This article attempts to highlight the significance of the mediating role of contextual ambidexterity that leads to strategic renewal in organizations. The antecedents to renewal such as the context pertaining to an organization, nature of dynamism in the environment, and ambidexterity have been examined through a predicted relationship to suggest that these specific variables lead to strategic renewal. An empirical study conducted across 11 firms highlights the relationship between these four variables. The findings of the research study suggest that contextual ambidexterity significantly mediates the relationship between dynamism in the environment, organization context, and renewal.
AdnerR. (2002). When are technologies disruptive: A demand based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 667–688.
2.
AdlerP.GoldoftasB.LevineD. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency: A case study of model of changeovers in the Toyota Production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68.
3.
AgarwalR.EchambadiR.FrancoA.SarkarM. B. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spinout generation, development and Survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 501–522.
4.
AgarwalR.HelfatC. E. (2009). Strategic renewal of organizations. Organization Science, 20(2), 281–293.
5.
AnsoffH. I. (1979). Strategic management. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
6.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
7.
BartlettC. A.GhoshalS. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
8.
BirkinshawJ.GibsonC. (2004). Building ambidexterity in an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47–55.
9.
DenisonR. D. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York, NY: Wiley.
10.
DuncanR. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environments uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 313–327.
11.
DuncanR. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In KilmannR.H.PondyL.RSlevinD. (Eds.), The management of organizations (pp. 167–188). New York, NY: North-Holland.
12.
FloydS. W.LaneP. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154–177.
13.
Fuentes-FuentesM. M.Albacete-SaezC. A.LLoréns-MontesF. J. (2004). The impact of environmental characteristics on TQM principles and organizational performance. Omega, 32(6), 425–442.
14.
FullerC. B.VolberdaH. W. (1997). Strategic renewal: How large complex organizations prepare for the future. International Studies of Management & Organization, 27(2), 95–120.
15.
GibsonC.BirkinshawJ. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
16.
GhoshalS.BartlettC. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S-2), 91–112.
17.
GulatiR.PuranamP. (2009). Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organization Science, 20(2), 422–440.
18.
HeZ. L.WongP. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
19.
HittM. A.IrelandR. D.LeeH. (2000). Technological learning, knowledge management, firm grow and performance: An introductory essay. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17(3/4), 231–246.
20.
IansityM. (1995). Shooting the rapids: Managing product development in turbulent environments. California Management Review, 38(1), 37–58.
21.
JansenJ.BoschF.VolberdaH. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.
22.
KraemerH. C.WilsonG. T.FairburnC. G.AgrasW. S. (2002). Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(10), 877–883.
23.
LewisM. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–777.
24.
LubatkinM.H.Simsek.Z.Ling.Y.VeigaJ. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.
25.
MackinnonD. P.LockwoodC.MHoffmanJ.MWestS.G.SheetsV. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104.
26.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organization learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–86.
O’ReillyC. A.TushmanM. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.
29.
O’ReillyC. A.TushmanM. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.
30.
PodsakoffN. P.LepineJ. A.LepineM. A. (2007). Differential challenger stressor- hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 438–54.
31.
PorterM. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.
32.
PorterM. E. (1996). What is strategy. Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–81.
33.
RaischS.BirkinshawJ. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity, antecedents, outcomes and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.
34.
RaischS.BirkinshawJ.ProbstG.TushmanM. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploration and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.
35.
RothaermelF. T.HessA. M. (2007). Building dynamic capabilities: Innovation driven by individual, firm and network level effects. Organization Science, 18(6), 898–921.
36.
SchneiderK. J. (1990). The paradoxical self: Toward an understanding of our contradictory nature. New York, NY: Insight Books.
37.
SmithW. K.TushmanM. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.
38.
SorensenJ. B.StuartT. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81–113.
39.
TeeceD.J.PisanoG.ShuenT. E. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 503–533.
40.
TripsasM. (2008). Customer preference discontinuities: A trigger for radical technological change,Managerial Decision Economics, 29(2–3), 79–97.
41.
TushmanM. L.O’ReillyC. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.
42.
WuA. D.ZumboB. D. (2008). Understanding and using mediators and moderators. Social Indicators Research: An International Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality of Life Measurement, 87(3), 367–392.
43.
ZahraS. A. (1996). Technology strategy and financial performance: Examining the moderating role of the firm’s competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(3), 189–219.
44.
ZahraS. A.BognerW. C. (1999). Technology strategy and software new ventures performance: Exploring effect of the competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 135–173.
