Eine der Kernaufgaben der Unternehmensführung ist die kontinuierliche Verbesserung der operativen Effizienz. In den vergangenen Jahren haben zahlreiche Unternehmen versucht, ihre Effizienz durch Downsizing zu steigern, worunter Kosteneinsparungen durch den Abbau von Mitarbeiter zu verstehen sind. Da dieser Ansatz nicht nur gesellschaftlich, sondern auch wirtschaftlich umstritten ist, wurde unter dem Begriff des Rightsizing eine alternative Vorgehensweise entwickelt. Dabei geht es darum, auf Basis einer Unternehmensvision die Grösse, Organisation und Mitarbeiterstruktur des Unternehmens vorausschauend und geplant zu optimieren. Unternehmen sollen dadurch nicht nur kostengünstiger wirtschaften, sondern auch zukünftige Wachstumspotenziale besser erschliessen können. Dieser Artikel stellt unterschiedliche Ansätze und Methoden des Rightsizing vor und fasst diese in einem integrierten Modell zusammen.
Nachhaltigkeit steht derzeit hoch im Kurs, die Beschäftigung mit dem Thema ist für Manager zur Pflichtübung geworden. Doch lohnt sich das Ganze auch ökonomisch? Eine neue Studie aus der Schweiz untersucht, inwieweit Gewissen und Geld zusammengehen.
Warum scheitern Veränderungsinitiativen so häufig? Weil die Erfolge nicht sofort messbar sind und daraus oft die falschen Schlüsse gezogen werden. Dennoch sollte man nicht auf den Einsatz von Planungs- und Steuerungssystemen verzichten. Die in diesem Beitrag vorgestellten alternativen Ansätze orientieren sich an den spezifischen Erfolgskriterien der einzelnen Phasen des Wandelprojektes.
Prior studies argue that behaviorally complex managers may contribute to an organizational unit's ambidexterity. While some suggest that such managers reconcile exploration and exploitation directly, others propose that they foster both activities indirectly by framing an ambidextrous behavioral context. We hypothesize that these direct and indirect processes are not independent alternatives, but are interrelated. Based on two samples, we find that SMEs' managers affect unit-level ambidexterity directly and indirectly, while those of larger corporations' business units only have an indirect effect. Our study extends and reconciles the literature on managerial and contextual ambidexterity, as well as that on individual-level and unit-level ambidexterity. The insight that the effectiveness of different paths to ambidexterity may depend on the type of organization under study, is further discussed.
Some companies are pursuing initiatives that aim to synergistically create value both for the company and society. But these initiatives follow a different development process than traditional corporate products. Based on in-depth case studies of four leading global corporations from different industries (BMW, Nestlé, P&G, and Vanke), the researchers from the Center for Organizational Excellence (CORE) identify distinct organizational solutions and best practices to support such initiatives in different stages of the new business development process.
Successful innovation requires distinct types of search in different domains. However, we know little about how an organizational context can accommodate varying search processes. Based on a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) of 15 work units at three major corporations, we find that a work unit's formal structure and informal culture appear to be associated with exploitation or exploration in the technology-oriented supply-side search domain, while its target and monitoring systems are associated with different search types in the market-oriented demand-side domain. Our findings allow us to contribute to search theory by providing insights on how different search types may be accommodated across search domains. Furthermore, we contribute to nascent organizational ambidexterity research by introducing organizational-level antecedents for cross-functional ambidexterity.
Recent research relates firms' innovativeness to specific combinations of exploitation and exploration across the product and market domains, but the organizational literature lacks concrete insights on how firms can achieve such cross-functional ambidexterity. Based on a qualitative comparative analysis of 15 innovation units at three large firms, we find that different combinations of exploitation and exploration across the product and market domains are associated with distinct organizational context configurations. While a unit's formal structure and informal culture are related to the product innovation domain, its target system and monitoring system are related to the market innovation domain. We contribute to the organizational literature by clarifying the antecedents and boundary conditions of cross-functional ambidexterity and compare and contrast this new perspective with the established ambidexterity perspectives.
Capabilities and ambidexterity theories are both intended to shed light on how firms remain successful in the long run. However, the two research streams have developed largely independently of one another and with different foci. In this chapter, we bring them closer together by discussing how different capabilities and forms of ambidexterity may help firms address their multi-level transformational challenges (Cross-functional Linking, Rethinking and Reconfiguring, Continuous Improvement, and Ongoing Renewal) This analysis allows us to identify the areas of overlap and the points of differences between capabilities and ambidexterity theories, suggesting that the two concepts are distinct but mutually interrelated and interdependent. Furthermore, we argue that different types of ambidexterity and capabilities may coexist within an organization and that their effectiveness is contingent on the challenges a firm faces.
