RELACIÓN ENTRE LAS TENSIONES DE APRENDIZAJE Y LA ACTIVIDADES DE EXPLOTACIÓN Y EXPLORACIÓN: UN MECANISMO MOTIVACIONAL DE MEDIACIÓN
Abstract
Hoy no hay mucha claridad de los efectos que tendrían las paradojas una vez reconocidos y administrados. En específico, no hay claridad del efecto que tendrían las tensiones de aprendizaje sobre las actividades de explotación y exploración, una vez reconocida dichas tensiones en un contexto de escasez del tiempo. Dado lo anterior, el propósito de este artículo es proponer un modelo de un mecanismo motivacional que explique la relación entre las tensiones de aprendizaje y las actividades de explotación y exploración. Para lo anterior se realiza una encuesta a 200 personas, en su mayoría mandos medios, cuyos datos son analizados utilizando ecuaciones estructurales. En este estudio se encuentra evidencia significativa de la mediación de la motivación intrínseca sobre la relación entre las tensiones paradójicas de aprendizaje y las actividades de explotación y exploración. También se encontró significancia en la mediación de las tensiones paradójicas de aprendizaje entre la relación de la escasez del tiempo y la motivación intrínseca. Este artículo realiza al menos tres aportes teóricos y empíricos. Primero, nuestro modelo intenta relacionar un tipo de paradoja específica (aprendizaje) con actividades de exploración/explotación, relación no abordada hasta ahora. Segundo, en este artículo desarrollamos un mecanismo motivacional, hasta ahora poco explorado, de como las paradojas producirían efectos en individuos. Tercero, en este artículo se desarrolla una explicación teórica de como las tensiones paradójicas podrían influir en la valoración de la escasez del tiempo como demanda del trabajo desafiante.References
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2), 357.
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazency, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assesing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80, 52–61.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 10, 123-167. Greenwich, CT: JAJ Press.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.
Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. The leadership quarterly, 20(3), 264-275.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art. Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current directions in psychological science, 20(4), 265-269.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E. (2017). Job Demands–Resources Theory: Taking Stock and Looking Forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22 (3), 273–28.
Beaujean, A. A. (2014). Latent Variable Modeling Using R: A Step-by-Step Guide. Routledge
Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. (2005). EQS 6.1 for Windows. Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305–337.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1993). Bootstrapping Goodness-of-Fit Measures in Structural Equation Models. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models, 111-135. Sage.
Caniëls, M. C., Neghina, C., & Schaetsaert, N. (2017). Ambidexterity of employees: the role of empowerment and knowledge sharing. Journal of knowledge management, 21(5), 1098-1119.
Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 207-218.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–74.
Cerasoli CP, Nicklin JM, Ford MT. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140(4), 980–1008.
Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 745-783.
Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. New York: McGrawHill.
Corbin, J., Morse, J.M., 2003. The unstructured interactive interview: issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qual. Inq. 9 (3), 335–354.
Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2005). International Marketing Research, 3rd eds., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demand and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848.
Deci E., Olafsen A. H., & Ryan R., (2017). Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State of a Science. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 4,19–43.
Deci EL, Ryan RM. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11(4),227–68.
Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. (2007). Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: Rethinking theoretical frames. Human Relations, 60, 179–215
Dobrow, S. R., Smith, W. K., & Posner, M. A. (2011). Managing the grading paradox: Leveraging the power of choice in the classroom. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 261–276.
Elfering, A., Grebner, S., Semmer, N. K., Kaiser-Freiburghaus, D., Lauper-Del Ponte, S., & Witschi, I. (2005). Chronic job stressors and job control: Effects on event-related coping success and well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 237–252.
Emsley, D. (2003). Multiple goals and managers’ job-related tension and performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(4), 345–356.
Ess, C., (2002). Ethical decision-making and internet research: recommendations from the aoir ethics working committee. In: Readings in Virtual Research Ethics: Issues and Controversies, pp. 27–44.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. L. (2014). Organizational discourse analysis. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (3rd ed., pp. 271–296). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Fernet C, Austin S, Vallerand RJ. (2012a). The effects of work motivation on employee exhaustion and commitment: an extension of the JD-R model. Work Stress. 26(3), 213–29.
Fernet C, Gagne M, Austin S. (2010). When does quality of relationships with coworkers predict burnout over ´ time? The moderating role of work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 31(8),1163–80.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981a). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and cargating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209-226.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 37-41.
Kahn, R, Wolfe, D, Quinn, R & Snoek, J (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity, John Wiley, New York.
Kahneman. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Kauppila, O. P. (2018). How does it feel and how does it look? The role of employee motivation in organizational learning type. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(8), 941-955.
Kao, Y. L., & Chen, C. F. (2016). Antecedents, consequences and moderators of ambidextrous behaviours among frontline employees. Management Decision, 54(8), 1846-1860
Keller, J., Loewenstein, J., and Yan, J. 2017. Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames. Organization Studies, 38(3–4): 539–560
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
Klonek, F. E., Volery, T., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Managing the paradox: Individual ambidexterity, paradoxical leadership and multitasking in entrepreneurs across firm life cycle stages. International Small Business Journal, 39(1), 40-63.
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E., Sheep, M. L., Smith, B. R., & Kataria, N. (2015). Elasticity and the dialectic tensions of organizational identity: How can we hold together while we're pulling apart? Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 981-1011.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 141 - 169.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764–775.
Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127-149
Li, X., Deng, S.R., Li, L.F. and Jiang, Y.C. (2019) Outlier Detection Based on Robust Mahalanobis Distance and Its Application. Open Journal of Statistics, 9, 15-26.
Liu D, Zhang S, Wang L, Lee TW. (2011). The effects of autonomy and empowerment on employee turnover: test of a multilevel model in teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 96(6),1305–316.
LÜScher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z., (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (4), 730-743.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci.,2, 71–87.
McGraw KO. (1978). The detrimental effects of reward on performance: a literature review and a prediction model. In The Hidden Costs of Reward: A New Perspective on Human Motivation, ed. MR Lepper, D Green, pp. 33–60. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229-240
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of management journal, 61(1), 26-45.
Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers' ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization science, 20(4), 812-828.
Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. 1991. The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165– 186.
Nie Y, Chua BL, Yeung AS, Ryan RM, Chan WY. (2015). The importance of autonomy support and the cargating role of work motivation for well-being: testing self-determination theory in a Chinese work organization. Int. J. Psychol. 50(4), 245–55.
O’reilly Iii, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185-206.
Otis N, Pelletier LG. (2005). A motivational model of daily hassles, physical symptoms, and future work intentions among police officers. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35(10), 2193–214.
Pituch, K. A., & Stevens, J. P. (2016). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, N. P., Williams, L. J., Huang, C., & Yang, J. (2024). Common method bias: It's bad, it's complex, it's widespread, and it's not easy to fix. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 17-61.
Quinn, R. E., (1988). Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409.Rajagopal, P., & Rha, J. Y. (2009). The mental accounting of time. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(5), 772-781.
Richer SF, Blanchard C, Vallerand RJ. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32(10), 2089–113.
Rothenberg, A. (1979). The Emerging Goddess. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Schad, J., Lewis, M.W., Raisch, S. and Smith, W.K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 5–64.
Semmer, N. K., Zapf, D., & Dunckel, H. (1995). Assessing stress at work: A framework and an instrument. In O. Svane, & C. Johansen (Eds.), Work and health—Scientific basis of progress in the working environment (pp. 105–113). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd's of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932-970.
Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey –Bass.
Smith W., Erez M., Jarvenpaa S., Lewis M., racey P. (2017). Adding Complexity to Theories of Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change: Introduction to Organization Studies Special Issue on Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change. Organization Studies, 38(3-4) 303–317.
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion Process and Employee Creativity. Journal of Management, 30(3), 413–432.
Tierney, P., Farmer, M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620.
Tripathi, N. (2021). Generic Paradoxical Tensions, Appraisals, Work Motivation, and Performance: Insights from a Weekly Repeated-Measures Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 700150.
Van Der Vegt, G., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532-555.
Vince, R., & Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organizational Studies, 17(1), 1–21.
Waldman D., Putnam L., Miron-Spektor E., Donald Siegel D. (2019). The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 1- 6.
Weibel A, Rost K, Osterloh M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector—benefits and (hidden) costs. J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 20(2), 387–412.
Williams GC, Halvari H, Niemiec CP, Sorebo O, Olafsen AH, Westbye C. (2014). Managerial support for basic psychological needs, somatic symptom burden and work-related correlates: A self-determination theory perspective. Work Stress. 28(4), 404–19.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 107–128.
