Ambidexterity as a solution to productivity--论文代写范文

从独立的维度来看，模型的正式组织和社会结构的类型需要明确。仍有许多官僚结构可以促进效率和创新效率，需要这使形式基于高水平的信任度。下面的paper代写范文进行论述。

Abstract
  Recent research has argued that the productivity dilemma described by Abernathy–the trade-off between efficiency and innovation, between exploitation and exploration – can be overcome by organizational ambidexterity. There is an emerging consensus that while such ambidexterity is hard to achieve, it is not, pace Abernathy, impossible. Toyota’ provides an existence proof that such ambidexterity is indeed feasible (e.g., Brunner et al., 2008). The present note challenges the established understanding of why such ambidexterity is hard to achieve. 

  I think that this understanding reflects the combination of (1) a correct assumption that efficiency requires a bureaucratically structured organization, and (2) a widely accepted but incorrect assumption that bureaucracy is antithetical to innovation. In a series of studies, I have built on Gouldner (1954; 1955) to argue that bureaucracy can be compatible with innovation so long as bureaucracy takes an ‘‘enabling’’ form – so long as it is designed and used as a tool rather than as a weapon or as a ceremonial mask (see Adler, 1993a, 1999, 2001; Adler and Borys, 1996; Adler et al., 1999). 

  I argue that we are better served by a model with two independent dimensions—the degree of formal structuring (low versus high bureaucratization) and the type of social structure (low versus high trust). Where tasks are more routine, then, to be sure, we need relatively more bureaucratic structuring; but even where the key tasks are much less routine, such as is the case where the main goal is exploration and radical innovation, there is still much that bureaucratic structuring can contribute to both efficiency and creative effectiveness – so long as bureaucracy takes this enabling form based on high levels of trust. This formulation, however, is inadequate: it does not capture the deep ambivalence that field researchers have repeatedly documented when they ask workers about their experience of bureaucracy (e.g., Adler, 1993a). 

  To take a specific example at Toyota: the ‘‘standardized work’’ process for involving workers designing their jobs is a powerful learning meta-routine, and workers appreciate – and typically reciprocate – the trust invested in them by managers who mobilize workers in this process; but that trust is easily undermined when workers on the assembly line find that the process has led to intensified work as non-work time is progressively eliminated. Taiichi Ohno – a key figure in the development of the Toyota Production System – had a nickname, Taiichi ‘‘Oh no!’’ because whenever he visited a plant, workers would stiffen in anticipation of yet another round of workforce reductions, yet another turn of the screw in the never-ending intensification of work that is such a central feature of the Toyota Production System (Wickens, 1993). 

 Conclusion 
  David James Brunner, Bradley R. Staats, and Michael L. Tushman Organizations often find themselves torn between contradictory and conflicting goals. The productivity dilemma highlights the tension between a particular pair of widely held goals: efficiency and adaptability. The tension exists in many – perhaps most – organizations, though it may be obscured by temporal distance. Efficiency is observable almost immediately, while adaptability manifests itself over years or decades. Obscure or not, organizational survival depends on successfully managing this, as well as often other, sets of conflicting goals. As the perspectives in this article indicate, no simple solution has yet been found for managing toward contradictory goals, but much is known about the nature of such tension and possible approaches to handling it. 

  The perspectives in the article identify two dimensions to the tension between efficiency and adaptability. One dimension relates to the dynamics of organizations as complex systems. Inasmuch as organizations consist of networks of coordinated, interdependent subsystems, efficiency and adaptability are fundamentally contradictory. As Tushman and Benner argue, ‘‘Tightly interrelated activity systems activity impede anything but internally consistent change ... Dynamic conservatism comes from the system itself.’’ Brunner and Staats attribute such dynamic conservatism to the tendency of tightly coupled systems to actively suppress the perturbations required for learning and exploration. The second dimension of the tension relates to the twosided nature of bureaucracy. Adler argues that the structuring, systematizing, and rationalizing associated with bureaucracy can enable creativity and innovation. 

  However, creativity and innovation in such a tightly coupled system requires cooperation among interdependent participants, which depends in turn on a foundation of trust. This trust is always threatened by the possibility that profit pressures may ‘‘undermine this cooperation by turning the tool of enabling bureaucracy into a coercive weapon.’’ If managers use bureaucracy as a weapon against the laborers to expropriate value, community and trust will collapse. Even a production system as carefully designed as Toyota’s carries the seeds of its own destruction. Fortunately, the conflict between exploitation and exploration can be managed. Winter observes that the conflict between efficiency and adaptability may be overdrawn: refined, efficient routines provide the building blocks for innovation. He calls attention to ‘‘the role of procedural memory and practice as the base of high competence, including the dynamic forms of competence that provide resistance to inertia.’’ 

  On a theoretical level, Brunner and Staats propose that organizations can reconcile exploitation with exploration by intentionally destabilizing their own processes through deliberate perturbation, and by ensuring that disruptions are translated into learning and knowledge creation through exploratory interpretation. These arguments suggest that the dynamic conservatism identified by Tushman and Benner may be, at least in part, a property of inferior administrative technologies, rather than an inevitable consequence of disciplined processes. In practice, cognitive frames provide one way to avoid dynamic conservatism. MacDuffie argues that a wellchosen frame may bypass the conflict, enabling the organization to pursue a single strategy that inherently balances the contradictory goals. In the case of Toyota, he suggests that continuous learning provides such a frame. 

  Consistent with Adler’s conception of an enabling bureaucracy, MacDuffie emphasizes the importance of active worker participation in both standardization and innovation. Osono and Takeuchi describe how setting impossible goals drives Toyota to move beyond existing routines. Organizational routines offer a second way to sustain exploration in the midst of intense exploitation. Osono and Takeuchi highlight the roles of experimentation and local customization in pushing Toyota beyond the domain of Tushman and Benner’s internally consistent change. MacDuffie shows how the PDCA learning cycle, the TPS ‘‘zero buffers’’ and ‘‘zero defects’’ policies, and jidoka trigger exploration. Challenging economic conditions will no doubt test the robustness of these routines as well as Toyota’s commitment to enabling bureaucracy: at the time of this writing, Toyota was preparing to report its first operating loss in 70 years (Maynard, 2008).

  51Due原创版权郑重声明：原创范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。
  51due为留学生提供最好的服务，想获取更多paper代写范文，亲们可以进入主页 www.51due.com  为留学生提供paper代写服务，了解详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041哟。

标签：essay代写  productivity  论文代写  美国作业代写