벤처창업연구 (Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship)

  • 제16권6호
  • /
  • Pages.131-144
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1975-7557(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2671-9509(eISSN)
한국벤처창업학회 (The Korean Society of Business Venturing)
권호 표지

조직의 탐색과 활용에 대한 양손잡이 전략의 균형이 스타트업 성과에 미치는 영향

The Study on the Balance of Ambidextrous Strategy of Exploration and Exploitation for Startup Performance

  • 최성철 (국민대학교 글로벌창업벤처대학원) ;
  • 이우진 (국민대학교 글로벌창업벤처대학원)
  • 투고 : 2021.09.03
  • 심사 : 2021.12.24
  • 발행 : 2021.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

조직의 양손잡이(organizational ambidexterity) 구조는 기업이 새로운 기회를 포착하는 탐색(exploration) 활동과 자원을 효율적으로 이용하는 활용(exploitation) 활동을 동시에 추구할 수 있도록 설계한 조직 전략이다. 이러한 양손잡이 구조는 현재 대부분 여유 자원이 풍부한 대기업을 대상으로 연구가 이루어지고 있으며, 상대적으로 여유 자원 보유 수준이 낮은 스타트업의 양손잡이 조직구조 필요성에 대한 연구는 아직 많지 않다. 하지만, 최근 전 세계적으로 창업생태계가 고도화되면서 벤처에 투자하는 모험자본이 급속하게 증가하고 있으며, 이러한 현상은 스타트업에 많은 투자가 이루어지고 급성장할 수 있는 환경이 조성되면서 스타트업의 양손잡이 조직구조의 필요성과 적용 가능성에 대한 논의가 필요한 시점이다. 이에 본 연구는 새로운 아이디어로 시장의 문제를 해결하며 꾸준히 시장에서 탐색 활동을 하고 있는 스타트업(start-up)이 이러한 탐색 활동과 동시에 누적되어 가는 기업의 자원을 활용할 수 있는 역량을 갖추는 것이 기업성과에 영향을 미칠 것이라는 가설을 검증하였다. 본 연구의 가설검증을 위해 국내 140개 스타트업의 설문데이터를 분석하였으며, 지금의 시장 상황처럼 불확실하고 변동성이 높은 환경에서의 양손잡이 조직에 대한 필요성을 검증하기 위하여 환경적 동태성(environmental dynamics)의 조절효과가 있는지도 분석하였다. 연구결과 스타트업의 탐색과 활용의 균형(balance)은 기업성과에 유의미한 영향이 있음이 검증되었고, 환경적 동태성의 조절효과는 비재무성과와의 관계에 유의미한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 자원이 부족한 스타트업의 경우 기업이 성장해 가는 과정에서 발생하는 잉여자원들을 효과적으로 활용하고 새로운 사업을 탐색하는 초기 단계부터 탐색과 활용의 균형을 맞추어야 한다는 결론을 도출하였다. 즉, 장기적으로 스타트업도 효과성과 효율성을 동시에 추구할 수 있는 메커니즘을 내재화하기 위해서 양손잡이 조직의 구조화를 추구하는 것이 지속적인 성장과 생존을 위해 중요함을 확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구는 조직의 구조 관점에서 스타트업의 성장을 위한 전략적 방향을 제시하고, 급격하게 성장하는 창업벤처 분야에서 스타트업의 양손잡이 역량과 기업성과와의 영향 관계에 대한 유의미한 결과가 스타트업의 성장에 기여할 것으로 기대한다.

The organizational ambidexterity is an organizational strategy designed to pursue exploration activities to seize new opportunities and exploitation activities to efficiently use resources. Most of these ambidextrous structures have been studied for large corporations with slack resources, and there are still not many studies on the necessity of an ambidextrous structure for startups with relatively low-level resources. However, recently, the startup ecosystem is being advanced globally, and the amount of VC investment is rapidly increasing. This is a time when a lot of venture fund is invested in startups and a startup-friendly environment for rapid growth is created. This is the time to discuss the necessity and applicability of an ambidextrous organizational structure for startups. Therefore, this study conducted a hypothesis test whether the importance and necessity of balance that startups solving market problems with new ideas and utilizing accumulated resources have. To conduct this study, we analyzed 140 startups data gathered from the survey and the moderation effect was also analyzed. As a result of the study, it was verified that the balance of startup exploration and exploitation had a significant effect on startup performance, and the moderating effect of environmental dynamics was found to have a significant effect on the relationship with non-financial performance. Therefore, for startups with insufficient resources, it was concluded that the surplus resources generated in the process of a firm's growth should be effectively utilized and the balance between exploration and exploitation should be balanced from the initial stage of searching for a new business. In other words, it was confirmed that it is important for continuous growth and survival to seek the structure of an ambidextrous organization in order to internalize a mechanism that enables startups to pursue both effectiveness and efficiency in the long term. This study suggests a strategic direction for the growth of startups from the perspective of organizational structure. We expect that this meaningful results on the relationship between the ambidextrous capabilities of startups and performance contribute to the growth of startups in the rapidly growing startup venture environment.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Aldrich, H. E., & Pfefferr, J.(1976). Environments of organizations. Annual review of sociology, 2(1), 79-105. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.000455
  2. Ahn, J., Lee, J., & Lee, S.(2006). Balancing business performance and knowledge performance of new product development: Lessons from ITS industry. Long Range Planning, 39(5), 525-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2006.08.001
  3. Auh, S., & Menguc, B.(2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652-1661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.11.007
  4. Barreto, I.(2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350776
  5. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L.(2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040711
  6. Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K.(2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287-298. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0167
  7. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M.(1961). The management of innovation, The Economic Journal, 79(314), 403-405. https://doi.org/10.2307/2230196
  8. Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. R, & Zhang, H.(2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0426
  9. Caspin-Wagner, K., Ellis, S., & Tishler, A.(2012). Balancing exploration and exploitation for firm's superior performance: The role of the environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management.
  10. Choi, Y. J., Lee, W. J., & Oh, H. M.(2020). Janus's Two Faces: SME's Performance Through Ambidextrous Organization Capabilities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 197-208. https://doi.org/10.16972/APJBVE.15.1.202002.197
  11. Chun, J. R.(2008). The Factor and Weight Analysis for the Performance Measurement of Hospital CRM System. Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate School of Cheongju University.
  12. Chung, D. S., & Lee, H. O.(2015). An Impact of Organizational Ambidexterity, Innovativeness and Environmental Dynamism on the Corporate Performance in Inno-Biz Small-Medium Corporation. Korean Academy Of Human Resource Management, 22(1), 213-230.
  13. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P.(1990). New Venture Strategic Posture, Structure, and Performance:An Industry Life Cycle Analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(2), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(90)90004-D
  14. Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W.(1984). Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52-73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393080
  15. Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4), 514-539. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392695
  16. Duncan, R. B.(1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The management of organization, 1(1), 167-188.
  17. Eric, R.(2011). The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses, New York: Crown Books.
  18. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J.(2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573
  19. Goosen, M. C., Bazzazian, N., & Phelps, C.(2012). Consistently capricious: The performance effects of simultaneous and sequential ambidexterity. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Boston.
  20. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E.(2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083026
  21. He. Z., & Wong, P.(2004). Exploration vs exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(3), 481-494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
  22. Hong, D. U., Lee, I. H., & Son, J. S.(2017). A Study on the Effects of Support Service of Gyeonggi-do Cultural Contents Area Business Incubating Center on Corporate Performance: Focusing on the Business Validity of Business Start-Up Items. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.16972/APJBVE.12.4.201708.47
  23. Isaksen, S. G., & Tidd, J.(2006). Meeting the innovation challenge: Leadership for transformation and growth. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
  24. Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Rivero, J. C.(1989). Organizational characteristics as predictors of personnel practices. Personnel Psychology, 42(4), 727-786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00674.x
  25. Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W.(2005). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
  26. Jansen, J. J., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W.(2009a). Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797-811. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0415
  27. Jansen, J. J., Vera, D., & Crossan, M.(2009b). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.008
  28. Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y.(2013). Organizational ambidexterity: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287-298. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0167
  29. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D.(1992). The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.
  30. Katila, R., & Ahuja, G.(2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183-1194. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069433
  31. Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C.(2004). Tradeoffs in Marketing Exploitation and Exploration Strategies: The Overlooked Role of Market Orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 219-240 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.01.001
  32. Lee, S. H., & Noh, S. H.(2014). A study on the success factors of ICT Convergence type-specific start-up enterprise. Journal of Digital Convergence, 12(12), 203-215. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2014.12.12.203
  33. Levinthal, D., & J. March.(1993). Myopia of Learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009
  34. Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N.(1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 535-550. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.5.535
  35. Lomberg, C., Urbig, D., Stockmann, C., Marina, L., & Dickson, P. H.(2017). Entrepreneurial orientation: the dimensions' shared effects in explaining firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory ad Practice, 41(6), 973-998. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12237
  36. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
  37. March, J. G.(1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
  38. Markides, C., & Charitou, C.(2004). Competing with Dual Business Models: A Contingency Approach. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 22-36.
  39. Miller, D.(1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of rms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
  40. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H.(1983). Strategy-Making and Environment: The Third Link. Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250040304
  41. Nevo, S., & Wade, M.(2011). Firm-level benefits of IT-enabled resources: A conceptual extension and an empirical assessment. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 20(4), 403-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2011.08.001
  42. Nohria, N., & Gulati, R.(1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation?. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1245-1264. https://doi.org/10.2307/256998
  43. O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L.(2004). The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74-81.
  44. O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L.(2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
  45. O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L.(2013), Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338 https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
  46. Park, S. M., & Lee, B. H.(2008). The Impact of Exploration, Exploitation, and R&D Organization on Innovations in the Korean SMEs. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 11(1), 118-143.
  47. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J.(2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058
  48. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L.(2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685-695. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
  49. Rothenberg, A.(1996). The Janusian Process in Scientific Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 9(2-3), 207-231. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0902&3_8
  50. Simsek, Z.(2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597-624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.x
  51. Thompson, J. D.(1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill.
  52. Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A.(1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-29. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
  53. Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zhara, S. A.(2008). Exploration, exploitation and firm performance: An analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.738
  54. Venkatraman, N.(1990). Performance implications of strategic coaligment: A methodological perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 27(1), 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1990.tb00751.x
  55. Venkatraman, V., Chuah Y. M, Huettel S. A., & Chee M. W.(2007). Sleep deprivation elevates expectation of gains and attenuates response to losses following risky decisions. SLEEP, 30(5), 603-609. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/30.5.603
  56. Wei, Z., Yi, Y., & Guo, H.(2013). Organizational learning ambidexterity, strategic flexibility, and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 832-847. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12126
  57. Yang, Y. H.(2017). The Influence of Corporate Capacity of Tenant Companies of Business incubators in University on Business Performance. Master's Thesis, Graduate School of Dongyang University.
  58. Yoon, K. H.(2010). The Effects of Ambidextrous Innovation as a Dynamic Capability on Firm Performance:Focus on Resource, Capabilities, Ownership Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate School of Korea University.