The Role of Ambidexterity in Managing Buyer–Supplier Relationships: The Toyota Case

References

• Abernathy WJ (1978) The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock to Innovation in the Automobile Industry (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore).Google Scholar
• Adler PS (2001) Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organ. Sci. 12(2):215–234.Link, Google Scholar
• Adler PS, Heckscher C (2013) The collaborative, ambidextrous enterprise. UNIVERSIA Bus. Rev. 40:34–51.Google Scholar
• Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota Production System. Organ. Sci. 10(1):43–68.Link, Google Scholar
• Adler PS, Benner M, Brunner DJ, MacDuffie JP, Osono E, Staats BR, Takeuchi Het al., (2009) Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. J. Oper. Management 27(2):99–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahmadjian CL (2016) Comparative institutional analysis and institutional complexity. J. Management Stud. 53(1):12–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahmadjian CL, Lincoln JR (2001) Keiretsu, governance, and learning: Case studies in change from the Japanese automotive industry. Organ. Sci. 12(6):683–701.Link, Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ. Sci. 20(4):696–717.Link, Google Scholar
• Aoki K, Lennerfors TT (2013a) The new, improved keiretsu. Harvard Bus. Rev. 91(9):109–113.Google Scholar
• Aoki K, Lennerfors TT (2013b) Whither Japanese keiretsu? The transformation of vertical keiretsu in Toyota, Nissan and Honda 1991–2011. Asia Pacific Bus. Rev. 19(1):70–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Asanuma B (1989) Manufacturer-supplier relationships in Japan and the concept of relation-specific skill. J. Japanese Internat. Econom. 3(1):1–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Management Rev. 28(2):238–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2015) Reflections on the 2013 Decade Award—“Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited” ten years later. Acad. Management Rev. 40(4):497–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birkinshaw J, Gupta K (2013) Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Acad. Management Perspect. 27(4):287–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boumgarden P, Nickerson J, Zenger TR (2012) Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management J. 33(6):587–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brunner DJ, Staats BR, Tushman ML, Upton DM (2010) Wellsprings of creation: How perturbation sustains exploration in mature organizations. Harvard Business School Working Paper No 09–011, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15(5):555–568.Link, Google Scholar
• Cohen MD, Burkhart R, Dosi G, Egidi M, Marengo L, Warglien M, Winter SG (1996) Routines and other recurring action patterns of organization: Contemporary research issues. Indust. Corporate Change 5(3):653–698.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Denis JL, Dompierre G, Langley A, Rouleau L (2011) Escalating indecision: Between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organ. Sci. 22(1):225–244.Link, Google Scholar
• Dyer JH, Chu W (2003) The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organ. Sci. 14(1):57–68.Link, Google Scholar
• Dyer JH, Hatch NW (2006) Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: Creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management J. 27(8):701–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer JH, Nobeoka K (2000) Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management J. 21(3):345–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer JH, Cho DS, Chu W (1998) Strategic supplier segmentation: The next “best practice” in supply chain management. California Management Rev. 40(2):57–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Management J. 50(1):25–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Westcott BJ (1988) Paradoxical demands and the creation of excellence: The case of just-in-time manufacturing. Quinn RE, Cameron KS, eds. Paradox and Transformation: Towards a Theory of Change in Organization and Management (Ballinger, Cambridge, MA), 169–193.Google Scholar
• FOURIN (2000) Toyota Jidosha [Toyota Motor Company]. FOURIN Nihon Jidosha Chosa Geppo [FOURIN’s monthly report on the Japanese automotive industry] 20(November):18–19.Google Scholar
• Fujimoto T (1999) The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Management J. 47(2):209–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad. Management J. 49(4):693–706.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hino S (2006) Inside the Mind of Toyota: Management Principles for Enduring Growth (Productivity Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Im G, Rai A (2008) Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Sci. 54(7):1281–1296.Link, Google Scholar
• Jacobides MG, MacDuffie JP, Tae CJ (2016) Agency, structure, and the dominance of OEMs: Change and stability in the automotive sector. Strategic Management J. 37(9):1942–1967.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jansen JJP, Tempelaar MP, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organ. Sci. 20(4):797–811.Link, Google Scholar
• Kang SC, Morris SS, Snell SA (2007) Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation: Extending the human resource architecture. Acad. Management Rev. 32(1):236–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kauppila OP (2010) Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organ. 8(4):283–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lavie D, Rosenkopf L (2006) Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Acad. Management J. 49(4):797–818.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lavie D, Kang J, Rosenkopf L (2011) Balance within and across domains: The performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1517–1538.Link, Google Scholar
• Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman ML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad. Management Ann. 4(1):109–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management J. 14(S2):95–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lieberman MB, Dhawan R (2005) Assessing the resource base of Japanese and U.S. auto producers: A stochastic frontier production function approach. Management Sci. 51(7):1060–1075.Link, Google Scholar
• Liker J (2004) The Toyota Way: Fourteen Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Liker J (2010) The wrong lessons from Toyota’s recalls—And the truth. Harvard Bus. Rev. Accessed March 28, 2017, https://hbr.org/2010/03/dont-believe-everything-you-re.Google Scholar
• Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lingo EL, O’Mahony S (2010) Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(1):47–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacDuffie JP, Fujimoto T (2010) Why dinosaurs will keep ruling the auto industry. Harvard Bus. Rev. 88(6):23–25.Google Scholar
• MacDuffie JP, Helper S (2006) Collaboration in supply chains: With and without trust. Heckscher C, Adler PS, eds. The Firm as a Collaborative Community: Reconstructing Trust in the Knowledge Economy (Oxford University Press, New York), 417–466.Google Scholar
• Maitlis S, Christianson M (2014) Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Acad. Management Ann. 8(1):57–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Nickerson JA, Zenger TR (2002) Being efficiently fickle: A dynamic theory of organizational choice. Organ. Sci. 13(5):547–566.Link, Google Scholar
• Nihon Keizai Shimbun [Nikkei Newspaper] (2014) Toyota does not give price cut requests [Toyota buhin nesage motomezu]. Nihon Keizai Shimbun [Nikkei Newspaper] (October 25) 1.Google Scholar
• Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Brief AP, Staw BM, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 185–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. Acad. Management Perspect. 27(4):324–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Osono E, Shimizu N, Takeuchi H (2008) Extreme Toyota: Radical Contradictions That Drive Success at the World’s Best Manufacturer (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Porter ME (1996) What is strategy? Harvard Bus. Rev. 74(6):61–78.Google Scholar
• Porter ME, Heppelmann JE (2015) How smart, connected products are transforming companies. Harvard Bus. Rev. 93(10):96–114.Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Singh H, Zollo M (2006) Organizing for innovation: Managing the coordination-autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions. Acad. Management J. 49(2):263–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ. Sci. 20(4):685–695.Link, Google Scholar
• Romanelli E, Tushman ML (1994) Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Acad. Management J. 37(5):1141–1166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel FT (2001) Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management J. 22(6–7):687–699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL (2004) Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management J. 25(3):201–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sako M (1992) Prices, Quality, and Trust? Inter-Firm Relations in Britain and Japan (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sako M (2004) Supplier development at Honda, Nissan and Toyota: Comparative case studies of organizational capability enhancement. Indust. Corporate Change 13(2):281–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sako M, Helper S (1998) Determinants of trust in supplier relations: Evidence from the automotive industry in Japan and the United States. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 34(3):387–417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schad J, Lewis MW, Raisch S, Smith WK (2016) Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):5–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schreyögg G, Sydow J (2010) Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organ. Sci. 21(6):1251–1262.Link, Google Scholar
• Sillince J, Jarzabkowski P, Shaw D (2012) Shaping strategic action through the rhetorical construction and exploitation of ambiguity. Organ. Sci. 23(3):630–650.Link, Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Lewis MW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Management Rev. 36(2):381–403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Tushman ML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: A top managemnt model for managing innovation streams. Organ. Sci. 16(5):522–536.Link, Google Scholar
• Spear S, Bowen HK (1999) Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System. Harvard Bus. Rev. 77(5):96–106.Google Scholar
• Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management J. 18(7):509–533.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toyota Motor Corporation (2012) Toyota Supplier CSR Guidelines. Accessed November 4, 2017, http://www.toyota-global.com/sustainability/society/partners/supplier_csr_en.pdf.Google Scholar
• Toyota Motor Corporation (2014) Annual report. Accessed November 4, 2017, http://www.toyota-global.com/pages/contents/investors/ir_library/annual/pdf/2014/ar14_e.pdf.Google Scholar
• Vaara E (2003) Post-acquisition integration as sensemaking: Glimpses of ambiguity, confusion, hypocrisy, and politicization. J. Management Stud. 40(4):859–894.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1979) Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. J. Law Econom. 22(2):233–261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1991) Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization. Strategic Management J. 12(S2):75–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yin RK (2003) Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 3rd ed. (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Zimmermann A, Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2015) How is ambidexterity initiated? The emergent charter definition process. Organ. Sci. 26(4):1119–1139.Link, Google Scholar