IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v23y2017i1d10.1007_s10588-016-9217-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inferring final organizational outcomes from intermediate outcomes of exploration and exploitation: the complexity link

Author

Listed:
  • Sasanka Sekhar Chanda

    (Indian Institute of Management Indore)

Abstract

The difficulty in definitively linking outcomes of managerial action to organizational outcomes has been a festering issue in organizational research. The problem arises because it is not easy to separate the distinctive contributions of managers at intermediate stages, as well as the contribution of external factors beyond the control of managers. Specifically, certain managerial actions focusing on exploratory or exploitative innovation produce an intermediate output, organizational knowledge. From this base of organizational knowledge, further management actions craft the final output that eventually faces the market test. Drawing from complexity concepts, I argue that the probability of correctly fashioning the subset of key elements in the intermediate output may be a good measure of the probability of organizational success. I use March’s iconic computational simulation model to demonstrate the merits of this principle. I model the effect of complexity on managerial intentionality towards exploratory and exploitative innovation. I elicit important insights for research and practice by comparing organizational knowledge outcomes with the outcomes for probability of organizational success, in stable and moderately turbulent environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Sasanka Sekhar Chanda, 2017. "Inferring final organizational outcomes from intermediate outcomes of exploration and exploitation: the complexity link," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 61-93, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:23:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10588-016-9217-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-016-9217-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-016-9217-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-016-9217-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Gavetti & Daniel A. Levinthal & Jan W. Rivkin, 2005. "Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: the power of analogy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(8), pages 691-712, August.
    2. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    3. Justin J. P. Jansen & Frans A. J. Van Den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2006. "Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1661-1674, November.
    4. Joel A. C. Baum & Kristina B. Dahlin, 2007. "Aspiration Performance and Railroads’ Patterns of Learning from Train Wrecks and Crashes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 368-385, June.
    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. James B. Thomas & Stephanie Watts Sussman & John C. Henderson, 2001. "Understanding “Strategic Learning”: Linking Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 331-345, June.
    7. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    8. Manuel E. Sosa & Martin Gargiulo & Craig Rowles, 2015. "Can Informal Communication Networks Disrupt Coordination in New Product Development Projects?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1059-1078, August.
    9. Jorge Walter & Daniel Z. Levin & J. Keith Murnighan, 2015. "Reconnection Choices: Selecting the Most Valuable (vs. Most Preferred) Dormant Ties," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1447-1465, October.
    10. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Daniel Levinthal & Rishi R. Roy, 2008. "The Dual Role of Modularity: Innovation and Imitation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 939-955, May.
    11. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1996. "What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 502-518, October.
    12. Thomas Hutzschenreuter & Torben Pedersen & Henk W Volberda, 2007. "The role of path dependency and managerial intentionality: a perspective on international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 38(7), pages 1055-1068, December.
    13. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    14. Gino Cattani, 2005. "Preadaptation, Firm Heterogeneity, and Technological Performance: A Study on the Evolution of Fiber Optics, 1970–1995," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 563-580, December.
    15. Daniel Z. Levin, 2000. "Organizational Learning and the Transfer of Knowledge: An Investigation of Quality Improvement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(6), pages 630-647, December.
    16. Kristina Dahlin & Joel A.C Baum, 2007. "Aspiration performance and railroads' patterns of learning from train wrecks and crashes," Post-Print hal-00480399, HAL.
    17. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    18. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda & Sougata Ray, 2015. "Optimal exploration and exploitation: the managerial intentionality perspective," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 247-273, September.
    19. Israel M. Kirzner, 1997. "Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(1), pages 60-85, March.
    20. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    21. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    22. George P. Huber, 1991. "Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 88-115, February.
    23. Justin J. P. Jansen & Gerard George & Frans A. J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2008. "Senior Team Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 982-1007, July.
    24. Uriel Stettner & Dovev Lavie, 2014. "Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(13), pages 1903-1929, December.
    25. Jay B. Barney, 1986. "Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(10), pages 1231-1241, October.
    26. Katsuhiko (Katsu) Shimizu, 2012. "Risks of Corporate Entrepreneurship: Autonomy and Agency Issues," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 194-206, February.
    27. Frankort, Hans T.W., 2016. "When does knowledge acquisition in R&D alliances increase new product development? The moderating roles of technological relatedness and product-market competition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 291-302.
    28. Richard M. Burton, 2003. "Computational Laboratories for Organization Science: Questions, Validity and Docking," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 91-108, July.
    29. Robert A. Burgelman, 1983. "Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights from a Process Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(12), pages 1349-1364, December.
    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. Sai Yayavaram & Sasanka Sekhar Chanda, 2023. "Decision making under high complexity: a computational model for the science of muddling through," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 300-335, June.
    2. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda & Bill McKelvey, 2020. "Back to the basics: reconciling the continuum and orthogonal conceptions of exploration and exploitation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 175-206, June.

    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. Giovanni Gavetti, 2012. "PERSPECTIVE—Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 267-285, February.
    2. Sharon A. Alvarez & Jay B. Barney & Philip Anderson, 2013. "Forming and Exploiting Opportunities: The Implications of Discovery and Creation Processes for Entrepreneurial and Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 301-317, February.
    3. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda & Bill McKelvey, 2020. "Back to the basics: reconciling the continuum and orthogonal conceptions of exploration and exploitation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 175-206, June.
    4. Khan, Zaheer & Lew, Yong Kyu & Marinova, Svetla, 2019. "Exploitative and exploratory innovations in emerging economies: The role of realized absorptive capacity and learning intent," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 499-512.
    5. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    6. Andreea N. Kiss & Dirk Libaers & Pamela S. Barr & Tang Wang & Miles A. Zachary, 2020. "CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2200-2233, December.
    7. Gatti, Corrado & Volpe, Loredana & Vagnani, Gianluca, 2015. "Interdependence among productive activities: Implications for exploration and exploitation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 711-722.
    8. Lori Rosenkopf & Patia McGrath, 2011. "Advancing the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Novelty in Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1297-1311, October.
    9. Sebastian Raisch & Michael L. Tushman, 2016. "Growing New Corporate Businesses: From Initiation to Graduation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1237-1257, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda & Sougata Ray, 2015. "Optimal exploration and exploitation: the managerial intentionality perspective," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 247-273, September.
    12. Inseong Song & Jonghoon Bae, 2016. "Politics, strong institution and competitive advantage: an examination of organizational aspiration for competition," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 412-443, December.
    13. Patrick Regnér & Udo Zander, 2011. "Knowledge and Strategy Creation in Multinational Companies," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 821-850, December.
    14. Gang Zhang & Ruoyang Gao, 2010. "Modularity and incremental innovation: the roles of design rules and organizational communication," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 171-200, June.
    15. Chila, Vilma, 2021. "Knowledge dynamics in employee entrepreneurship : Implications for parents and offspring," Other publications TiSEM a1f5d18c-783b-4af6-8414-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. McCarthy, Killian J & Aalbers, Hendrik Leendert, 2022. "Alliance-to-acquisition transitions: The technological performance implications of acquiring one's alliance partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    17. Irina Surdu & Henrich R. Greve & Gabriel R. G. Benito, 2021. "Back to basics: Behavioral theory and internationalization," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(6), pages 1047-1068, August.
    18. Armin Anzenbacher & Marcus Wagner, 2020. "The role of exploration and exploitation for innovation success: effects of business models on organizational ambidexterity in the semiconductor industry," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 571-594, June.
    19. Enkel, Ellen & Heil, Sebastian & Hengstler, Monika & Wirth, Henning, 2017. "Exploratory and exploitative innovation: To what extent do the dimensions of individual level absorptive capacity contribute?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 60, pages 29-38.
    20. Teece, David J., 2010. "Technological Innovation and the Theory of the Firm," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 679-730, Elsevier.

    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:spr:comaot:v:23:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10588-016-9217-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.