خُردبنیان‌های شناختی و قابلیت‌های پویای پشتیبان دوسوتوانی نوآوری در شرکت‌های فناوری اطلاعات

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 پسادکتری مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران.تهران.

2 عضو هیئت‌علمی، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

چکیده

امروزه سازمان‌ها برای دستیابی به انواع گوناگون نوآوری می‌بایست ظرفیت‌های خود را برای مدیریت تنش میان اکتشاف و بهره‌برداری تقویت کنند. براین‌اساس پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی خُردبنیان‌های شناختی و قابلیت‌های پویای پشتیبان دوسوتوانی نوآوری در شرکت‌های فناوری اطلاعات کشور و با تکیه‌بر روش‌های مطالعه موردی چندگانه و نظریه داده‌بنیاد کلاسیک صورت پذیرفت. دراین‌راستا پنج شرکت فناوری اطلاعات به‌عنوان موردمطالعه انتخاب شدند و ضمن مصاحبه با مدیران ارشد شرکت‌های مذکور، تعدادی از مستندات و مدارک سازمانی آن‌ها نیز موردتجزیه‌وتحلیل قرار گرفت. براساس یافته‌های پژوهش، شرکت‌های موفق در اجرای راهبرد دوسوتوانی از قابلیت‌های سازمانی موازنه نامتقارن سبد، نوازش و نکوهش منابع انسانی، سیالیت‌بخشی به ساختار، متناسب‌سازی ارزیابی عملکرد، پایدارسازی مدیریتی، تحرک‌بخشی فیزیکی و شغلی و شتاب‌دهی نوآوری برخوردار هستند. مدیرعامل شرکت‌ها نیز از چارچوب‌های شناختی آینده‌گرایی طیفی، تحلیل‌گرایی تسریع‌شده، زمان‌گرایی ترقی‌خواهانه و دوسوگرایی هیجانی همراه با سازوکارهای ترجیح، توالی و تصدیق بهره می‌برند. بنابراین به‌کارگیری و تربیت مدیران­ عامل شرکت‌ها با توانمندی شناختی کافی و همچنین ایجاد و تقویت قابلیت‌های پویای پشتیبان دوسوتوانی در سازمان‌ها می‌تواند بروز و تداوم انواع نوآوری‌های اکتشافی و بهره‌بردارانه را در شرکت‌های فناوری اطلاعات تسهیل نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Cognitive Microfoundations and Supportive Dynamic Capabilities of Innovation Ambidexterity in IT Companies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Nader Seyed Kalali 1
  • Hashem Aghazadeh 2
1 Postdoc in Business Administration, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 . Faculty Member, Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Today, organizations need to enhance their capacities to manage the tensions between exploration and exploitation. The purpose of this research is to study the cognitive microfoundations and supportive dynamic capabilities of innovation ambidexterity. To conduct research, multiple-case study and classic grounded theory methods are used. Five IT companies in Iran are selected as cases in point. Interviews with top executives are conducted and several organizational documents are analyzed. The findings show that successful IT companies, nurture special capabilities within themselves to manage the ambidexterity tensions. These capabilities include the asymmetric balancing of the corporate portfolio, cuddling and admonition of human resources, flexibility of structure, adaptation of performance appraisal, managerial stabilization, physical and professional liveliness, and innovation acceleration. Moreover, the CEOs of successful companies were equipped with the cognitive frames of spectral forecasting, accelerated analytical orientation, Progressive time orientation, and Emotional ambivalence orientation, while using the cognitive mechanisms of preference, sequence, and verification. Therefore, the recruiting and training of cognitively capable CEOs, and developing and reinforcing the organizational capabilities which are supportive of ambidexterity, can facilitate the emergence and continuance of explorative and exploitative innovations in IT companies.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Innovation ambidexterity
  • cognitive microfoundations
  • dynamic capability
  • upper echelons theory
  • cognitive frame

مراجع

Artang, A., Bagheri, A., & Akbari, M. (2021). The effect of personal and social characteristics of entrepreneurship team on open innovation in information technology firms in Tehran. [In Persian]. Journal of Technology Development Management, 9(3), 73-98. https://doi.org/10.22104/jtdm.2022.4720.2742
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Beekman, T. L., & Seo, H. S. (2022). Analytic versus holistic: Cognitive styles can influence consumer response and behavior toward foods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 37(2), e12723. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12723
Bengtsson, M., & Raza-Ullah, T. (2016). A systematic review of research on coopetition: Toward a multilevel understanding. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.05.003
Benischke, M. H., Martin, G. P., & Glaser, L. (2019). CEO equity risk bearing and strategic risk taking: The moderating effect of CEO personality. Strategic Management Journal, 40(1), 153-177. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2974
Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017). The interplay between intuition and rationality in strategic decision making: A paradox perspective. Organization Studies, 38(3/4), 365-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616655483
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 (pp. 1–18). Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers.
Child, J., Hsieh, L., Elbanna, S., Karmowska, J., Marinova, S., Puthusserry, P., ... & Zhang, Y. (2017). SME international business models: The role of context and experience. Journal of World Business, 52(5), 664-679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.004
Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Shams, S. R. (2019). Triggering technological innovation through cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A micro-foundational perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 148-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.026
Clauss, T., Kraus, S., Kallinger, F. L., Bican, P. M., Brem, A., & Kailer, N. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity and competitive advantage: The role of strategic agility in the exploration-exploitation paradox. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6(4), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2020.07.003
Cristofaro, M. (2017). Herbert Simon’s bounded rationality: Its historical evolution in management and cross-fertilizing contribution. Journal of Management History, 23(2), 170-190. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-11-2016-0060
Deylami Azodi, A., Khodadad Hosseini, S. h., Kordnaij, A., & Moshabaki Esfahani, A. (2020). Conceptualizing and explaining the pattern of business model adaptation in the ICT industry [In Persian]. Business Strategies Journal, 17(1), 77-99. https://doi.org/10.22070/cs.2020.2451
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 484-503. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393314
Ghemawat, P., & Ricart Costa, J. E. I. (1993). The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141007
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
Golden, B. R. (1992). The past is the past—or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 848-860. https://doi.org/10.5465/256318
Gröschl, S., Gabaldón, P., & Hahn, T. (2019). The co-evolution of leaders’ cognitive complexity and corporate sustainability: The case of the CEO of Puma. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(3), 741-762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3508-4
Gupta, A., Nadkarni, S., & Mariam, M. (2019). Dispositional sources of managerial discretion: CEO ideology, CEO personality, and firm strategies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(4), 855-893. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0001839218793128
Hambrick, D.C. (2016). Upper echelons theory. In M. Augier, & D. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 1-5). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_785-1
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628
Heidari, A., Divandari, A., Arabi, S. M., & Seyed Kalali, N. (2016). Investigating the relationship between dynamic capabilities and performance with mediating effect of operational capabilities. Journal of Business Management Perspective, 15(3), 125-140. https://jbmp.sbu.ac.ir/article_96414.html
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831-850. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2247
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2018). The dynamics of intuition and analysis in managerial and organizational decision making. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 473-492. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0140
Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57(4), 351-363. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396721
Jiang, F., Wang, D., & Wei, Z. (2021). How Yin-Yang cognition affects organizational ambidexterity: The mediating role of strategic flexibility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09759-9
Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19(5), 729-752. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0340
Kaviyani, H., Salehi Sedghiani, J., & Fathabadi, H. (2018). Investigation of the relationship between strategic thinking and organizational ambidexterity (case of military units) [In Persian]. Transformation Management Journal, 10(2), 21-44. https://doi.org/10.22067/pmt.v10i2.64749
Khalilnejad, S., & Daneshvar Deylami, M.R. (2018). A Study of the effect of learning strategies on new products development with regard to moderating role of strategic orientations and cognitive capabilities [In Persian]. Strategic Management Studies Journal, 24(2), 13-34. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.22285067.1397.24.69.1.7
Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N., & Mole, K. (2018). Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 47(2), 413-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.003
Lee, K., Woo, H. G., & Joshi, K. (2017). Pro-innovation culture, ambidexterity and new product development performance: Polynomial regression and response surface analysis. European Management Journal, 35(2), 249-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.05.002
Lee, R., Lee, J. H., & Garrett, T. C. (2019). Synergy effects of innovation on firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 99, 507-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.032
Liu, Y., Collinson, S., Cooper, C., & Baglieri, D. (2022). International business, innovation and ambidexterity: A micro-foundational perspective. International Business Review, 31(3), 101852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101852
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of management, 32(5), 646-672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. (2018). Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29(3), 449-470. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1189
Marquis, C., & Battilana, J. (2009). Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 283-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.001
Montealegre, R., Iyengar, K., & Sweeney, J. (2019). Understanding ambidexterity: Managing contradictory tensions between exploration and exploitation in the evolution of digital infrastructure. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(5), 647-680. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00547
Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.002
Nutt, P. C., & Wilson, D. C. (2010). Crucial trends and issues in strategic decision making. In P. C. Nutt, & D. C. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of Decision Making (pp. 3-30). Wiley-Blackwell.
O’Reilly III, C. A. (2016). Organizational ambidexterity. In M. Augier, & D. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 1-4). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_611-1
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens, P. D. (2003). The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 795. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.795
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. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308389
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.
Preuss, L., & Fearne, A. (2021). Cognitive frames held by supply chain managers: Implications for the management of sustainability in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2020-0364
Randhawa, K., Nikolova, N., Ahuja, S., & Schweitzer, J. (2021). Design thinking implementation for innovation: An organization's journey to ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 38(6). 668-700. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12599
Seyed Kalali, N. (2016). Developing a model of competitive advantage in knowledge intensive business services based on dynamic capability theory: A study on management consulting industry [PhD. Dissertation, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran]. Central Library of University of Tehran. https://ut.ac.ir/fa/thesis/36973
Seyed Kalali, N., & Heidari, A. (2016). How was competitive advantage sustained in management consultancies during change: The role of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(5), 661-685. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-10-2015-0188
Shepherd, N.G., & Rudd, J.M. (2014). The influence of context on the strategic decision‐making process: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(3), 340-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12023
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592-1623. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0932
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Teece, D. J. (2020). Hand in glove: Open innovation and the dynamic capabilities framework. Strategic Management Review, 1(2), 233-253. http://doi.org/10.1561/111.00000010
Van Neerijnen, P., Tempelaar, M. P., & Van de Vrande, V. (2021). Embracing paradox: TMT paradoxical processes as a steppingstone between TMT reflexivity and organizational ambidexterity. Organization Studies, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211058640
Von den Driesch, T., Da Costa, M. E. S., Flatten, T. C., & Brettel, M. (2015). How CEO experience, personality, and network affect firms' dynamic capabilities. European Management Journal, 33(4), 245-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.01.003
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522-537. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973201129119299
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications. Sage Publications.
Zimmermann, A., Hill, S. A., Birkinshaw, J., & Jaeckel, M. (2020). Complements or substitutes? A microfoundations perspective on the interplay between drivers of ambidexterity in SMEs. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 101927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101927
مدیریت توسعه فناوری
دوره 10، شماره 1
خرداد 1401
صفحه 9-36

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار