Investigating the Relationship between Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance-Related Dimensions in Banking Industry (Case Study: Gilan Bank Branches)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 MSc in Industrial Management, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

2 Associate Prof. of Industrial Management, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

3 Assistant Prof. of Industrial Management, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

Abstract

Objective: Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization’s capacity to pursue two distinct goals at the same time, and is known as an important criterion in achieving competitive advantage. So far, many studies have been documented on the concept of organizational ambidexterityand its impact on performance. Nevertheless, few studies have examined its dual dimensions. Evidences suggest that ambidexterity has been positively correlated with performance, and for an organization, it is a valuable tool for continuously improvement in the performance. In this study, ambidexterity has been considered as a construct with two dimensions of balance and combination, and attempt has been made to measure the relationship between this two dimensions and the performance in banking industry.
Methods: To do so, initially, reviewing the literature, the conceptual model of this study was extracted, and then in order to analyze the research model and hypotheses, we examined 161 bank branches. The structural equation modeling based on partial least squares (PLS) was used to analyze the data.
Results: The data analysis suggested a significantly positive impact of ambidexterity on performance which means if the organizations achieve high level of exploitation and exploration, the performance will improve.
Conclusion: In this study, the increase in the combined amount of two exploitation and exploration activities or on the absolute value of the difference between these two activities was pointed out and according to the two aforementioned viewpoints, the role of ambidexterity on the performance was investigated. The contradictory results of the research in the two balanced and combined approaches indicated that it is not the balance between the two dimensions of exploitation and exploration that has a positive effect on performance and any increase in each of these two dimensions can lead to the improvement of the performance.

Keywords

References

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.
Bandarian, R. (2013). Simultaneous Ambidexterity, the Appropriate Model of Organizing Exploration and Exploitation Activities in Research and Technology Organizations. Journal of Industrial Technology, (22), 21-32. (in Persian)
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287-298.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.
Davari, A., Rezazade, A. (2013). Structural Equation Modeling with PLS. Tehran: Jahad daneshgahi Press (in Persian)
Fallah Shams Lialestanei, M. F., Raji, M., & Khajehpour, M. (2013). Organization Performance Evaluation with a combined approach BSC, AHP and TOPSIS. Industrial Management, 5(1), 81-100. (in Persian)
Geerts, A., Blindenbach-Driessen, F., & Gemmel, P. (2010). Ambidextrous Innovation Behaviour in Service Firms. Status: published.
Ghasemi, A. R., Jahangard, S. (2011). Estimates the Component Efficiency of Housing Bank Branches in Resource Mobilization and Facilities Allocation: Super Efficiency model approach with weight limitations. Industrial Management, 3(6), 113-128. (in Persian)
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Gulati, R., & Puranam, P. (2009). Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organization Science, 20(2), 422-440.
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4), 481-494.
Im, G., & Rai, A. (2008). Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Science, 54(7), 1281-1296.
Junni, P., Sarala, R., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. The Academy of Management Perspectives, amp-2012.
Kang, S. C., & Snell, S. A. (2009). Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: a framework for human resource management. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 65-92.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic management journal, 14(S2), 95-112.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.
Moradi, M., Zanjani, B., & Jamali, A. (2014). Job Performance Modeling by using Comparative Fuzzy-Neural Inference optimal system (Case Study: Guilan Gas Company. Industrial Management, 6(1), 111-136. (in Persian)
O'Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409.
Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of management, 35(3), 718-804.
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.
Tangen, S. (2004). Professional Practice Performance Measurement: From Philosophy to Practice. International Journal of Productivity and performance Management, 53(8), 26-37.
Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317-332.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.
Warner, R. M. (2008). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques. Sage.
Zhou, J., & Xue, Q. Z. (2013, January). Organizational Learning, Ambidexterity, and Firm Performance. In The 19th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 537-546). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
 
Industrial Management Journal
Volume 10, Issue 1
2018
Pages 85-100

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics