Search results

This paper aims to address how organizational routines paradoxically affect the process of organizational innovation based on a new construct of routines or to investigate the coexistence of both hindering and promoting effects from routines and their differentiated affecting paths.

This paper adopts an interpretive and exploratory case study on the business model innovation of Yimu Technology Company Limited (Yimu Tech) from product standardization to customization. Considering that this innovation reflects a successful down-up rather than traditional up-down innovation, this paper focuses on it to explore how the most micro routines affect the whole process of innovation. Almost two years were spent in collecting data from Yimu Tech and in following the innovation through approaches of semi-structured interviews, archival data and observation; the data were analyzed through a five-step process before a framework showing the paradoxical effects was finally set up.

This research specifies the construct of organizational routines and promotes a five-dimensional concept covering the organizational, collective and individual levels of an organization. It confirms the interaction between the performative and ostensive aspects of routines, by showing that the ostensive aspect may not only guide tasks performing but also allow multiple changes, and the performative aspect may affect the ostensive aspect through the down-up or up-down path. Also, it finds that routines may paradoxically affect all three phases of innovation, with a strong up-down hindering effect but a weak down-up promoting effect in the preparation phase, a strong down-up promoting effect but a weak hindering effect in the emergence phase and both significant effects in the consolidation phase.

This research is constrained by several limitations. The set up framework of routines and their paradoxical effects on innovation need a further confirmation in more contexts or organizations; more elements should be considered in exploring the evolution of routines and their effects on innovations; little attention has been paid to the relationship between these two types of effects, conflicting with each other, joining together or working independently.

The findings offered some valuable insights for further research on organizational routines and organizational innovation and hold important implications for management practices. This research enriched the two-aspect view of routines by constructing a five-dimensional framework; further research studies on routine dynamics by showing the interaction between the performative and ostensive aspects can contribute to the study on effects of organizational routines on innovations by showing how routines promote and hinder innovation simultaneously throughout the whole process. It reminds managers of the strong power from the microlevel of an organization in innovation.

This paper aims to address how an organization's multiple-dominant-logic system evolves as it grows and how does this evolution affect the way managers choose to balance ambidextrous innovation.

This paper adopts an interpretive and exploratory case study on the mechanism of how the multiple-dominant-logic system influences the decision of balanced ambidextrous innovation. Considering that the multiple-dominant-logic system will change with the development of a firm, this paper focuses on exploring how the evolution of multiple-dominant-logic system affects the way managers choose to balance ambidextrous innovation. The authors spent almost two years collecting data from M-grass Ecology and following the evolution and innovation through semi-structured interviews, archival data and observation. Then they set up a framework showing the influence mechanism by analyzing the data through a four-step process.

This research points out that an organization's multiple-dominant-logic system may change for several times in its growth. It provides a model for the evolution of a multiple-dominant-logic system. It confirms that firms' multiple-dominant-logic system is not immutable, but evolves with the change of the firm's internal resources and external environment. Also, it finds that under the influence of different multiple-dominant-logic architectures, mangers choose different ways to balance ambidextrous innovation. In this process, appropriate entrepreneurial bricolage plays a significant role in balancing ambidextrous innovation.

The findings offer some valuable insights for further research on dominant logics and ambidextrous innovation and hold important implications for managers making a decision.

The traditional dualism view regards stability and change as opposites and separate, two essential but largely incompatible and mutually exclusive elements in an organization, and it advocates contingency theories to handle the paradox situation; more recent research has adopted the paradoxical lens to highlight both the contradiction and the interdependence between the two elements. This paper aims to address how an organization pursues stability and change simultaneously, i.e., how stability and change contradictorily enable each other to promote the development of an organization.

By adopting a case study on the strategic and structural change of Signcomplex in China, this paper attempts to explore the paradoxical relationship between stability and change, especially their interdependence. Multiple approaches were used during data collection to meet the criteria for trustworthiness, and the data analysis went through a five-step process. Through this analysis, the main mechanisms of stability and change were identified. An analysis was also conducted on how these stable and variable mechanisms enable each other, and finally, a framework was set up to show this paradoxical relationship.

The results confirm the paradox of stability and change: stability enables change by supplying security and consistency, offering reserved knowledge and skills and enabling commitment and the provision of resources for a better realization of the change. Change enables a firm to set up a new state of stability through variable mechanisms such as trial-and-error and exploration activities. The results also indicate that the nature of organizational change is to help an organization reach a new stable stage with higher efficiency and that organizational development relies on the paradoxical effects of both stability and change.

This research is constrained by several limitations. The findings need to be further confirmed through the investigation of more organizations; other stable mechanisms, such as habits, tight coupling, commitments, control and low variance, and variable mechanisms, such as search, mindfulness, redundancy and openness, should be considered. As an organization may experience many cross-level or cross-department changes which struggle with each other for resources and with stable mechanisms, to explore the paradox, future research may need to conduct a more in-depth examination of the system of change.

The findings offer some valuable insights for further research and hold important implications for management practices, especially management practices in a Chinese context. The findings extend the existing paradox theory by further revealing how stability and change enable each other and offer a paradoxical perspective to look into the nature of organizational change and organizational development. The results remind managers to rethink the relationship between stability and change, to factor these coexisting concepts into their decision-making and to accept, understand and use this paradoxical relationship to realize synergistic effects for the firm.