[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v3y2013i3p32-52d26965.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Autonomy, Conformity and Organizational Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Nobuyuki Hanaki

    (Aix Marseille University (Aix Marseille School of Economics), CNRS, EHESS and IUF. 2 Rue de la Charité, Marseille 13002, France)

  • Hideo Owan

    (Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo. 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan)

Abstract
There is often said to be a tension between the two types of organizational learning activities, exploration and exploitation. The argument goes that the two activities are substitutes, competing for scarce resources when firms need different capabilities and management policies. We present another explanation, attributing the tension to the dynamic interactions among search, knowledge sharing, evaluation and alignment within organizations. Our results show that successful organizations tend to bifurcate into two types: those that always promote individual initiatives and build organizational strengths on individual learning and those good at assimilating the individual knowledge base and exploiting shared knowledge. Straddling the two types often fails. The intuition is that an equal mixture of individual search and assimilation slows down individual learning, while at the same time making it difficult to update organizational knowledge because individuals’ knowledge base is not sufficiently homogenized. Straddling is especially inefficient when the operation is sufficiently complex or when the business environment is sufficiently turbulent.

Suggested Citation

  • Nobuyuki Hanaki & Hideo Owan, 2013. "Autonomy, Conformity and Organizational Learning," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:3:y:2013:i:3:p:32-52:d:26965
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/3/3/32/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/3/3/32/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2003. "Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 290-311, March.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Pankaj Ghemawat & Joan E. I Ricart Costa, 1993. "The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 59-73, December.
    4. Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2010. "How to get what you want when you do not know what you want. A model of incentives, organizational structure and learning," LEM Papers Series 2010/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    5. Kristina Dahlin & L. Weingart & P. Hinds, 2005. "Team diversity and information use," Post-Print hal-00480406, HAL.
    6. Nicolaj Siggelkow & Jan W. Rivkin, 2005. "Speed and Search: Designing Organizations for Turbulence and Complexity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 101-122, April.
    7. Gary Bornstein & Tamar Kugler & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2002. "Individual and Group Decisions in the Centipede Game: Are Groups More “Rational” Players?," Discussion Paper Series dp298, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    8. Jason Barr & Nobuyuki Hanaki, 2008. "Organizations undertaking complex projects in uncertain environments," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 3(2), pages 119-135, December.
    9. Martin G. Kocher & Matthias Sutter, 2005. "The Decision Maker Matters: Individual Versus Group Behaviour in Experimental Beauty-Contest Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(500), pages 200-223, January.
    10. David J. Cooper & John H. Kagel, 2005. "Are Two Heads Better Than One? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 477-509, June.
    11. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    12. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2007. "Patterned Interactions in Complex Systems: Implications for Exploration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(7), pages 1068-1085, July.
    13. Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2012. "How to Get What You Want When You Do Not Know What You Want: A Model of Incentives, Organizational Structure, and Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1298-1310, October.
    14. Ghemawat, Pankaj & Ricart, Joan E., 1993. "Organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency, The," IESE Research Papers D/255, IESE Business School.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Delin Zeng & Jingbo Hu & Taohua Ouyang, 2017. "Managing Innovation Paradox in the Sustainable Innovation Ecosystem: A Case Study of Ambidextrous Capability in a Focal Firm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juha Uotila, 2018. "Punctuated equilibrium or ambidexterity: dynamics of incremental and radical organizational change over time," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 131-148.
    2. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael, 2007. "Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma," Research Papers 1963, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    3. Ranjay Gulati & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies Between Formal and Informal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 422-440, April.
    4. Thorsten Grohsjean & Tobias Kretschmer & Nils Stieglitz, 2011. "Performance Feedback, Firm Resources, and Strategic Change," DRUID Working Papers 11-02, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    5. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2007. "Patterned Interactions in Complex Systems: Implications for Exploration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(7), pages 1068-1085, July.
    6. Giannoccaro, Ilaria, 2015. "Adaptive supply chains in industrial districts: A complexity science approach focused on learning," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(PB), pages 576-589.
    7. Oana Buliga & Christian W. Scheiner & Kai-Ingo Voigt, 2016. "Business model innovation and organizational resilience: towards an integrated conceptual framework," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(6), pages 647-670, August.
    8. Sung‐Choon Kang & Scott A. Snell, 2009. "Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A Framework for Human Resource Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 65-92, January.
    9. Wang, Long & Keith Murnighan, J., 2013. "The generalist bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 47-61.
    10. Peter Allen, 2013. "Complexity, uncertainty and innovation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(7), pages 702-725, October.
    11. Phanish Puranam & Murali Swamy, 2016. "How Initial Representations Shape Coupled Learning Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 323-335, April.
    12. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    13. Tom J. M. Mom & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Understanding Variation in Managers' Ambidexterity: Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of Formal Structural and Personal Coordination Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 812-828, August.
    14. Justin Tan & Yong Zeng, 2009. "A stage-dependent model of resource utilization, strategic flexibility, and implications for performance over time: Empirical evidence from a transitional environment," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 563-588, September.
    15. Wu Zhan & Roger (Rongxin) Chen, 2013. "Dynamic capability and IJV performance: The effect of exploitation and exploration capabilities," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 601-632, June.
    16. Friederike Wall, 2016. "Agent-based modeling in managerial science: an illustrative survey and study," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 135-193, January.
    17. Hsu, Chia-Wen & Lien, Yung-Chih & Chen, Homin, 2013. "International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 58-67.
    18. Ng, Stephen C.H. & Rungtusanatham, Johnny M. & Zhao, Xiande & Lee, T.S., 2015. "Examining process management via the lens of exploitation and exploration: Reconceptualization and scale development," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 1-15.
    19. Marco LiCalzi & Oktay Surucu, 2012. "The Power of Diversity over Large Solution Spaces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(7), pages 1408-1421, July.
    20. Hazhir Rahmandad, 2008. "Effect of Delays on Complexity of Organizational Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1297-1312, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    organizational learning; exploration; exploitation; complexity; turbulence; NK landscape; ambidexterity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics
    • M0 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - General
    • M1 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration
    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General
    • M11 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Production Management
    • M12 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Personnel Management; Executives; Executive Compensation
    • M14 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Corporate Culture; Diversity; Social Responsibility
    • M15 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - IT Management
    • M16 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - International Business Administration
    • L - Industrial Organization

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:3:y:2013:i:3:p:32-52:d:26965. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.