1. Vertical and Horizontal Cross-Ties: Benefits of Cross-Hierarchy and
Cross-Unit Ties for Innovative Project Teams
Aalbers, H.L., Dolfsma, W. & Leenders, Th.A.J. (2016)
Key message successful innovation project teams are characterized by a large number of
cross-unit ties in combination with a large number for cross-hierarchical ties compared with
less successful project teams. Additionally, proof is found that vertical cross-hierarchy ties
should be concentrated rather than scattered across project members
Practitioner points
A project team’s innovation success depends on how well it is connected in the
organization;
Connections crossing unit boundaries horizontally foster information diversity;
Connections cross hierarchical boundaries vertically foster influence;
Horizontal cross-ties can be spread among team members, but vertical cross-ties
should remain concentrated among a few team member only.
Introduction
Project team composition and particularly their functioning has been a focus of attention in
the literature as a possible driver of innovative performance. This has led to the insight that
access to diverse knowledge and information provided by bridging ties may be critical for a
project team’s performance and innovativeness. Engaging in information sharing or
communication in the new product development process, it is suggested, can be horizontal,
rosin unit-boundaries, but can also be vertical, crossing hierarchical boundaries.
Team members crossing boundaries within or between firms may be referred to as boundary
spanners.
Theory and Proposition Development
Fostering Diversity
Literature has shown that accessing knowledge from across organizational boundaries is an
important driver of innovative performance for organizations and is linked to project team
success. Participation in cross-unit interfaces by individual members of a team increases
access to alternative ideas and insights relevant for a firm’s existing strategy, goals,
interests, time horizon, core values and emotional tone. Besides bringing their own
specialized expertise, and representing the interest of their own specific project team, team
members who maintain horizonal cross-unit ties think and act outside the narrow confines of
their own job and position as part of the project team.
Proposition 1: a larger number of horizontal, cross-unit ties available to a project team will be
positively associated with innovative project outcomes.
Fostering influence
In addition to benefits of horizontal cross-unit ties for project teams, access to contacts
higher in the hierarchy has advantages too. First, often the higher hierarchical levels in an
organization have access to information not accessible at the lower echelons in the form of
reporting structures available to them or specific managerial meetings. Team members who
have vertical cross-hierarchy ties are expected to have access to more diverse information
and hold a broader perspective than those who do not have cross-hierarchy ties. Second, to
get things done in terms of obtaining support and resources, it is also relevant to have
,access to the influencers in an organization. Such contacts are expected to contribute
positively to a project team’s innovative performance.
Vertical cross-ties: ties that team members have directly with other organizational members
across hierarchical levels and organizational units.
Proposition 2: a larger number of vertical, cross-hierarchical ties available to a project team
will be positively associated with innovative project outcomes.
Results
Results from the quantitative analysis indicted that successful innovation project teams have
more ties in general. The more ties members of a team have to others, to more likely the
team as a whole will be successful. However, as this no longer holds when averaging for
project team size, it seems that such ties must be concentrated with a few individuals in the
team.
Evidence supports proposition 1, contribution from horizontal cross-unit ties would be largely
due to the diversity effect. Since the effect disappears when looking at the average number
of horizontal cross-ties, proposition 1 cannot be given full support.
The effect of vertical cross-hierarchy ties on team innovative performance is positive. The
total number of hierarchical contacts per project does relate to project performance.
However, when averaging for the teams (team size), the effect actually becomes negative.
This seems to indicate that underperforming projects have a larger number of hierarchical
cross-ties per team member than performing projects. Alternatively, it may be suggested that
only a few individuals in the tam should maintain cross-hierarchy ties.
Discussion and conclusion
Findings indicate that there is a reason to believe that ties to higher levels in the organization
might in particular have an effect on project team innovative performance.
The better performing innovation projects have more general, cross-unit, as well as cross-
hierarchy ties, but these are concentrated within the team.
, 2. How Do Firms Adapt to Discontinuous Change?
Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Raisch, S. (2016).
Key message Each distinct mode of adaption to discontinuous change (structural
separation, behavioral adaption or sequential alternation) has an associate set of dynamic
capabilities (sensing, seizing, reconjuring) that is specific to that particular mode. The chosen
mode of adaption and the related set of dynamic capabilities are closely linked to firm’s
organizational heritage, reflected in its prevailing vision, culture and people development
model.
Introduction
Research has suggested that failures to adapt are particularly prevalent when the nature of
external change is discontinuous rather than incremental, meaning that it requires firms to
reconfigure their existing ways of working and to rethink their assumptions about how to
succeed in their chosen industry.
Dynamic capabilities: the ability to continuously create, extend, upgrade, protect and keep
relevant and enterprise’s unique asset base. Those can be broken down into three
categories:
Sensing (the identification and assessment of opportunities and threats) low-order
capability ;
Seizing (the mobilization of resources to address opportunities and threats) low-
order capability;
Reconfiguring (transforming; the continuous renewal of a firm’s tangible and
intangible assets) high-order capability, choosing a mode of adaption (see
ambidexterity);
Ambidexterity: the capacity of an origination to address mutually conflicting demands. It
provides insight into how firms explore new opportunities while continuing to exploit their
existing markets and resources. it is a useful complement to the dynamic capabilities
perspective because it clarifies the strengths and weaknesses of different organizational
arrangements chose by executives to sense and seize opportunities to reconfigure their
internal activities.
Building on the ambidexterity literature, we propose three distinct modes of adaption that
firms can pursue when faced with discontinuities.
Structural separation: placing exploration and exploitation activities into different
organizational units resource-linking capability;
Behavioral integration: brining the conflicting activities together in a single unit by
designing a supportive behavior context context-shaping capability;
Sequential alternation: involves deliberately vacillating between exploration and
exploitation over time focus-shifting capability.
The specific set of capabilities need to effectively adapt to discontinuous change and the
levels at which they are held appear to vary depending on whether the firm has empathized
structural separation, behavior integration or sequential alternation.
Conceptual background
Ambidexterity transpires through three different modes, which suggests that the nature of the
dynamic capabilities in teach mode might also vary.
