Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:11:48.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Top-team Diversity and Perspective Taking in Mastering Organizational Ambidexterity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2016

Ci-Rong Li
Ci-Rong Li*
Affiliation:
Jilin University, China
*
Corresponding author: Ci-Rong Li ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although the role of top teams has been recognized in ambidextrous organizations, it remains unclear which characteristics and how the cognitive processes of top teams are used to address the dual cognitive challenges of ambidexterity. To address this puzzle, I developed a model in which I theorize that a top team with task-related diversity engaging in perspective taking will influence the achievement of an ambidextrous organization. Moreover, I further theorize that transformational leadership of the CEO will help diverse top teams master ambidexterity by influencing the team's cognitive processes. The results show that diverse teams can address the differentiating-integrating challenges of ambidexterity when they engage in perspective taking. The results also confirm that transformational leadership strengthens the relationship between a diverse top team's perspective taking and ambidextrous orientation.

摘要:

摘要:

虽然顶级团队的作用已经在二元化组织得以认可, 目前尚不清楚哪些特征以及顶级团队的认知过程如何被用来解决二元化双重认知的挑战。为解决这一难题, 我开发了一个模型, 其中我推论, 一个具有任务相关多样性的从事观点采择的顶级团队会影响二元化组织的成就。此外, 我进一步推论, CEO的变革型领导力将有助于不同顶级团队通过团队的认知过程来掌握二元化。结果表明, 不同的团队当他们进行观点采择的时候能解决二元化区分-整合的挑战。研究结果也确认变革型领导力增强不同顶级团队的观点采择与二元化导向之间的关系。

यद्यपि शीर्ष पदस्थ समूह का संगठनीय उभयहास्तता पर योगदान मान्य है, इस प्रभाव से जुड़े आयाम व शीर्ष समूह कि संज्ञान प्रक्रिया जिससे उभयहास्तता से जुडी द्वी-आयामी चुनौती पूरी होती है, अस्पष्ट है. इस प्रश्न को हल करने के लिए इस शोधकर्ता ने एक प्रतिमान बनाया है जिसमें यह मत प्रस्तुत किया है कि कार्यजनित भिन्नता वाला शीर्ष समूह जो परिप्रेक्ष्यों का आदान-प्रदान करता है, उभयहास्तता को प्रभावित करेगा. आगे यह भी मत है कि शीर्षाधिकारी का रुपांतरणपरक नेतृत्व से विविधा शीर्षसमूह अपनी संज्ञान प्रक्रिया प्रभावित कर उभयहास्तता पर कौशल प्राप्त करता है. शोध परिणाम दिखते हैं कि विविधा समूह परिप्रेक्ष्य आदान-प्रदान से उभयहास्तता कि पृथक्कीकरण व एकीकरण कि चुनौतियों को पूरा कर सकते हैं. परिणाम यह भी सिद्ध करते हैं कि रुपांतरणपरक नेतृत्व विविधा शीर्षसमूह के परिप्रेक्ष्य आदान-प्रदान व उभयहस्तीय अभिविन्यास के सम्बन्ध को सुदृढ़ करते हैं.

Sumário:

Sumário:

Embora o papel das melhores equipes tenha sido reconhecido em organizações ambidestras, ainda não está claro quais características e como os processos cognitivos das melhores equipes são usados para enfrentar os duplos desafios cognitivos da ambidestria. Para resolver este problema, eu desenvolvi um modelo no qual eu teorizo que uma equipe de ponta com diversidade de tarefas envolvida em perspective taking irá influenciar a efetivação de uma organização ambidestra. Além disso, eu ainda teorizo que a liderança transformacional do CEO vai ajudar diversas equipes de ponta a dominar a ambidestria influenciando os processos cognitivos da equipe. Os resultados mostram que diversas equipes podem abordar os desafios diferenciadores-integradores da ambidestria quando se engajam em perspective taking. Os resultados também confirmam que a liderança transformacional reforça a relação entre a perspectiva de uma equipe diversa e a orientação ambidestra.

Аннотация:

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Хотя роль топ-менеджмента считается важной в амбидекстральных организациях, остается неясным, какие характеристики и как когнитивные процессы в группах топ-менеджмента используются для решения двойных когнитивных проблем амбидекстрии. Чтобы разрешить эту загадку, я разработал модель, согласно которой я предполагаю, что группа топ-менеджмента, которая характеризуется многообразием в соответствии с поставленными задачами и принимает различные точки зрения, будет влиять на достижения амбидекстральных организаций. Более того, я также предполагаю, что трансформационное руководство со стороны генерального директора будет помогать многообразным группам топ-менеджмента освоить амбидекстрию путем влияния на когнитивные процессы в группе. Результаты показывают, что многообразные группы могут справиться с амбидекстральной проблемой дифференциации-интеграции, когда они принимают во внимание различные точки зрения. Результаты также подтверждают, что трансформационное руководство укрепляет зависимость между разнообразными перспективами топ-менеджмента и амбидекстральной ориентацией.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

Aunque el papel de los equipos lideres ha sido reconocido en organizaciones ambidiestras, permanece poco claro cuáles características y cómo los procesos cognitivos de los equipos líderes son usados para direccionar los retos cognitivos duales de la ambidexteridad. Para abordar este rompecabezas, desarrollé un modelo de en el cual teorizo que un equipo líder con diversidad de tareas involucrando la toma de perspectiva influirá en el logro de una organización ambidiestra. Más aún, teorizo más allá que el liderazgo transformacional del CEO ayudará a equipos lideres diversos a dominar la ambidexteridad a través de influenciar los procesos cognitivos del equipo. Los resultados demuestran que los equipos diversos pueden abordar

Los retos de diferenciación-integración de ambidexteridad cuando estos participen en la toma de perspectiva. Los resultados también confirman que el liderazgo transformacional fortalece la relación entre la toma de perspectiva de un equipo líder diverso y la orientación ambidiestra.

Keywords

ambidextrous organizationperspective takingteam diversitytop management teamtransformational leadership
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 769 - 794
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3): 411–423.Google Scholar
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. 1991. Manual for the full range of leadership. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio, & Associates.Google Scholar
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. 1999. Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72 (4): 441–462.Google Scholar
Bagozzi, R. R., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (3): 421–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, B. M. 1998. Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1995. Multifactor leadership questionnaire (from 5x-short). Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. 2006. Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. 1987. Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55 (1): 19–39.Google Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2): 238–256.Google Scholar
Blau, P. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Boland, R. J. Jr., & Tenkasi, R. V. 1995. Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6 (4): 350–372.Google Scholar
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2003. Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (3): 552–560.Google Scholar
Buyl, T., Boone, C., & Matthyssens, P. 2013. The impact of TMT knowledge diversity on organizational ambidexterity: A conceptual framework. International Studies of Management and Organization, 42 (4): 8–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, K., & Minguez-Vera, A. 2008. Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83 (3): 435–451.Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46 (4): 823–847.Google Scholar
Cao, Q., Simsek, Z., & Zhang, H. 2010. Modelling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (7): 1272–1296.Google Scholar
Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. 2009. How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (2): 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. 2001. Top management teams, global strategic posture, and the moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (3): 533–545.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. M. 2004. Upper echelons research revisited: antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management 30 (6): 749–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caruso, E., Epley, N., & Bazerman, M. H. 2006. The costs and benefits of undoing egocentric responsibility assessments in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (5): 857–871.Google Scholar
Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. 1998. Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (4): 749–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., & Hinds, P. J. 2005. Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (6): 1107–1123.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. 2003. The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14 (6): 807–834.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2): 350–383.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R. 1994. The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organization Behavior Human Decision Process, 58 (1): 51–100.Google Scholar
Fernández-Mesa, A., Iborra, M. & Safón, V. 2013. CEO-TMT interaction: Do tenure and age affect ambidexterity dynamism? European Journal of International Management, 7 (1): 31–55.Google Scholar
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3): 39–50.Google Scholar
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. 2008. Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19 (4): 378–384.Google Scholar
Gebert, D., Bonerner, S., & Kearney, E. 2010. Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21 (3): 593–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2): 209–226.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4): 693–706.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., Davison, S. C., Snell, S. A., & Snow, C. C. 1998. When groups consist of multiple nationalities: Toward a new understanding of the implications. Organization Science, 19 (2): 181–205.Google Scholar
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15 (4): 481–494.Google Scholar
Hoever, I. J., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. 2012. Fostering team creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97 (5): 982–996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef, G. A. 2008. Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intra-group differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (6): 1204–1222.Google Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Gerrit, W. 1984. Within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (1): 85–98.Google Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2008. Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (5): 982–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2009. Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20 (4): 797–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2006. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52 (11): 1661–1674.Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (4): 741–763.Google Scholar
Jing, R., & Van De Ven, A. H. 2014. A Yin-Yang model of organizational change: The case of Chengdu Bus Group. Management and Organization Review, 10 (1): 29–54.Google Scholar
Junni, P., Ssrala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. 2013. Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspective, 27 (4): 299–312.Google Scholar
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. 2009. When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (3): 581–598.Google Scholar
Kirkbride, P. 2006. Developing transformational leaders: The full range leadership model in action. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38 (1): 23–32.Google Scholar
Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. 1991. Perspective-taking in communication: representations of others’ knowledge in reference. Social Cognition, 9 (1): 2–24.Google Scholar
Kurdek, L. A., & Rogdon, M. M. 1975. Perceptual, cognitive, and affective perspective taking in kindergarten through sixth-grade children. Developmental Psychology, 11 (5): 643–650.Google Scholar
Lee, H.-U., & Park, J.-H. 2006. Top team diversity, internationalization and the mediating effect of international alliances. British Journal of Management, 17 (3): 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C.-R. 2013. How top management team diversity fosters organizational ambidexterity: The role of social capital among top executives. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26 (5): 874–896.Google Scholar
Li, C.-R., Chu, C.-P., & Lin, C.-J. 2010. The contingent value of exploratory and exploitative learning for new product development performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 39 (7): 1186–1197.Google Scholar
Li, C.-R., Lin, C.-J., & Huang, H.-C. 2014. Top management team social capital, exploration-based innovation, and exploitation-based innovation in SMEs. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26 (1): 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. 2006. Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of TMT behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32 (5): 646–672.Google Scholar
Naranjo-Gil, D., Hartmann, F., & Maas, V. S. 2008. Top management team heterogeneity, strategic change and operational performance. British Journal of Management, 19 (3): 222–234.Google Scholar
Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. 2009. Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (1): 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82 (4): 74–81.Google Scholar
Park, H. S., & Raile, A. N. W. 2010. Perspective taking and communication satisfaction in coworker dyads. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25 (4): 569–581.Google Scholar
Parker, S. K., Atkins, P. W. B., & Axtell, C. M. 2008. Building better work places through individual perspective taking: A fresh look at a fundamental human process. In Hodgkinson, G. & Ford, K. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. 2001. Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (6): 1085–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitcher, P., & Smith, A. D. 2001. Top management team heterogeneity: Personality, power, and proxies. Organization Science, 12 (1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34 (3): 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing and exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20 (4): 685–695.Google Scholar
Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Gibson, C. 2008. Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge-based approach. Academy of Management Review, 33 (1): 163–184.Google Scholar
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. 2011. Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22 (5): 956–974.Google Scholar
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. 2005. Individualism: A valid and important dimension of cultural differences between nations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9 (1): 17–31.Google Scholar
Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. 2008. The emergence of team creative cognition: The role of diverse outside ties, sociocognitive network centrality, and team evolution. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2 (1): 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4 (4): 577–594.Google Scholar
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. 2007. When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (6): 1709–1721.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. 2010. Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43 (2/3): 448–461.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16 (5): 522–536.Google Scholar
Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. 2000. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (10/11): 1147–1161.Google Scholar
Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. 2013. Mechanims for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Review, 15 (3): 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M., & O’reilly, C. A. 1996. Evolution and revolution: Mastering the dynamics of innovation and change. California Management Review, 38 (4): 8–30.Google Scholar
Tushman, M., & O’reilly, C. A. 1997. Winning through innovation: A practical guide to managing organizational change and renewal. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (6): 1008–1022.Google Scholar
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58 (1): 515–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. 2004. Strategic leadership and organization learning. Academy of Management Review, 29 (2): 222–240.Google Scholar
Williams, K. Y., & O’reilly, C. A. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Wu, S., Levitas, E., & Priem, R. L. 2005. CEO tenure and company invention under differing levels of technological dynamism. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5): 859–873.Google Scholar
Yang, T.-T., & Li, C.-R. 2011. Competence exploration and exploitation in new product development: The moderating effects of environmental dynamism and competitiveness. Management Decision, 49 (9): 1444–1470.Google Scholar
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. 2001. Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12 (4): 451–483.Google Scholar