نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی - کاربردی

نویسندگان

1 گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران.

2 گروه مدیریت ورزشی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران.

10.22105/imos.2023.385776.1262

چکیده

هدف: هدف از این پژوهش تحلیل تاثیر تمایز ساختاری و روابط بین سازمانی بر دوسوتوانی سازمانی با تاکید بر نقش میانجی محتوای سازمانی به‌منظور افزایش عملکرد سازمانی می‌باشد.
روش‌شناسی پژوهش: پژوهش حاضر از ‌‌نظر‌ هدف کاربردی و ازنظر ماهیت و روش، توصیفی-پیمایشی است. جامعه آماری این پژوهش را تعداد 250 نفر از کارکنان اداره کل ورزش و جوانان استان ایلام را شامل می‌شود که با استفاده از فرمول کوکران 150 نفر انتخاب شدند. ابزار گردآوری داده‏‌ها، پرسش‌نامه‌های استانداری است که در این زمینه وجود دارند. روایی و پایایی پرسش‌نامه‌ها نیز حاکی از آن هستند که ابزارهای اندازه‏‌گیری از روایی و پایایی خوبی برخوردار هستند.
یافته‌ها: نتایج حاصل از آزمون فرضیات توسط نرم‌افزار SMART-PLs 3.8 و با استفاده از آماره آزمون t و ضرایب مسیر (β)، نشان داد که تمایز ساختاری بر بستر سازمانی و دوسوتوانی سازمان به ترتیب دارای اثر مستقیم، معنادار و متوسط، اثر مستقیم و غیرمستقیم و معنادار و متوسط می‌­باشد. هم‌چنین روابط بین سازمانی بر بستر سازمانی و دوسوتوانی سازمانی سازمان به ترتیب دارای اثر مستقیم، معنادار و متوسط، اثر مستقیم و غیرمستقیم و معنادار و متوسط می‌­باشد. هم‌چنین بستر سازمانی بر دوسوتوانی سازمانی اثر مستقیم، معنادار و متوسط و نهایتا دوسوتوانی سازمانی بر عملکرد سازمانی اثر مستقیم، معنادار و متوسط دارد. در آخر نیز، نقش میانجی بستر به تایید رسید.
اصالت/ارزش افزوده علمی: بر‌اساس نتایج، مدیران و تصمیم‌گیرندگان اداره مذبور، به‌منظور افزایش عملکرد سازمانی­شان می‌­توانند به نقش دوستوانی سازمانی توجه کنند؛ البته در این میان بایستی بتوانند به نقش مستقیم و غیرمستقیم متغیرهای هم‌چون تمایز ساختاری و روابط بین سازمانی و هم‌چنین بستر سازمانی توجه کنند. این متغیرها خواهند توانست اثر معناداری بر دوسوتوانی سازمانی به‌منظور افزایش عملکرد سازمانی داشته باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Analyzing the effect of structural differentiation and inter-organizational relations on organizational ambidexterity with an emphasis on the mediating role of organizational platform in order to increase organizational performance (case study: general directorate of sports and youth of Ilam province)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Peyman Akbari 1
  • Ali Karimi 2
  • Ibrahim Aeini 1

1 Department of Public Management, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Sport Management, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Purpose: The purpose of this research is to analyze the effect of structural differentiation and inter-organizational relations on organizational ambidexterity, emphasizing the mediating role of organizational content in order to increase organizational performance.
Methodology: The current research is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-survey in terms of nature and method. The statistical population of this research includes 250 employees of the general department of sports and youth of Ilam province. 150 people were selected using Cochran's formula. The data collection tool is the governor's questionnaires that exist in this field. The validity and reliability of the questionnaires also indicate that the measurement tools have good validity and reliability.
Findings: The results of hypothesis testing by SMART-PLS 3.8 software and using t-test statistics and path coefficients (β) showed that the structural differentiation on the organizational content and organizational ambidexterity has a direct, significant and medium effect, respectively; the direct and indirect effect is significant and average. Also, inter-organizational relations have a direct, significant, and moderate effect on the organizational content and organizational ambidexterity, respectively; the direct and indirect effect is significant and moderate. Also, the organizational content has a direct, significant and moderate effect on organizational ambidexterity, and finally, organizational ambidexterity has a direct, significant and moderate effect on organizational performance. Finally, the mediating role of organizational content was confirmed.
Originality/Value: Based on the results, the managers and decision makers of the said office can pay attention to the role of organizational ambidexterity in order to increase its organizational performance, of course, they should be able to directly and indirectly consider the role of variables such as structural differentiation, inter-organizational & organizational content pay attention. Why these variables can have a significant effect on organizational ambidexterity in order to increase organizational performance.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Differentiation
  • Inter-organizational relations
  • Organizational organizational platform
  • Organizational ambidexterity
  • Organizational performance
[1]   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. DOI:10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
[2]   March, J. G. (2021). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Studi organizzativi, 2(2), 71–87.
[3]   Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2015). Organizational design correlates of entrepreneurship: the roles of decentralization and formalization for opportunity discovery and realization. Strategic organization, 13(1), 32–60. DOI:10.1177/1476127014561944
[4]   Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: a comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms. British journal of management, 25(1), 58–76. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00832.x
[5]   Wilden, R., Hohberger, J., Devinney, T. M., & Lavie, D. (2018). Revisiting James March (1991): whither exploration and exploitation? Strategic organization, 16(3), 352–369. DOI:10.1177/1476127018765031
[6]   Wu, Y., & Wu, S. (2016). Managing ambidexterity in creative industries: a survey. Journal of business research, 69(7), 2388–2396. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.008
[7]   Fang, C., Lee, J., & Schilling, M. A. (2010). Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: the isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization science, 21(3), 625–642.
[8]   Zahra, S. A., Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2009). How do threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards and absorptive capacity. Journal of business venturing, 24(3), 248–260.
[9]   Güttel, W. H., Konlechner, S. W., & Trede, J. K. (2015). Standardized individuality versus individualized standardization: the role of the context in structurally ambidextrous organizations. Review of managerial science, 9, 261–284.
[10]   Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management journal, 47(2), 209–226. DOI:10.2307/20159573
[11]   Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: the dimensions of quality of management. Strategic management journal, 15(2 S), 91–112. DOI:10.1002/smj.4250151007
[12]   Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Walking the tightrope: an assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management journal, 56(5), 1420–1442. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0255
[13]   Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058
[14]   Lavie, D., Kang, J., & Rosenkopf, L. (2011). Balance within and across domains: the performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organization science, 22(6), 1517–1538.
[15]   Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a path through the forest: a meta-review of interorganizational relationships. Journal of management, 37(4), 1108–1136. DOI:10.1177/0149206311407507
[16]   Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic organization, 8(4), 283–312.
[17]   Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of management studies, 45(5), 982–1007. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00775.x
[18]   Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization science, 20(4), 797–811.
[19]   Mom, T. J. M., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization science, 20(4), 812–828. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0427
[20]   O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future. Academy of management perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
[21]   Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
[22]   Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of management review, 32(3), 774–786. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275513
[23]   Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: a review and research agenda. International journal of management reviews, 15(3), 317–332.
[24]   Martini, A., Neirotti, P., & Aloini, D. (2015). Finding the way to ambidexterity: exploring the relationships among organisational design, knowledge creation and innovation. International journal of innovation management, 19(4), 1550045. DOI:10.1142/S1363919615500450
[25]   Geerts, A., Blindenbach-Driessen, F., & Gemmel, P. (2010). Achieving a balance between exploration and exploitation in service firms: a longitudinal study. Academy of management proceedings, 2010(1), 1–6.
[26]   Hughes, M., Martin, S. L., Morgan, R. E., & Robson, M. J. (2010). Realizing product-market advantage in high-technology international new ventures: the mediating role of ambidextrous innovation. Journal of international marketing, 18(4), 1–21.
[27]   Lin, H. E., McDonough III, E. F., Lin, S. J., & Lin, C. Y. Y. (2013). Managing the exploitation/exploration paradox: the role of a learning capability and innovation ambidexterity. Journal of product innovation management, 30(2), 262–278. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00998.x
[28]   Ebben, J. J., & Johnson, A. C. (2005). Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic management journal, 26(13), 1249–1259.
[29]   Hwang, B. N., Lai, Y. P., & Wang, C. (2023). Open innovation and organizational ambidexterity. European journal of innovation management, 26(3), 862–884.
[30]   Latukha, M., Michailova, S., Selivanovskikh, L., & Kozachuk, T. (2022). Talent management, organizational ambidexterity, and firm performance: evidence from Russian firms. Thunderbird international business review, 64(5), 379–392.
[31]   Khattak, S. R., Fayaz, M., Rahman, S. U., & Ullah, A. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity, organizational learning capacity, and market orientation: apossible indicators of organizational performance. Ilkogretim online, 20(4), 1953-1961.
[32]   Venugopal, A., Krishnan, T. N., Upadhyayula, R. S., & Kumar, M. (2020). Finding the microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity-demystifying the role of top management behavioural integration. Journal of business research, 106, 1–11. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.049
[33]   Úbeda-García, M., Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., & Zaragoza-Sáez, P. (2020). Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations. Journal of business research, 112, 363–372.
[34]   Du, J., & Chen, Z. (2018). Applying organizational ambidexterity in strategic management under a “VUCA” environment: evidence from high tech companies in China. International journal of innovation studies, 2(1), 42–52. DOI:10.1016/j.ijis.2018.03.003
[35]   Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. (2018). Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: the contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization science, 29(3), 449–470. DOI:10.1287/orsc.2017.1189
[36]   Bocanet, A., & Ponsiglione, C. (2012). Balancing exploration and exploitation in complex environments. Vine, 42(1), 15–35. DOI:10.1108/03055721211207743
[37]   Bozorgpour Motlagh, H. (2021). Background factors and performance impact of using e-commerce (case study: knowledge-based companies in Tehran). Management and entrepreneurship studies, 35, 466–478. (In Persian). https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/1772665/
[38]   Zakari, M., Rahimian, M., Nosrati, M. (2021). Investigating the effect of organizational factors on performance with emphasis on the mediating role of dual power and the moderating role of environmental dynamics. Journal of development of management and human resources and support, 16(61), 57–82.
[39]   Nik Menesh, S., Rezazadeh, A., & Aqli, M. (2019). Relationship between organizational forecasting and organizational performance with the mediating role of dual power and moderating role of environmental dynamics. Journal resource management in police, 8(4), 219–254.
[40]   Jahansir Khodaroudi, F., Azar, A., & Karimi, T. (2020). Decision- making on dimensions of ambidexterity using an agent-based modeling approach. Modern research in decision making, 5(4), 1–18.
[41]   Musa Khani, M., Elwani, S.M., Mahmoudzadeh, E, & Alidadi Talkhestani, Y. (2019). Effective factors on ambidextrous social capital. Management studies in development and evolution, 28(92), 35–64.
[42]   Ebrahimpour, M., Moradi, M., & Mambini, Y. (2014). Effect of organizational ambidexterity on the manufacturing industries performance: investigation the role of environmental dynamics. Quarterly journal of Iranian management sciences association, 9(36), 53–76.
[43]   Abzari, M., Ranjbarian, B., Fathi, S., & Ghorbani, H. (2009). The effect of internal marketing on market orientation and organizational performance in hotel industry. Journal business managment perspective, 8(31), 25-42 (In Persian). https://www.sid.ir/paper/115555/en
[44]   Kauppila, O. P. (2015). Alliance management capability and firm performance: using resource-based theory to look inside the process black box. Long range planning, 48(3), 151–167.
[45]   Prieto, I. M., & Pilar Pérez Santana, M. (2012). Building ambidexterity: the role of human resource practices in the performance of firms from Spain. Human resource management, 51(2), 189–211. DOI:10.1002/hrm.21463
[46]   Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS quarterly: management information systems, 22(1), 7–16.
[47]   Davari, A., & Rezazadeh, A. (2014). Structural equation modeling with PLS software. Academic jihad publishing organization. (In Persian).  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264519454_Structural_Equation_Modeling_with_PLS
[48]   Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 19(2), 139–152.
[49]   Tenenhaus, M., Amato, S., & Vinzi, E. V. (2004). A global goodness-of-fit index for PLS structural equation modelling. The xlii sis scientific meeting. Proceedings of the XLII SIS scientific meeting (Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 739-742). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michel-Tenenhaus-2/publication/284462849_A_global_goodness-of-fit_index_for_PLS_structural_equation_modelling/links/5658334908aeafc2aac2895f/A-global-goodness-of-fit-index-for-PLS-structural-equation-modelling.pdf