Contextual ambidexterity facing disruptive innovations: the case of a contact center
Keywords:Disruptive Innovation, Contextual Ambidexterity, Behavioral Context, Corporate Strategy, Organizational structure
Purpose: To analyze how the strategic responses of a mature business (Contact Center) led to the development of contextual ambidexterity in a disruptive innovation scenario.
Originality/Relevance: Organizational ambidexterity has been the subject of different studies, when the organization becomes able to balance strategic actions of different and conflicting natures with important advances, but there is room to discuss challenges and aspects related to contextual ambidexterity (Rainsch & Birkinshaw , 2008; Brun, 2016) in the Brazilian scenario.
Method: Qualitative approach and use of a single case study, data collection through semi-structured interviews, form and focus group with managers and work team participants, ensuring data triangulation. For analysis, a content analysis technique was used.
Results: The responsiveness to disruptive innovation increased and the level of consumer demand increased, there was also resistance to the changes undertaken that need to be better observed by managers. Contextual ambidexterity was developed with the construction of a high-performance behavioral context, with an unbalanced focus between performance and social support.
Conclusions: Despite the encouragement to create a high performance context, the company was not able to guarantee the organization's ability to contextual ambidexterity as a whole.
Aksin, Z., Armony, M., & Mehrotra, V. (2007). The Modern Call Center: A Multi- Disciplinary Perspective on Operations Management Research. Production and Operations Management, 16(6), p. 701–712.
Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de conteúdo. Ed. Revista e Ampliada. São Paulo: Almedina.
Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (2003). Pesquisa Qualitativa com Texto, Imagem e Som. Um Manual Prático. 2. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes.
Beckman, C. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), p. 741-758.
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. Mis Quarterly, 37(2), p. 471–482.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4).
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), p. 43–53.
Brun, E. C. (2016). Ambidexterity and ambiguity: the link between ambiguity management and contextual ambidexterity in innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 13(4).
Carvalho, R., Reis, A., Larieira, C., & Pinochet, L. (2021). Transformação digital: desafios na formação de um constructo e cenários para uma agenda de pesquisa. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 22(6), p. 1-15.
Christensen, C. M. (1992). Exploring the limits of the technology s‐curve. Part i: component technologies. Production and Operations Management, p. 334-357.
Christensen, C. M. (1993). The Rigid Disk Drive Industry: A History of Commercial and Technological Turbulence. Business History Review, 67(4), p. 531-588.
Christensen C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press, 1(1).
Christensen, C. M. (2007). A Decade of Disruption. Entrevista concedida à Revista Forbes. Disponível em: <https://www.forbes.com/2007/08/31/christensen-disruption-kodak-pf-guru_in_cc_0904christensen_inl.html#6c2829c4187b>.
Christensen, C. M., McDonald, R., Altman, E. J., & Palmer, J. E. (2018). Disruptive innovation: an intellectual history and directions for future research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), p. 1043-1078.
Christensen, C. M., Johnson, M. W., & Rigby, D. K. (2002). Foundations for growth: How to identify and build disruptive new businesses. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), p. 22–31.
Christensen, C. M. & Raynor, M. (2003). The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. & McDonald, R. (2015). ‘What is disruptive innovation?’. Harvard Business Review, 93, p. 44–53.
Duncan, R. B. (1997). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In: Killman, R. H., Pondy, L. R., & Slevin, D. The Management of Organization Design, 1(1), p. 167–188.
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: the dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), p. 91–112.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), p. 209–226.
Green, A. (2012). Customer journey mapping and the social customer. ICMI.
Krinke, M. F., Floriani, D. E., Bueno, G., & Garrido, I. L. (2021). International ambidexterity: a competitive advantage of fashion industry firms in emerging markets. Revista de Negócios, 26(1), p. 22-48.
Leite, D. E. S., & Chagas Junior, M. F. (2020). Desenvolvimento de um modelo dinâmico e adaptativo como ferramenta para a orientação estratégica em organizações do setor aeroespacial. Future Studies Research Journal: Trends and Strategies, 12(2), p. 242-263.
Monteiro, J. G. M. R., & Vargas, E. R. (2018). Estratégia ambidestra em redes de restaurantes: o dilema 'padronização vs. inovação'. Revista Alcance, 25(1), p. 20-37.
Morgan, D. (1997). Focus group as qualitative research. Qualitative Research Methods Series. 2. Ed. London: Sage Publications.
Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(12), p. 1–143.
Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review.
Rafii, F., & Kampas, P. J. (2002). How to identify your enemies before they destroy you. Harvard Business Review, 80(11), p. 115.
Remane, G., Hanelt, A., Nickerson, R. C., & Kolbe, L. M. (2017). Discovering digital business models in traditional industries. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(2), 41–51. doi: 10.1108/JBS-10-2016-0127
Severgnini, E., Takahashi, A. R. W., & Abib, G. (2019). Risco e ambidestria organizacional: uma meta-síntese dos estudos de caso e proposta de um 'framework'. Brazilian Business Review, 16(5), p. 470-499.
Silvestre, J., Borges, A., & Paula, V. (2022). Empreendedorismo estratégico: exploration, exploitation e ambidestria em cervejarias artesanais de Uberlândia, MG. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 23(1), p. 1-25.
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), p. 597–624.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), p. 522-536.
Soares, J. L., & Reis, D. R. D. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity in higher education institutions: proposition of evolutive stages of ambidexterity. Revista de Administração da UFSM, 14(1), p. 100-118.
Tiinside. (2020). Contact Center vai faturar R$ 54,14 bilhões até dezembro, aponta consultoria. [30 de Outubro, 2019]. TIInside. Disponível em: <https://tiinside.com.br/30/10/2019/contact-center-vai-faturar-r-5414-bilhoes-ate-dezembro-aponta-consultoria/l>.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(2), p. 15–17.
Wang, C., & Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: a comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms. British Journal of Management, 25(1), p. 58-76.
Yin, R. K. (2015). Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos. 5ª ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Yu, D., Hang, C. C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), p. 435–452.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Lígia Maria Silveira Saito, Carlos Roberto Domingues
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms: the author(s) authorize(s) the publication of the text in the journal;
2. The author(s) ensure(s) that the contribution is original and unpublished and that it is not in the process of evaluation by another journal;
3. The journal is not responsible for the views, ideas and concepts presented in articles, and these are the sole responsibility of the author(s);
4. The publishers reserve the right to make textual adjustments and adapt texts to meet with publication standards.
5. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Atribuição NãoComercial 4.0 internacional, which allows the work to be shared with recognized authorship and initial publication in this journal.
6. Authors are allowed to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
7. Authors are allowed and are encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on a personal web page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate positive effects, as well as increase the impact and citations of the published work (see the effect of Free Access) at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html• 8. Authors are able to use ORCID is a system of identification for authors. An ORCID identifier is unique to an individual and acts as a persistent digital identifier to ensure that authors (particularly those with relatively common names) can be distinguished and their work properly attributed.