The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry

This article investigates the influence of specific key organizational factors (i.e., enabling formalization, coercive formalization, and trust) as antecedents of ambidexterity. Moreover, we propose a new way of operationalizing ambidexterity, under a holistic vision, including the synergies between...

Full description

Autores:
Chams-Anturi, Odette
Moreno-Luzón, María D.
ROMANO, Pietro
Tipo de recurso:
Article of journal
Fecha de publicación:
2020
Institución:
Corporación Universidad de la Costa
Repositorio:
REDICUC - Repositorio CUC
Idioma:
eng
OAI Identifier:
oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/7999
Acceso en línea:
https://hdl.handle.net/11323/7999
https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420966331
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/
Palabra clave:
Ambidexterity
Formalization
Organizational trust
Organic agro-food industry
Rights
openAccess
License
CC0 1.0 Universal
id RCUC2_711ec0c60ed3ea204755d1a80f787c75
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/7999
network_acronym_str RCUC2
network_name_str REDICUC - Repositorio CUC
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry
dc.title.translated.spa.fl_str_mv El papel de la formalización y la confianza organizacional como antecedentes de ambidestreza: una investigación sobre la industria agroalimentaria orgánica
title The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry
spellingShingle The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry
Ambidexterity
Formalization
Organizational trust
Organic agro-food industry
title_short The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry
title_full The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry
title_fullStr The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry
title_full_unstemmed The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry
title_sort The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry
dc.creator.fl_str_mv Chams-Anturi, Odette
Moreno-Luzón, María D.
ROMANO, Pietro
dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv Chams-Anturi, Odette
Moreno-Luzón, María D.
ROMANO, Pietro
dc.subject.proposal.eng.fl_str_mv Ambidexterity
topic Ambidexterity
Formalization
Organizational trust
Organic agro-food industry
dc.subject.proposal.spa.fl_str_mv Formalization
Organizational trust
Organic agro-food industry
description This article investigates the influence of specific key organizational factors (i.e., enabling formalization, coercive formalization, and trust) as antecedents of ambidexterity. Moreover, we propose a new way of operationalizing ambidexterity, under a holistic vision, including the synergies between exploration and exploitation. The study has been developed in the Spanish organic agro-food industry; a total of 239 usable responses were received from two respondents from each company—the general manager and the quality manager. The findings show that enabling formalization and organizational trust are positively related to ambidexterity, but contrary to our predictions, we found no evidence to show that coercive formalization is related to ambidexterity. In turn, we found different results for trust as a moderating factor on the types of formalization and ambidexterity.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv 2020
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv 2021-03-12T17:50:25Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv 2021-03-12T17:50:25Z
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv Text
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART
dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
format http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
status_str acceptedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.spa.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/11323/7999
dc.identifier.doi.spa.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420966331
dc.identifier.eissn.spa.fl_str_mv 2340-9444
dc.identifier.instname.spa.fl_str_mv Corporación Universidad de la Costa
dc.identifier.pissn.spa.fl_str_mv 2340-9436
dc.identifier.reponame.spa.fl_str_mv REDICUC - Repositorio CUC
dc.identifier.repourl.spa.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/
url https://hdl.handle.net/11323/7999
https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420966331
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/
identifier_str_mv 2340-9444
Corporación Universidad de la Costa
2340-9436
REDICUC - Repositorio CUC
dc.language.iso.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv Adler, P., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61–89.
Adler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43–68.
Adler, P., & Heckscher, C. (2013). The collaborative, ambidextrous enterprise. Universia Business Review, 40, 34–51.
Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. (2004). Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: A field study of management control systems in a restaurant chain. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21, 271–301.
Altuntas, S., & Baykal, U. (2010). Relationship between nurses’ organizational trust levels and their organizational citizenship behaviours. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42, 186–194
Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C., & Collier, N. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: An exploration of how firms renew their resource base. British Journal of Management, 20, S9–S24.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696–717.
Armstrong, J., & Overton, T. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.
Arranz, N., & Arroyabe, J. (2012). Effect of formal contracts, relational norms and trust on performance of joint research and development projects. British Journal of Management, 23, 575–588.
Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–434.
Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Riasch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California Management Review, 58, 36–58.
Blome, C., Schoenherr, T., & Kaesser, M. (2013). Ambidextrous governance in supply chains: The impact on innovation and cost performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49, 59–80.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock Institute.
Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organisational culture. Addison-Wesley
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20, 781–796.
Cegarra-Navarro, J. (2007). Linking exploration with exploitation through relationship memory. Journal of Small Business Management, 45, 333–353
Chams-Anturi, O., Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Escorcia-Caballero, J. P. (2019). Linking organizational trust and performance through ambidexterity. Personnel Review, 49, 956–973.
Chang, Y. (2015). Strategic human resource management, transformational leadership organizational ambidexterity: Evidence from Taiwan. Asia Pacific Business Review, 21, 517–533.
Chang, Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30, 1–17.
Connelly, C., & Kelloway, K. (2002). Predictions of knowledge sharing in Bangladesh [Master’s thesis]. Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.
De Clercq, D., Dimov, D., & Thongpapanl, N. (2013). Organizational social capital, formalization, and internal knowledge sharing in entrepreneurial orientation formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 505–537.
De Jong, B., Dirks, K., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1134–1150.
De Visser, M., De Weerd-Nederhof, P., Faems, D., Song, M., Van Looy, B., & Visscher, K. (2010). Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: A firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on innovation performance. Technovation, 30, 291–299.
Diaz-Fernandez, M., Pasamar-Reyes, S., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2017). Human capital and human resource management to achieve ambidextrous learning: A structural perspective. Business Research Quarterly, 20, 63–67
DiPaola, M., & Hoy, W. (2001). Formalization, conflict, and change: Constructive and destructive consequences in schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 238–244.
Dolz, C., Iborra, M., & Safón, V. (2019). Improving the likelihood of SME survival during financial and economic crises: The importance of TMTs and family ownership for ambidexterity. Business Research Quarterly, 22, 119–136.
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. SAGE.
Du, J., & Williams, C. (2017). Innovative projects between MNE subsidiaries and local partners in China: Exploring locations and inter-organizational trust. Journal of International Management, 23, 16–31.
Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization (Vol. 1, pp. 167–188). North-Holland.
Dyer, J., & Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, 14, 57–68.
Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.
Enkel, E., Heil, S., Hengstler, M., & Wirth, H. (2016). Exploratory and exploitative innovation: To what extent do the dimensions of individual level absorptive capacity contribute? Technovation, 60–61, 29–38.
Eva, N., Prajogo, D., & Cooper, B. (2017). The relationship between personal values, organizational formalization and employee work outcomes of compliance and innovation. International Journal of Manpower, 38, 274–287.
Fainshmidt, S., & Frazier, M. (2017). What facilitates dynamic capabilities? The role of organizational climate for trust. Long Range Planning, 50, 550–566.
Floyd, S., & Lane, P. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25, 154–177.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50
Fryxell, G., Dooley, R., & Vryza, M. (2002). After the ink dries: The interaction of trust and control in US-based international joint ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 865–886.
Gabler, C., Ogilvie, J., Rapp, A., & Bachrach, D. (2017). Is there a dark side of ambidexterity? Implications of dueling sales and service orientations. Journal of Service Research, 20, 379–392.
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 91–112
Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.
Gieske, H., Duijn, M., & Van Buuren, A. (2020). Ambidextrous practices in public service organizations: Innovation and optimization tensions in Dutch water authorities. Public Management Review, 22, 341–363.
Gilson, L., & Shalley, C. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30, 453–470
Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Free Press.
Gschwantner, S., & Hiebl, M. (2016). Management control systems and organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Control, 27, 371–404
Guinot, J., Chiva, R., & Mallén, F. (2014). Organizational trust and performance: Is organizational learning capability a missing link? Journal of Management and Organization, 19, 559–582.
Gupta, A., Smith, K., & Shalley, C. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson New International Edition
Hartline, M., Maxham, J., & McKee, D. (2000). Corridors of influence in the dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees. Journal of Marketing, 64, 35–50.
He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494
He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494
House, R., & Rizzo, J. (1972). Toward the measurement of organizational practices: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 388–396
Hoy, W., & Sweetland, S. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 296–321.
Hsu, C., Lien, Y., & Chen, H. (2013). International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 48, 58–67.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55
Jansen, J., Tempelaar, M., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 797–811.
Jansen, J., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661–1674
Johari, J., & Yahya, K. (2009). Linking organizational structure, job characteristics, and job performance construct: A proposed framework. International Journal of Business and Management, 43, 145–152
Junni, P., Sarala, R., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299–312.
unni, P., Sarala, R., Tarba, S., Liu, Y., & Cooper, C. (2015). Guest editors’ introduction: The role of human resources and organizational factors in ambidexterity. Human Resource Management, 54, s1–s28.
Kammerlander, N., Burger, D., Fust, A., & Fueglistaller, U. (2015). Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized enterprises: The effect of CEOs’ regulatory focus. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 582–602.
Kast, F., & Rosenweig, J. (1972). General system theory: Applications for organization and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15, 447–468.
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. John Wiley.
Kauppila, O. (2015). Alliance management capability and firm performance: Using resource-based theory to look inside the process black box. Long Range Planning, 48, 151–167.
Kidron, A., Tzafrir, S., & Meshoulam, I. (2016). All we need is trust: Trust and human resource management. Team Performance Management, 22, 139–155.
Lau, C., & Tan, S. (2006). The effects of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust on job tension in budgeting. Management Accounting Research, 17, 171–186
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 179–228.
Lee, K., Woo, H., & Joshi, K. (2017). Pro-innovation culture, ambidexterity and new product development performance: Polynomial regression and response surface analysis. European Management Journal, 35, 249–260.
Lee, S., & Rha, J. (2016). Ambidextrous supply chain as a dynamic capability: Building a resilient supply chain. Management Decision, 54, 2–23.
Levinthal, D., & March, J. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.
Li, C. (2013). How top management team diversity fosters organizational ambidexterity: The role of social capital among top executives. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26, 874–896.
Li, Y., & Huang, J. (2012). Ambidexterity’s mediating impact on product development proficiency and new product performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 1125–1132.
Lubatkin, M., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 1–27.
Lumineau, F. (2017). How contracts influence trust and distrust. Journal of Management, 43, 1553–1577.
Malik, A., Singh, P., & Chan, C. (2017). High potential programs and employee outcomes: The roles of organizational trust and employee attributions. Career Development International, 22, 772–796.
March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.
Marri, M., Soo, H., & Ali, H. (2020). Structural ambidexterity: Exploring alternative pro-ambidexterity conducive structural designs for recourse-constrained organizations. Archives of Business Research, 7, 307–320.
Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, 91–103.
Medcof, J., & Song, L. (2013). Exploration, exploitation and human resource management practices in cooperative and entrepreneurial HR configurations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 2911–2926.
Messersmith, J., & Guthrie, J. (2010). High performance work systems in emergent organizations: Implications for firm performance. Human Resource Management, 49, 241–264.
Mom, T., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2009). Understanding Variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 812–828.
Moreno-Luzon, M. D. (2017). Chapter 35: Innovation and ambidexterity. In E. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity invention innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 298–305). Springer.
Moreno-Luzon, M. D., Gil-Marques, M., & Chams-Anturi, O. (2018). Quality and Innovation in the organic agro-food sector: Threats and opportunities of social and managerial innovation. In M. Peris-Ortiz, J. Gómez, & P. Marquez (Eds.), Strategies and best practices in social innovation (pp. 47–64). Springer.
Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Lloria-Aramburo, M. (2008). The role of non-structural and informal mechanisms of integration and coordination as forces in knowledge creation. British Journal of Management, 19, 250–276.
Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Valls Pasola, J. (2011). Ambidexterity and total quality management: Towards a research agenda. Management Decision, 49, 927–947.
Nielsen, B., & Gudergan, S. (2012). Exploration and exploitation fit and performance in international strategic alliances. International Business Review, 21, 558–574
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGrawHill.
O’Leary-Kelly, S., & Vokurka, R. (1998). The empirical assessment of construct validity. Journal of Operations Management, 16, 387–405
O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–83.
O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.
O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 324–338.
Oxford Advanced Dictionary. (2020). Synergy. https://www. oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/ synergy?q=synergies
Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2015). Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Building a novel research agenda. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51, 71–93
Patel, P., Messersmith, J., & Lepak, D. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1420–1442.
Pavlou, P., & El Sawy, O. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences, 42, 239–273.
Pertusa-Ortega, E., & Molina-Azorín, J. (2018). A joint analysis of determinants and performance consequences of ambidexterity. Business Research Quarterly, 21, 84–98.
Pertusa-Ortega, E., Zaragoza-Sáez, P., & Claver-Cortés, E. (2010). Can formalization, complexity, and centralization influence knowledge performance? Journal of Business Research, 63, 310–320
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Prodescon. (2017). Definition and evaluation of strategies to enhance the capacity for dialogue and structuring of the organic production sector in Spain (pp. 1–224). Government of Spain, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environment
Puranam, P., & Vanneste, B. (2009). Trust and governance: Untangling a tangled web. Academy of Management Review, 34, 11–31.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695.
Rao-Nicholson, R., Khan, Z., Akhtar, P., & Tar, S. (2020). The contingent role of distributed leadership in the relationship between HR practices and organizational ambidexterity in the cross-border M&As of emerging market multinationals. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31, 232–253.
Rosenkopf, L., & McGrath, P. (2011). Advancing the conceptualization and operationalization of novelty in organizational research. Organization Science, 22, 1297–1311.
Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: The duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 694–709.
Rothaermel, F., & Alexandre, M. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20, 759–780.
Schweitzer, J., & Gudergan, S. (2011). Contractual complexity, governance and organisational form in alliances. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 2, 26–40.
Shahzadi, K., & Khurram, S. (2020). Self-efficacy and innovative work behavior: The role of individual ambidexterity and formalization at work place in Pakistan. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, 57, 31–46.
Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 597–624.
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864–894.
Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403.
Smith, W., & Tushman, M. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.
Souza, C., & Takahashi, A. (2019). Dynamic capabilities, organizational learning and ambidexterity in a higher education institution. The Learning Organization, 26, 397–411
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill.
Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8–29.
Vahlne, J., & Jonsson, A. (2017). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA. International Business Review, 26, 57–70.
Van der Valk, W., Sumo, R., Dul, J., & Schroeder, R. (2016). When are contracts and trust necessary for innovation in buyer-supplier relationships? A necessary condition analysis. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 22, 266–277.
Walrave, B., Romme, A., Van Oorschot, K., & Langerak, F. (2017). Managerial attention to exploitation versus exploration: Toward a dynamic perspective on ambidexterity. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26, 1145–1160.
Walumbwa, F., & Hartnell, C. (2011). Understanding transformational leadership-employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 153–172.
Wang, Y. (2016). Environmental dynamism, trust and dynamic capabilities of family businesses. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22, 643–670
Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R., & Griffith, D. (2007). An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities:Implications for product innovation and market performance. Journal of International Marketing, 15, 63–93
Yang, Z., Zhou, C., & Jiang, L. (2011). When do formal control and trust matter? A context-based analysis of the effects on marketing channel relationships in China. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 86–96.
Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6, 76–92.
Zhang, F., Wei, L., Yang, J., & Zhu, L. (2018). Roles of relationships between large shareholders and managers in radical innovation: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35, 88–105.
dc.relation.citationendpage.spa.fl_str_mv 22
dc.relation.citationstartpage.spa.fl_str_mv 1
dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv 3
dc.relation.citationvolume.spa.fl_str_mv 25
dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv CC0 1.0 Universal
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
rights_invalid_str_mv CC0 1.0 Universal
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.extent.spa.fl_str_mv 22 páginas
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv Corporación Universidad de la Costa
dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv BRQ Business Research Quarterly
institution Corporación Universidad de la Costa
dc.source.url.spa.fl_str_mv https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85092917899&doi=10.1177%2f2340944420966331&origin=inward&txGid=b16ca7d50c2213be17b1dce4e5506b20
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/b53aeb88-e218-42b8-9e11-73ecf31f6635/download
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/20fd8ba3-0db2-4c18-b2df-cc177c6e8833/download
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/b1048a25-b775-4bda-ac0a-11090c6877fc/download
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/e6d91157-9289-4bbd-82a1-5756d376b688/download
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/5c3a21e6-0827-4822-a335-0f4337b8bbeb/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 149547c4b3b99379a256b5791b003a19
42fd4ad1e89814f5e4a476b409eb708c
e30e9215131d99561d40d6b0abbe9bad
974aa22dc981805a22b38573d4a0cd96
1637ad402ad6d1c6a98715286fa18a55
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositorio de la Universidad de la Costa CUC
repository.mail.fl_str_mv repdigital@cuc.edu.co
_version_ 1811760797795221504
spelling Chams-Anturi, OdetteMoreno-Luzón, María D.ROMANO, Pietro2021-03-12T17:50:25Z2021-03-12T17:50:25Z2020https://hdl.handle.net/11323/7999https://doi.org/10.1177/23409444209663312340-9444Corporación Universidad de la Costa2340-9436REDICUC - Repositorio CUChttps://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/This article investigates the influence of specific key organizational factors (i.e., enabling formalization, coercive formalization, and trust) as antecedents of ambidexterity. Moreover, we propose a new way of operationalizing ambidexterity, under a holistic vision, including the synergies between exploration and exploitation. The study has been developed in the Spanish organic agro-food industry; a total of 239 usable responses were received from two respondents from each company—the general manager and the quality manager. The findings show that enabling formalization and organizational trust are positively related to ambidexterity, but contrary to our predictions, we found no evidence to show that coercive formalization is related to ambidexterity. In turn, we found different results for trust as a moderating factor on the types of formalization and ambidexterity.This article investigates the influence of specific key organizational factors (i.e., enabling formalization, coercive formalization, and trust) as antecedents of ambidexterity. Moreover, we propose a new way of operationalizing ambidexterity, under a holistic vision, including the synergies between exploration and exploitation. The study has been developed in the Spanish organic agro-food industry; a total of 239 usable responses were received from two respondents from each company—the general manager and the quality manager. The findings show that enabling formalization and organizational trust are positively related to ambidexterity, but contrary to our predictions, we found no evidence to show that coercive formalization is related to ambidexterity. In turn, we found different results for trust as a moderating factor on the types of formalization and ambidexterity.Chams-Anturi, Odette-will be generated-orcid-0000-0002-8353-7326-600Moreno-Luzón, María D.ROMANO, Pietro-will be generated-orcid-0000-0002-8482-9144-60022 páginasapplication/pdfengCorporación Universidad de la CostaCC0 1.0 Universalhttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2BRQ Business Research Quarterlyhttps://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85092917899&doi=10.1177%2f2340944420966331&origin=inward&txGid=b16ca7d50c2213be17b1dce4e5506b20The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industryEl papel de la formalización y la confianza organizacional como antecedentes de ambidestreza: una investigación sobre la industria agroalimentaria orgánicaArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionAdler, P., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61–89.Adler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43–68.Adler, P., & Heckscher, C. (2013). The collaborative, ambidextrous enterprise. Universia Business Review, 40, 34–51.Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. (2004). Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: A field study of management control systems in a restaurant chain. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21, 271–301.Altuntas, S., & Baykal, U. (2010). Relationship between nurses’ organizational trust levels and their organizational citizenship behaviours. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42, 186–194Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C., & Collier, N. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: An exploration of how firms renew their resource base. British Journal of Management, 20, S9–S24.Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696–717.Armstrong, J., & Overton, T. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.Arranz, N., & Arroyabe, J. (2012). Effect of formal contracts, relational norms and trust on performance of joint research and development projects. British Journal of Management, 23, 575–588.Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–434.Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Riasch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California Management Review, 58, 36–58.Blome, C., Schoenherr, T., & Kaesser, M. (2013). Ambidextrous governance in supply chains: The impact on innovation and cost performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49, 59–80.Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock Institute.Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organisational culture. Addison-WesleyCao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20, 781–796.Cegarra-Navarro, J. (2007). Linking exploration with exploitation through relationship memory. Journal of Small Business Management, 45, 333–353Chams-Anturi, O., Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Escorcia-Caballero, J. P. (2019). Linking organizational trust and performance through ambidexterity. Personnel Review, 49, 956–973.Chang, Y. (2015). Strategic human resource management, transformational leadership organizational ambidexterity: Evidence from Taiwan. Asia Pacific Business Review, 21, 517–533.Chang, Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30, 1–17.Connelly, C., & Kelloway, K. (2002). Predictions of knowledge sharing in Bangladesh [Master’s thesis]. Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University.Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.De Clercq, D., Dimov, D., & Thongpapanl, N. (2013). Organizational social capital, formalization, and internal knowledge sharing in entrepreneurial orientation formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 505–537.De Jong, B., Dirks, K., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1134–1150.De Visser, M., De Weerd-Nederhof, P., Faems, D., Song, M., Van Looy, B., & Visscher, K. (2010). Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: A firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on innovation performance. Technovation, 30, 291–299.Diaz-Fernandez, M., Pasamar-Reyes, S., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2017). Human capital and human resource management to achieve ambidextrous learning: A structural perspective. Business Research Quarterly, 20, 63–67DiPaola, M., & Hoy, W. (2001). Formalization, conflict, and change: Constructive and destructive consequences in schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 238–244.Dolz, C., Iborra, M., & Safón, V. (2019). Improving the likelihood of SME survival during financial and economic crises: The importance of TMTs and family ownership for ambidexterity. Business Research Quarterly, 22, 119–136.Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. SAGE.Du, J., & Williams, C. (2017). Innovative projects between MNE subsidiaries and local partners in China: Exploring locations and inter-organizational trust. Journal of International Management, 23, 16–31.Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization (Vol. 1, pp. 167–188). North-Holland.Dyer, J., & Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, 14, 57–68.Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.Enkel, E., Heil, S., Hengstler, M., & Wirth, H. (2016). Exploratory and exploitative innovation: To what extent do the dimensions of individual level absorptive capacity contribute? Technovation, 60–61, 29–38.Eva, N., Prajogo, D., & Cooper, B. (2017). The relationship between personal values, organizational formalization and employee work outcomes of compliance and innovation. International Journal of Manpower, 38, 274–287.Fainshmidt, S., & Frazier, M. (2017). What facilitates dynamic capabilities? The role of organizational climate for trust. Long Range Planning, 50, 550–566.Floyd, S., & Lane, P. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25, 154–177.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50Fryxell, G., Dooley, R., & Vryza, M. (2002). After the ink dries: The interaction of trust and control in US-based international joint ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 865–886.Gabler, C., Ogilvie, J., Rapp, A., & Bachrach, D. (2017). Is there a dark side of ambidexterity? Implications of dueling sales and service orientations. Journal of Service Research, 20, 379–392.Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 91–112Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.Gieske, H., Duijn, M., & Van Buuren, A. (2020). Ambidextrous practices in public service organizations: Innovation and optimization tensions in Dutch water authorities. Public Management Review, 22, 341–363.Gilson, L., & Shalley, C. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30, 453–470Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Free Press.Gschwantner, S., & Hiebl, M. (2016). Management control systems and organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Control, 27, 371–404Guinot, J., Chiva, R., & Mallén, F. (2014). Organizational trust and performance: Is organizational learning capability a missing link? Journal of Management and Organization, 19, 559–582.Gupta, A., Smith, K., & Shalley, C. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706.Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson New International EditionHartline, M., Maxham, J., & McKee, D. (2000). Corridors of influence in the dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees. Journal of Marketing, 64, 35–50.He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494House, R., & Rizzo, J. (1972). Toward the measurement of organizational practices: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 388–396Hoy, W., & Sweetland, S. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 296–321.Hsu, C., Lien, Y., & Chen, H. (2013). International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 48, 58–67.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55Jansen, J., Tempelaar, M., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 797–811.Jansen, J., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661–1674Johari, J., & Yahya, K. (2009). Linking organizational structure, job characteristics, and job performance construct: A proposed framework. International Journal of Business and Management, 43, 145–152Junni, P., Sarala, R., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299–312.unni, P., Sarala, R., Tarba, S., Liu, Y., & Cooper, C. (2015). Guest editors’ introduction: The role of human resources and organizational factors in ambidexterity. Human Resource Management, 54, s1–s28.Kammerlander, N., Burger, D., Fust, A., & Fueglistaller, U. (2015). Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized enterprises: The effect of CEOs’ regulatory focus. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 582–602.Kast, F., & Rosenweig, J. (1972). General system theory: Applications for organization and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15, 447–468.Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194.Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. John Wiley.Kauppila, O. (2015). Alliance management capability and firm performance: Using resource-based theory to look inside the process black box. Long Range Planning, 48, 151–167.Kidron, A., Tzafrir, S., & Meshoulam, I. (2016). All we need is trust: Trust and human resource management. Team Performance Management, 22, 139–155.Lau, C., & Tan, S. (2006). The effects of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust on job tension in budgeting. Management Accounting Research, 17, 171–186Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 179–228.Lee, K., Woo, H., & Joshi, K. (2017). Pro-innovation culture, ambidexterity and new product development performance: Polynomial regression and response surface analysis. European Management Journal, 35, 249–260.Lee, S., & Rha, J. (2016). Ambidextrous supply chain as a dynamic capability: Building a resilient supply chain. Management Decision, 54, 2–23.Levinthal, D., & March, J. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.Li, C. (2013). How top management team diversity fosters organizational ambidexterity: The role of social capital among top executives. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26, 874–896.Li, Y., & Huang, J. (2012). Ambidexterity’s mediating impact on product development proficiency and new product performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 1125–1132.Lubatkin, M., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 1–27.Lumineau, F. (2017). How contracts influence trust and distrust. Journal of Management, 43, 1553–1577.Malik, A., Singh, P., & Chan, C. (2017). High potential programs and employee outcomes: The roles of organizational trust and employee attributions. Career Development International, 22, 772–796.March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.Marri, M., Soo, H., & Ali, H. (2020). Structural ambidexterity: Exploring alternative pro-ambidexterity conducive structural designs for recourse-constrained organizations. Archives of Business Research, 7, 307–320.Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, 91–103.Medcof, J., & Song, L. (2013). Exploration, exploitation and human resource management practices in cooperative and entrepreneurial HR configurations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 2911–2926.Messersmith, J., & Guthrie, J. (2010). High performance work systems in emergent organizations: Implications for firm performance. Human Resource Management, 49, 241–264.Mom, T., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2009). Understanding Variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 812–828.Moreno-Luzon, M. D. (2017). Chapter 35: Innovation and ambidexterity. In E. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity invention innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 298–305). Springer.Moreno-Luzon, M. D., Gil-Marques, M., & Chams-Anturi, O. (2018). Quality and Innovation in the organic agro-food sector: Threats and opportunities of social and managerial innovation. In M. Peris-Ortiz, J. Gómez, & P. Marquez (Eds.), Strategies and best practices in social innovation (pp. 47–64). Springer.Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Lloria-Aramburo, M. (2008). The role of non-structural and informal mechanisms of integration and coordination as forces in knowledge creation. British Journal of Management, 19, 250–276.Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Valls Pasola, J. (2011). Ambidexterity and total quality management: Towards a research agenda. Management Decision, 49, 927–947.Nielsen, B., & Gudergan, S. (2012). Exploration and exploitation fit and performance in international strategic alliances. International Business Review, 21, 558–574Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGrawHill.O’Leary-Kelly, S., & Vokurka, R. (1998). The empirical assessment of construct validity. Journal of Operations Management, 16, 387–405O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–83.O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 324–338.Oxford Advanced Dictionary. (2020). Synergy. https://www. oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/ synergy?q=synergiesPapachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2015). Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Building a novel research agenda. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51, 71–93Patel, P., Messersmith, J., & Lepak, D. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1420–1442.Pavlou, P., & El Sawy, O. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences, 42, 239–273.Pertusa-Ortega, E., & Molina-Azorín, J. (2018). A joint analysis of determinants and performance consequences of ambidexterity. Business Research Quarterly, 21, 84–98.Pertusa-Ortega, E., Zaragoza-Sáez, P., & Claver-Cortés, E. (2010). Can formalization, complexity, and centralization influence knowledge performance? Journal of Business Research, 63, 310–320Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.Prodescon. (2017). Definition and evaluation of strategies to enhance the capacity for dialogue and structuring of the organic production sector in Spain (pp. 1–224). Government of Spain, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and EnvironmentPuranam, P., & Vanneste, B. (2009). Trust and governance: Untangling a tangled web. Academy of Management Review, 34, 11–31.Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695.Rao-Nicholson, R., Khan, Z., Akhtar, P., & Tar, S. (2020). The contingent role of distributed leadership in the relationship between HR practices and organizational ambidexterity in the cross-border M&As of emerging market multinationals. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31, 232–253.Rosenkopf, L., & McGrath, P. (2011). Advancing the conceptualization and operationalization of novelty in organizational research. Organization Science, 22, 1297–1311.Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: The duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 694–709.Rothaermel, F., & Alexandre, M. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20, 759–780.Schweitzer, J., & Gudergan, S. (2011). Contractual complexity, governance and organisational form in alliances. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 2, 26–40.Shahzadi, K., & Khurram, S. (2020). Self-efficacy and innovative work behavior: The role of individual ambidexterity and formalization at work place in Pakistan. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, 57, 31–46.Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 597–624.Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864–894.Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403.Smith, W., & Tushman, M. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.Souza, C., & Takahashi, A. (2019). Dynamic capabilities, organizational learning and ambidexterity in a higher education institution. The Learning Organization, 26, 397–411Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill.Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8–29.Vahlne, J., & Jonsson, A. (2017). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA. International Business Review, 26, 57–70.Van der Valk, W., Sumo, R., Dul, J., & Schroeder, R. (2016). When are contracts and trust necessary for innovation in buyer-supplier relationships? A necessary condition analysis. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 22, 266–277.Walrave, B., Romme, A., Van Oorschot, K., & Langerak, F. (2017). Managerial attention to exploitation versus exploration: Toward a dynamic perspective on ambidexterity. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26, 1145–1160.Walumbwa, F., & Hartnell, C. (2011). Understanding transformational leadership-employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 153–172.Wang, Y. (2016). Environmental dynamism, trust and dynamic capabilities of family businesses. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22, 643–670Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R., & Griffith, D. (2007). An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities:Implications for product innovation and market performance. Journal of International Marketing, 15, 63–93Yang, Z., Zhou, C., & Jiang, L. (2011). When do formal control and trust matter? A context-based analysis of the effects on marketing channel relationships in China. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 86–96.Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6, 76–92.Zhang, F., Wei, L., Yang, J., & Zhu, L. (2018). Roles of relationships between large shareholders and managers in radical innovation: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35, 88–105.221325AmbidexterityFormalizationOrganizational trustOrganic agro-food industryPublicationORIGINALThe role of formalization and.pdfThe role of formalization and.pdfapplication/pdf623742https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/b53aeb88-e218-42b8-9e11-73ecf31f6635/download149547c4b3b99379a256b5791b003a19MD51CC-LICENSElicense_rdflicense_rdfapplication/rdf+xml; charset=utf-8701https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/20fd8ba3-0db2-4c18-b2df-cc177c6e8833/download42fd4ad1e89814f5e4a476b409eb708cMD52LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-83196https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/b1048a25-b775-4bda-ac0a-11090c6877fc/downloade30e9215131d99561d40d6b0abbe9badMD53THUMBNAILThe role of formalization and.pdf.jpgThe role of formalization and.pdf.jpgimage/jpeg63864https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/e6d91157-9289-4bbd-82a1-5756d376b688/download974aa22dc981805a22b38573d4a0cd96MD54TEXTThe role of formalization and.pdf.txtThe role of formalization and.pdf.txttext/plain106149https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/5c3a21e6-0827-4822-a335-0f4337b8bbeb/download1637ad402ad6d1c6a98715286fa18a55MD5511323/7999oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/79992024-09-17 12:45:18.478http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/CC0 1.0 Universalopen.accesshttps://repositorio.cuc.edu.coRepositorio de la Universidad de la Costa CUCrepdigital@cuc.edu.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

Publicaciones similares