According to Michael Tushman and Charles O’Reilly (‘Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change’, 1996, in De Wit & Meyer, 2010, Reading 4.3), what is the pattern by which RCA and Seiko evolve?
Periods of incremental change punctuated by discontinuous or revolutionary change
Long periods of incremental changes
Long periods of environmental shifts punctuated by revolutionary changes
Long periods of innovation followed by inertia.
According to Tushman and O’Reilly. (‘Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change’, 1996, in De Wit & Meyer, 2010, Reading 4.3), judge whether the following statements are true or false:
I Revolutionary change is required when, as organizations change their strategy, they must also realign their organizations to accomplish the new strategic objectives. II Technology cycles are critical in understanding revolutionary change and its necessity.
Both statements are true
Statement I is true, statement II is false
Statement I is false, statement II is true
Both statements are false.
In Tushman and O’Reilly’s article (‘Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change’, 1996, in De Wit & Meyer, 2010, Reading 4.3), a firm’s performance problems, or long-term success, is associated with ‘congruence’ – which can also be a managerial trap. How is congruence defined?
It is the interdependence of structures, systems, procedures and processes
It is the process of making revolutionary changes
It is the process of making incremental changes, and only incremental changes
It is the internal consistency in, and increasing alignment of, strategy, structure, culture, and people.
According to Tushman and O’Reilly (‘Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change’, 1996, in De Wit & Meyer, 2010, Reading 4.3), what is the ambidextrous organization approach?
Organizations do not need to recognize, in their structure, the different natures of innovations involved
The capacity of organizations to pursue two types of innovation separately: the incremental innovation and the architectural, or discontinuous, innovation
Managers should foster a corporate culture that emphasizes stability more than change
The units are completely independent from the organizational structure and the senior-team.
Tushman and O’Reilly (‘Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change’, 1996, in De Wit & Meyer, 2010, Reading 4.3) define the ‘success syndrome’ as:
A resistance to change, rooted in the organization’s structures, systems, procedures and processes
A managerial trap: short-term corporate success, based on innovation, often increases the chances of long-term failure and inertia
Making small incremental changes and lead revolutionary changes
The complacency and arrogance of successful organizations.
According to Tushman and O’Reilly (‘Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change’, 1996, in De Wit & Meyer, 2010, Reading 4.3), why is ambidextrous leadership important?
In ambidextrous organizations, decision-making is very centralized
Ambidextrous leadership keeps a close control on units and prevents their autonomy
The senior-team ensures that the organization does not change continuously
The senior-team integration holds alignments together, avoids complacency, reinforces core values and common vision, and embodies the culture.