Journal Article
| Journal of Operations Management
|
April 2009
Perspectives on the Productivity Dilemma
by
Paul S. Adler, Mary Benner, David James Brunner, John Paul MacDuffie, Emi Osono, Bradley R. Staats, Hirotaka Takeuchi, Michael Tushman and Sidney G. Winter
For more than a century, operations researchers have recognized that organizations can increase efficiency by adhering strictly to proven process templates, thereby rendering operations more stable and predictable. For several decades, researchers have also recognized that these efficiency gains can impose heavy costs. The capabilities that enable consistent execution can also hinder learning and innovation, leaving organizations rigid and inflexible. By optimizing their processes for efficiency in the short term, organizations become brittle. In the “Productivity Dilemma”, Abernathy conjectured that short-term efficiency and long-term adaptability are inherently incompatible. Organization theorists have conceptualized Abernathy's dilemma as the challenge of balancing exploitation and exploration. Exploitation leverages existing knowledge and capabilities, resulting in stable and efficient performance. Exploration creates new knowledge, enabling organizations to innovate and adapt to changing conditions. Enduring organizational performance requires ambidexterity, the ability to sustain both exploration and exploitation. Various techniques have been proposed for achieving ambidexterity, such as differentiated exploratory subunits and meta-routines that modify underlying processes. Ambidexterity requires operational processes that combine high levels of efficiency with the flexibility to evolve and improve over time. Thus, the perspectives of operations management are essential to understanding the mechanics of ambidexterity. Moreover, theories of ambidexterity raise important questions for operations management. This article synthesizes several recent perspectives on the dynamics of ambidexterity and the productivity dilemma.
Adler, Paul S., Mary Benner, David James Brunner, John Paul MacDuffie, Emi Osono, Bradley R. Staats, Hirotaka Takeuchi, Michael Tushman, and Sidney G. Winter. "Perspectives on the Productivity Dilemma." Journal of Operations Management 27, no. 2 (April 2009): 99–113.
Baker Foundation Professor, Paul R. Lawrence MBA Class of 1942 Professor of Business Administration, Emeritus, Charles B. (Tex) Thornton Chair of the Advanced Management Program
High-velocity change is the fundamental challenge facing companies today. Few companies, however, are prepared to continuously innovate--because they focus on the short-term and do not emphasize the wisdom needed to make sure that their interests are aligned with those of society.
Why do incumbent firms frequently reject nonincremental innovations? Beyond technical, structural, or economic factors, we propose an additional factor: the degree of the top management team's (TMT) frame flexibility, i.e., their capability to cognitively expand an innovation's categorical boundaries and to cast the innovation as emotionally resonant with the organization's identity, competencies, and competitive boundaries. We argue that inertial forces generally constrict how TMTs perceive innovations but that frame flexibility can overcome these constraints, increasing the likelihood of adoption and broadening the organization's innovation practices. We advance a theoretical model that relaxes the assumption that cognitive frames are static, showing how they become flexible via categorical positioning, and introduce a role for emotional frames that appeals to organizational members' sentiments and aspirations in innovation adoption.
Tushman, Michael L., and Kerry Herman. "The Atlanta Opera (B): New (and Old) Challenges." Harvard Business School Supplement 419-025, March 2019.
View Details
