Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Even though the growing ambidexterity literature has delivered useful insights, this theme has been researched largely in static and a-contextual terms, without adequate attention to how an organization’s history and context can shape its present. In this article, we employ NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) as an in-depth case study to trace how its historical trajectory has shaped its current propensity to be ambidextrous. Our study reveals organizational ambidexterity as a path-dependent, contingent process rather than something necessarily achievable via the more generic prescriptions of structural, temporal, or contextual ambidexterity models.

Keywords

organizational ambidexterity historical embeddedness organizational context

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abell

D. F.

(1999). Competing today while preparing for tomorrow. Sloan Management Review, Spring, 73-81.

Adler

P. S.

Goldoftas

Levine

D. I.

(1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43-68.

Augustine

N. R.

Austin

W. M.

Chyba

Kennel

C. F.

Bejmuk

B. I.

Crawley

E. F.

. . . Ride

S. K.

(2009). Seeking a human spaceflight program worthy of a great nation. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Bearden

D. A.

(2003). A complexity-based risk assessment of low-cost planetary missions: When is a mission too fast and too cheap? Acta Astronautica, 52, 371-379.

Benner

M. J.

Tushman

M. L.

(2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238-256.

Birkinshaw

Gibson

(2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45, 47-55.

Boin

Schulman

(2008). Assessing NASA’s safety culture: The limits and possibilities of high-reliability theory. Public Administration Review, 68, 1050-1062.

Brown-John

C. L

. 1976. Defining regulatory agencies for analytical purposes. Canadian Public Administration, 19, 140-157.

Bryson

J. M.

Crosby

B. C.

Stone

M. M

. 2015. Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75, 647-663.

10.

Bruggeman

(2002). NASA: A path dependent organization. Technology in Society, 24, 415-431.

11.

Bugos

G. E.

Boyd

J. W.

(2008). Accelerating entrepreneurial space: The case for an NACA-style organization. Space Policy, 24, 140-147.

12.

Cameron

(1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32, 539-553.

13.

Clash

J. M

. 2012. Apollo 11 flight director Gene Krantz explains how to park on the moon. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/apollo-11-anniversary_b_1684083

14.

Conley

R. S.

Cobb

W. W.

(2012). Presidential vision or congressional derision? Explaining budgeting outcomes for NASA, 1958-2008. Congress & the Presidency, 39, 51-73.

15.

Corbin

J. M.

Strauss

A. L.

(2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Core Magazine. (2016, September 1). NASA’s new space race. Retrieved from http://www.wbs.ac.uk/news/core-nasa-s-new-space-race/

17.

de Jong

Higgins

D. M.

van Driel

. (2015). Towards a new business history? Business History, 57, 5-29.

18.

Donahue

A. K.

O’Leary

(2012). Do shocks change organizations? The case of NASA. Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory, 22, 395-425.

19.

Duncan

(1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In Killman

R. H.

Pondy

L. R.

Sleven

(Eds.), The management of organization design: Strategies and implementation (pp. 167-188). New York, NY: Elsevier.

20.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.

21.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

Graebner

M. E.

(2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25-32.

22.

Fossestol

Breit

Andreassen

T. A.

Klemsdal

. 2015. Managing institutional complexity in public sector reform: Hybridization in front-line service organizations. Public Administration, 93, 290-306.

23.

Gallup. (2009). Majority of Americans say space program costs justified. Retrieved from www.gallup.com/poll/121736/majority-americans-say-space-program-costs-justified.aspx

24.

Garner

J. T.

(2006). Masters of the universe? Resource dependency and interorganizational power relationships at NASA. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 368-385.

25.

Gibbert

Ruigrok

Wicki

(2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1465-1474.

26.

Gibson

C. B.

Birkinshaw

(2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209-226.

27.

Gonzalez

(2010). Ambidextrous organizations: The power of AND [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://blogs.nasa.gov/JSC_Advanced_Planning_Office_Blog/2010/03/28/post_1269804306882/

28.

Hall

J. L.

(2003). Columbia and challenger: Organizational failure at NASA. Space Policy, 19, 239-247.

29.

Han

J. K.

Kim

H. B.

(2001). Entry barriers: A dull-, one-, or two-edged sword for incumbents? Unraveling the paradox from a contingency perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65, 1-14.

30.

Heracleous

(2013). Quantum strategy at Apple Inc. Organizational Dynamics, 42, 92-99.

31.

Rai

(2008). Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Science, 54, 1281-1296.

32.

Jansen

J. J. P.

George

Van den Bosch

F. A. J.

Volberda

H. W.

(2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 982-1007.

33.

Jick

T. D.

(1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.

34.

Johnson-Freese

Handberg

(1991). Realigning NASA’s destiny: The symbolic dimensions of spaceflight. Technology in Society, 13, 433-445.

35.

Junni

Sarala

R. M.

Taras

Tarba

S. Y.

(2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299-312.

36.

Kauppila

O.-P.

(2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8, 283-312.

37.

Kelman

Sanders

Pandit

. 2016. “I won’t back down”: Complexity and courage in government executive decision making. Public Administration Review, 76, 465-471.

38.

Kipping

Usdiken

(2014). History in organization and management theory: More than meets the eye. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 535-588.

39.

Lakhani

K. R.

Lifshitz-Assaf

Tushman

M. L.

(2013). Open innovation and organizational boundaries: Task decomposition, knowledge distribution and the locus of innovation. In Grandori

(Ed.), Handbook of economic organization: Integrating economic and organization theory (pp. 355-382). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

40.

Lambright

W. H.

(2007). Leading change at NASA: The case of Dan Goldin. Space Policy, 23, 33-43.

41.

Lappegaard

. 1956. A look at some administrative problems. Public Administration Review, 16, 179-186.

42.

Lavie

Stettner

Tushman

M. L.

(2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 109-155.

43.

Levine

A. L.

(1992). NASA’s organizational structure: The price of decentralization. Public Administration Review, 52, 198-203.

44.

Levine

A. S.

(1982). Managing NASA in the Apollo era. Retrieved from http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4102/sp4102.htm

45.

Levinthal

D. A.

March

J. G

. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95-112.

46.

Lewis

M. W.

(2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760-777.

47.

March

J. G.

(1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87.

48.

Marquis

TilcsiK

. 2013. Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory. Academy of Management Annals, 7, 193-243.

49.

McCurdy

H. E.

(1989). The decay of NASA’s technical culture. Space Policy, 5, 301-310.

50.

McCurdy

H. E.

(1992). NASA’s organizational culture. Public Administration Review, 52, 189-192.

51.

McCurdy

H. E.

(1993). Inside NASA: High technology and organizational change in the U.S. space program. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

52.

McCurdy

H. E.

(2001). Faster, better, cheaper: low-cost innovation in the U.S. space program. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

53.

McCurdy

H. E.

(2010). Inside NASA at 50. In Dick

S. J.

(Ed.), NASA’s first 50 years: Historical perspectives (NASA SP-2010-4704). Retrieved from https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4704.pdf

54.

McCurdy

H. E.

(2013). Learning from history: Low-cost project innovation in the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 705-711.

55.

NASA. (n.d.). Workforce Information Cubes for NASA. Retrieved from https://wicn.nssc.nasa.gov/wicn_cubes.html

56.

NASA. (2013). Mars climate orbiter fact sheet. Retrieved from http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/orbiter/fact.html

57.

NASA History Program Office. (n.d.). Chapter 1: NACA origins (1915-1930). Retrieved from http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4406/chap1.html

58.

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended). Retrieved from http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/spaceact.html

59.

National Research Council. (2012). NASA’s strategic direction and the need for a national consensus. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

60.

Ochoa

(2012, May 1). Presentation to NASA Advisory Council, Commercial Space Committee. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Ochoa_NACCommercialSpaceMay2012_508.pdf

61.

O’Reilly

Tushman

M. L

. 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4): 74-81.

62.

O’Reilly

C. A.

Tushman

M. L.

(2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 324-338.

63.

Papachroni

Heracleous

Paroutis

(2015). Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Building a novel research agenda. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51, 71-93.

64.

Pelton

J. N.

(2006). Revitalizing NASA? A five-point plan. Space Policy, 22, 221-225.

65.

Pinchefsky

(2012). 5 horrifying facts you didn’t know about the space shuttle. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/04/18/5-horrifying-facts-you-didnt-know-about-the-space-shuttle/

66.

Portee

D. S. F.

(1998). NASA’s origins and the dawn of the space age (Monograph 10). Retrieved from http://history.nasa.gov/monograph10/

67.

President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy. (2004). A journey to inspire, innovate, and discover. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

68.

Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. (1986). Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. Retrieved fromhttp://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm

69.

Raisch

Birkinshaw

(2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375-409.

70.

Raisch

Birkinshaw

Probst

Tushman

M. L.

(2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685-695.

71.

Reay

Hinings

C. R.

(2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30, 629-652.

72.

Riccaboni

Moliterni

(2009). Managing technological transitions through R&D alliances. R&D Management, 39, 124-135.

73.

Romanelli

Tushman

M. L.

(1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1141-1666.

74.

Sarsfield

(1998). The cosmos on a shoestring: Small spacecraft for space and earth science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, Critical Technologies Institute.

75.

Schein

E. H.

(1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.

76.

Sheremata

W. A.

(2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of Management Review, 25, 389-408.

77.

Siggelkow

Levinthal

D. A.

(2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14, 650-669.

78.

Simsek

Heavey

Veiga

J. F.

Souder

(2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864-894.

79.

Space Foundation. (2012). Pioneering: Sustaining U.S. leadership in space. Retrieved from https://www.spacefoundation.org/news/space-foundation-releases-recommendations-sustaining-us-leadership-space

80.

Space Foundation. (2014). The space report: The authoritative guide to global space activity. Retrieved from https://www.spacefoundation.org/news/space-report-2014-now-available-provides-definitive-perspective-2013-global-space-industry

81.

Space Foundation. (2016). Ensuring U.S. leadership in space. Retrieved from https://www.spacefoundation.org/what-we-do/research-and-analysis/white-papers/ensuring-us-leadership-space

82.

Stadler

Rajwani

Karaba

(2014). Solutions to the exploration/exploitation dilemma: Networks as a new level of analysis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 172-193.

83.

Sydow

Schreyogg

Koch

. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34, 689-709.

84.

Tiwana

(2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 251-272.

85.

Tompkins

P. K.

(2005). Apollo, Challenger, Columbia: The decline of the space program. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

86.

Turner

Swart

Maylor

(2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 317-332.

87.

Tushman

M. L.

O’Reilly

(1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8-30.

88.

Tushman

M. L.

Smith

W. K.

Binns

(2011). The ambidextrous CEO. Harvard Business Review, June, 74-80.

89.

Vaughan

(1996). The Challenger launch decision. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.

90.

Yin

R. K.

(2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.; Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ambidexterity as Historically Embedded Process: Evidence From NASA,1958 to 2016

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References