IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v14y2003i6p650-669.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolaj Siggelkow

    (2017 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104)

  • Daniel A. Levinthal

    (2028 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104)

Abstract

To create a competitive advantage, firms need to find activity configurations that are not only internally consistent, but also appropriate given the firm's current environment. This challenge is particularly acute after firms have experienced an environmental change that has shifted the existing competitive landscape and created new, high-performing sets of activity choices. How should firms organize to explore and search such an altered performance landscape? While it has been noted that adaptive entities need to maintain a balance of exploration and exploitation, little is known about how different organizational structures moderate this balance. With the help of an agentbased simulation model, we study the value of three different organizational structures: a centralized organization, in which decisions are made only at the level of the firm as a whole; a decentralized organization, in which decisions are made independently in two divisions; and a temporarily decentralized firm, which starts out with a decentralized structure and later reintegrates.We find that if interactions among a firm's activities are pervasive, neither the centralized nor the permanently decentralized organizational structure leads to high performance. In this case, temporary decentralization—an organizational structure that has not found much attention in the literature—yields the highest long-term performance. This organizational structure allows the firm both to avoid low-performing activity configurations and to eventually coordinate across its divisions. Thus, even if the decision problem a .rm faces is not fully decomposable, a temporary bifurcation can lead to a higher long-term performance outcome. Initial decentralized exploration is, however, costly in the short run, as compared to centralized exploration. As a result, a tradeoff exists between the short-term costs of decentralized exploration and the longterm benefits of reaching higher performance. As interactions across and within divisions increase, the optimal length of decentralized exploration tends to grow.Paralleling our first result, we further show that even if a decision problem is decomposable, that is, can be perfectly modularized, it can be beneficial to create a temporary decision allocation that creates "unnecessary" interdependencies across the subsystems. This benefit arises in particular when the modules are complex by themselves. In both cases, an initial phase of exploration, enabled by an appropriate organizational structure, followed by refinement and coordination, enabled by a different structure, leads to high performance. To illustrate our general model, we focus on incumbent firms' responses to the Internet and discuss implications for the product design process.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolaj Siggelkow & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2003. "Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 650-669, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:14:y:2003:i:6:p:650-669
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24840
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24840
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24840?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    2. Jan W. Rivkin, 2001. "Reproducing Knowledge: Replication Without Imitation at Moderate Complexity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 274-293, June.
    3. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2003. "Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 290-311, March.
    4. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    5. Ron Sanchez, 1995. "Strategic flexibility in product competition," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(S1), pages 135-159.
    6. Kathleen M. Carley & David M. Svoboda, 1996. "Modeling Organizational Adaptation as a Simulated Annealing Process," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 25(1), pages 138-168, August.
    7. David, Paul A, 1990. "The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 355-361, May.
    8. Danny Miller, 1986. "Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(3), pages 233-249, May.
    9. Jan W. Rivkin, 2000. "Imitation of Complex Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(6), pages 824-844, June.
    10. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    11. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1990. "The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 511-528, June.
    12. Robert A. Burgelman, 1991. "Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 239-262, August.
    13. Daniel A. Levinthal & Massimo Warglien, 1999. "Landscape Design: Designing for Local Action in Complex Worlds," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 342-357, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2003. "Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 290-311, March.
    2. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2007. "Patterned Interactions in Complex Systems: Implications for Exploration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(7), pages 1068-1085, July.
    3. Felipe A. Csaszar & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2010. "How Much to Copy? Determinants of Effective Imitation Breadth," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 661-676, June.
    4. Frenken, Koen, 2006. "A fitness landscape approach to technological complexity, modularity, and vertical disintegration," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 288-305, September.
    5. Giannoccaro, Ilaria, 2015. "Adaptive supply chains in industrial districts: A complexity science approach focused on learning," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(PB), pages 576-589.
    6. Michael J. Leiblein & Jeffrey J. Reuer & Todd Zenger, 2018. "What Makes a Decision Strategic?," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 558-573, December.
    7. Ennen, Edgar & Richter, Ansgar, 2009. "The Whole Is More Than the Sum of Its Parts - Or Is It? A Review of the Empirical Literature on Complementarities in Organizations," MPRA Paper 15666, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Cha Li & Felipe A. Csaszar, 2019. "Government as Landscape Designer: A Behavioral View of Industrial Policy," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 175-192, September.
    9. Arie Y. Lewin & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters, 2011. "Microfoundations of Internal and External Absorptive Capacity Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 81-98, February.
    10. Daniel A. Levinthal & Alessandro Marino, 2015. "Three Facets of Organizational Adaptation: Selection, Variety, and Plasticity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 743-755, June.
    11. Peter Moran & Michele Simoni & Gianluca Vagnani, 2011. "Becoming the best: by beating or ignoring the best? Toward an expanded view of the role of managerial selection in complex and turbulent environments," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 15(3), pages 447-481, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Sidney G. Winter & Gabriel Szulanski & Dimo Ringov & Robert J. Jensen, 2012. "Reproducing Knowledge: Inaccurate Replication and Failure in Franchise Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 672-685, June.
    14. Karén Hovhannisian & Marco Valente, 2005. "Modeling Directed Local Search Strategies on Technology," Computational Economics 0507001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Christopher B. Bingham & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2008. "Position, leverage and opportunity: a typology of strategic logics linking resources with competitive advantage," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 241-256.
    16. Friederike Wall, 2016. "Agent-based modeling in managerial science: an illustrative survey and study," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 135-193, January.
    17. Michael J. Lenox & Scott F. Rockart & Arie Y. Lewin, 2007. "Interdependency, Competition, and Industry Dynamics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(4), pages 599-615, April.
    18. Helmut M. Dietl & Markus Lang & Eric Lucas & Dirk Martignoni, 2012. "Learning Through Inaccurate Replication," Working Papers 312, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    19. Hazhir Rahmandad, 2019. "Interdependence, Complementarity, and Ruggedness of Performance Landscapes," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 234-249, September.
    20. Dingyu Zhang & Nadia Bhuiyan & Linghua Kong, 2018. "An Analysis of Organizational Structure in Process Variation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 722-738, August.

    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:inm:ororsc:v:14:y:2003:i:6:p:650-669. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.