Zusammenfassung
Die Fähigkeit zur Organisationalen Ambidextrie (OA), d. h. neben der Optimierung des bisherigen Businesses (Exploitation) gleichzeitig innovatorische Anstrengungen zu leisten (Exploration), ist entscheidend für den langfristigen Erfolg von Unternehmen. Häufig werden dafür separate Corporate Venture Units (CVUs) gegründet. Ihnen kommt eine besondere Rolle zu, da sie zur Ambidextrie ihrer Mutterunternehmen beitragen und gleichzeitig ihre eigenen OA-Konfigurationen, d. h. Kombinationen von Exploration und Exploitation entwickeln müssen. Die bisherige Forschung zeigt, dass sich diese Kombinationen im Zeitverlauf verändern und in ursprünglich explorativ ausgerichteten Innovationseinheiten zunehmend Exploitation festzustellen ist. Jedoch gibt es bisher nur wenige Einblicke, wie die damit zusammenhängenden Veränderungen aussehen, wodurch sie initiiert und wie sie beeinflusst werden können. Die vorliegende Studie befasst sich daher mit folgender Forschungsfrage: Wodurch können sich in einer CVU exploitative und explorative Tendenzen entwickeln? Anhand einer Fallstudie in einer CVU aus der papierverarbeitenden Industrie, kann anhand verschiedener Beispiele gezeigt werden, wie sich die Kombinationen von Exploration und Exploitation im Zeitverlauf auf verschiedenen Ebenen verändern und wie die Veränderungen durch die CVU und ihre Mitglieder beeinflusst werden. Abschließende Managementimplikationen weisen darauf hin, dass damit einhergehende Rollenveränderungen und die individuellen Einstellungen der Mitarbeitenden seitens des Managements begleitet werden müssen.
Abstract
The ability to engage in organizational ambidexterity (OA), i.e., to simultaneously make innovative efforts (exploration) in addition to optimizing the existing business (exploitation), is crucial for the long-term success of companies. Separate corporate venture units (CVUs) are often founded for this purpose. They have a special role to play as they have to contribute to the ambidexterity of their parent companies and at the same time develop their own OA-configurations, i.e. combinations of exploration and exploitation. Previous research shows that these combinations change over time and that exploitation is increasing in originally explorative innovation units. However, there has been little insight into how the associated changes look like, what initiates them, and how they can be influenced. This study therefore addresses the following research question: Through what can exploitative and explorative tendencies develop in a CVU? Using a case study in a CVU of the paper processing industry, various examples can be used to show how the combinations of exploration and exploitation change over time at different levels and how these changes are influenced by the CVU and its members. Concluding management implications indicate that accompanying role changes and the individual attitudes of employees need to be guided by management.
Literatur
Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Verbeke W (2004) Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Hum Resour Manag 43:83–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20004
Birkinshaw J, Gupta K (2013) Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Acad Manag Perspect 27:287–298. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0167
Blindenbach-Driessen F, van den Ende J (2014) The locus of innovation: the effect of a separate innovation unit on exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity in manufacturing and service firms. J Prod Innov Manag 31:1089–1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12146
Bonesso S, Gerli F, Scapolan A (2014) The individual side of ambidexterity: do individuals’ perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off? Eur Manag J 32:392–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.07.003
Burgelman RA (1984) Designs for corporate entrepreneurship in established firms. Calif Manag Rev 16:154–166. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165086
Caldwell R (2003) The changing roles of personnel managers: old ambiguities, new uncertainties. J Manag Stud 40:983–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00367
Christensen CM, den Eichen SFv, Matzler K (2015) The innovator’s dilemma: Warum etablierte Unternehmen den Wettbewerb um bahnbrechende Innovationen verlieren ; [die europäische Perspektive]. Vahlen, München, S 264
Gabler CB, Ogilvie JL, Rapp A, Bachrach DG (2017) Is there a dark side of ambidexterity? Implications of dueling sales and service orientations. J Serv Res 20:379–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517712019
Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manag J 47:209–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159573
Gupta AK, Tesluk PE, Taylor MS (2007) Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organ Sci 18:885–897. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0337
Hansen EG, Wicki S, Schaltegger S (2019) Structural ambidexterity, transition processes, and integration trade-offs: a longitudinal study of failed exploration. R&D Manag 49:484–508
Havermans LA, den Hartog DN, Keegan A, Uhl-Bien M (2015) Exploring the role of leadership in enabling contextual ambidexterity. Hum Resour Manag 54:s179–s200. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21764
Hill SA, Birkinshaw J (2008) Strategy–organization configurations in corporate venture units: Impact on performance and survival. J Bus Ventur 23:423–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.04.001
Hill SA, Birkinshaw J (2014) Ambidexterity and survival in corporate venture units. J Manag 40:1899–1931. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312445925
Hill SA, Georgoulas S (2016) Internal corporate venturing: a review of five decades of literature. In: Zahra SA, Neubaum DO, Hayton JC (Hrsg) Handbook of research on corporate entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, S 13–63
Jackson SE, Schuler RS (1985) A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Org Behav Hum Decis Proc 36:16–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978%2885%2990020-2
Krause-Söhner E, Roth A, Schaller C (2022) Multifaceted and even contradictory? Impulses to push efficiency and innovativeness and the dynamic role of ambiguity in context of a German university. J Bus Res 147:258–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.058
Laureiro-Martínez D, Brusoni S, Canessa N, Zollo M (2015) Understanding the exploration-exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strateg Manag J 36:319–338
Luger J, Raisch S, Schimmer M (2018) Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: the contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organ Sci 29:449–470. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1189
March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Mihalache OR, Jansen JJP, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2014) Top management team shared leadership and organizational ambidexterity: a moderated mediation framework. Strateg Entrep J 8:128–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1168
Okholm HB et al (2018) Main developments in the postal sector (2013–2016): study for the European commission, directorate-general for internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMes. https://www.postcom.admin.ch/inhalte/pdf/divers/copenhagen_economics-main_developments_in_the_postal_sector_2013-2016.pdf. Zugegriffen: 12. Okt. 2022
O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future. Acad Manag Perspect 27:324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
Ouyang T, Cao X, Wang J, Zhang S (2020) Managing technology innovation paradoxes through multi-level ambidexterity capabilities. Internet Res 30:1503–1520. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-10-2019-0434/full/pdf
Pertusa-Ortega EM, Molina-Azorín JF, Tarí JJ, Pereira-Moliner J, López-Gamero MD (2021) The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework. Bus Res Quart 24:355–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420929711
Raisch S, Tushman ML (2016) Growing new corporate businesses: from initiation to graduation. Organ Sci 27:1237–1257. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1081
Sharma P, Chrisman SJJ (2007) Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. In: Cuervo Á, Ribeiro D, Roig S (Hrsg) Entrepreneurship. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, S 83–103
Shuwaikh F, Brintte S, Khemiri S (2022) The impact of dynamic ambidexterity on the performance of organizations: evidence from corporate venture capital investing in North America. J Econ Behav Org 200:991–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.07.012
Siggelkow N, Levinthal DA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ Sci 14:650–669. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24840
Stokes P et al (2015) The micro-dynamics of Intraorganizational and individual behavior and their role in organizational ambidexterity boundaries. Hum Resour Manag 54:63–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21690
Turner RH (1990) Role change. Annu Rev Sociol 16:87–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.000511
Turner N, Swart J, Maylor H (2013) Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: a review and research agenda. Int J Manag Rev 15:317–332
Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38:8–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
Weick KE, Quinn RE (1999) Organizational change and development. Annu Rev Psychol 50:361–386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361
Weiss L, Kanbach DK (2022) Toward an integrated framework of corporate venturing for organizational ambidexterity as a dynamic capability. Manag Rev Quart 72:1129–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00223-y
Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods. SAGE, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Die vorliegende Studie ist Teil eines größeren Forschungsprojekts in der papierverarbeitenden Industrie.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature oder sein Lizenzgeber (z.B. eine Gesellschaft oder ein*e andere*r Vertragspartner*in) hält die ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechte an diesem Artikel kraft eines Verlagsvertrags mit dem/den Autor*in(nen) oder anderen Rechteinhaber*in(nen); die Selbstarchivierung der akzeptierten Manuskriptversion dieses Artikels durch Autor*in(nen) unterliegt ausschließlich den Bedingungen dieses Verlagsvertrags und dem geltenden Recht.
About this article
Cite this article
Seilz, V., Krause-Söhner, E., Schaller, C. et al. Veränderung von Organisationaler Ambidextrie in Corporate Venture Units: Wie eine Innovationseinheit zunehmend exploitative Tendenzen entwickelt. HMD 60, 628–645 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-023-00975-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-023-00975-z
Schlüsselwörter
- Ambidextrie
- Innovationsfähigkeit
- Corporate Venture Unit
- Dynamische Perspektive
- Mehrebenen-Konstrukt
- Fallstudie