Hybrid Strategy and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Individual and Technological Ambidexterity

It is discussed whether hybrid strategies are beneficial or detrimental to a firm’s performance, because hybrid strategies lead to organizational tensions that arise from the simultaneous pursuit of distinct strategic activities. However, existing studies on the relationship between hybrid strategy and firm performance have largely neglected the role of the organizational architecture. This study tests the hypothesis that an ambidextrous organizational architecture positively moderates the relationship between a hybrid strategy and firm performance. Particularly, the roles of specific organization structures and HRM practices (individual ambidexterity) and information and communication technologies (technological ambidexterity) are assessed. Further, a hybrid strategy’s performance impact is defined in two distinct ways and measured relative to three different comparison groups, that is, the entire sample, no-emphasis strategies, and pure strategies. A novel multi-source dataset on German and Polish manufacturing firms is constructed from three independent sources, including a dataset on objective firm performance indicators. Evidence is found that a hybrid strategy positively impacts firm performance in the presence of organizational ambidexterity, but negatively impacts firm performance in the absence of organizational ambidexterity. These findings are robust across two types of organizational ambidexterity, three different comparison groups, and further robustness tests

Hybrid Strategy and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Individual and Technological Ambidexterity

It is discussed whether hybrid strategies are beneficial or detrimental to a firm’s performance, because hybrid strategies lead to organizational tensions that arise from the simultaneous pursuit of distinct strategic activities. However, existing studies on the relationship between hybrid strategy and firm performance have largely neglected the role of the organizational architecture. This study tests the hypothesis that an ambidextrous organizational architecture positively moderates the relationship between a hybrid strategy and firm performance. Particularly, the roles of specific organization structures and HRM practices (individual ambidexterity) and information and communication technologies (technological ambidexterity) are assessed. Further, a hybrid strategy’s performance impact is defined in two distinct ways and measured relative to three different comparison groups, that is, the entire sample, no-emphasis strategies, and pure strategies. A novel multi-source dataset on German and Polish manufacturing firms is constructed from three independent sources, including a dataset on objective firm performance indicators. Evidence is found that a hybrid strategy positively impacts firm performance in the presence of organizational ambidexterity, but negatively impacts firm performance in the absence of organizational ambidexterity. These findings are robust across two types of organizational ambidexterity, three different comparison groups, and further robustness tests.exploration; exploitation; ambidexterity; hybrid strategy; organizational architecture; firm performance

Complementarities between IT and Organizational Structure: The Role of Corporate Exploration and Exploitation

The decentralization of organizational decision authority has been shown to be complementary to Information Technology (IT) in prior research. We draw from the information processing view of organizations, the IT and de/centralization debate, and organizational learning theory to argue that IT payoffs can also be improved by greater centralization of decision authority, contingent on a firm’s corporate learning type. We argue that an exploratory learning type is best pursued with a decentralized organization design, while an exploitative learning type requires a centralized organization design. We hypothesize that under corporate exploration, IT payoffs are enhanced through greater decentralization, whereas under corporate exploitation, returns to IT are improved by greater centralization. Our study uses a novel multi‐source panel on the IT capital, the degree of de/centralization, and the performance of almost 260 German manufacturing firms. We estimate production functions to assess the contribution of combning IT with de/centralization to firmlevel productivity under different corporate learning types. Our results strongly support our hypotheses and hold up to a variety of robustness tests