Risco e Ambidestria Organizacional: Uma Meta-Síntese dos Estudos de Caso e Proposta de um Framework

Organizational ambidexterity arises as an organization’s ability to employefforts on contradictory goals, such as exploration and exploitation for longtermsuccess and long-lasting performance. In addition, the organization facesrisks inherent in the management of its administrative capacity. However...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BBR Brazilian business review (Portuguese ed.) 2019-09, Vol.16 (5), p.470-499
Hauptverfasser: Severgnini, Elizandra, Takahashi, Adriana Roseli Wünsch, Abib, Gustavo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Organizational ambidexterity arises as an organization’s ability to employefforts on contradictory goals, such as exploration and exploitation for longtermsuccess and long-lasting performance. In addition, the organization facesrisks inherent in the management of its administrative capacity. However,to date, we did not find a systematic qualitative-research review on riskand organizational ambidexterity. This paper fills this gap by systematicallyreviewing existing qualitative case studies on risk and organizationalambidexterity published in peer-reviewed journals. To fulfill this objective,we used a meta-synthesis of qualitative synthesis case studies in order toidentify possible cause and effect relationships between the constructs andto propose a theoretical model. The results showed that risk and uncertaintyinfluence the way the organization invests resources in exploration or inexploitation. Second, the findings indicated that risk moderates the directeffect of exploration and exploitation on performance and on decisionmaking, amplifying or reducing their effects. Third, the framework suggeststhat risk has a direct effect on organizational performance, reducing it, orinfluencing strategic decision-making (ranging from intuitive to rationaldecision).
ISSN:1807-734X
DOI:10.15728/bbr.2019.16.5.4