Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry

dc.contributor.authorChams-Anturi, Odettespa
dc.contributor.authorMoreno-Luzón, María D.spa
dc.contributor.authorROMANO, Pietrospa
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-12T17:50:25Z
dc.date.available2021-03-12T17:50:25Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11323/7999spa
dc.description.abstractThis article investigates the influence of specific key organizational factors (i.e., enabling formalization, coercive formalization, and trust) as antecedents of ambidexterity. Moreover, we propose a new way of operationalizing ambidexterity, under a holistic vision, including the synergies between exploration and exploitation. The study has been developed in the Spanish organic agro-food industry; a total of 239 usable responses were received from two respondents from each company—the general manager and the quality manager. The findings show that enabling formalization and organizational trust are positively related to ambidexterity, but contrary to our predictions, we found no evidence to show that coercive formalization is related to ambidexterity. In turn, we found different results for trust as a moderating factor on the types of formalization and ambidexterity.spa
dc.description.abstractThis article investigates the influence of specific key organizational factors (i.e., enabling formalization, coercive formalization, and trust) as antecedents of ambidexterity. Moreover, we propose a new way of operationalizing ambidexterity, under a holistic vision, including the synergies between exploration and exploitation. The study has been developed in the Spanish organic agro-food industry; a total of 239 usable responses were received from two respondents from each company—the general manager and the quality manager. The findings show that enabling formalization and organizational trust are positively related to ambidexterity, but contrary to our predictions, we found no evidence to show that coercive formalization is related to ambidexterity. In turn, we found different results for trust as a moderating factor on the types of formalization and ambidexterity.spa
dc.format.extent22 páginasspa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherCorporación Universidad de la Costaspa
dc.rightsCC0 1.0 Universalspa
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/spa
dc.sourceBRQ Business Research Quarterlyspa
dc.titleThe role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industryspa
dc.typeArtículo de revistaspa
dc.source.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85092917899&doi=10.1177%2f2340944420966331&origin=inward&txGid=b16ca7d50c2213be17b1dce4e5506b20spa
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420966331spa
dc.identifier.eissn2340-9444spa
dc.identifier.instnameCorporación Universidad de la Costaspa
dc.identifier.pissn2340-9436spa
dc.identifier.reponameREDICUC - Repositorio CUCspa
dc.identifier.repourlhttps://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/spa
dc.relation.referencesAdler, P., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61–89.spa
dc.relation.referencesAdler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43–68.spa
dc.relation.referencesAdler, P., & Heckscher, C. (2013). The collaborative, ambidextrous enterprise. Universia Business Review, 40, 34–51.spa
dc.relation.referencesAhrens, T., & Chapman, C. (2004). Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: A field study of management control systems in a restaurant chain. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21, 271–301.spa
dc.relation.referencesAltuntas, S., & Baykal, U. (2010). Relationship between nurses’ organizational trust levels and their organizational citizenship behaviours. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42, 186–194spa
dc.relation.referencesAmbrosini, V., Bowman, C., & Collier, N. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: An exploration of how firms renew their resource base. British Journal of Management, 20, S9–S24.spa
dc.relation.referencesAndriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696–717.spa
dc.relation.referencesArmstrong, J., & Overton, T. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.spa
dc.relation.referencesArranz, N., & Arroyabe, J. (2012). Effect of formal contracts, relational norms and trust on performance of joint research and development projects. British Journal of Management, 23, 575–588.spa
dc.relation.referencesBagozzi, R., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–434.spa
dc.relation.referencesBirkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Riasch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California Management Review, 58, 36–58.spa
dc.relation.referencesBlome, C., Schoenherr, T., & Kaesser, M. (2013). Ambidextrous governance in supply chains: The impact on innovation and cost performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49, 59–80.spa
dc.relation.referencesBurns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock Institute.spa
dc.relation.referencesCameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organisational culture. Addison-Wesleyspa
dc.relation.referencesCao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20, 781–796.spa
dc.relation.referencesCegarra-Navarro, J. (2007). Linking exploration with exploitation through relationship memory. Journal of Small Business Management, 45, 333–353spa
dc.relation.referencesChams-Anturi, O., Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Escorcia-Caballero, J. P. (2019). Linking organizational trust and performance through ambidexterity. Personnel Review, 49, 956–973.spa
dc.relation.referencesChang, Y. (2015). Strategic human resource management, transformational leadership organizational ambidexterity: Evidence from Taiwan. Asia Pacific Business Review, 21, 517–533.spa
dc.relation.referencesChang, Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30, 1–17.spa
dc.relation.referencesConnelly, C., & Kelloway, K. (2002). Predictions of knowledge sharing in Bangladesh [Master’s thesis]. Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University.spa
dc.relation.referencesDamanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.spa
dc.relation.referencesDe Clercq, D., Dimov, D., & Thongpapanl, N. (2013). Organizational social capital, formalization, and internal knowledge sharing in entrepreneurial orientation formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 505–537.spa
dc.relation.referencesDe Jong, B., Dirks, K., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1134–1150.spa
dc.relation.referencesDe Visser, M., De Weerd-Nederhof, P., Faems, D., Song, M., Van Looy, B., & Visscher, K. (2010). Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: A firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on innovation performance. Technovation, 30, 291–299.spa
dc.relation.referencesDiaz-Fernandez, M., Pasamar-Reyes, S., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2017). Human capital and human resource management to achieve ambidextrous learning: A structural perspective. Business Research Quarterly, 20, 63–67spa
dc.relation.referencesDiPaola, M., & Hoy, W. (2001). Formalization, conflict, and change: Constructive and destructive consequences in schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 15, 238–244.spa
dc.relation.referencesDolz, C., Iborra, M., & Safón, V. (2019). Improving the likelihood of SME survival during financial and economic crises: The importance of TMTs and family ownership for ambidexterity. Business Research Quarterly, 22, 119–136.spa
dc.relation.referencesDonaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. SAGE.spa
dc.relation.referencesDu, J., & Williams, C. (2017). Innovative projects between MNE subsidiaries and local partners in China: Exploring locations and inter-organizational trust. Journal of International Management, 23, 16–31.spa
dc.relation.referencesDuncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization (Vol. 1, pp. 167–188). North-Holland.spa
dc.relation.referencesDyer, J., & Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, 14, 57–68.spa
dc.relation.referencesEisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.spa
dc.relation.referencesEnkel, E., Heil, S., Hengstler, M., & Wirth, H. (2016). Exploratory and exploitative innovation: To what extent do the dimensions of individual level absorptive capacity contribute? Technovation, 60–61, 29–38.spa
dc.relation.referencesEva, N., Prajogo, D., & Cooper, B. (2017). The relationship between personal values, organizational formalization and employee work outcomes of compliance and innovation. International Journal of Manpower, 38, 274–287.spa
dc.relation.referencesFainshmidt, S., & Frazier, M. (2017). What facilitates dynamic capabilities? The role of organizational climate for trust. Long Range Planning, 50, 550–566.spa
dc.relation.referencesFloyd, S., & Lane, P. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25, 154–177.spa
dc.relation.referencesFornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50spa
dc.relation.referencesFryxell, G., Dooley, R., & Vryza, M. (2002). After the ink dries: The interaction of trust and control in US-based international joint ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 865–886.spa
dc.relation.referencesGabler, C., Ogilvie, J., Rapp, A., & Bachrach, D. (2017). Is there a dark side of ambidexterity? Implications of dueling sales and service orientations. Journal of Service Research, 20, 379–392.spa
dc.relation.referencesGhoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 91–112spa
dc.relation.referencesGibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.spa
dc.relation.referencesGieske, H., Duijn, M., & Van Buuren, A. (2020). Ambidextrous practices in public service organizations: Innovation and optimization tensions in Dutch water authorities. Public Management Review, 22, 341–363.spa
dc.relation.referencesGilson, L., & Shalley, C. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30, 453–470spa
dc.relation.referencesGouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Free Press.spa
dc.relation.referencesGschwantner, S., & Hiebl, M. (2016). Management control systems and organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Control, 27, 371–404spa
dc.relation.referencesGuinot, J., Chiva, R., & Mallén, F. (2014). Organizational trust and performance: Is organizational learning capability a missing link? Journal of Management and Organization, 19, 559–582.spa
dc.relation.referencesGupta, A., Smith, K., & Shalley, C. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706.spa
dc.relation.referencesHair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson New International Editionspa
dc.relation.referencesHartline, M., Maxham, J., & McKee, D. (2000). Corridors of influence in the dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees. Journal of Marketing, 64, 35–50.spa
dc.relation.referencesHe, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494spa
dc.relation.referencesHe, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494spa
dc.relation.referencesHouse, R., & Rizzo, J. (1972). Toward the measurement of organizational practices: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 388–396spa
dc.relation.referencesHoy, W., & Sweetland, S. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 296–321.spa
dc.relation.referencesHsu, C., Lien, Y., & Chen, H. (2013). International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 48, 58–67.spa
dc.relation.referencesHu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55spa
dc.relation.referencesJansen, J., Tempelaar, M., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 797–811.spa
dc.relation.referencesJansen, J., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661–1674spa
dc.relation.referencesJohari, J., & Yahya, K. (2009). Linking organizational structure, job characteristics, and job performance construct: A proposed framework. International Journal of Business and Management, 43, 145–152spa
dc.relation.referencesJunni, P., Sarala, R., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299–312.spa
dc.relation.referencesunni, P., Sarala, R., Tarba, S., Liu, Y., & Cooper, C. (2015). Guest editors’ introduction: The role of human resources and organizational factors in ambidexterity. Human Resource Management, 54, s1–s28.spa
dc.relation.referencesKammerlander, N., Burger, D., Fust, A., & Fueglistaller, U. (2015). Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized enterprises: The effect of CEOs’ regulatory focus. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 582–602.spa
dc.relation.referencesKast, F., & Rosenweig, J. (1972). General system theory: Applications for organization and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15, 447–468.spa
dc.relation.referencesKatila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194.spa
dc.relation.referencesKatz, D., & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. John Wiley.spa
dc.relation.referencesKauppila, O. (2015). Alliance management capability and firm performance: Using resource-based theory to look inside the process black box. Long Range Planning, 48, 151–167.spa
dc.relation.referencesKidron, A., Tzafrir, S., & Meshoulam, I. (2016). All we need is trust: Trust and human resource management. Team Performance Management, 22, 139–155.spa
dc.relation.referencesLau, C., & Tan, S. (2006). The effects of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust on job tension in budgeting. Management Accounting Research, 17, 171–186spa
dc.relation.referencesLee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 179–228.spa
dc.relation.referencesLee, K., Woo, H., & Joshi, K. (2017). Pro-innovation culture, ambidexterity and new product development performance: Polynomial regression and response surface analysis. European Management Journal, 35, 249–260.spa
dc.relation.referencesLee, S., & Rha, J. (2016). Ambidextrous supply chain as a dynamic capability: Building a resilient supply chain. Management Decision, 54, 2–23.spa
dc.relation.referencesLevinthal, D., & March, J. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.spa
dc.relation.referencesLi, C. (2013). How top management team diversity fosters organizational ambidexterity: The role of social capital among top executives. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26, 874–896.spa
dc.relation.referencesLi, Y., & Huang, J. (2012). Ambidexterity’s mediating impact on product development proficiency and new product performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 1125–1132.spa
dc.relation.referencesLubatkin, M., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 1–27.spa
dc.relation.referencesLumineau, F. (2017). How contracts influence trust and distrust. Journal of Management, 43, 1553–1577.spa
dc.relation.referencesMalik, A., Singh, P., & Chan, C. (2017). High potential programs and employee outcomes: The roles of organizational trust and employee attributions. Career Development International, 22, 772–796.spa
dc.relation.referencesMarch, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.spa
dc.relation.referencesMarri, M., Soo, H., & Ali, H. (2020). Structural ambidexterity: Exploring alternative pro-ambidexterity conducive structural designs for recourse-constrained organizations. Archives of Business Research, 7, 307–320.spa
dc.relation.referencesMayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.spa
dc.relation.referencesMcEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, 91–103.spa
dc.relation.referencesMedcof, J., & Song, L. (2013). Exploration, exploitation and human resource management practices in cooperative and entrepreneurial HR configurations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 2911–2926.spa
dc.relation.referencesMessersmith, J., & Guthrie, J. (2010). High performance work systems in emergent organizations: Implications for firm performance. Human Resource Management, 49, 241–264.spa
dc.relation.referencesMom, T., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2009). Understanding Variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 812–828.spa
dc.relation.referencesMoreno-Luzon, M. D. (2017). Chapter 35: Innovation and ambidexterity. In E. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity invention innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 298–305). Springer.spa
dc.relation.referencesMoreno-Luzon, M. D., Gil-Marques, M., & Chams-Anturi, O. (2018). Quality and Innovation in the organic agro-food sector: Threats and opportunities of social and managerial innovation. In M. Peris-Ortiz, J. Gómez, & P. Marquez (Eds.), Strategies and best practices in social innovation (pp. 47–64). Springer.spa
dc.relation.referencesMoreno-Luzon, M. D., & Lloria-Aramburo, M. (2008). The role of non-structural and informal mechanisms of integration and coordination as forces in knowledge creation. British Journal of Management, 19, 250–276.spa
dc.relation.referencesMoreno-Luzon, M. D., & Valls Pasola, J. (2011). Ambidexterity and total quality management: Towards a research agenda. Management Decision, 49, 927–947.spa
dc.relation.referencesNielsen, B., & Gudergan, S. (2012). Exploration and exploitation fit and performance in international strategic alliances. International Business Review, 21, 558–574spa
dc.relation.referencesNunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGrawHill.spa
dc.relation.referencesO’Leary-Kelly, S., & Vokurka, R. (1998). The empirical assessment of construct validity. Journal of Operations Management, 16, 387–405spa
dc.relation.referencesO’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–83.spa
dc.relation.referencesO’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.spa
dc.relation.referencesO’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 324–338.spa
dc.relation.referencesOxford Advanced Dictionary. (2020). Synergy. https://www. oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/ synergy?q=synergiesspa
dc.relation.referencesPapachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2015). Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Building a novel research agenda. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51, 71–93spa
dc.relation.referencesPatel, P., Messersmith, J., & Lepak, D. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1420–1442.spa
dc.relation.referencesPavlou, P., & El Sawy, O. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences, 42, 239–273.spa
dc.relation.referencesPertusa-Ortega, E., & Molina-Azorín, J. (2018). A joint analysis of determinants and performance consequences of ambidexterity. Business Research Quarterly, 21, 84–98.spa
dc.relation.referencesPertusa-Ortega, E., Zaragoza-Sáez, P., & Claver-Cortés, E. (2010). Can formalization, complexity, and centralization influence knowledge performance? Journal of Business Research, 63, 310–320spa
dc.relation.referencesPodsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.spa
dc.relation.referencesProdescon. (2017). Definition and evaluation of strategies to enhance the capacity for dialogue and structuring of the organic production sector in Spain (pp. 1–224). Government of Spain, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environmentspa
dc.relation.referencesPuranam, P., & Vanneste, B. (2009). Trust and governance: Untangling a tangled web. Academy of Management Review, 34, 11–31.spa
dc.relation.referencesRaisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.spa
dc.relation.referencesRaisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695.spa
dc.relation.referencesRao-Nicholson, R., Khan, Z., Akhtar, P., & Tar, S. (2020). The contingent role of distributed leadership in the relationship between HR practices and organizational ambidexterity in the cross-border M&As of emerging market multinationals. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31, 232–253.spa
dc.relation.referencesRosenkopf, L., & McGrath, P. (2011). Advancing the conceptualization and operationalization of novelty in organizational research. Organization Science, 22, 1297–1311.spa
dc.relation.referencesRosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: The duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 694–709.spa
dc.relation.referencesRothaermel, F., & Alexandre, M. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20, 759–780.spa
dc.relation.referencesSchweitzer, J., & Gudergan, S. (2011). Contractual complexity, governance and organisational form in alliances. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 2, 26–40.spa
dc.relation.referencesShahzadi, K., & Khurram, S. (2020). Self-efficacy and innovative work behavior: The role of individual ambidexterity and formalization at work place in Pakistan. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, 57, 31–46.spa
dc.relation.referencesSimsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 597–624.spa
dc.relation.referencesSimsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864–894.spa
dc.relation.referencesSmith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403.spa
dc.relation.referencesSmith, W., & Tushman, M. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.spa
dc.relation.referencesSouza, C., & Takahashi, A. (2019). Dynamic capabilities, organizational learning and ambidexterity in a higher education institution. The Learning Organization, 26, 397–411spa
dc.relation.referencesTabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.spa
dc.relation.referencesTeece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.spa
dc.relation.referencesThompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill.spa
dc.relation.referencesTushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8–29.spa
dc.relation.referencesVahlne, J., & Jonsson, A. (2017). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA. International Business Review, 26, 57–70.spa
dc.relation.referencesVan der Valk, W., Sumo, R., Dul, J., & Schroeder, R. (2016). When are contracts and trust necessary for innovation in buyer-supplier relationships? A necessary condition analysis. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 22, 266–277.spa
dc.relation.referencesWalrave, B., Romme, A., Van Oorschot, K., & Langerak, F. (2017). Managerial attention to exploitation versus exploration: Toward a dynamic perspective on ambidexterity. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26, 1145–1160.spa
dc.relation.referencesWalumbwa, F., & Hartnell, C. (2011). Understanding transformational leadership-employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 153–172.spa
dc.relation.referencesWang, Y. (2016). Environmental dynamism, trust and dynamic capabilities of family businesses. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22, 643–670spa
dc.relation.referencesYalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R., & Griffith, D. (2007). An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities:Implications for product innovation and market performance. Journal of International Marketing, 15, 63–93spa
dc.relation.referencesYang, Z., Zhou, C., & Jiang, L. (2011). When do formal control and trust matter? A context-based analysis of the effects on marketing channel relationships in China. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 86–96.spa
dc.relation.referencesZander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6, 76–92.spa
dc.relation.referencesZhang, F., Wei, L., Yang, J., & Zhu, L. (2018). Roles of relationships between large shareholders and managers in radical innovation: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35, 88–105.spa
dc.subject.proposalAmbidexterityeng
dc.subject.proposalFormalizationspa
dc.subject.proposalOrganizational trustspa
dc.subject.proposalOrganic agro-food industryspa
dc.title.translatedEl papel de la formalización y la confianza organizacional como antecedentes de ambidestreza: una investigación sobre la industria agroalimentaria orgánicaspa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501spa
dc.type.contentTextspa
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlespa
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTspa
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionspa
dc.relation.citationendpage22spa
dc.relation.citationstartpage1spa
dc.relation.citationissue3spa
dc.relation.citationvolume25spa
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aaspa
dc.rights.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2spa


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre:
The role of formalization and.pdf
Tamaño:
609.1Kb
Formato:
PDF
Ver/
Thumbnail
Nombre:
license_rdf
Tamaño:
701bytes
Formato:
application/rdf+xml
Ver/

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

  • Artículos científicos [3148]
    Artículos de investigación publicados por miembros de la comunidad universitaria.

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

CC0 1.0 Universal
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como CC0 1.0 Universal