Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of organizational inertia on organizational agility: the role of IT ambidexterity

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Firms have increasingly relied on information technology (IT) to remain agile in today’s hypercompetitive business environment. Drawing on the organizational inertia theory and literature on IT-enabled agile, this study examines the relationship between organizational inertia, IT ambidexterity (i.e., IT exploration and exploitation), and organizational agility. Quantitative data were collected from 326 respondents through a questionnaire survey in China and analyzed using the partial least squares structural equation modeling. Results show that organizational agility is negatively influenced by organizational inertia, whereas IT exploration and exploitation positively related to organizational agility and IT exploitation is the dominant force. Furthermore, IT exploration and exploitation partially mediate the relationship between organizational inertia and agility. These findings offer new theoretical perspectives on organizational agility and guide practitioners to deal with related inertia issues to effectively improve organizational agility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Felipe CM, Roldan JL, Leal-Rodriguez AL (2016) An explanatory and predictive model for organizational agility. J Bus Res 69:4624–4631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nwankpa JK, Datta P (2017) Balancing exploration and exploitation of IT resources: The influence of digital business intensity on perceived organizational performance. Eur J Inf Syst 26:469–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lowry PB, Wilson D (2016) Creating agile organizations through IT: The influence of internal IT service perceptions on IT service quality and IT agility. J Strateg Inf Syst 25:211–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gregory RW, Keli M, Muntermann J, Mahring M (2015) Paradoxes and the nature of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs. Inf Syst Res 26:57–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee O, Sambamurthy V, Lim KH, Wei KK (2015) How does IT ambidexterity impact organizational agility? Inf Syst Res 26:398–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen Y, Wang Y, Nevo S, Jin J, Wang L, Chow WS (2014) IT capability and organizational performance: The roles of business process agility and environmental factors. Eur J Inf Syst 23:326–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Henfridsson O, Lind M (2014) Information systems strategizing, organizational sub-communities, and the emergence of a sustainability strategy. J Strategic Inf Syst 23:11–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Felipe CM, Roldan JL, Leal-Rodriguez AL (2017) Impact of organizational culture values on organizational agility. Sustainability 9:2354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gao P, Zhang J, Gong Y, Li H (2020) Effects of technical IT capabilities on organizational agility: The moderating role of IT business spanning capability. Ind Manag Data Syst 120(5):941–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ravichandran T (2018) Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation capacity and organizational agility. J Strategic Inf Syst 27:22–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ashrafi A, Ravasan AZ, Trkman P, Afshari S (2019) The role of business analytics capabilities in bolstering firms’ agility and performance. Int J Inf Manage 47:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tallon PP, Pinsonneault A (2011) Competing perspectives on the link between strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility: Insights from a mediation model. MIS Quarterly 35:463–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Liang H, Wang N, Xue Y, Ge S (2017) Unraveling the alignment paradox: How does business-IT alignment shape organizational agility. Inf Syst Res 28:863–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhou J, Bi G, Liu H, Fang Y, Hua Z (2018) Understanding employee competence, operational IS alignment, and organizational agility-An ambidexterity perspective. Inf Manag 55:695–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lu Y, Ramamurthy K (2011) Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination. MIS Quarterly 35:931–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chakravarty A, Grewal R, Sambamurthy V (2013) Information technology competencies, organizational agility, and firm performance: Enabling and facilitating roles. Inf Syst Res 24:976–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tallon PP, Queiroz M, Coltman T, Sharma R (2019) Information technology and the search for organizational agility: A systematic review with future research possibilities. J Strategic Inf Syst 28:218–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cegarra-Navarro JG, Soto-Acosta P, Wensley AKP (2016) Structured knowledge processes and firm performance: The role of organizational agility. J Bus Res 69:1544–1549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gilbert CG (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Acad Manag J 48:741–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hannan MT, Freeman J (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. Am Sociol Rev 49:149–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  22. Yi S, Knudsen T, Becker MC (2016) Inertia in routines: A hidden source of organizational variation. Organ Sci 27(3):782–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang HC, Lai MC, Lin LH, Chen CT (2013) Overcoming organizational inertia to strengthen business model innovation. J Organ Change Manag 26:977–1002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Godkin L, Allcorn S (2008) Overcoming organizational inertia: A tripartite model for achieving strategic organizational change. J Appl Business Econ 8:82–94

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sillic M (2019) Critical impact of organizational and individual inertia in explaining non-compliant security behavior in the Shadow IT context. Comput Sec 80:108–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ Sci 20:696–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Benitez J, Llorens J, Braojos J (2018) How information technology influences opportunity exploration and exploitation firm’s capability. Inf Manag 55:508–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Levinson M (2004) (2004) How to build an agile IT department. CIO Magazine 17:58–63

    Google Scholar 

  30. Heckmann CS, Maedche A (2018) IT ambidexterity for business processes: The importance of balance. Bus Process Manag J 24:862–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tai JCF, Wang ETG, Yeh H (2019) A study of IS assets, IS ambidexterity, and IS alignment: The dynamic managerial capability perspective. Inf Manag 56:55–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Peng MY, Lin K, Peng DL, Chen P (2019) Linking organizational ambidexterity and performance: The drivers of sustainability in high-tech firms. Sustainability 11:3931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Queiroz M, Tallon PP, Sharma R, Coltman T (2018) The role of IT application orchestration capability in improving agility and performance. J Strategic Inf Syst 27:4–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Michelino F, Cammarano A, Celone A, Caputo M (2019) The Linkage between Sustainability and Innovation Performance in IT Hardware Sector. Sustainability 11:4275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vessey I, Ward K (2013) The dynamics of sustainable IS alignment: The case for IS adaptability. J Assoc Inf Syst 14:283–311

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dubey R, Gunasekaran A, Childe SJ (2019) Big data analytics capability in supply chain agility: The moderating effect of organizational flexibility. Manag Decis 57:2092–2112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. He ZL, Wong P-K (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science. 15:481–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Siggelkow N (2002) Evolution toward fit. Adm Sci Q 47:125–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Dooley K (2017) Routines, rigidity and real estate: Organisational innovations in the workplace. Sustainability 9:998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mishra SS, Saji KB (2013) Moderating roles of organizational inertia and project duration in the NPD process: An empirical investigation. J Product Brand Manag 22:52–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim H-W (2011) The effects of switching costs on user resistance to enterprise systems implementation. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 58:471–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Saji KB, Nair SU (2010) Role of management information system in new high-tech product development process: an exploratory study. Eur J Manag 10:88–92

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hsieh P, Lin W (2018) Explaining resistance to system usage in the PharmaCloud: A view of the dual-factor model. Inform Manag 55:51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mithas S, Ramasubbu N, Sambamurthy V (2011) How information management capability influences firm performance. MIS Quarterly 35:237–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Christensen CM, Bower JL (1996) Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strateg Manag J 17:197–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Chandy RK, Tellis GJ (2000) The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. J Marketing 64:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Noda T, Bower JL (1996) Strategy making as iterated processes of resource allocation. Strateg Manag J 17:159–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Joshi A, Bollen L, Hassink H, Haes SD, Grembergen WV (2018) Explaining IT governance disclosure through the constructs of IT governance maturity and IT strategic role. Inf Manag 55:368–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ghasemaghaei M, Hassanein K, Turel O (2017) Increasing firm agility through the use of data analytics: The role of fit. Decis Support Syst 101:95–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Preston DS, Karahanna E (2009) Antecedents of IS strategic alignment: A nomological network. Inf Syst Res 20(2):159–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Liang H, Saraf N, Hu Q, Xue Y (2007) Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly 31:59–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Shao Z, Feng Y, Hu Q (2017) Impact of top management leadership styles on ERP assimilation and the role of organizational learning. Inform Manag 54:902–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hu Q, Dinev T, Hart P, Cooke D (2012) Managing employee compliance with information security policies: The critical role of top management and organizational culture. Decision Science 43:615–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pavlou PA, Sawy OAE (2006) From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: the case of new product development. Inf Syst Res 17:198–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Im G, Rai A (2014) IT-enabled coordination for ambidextrous interorganizational relationships. Inf Syst Res 25:72–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 40(3):879–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Cao C, Li C, Yang Q, Liu Y, Qu T (2018) A novel multi-objective programming model of relief distribution for sustainable disaster supply chain in large-scale natural disasters. J Clean Prod 174:1422–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Cao C, Liu Y, Tang O, Gao X (2021) A fuzzy bi-level optimization model for multi-period post-disaster relief distribution in sustainable humanitarian supply chains. Int J Prod Econ. In Press

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by National Natural Science Foundation of China (CN) (Grant Nos. 71602014. 71914021), Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing, China (CN) (Grant Nos. cstc2020jcyj-msxmX0820).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management Science and Engineering, Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing, 400067, China

    Jie Zhen, Cejun Cao & Hanguang Qiu

  2. Financial Certification Authority, Beijing, 100054, China

    Zongxiao Xie

Authors
  1. Jie Zhen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cejun Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hanguang Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zongxiao Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cejun Cao.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Survey items

Appendix: Survey items

Constructs

Items

Supporting literature

Organizational inertia

Facing economic shifts and market changes, we are reluctant to change our current business model

Gibert (2005), and Liang et al. (2017)

Facing economic shifts and market changes, we are reluctant to change our investment patterns

Facing economic shifts and market changes, we are not able to change our current investment patterns

Facing economic shifts and market changes, we are not able to change our current business model

Facing economic shifts and market changes, we are not able to seek new development directions

IT exploration

We can quickly acquire new IT resources (e.g., new IT architecture, potential IT applications, and critical IT skills)

Lee et al. (2015), and Nwankpa and Datta (2017)

We can quickly add new functionality to IT management

We can easily experiment with new IT management practices

We invest widely in digital technology-enabled initiatives in IT management

IT exploitation

We make extensive use of the existing IT components, such as hardware, software, and network resources

Nwankpa and Datta (2017), and Lee et al. (2015)

We offer IT applications and services sufficiently

We have a high level of IT-related skills

Organizational agility

We fulfill demands for rapid-response, special requests of our customers when such demands arise

Lu and Ramamurthy (2011), Liang et al. (2017), and Ravichandran (2018)

We can quickly scale up or scale down our production/service levels to support fluctuations in demand from the market

We are quick to make appropriate decisions in the face of market changes

We look for ways to reinvent/reengineer our firm to better serve the market

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhen, J., Cao, C., Qiu, H. et al. Impact of organizational inertia on organizational agility: the role of IT ambidexterity. Inf Technol Manag 22, 53–65 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-021-00324-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-021-00324-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation