Balanced Structures: Designing Organizations for Profitable Growth

Long Range Planning

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 483-508

  Raisch, Sebastian ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; DESIGN; GOVERNMENT DATA PROCESSING; ISOMERS; SEPARATION; SOLUTIONS;

BALANCED DESIGNS; BALANCED STRUCTURES; COMPLEMENTARY; CORPORATE LEVELS; DESIGN RULES; EFFICIENT; EUROPEAN COMPANIES; GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES; INDUCTIVE; LEARNING OUTCOMES; LEARNING PROCESSES; ORGANIC STRUCTURES; ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGNS; PARALLEL STRUCTURES; PROCESS MODELS; PROFITABLE GROWTHS; STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS; STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS; TEMPORAL SEPARATIONS;

STRUCTURAL DESIGN;

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; LEARNING; ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE;

EID: 54249145038     PISSN: 00246301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2008.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Zook C., and Allen T. Profit from the Core: Growth Strategies in an Era of Turbulence (2001), Harvard Business School Press, Boston
2. Levinthal D., and March J. Myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal 14 2 (1993) 95-112 and
3. March J. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2 1 (1991) 71-87
4. Thompson J.D. Organizations in Action (1967), McGraw-Hill, New York
5. A similar paradox has been described by. Abernathy W.J. The Productivity Dilemma (1978), John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
6. For an empirical investigation of large firms' management of the conflicting forces of exploitation and exploration, please refer to. Volberda H.W., Baden-Fuller C., and van den Bosch F.A.J. Mastering strategic renewal: Mobilizing renewal journeys in multi-unit firms. Long Range Planning 34 (2000) 159-178
7. See also. Adler P.S., Goldoftas B., and Levine D.J. Flexibility versus efficiency: A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota Production System. Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43-68 and, for a description of organic and mechanistic forms
8. Burns T., and Stalker G.M. The Management of Innovation (1961), Wiley, London
9. In this study, we use the terms 'organizational structure' and 'organizational design' interchangeably. While we considered the broader organizational context (such as incentive systems, cultural traits, and leadership structures) in our empirical analysis, this article's primary focus is on the firm's formal, corporate-level structures.
10. See. Hannan M.T., and Freeman J. Population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology 82 5 (1977) 929-964 and
11. Lawrence P.R., and Lorsch J.W. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration (1967), Harvard University Press, Boston
12. A comprehensive summary of these organizational structures can be found in. Daft R. Organization Theory and Design., pp. 398 ff (2007), Thomson South-Western, Mason
13. For prior studies on temporal separation, see. Cummings S. Centralization and decentralization: The never-ending Story of separation and betrayal. Scandinavian Journal of Management 11 2 (1995) 103-117
14. Eccles R.G., and Nohria N. Beyond the Hype: Rediscovering the Essence of Management (1992), Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge
15. Nickerson J.A., and Zenger T.R. Being efficiently fickle: A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Choice. Organization Science 13 5 (2002) 547-566
16. Rivkin J.W., and Siggelkow N. Organizing to strategize in the face of interactions: Preventing premature lock-in. Long Range Planning 39 (2006) 591-614 and
17. Siggelkow N., and Levinthal D. Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science 14 6 (2003) 650-669
18. Similar structural arrangements have been described as 'ambidextrous organizations' - see. Duncan R. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In: Killman R.H., Pondy L.R., and Sleven D. (Eds). The Management of Organization vol. 1 (1976), North Holland, New York 167-188
19. O'Reilly C.A., and Tushman M.L. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review 82 4 (2004) 74-81
20. Tushman M.L., and O'Reilly C.A. Winning through Innovation (1997), Harvard Business Press, Boston
21. Related concepts based on structural separation have been presented by. Bradach J. Using the plural form in the management of restaurant chains. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1997) 276-303
22. Christensen C.M. The Innovator's Dilemma (1998), Harvard Business School Press, Boston and
23. Levinthal D. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science 43 (1997) 934-950
24. For prior studies on parallel structures, see. Bushe G.R., and Shani A.B. Parallel Learning Structures (1991), Addison-Wesley, Reading
25. Goldstein S.G. Organizational dualism and quality circles. Academy of Management Review 10 3 (1985) 504-517
26. McDonough E.F., and Leifer R. Using simultaneous structures to cope with uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal 26 4 (1983) 727-735
27. Nonaka I.H., and Takeuchi H. The Knowledge-Creating Company (1995), Oxford University Press, Oxford
28. Stein B.A., and Kanter R.M. Building the parallel organization: creating mechanisms for permanent quality of work life. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 16 (1980) 371-388 and
29. Zand D. Collateral organization: A new change strategy. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 10 1 (1974) 63
30. The distinction between supply-side and demand-side exploitation and exploration was introduced and thoroughly conceptualized by. Sidhu J.S., Commandeur H.R., and Volberda H.W. The Multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science 18 1 (2007) 20-38
31. Ford and HP are described in Nickerson and Zenger (2002), op. cit. at Ref 8; Ericsson in C. A. Bartlett and S. Ghoshal, Managing Innovation in the Transnational Corporation, in C. A. Bartlett, Y. Doz, and G. Hedlund (eds.), Managing the Global Firm, Routledge, London; Sony in V. Gupta and K. Prashanth, Restructuring Sony, ICFAI Case Study, ECCH #303-155-1(2004); and ABB in K. Prashanth and V. Gupta, Reorganizing ABB, ICFAI Case Study, ECCH #303-156-1 (2003).
32. See also. Miller D., and Friesen P.H. Momentum and revolution in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal 23 4 (1980) 591-614
33. Our findings are contrary to Nickerson and Zenger's (2002, op. cit. at Ref 8) recommendation that firms should fluctuate frequently, even in the absence of environmental change. Their theoretical model excludes the cost of change, a factor that played a central role in our real-life case examples.
34. See also. Hannan M.T., and Freeman J. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review 49 2 (1984) 149-164
35. For a detailed description of the Nespresso concept, see K. Kashani and J. Miller, Innovation and Renovation: The Nespresso Story, IMD Case Study M 543 (2003).
36. By the end of the 1990s BMW Group could be described as 'stagnating' and 'in need of new revenue streams'. It had realized no growth for over five years, had incurred severe losses in 1999 and had sold less than a million cars in 2000, and was actively looking for new growth platforms such as Rolls-Royce to diversify into the luxury segment and MINI to diversify into smaller cars. In the case of Rolls-Royce, BMW had only acquired the brand name, all operational activities having been acquired by VW. Thus, BMW had to set up an entirely new company from scratch, hiring designers, establishing headquarters, building a new production plant etc. In contrast, MINI had been acquired as part of an earlier acquisition - but BMW shut down the existing operation and developed the new model in a newly created network composed of BMW employees and externally hired people. A new production plant was built, managed by BMW employees, and the 'new MINI' was distributed through BMW's sales networks and targeted at a different customer segment. Despite the fact that both these marques had substantial previous histories, the particulars of their 'rebirths' justify this article in dealing with them as effectively 'new' BMW Group initiatives.
37. For more information on Nestlé Nutrition, refer to P. Killing and B. Buechel, Nestlé: Creating Nestlé Nutrition, IMD Case Study 3-1667 (2006); and
38. S. Raisch and F. Ferlic, Nestlé: Sustaining Growth in Mature Markets, HSG Case Study, ECCH # 306-615-1(2006).
39. For an overview of contextual ambidexterity, see. Gibson C.B., and Birkinshaw J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal 47 2 (2004) 209-226
40. While the organizational learning literature has traditionally suggested that exploitation and exploration may be impossible to reconcile within single units, recent studies find that exploration can be compatible with exploitation under specific conditions. For example, see. Ahn J.H., Lee D.J., and Lee S.Y. Balancing business performance and knowledge performance of new product development: Lessons from ITS industry. Long Range Planning 39 (2006) 525-542
41. See. Miller D., and Friesen P.H. Momentum and revolution in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal 23 (1980) 591-614
42. Lamont B.T., Williams R.J., and Hoffman J.J. Performance during M-form reorganization and recovery time. Academy of Management Journal 37 (1994) 153-166
43. Amburgey T.L., Kelly D., and Barnett W.P. Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly 38 (1993) 51-73
44. For an overview of the literature on organizational settings, please refer to. Carlile P.R. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13 4 (2004) 442-455
45. Rosenkopf L., and Nerkar A. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning exploration and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal 22 (2001) 287-306 and
46. Tushman M.L., and Scanian T.J. Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal 24 2 (1981) 289-305
47. See also. Miller D.J., Fern M.J., and Cardinal L.B. The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal 50 2 (2007) 308-326 and
48. for inter-unit coordination and integration, see. S. Raisch, and J. Birkinshaw. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management 34 2 (2008) 375-409
49. See. Bushe G.R., and Shani A.B. Parallel Learning Structures (1991), Addison-Wesley, Reading
50. McGrath R. Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management 44 1 (2001) 118-131
51. Tushman M.L., and O'Reilly C.A. Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review 38 (1996) 8-30
52. For an overview of the research on management fashions, please see. Abrahamson E. Management Fashion. Academy of Management Review 21 1 (1996) 254-285
53. For a detailed description of the concept of the multifocal company, see. Prahalad C.K., and Doz Y.L. The Multinational Mission (1987), The Free Press, New York
54. Miles M.B., and Huberman A.M. Qualitative Data Analyses: An Expanded Sourcebook (1994), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
55. and. Yin R.S. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd edition (2003), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
56. Auh S., and Menguc B. Balancing exploitation and exploration: the moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research 58 12 (2005) 1652-1661
57. The full list is: Adecco, Adidas, Bank Austria, Baywa, BMW Group, Celesio, Continental, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Erste Bank, Fresenius, Hannover Rueck, Helvetia, Holcim, Kuehne & Nagel, Metro, Nestlé, Porsche, SAP, Securitas, Siemens, Swiss Life, Swiss Re, UBS.
58. We followed the recommendations on cross-industry sample construction for case study research provided by. Eisenhardt K.M. Building theory from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 4 (1989) 532-550
59. and. Marshall C., and Rossman G.B. Designing Qualitative Research. 3rd edition (1999), Sage, London
60. Strauss A., and Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (1990), Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA
61. Standard methods were used to compare cases and examine emergent patterns: see Eisenhardt (1989), op. cit. at Ref 29 and Miles and Huberman (1994), op. cit. at Ref 26.
62. Glaser B.G., and Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967), Aldine, New York, NY