Organizational level analysis
Organizations in several sectors experience rising pressure on how to serve the customers in a better way by increasing the operational efficiency in a competitive environment, and innovating the delivery of the services and goods. This can be considered to be both a practical and theoretical challenge both in increasing the efficiency and innovating the smooth the delivery in a single organizational unit (Birkinshaw and Gupta 2013). Thus, this is called to be an ambidexterity which enable an organization to carry out multiple task simultaneously. Thus, this whole scenario demands certain requirements in terms of exploitation and exploration. Exploitation requires things like execution, implementation, selection, efficiency, production, choice and refinement.
While the exploration includes the innovation, discovery, flexibility, play, experimentation, risk taking, variation, search (Filippini, Güttel and Nosella 2012). The aim and objective of the study is to critically analyze and evaluate mechanisms that might or might not be supportive of ambidexterity in MBA Design Partnership using Table 3 of the 2012 Turner, Swart and Maylor paper to structure your analysis.
The will present an analysis section that will utilize the third-party sources like practitioner-oriented material and academic literature to critically evaluate and analyze the theoretical perspectives of ambidexterity. It will also highlight the application of ambidexterity on to the perspectives like finance, information systems, operations, leadership. Finally, a recommendation section will also be presented that will provide solutions and highlight how the ambidexterity can add value to the organization.
Analysis
Defining the term ambidexterity, it is important to note that the ambidexterity does not mean the activities at the level of the managers, whereas it means the capabilities of the managers. the Table 3 of Turner, Swart and Maylor (2013), (Appendix 1) reveals three levels of analysis (organizational, group and individual). The intellectual capital resources include organizational capital, social capital and human capital (Turner, Swart and Maylor 2013).
Organizational level analysis: it highlights the coexistence of the informal and the formal structures; structural separation and structural configuration. Maintenance and development of the inter organizational relationship. At the social capital level, there are provision for the sharing of knowledge between the existing and the new parties. Here, the Human Resource plays a supportive role in the ambidexterity. At the human capital level, individuals play a definitive role in the coordinating and reconciling the exploratory and exploitative functions. Ability of the management to reconfigure the assets of the organization. According to Fu, Flood and Morris (2016)
Group level analysis
the organizational capital can be considered as the knowledge that are embedded into the database of the firm, processes, values, culture, systems, structures and routines. It also includes the organizational methods, tools, and culture and the ways that are beneficial for the individual teams and the employees. It is seen that the organizational capital increases due to the persistent interaction between the staffs. When this process is carried on, the individual knowledge gets transformed into organizational knowledge. This later on is transferred to the new employees and staff. Ambidexterity helps an organization in two ways, firstly the employees are able to gain access the to the existing knowledge and secondly the organizational capital helps the employees to generate new ideas for the new projects by developing new knowledge and transferring them.
According to Josserand, Schmitt and Borzillo (2017), the social capital opens up the relationships and it gives access to explore and exploit the opportunities and resources. If an organization is considered to be a social group that transform and combine the social expertise economically through the valuable outputs, then there is a big chance of an employee’s social relationship become a valuable asset for the organizational activity. Similarly, the social capital is identified as the stocks of knowledge that is distributed and embedded in to the social capital of an organization and it is characterized by both the internal and external relationship, which is a potential source of ambidexterity. Social capital stresses on the relationships that exist between the actors and it can be analyzed in terms of the cognitive dimension, relational and structural dimension.
According to Prieto and Pilar Pérez Santana (2012), it is important to mention that the involving the human resource practices have led to the build up of the social climate and have also assisted in the exploitation and exploration of the ambidextrous characters. This has been possible only by shaping the skills of the employees and their cognitions. The knowledge management can be done through the properties like motivation, increasing the employee’s opportunities, creating and accessing the knowledge into the firm. Studies have indicated and demonstrated that the when the human resource practices are involved into making the social climate for knowledge combination and exchange, it can lead to idea creation and knowledge increase within the firm.
It is important to mention that certain aspects of human resource domains are considered to be vital like the cooperation among the employees, trust, shared cognitions, opportunity enhancing environment, motivation enhancing environment, and ability enhancing (Chang 2015).
Individual level analysis
Group level analysis- this level consists of the support to the reward systems for ambidexterity. There are processes that help in creating informal coordination and social relationships. At the organizational level there are other elements like the informal managerial integration and formal managerial integration along with the control mechanisms. At the social capital level is the there are strong network for sharing knowledge which is augmented by the informal and formal behaviors. The relationships support the ambidexterity that have shared goals and values. While at the human capital level there are compelling and strong vision with the participation in the interfaces that are cross functional. Additionally, it includes the transformational leadership.
According to O’Reilly III and Tushman, (2013), groups are formed both outside and inside the professional setting in order to perform tasks and get the things accomplished. It is a however wrong conception that organizations with one set of competencies will lack the other set of competencies. The most fundamental and the important aspect of the group is to engage in to both the exploitative and the explorative work. It has been through the studies that the groups that have the stronger ties within the members have the greater ability to implement and exploit the established ideas. However, it has been found that such groups lack the capability to be forwards thinking and creative (Parker 2014). Thus, it has been established through research that a group with weak ties will have the greater capacities to generate new ideas and implement them as well.
The studies that were conducted by several researchers have mentioned that the both the exploitative and the explorative work are considered as an innovation. Although the explorative work is generally conceived as a work of innovation. It is thus a new way of thinking and doing things and is a prime driver of the future endeavors. The process is a creative one that leads to the new ways of thinking and designing of new products (Jansen, Simsek and Cao 2012).
Individual level analysis- at the organizational capital level, the multiple cross functional interfaces include both the informal and the formal coordination. For the best practice, both the local managerial judgement and managerial discretion is used. At the social capital level, the individual plays a major role in both supporting and creating a context for the ambidexterity. It includes both the task focused and relational leadership. Taking the initiative for the brokering, multitasking, cooperative behavior. According to Hong, Yu and Hyun (2018), exploration can be perceived as an uncertain, risky, challenging task which simultaneously provide opportunity in generating high levels of individual performance but at the cost of uncertainty.
Human resource management
Whereas, the exploitation can be described as the more certain, less risky and less challenging which leads to low levels of uncertainty and low individual performance. A majority of the researches have emphasized that the execution of the exploitation and exploration by different departments of a same firm or time frame can be effective for the individual in companion to the concurrent execution. It has been seen that the concurrent execution of the exploration and exploitation may lead to individual experience tensions. It is important to note that the both the explorative and the exploitative task require the resources and time. Additionally, knowledge and skills are also required for the effective results (Rogan and Mors 2014).
Human resource management- for the effective knowledge and skill set development, sharing and progression of the ideas leads to the development of the resource-based model (Appendix 2). The resource-based model emphasizes on the human resources and considers them to be a strategy for the sustained competitive advantage. This model is sourced from the Barney (1991) and Hill and Jones (2001). This model provides the provision for the effective implementation of policies through the effective human resource management. This model is specifically important to knowledge economy and certain values like the intellectual capital and values in human.
The implementation procedure will exploit the distinctive opportunities that are related to a work in an organization. The distinctive competencies include both the capabilities and resources of the organization (Kang, Snell and Swart 2012). Thus, the leadership capabilities are considered to be important in the harnessing the human assets in an organization. The sum of the social relationships, people expertise and people’s knowledge have the potential to create the competitive advantage, which otherwise can be termed as organizational learning. The distinctive competences are the vital parts and this requires the organization’s resources that are valuable and unique.
There are 4 characteristics that are important in sustaining the competitive advantage, this includes the non-substitutability (cannot be replaced by other factors), inimitability (cannot be easily copied), rarity (insufficient supply to meet the demands) and value (resources add values along with the competences, skills, and talents) (Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis 2011).
Transformational leadership- it is sort of leadership theory where leader has the responsibility of motivating the employees through the activation of moral values, team building, have a clear vision, and have higher order needs. It includes the following 4 aspects like the inspirational motivation (which goes beyond self-interest), individualized consideration, idealized influence and intellectual stimulation. This form of leadership helps in brining the best out of the employees with respect to the skill development, creation of ideas and sharing among the other staffs. This promotes the ambidexterity nature of both the creativity and productivity (Huczynski, Buchanan and Huczynski 2013).
Knowledge management- They are the set of process within an organization that help the organization to apply, transfer, store and create knowledge. The effective knowledge management depends on the technology, people, organizational processes. The Knowledge management value chain is a sequential step of knowledge addition through raw data and it is then transferred to a usable knowledge. It includes the knowledge acquisition, storage, knowledge dissemination and knowledge application. In the ambidexterity of creativity and productivity the utility of knowledge management is important considering knowledge creation and transfer among the employees (Durst and Runar Edvardsson 2012).
Conclusion
From the above discussion it can be concluded that, Organizations in several sectors experience rising pressure on how to serve the customers in a better way by increasing the operational efficiency in a competitive environment, and innovating the delivery of the services and goods. Ambidexterity does not mean the activities at the level of the managers, whereas it means the capabilities of the managers. the organizational capital can be considered as the knowledge that are embedded into the database of the firm, processes, values, culture, systems, structures and routines. It also includes the organizational methods, tools, and culture and the ways that are beneficial for the individual teams and the employees. It is seen that the organizational capital increases due to the persistent interaction between the staffs. groups are formed both outside and inside the professional setting in order to perform tasks and get the things accomplished.
It is a however wrong conception that organizations with one set of competencies will lack the other set of competencies. The most fundamental and the important aspect of the group is to engage in to both the exploitative and the explorative work. exploration can be perceived as an uncertain, risky, challenging task which simultaneously provide opportunity in generating high levels of individual performance but at the cost of uncertainty. Whereas, the exploitation can be described as the more certain, less risky and less challenging which leads to low levels of uncertainty and low individual performance. A majority of the researches have emphasized that the execution of the exploitation and exploration by different departments of a same firm or time frame can be effective for the individual in companion to the concurrent execution.
Recommendation
The company MBA Design Partnership is a company that has the expertise on building well designed spaces and buildings. Thus, to enhance and augment the several process in the company, the following are the recommendation:
- In order to make MBA Design partnership a learning organization, it is important to focus on the sharing the pre-existing knowledge and at the same time resolve the barriers that are hindering the learning process. This will increase the profit margin and help MBA Design partnership to empower, inspire and engage the team to both productive and innovative (Vrontis et al. 2017).
- The second focus can be put on to the inspiring and including the workforce that are responsible and accountable to do great job. Thus, the inclusion of new employees into the company will include the right attitude with the right aptitude process (Allen, Ericksen and Collins 2013).
- The transformational leadership is one of the best ways to educate, motivate and encourage the employees to take up challenging and the knowledge gained can be stored, processed and transferred to the other departments or for future use. The leader of MBA Design partnership can emphasize on the transformational leadership to bring significant changes in the working environment and increase the creativity skills among the employees (Birasnav 2014).
Reference
Allen, M.R., Ericksen, J. and Collins, C.J., 2013. Human resource management, employee exchange relationships, and performance in small businesses. Human Resource Management, 52(2), pp.153-173.
Birasnav, M., 2014. Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service industry: The role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), pp.1622-1629.
Birkinshaw, J. and Gupta, K., 2013. Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), pp.287-298.
Chang, Y.Y., 2015. A multilevel examination of high?performance work systems and unit?level organisational ambidexterity. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(1), pp.79-101.
Clegg, S.R., Kornberger, M. and Pitsis, T., 2011. Managing and organizations: An introduction to theory and practice. Sage.
Durst, S. and Runar Edvardsson, I., 2012. Knowledge management in SMEs: a literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(6), pp.879-903.
Filippini, R., Güttel, W.H. and Nosella, A., 2012. Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge management initiatives. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), pp.317-324.
Fu, N., Flood, P.C. and Morris, T., 2016. Organizational ambidexterity and professional firm performance: The moderating role of organizational capital. Journal of Professions and Organization, 3(1), pp.1-16.
Hong, K., Yu, G.J. and Hyun, E., 2018. Understanding ambidexterity at the individual level: task assignment perspective. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 24(1), pp.34-50.
Huczynski, A., Buchanan, D.A. and Huczynski, A.A., 2013. Organizational behaviour (p. 82). London: Pearson.
Jansen, J.J., Simsek, Z. and Cao, Q., 2012. Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross?level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), pp.1286-1303.
Josserand, E., Schmitt, A. and Borzillo, S., 2017. Balancing present needs and future options: how employees leverage social networks with clients. Journal of business strategy, 38(1), pp.14-21.
Kang, S.C., Snell, S.A. and Swart, J., 2012. Options?based HRM, intellectual capital, and exploratory and exploitative learning in law firms’ practice groups. Human Resource Management, 51(4), pp.461-485.
O’Reilly III, C.A. and Tushman, M.L., 2013. Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of management Perspectives, 27(4), pp.324-338.
Parker, S.K., 2014. Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more. Annual review of psychology, 65, pp.661-691.
Prieto, I.M. and Pilar Pérez Santana, M., 2012. Building ambidexterity: The role of human resource practices in the performance of firms from Spain. Human Resource Management, 51(2), pp.189-211.
Rogan, M. and Mors, M.L., 2014. A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization Science, 25(6), pp.1860-1877.
Turner, N., Swart, J. and Maylor, H., 2013. Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), pp.317-332.
Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., Santoro, G. and Papa, A., 2017. Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), pp.374-388.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
