مدیریت نوآوری‌های اکتشافی ـ بهره‌بردارانه در بخش بانکداری

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، مدیریت تولید و عملیات، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

3 استاد گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

4 استادیار گروه حسابداری، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

هدف: مسئله اصلی بانک‌ها این است که به چه میزان و چگونه در انواع فعالیت‌های نوآورانه سرمایه‌گذاری کنند؟ فعالیت‌های نوآورانه بانک‌ها در دو قطب پارادوکسی اکتشافی و بهره‌بردارانه انجام می‌گیرد.
روش: برای پاسخ به این پرسش از روش مطالعه موردی طولی چندگانه استفاده شده است. در همین رابطه، چهار بانک برای مطالعه موردی انتخاب شد و در بازه زمانی 1385 تا 1396 به طور عمیق مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفتند.
یافتهها: پس از شناسایی تنش‌های نوآوری‌ اکتشافی و بهره‌بردارانه در این بانک‌ها، استراتژی‌های پاسخ به این تنش‌ها در هر بانک مشخص شد.
نتیجهگیری: استراتژی‌های پاسخ بانک‌ها در قالب 17 تم استخراج شدند و در چهار دسته کلی (بُعد) گزینش، جداسازی، موازنه و تعالی قرار گرفتند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Managing Exploratory-exploitative Innovation in Banking Sector

نویسندگان [English]

  • Gholamreza Khoshsima 1
  • Seyed Mostafa Razavi 2
  • Ali Divandari 3
  • Seyed Majid Shariatpanahi 4
1 PhD Student, Production & Operations Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Prof. of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 Prof. in Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4 Assistant Prof. in Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, University of Allame Tabatabaei, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Objective: The main issue for banks is how much and how to invest in a variety of innovative activities. Innovative activities in banks are carried out in two paradoxical exploratory and exploitative poles.  
Methods: To answer such questions, a longitudinal multiple case study method was used. To do so, 4 banks were selected as the cases for this study and were analyzed in-depth between 2006 and 2017.
Results: At first, the tensions of exploratory and exploitative innovation approaches were identified in these banks. Then, the required strategies to respond to these tensions were extracted in these banks.
Conclusion: Banks strategies of response were extracted within 17 themes and were classified into the following 4 categories (dimensions): selection, separation, balance, and transcendence.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Exploratory innovation
  • Exploitative innovation
  • Tensions
  • Strategies of response to tensions
  • Case study
  • Bank
References

Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research policy, 14(1), 3-22.

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717.

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long range planning, 43(1), 104-122.

Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652-1661.

Baden-Fuller, C., & Volberda, H. W. (1997). Strategic renewal: How large complex organizations prepare for the future. International Studies of Management & Organization, 27(2), 95-120.

Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of management Journal, 53(6), 1419-1440.

Belderbos, R., Faems, D., Leten, B., & Looy, B. V. (2010). Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: Exploitation and exploration within and between firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(6), 869-882.

Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28(2), 238-256.

Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological methods & research, 10(2), 141-163.

Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. L. (2011). From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 573-581.

Bos, J. W., Kolari, J. W., & Van Lamoen, R. C. (2013). Competition and innovation: Evidence from financial services. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(5), 1590-1601.

Burgelman, R. A. (2011). Bridging history and reductionism: A key role for longitudinal qualitative research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 591-601.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. E. Quinn, & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: toward a theory of change in organization and management: 1-18. Cambridge: Ballinger Pub. Co.

Campanella, F., Del Giudice, M., Thrassou, A., & Vrontis, D. (2016). Ambidextrous organizations in the banking sector: an empirical verification of banks’ performance and conceptual development. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-31. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1239122.

Canales, R. (2013). Weaving straw into gold: Managing organizational tensions between standardization and flexibility in microfinance. Organization Science, 25(1), 1-28.

Chen, N. F. (2009). Banking reforms for the 21st century: A perfectly stable banking system based on financial innovations. International Review of Finance, 9(3), 177-209.

Cheng, Y.T., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1996). Learning the innovation journey: Order out of chaos? Organization Science, 7(6), 593-614.

Christiane, P., & Schlegelmilch, B. (2010). Heading for the next innovation archetype? Journal of Business Strategy, 31(1), 46-55.

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173-208.

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of management review, 36(1), 12-32.

da Cunha, J. V., Clegg, S. R., & e Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management, paradox, and permanent dialectics. Advances in Organization Studies, 9, 11-40.

Davis, G. A., Peterson, J. M., & Farley, F. H. (1974). Attitudes, motivation, sensation seeking, and belief in ESP as predictors of real creative behavior. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 8(1), 31-39.

de Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2014). Strategy: An International Perspective. Cengage Learning.

Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management science, 35(12), 1504-1511.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32.

Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational researcher, 22(4), 16-23.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 756-785.

Frame, W. S., & White, L. J. (2004). Empirical studies of financial innovation: lots of talk, little action? Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 116-144.

Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In G. Clifford (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: 3-30.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multilevel Exploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10-36.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.

Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2002). Contextual determinants of organizational ambidexterity. Center for Effective Organizations: Marshall School of Business.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research: Aldine.

Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics, 32(1), 148-170.

Greve, H. R. (2002). Sticky aspirations: Organizational time perspective and competitiveness. Organization Science, 13(1), 1-17.

Greve, H. R. (2007). Exploration and exploitation in product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(5), 945-975.

Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of management journal, 49(4), 693-706.

He, Z.L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4), 481-494.

Holmqvist, M. (2003). A dynamic model of intra-and interorganizational learning. Organization studies, 24(1), 95-123.

Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization science, 15(1), 70-81.

Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigour in qualitative case-study research. Nurse Researcher, 20(4), 12-17.

Hu, T., & Xie, C. (2016). Competition, Innovation, Risk-Taking, and Profitability in the Chinese Banking Sector: An Empirical Analysis Based on Structural Equation Modeling. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2016.

Huber, A., Miles, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Huff, A. S. (1990). Mapping strategic thought. John Wiley & Sons.

Hunter, S. T., Cushenbery, L. D., & Jayne, B. (2017). Why dual leaders will drive innovation: Resolving the exploration and exploitation dilemma with a conservation of resources solution. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1183-1195.

Jansen, J. (2005). Ambidextrous organizations: a multiple-level study of absorptive capacity, exploratory and exploitative innovation and performance. Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM).

Jansen, J. J. P. (2008). Combining competence building and leveraging: managing paradoxes in ambidextrous organizations. In A. Heene, R. Martens, & R. Sanchez (Eds.), Advances in Applies Busimess Strategy: Competence Perspectives on Learning and Dynamic Capabilities, Vol. 10, 99-119.

Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., Bosch, F. A. J. V. d., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797-811.

Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science, 52(11), 1661-1674.

Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005a). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57(4), 351-363.

Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005b). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 6(4), 351-363.

Jarzabkowski, P. A., Lê, J. K., & Feldman, M. S. (2012). Toward a theory of coordinating: Creating coordinating mechanisms in practice. Organization Science, 23(4), 907-927.

Jarzabkowski, P., & Sillince, J. (2007). A rhetoric-in-context approach to building commitment to multiple strategic goals. Organization Studies, 28(11), 1639-1665.

Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 245-280.

Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137-159.

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative science quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.

Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of management journal, 45(6), 1183-1194.

Koch, T. (2006). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision trail. Journal of advanced nursing, 53(1), 91-100.

Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism. In Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Roy Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 243-275. Thousank Oaks: Sage.

Kvale, S. (1983). The qualitative research interview: A phenomenological and a hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 14(2), 171-196.

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710.

Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic organization, 5(3), 271-282.

Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management annals, 4(1), 109-155.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 12(1), 1-47.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization science, 1(3), 248-266.

Leonard‐Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic management journal, 13(S1), 111-125.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic management journal, 14(S2), 95-112.

Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, 319-340.

Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization science, 10(5), 535-550.

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.

Lewis, M. W., & Dehler, G. E. (2000). Learning through paradox: A pedagogical strategy for exploring contradictions and complexity. Journal of Management Education, 24(6), 708-725.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE Publications.

Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Perspective—making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization science, 19(6), 907-918.

Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240.

Luscher, L. S., Lewis, M., & Ingram, A. (2006). The social construction of organizational change paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4), 491-502.

Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of management journal, 48(1), 21-49.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.

McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of management journal, 44(1), 118-131.

Miles, M., B., & Huberman, M.A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. SAGE Publications.

Miller, C. C., Cardinal, L. B., & Glick, W. H. (1997). Retrospective reports in organizational research: A reexamination of recent evidence. Academy of management journal, 40(1), 189-204.

Miller, D., & Chen, M.J. (1994). Sources and consequences of competitive inertia: A study of the US airline industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1),1-23.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1986a). Porter's (1980) generic strategies and performance: an empirical examination with American data: part I: testing Porter. Organization studies, 7(1), 37-55.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1986b). Porter's (1980) Generic Strategies and Performance: An Empirical Examination with American Data: Part II: Performance Implications. Organization Studies, 7(3), 255-261.

Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 165-186.

Nemanich, L. A., Keller, R. T., & Vera, D. (2007). Managing the exploration/exploitation paradox in new product development: how top executives define their firm's innovation trajectory. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 4(03), 351-374.

Nooteboom, B. (1999). Innovation, learning and industrial organisation. Cambridge Journal of economics, 23(2), 127-150.

Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2014). Organizational Ambidexterity through the Lens of Paradox Theory Building a Novel Research Agenda. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(1), 71-93.

Petruzzelli, A. M. (2014). Balancing knowledge exploration and exploitation within and across technological and geographical domains. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(2), 123-132.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization science, 1(3), 267-292.

Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of management review, 14(4), 562-578.

Prange, C., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2009a). The role of ambidexterity in marketing strategy implementation: Resolving the exploration-exploitation dilemma. Business Research, 2(2), 215-240.

Prange, C., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2009b). The role of ambidexterity in marketing strategy implementation: resolving the exploration-exploitation dilemma. BuR-Business Research, 2(2), 215-240.

Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65-107.

Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409.

Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1141-1166.

Sanday, P. R. (1979). The ethnographic paradigm (s). Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 527-538.

Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5-64.

Schilling, M. A. (1998). Technological lockout: An integrative model of the economic and strategic factors driving technology success and failure. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 267-284.

Seo, M., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change, Handbook of organizational change and innovation, 73-107.

Sfirtsis, T., & Moenaert, R. (2010). Managing the interaction of exploration and exploitation: Ambidexterity as a high-order dynamic capability. In Ron Sanchez, Aimé Heene, & T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), A Focussed Issue on Identifying, Building, and Linking Competences, Vol. 5, 35-57: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Sheremata, W. A. (2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of management review, 25(2), 389-408.

Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18(1), 20-38.

Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity's conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 864-894.

Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. Jossey-Bass.

Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592-1623.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.

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

Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long range planning, 43(2), 448-461.

Stadler, C., Rajwani, T., & Karaba, F. (2014). Solutions to the exploration/exploitation dilemma: Networks as a new level of analysis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(2), 172-193.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE Publications.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. Transaction publishers.

Tracy, S. J. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 119-146.

Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative science quarterly, 31(3), 439-465.

Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly Iii, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.

Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C.-A. (2002). Winning through innovations. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171-222. 

Tushman, M. L., Anderson, P. C., & O’Reilly, C. (1997). Technology cycles, innovation streams, and ambidextrous organizations: organization renewal through innovation streams and strategic change. In Managing Strategic Innovation and Change, edited by P. Anderson and M. Tushman. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1331-1366.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1988). Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational change. In R. E. Quinn, & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management, 19-59. University of Michigan: Ballinger Pub. Co.

Veider, V., & Matzler, K. (2016). The ability and willingness of family-controlled firms to arrive at organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(2), 105-116.

Volberda, H. W. (1998). Building the Flexible Firm: How to Remain Competitive. Oxford University Press.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.

Zarutskie, R. (2013). Competition, financial innovation and commercial bank loan portfolios. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 22(3), 373-396.