Skip to main content
Frontiers of Business Research in China
Download PDF
  • Research Article
  • Published:

Innovation paradox and ambidextrous organization: A case study on development teams of air conditioner in Haier

Frontiers of Business Research in China volume 3, pages 271–300 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

While knowledge exploration and exploitation represent two distinct activities requiring corresponding organizational arrangements, new product development calls for a dynamic combination of the two. Based on a systematic review of the paradox between knowledge exploration and exploitation and various resolving strategies, this research extends the construct of organizational ambidexterity from dual structure to ambidextrous capabilities, and suggests a dialectical method for reconciling this paradox at lower organizational levels. Based on a case study on the development teams of air conditioner in Haier, we find that ambidexterity is a multi-level construct existing not only at the organization level but also at lower levels such as teams and individuals like model managers.

摘要

新产品开发作为企业自主创新活动的一种重要形式, 是知识探索与知识利用有机结合的过程。 在对二者悖论关系及其处理方略进行系统文献综述的基础上, 将 两栖组织的定义从 “二元结构”、 “二面性结构” 伸展到 “两栖能力”, 试图在较低的 组织层次上回答如何辩证地解决二者看似矛盾实则可统一的关系。 在对海尔空调开 发团队的成员构成及异质性知识组合案例分析后, 得出的结论是, “两栖” 不仅是组 织层面的构念, 而且可以是团队乃至像 “型号经理” 这样的个体员工层面的构念。

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner M J, Tushman M L (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 238–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw J, Gibson C (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer: 47–55

  • Bouchikhi H (1998). Living with and building on complexity. Organization, 5(2): 217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown S L, Eisenhardt K M (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles H (1994). The Age of Paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen C M (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft R L (2003). 组织理论与设计 (Organization Theory and Design). 北京: 清华大学出版社

    Google Scholar 

  • Dopfer K (2004). 演化经济学: 纲要与范围 (Evolutionary Economics: Program and Scope). 北 京: 高等教育出版社

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan R B (1976). The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structure for innovation. The Management of Organization, (1): 167–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton J M, Thomas A (1985). Relating technological change and learning by doing. In: Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy, Rosenbloom R S (eds.): 187–224. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann O, Sandmeier P, Wecht C H (2006). Extreme customer innovation in the front-end: Learning from a new software paradigm. International Journal of Technology Management, 33(1): 46–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gharajedaghi J (1999). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture. Amsterdam: Elsvier/Butterworth-Heinemann

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson C B, Birkinshaw J (2004). Antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta A K, Smith K G, Shalley C E (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Review, 49(4): 693–706

    Google Scholar 

  • He Z-L, Wong P-K (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(1): 481–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt J, Gerloff E A (1999). Organizational environment, changing economic conditions, and the effective supervision of technical personnel: A management challenge. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 10(2): 275–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang S-C, Morris S S, Snell S C (2007). Relational archetypes, organizational learning and value creation. Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 236–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Kedia B L, Keller R T, Jullan S D (1992) Dimensions of national culture and the productivity of R&D units. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 3(1): 1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March J G (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonough E F, Leifer R (1983). Using simultaneous structures to cope with uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 727–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath R G (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 118–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff I (1995). Review of the age of paradox. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 748–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1): 14–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly C A, Tushman M (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4): 74–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Freije J, Enkel E (2007). Creative tension in the innovation process: How to support the right capabilities. European Management Journal, 25(1): 11–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole M S, Van de Ven A H (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 562–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagans R, Zuckerman E W (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4): 502–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N, Levinthal D A (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6): 650–669

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N, Rivkin J (2006). When exploration backfires: Unintended consequences of multilevel organizational search. Academy of Management Review, 49(4): 779–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith W K, Tushman M L (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5): 522–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor A, Greve H R (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Review, 49(4): 723–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman M, O’Reilly C A (1996). Evolution and revolution: Mastering the dynamics of innovation and change. California Management Review, 38(4): 8–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman M, O’Reilly C A (1997). Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guild to Leasing Organizational Change and Renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

    Google Scholar 

  • 鞠 强 (Ju Qiang) (2003). 二元相对平衡管理理论 (Manage towards dual balance). 企业管理, (11): 95–99

  • 鞠 强 (Ju Qiang) (2007). 走进和谐管理—二元相对平衡管理哲学综述 (Manage towards Hexie: A review of the logic of dual management). 企业研究, (2): 9–12

  • 李 占祥, 杨 杜, 解 培才 (Li Zhanxiang, Yang Du, Xie Peicai) (2000). 矛盾管理学 (Contradiction Management Science). 北京: 经济管理出版社

    Google Scholar 

  • 李 玉玲 (Li Yuling) (2006). 二元型组织设计与创新流研究 (Ambidextrous organizations design and innovation flow). 吉林大学硕士学位论文

  • 史 江涛, 曹 兵 (Shi Jiangtao, Cao Bing) (2006). 间断式技术创新的组织困境及突破 (Difficulties of organizing radical solutions and their solutions). 技术经济, (2): 67

  • 袁 勇志 (Yuan Yongzhi) (2001). 企业创新与企业二元组织结构 (Corporate innovations and dual structures). 南京农业大学学报 (社会科学版), (1): 94–98

  • 张 洪石, 陈 劲 (Zhang Hongshi, Chen Jin) (2005). 突破性创新的组织模式研究 (The study about organizational mode for radical innovation). 科学研究, (4): 566–571.

  • 张 玺 (Zhang Xi) (2006). 技术创新的两难悖论与网络化集群式创新研究 (Research on the dilemma of technological innovation and countermeasures). 科学管理研究, (2): 1–4

  • 张 玉利, 李 乾文 (Zhang Yuli, Li Qianwei) (2006). 双元型组织研究评介 (A review of ambidexterity). 外国经济与管理, (1): 1–8

  • 郑 平 (Zheng Ping) (2007). 基于公司创业的破坏性创新研究 (A study on radical innovations based on entrepreneurship). 中国人民大学博士学位论文

  • 朱 凌, 许 庆瑞, 王 方瑞 (Zhu Ling, Xu Qingrui, Wang Fangrui) (2006). 从研发—营销的整合到技 术创新: 市场创新的协同 (Transformation from the integration between R&D and marketing to synergy between technological innovation and market innovation). 科研管理, (5): 22–30

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872, China

    Fengbin Wang & Hong Jiang

Authors
  1. Fengbin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hong Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fengbin Wang.

Additional information

Translated and revised from Jingji Guanli 经济管理 (Economic Management), 2008, (11): 44–49 and Jingji Lilun yu Jingji Guanli 经济理论与经济管理 (Economic Theory and Business Management), 2008, (2): 51–57

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, F., Jiang, H. Innovation paradox and ambidextrous organization: A case study on development teams of air conditioner in Haier. Front. Bus. Res. China 3, 271–300 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11782-009-0014-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11782-009-0014-2

Keywords

关键词