Summary
SEOR SHORT summary of ALL articles! 2024
- Course
- Institution
SHORT Summary of ALL articles from master course Strategic Entrepreneurship and Organizational Renewal of the master Business Administration Strategy and Organization.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Pepijn1234
Reviews received
Content preview
SEOR Short Summary ArticlesWeek 1
Article 1 - Gibson and Birkinshaw
Organizational ambidexterity—defined as an organization’s ability to achieve both alignment
and adaptability at the business-unit level. This ability is crucial for balancing the demands of
efficiency in current operations while adapting to changes in a dynamic environment, which
in turn enhances long-term performance.
The authors distinguish between two types of ambidexterity: structural ambidexterity, which
involves creating separate structures within an organization to focus on different demands,
and contextual ambidexterity, where individuals at all levels manage their time and efforts to
meet conflicting demands for alignment and adaptability without relying on structural
separation.
Their study, based on data collected from 4,195 individuals across 41 business units,
explores the antecedents (contextual conditions) and consequences (business performance)
of ambidexterity. The study found that the right organizational context—characterized by a
combination of stretch, discipline, support, and trust—fosters ambidexterity, which in turn
drives superior business performance. The research emphasizes the mediating role of
ambidexterity, showing that it bridges the relationship between an organization’s context and
its performance.
The study also highlights the role of senior executives in shaping the organizational context
and facilitating ambidextrous behavior across business units. Contextual ambidexterity
emerges from a balance of “hard” elements (stretch and discipline) and “soft” elements
(support and trust), promoting a work environment where employees can exercise judgment
on how to balance alignment and adaptability in their day-to-day activities.
In summary, the research provides empirical evidence that ambidexterity is key to high
performance, and organizations can achieve this by fostering the right context that
encourages employees to balance conflicting demands.
1
,Article 2 - O’Connor
O'Connor presents seven interrelated elements that form a system to nurture MI capabilities:
1. Identifiable Organizational Structure – A dedicated team or unit focused on MI.
2. Interface Mechanisms – Loosely coupled structures that facilitate interaction between
the innovation unit and the mainstream organization.
3. Exploratory Processes – Learning-oriented processes for managing uncertainty and
generating new knowledge.
4. Requisite Skills and Talent Development – Focusing on entrepreneurial,
multi-functional individuals who thrive in uncertain environments.
5. Governance and Decision-Making Mechanisms – Multi-level governance to manage
portfolios and projects while allowing for flexibility and reflection.
6. Appropriate Performance Metrics – Metrics that align with the high uncertainty and
risk associated with MI.
7. Culture and Leadership Context – A supportive organizational culture and leadership
that prioritizes and values MI.
The article emphasizes that MI should not rely on isolated champions but be embedded
within a broader system that ensures continuous development, interaction, and alignment
with the organization’s strategic goals. The systems approach ensures that MI activities
contribute to the organization’s renewal by interacting with its existing structures, providing
long-term sustainability.
In the Discussion chapter, O'Connor highlights four key requirements from systems theory to
demonstrate that the seven elements of the major innovation (MI) framework constitute a
system:
1. Identifiable and Interdependent Elements: The elements must be distinct and
interconnected, meaning changes in one affect the others.
2. The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts: The MI capability emerges from the
interaction of all elements, creating a capacity beyond what individual components
can achieve alone.
3. Homeostasis through Interaction with the Larger System: The MI system must
maintain balance by interacting with both the broader organization and the external
environment.
4. Clear Purpose Within the Larger System: The MI system must serve a clear purpose,
driving organizational renewal and growth within the larger business context.
These four principles support the idea that the MI framework is an integrated system,
essential for sustaining innovation within firms.
2
,Article 3 - Tripsas and Gavetti
Polaroid had strong technical capabilities and was a leader in analog photography, but the
company was slow to respond effectively to digital technology. The root of this issue lay in
the company’s entrenched cognitive frameworks, particularly its commitment to the
razor/blade business model, where cameras were sold cheaply, and profits were made from
film sales. Even though Polaroid developed significant technical expertise in digital imaging,
including cutting-edge sensors and early digital camera prototypes, its leadership remained
fixated on the belief that customers wanted instant physical prints, and that film sales were
essential to profitability.
This cognitive inertia—persistent outdated beliefs and business models—hindered Polaroid’s
ability to fully transition into the digital market. The study emphasizes that while capabilities
are critical, managerial cognition plays a central role in shaping how a company adapts to
change. Polaroid’s failure to evolve was not due to a lack of technological expertise, but
rather its leadership’s inability to break free from old mental models, which ultimately led to
missed opportunities in the emerging digital imaging industry.
Article 4 - Dell’Aqua
The study focuses on how AI can enhance productivity and quality in complex tasks
performed by consultants at Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
Key Points:
1. Main Findings:
○ Productivity Gains: Consultants using AI were able to complete 12.2% more
tasks and were 25.1% faster in doing so.
○ Quality Improvement: The AI-assisted group produced results of higher
quality, with up to a 40% improvement compared to the control group.
○ Skill Benefits: Both lower and higher-skilled workers benefited from AI. The
lower-skilled group saw a 43% performance increase, while the higher-skilled
group saw a 17% increase.
2. AI Limitations: When tasked with problems outside the AI’s technological frontier, the
performance of AI-assisted consultants declined. They were 19 percentage points
less likely to produce correct solutions than those without AI.
3. Human-AI Interaction Models:
○ Centaurs: Some users effectively divided tasks between themselves and the
AI, delegating parts of the work based on respective strengths.
○ Cyborgs: Others integrated AI fully into their workflow, using it interactively to
accomplish tasks together with the AI.
4. Conclusion: The study highlights the potential of AI to significantly enhance
productivity and quality in knowledge work, but only within certain boundaries of
capability. Outside this "jagged frontier," AI can decrease performance. The research
suggests that understanding when and how to use AI effectively is key to maximizing
its benefits.
Overall, the study emphasizes the importance of skillfully navigating the evolving capabilities
of AI in knowledge work.
3
,Week 2
Article 1 - Burgers and Covin
The study highlights how the relationship between structural differentiation (separate units
for innovation or entrepreneurship) and corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is influenced by
organizational size and environmental dynamism, as well as the integration mechanisms
used.
Key Conclusions:
1. Organizational Size:
○ Larger Organizations: Benefit more from using integration mechanisms like
shared vision, senior team social integration, and cross-functional interfaces
in combination with structural differentiation. These mechanisms help
enhance coordination, knowledge sharing, and reduce conflicts between
differentiated units, thus boosting CE.
○ Smaller Organizations: May not benefit as much from these formal integration
mechanisms. In fact, implementing such mechanisms can lead to increased
coordination costs and conflicts, which could hinder rather than enhance CE.
Instead, smaller firms may benefit more from informal mechanisms like
shared vision, which is less costly and intrusive.
2. Environmental Dynamism:
○ Dynamic Environments: In fast-changing contexts, too much integration
(especially social and cross-functional integration) can hinder flexibility,
making it harder to adapt quickly. In these settings, less formal integration
mechanisms, or lower levels of social and cross-functional integration, can be
more effective. A shared vision provides a flexible way to align goals without
compromising agility.
○ Stable Environments: In more predictable environments, higher levels of
integration (including senior team social integration and cross-functional
interfaces) are beneficial, as they promote better coordination and knowledge
sharing, which are crucial in less dynamic contexts where rapid adaptation is
less critical.
Managerial Implications:
● For Large Organizations: Managers should invest in formal integration mechanisms
to maximize the benefits of structural differentiation for CE. This includes fostering a
shared vision, encouraging senior team social integration, and promoting
cross-functional collaboration to drive innovation.
● For Smaller Organizations: Managers should avoid over-investing in formal
integration mechanisms, which may impose high costs. Instead, they should focus on
informal mechanisms, particularly shared vision, to achieve coordination without the
associated drawbacks of formal integration.
● For Dynamic Environments: Managers should prioritize flexibility by minimizing tight
integration and instead focus on looser, adaptive approaches like a shared vision.
This allows for rapid responsiveness to environmental changes.
4
, ● For Stable Environments: Managers can afford to emphasize tighter integration
mechanisms to enhance coordination and knowledge sharing, as flexibility is less of
a concern in these contexts.
In summary, the study suggests that the effectiveness of structural differentiation and the
integration mechanisms that support CE depend heavily on both the size of the organization
and the dynamism of its environment. Larger organizations and stable environments benefit
from more formal integration, while smaller organizations and dynamic environments thrive
with less rigid and more informal integration approaches.
Article 2 - O’Connor and DeMartino
Detailed Models:
1. Idea Generator Model: Focuses on generating RI ideas but struggles with project
integration and lacks a strong business strategy.
2. Incubator Model: Nurtures RI ideas, with stronger management support and
governance, but still faces challenges transitioning projects to market.
3. Holistic Sequential Model: Covers the entire RI life cycle, protecting projects until
they can compete for resources. However, it requires strong internal collaboration.
4. Corporate Venturing Model: Develops RI projects into independent ventures, but only
one company followed this model.
5. R&D Management Model: Central R&D manages RI efforts, fostering strong market
learning and transitioning mature projects to business units.
6. Self-Similar Model: Creates a corporate-level RI organization, replicated within
divisions to manage incremental and radical innovation simultaneously.
7. Mirrored Model: Develops RI projects in R&D while business units prepare
infrastructure, allowing for early collaboration.
Competencies for Radical Innovation:
1. Discovery: Generating and identifying RI opportunities.
2. Incubation: Maturing ideas into viable business proposals.
3. Acceleration: Scaling projects into sustainable businesses.
Challenges:
Managing the interfaces between discovery, incubation, and acceleration is crucial, as many
companies struggle to integrate these competencies. Organizational structures influence
how companies manage RI, with some focusing on aligned projects within existing units and
others supporting exploratory, unaligned opportunities.
5
, Article 3 - O’Reilly and Tushman
The article explores the concept of organizational ambidexterity, which refers to an
organization's ability to balance exploration (innovation, flexibility) and exploitation
(efficiency, control). This balance is necessary for organizations to survive in dynamic and
competitive environments.
Key points include:
● Ambidexterity in Practice: There are different approaches to achieving ambidexterity:
1. Sequential Ambidexterity: Organizations shift between periods of exploration
and exploitation over time.
2. Structural Ambidexterity: Organizations create separate subunits for
exploration and exploitation.
3. Contextual Ambidexterity: Individuals within the organization decide how to
divide their time between the two activities.
● Empirical Findings: Research shows that ambidexterity is positively associated with
firm performance, including sales growth, innovation, and firm survival. However,
achieving the right balance is challenging and context-dependent. Factors like
environmental uncertainty, resource availability, and firm size influence the success
of ambidexterity strategies.
● Future Directions: The article highlights the need for further research into how
organizations can effectively implement ambidexterity, particularly in dynamic
environments. Questions remain about how leaders manage the tension between
exploration and exploitation and how organizations can adjust their structures and
cultures to support both.
In summary, the article presents organizational ambidexterity as a key capability for
long-term success, emphasizing the importance of balancing innovation and efficiency in
rapidly changing environments.
6
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Pepijn1234. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.36. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
78252 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now