IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v21y2010i3p593-608.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fostering Team Innovation: Why Is It Important to Combine Opposing Action Strategies?

Author

Listed:
  • Diether Gebert

    (Department of Management, Korea University Business School, Anam-dong Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 136-701, Republic of Korea)

  • Sabine Boerner

    (Universität Konstanz, Lehrstuhl für Management, insb. Strategie und Führung, 78457 Konstanz, Germany)

  • Eric Kearney

    (Jacobs University Bremen, Jacobs Center on Lifelong Learning and Institutional Development, 28725 Bremen, Germany)

Abstract

We develop a framework that provides a general theoretical rationale for the claim made by several authors that combining opposing action strategies fosters team innovation. We distinguish between open and closed strategies and posit that these are opposing but complementary in that each fosters one of two processes necessary for team innovation: open action strategies (e.g., delegative leadership) promote knowledge generation, and closed action strategies (e.g., directive leadership) enhance knowledge integration. We argue that each pole of a pair of opposing action strategies both energizes and detracts from elements of innovation. Thus, it could be expected that combining opposing action strategies leads to an impasse, as the negative effects of each strategy might offset the positive effects of the opposite strategy. There is currently no viable explanation in the literature for why this mutual neutralization may not occur. We aim to fill this gap by explicating why and how opposing action strategies, when implemented simultaneously, do not countervail each other's positive effects, but rather yield positive synergies that fuel team innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Diether Gebert & Sabine Boerner & Eric Kearney, 2010. "Fostering Team Innovation: Why Is It Important to Combine Opposing Action Strategies?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 593-608, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:21:y:2010:i:3:p:593-608
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0485
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0485
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1090.0485?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. Kane, Aimee A. & Argote, Linda & Levine, John M., 2005. "Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 56-71, January.
    2. Henrik Bresman, 2010. "External Learning Activities and Team Performance: A Multimethod Field Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 81-96, February.
    3. Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    4. Laura B. Cardinal, 2001. "Technological Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Use of Organizational Control in Managing Research and Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 19-36, February.
    5. Deborah Dougherty, 2001. "Reimagining the Differentiation and Integration of Work for Sustained Product Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(5), pages 612-631, October.
    6. Mohammed, Susan & Ringseis, Erika, 2001. "Cognitive Diversity and Consensus in Group Decision Making: The Role of Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 310-335, July.
    7. Gerardo A. Okhuysen & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2002. "Integrating Knowledge in Groups: How Formal Interventions Enable Flexibility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 370-386, August.
    8. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    9. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    10. Argote, Linda & Ingram, Paul, 2000. "Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 150-169, May.
    11. Ann C. Mooney & Patricia J. Holahan & Allen C. Amason, 2007. "Don't Take It Personally: Exploring Cognitive Conflict as a Mediator of Affective Conflict," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(5), pages 733-758, July.
    12. Ruth Wageman, 2001. "How Leaders Foster Self-Managing Team Effectiveness: Design Choices Versus Hands-on Coaching," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(5), pages 559-577, October.
    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. Zhi Yang & Xuemin Zhou & Pengcheng Zhang, 2015. "Discipline versus passion: Collectivism, centralization, and ambidextrous innovation," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 745-769, September.
    2. Aimée A. Kane, 2010. "Unlocking Knowledge Transfer Potential: Knowledge Demonstrability and Superordinate Social Identity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 643-660, June.
    3. Bedford, David S. & Bisbe, Josep & Sweeney, Breda, 2019. "Performance measurement systems as generators of cognitive conflict in ambidextrous firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 21-37.
    4. Justin J. P. Jansen & Gerard George & Frans A. J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2008. "Senior Team Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 982-1007, July.
    5. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    6. Sébastien Brion & Caroline Mothe & Maréva Sabatier, 2010. "The Impact Of Organisational Context And Competences On Innovation Ambidexterity," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(02), pages 151-178.
    7. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    8. Karl Aschenbrücker & Tobias Kretschmer, 2022. "Performance-based incentives and innovative activity in small firms: evidence from German manufacturing," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(2), pages 47-64, June.
    9. Sébastien Brion & Caroline Mothe, 2016. "Organizational context and innovation ambidexterity: Is creativity the missing link?," Post-Print hal-01419039, HAL.
    10. Keupp, Marcus Matthias & Gassmann, Oliver, 2013. "Resource constraints as triggers of radical innovation: Longitudinal evidence from the manufacturing sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1457-1468.
    11. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    12. Sabyasachi Sinha, 2015. "The Exploration–Exploitation Dilemma: A Review in the Context of Managing Growth of New Ventures," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 40(3), pages 313-323, September.
    13. Yi Liu & Wenqian Li & Yuan Li, 2020. "Ambidexterity between low cost strategy and CSR strategy: contingencies of competition and regulation," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 633-660, September.
    14. Guiyang Zhang & Chaoying Tang & Yong Qi, 2020. "Alliance Network Diversity and Innovation Ambidexterity: The Differential Roles of Industrial Diversity, Geographical Diversity, and Functional Diversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, February.
    15. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    16. Jiewei Zu & Jianan Wang & Jun Ma, 2022. "Ambidexterity in a Rapidly Changing Environment of China: Top Management Team Decision Making and Sustained Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, March.
    17. Brion, Sébastien & Mothe, Caroline & Sabatier, Mareva, 2007. "What impacts more on innovation : Organizational context or individual competences ?," MPRA Paper 10595, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Koryak, Oksana & Lockett, Andy & Hayton, James & Nicolaou, Nicos & Mole, Kevin, 2018. "Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 413-427.
    19. Ranjay Gulati & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies Between Formal and Informal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 422-440, April.
    20. Oana Buliga & Christian W. Scheiner & Kai-Ingo Voigt, 2016. "Business model innovation and organizational resilience: towards an integrated conceptual framework," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(6), pages 647-670, 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:21:y:2010:i:3:p:593-608. 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.