Formal integration archetypes in ambidextrous organizations

Research suggests that organizational ambidexterity, an organization's capacity to pursue both exploratory and exploitative activities, is critical to firm innovation and performance. Extant research primarily emphasizes several firm‐level informal integration mechanisms, such as creating a common vision and relying on social integration, for integrating structurally ambidextrous units. Research has largely ignored, however, the formal mechanisms by which organizations have integrated such units. In this inductive study, using archival and interview data from organizations in Silicon Valley, we address this gap by identifying the formal integration archetypes that enable core business units to collaborate with new venture units to incubate new businesses. The four integration archetypes that enable collaboration vary along two key dimensions: who initiates new ventures and when collaboration is solicited. We identify formal administrative and resource mechanisms that enable such collaboration. We combine the disparate literatures of temporal and spatial separation of ambidextrous structures, and demonstrate how these must be combined at the business unit and new venture levels of analysis to achieve integration. The practical contribution of this study lies in identifying suitable contexts in which each of these archetypes can be utilized by practitioners for reintegrating new venture projects developed in separate structures.     

Whom Should We Talk to? Investigating the Varying Roles of Internal and External Relationship Quality on Radical and Incremental Innovation Performance

Research suggests that close relationships with internal and external partners are likely to have a significant impact on new product development (NPD). What is unclear is how the effects of internal and external relationships influence development paths for different types of innovations. Prior literature indicates that the pathways for developing incremental innovations differ considerably from those for radical innovations. Thus it is plausible that the effects of external versus internal relationships vary across these two innovation types. This paper uses the 2012 Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS) data set to investigate the roles of internal and external relationship quality on the development of both incremental and radical innovations. The results find that internal and not external relationship quality is beneficial for the development of incremental innovations. When driven by internal relationships, a flexible NPD process is advantageous for the financial performance of incremental innovations. Meanwhile external and not internal relationship quality is valuable for developing radical innovations. External relationship quality results in process flexibility, leading to project execution success and subsequent financial performance for radical innovations. As expected, project execution success consistently leads to increased financial performance. These findings indicate the critical differences in types of relationship quality required when developing new products based on radical versus incremental innovations.     

Behavioral Integrity: How Leader Referents and Trust Matter to Workplace Outcomes

Behavioral integrity (BI) is the alignment pattern between an actor??s words and deeds as perceived by another person. Employees?? perception that their leader??s actions and words are consistent leads to desirable workplace outcomes. Although BI is a powerful concept, the role of leader referents, the relationship between perceived BI of different referents, and the process by which BI affects outcomes are unclear. Our purpose is to elaborate upon this process and clarify the role of different leader referents in determining various outcomes. To understand the impact of referents, we explicitly compared the BIs of two leader referents: senior management and supervisor. In contrast to previous research findings where supervisory BI was found to have a stronger relationship with outcomes than senior management, we find that both referents are important. However, their impact varies based upon the outcome studied. Only senior management BI predicted organizational commitment, while senior management BI, supervisory BI and supervisory trust predicted organizational cynicism. Only trust in supervisor, and not supervisory BI, impacted organizational citizenship behaviors. When senior management is the referent, trust and not BI might play an important role for outcomes that require extensive employee investments, such as organizational commitment. In contrast, when the outcome measured does not require employee investments, BI might have a direct impact on the outcome. We also uncovered that trust in supervisor substantially influences the trust employees have in their senior management.