The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation
Abstract
To create a competitive advantage, firms need to find activity configurations that are not only internally consistent, but also appropriate given the firm's current environment. This challenge is particularly acute after firms have experienced an environmental change that has shifted the existing competitive landscape and created new, high-performing sets of activity choices. How should firms organize to explore and search such an altered performance landscape? While it has been noted that adaptive entities need to maintain a balance of exploration and exploitation, little is known about how different organizational structures moderate this balance. With the help of an agentbased simulation model, we study the value of three different organizational structures: a centralized organization, in which decisions are made only at the level of the firm as a whole; a decentralized organization, in which decisions are made independently in two divisions; and a temporarily decentralized firm, which starts out with a decentralized structure and later reintegrates. We find that if interactions among a firm's activities are pervasive, neither the centralized nor the permanently decentralized organizational structure leads to high performance. In this case, temporary decentralization—an organizational structure that has not found much attention in the literature—yields the highest long-term performance. This organizational structure allows the firm both to avoid low-performing activity configurations and to eventually coordinate across its divisions. Thus, even if the decision problem a .rm faces is not fully decomposable, a temporary bifurcation can lead to a higher long-term performance outcome. Initial decentralized exploration is, however, costly in the short run, as compared to centralized exploration. As a result, a tradeoff exists between the short-term costs of decentralized exploration and the longterm benefits of reaching higher performance. As interactions across and within divisions increase, the optimal length of decentralized exploration tends to grow. Paralleling our first result, we further show that even if a decision problem is decomposable, that is, can be perfectly modularized, it can be beneficial to create a temporary decision allocation that creates "unnecessary" interdependencies across the subsystems. This benefit arises in particular when the modules are complex by themselves. In both cases, an initial phase of exploration, enabled by an appropriate organizational structure, followed by refinement and coordination, enabled by a different structure, leads to high performance. To illustrate our general model, we focus on incumbent firms' responses to the Internet and discuss implications for the product design process.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems
Holland, J. H. (1992) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1090.001.0001 · Cited by 47,340
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution
Kauffman, S. A. (1993) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195079517.001.0001 · Cited by 7,855
The origins of order; self organization and selection in evolution
Kauffman, S. A. (1994) · International Journal of Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0020-711x(94)90119-8 · Cited by 6,753
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535 · Cited by 6,669
Porter, M. E. (2000) · Cited by 5,798
Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41165852 · Cited by 4,959
The Architecture of Complexity
Simon, H. A. (1991) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0718-9_31 · Cited by 4,479
Social Structure and Organizations
Stinchcombe, A. L. (2004) · Advances in Strategic Management · doi:10.1016/s0742-3322(00)17019-6 · Cited by 4,347
The Structuring of Organizations
Mintzberg, H. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-20317-8_23 · Cited by 4,288
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Bartlett C. A., 1990, Managing the Global Firm
- David P. A., 1990, Amer. Econom. Rev., 80, 355
- Eisenhardt K. M., 1999, Harvard Bus. Rev., 77, 72
- Ethiraj S., Management Sci.
- Khermouch G., 2001, Bus. Week, 73, 42
- Milgrom P. R., 1990, Amer. Econom. Rev., 80, 511
- Porter M. E., 1996, Harvard Bus. Rev., 74, 61
- 10.2307/3069394 · DOI
- Simon H. A., 1962, Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc., 106, 467
- Thompson J. D., 1967, Organizations in Action
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2011.590299 · Cited by 3,519
The Interplay Between Exploration and Exploitation
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083026 · Cited by 3,239
Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206308316058 · Cited by 2,739
Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0025 · Cited by 2,580
Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002 · Cited by 2,431
Metadata
- Authors
- Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 650-669
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W4237645591
- Cited by
- 953
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 55
- FWCI
- 52.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organization Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Organizational Management and Leadership
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Keywords
- organizational structure, exploration and exploitation, organizational adaptation, environmental change, modularization, interdependence, incumbent firms, internet, product design process, agent-based modeling
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review