Nicholas Roberts
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Managerial ambidexterity is an important precursor to managerial seizing ability. However, ambidexterity can impose substantial costs. Yet information systems may help reduce these costs. We develop a model that includes an inverted U-shaped relationship between managerial ambidexterity and seizing ability. We propose that a manager's effective use of management support systems will mitigate the decline in seizing ability at higher levels of ambidexterity. We test our model with data collected over two time periods from 172 managers. Our results support our model, thereby generating implications for research and practice in IT value, managerial ambidexterity, and dynamic managerial capabilities.
- Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1011--1025.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Agarwal, R., & Lucas, H. C. (2005). The information systems identity crisis: Focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 381--398. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Agresti, A. (2010). Analysis of ordinal categorical data. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aitchison, J., & Silvey, S. D. (1957). The generalization of probit analysis to the case of multiple responses. Biometrika, 44, 131--140.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123--1137. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Augier, M., & Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business strategy and economic performance. Organization Science, 20(2), 410--421.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421--458.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bettis, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 5--14.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bhatt, G., Emdad, A., Roberts, N., & Grover, V. (2010). Building and leveraging information in dynamic environments: The role of IT infrastructure flexibility as enabler of organizational responsiveness and competitive advantage. Information & Management, 47(7--8), 341--349. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287--298.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Boes, S., & Winkelmann, R. (2006). Ordered response models. Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv, 90, 167--181.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Boumgarden, P., Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 587--610.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Burton-Jones, A., & Grange, C. (2013). From use to effective use: A representation theory perspective. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 632--658.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233--255.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clark, T. D., Jones, M. C., & Armstrong, C. P. (2007). The dynamic structure of management support systems: Theory development, research focus, and direction. MIS Quarterly, 31(3), 579--615. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Conboy, K., Mikalef, P., Dennehy, D., & Krogstie, J. (2020). Using business analytics to enhance dynamic capabilities in operations research: A case analysis and research agenda. European Journal of Operational Research, 281(3), 656--672.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, U.S.A.: Prentice Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
- Davenport, T. H. (2006). Competing on analytics. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 98--107.Google Scholar
- Devaraj, S., & Kohli, R. (2003). Performance impacts of information technology: Is actual usage the missing link? Management Science, 49(3), 273--289. Google ScholarDigital Library
- DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147--160.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209--226.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z.-L. (2016). Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1177--1195.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hammer, M. (2004). Deep change: How operational innovation can transform your company. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 84--93.Google Scholar
- Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
- Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Review and assessment of managerial impact on strategic change. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1281--1312.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831--850.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hill, S. A., & Birkinshaw, J. M. (2010). Idea sets: Conceptualizing and measuring a new unit of analysis in entrepreneurship research. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 85--113.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hodgkinson, G. P., & Healey, M. P. (2011). Psychological foundations of dynamic capabilities: Reflexion and reflection in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1500--1516.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hosack, B., Hall, D., Paradice, D., & Courtney, J. F. (2012). A look toward the future: Decision support systems research is alive and well. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(5), 315--340.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Janssen, M., Van der Voort, H., & Wahyudi, A. (2017). Factors influencing big data decision-making quality. Journal of Business Research, 70, 338--345.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Keller, T., & Weibler, J. (2015). What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous leader: Linking leadership and cognitive strain to balancing exploration and exploitation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(1), 54--71.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kiron, D., Prentice, P. K., & Ferguson, R. B. (2014). Raising the bar with analytics. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(2), 29--33.Google Scholar
- Kohli, R., & Grover, V. (2008). Business value of IT: An essay on expanding research directions to keep up with the times. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(1), 23--29.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kowalczyk, M., & Buxmann, P. (2015). An ambidextrous perspective on business intelligence and analytics support in decision processes: Insights from a multiple case study. Decision Support Systems, 80, 1--13. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lampel, J. S., J. (2000). Probing the unobtrusive link: Dominant logic and the design of joint ventures at General Electric. Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 593--602.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laureiro-Martinez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N., & Zollo, M. (2015). Understanding the exploration--exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 319--338.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laureiro-Martinez, D., Brusoni, S., & Zollo, M. (2010). The neuroscientific foundations of the exploration-exploitation dilemma. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 3(2), 95--115.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109--155.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(Special Issue), 95--112.Google Scholar
- Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114--121.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lu, Y., & Ramamurthy, K. (2011). Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 931--954. Google ScholarDigital Library
- MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293--334. Google ScholarDigital Library
- March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71--87. Google ScholarDigital Library
- March, J. G. (1996). Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 278--287.Google ScholarCross Ref
- March, J. G. (2006). Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic Management Journal, 27(3), 201--214.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McKelvey, R., & Zavoina, W. (1975). A statistical model for the analysis of ordered level dependent variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4, 103--120.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Review: Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 283--322. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mikalef, P., & Pateli, A. (2017). Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Journal of Business Research, 70, 1--16.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mom, T. J. M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers' ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812--828. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, New York, U.S.A.: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
- O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74--81.Google Scholar
- O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185--206.Google ScholarCross Ref
- O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5--22.Google ScholarCross Ref
- O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324--338.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(Special Issue), 187--206.Google Scholar
- Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2016). In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial reactions to innovation-efficiency tensions. Human Relations, 69(9), 1791--1822.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623--656. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485--501.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ramiller, N. C., & Pentland, B. T. (2009). Management implications in information systems research: The untold story. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(6), 474--494.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roberts, N., Galluch, P. S., Dinger, M., & Grover, V. (2012). Absorptive capacity and information systems research: Review, synthesis, and directions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 625--648. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roberts, N., & Thatcher, J. (2009). Conceptualizing and testing formative constructs: Tutorial and annotated example. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 40(3), 9--39. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. (2014). A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization Science, 25(6), 1860--1877. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sabherwal, R., & Jeyaraj, A. (2015). Information technology impacts on firm performance: An extension of Kohli and Devaraj (2003). MIS Quarterly, 39(4), 809--836. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Salvato, C., & Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37(2), 468--490.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schwarz, A., Rizzuto, T., Carraher-Wolverton, C., Roldan, J. L., & Barrera-Barrera, R. (2017). Examining the impact and detection of the "urban legend' of common method bias. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 48(1), 93--119. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sherr, I. (2013). Apple's magic wears thin as its earnings disappoint. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324539304578260222730515836Google Scholar
- Simon, H. (1976). Administrative behavior: a study of decision making processes in administrative organization. New York, New York, U.S.A.: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319--1350.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tempelaar, M. P., & Rosenkranz, N. A. (2019). Switching hats: The effect of role transition on individual ambidexterity. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1517--1539.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Troianovski, A., Gryta, T., & Sherr, I. (2013). New worry for Apple. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323485704578257393880660184Google Scholar
- Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8--30.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Understanding IT Value at the Managerial Level: Managerial Ambidexterity, Seizing Opportunities, and the Moderating Role of Information Systems Use
Recommendations
Information technology use as a learning mechanism: the impact of it use on knowledge transfer effectiveness, absorptive capacity, and franchisee performance
This study aims to contribute to the literature through the theoretical development and empirical investigation of the role of information technology use in organizational learning. We develop a theoretical framework that unpacks organizational learning ...
A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems
For the last 25 years, organizations have invested heavily in information technology to support their work processes. In today's organizations, intra- and interorganizational work systems are increasingly IT-enabled. Available evidence, however, ...
Configurations for Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity with Digitization
Organizational ambidexterity refers to the capability of businesses to balance the pursuit of radical innovation simultaneously with incremental innovation. It echoes the popular notion that to thrive well in a competitive economy, businesses need to ...
Due to digitization, new mechanisms have emerged for achieving organizational ambidexterity, defined as the ability to pursue both efficiency and flexibility while balancing exploitation and exploration. This study investigates the role of digitization in ...
Comments