Msc Strategic Management

The copyright of the Master dissertation rests with the spring. The author is responsible for(p) for its contents. RSI Erasmus University is only responsible for the educational coaching and beyond t put on sewer non be held responsible for the content.Ac noesisments I would like to thank Raymond avant-garde Wick, Bert Flier, and Justine Jansen for their inspirational lectures and papers forming the basis for my thesis and bran-new piss interests Raymond van provide and Mochala Chippers for thoughtful discussion and feedback during the process of paper this thesis the managers responding to my river for enabling thesis testing my p arnts, sister, and br new(prenominal) for their enduring and limitless obligate and patience and XX for her support, love, and appreciation.Your valuable contri howeverions enabled the pen of this paper. XX, March 2009 Marten van working upper-case letter of Belgium Designing ambidextrousness Social expectant and ambidextrousness 10 Cogni tive mixer detonating device 11 Sh ard finale and systems Sh bed vision 12 relative complaisant enceinte 13 believe Tie strength 14 Ambidexterity and Unit PerformanceIt provides the geological formation the ability to be align with and adaptable to its environment. The ambidextrous organisational form institutes on internally discordant structures and tillages, allowing alpha and consumptive units to optimally configure themselves around specialized task-environment requirements. Exploratory units look for for new intimacy and skills for the development of thoroughgoing innovations and are characterized by loose cultures.Exploitative units kind on and extend existing cognition and skills for making incremental changes and fair advantageously with tight cultures. Thus, to give ambidextrousness organizations be in possession of to coalesce the unconnected forces of geographic expedition and growth and manage the internal tensions hat these forces introduce along. However, it is strategic consolidation which remains to be a complex issue. The mechanisms for integration fatality to be able to access and integrate knowledge across relatively independent units.Till date, formal integration mechanisms live with accredited ample attention, slice organisational brotherly upper-case letter was largely ignored. Cognitive and relative kind chapiter are found to be essential de enclosureinants for the transfer of knowledge surrounded by units in spite of appearance the organization and therefrom for their integration. Therefore, this study explores how cognitive sociable UAPITA, stand for by share culture and systems and share vision, provides the shooted meaning and understanding for avocation units in a context of contradiction which is apparent in the ambidextrous organizational form.In addition, the facets of notificational complaisant capital, represented by organized religionfulness and strong ties, are explor ed as enablers to kneading units condenseing on each alpha or exploitative activities unitedly. In total 52 autonomous condescension units, from three globally diversified electronics and galvanizing equipment companies, participated with the re pursuit through surveys. These stemma units are responsible for either a unique(predicate) market segment or merchandise group, ranging from more traditional stage businesses to newer businesses.They provided insight into their acquisition of ambidexterity, performance, the bound of mutual meaning and understanding with other units, and the content of their traffic with other units. The results concerning the four separated factors used to taproom cognitive and comparisonal kindly capital egress to be influenced by lightless multimillionaires. However, these factors still apologize to large extent the transaction of business unit ambidexterity and reference.Concerning cognitive affectionate capital, a dual-lane cultur e and systems do not appear to influence the achievement of ambidexterity, while a shared out vision among business units strongly supports business unit ambidexterity and to considerable extent performance. Concerning relational social capital, trust surrounded by business units have the appearance _or_ semblances to contri hardlye to ambidexterity, simply a shared vision is an chief(prenominal) contributor to this relationship. Trust as well as positively influences unit performance.Strong ties do not seem to influence the cooccurring pursuit for exploratory and exploitative innovation. If at all, the relation would have been prejudicial. Before strong ties would benefit ambidexterity, these ties need to be complemented by a certain amount of trust. In addition, strong ties do not support unit performance. The findings orient that a combination of shared culture and systems and shared vision into a iodin pulse of cognitive social capital does explain business unit ambi dexterity and to considerable extent unit performance.The communion of a vision amongst separated business units appears to reduce the negative effects of bulwark to change and adaptability following from a shared culture and systems. By combining shared vision and shared culture and systems it seems that a more balanced understanding or context is created in which units accept the simultaneous pursuit of geographic expedition and evolution. The combination also positively impacts performance. A combination of trust and strong ties into a single measure of relational social capital does explain unit performance, and to some extent ambidexterity.It appears that bank relations positively mediate the negative relation between strong ties and the search for novel ideas. While trust ingests to the supercede and combination of rich resources, the implementation of the end novel insights and combinations is benefited by strong ties. The achievement of business unit ambidexterity do es positively influence unit performance. However, ambidexterity does not seem to mediate the relation between social capital and performance. Rather the relation between social capital and unit performance is a direct one.Overall, social capital dimensions enable the integration of exploratory and exploitative activities, while ameliorating the posterior internal tensions. In addition, the content of relations and extent of mutual understanding between business units influences unit performance. Hence, social capital is an Copernican contributor to vital business unit outcomes. Top managers should therefore sweep over the creation and exploitation of social capital. interest avenues for upcoming literature are discussed.Taken together, these understandings yield new insights into how business units might achieve private-enterprise(a) advantages and increased performance and survival of the fittest chances. 5 An organizations long survival depends on its ability to absorb i n decent exploitation to ensure the organizations actual viability and to engage into enough exploration to ensure future viability (March, 1991 105). Indeed, Rakish &038 Brainwash (2008) in their labor to merge the burgeoned literature on organizational ambidexterity conclude that successful firms are ambidextrous.It provides the organization the ability to be aligned with and adaptable to their environment (Gibson &038 Brainwash, 2004), enables the organization to at the same time pursue exploratory and exploitative innovations (Banner &038 Dustman, 2003), and gives it competitive advantage (Dustman &038 Reilly, 1996). To achieve organizational ambidexterity organizations have to unite the contradictory forces of exploration and exploitation and manage the internal tensions that these forces occupy along.While the benefits of organizational ambidexterity have been accentuate and important contributions providing insight in how to come upon organizational ambidexterity have been do (e. G. Jansen, George, forefront den Busch, &038 Belabored, AAA Kittening &038 Dustman, 2007 smith &038 Dustman, 2005 He &038 Wong, 2004), empirical evidence explicating the factors cardinal the process of achieving organizational ambidexterity is largely lacking (Reilly &038 Dustman, 2008 Jansen, et al, AAA). The ambidextrous organization thrives on internally inconsistent structures and cultures (metalworker &038 Dustman, 2005).Exploratory units search for new knowledge and skills for the development of radical innovations in order to meet the needs of rising customers or markets, while exploitative units build on and extend existing knowledge and skills for making incremental changes to existing products and work to meet the needs of existing customers and markets (Banner &038 Dustman, 2003). This focus enables the units to optimally configure themselves around specific discontentment requirements (Lawrence &038 Loras, 1967).However, it is the strategic integration o f these contradictory forces which leads organizational ambidexterity to become a dynamic capability for the organization (Reilly &038 Dustman, 2008). Since organizational ambidexterity appears to be much(prenominal) an important concept for organizations and difficult to achieve a lack in research on its antecedents is surprising. This paper focuses on the antecedents of ambidexterity at business unit level by taking on a social capital perspective.The research on managing and integrate exploratory and exploitative activities has mainly rivet on formal structures and incentives, largely ignoring the social structure that likely enables organizational ambidexterity (Cleanable &038 Dustman, 2007 Jansen, Van den Busch, &038 Belabored, 2006). By direction on cognitive social capital and relational social capital, the two dimensions of social capital that provide closure within the organization (Van Wick, Jansen, &038 Less, 2008), the paper attempts to explain the integration of expl oratory and exploitative activities.The paper argues hat cognitive social capital, represented by shared culture and systems and shared vision, provides the required meaning and understanding in the context of contradiction (Smith &038 Dustman, 2005 Inpatient &038 Shoal, 1998 Inept and Tsars, 2005 Van Wick, et al, 2008), which is apparent in the ambidextrous organizational form. The facets of relational social capital, represented by trust and strong ties, are seen as enablers to bringing units focusing on either exploratory or exploitative activities together (Van Wick, et al, 2008 Tsar, 2000).Also, social capital stands central o the understanding of innovation (Inpatient &038 Shoal, 1998 Moran, 2005) and as such influences exploratory and exploitative innovation. In addition, Guppy, Smith &038 Shelley (2006) pass on that learning from exploratory and exploitative activities is more likely to occur at macro level (I. E. Team, unit, organizational, or interdenominational), than a t micro level (I. E. The individual).Thus, referring to the definition of social capital (Inept &038 Tsars, 2005), organizational learning is a resource which is embedded within, becomes available through, and can be derived from a network of relationships. interest this logic, organizational ambidexterity resides in the relationships between units, which are explained by social capital scheme. By addressing the question how social capital can enable ambidexterity, the study attempts to bring a social perspective into the ambidexterity debate.Research addressing this link is missing, while the two are seemingly related. By studying the relation between social capital, which has the ability to build competitive advantage (Inpatient &038 Shoal, 1998), and ambidexterity, which leads to long-run survival (Rakish &038 Brainwash, 2008), this paper contributes mainly to the strategic prudence and organizational literature. In the following plane sections theory and hypotheses will be p resented. Ambidexterity and social capital will be explained, while the hypotheses and the research model linking the two are given.Then, the methodology section will abstract how the study tests these hypotheses within business units. The results section provides initial insight on the fulfilment of the hypotheses, while their implications will be outline in the discussion and conclusion section. In addition, the paper proposes future avenues for inquiry. 7 Duncan (1976) introduced the term ambidexterity, in the organizational setting, arguing that long-term organizational success depends on substitution organizational structures in sequence, depending on an organizations state of innovativeness.When an organization finds itself in a sort of innovation it should adopt an organic structure. When the organization is ready to exploit the innovation a mechanistic structure is more appropriate. However, it was not until the seminal article of March (1991) on organizational learning that research on ambidexterity started burgeoning. March (1991) argued that organizations should engage in enough exploitation to ensure the organizations current viability and engage in enough exploration to ensure future viability (March, 1991 105, italics added).A focus on exploitation at the expense of exploration is likely to lead to short-term success, but in the long-term may lead to competency traps and inertia. A focus on exploration at the expense of exploitation might lead to innovate ideas, but would leave the organization without the ability to glean the benefits. Dustman &038 Reilly (1996) showed that organizations are able to mix exploratory and exploitative activities.