Can organisational ambidexterity kill innovation? A case for non-expected utility decision making

Mario Le Glatin (), Pascal Le Masson () and Benoit Weil ()
Additional contact information
Mario Le Glatin: CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Pascal Le Masson: CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Benoit Weil: CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: The academic construction of ambidexterity articulated around notions such as exploration, exploitation (J. March 1991) has been flourishing over the years with a strong background in organisational theory to explain levels of performance and innovation. However, they have also made a call for in-depth studies to understand managerial capabilities such as decision-making (Birkinshaw & Gupta 2013; O'Reilly & Tushman 2013; Benner & Tushman 2015) supporting the tension of competing objectives. In this paper, we show that organisational ambidexterity can kill innovation as the underlying decision theories are not fully supporting the nature of decision required in regimes such as contextual ambidexterity (Gibson & Birkinshaw 2004). Two case studies from the aircraft cabin equipment industry are presented and analysed at the project management level with descriptors from organisational ambidexterity and decision-making. We propose to consider unconventional decision theories, taking into account non-expected utilities such as potential regret of imagined prospects, as a means to support management tools enabling ambidexterity at the decisional and contextual levels. First, we show that common decision models based on expected utility encoded in management tools mobilised for contextual ambidexterity can fail to support innovation. Second, we propose that a non-expected utility, such as potential regret of imagined prospects, serves the management of competing exploration/exploitation objectives. Third, the case studies help contouring a management tool extending observed attempts to sustain or extend contextual ambidexterity through unconventional decision-making.

Keywords: decision; project management; design; ambidexterity; management tool (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018-06-19
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ino, nep-ppm, nep-sbm and nep-upt
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01808566v1
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Published in EURAM - European Academy of Management - 2018 Conference, Jun 2018, Reykjyavik, Iceland

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.science/hal-01808566v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01808566

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().