IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jorgde/v7y2018i1d10.1186_s41469-018-0030-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing competing demands in organizations: a systematic comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Medhanie Gaim

    (Umeå University)

  • Nils Wåhlin

    (Umeå University)

  • Miguel Pina e Cunha

    (Universidade Nova de Lisboa)

  • Stewart Clegg

    (Universidade Nova de Lisboa
    University of Technology Sydney)

Abstract

Organizational scholars have shown increasing interest in the ways in which managers enact and respond to competing demands and the tensions they prompt as constitutive elements of their organizations. There is now a proliferation of conceptualizations of such competing demands that can be somewhat confusing. We will enhance conceptual clarity by identifying seven constitutive empirical characteristics of competing demands: these consist of the existence of dyadic relations, contradiction, interrelatedness, complementarity, compatibility, simultaneity, and the existence of push-pull forces. We construct a comparative classification of competing demands using these characteristics as our distinguishing features. The result is a more nuanced understanding of how managers approach competing demands that can help scholars to minimize arbitrariness, interpret results, and compare contributions in the area in a much-needed step toward understanding and designing organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Medhanie Gaim & Nils Wåhlin & Miguel Pina e Cunha & Stewart Clegg, 2018. "Analyzing competing demands in organizations: a systematic comparison," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jorgde:v:7:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s41469-018-0030-9
    DOI: 10.1186/s41469-018-0030-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s41469-018-0030-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s41469-018-0030-9?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. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Michael Tushman & Wendy K. Smith & Robert Chapman Wood & George Westerman & Charles O'Reilly, 2010. "Organizational designs and innovation streams," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(5), pages 1331-1366, October.
    3. Blake E. Ashforth & Kristie M. Rogers & Michael G. Pratt & Camille Pradies, 2014. "Ambivalence in Organizations: A Multilevel Approach," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1453-1478, October.
    4. Ricardo Alonso & Wouter Dessein & Niko Matouschek, 2008. "When Does Coordination Require Centralization?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 145-179, March.
    5. Janssens, Maddy & Steyaert, Chris, 1999. "The world in two and a third way out? The concept of duality in organization theory and practice," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 121-139, June.
    6. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    7. Ricardo Alonso & Wouter Dessein & Niko Matouschek, 2008. "When Does Coordination Require Centralization? Corrigendum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 1195-1196, June.
    8. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    9. Stewart Clegg & David Courpasson & Nelson Phillips, 2006. "Power and organizations," Post-Print hal-02298067, HAL.
    10. Chen, Yan, 2017. "Dynamic ambidexterity: How innovators manage exploration and exploitation," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 385-394.
    11. Peter Boumgarden & Jackson Nickerson & Todd R. Zenger, 2012. "Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 587-610, June.
    12. Smith, Wendy K. & Gonin, Michael & Besharov, Marya L., 2013. "Managing Social-Business Tensions: A Review and Research Agenda for Social Enterprise," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 407-442, July.
    13. Kim S. Cameron, 1986. "Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 539-553, May.
    14. Nicolai J. Foss, 2003. "Selective Intervention and Internal Hybrids: Interpreting and Learning from the Rise and Decline of the Oticon Spaghetti Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 331-349, June.
    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. Päivi Karhu & Paavo Ritala, 2020. "The multiple faces of tension: dualities in decision-making," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 485-518, June.
    2. Love, Peter E.D. & Matthews, Jane, 2020. "Quality, requisite imagination and resilience: Managing risk and uncertainty in construction," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    3. Gregory Vial, 2023. "A Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective of Software Reuse in the Digital Age: An Agenda for IS Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1728-1743, December.

    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. Gaim, Medhanie & Wåhlin, Nils, 2016. "In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 33-44.
    2. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    3. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann, 2019. "Polytope Conditioning and Linear Convergence of the Frank–Wolfe Algorithm," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 1319-1348, February.
    4. Olga Kassotaki, 2022. "Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    5. Bryan Hong, 2020. "Power to the outsiders: External hiring and decision authority allocation within organizations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1628-1652, September.
    6. Evers, Natasha & Andersson, Svante, 2021. "Predictive and effectual decision-making in high-tech international new ventures – A matter of sequential ambidexterity," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(1).
    7. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    8. Alexander Zimmermann & Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw, 2015. "How Is Ambidexterity Initiated? The Emergent Charter Definition Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1119-1139, August.
    9. Mark Ebers, 2017. "Organisationsmodelle für Innovation [Organizing for Innovation]," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 81-109, March.
    10. YoungKi Park & Paul A. Pavlou & Nilesh Saraf, 2020. "Configurations for Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity with Digitization," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1376-1397, December.
    11. Katsuki Aoki & Miriam Wilhelm, 2017. "The Role of Ambidexterity in Managing Buyer–Supplier Relationships: The Toyota Case," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 1080-1097, December.
    12. Gaim, Medhanie, 2018. "On the emergence and management of paradoxical tensions: The case of architectural firms," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 497-518.
    13. William G. Egelhoff, 2020. "How a Flexible Matrix Structure Could Create Ambidexterity at the Macro Level of Large, Complex Organizations Like MNCs," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 459-484, June.
    14. Lysander Weiss & Dominik Kanbach, 2022. "Toward an integrated framework of corporate venturing for organizational ambidexterity as a dynamic capability," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 1129-1170, December.
    15. Beniamino Callegari & Ranvir S. Rai, 2021. "Blending in: A Case Study of Transitional Ambidexterity in the Financial Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    16. Vahlne, Jan-Erik & Jonsson, Anna, 2017. "Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 57-70.
    17. Martin Owusu Ansah & Nicholas Addai-Boamah & Abeeku Bylon Bamfo & Lucy Afeafa Ry-Kottoh, 2022. "Organizational ambidexterity and financial performance in the banking industry: evidence from a developing economy," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(3), pages 250-263, September.
    18. Päivi Karhu & Paavo Ritala, 2020. "The multiple faces of tension: dualities in decision-making," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 485-518, June.
    19. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    20. Hu, Jing & Wang, Yilin & Liu, Shengnan & Song, Mingshun, 2023. "Mechanism of latecomer enterprises’ technological catch-up in technical standards alliances – An ambidextrous innovation perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    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:jorgde:v:7:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s41469-018-0030-9. 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.