Knowledge Exchange and Organizational Ambidexterity in Manufacturing Companies in Lagos
Keywords:
Knowledge Exchange, Exploration, Exploitation, Organizational AmbidexterityAbstract
This paper presents an empirical relationship between knowledge exchange and organizational ambidexterity of manufacturing companies in Lagos. The study adopted the cross-sectional survey research method and a quantitative methodology in its analysis of the distribution and relationship between the variables within the specified context of the study The study engaged data generated from 88 workers at the managerial and supervisory level of the selected banks and both descriptive and inferential statistical methods were adopted in the assessment of the manifestations and relationship between the variables. Organizational ambidexterity was measured using two measures namely exploration and exploitation. A total of 2 null hypotheses were postulated in this study The null hypotheses were tested using the Spearman‘s rank order correlation coefficient at a 95% confidence interval. Based on the evidence presented by the analysis, both null hypotheses of the study were rejected as the statistical evidence suggests that knowledge sharing significantly impacts on organizational ambidexterity measures: exploration and exploitation. Based on the findings it was recommended that Knowledge sharing processes should be consistent, transparent, and offer support for cohesiveness and the integration of all units and levels within the organization.
References
2. Burt RS. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1992. 3. Davenport TH, Prusak L. Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Massachusetts, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. 1998.
4. Duncan RB. The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In Kilmann RH, Pondy LR, Slevin DP (Eds.), The management of organization design: strategies and implementation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland Publishing Company. 1997; 1: 167-188.
5. Duncan RB. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In Kilniann RH, Pondy LR, Slevin. (eds.), The management of organization design: Strategies and implementation. New York: North Holland: 1976; 167-188.
6. Gibson C, Birkinshaw J. The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal 2004; 4 7(2) 209-226.
7. Green SD. The dark side of lean construction: exploitation and ideology. In Proceedings IGLC, 7,21. Citeseer. 1999.
8. Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal 2006; 49(2): 693-706.
9. Hansen MT, Podolny JM, Pfeffer J. So many ties, so little time: A task contingency perspective on the value of corporate social capital in organizations. In Cook KS & Hagan J (Eds.). Research in the sociolo of organizations 2006; 18(4): 21-57. Greenwich CT: JAI Press.
10. Hari S, Egbu C, Kumar B. A knowledge capture awareness tool: An empirical study on small and medium enterprises in the Construction Industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural management 2005; 12(6). 11. Jansen JJP, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal 2005; 48(6): 999-1015.
12. Jarvis CB, Mackenzie SB, Podsakoff PM. A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 2003; 30(2): 199-218.
13. Jaworski B, Kohli AK. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing 1993; 57(3): 53-70.
14. Kyriakopoulos K, Moorman C. Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: the overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing 1994; 21(3): 219-240.
15. March JG. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science 1991; 2(1): 71-87. 16. Okpu T, Kpakol AG. Managing employee trust perceptions for sustained workplace hamiony in the Nigerian banking industry. International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research 2015; 3(5): 65.
17. O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML. Ambidextenty as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behaviour 2008; 28: 185-206.
18. Riege A. Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs. Journal of Knowledge Management 2007; 11(1): 48-67.
19. Sekaran U. Research methods for business. John Wiley and Sons New York.
20. Sidhu JS, Commandeur H, Volberda HW. Themultifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science 2007; 18: 20-38.
21. Siggelkow N, Levinthal OA. Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science 2003; 14(6): 650-669.
22. Spector MJ, Davidsen PI. How can organizational learning be modelled and measured? Evaluation and Program Planning 2006; 29(2): 63-69.
23. Taylor A, Helfat CB. Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management and ambidexterity. Organization Science 2009; 20(7): 718-739.
24. Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA. Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. 2002.
