Ambidestreza organizativa en filiales de sectores intensivos en conocimiento
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18046/j.estger.2020.157.3906Palabras clave:
ambidestreza, exploración de conocimiento, explotación de conocimiento, filiales, sectores intensivos en conocimientoResumen
En la sociedad del conocimiento, las multinacionales y, más específicamente, sus filiales adquieren gran protagonismo como fuente de competitividad para el conjunto de la multinacional. Bajo esta perspectiva, este artículo tiene un doble objetivo: (1) ofrecer una definición de filial ambidiestra y (2) explorar si las filiales son ambidiestras. Para ello se emplea una metodología cuantitativa sobre una muestra de 102 filiales españolas de multinacionales extranjeras de sectores intensivos en conocimiento. Los resultados muestran que las filiales analizadas son altamente exploradoras de conocimiento. Sin embargo, a pesar de la coherencia que existe entre los roles desempeñados y sus estrategias competitivas internacionales, no todas las filiales resultaron ser ambidiestras. Solo aquellas con roles de jugador integrado y estrategias “transnacionales” pueden considerarse como tales.
Descargas
Referencias
Almeida, P. (1996). Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: patent citation analysis in the U.S. semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17(winter special issue), 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171113
Amit, R. & Schoemaker, P.J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140105
Andriopoulos, C. & Lewis, M. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
Bandeira-de-Mello, R., Fleury, M. T. L., Aveline, C. E. S., & Gama, M. A. B. (2016). Unpacking the ambidexterity implementation process in the internationalization of emerging market multinationals. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2005-2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.146
Bartlett, C. & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Cambridge: Harvard School Press.
Birkinshaw, J. & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1306922
Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N. & Jonsson, S. (1998). Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: the role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 221-241. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199803)19:3<221::AID-SMJ948>3.0.CO;2-P
Bouzdine-Chameeva, T., Dupouët, O. & Lakshman, C. (2011). A process view on ambidexterity. Proceedings of the 8 th Conference ENEF, Strasbourg, September.
Buckley, P.J. & Carter, M.J. (2004). A formal analysis of knowledge combination in multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 371-384. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400095
Cantwell, J. & Mudambi, R. (2005). MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic management journal, 26(12), 1109- 1128. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.497
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. & Dewhurst, F. (2007). Linking organizational learning and customer capital through an ambidexterity context: an empirical investigation in SMEs. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1720-1735. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570882
Dillman, D.A. (2000), Mail, and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd edition). New York: John Wiley.
Eisenhardt, K. & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(special issue), 1105-1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
Foss, N. & Pedersen, T. (2002). Transferring knowledge in MNCs: the role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational context. Journal of International Management, 8(1), 49-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075-4253(01)00054-0
Frost, T., Birkinshaw, J. & Ensign, P. (2002). Centers of excellence in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 23(11), 997-1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.273
Frost, T.S. & Zhou, C. (2005). R&D co-practice and 'reverse' knowledge integration in multinational firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6), 676-687. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400168
Gupta, A. & Govindarajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 768-792. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279628
He, Z-L. & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S, Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D.J. & Winter, S.G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ho, Y. C. (2014). Multilateral knowledge transfer and multiple embeddedness. Multinational Business Review, 22(2), 155-175. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-04-2014-0010
Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15(1), 70-81. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0056
Huang, S., & Cantwell, J. (2017). FDI location choice: the role of locational ambidexterity. Multinational Business Review, 25(1), 28-51. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-04-2016-0016
Jansen, J.J., Tempelaar, M.P., Van den Bosch, F.A. & Volberda, H.W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797-811. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0415
Jensen, R. & Szulanski, G. (2004). Stickiness and the adaptation of organizational practices in cross-border knowledge transfer. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6), 508-523. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400107
Levinthal, D. & March, J. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(special issue), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009
March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Máynez-Guaderrama, A. I., Cavazos-Arroyo, J., & Nuño-De La Parra, J. P. (2012). La influencia de la cultura organizacional y la capacidad de absorción sobre la transferencia de conocimiento tácito intra-organizacional. Estudios Gerenciales, 28/(Edición Espcial), 191-211. https://doi.org/10.18046/j.estger.2012.1485
Morris, S., Snell, S. & Björkman, I. (2016). An architectural framework for global talent management. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(6), 723-747. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2015.25
O’Reilly, C.A. & Tushman, M.L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
O’Reilly, C.A. & Tushman, M.L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: how managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5
O'Reilly, C. A. & Tushman, M.L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2285704
Ode, E., & Ayavoo, R. (2020). The mediating role of knowledge application in the relationship between knowledge management practices and firm innovation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(3), 210-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.08.002
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-OECD. (2001). Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard: Towards a Knowledge-based Economy. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
Oh, C.H., Li, J. & Nguyen, Q. (2015). The subsidiaries of multinational enterprises operate regionally, not globally. Multinational Business Review, 23(4), 328-354. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-05-2015-0017
Oltra Comorera, V. (2012). La complejidad del conocimiento: retos para su eficaz creación y transferencia en la organización innovadora. Estudios Gerenciales, 28 (edición especial), 57-80. https://doi.org/10.18046/j.estger.2012.1479
Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303
Porter, M. (1986). Competition in global industries: a conceptual framework. In Porter, M. (Ed.), Competition in global industries (pp. 15-60). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Raisch, S. & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G. & Tushman, M. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685- 695. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
Reilly, M., & Sharkey Scott, P. (2010). A reconceptualisation of ambidexterity: How subsidiaries can use their capabilities and knowledge to build subsidiary bargaining power. Irish Academy of Management, Cork Institute of Technology Conference Paper, September.
Reilly, M., & Sharkey Scott, P. (2016). The ambidextrous subsidiary: Strategies for alignment, adaption and managing allegiances. Perspectives on Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationships in the Contemporary MNC. Research in Global Strategic Management, 17, 141- 164. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1064-485720160000017006
Rosenkopf, L. & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287-306. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.160
Rothaermel, F.T. & Alexandre, M.T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: the moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), 759-780. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0404
Rugman, A. M. & Verbeke, A. (2001). Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 237-250. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.153
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J.F. & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 864-894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.x
Spender, J.C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(special issue), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171106
Tushman, M.L. & O’Really, C.A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management, 38(4), 8-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
Vahlne, J. E., & Jonsson, A. (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, 26(1), 57-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.05.006
Wang, C.L. & Ahmed, P.K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Review, 9(1), 31-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00201.x
Zhang, F. & Cantwell, J. (2013). Regional and global technological knowledge search strategies and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations. Industry and Innovation, 20(7), 637- 660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150918817380
Zhang, F. & Jiang, G. (2013). Subsidiary non-localised search and MNC performance: the role of subsidiary intra-firm knowledge outflows. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 9(3), 212- 231. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTIP.2013.059653
Zhang, F., Jiang, G. & Cantwell, J. (2015). Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations. International Business Review, 24(2), 224-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.07.014
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Los autores de artículos serán responsables de los mismos, y por tal no comprometen los principios o políticas de la Universidad Icesi ni las del Comité Editorial de la revista Estudios Gerenciales. Los autores autorizan y aceptan la cesión de todos los derechos a la revista Estudios Gerenciales, tanto en su publicación impresa como electrónica. Luego de publicado el artículo, puede ser reproducido sin autorización, mencionando autor(es), título, año, volumen, número y rango de páginas de la publicación, y como fuente: Estudios Gerenciales (abstenerse de usar Revista Estudios Gerenciales).
Cómo citar
