collective identity, and the ability to give personal meaning to the way in which individuals contribute to the overall purpose of an organization contribute to the establishment of stretch”. (Gibson & Birkenshaw, 2004: P213). According to Gibson & Birkenshaw (2004) discipline is established through “clear standards of performance and behavior, a system of open, candid, and rapid feedback, and consistency in the application of sanctions”. (Gibson & Birkenshaw, 2004: P213). “Mechanisms that allow actors to access the resources available to other actors, freedom of initiative at lower levels, and senior functionaries giving priority to providing guidance and help rather than to exercising authority contribute to the establishment of support.” (Gibson &
Birkenshaw, 2004: P213). “Fairness and equity in a business unit’s decision processes, involvement of individuals in decisions and activities affecting them, and staffing positions with people who possess and are seen to possess required capabilities contribute to the establishment of trust.” (Gibson & Birkenshaw, 2004: P213).
14
2.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Broadly defined, organizational context consists of the systems, processes, and beliefs that shape individual-level behaviors in an organization (Burgelman, 1983a, 1983b; Denison, 1990; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1994). Organizational context is created “when leaders in a business unit develop a
supportive organization context” (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004: P210). Organizational context has important similarities to the related concepts of structural context, organization culture, and organization climate. (Gibson & Birkenshaw, 2004: P212). Organization culture refers to “the underlying values, beliefs, and principles that serve as a foundation for an organization’s
management system as well as the set of management practices and behaviors that exemplify and reinforce those basic principles” (Denison, 1990: P2). O’Reilly et al (1991) used a data set of organizational culture items in their paper about people and organizational culture. In what they call the OCP, Organizational Culture Profile, a set of items has been developed that can generically capture organizational culture. O’Reilly et al (1991) constructed a set of values that could describe any organization, would not be equally characteristic of all organizations and would be easy to understand. In this research the same values will be used in order to measure organizational culture. The value set describes the organizational culture of an organization or part of an organization.
2.4 PRELIMENARY CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
No academic research can be found about organizational culture in relation to contextual
organizational ambidexterity. Since the research gap was stated in a relative recent paper of O’Reilly and Tushman (2013), the particular aspect of how culture can accommodate organizational
ambidexterity has not yet been researched.
By exploring what the relations are between the antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity and the outcomes of contextual organizational ambidexterity, this paper aims to research how leaders can promote cultural change and stay, or become more, ambidextrous. In order
15 Table 1
Preliminary Conceptual Framework
to build a preliminary conceptual framework, there are some boundary conditions towards the model in this particular research. The first boundary condition is that the outcomes of this model are not applicable to all organizations. The research is conducted in an organization that is fully owned by the government and operates in a strongly regulated environment. Outcomes may have no significant relevance for organizations that operate within other environments. The second boundary condition of the model is that the outcome of contextual organizational ambidexterity, which is the level of
exploitation and exploration, is regarded as a tradeoff in this study. The sum of the level of
exploitation and exploration is always 100 percent. When one of the two outcomes shifts, the other outcome will shift in opposite direction. This is consistent with the research paper of Flier et al. (2003) in which they use a balance between exploitation and exploration as a metric. This metric is presented as explorative actions divided by the total of actions within an organization and therefore also stating that all actions are 100 percent consisting of explorative and exploitative actions.A third boundary condition is that only direct effects on the relation between the antecedents and the
outcomes of contextual organizational ambidexterity are taken into account for the preliminary conceptual framework. The preliminary conceptual framework is constructed as can be seen in table 1 below.
16
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN
This research has an exploratory character. Gathering relevant data will work best by doing qualitative research, for which a case study will be conducted. As Eisenhardt (1989) states: “the case study is a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings”. (Eisenhardt, 1998: P534). Eisenhardt (1989) constructed a table for the process of building theory from case study research. These steps will be the guidance through the process of conducting this research.
3.2 DATA COLLECTION
The data is collected through conducting interviews at the Nederlandse Spoorwegen. In this organization there are several business units which are managed by different managers. By interviewing several managers within these business units, information will be gained in order to gain insights how culture within these different business units is perceived. Next to culture, also the perception of the level of contextual organizational ambidexterity will be asked upon. Semi-structured interviews are used to both enable probing further into interesting topics which can occur during the interview, but also offers sufficient structure for coding and analysis. This is in line with the activities of which Eisenhardt (1989) speaks of in the step “Crafting Instruments and Protocols” (Eisenhardt, 1989: P533) when conducting a case study. The five different business units and the respondents which were selected for this case study are mentioned in table 2 on the next page. It also shows the areas of expertise, the name of the interviewee and when the interview took place. The interviews all took place in the headquarters of the Nederlandse Spoorwegen in Utrecht.
17 Table 2
List of interviewees
Next to interviews, each business unit has their own strategic documents in which strategies and goals are stated for the business units (Appendix 8.3). By using these documents named OGSM (Objectives, Goals, Strategies, and Measurements) and relating them to the results from the interviews, it is possible to triangulate data from multiple sources in order to give more strength to the outcomes. 13 managers have been interviewed, divided among five business units. The respondents are interviewed within their own professional environments. This creates a feeling of certainty and which provides the respondents with the feeling that they are able to talk freely. In order to be sure that the interviewees actually were aware of the specific topic at hand, a topic guide was used (Appendix 8.4) by which the different addressed topics are mentioned and explained. By doing so, the respondents are all aware of the content of this research. By asking a set of questions about the perception of the culture at hand, and questions in which the level of contextual organizational ambidexterity will become clear, causality between culture and the level of contextual organizational ambidexterity among the business units and possible differences among them may become clear. The point of focus in the interviews is to gain further insight for building of a theory. The interviews have
18 “Binnen organisaties projecteren ze dat op het exploiteren en exploreren van bedrijfsvoering, wat zoveel inhoudt als dat je kunt richten op het focussen op huidige manieren van bedrijfsvoering en het ontplooien van nieuwe activiteiten”
been held in a face-to-face setting and took between one and one-and-a-half hours’ time. Respondents’ answers have been audio-recorded, of which transcripts were made (appendix 8.2) for coding purposes.
3.3 MEASUREMENT OF CONSTRUCTS
To make sure the respondents were aware of the concepts of exploitation and exploration each interview started with an explanation about the reason the interview was held. During this explanation the concepts of this research have been explained. The explanation for each interviewee was similar and the explanation used can be found in the transcripts but always contained the statement that can be found in box 1 below. All respondents confirmed through understanding this explanation what organizational ambidexterity was about.
Box 1: Statement for explaining concept of ambidexterity.
The dependent variable in this research is the balance in percent between exploitation and exploration. In order to make comparison possible, questions have been asked about the balance between exploitation and exploration within the business unit the respondent was employed. The scale on which the respondents had to pinpoint this balance always adds up to 100. Therefore balances of 50-50 or 60-40 are possible outcomes. It is not possible to have a balance outcome of 50-60 because this does not add up to 100. It was not possible to interview the same amount of people in each business unit since the period in which this research took place prevented some managers to participate. To be able to compare the different business units, the balance which the respondents mention will be added up and divided by the number of respondents. By doing so, each business unit will end up with one balance which is the mean of the balances mentioned by the respondents. The
19 Table 3
Cultural aspects vs antecedents
independent variables in this research are the four antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity as mentioned earlier in this thesis; discipline, trust, support, and stretch. Through coding of the transcripts, the level of discipline, trust, support and stretch will be determined for each business unit. As mentioned in the section of the main concepts, O’Reilly (1991) determined a value set with which an organizational culture can be described. The data has been coded based on these cultural aspects. Furthermore, each of the occurring cultural aspects was linked to one of the four antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity. To clarify the difference between each of the four antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity, colors are dedicated. Blue for stretch, yellow for support, green for discipline and red for trust. These colors have been designated randomly. Table 3 shows what cultural aspects occurred in this research. These cultural aspects are derived from the value set of O’Reilly (1991) which can be found in Appendix 8.5.
20 For validation purposes OGSM documents of the business units have been distributed by the business units. The OGSM documents contain Objectives, Goals, Strategies, and Measurements from each business unit. The employees of each business unit use these documents to determine which tasks they address. Therefore the OGSM documents can be seen as a guiding part of the cultural aspects of a business unit. These OGSM documents will be used for the cases in order to triangulate the outcomes of the interviews.
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS
The interviews have been recorded and transcripts are made of these recordings. The transcripts of these recordings can be found in appendix 8.2. These transcripts have been loaded into a software coding program called Nvivo, which allows to code parts of texts. By interviewing employees of specific business units within the same organization about their perception of culture and contextual organizational ambidexterity, it was possible to determine what level of contextual organizational ambidexterity has been reached for this specific business unit. A possible relation between culture and the level of contextual organizational ambidexterity can be determined by comparing the outcomes between the different business units and possible effects of cultural antecedents. For each business unit, OGSM documents have been used to triangulate the analysis from the interviews with the documentation from the OGSM documents.
21 Table 4
Intercoding reliability
3.5 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
3.5.1 Reliability
Due to the exploratory character of this research, it was important to make sure outcomes are reliable and valid. Instead of two or three business units, five business units have been researched in order to aim for the highest level of reliability and validity. The most important reason was to aim for a higher level of reliability of the results by comparing as much business units as possible. Also by using the value set of cultural aspects from the literature to code the interviews and documents, outcomes are more reliable. The use of coding software Nvivo for qualitative research lowered the possibility of errors. The reliability of the analysis increased due to the decrease of human error occurrence. Reliability is also increased by comparing the outcomes of the interviews in the cases with OGSM documents. Using triangulation will make it possible to determine if the outcomes of the interviews are backed by company documents increasing reliability of the interview outcomes. In order to increase reliability, Campbell et al. (2013) discussed that intercoding reliability is an important metric to determine if the data is reliable. The outcomes of the interviews have been measured in a balance. The exploration orientation and its intercoding reliability can be used to increase reliability. Table 4 shows the standard deviation of the exploration orientation as the result of each of the interviews. The lower the standard deviation, the higher the intercoding reliability is. As can be seen in Table 4, the intercoding reliability of the COMM business unit is very high because the standard deviation is 0,0. The standard deviations of business units S&O, BO and NO are 5,0, 10,0, and 10,0. Their intercoding reliability is lower than the intercoding reliability of COMM. The
intercoding reliability of the INT business unit can be perceived as very low with a standard deviation of 21,6.
22 Table 5
Research validity 3.5.2 Validity
The internal validity of this research is high. This is due to the fact that this research is conducted using case studies. Because of this, it is possible to construct cases and perform cross case analysis in order to look for causality between the main constructs. Next to the internal validity, construct validity is also very high. This is because the constructs used in this research are embedded in literature. The definition of exploitation and exploration are broadly researched and are summarized in the paper of O’Reilly & Tushman (2013). The use of a balance between exploitation and exploration is mentioned in the literature by Flier et al. (2003). The cultural aspects used for coding and determining the antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity are constructed in the paper of O’Reilly (1991). The four antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity, used in the preliminary conceptual framework, have been researched by Gibson & Birkenshaw (2004). All these constructs of the preliminary conceptual framework are embedded in scientific research papers. External validity, about the generalization of the outcomes, is low. This is because the research has been conducted within one organization that operates in a specific aspect of the market. Earlier in this paper boundary conditions of the preliminary conceptual framework have been mentioned and one of them is the lack of possible generalizations of the outcomes other than applicable to the Nederlandse Spoorwegen, or at best one of their competitors in the same area of expertise. Therefore external validity can be categorized as being low. Table 5 shows an overview of the level of validity of this research.
23 Table 6
Results Commercie
4 CASES
4.1 COMMERCIE (COMM)
This business unit is responsible for the commercial activities of the organization. Comparing them with the other business units, Commercie is one of the two most customer oriented business units of the organization (the other customer oriented business unit is International). Three
respondents have been interviewed in this business unit. Looking at the dependent variable being the balance between exploitation and exploration, the respondents’ answers were 30, 30, and 70-30. This adds up to an average balance in this business unit of 70-30 exploitation versus exploration. Analyzing the data from the transcripts for the independent variable, there are 59 references that relate to 20 different cultural aspects. For all transcripts the references can be found in the transcripts, using the coding table from appendix 8.6. Main drivers are Results Oriented (8, stretch), Collaboration (7, support), Team Oriented (5, stretch), and Supportive (5, support). Divided among the four antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity the results, and their effect on exploitation and exploration, are;
When looking at the effects of the antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity, this business unit shows that there is consensus about the positive effect of all four antecedents on
exploitation. When it comes to exploration, support has a positive effect on the level of exploration within this business unit according to all respondents. Trust has been stated by all respondents to have no effect on the level of exploration. Stretch has been stated by two of the three respondents to have a
24 positive effect and one respondent stated it had no effect on exploration. Respondents might not agree on the effect one aspect has on exploitation or exploration. To state a general effect within the
business unit, the outcomes will be mediated. Since two out of three respondents claimed the effect of stretch on exploration is positive, stretch will be stated having a positive effect on exploration.
Regarding discipline there is no consensus about the effect it has on exploration. The first respondent thinks it has a positive effect on exploration, the second respondent thinks there is no effect on exploration and the third respondent thinks there is a negative effect on exploration. Because of all three respondents claiming a different effect, mediating these outcomes leads to stating that discipline has no effect on exploration in this business unit. All main drivers of cultural aspects address the two antecedents that are linked to the positive related antecedents on explorative activities, stretch and support. Stretch and support are also the most common antecedents that occurred within this business unit. Quotes from the transcripts, underline these findings: “Waar wij heel goed op scoren is dat wij altijd bereid zijn om een stapje extra te zetten voor NS” (stretch, transcript 02.03; pagina 82). “…als ik jou zo beluister dan zijn ze ook wel bereid om elkaar te helpen? Ja, ja absoluut.” (support, transcript 02.01; pagina 63). What these quotes stand for is the willingness to do more than the organization asks from them and be supportive towards each other when such a step is initiated.
The OGSM of Commercie (Appendix 8.3.2) show that this business unit is a customer oriented business unit in which explorative activities are highly relevant. The OGSM is constructed not only around the customer but also to ensure that the customer is able to influence their own journey, as can be derived from the quote: “Wij helpen de reiziger de reis naar de hand te zetten” (OGSM Commercie, page 134). By communicating this within their business unit, they support the behavior of their employees to stretch, the main driver that stimulates exploration in this unit. Furthermore, their main method of measurement within the business unit is KTO. This stands for KlantTevredenheidsOnderzoek, which means customer satisfaction research. By measuring their success by asking their customers, they commit to a high level of customer orientation.
25 Table 7 Results International Table 7 Results International
4.2 INTERNATIONAL (INT)
Next to the business unit Commercie, International also has a more commercial aspect to it and therefore is also more customer oriented than the other three (NO/BO/S&O) business units. They have full focus on the travelers from and towards destinations abroad. Four respondents have been interviewed in this business unit. Looking at the dependent variable being the balance between exploitation and exploration, the respondents’ answers were 40-60, 30-70, 75-25, 80-20. This adds up to an average balance in this business unit of 56-44 exploitation versus exploration. Analyzing the data from the transcripts for the independent variable, there are 62 references that relate to 17 different cultural aspects. Main drivers are Collaboration (9, support), Supportive (8, support), Results Oriented (7, stretch), Achievement Oriented (6, stretch), and Structure (6, discipline). Divided among the four antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity the results, and their effect on exploitation and exploration, are;
When looking at the effects of the antecedents on both exploitation and exploration, there is one respondent that differed from the rest. This respondent stated that stretch has no effect on exploitation. All the other resondents claimed that all effects of the antecedents are positive on both exploitation and exploration. Therefor all effects for this business unit will be stated to be positive on both exploitation and exploration. The main drivers within this business unit occur within support and stretch, both having a positive effect on exploitation and exploration. But these outcomes show that even when the main drivers would have been with one of the other antecedents, the effect on
26 exploitation and exploration would have been the same since effects are alike among the four
antecedents.
Quotes from the transcripts, underline these findings: “Ik denk dat je zou kunnen zeggen dat ik NS International commercieler en pro-actiever vindt dan de rest van de NS” (stretch, Transcript 03.01, pagina 83). “De kern van zo’n zelfsturend team is dat ze elkaar helpen om dingen op te lossen” (support, transcript 03.04, pagina 105). “Ik denk wel dat ze dan richting exploratie gaan. Dat zal dus wel positief werken, veel hekken maken makke lammetjes. Ik geloof er juist in en dat is ook wel de organisatiecultuur die we op dit moment hebben en dat is dat we heel zwaar sturen op output”. (stretch, transcript 03.02, pagina 94). What can be derived from these quotes is that support and stretch are highly appreciated within this business unit. It is less important how employees gain their results, as long as the results are achieved. A remarkable thing across the interviews is that they have self-organizing teams that are being assessed based on their outputs and are therefore very
achievement oriented.
The OGSM of International (Appendix 8.3.3) shows that they are a customer oriented business unit in which explorative activities are relevant. The OGSM is constructed not only around the customer but also to ensure the customer chooses for the train. Next to this they also show ambition to strive for higher levels of customer experience. This is shown by stating: “Internationale reizigers kiezen voor de trein, omdat wij de meest prettige en makkelijke klantervaring bieden” (OGSM International, page 135). By communicating this within their business unit, they support the behavior of their employees to stretch. Furthermore, their main method of measurement within the business unit is KO. This stands for KlantOnderzoek, which means customer research. By measuring their success by asking their customers, they commit to a high level of customer orientation.
27 Table 8
Results S&O
4.3 SERVICE AND OPERATIONS (S&O)
In contrast with the first two business units, this is one of three business units that is more focused on delivering the product instead of customer experience. This business unit is responsible for organizing personnel and assets to ensure the trains run in time. Their main focus is managing the machinists and board personnel of the trains. Two respondents have been interviewed in this business unit. Looking at the dependent variable being the balance between exploitation and exploration, the respondents’ answers were 70-30 and 80-20. This adds up to an average balance in this business unit of 75-25 exploitation versus exploration. Analyzing the data from the transcripts for the independent variable, there are 17 references that relate to 11 different cultural aspects. Main driver is Structure (4, discipline). Divided among the four antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity the results, and their effect on exploitation and exploration, are;
The number of references is smaller because of less respondents. Within Service and Operations both respondents state that all four antecedents have a positive effect on exploitation. Looking at the explorative activities, trust is claimed to have no effect according to both respondents. The other antecedents discipline, support and stretch have a positive effect on explorative activities according to one of the respondents. The second respondent stated they have no effect on exploration. It is not possible to mediate the claims for these antecedents in this business unit. Therefor the effects of discipline, support and stretch on exploration will be left blank for this business unit. This means
28 that results are inconclusive and a statement cannot be made for these effects. With structure within discipline as the main driver, the more operational character of this business unit expresses itself through the data set. Quotes from the transcripts, underline these findings: “Je hebt op bijvoorbeeld een onderwerp als veiligheid, is het nou eenmaal zo dat er protocollen gelden waar je gewoon niet van mag afwijken”. (discipline, transcript 04.02, pagina 116). This quote is illustrative of the fact that this business unit, which is focused mostly on delivering the product, focuses most on following rules and is reluctant to stray from that path.
The OGSM of Service and Operations (Appendix 8.3.4) shows that they are both a customer oriented business unit as well as focusing on technical aspects of the journey by train. The OGSM is constructed to make sure the customer travels by train and does so while being addressed properly. But a big part of the OGSM is about safety and timely traveling. This is in line with the findings from the interviews. Some of their measurements are customer oriented, like how helpful personnel is. But the focus on the more technical aspect of the journey by train is illustrative through the fact they call their most important measurement “Betere Basisprestaties” (OGSM Service and Operations, page 136) what means “Better standard performances” and measure things like percentages for riding on time and failures of passages on the tracks.
4.4 BESTURING EN OPERATIE (BO)
Next to S&O, the business unit BO is also more focusing on product delivery instead of the experience of the customers. BO is responsible for operating and planning the trains in such a way that the trains run accordingly to the planning of the Nederlandse Spoorwegen. Two respondents have been interviewed in this business unit. Looking at the dependent variable being the balance between exploitation and exploration, the respondents’ answers were 100-0 and 80-20. This adds up to an average balance in this business unit of 90-10 exploitation versus exploration. Analyzing the data from the transcripts for the independent variable, there are 24 references that relate to 10 different cultural aspects. Main drivers are Results Oriented (5, stretch), Achievement Oriented (4, stretch), and
29 Table 9
Results BO
Supportive (4, support). Divided among the four antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity the results, and their effect on exploitation and exploration, are;
Within this business unit all four antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity have a positive effect on exploitation according to the respondents. Also three effects on exploration have a clear consensus where both respondents see no effect on explorative activities for stretch, support and trust. For discipline there seems to be no consensus where one respondent finds this aspect to have a positive effect and one respondent finds this to have a negative effect. Mediating these results gives the claim that discipline has no effect on exploration. Quotes from the transcripts, underline these findings: “Voor de nieuwe mensen die binnenkomen, zon 30%-40% die is makkelijk bereid om iets extra’s te doen”. (stretch, transcript 01.01, pagina 49). “ Dat mag ik hopen, want ons werk is dagelijks de treinen laten rijden dus mijn mensen moeten daar continu mee bezig zijn want als die met andere dingen bezig zijn dan rijdt er geen trein. Of dan ben ik totaal overbodig, een van de twee”.
(discipline, transcript 01.01, pagina 50). What these quotes from the director of BO illustratively show is that there is a slightly increasing focus on stretch within the business unit, but the main focus is to deliver a good product which has a disciplinary character.
The OGSM of Besturing and Operatie (Appendix 8.3.1) shows that they are the most
functional and technical business unit. Their objective states that they are responsible for a predictable train journey through executing the plan. The OGSM shows the same aspects that occurred in the data
30 Table 10
Results NO
from the interviews. This is a business unit focused on execution without putting too much effort into other things. Their main goal is to make sure trains and other assets are where they should be in order for the plan of trains to be executed. The main measurements that occur in the OGSM are about creating a base from which they can execute their main goal. What also came forth through the interviews is that they are fore mostly focusing on exploitative activities.
4.5 NETWERKONTWERP (NO)
The fifth and final business unit, like the previous two, has a focus on delivering the product instead of directly trying to influence the experience of the customer. This particular business unit is responsible for creating the means on which the trains can be operated and takes care of the rails and infrastructure of the Nederlandse Spoorwegen. Two respondents have been interviewed in this business unit. Looking at the dependent variable being the balance between exploitation and exploration, the respondents’ answers were 90-10 and 70-30. This adds up to an average balance in this business unit of 80-20 exploitation versus exploration. Analyzing the data from the transcripts for the independent variable, there are 25 references that relate to 15 different cultural aspects. Main driver is Results Oriented (4, stretch). Divided among the four antecedents of contextual
organizational ambidexterity the results, and their effect on exploitation and exploration, are;
Within this business unit the effects of three antecedents are positive on exploitative
activities. This is the case with the effect on exploitation for trust, discipline and support. With stretch, one of the respondents claimed a positive effect on exploitation and one respondent claimed no effect
31 on exploitation. Because these results cannot be mediated, this effect will be claimed to be
inconclusive. When it comes to exploration, both trust and discipline show no effect on exploration. For stretch and support, one respondent claimes a positive effect while the second respondent claimes no effect. Therefor both these effects will also be stated to be inconclusive due to the fact that these outcomes are not mediatable. Quotes from the transcripts, underline these findings: “Als je het dan zo bekijkt dan is de discipline hoog en de stretch dan eerder te hoog, maar in elk geval hoog.”
(stretch/discipline, transcript 05.02, pagina 131). This particular quote shows that in any case stretch within NO is a dominant aspect were discipline is also apparent. The latter also shows in the
following quote: “Binnen mijn club gaat alles gewoon door, daar is geen gecreerde richtlijn voor nodig. Sterker nog, we hebben een half jaar zonder management gewerkt en er is geen verschil te merken.” (discipline, transcript 05.01, pagina 124).
The OGSM of NetwerkOntwerp (Appendix 8.3.5) shows that they are a functional and technical business unit. Their objective states that they are responsible for creating a plan for the trains. The OGSM shows the same aspects that occurred in the data derived from the interviews. This is a business unit focused on creating a plan by which the Nederlandse Spoorwegen can ride the trains. The main measurements that occur in the OGSM are about making sure assets are from a certain level in order to make a workable plan. Since this is hard to measure they have fewer indicators than other business units. What also came forth through the interviews is that they are focusing on exploitative activities.
32 Table 11
Final results cases
4.6 FINAL RESULTS CASES
In the last few paragraphs single cases have been presented. From these cases, the outcomes have been consolidated. With the data gathered, an overview of the results is shown in the table below (table 11). This table has been constructed in such a way that the business unit with the highest degree of exploration is at the top and the business unit with the lowest degree of exploration is at the bottom. With this table in mind, the next chapter will analyze the data and cross reference outcomes between business units in order to further build a theory.
33 Table 12
Antecedents and their effects
5 CROSS CASE ANALYSIS
For the cross case analysis, based upon table 11, main findings about the effects on exploration and exploitation can be constructed. Coding and comparing the business units show the effects of antecedents on exploitation and exploration. From table 11, a new table is constructed which shows the effects of the different antecedents on exploitation and exploration:
34
5.1 MAIN FINDINGS ON EXPLOITATION
First the effects of the antecedents on exploitation will be discussed by using table 12. Starting with support, the data shows that support has a positive effect on exploitation in all five units. Therefore main finding 1 is:
M1: Support has a positive effect on the degree of exploitation.
The next aspect discussed from the table is stretch. The data shows that in four of the business units, the effect of stretch on exploitation is positive. Only business unit NO shows inconclusive results regarding the effect of stretch on exploitation. Main finding 2 regarding the effect of stretch on exploitation is:
M2: Stretch has a positive effect on the degree of exploitation.
The third aspect is discipline. Discipline has a positive effect on exploitation according to all five business units. Main finding 3 of this research is:
M3: Discipline has a positive effect on the degree of exploitation.
The final aspect discussed regarding its effect on exploitation is trust. Like with support and discipline, also trust is been considered to have a positive effect on exploitation according to all five business units. The final finding on exploitation therefore is:
35
5.2 MAIN FINDINGS ON EXPLORATION
In this paragraph the effects of the antecedents on exploration will be discussed by using table 12. Starting with support, the data shows that support has a positive effect on exploration in two of the five business units which are Commercie and International. BO states to see no effect of support on exploration. The other two business units, S&O and NO have inconclusive results. The different results show that a conclusive finding is not possible. Therefore the first main finding on exploration is:
M5: Support does not have an effect on the degree of exploration.
However, there seems to be a moderating effect on the outcomes present. The two business units that state that support has a positive effect on exploration are both commercially driven business units. These units are about the customer and their wellbeing. The other three business units, S&O, BO and NO are operational business units. Therefore the second main finding of the effect of the antecedents on exploration is:
M6: A commercial environment positively moderates the relationship between support and the degree of exploration.
The next aspect discussed from the table is stretch. The data shows that in two of the business units, the effect of stretch on exploration is positive. This are business units Commercie and International. The business units S&O and NO show inconclusive results regarding the effect of stretch on exploration. Business unit BO shows no effect of stretch on exploration. Main finding 7 of this research regarding the effect of stretch on exploration is:
36 But also with this data a moderating effect is present. The two business units Commercie and International, which are commercially driven, show a difference in results with the operational business units S&O, BO and NO. Main finding 8 regarding the effect of stretch on exploration is:
M8: A commercial environment positively moderates the relationship between stretch and the degree of exploration.
The third aspect is discipline. Discipline has a positive effect on exploration according to business unit International. Business unit S&O shows inconclusive results regarding the effect of discipline on exploration. The remaining three business units; Commercie, NO, and BO all state that there is no effect between discipline and the degree of exploration. Based on this data, main finding 9 of this research is:
M9: Discipline does not have an effect on the degree of exploration.
The final aspect discussed regarding its effect on exploration is trust. As with support, stretch and discipline, also trust is been considered to have a positive effect on exploration according to business unit International. However, all four other business units state that there is no effect of trust on exploration. The final main finding on exploration, and this research, therefore is:
37 Table 13
Theoretical framework
5.3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Based on the main findings and the presented effects between the antecendents of contextual organizational ambidexterity and the outcomes of contextual organizational ambidexterity, the following theoretical framework can be constructed:
38
6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
6.1 DISCUSSION
This research started with the ambition to find out in which way organizational culture can facilitate contextual organizational ambidexterity. After the previous sections can be stated that there are antecedents of culture that influence the level of contextual organizational ambidexterity within an organization. Based on the main findings of the previous chapter and the theoretical framework, a total of six propositions are constructed. The first four propositions relate to the degree of exploitation within contextual organizational ambidexterity:
Proposition 1: Discipline has a positive effect on the degree of exploitation.
Proposition 2: Trust has a positive effect on the degree of exploitation.
Proposition 3: Support has a positive effect on the degree of exploitation.
Proposition 4: Stretch has a positive effect on the degree of exploitation.
These propositions show that all four antecedents are positively effecting the degree of exploitation within contextual organizational ambidexterity. Since this research is explorative, no research has been done on this particular topic. However, Flier et al (2003) found that incumbent organizations prefer exploration above exploitation from the environmental selection perspective. The Nederlandse Spoorwegen can be perceived as an incumbent organization and this brings an
exploitative character in the way it is managed. This might influence the behavior of its employees and their perception on effects of culture on exploitation. That all four antecedents have a positive effect might therefore be logical since exploitation is embedded more in the type of organization the Nederlandse Spoorwegen is.
39 The final two propositions are related to the degree of exploration within contextual
organizational ambidexterity. No overall effect has been discovered between the four antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity and exploration. The commercial oriented business units show different results regarding the effect of both support and stretch on the degree of exploration:
Proposition 5: A commercial environment positively moderates the relationship between support and the degree of exploration.
Proposition 6: A commercial environment positively moderates the relationship between stretch and the degree of exploration.
Due to the interviews and the triangulation with the OGSM documents it shows that antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity, support and stretch, can be related to higher levels of exploration. But this relationship only occurred at the business units that are operating in a commercial environment. Simsek (2009) found that organizational ambidexterity is, among other things, dependent on the environment of the organization. Therewith organizational ambidexterity is not just one solution for all organizations, but a dynamic type of antecedent for organizational
performance. This is related with propositions 5 and proposition 6 in this research. These propositions state that the commercial environment positively moderates the effect of stretch and support on the degree of exploration within contextual organizational ambidexterity. When it comes to the difference between the operational and commercial environment, it could be the case that employees that are able to perform in a commercial environment are less risk averse than in operational environments. This could create the positive moderating effect of support and stretch on the degree of exploration.
40
6.2 CONTRIBUTIONS
This thesis addressed the gap between culture and contextual organizational ambidexterity. This research built a theory from which managers can derive through which aspects they can influence their organizations’ level of contextual organizational ambidexterity. Contextual organizational ambidexterity was a black box. This research addressed this black box by looking at the antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity and the outcomes of contextual organizational
ambidexterity. By focusing on discipline, trust, support, and stretch and their relations with
exploitation and exploration, this black box has been opened. By using the outcomes of this research, it has become more clear what cultural building blocks managers can use within their teams. Through addressing aspects that increase the level of stretch and support within their teams a certain level of exploration can be strived for. This level of exploration can become the game changer for an
organization in an environment in which they need to continuously adjust. Furthermore this research also opens more paths for further research about the understanding how contextual organizational ambidexterity can be used in order to create the optimal ambidextrous organization.
6.3 LIMITATIONS
When it comes to building a theory, and because of the explorative character of research that needs to be done in order to build this theory, this research has its limitations. But with a positive note that with limitations come opportunities for future research. This research is limited to one
organization. This limits generalizing the outcomes of this research to the Nederlandse Spoorwegen, or one of the competitive organizations at best. Future research might address a broader view in order to embed this conceptual framework in a broader perspective. Also the antecedents of contextual organizational ambidexterity are being researched without looking into how these antecedents are being formed. In depth analysis what influence personal aspects of employees have on these outcomes are not within scope of this research. More in depth research about these effects might also be
41 This research has also built a theoretical framework based upon interviews with real people and even though all effort has been made in order to reach the highest level of validation, quantitative research on the topic could give contextual organizational ambidexterity research more external validity. Two final approaches for future research address managerial implications; this research did not address the relationships between the cultural aspects of the antecedents. These might have an effect on each other and the way these antecedents are influenced by them in their effect on the level of contextual organizational ambidexterity. Also this research did not develope a theory how
managers could implement certain cultural aspects in order to end up with the desired degree of contextual organizational ambidexterity within an organization. All these limitations offer
possibilities in a research field that contains the promise of a great impact on how organizations are managed.
6.4 CONCLUSION
How can organizational culture facilitate contextual organizational ambidexterity? This was the question that this research addressed. This research discovered that the antecedents of organizational culture; discipline, trust, support, and stretch positively influence exploitation. Exploration can be influenced through support and stretch. Therefore these antecedents can be used to facilitate contextual organizational ambidexterity. Through addressing these antecedents an organization can lenghten their life expectancy. Employees are the main asset for organizations in order to be flexible and keep up with its environment. The outcomes of this research help managing these main assets in such a way that it benefits everyone. This research paper offers another step closer to the first organization that has no expiry date regarding its existence.
42
7 REFERENCES
Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization science, 10(1), 43-68.
Agarwal, R., & Gort, M. (1996). The evolution of markets and entry, exit and survival of firms. The review of Economics and Statistics, 489-498.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983a). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative science quarterly, 223-244.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983b). A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context, and the concept of strategy. Academy of management Review, 8(1), 61-70.
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth
semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement.
Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320.
Chatman, J. A., Caldwell, D. F., O’REILLY, C. A., & Doerr, B. E. R. N. A. D. E. T. T. E. (2013). Organizational culture and performance in high-technology firms: The effects of culture content and strength. Working Paper). Berkeley, CA: Haas School of Business.
Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. John Wiley & Sons.
Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The management of organization, 1, 167-188.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
43 Flier, B., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2003). Co-evolution in Strategic Renewal Behaviour of British, Dutch and French Financial Incumbents: Interaction of Environmental
Selection, Institutional Effects and Managerial Intentionality. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 0022-2380.
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 91-112.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Gioia, D. A., Patvardhan, S. D., Hamilton, A. L., & Corley, K. G. (2013). Organizational identity formation and change. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 123-193.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American journal of sociology, 82(5), 929-964.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American sociological review, 149-164.
Harreld, J. B., O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2007). Dynamic capabilities at IBM: Driving strategy into action. California Management Review, 49(4), 21-43.
Hedlund, G., & Ridderstrale, J. (1997). Toward a theory of the self-renewing MNC. International business: An emerging vision, 329, 353.
Holland, J. H. (1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. An introductory analysis with application to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
44 Jansen, J. J., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and organizational ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797-811.
Kuran, T. (1988). The tenacious past: Theories of personal and collective conservatism. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 10(2), 143-171.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic management journal, 14(S2), 95-112.
Marshall, B. Cardon, P. Poddar, A. Fontenot, R. Fall 2013. Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information
Systems. pp. 11-22.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). The ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-30.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of management journal, 34(3), 487-516.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5-22.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
