A System of Contradictory Goals and Realization of Ambidexterity: A Case Study of a Municipal Corporation

References

• Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency: A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organic Sciences, 10, 43–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahn, J.-H., Lee, D. J., & Lee, S. Y. (2006). Balancing business performance and knowledge performance of new product development lessons from ITS industry. Long Range Planning, 39, 525–542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, T. J., & Nielsen, B. B. (2007). The effective ambidextrous organization: A model of integrative strategy making processes. Center for Strategic Management and Globalization, Copenhagen Business School, Working Paper.
   Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boumgarden, P., Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. (2012). Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 587–610.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the differences? Journal of Management Studies, 39, 97–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. M., Boal, K. B., & Rainey, H. G. (2008, December). Strategic orientation and ambidextrous public organizations. InConference Paper, Organisational Strategy, Structure and Process: A Reflection on the Research Perspective of Raymond Miles and Charles Snow, Cardiff University (pp. 3–5).
   Google Scholar
• Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2(3), 239–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, K. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32, 539–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A. (1981). Perceptions of organizational effectiveness over organizational life cycles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 525–544.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (pp. 128–152). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2008). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 495–522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 109–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Killman, L. R. Pondy, & D. Sleven (Eds.), The management of organization (vol. 1, pp. 167–188). New York: North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, M. S. (2005). Management and public management. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 958–960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floyd, S., & Lane, P. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25, 154–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Follett, M. P. (1940). The meaning of responsibility in business management. In Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, R. E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 93–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gavett, G. (2013). Don’t blame Apple for America’s broken tax code. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved March 2015 from https://hbr.org/2013/05/the-us-corporate-tax-code-is-b.
   Google Scholar
• Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. (1995). Building the entrepreneurial corporation: New organizational processes, new managerial tasks. European Management Journal,, 13(2), 139–155.
   Google Scholar
• Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1997). The individualized corporation: A fundamentally new approach to management. New York, USA: Harper Business.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. (2001, April). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelman, S. (2005). Public management needs help! Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 967–969.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lachman, R. (1985). Public and private sector differences: CEOs’ perceptions of their role environments. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 671–680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The Myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112. Special Issue: Organizations, Decision Making and Strategy (Winter).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luscher, L., & Lewis, M. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 221–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organic Sciences, 2(1), 71–87. Special Issue: Organizational Learning: Papers in Honor of (and by) James G. March.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonough, E. F. III, & Leifer, R. (1983). Using simultaneous structures to cope with uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 727–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H., & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 160–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP). (2006). New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. 22p. Retrieved October 27, 2018 from http://moud.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/TransportPolicy(2).pdf
   Google Scholar
• Negandhi, A. R. (1975, June). Comparative management and organization theory: A marriage needed. Academy of Management Journal, 18(2), 334–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, April, 82(4), 74–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public–private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 539–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing conflict in organizations. New York, USA: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Rainey, H. G. (2003). Public management: Old and new. Introduction. In Handbook of public administration (11-13). London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009, July–August). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organic Sciences, 20(4), 685–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2003). Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science, 49(3), 290–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sankhe, S., Vittal, I., Dobbs, R., Mohan, A., Gulati, A., Ablett, J., … Shethy, G. (2010). India’s urban awakening: Building inclusive cities, sustaining economic growth. USA: McKinsey and Company, McKinsey Global Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organic Sciences, 16(5), 522–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spender, J. C., & Grinyer, P. H. (1996). Organizational renewal: Deinstitutionalization and loosely coupled systems. International Studies of Management & Organization, 26(1), 17–40.
   Google Scholar
• Stake, R. E., & Savolainen, R. (1995). The art of case study research (vol. 95004979). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20(4), 718–739.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations: The effect of organizational characteristics on interdepartmental knowledge sharing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17.4, 581–606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research Applied Social research Methods Series (vol. 5, 4th ed.). New Delhi: Sage.
   Google Scholar