管理评论

管理评论 ›› 2023, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (9): 89-101.

• 创新与创业管理 • 上一篇    下一篇

企业探索式与利用式创新的平衡性及实现路径——基于战略决策逻辑的定性比较分析

刘露露1, 王凤彬2,3, 杨威2   

  1. 1. 中国劳动关系学院劳动关系与人力资源学院, 北京 100048;
    2. 中国人民大学商学院, 北京 100872;
    3. 中国人民大学企业管理哲学与组织生态研究中心, 北京 100872
  • 收稿日期:2021-07-08 出版日期:2023-09-28 发布日期:2023-10-31
  • 通讯作者: 王凤彬(通讯作者),中国人民大学商学院教授,中国人民大学企业管理哲学与组织生态研究中心主任,博士生导师,博士。
  • 作者简介:刘露露,中国劳动关系学院劳动关系与人力资源学院讲师,博士;杨威,中国人民大学商学院,硕士。
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金重大项目（21&ZD136）。

Paths to Balance Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation——A Qualitative Comparative Analysis on Conjoint Effects of Effectuation and Causation

Liu Lulu1, Wang Fengbin2,3, Yang Wei2   

  1. 1. School of Labor Relations and Human Resources, China University of Labor Relations, Beijing 100048;
    2. Business School, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872;
    3. Center for Management Philosophy and Organizational Ecosystem, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872
  • Received:2021-07-08 Online:2023-09-28 Published:2023-10-31

PDF (PC)

114

摘要： 围绕“手段-目的”关系提出的后效与因果逻辑，作为两种重要的战略决策逻辑，为研究探索式与利用式创新行为的二元平衡提供了新视角。本文通过对79家中小型企业创新行为影响因素的定性比较分析（QCA）发现，后效逻辑的4个维度即手段、可承受损失、控制和意外导向，与代表因果逻辑决策标准的收益导向相互联结，形成了实现二元平衡的经典型、向利试探型、向利控制型和灵活控制型4条路径，以及与之构成因果非对称性的偏探索和偏利用各2条路径。本文揭示了后效与因果逻辑的悖论关系，深化了二元平衡问题的研究，并为解释一般的悖论现象提供了方向指引。

关键词: 后效逻辑, 探索式创新, 利用式创新, 二元平衡, 定性比较分析

Abstract: Exploration and exploitation play an important role in firms' development. However, they have different or even contradictory requirements for firms. For example, exploration emphasizes flexibility, autonomy and experimentation, while exploitation stresses efficiency, control and improvement. How to achieve a balance between the two to obtain the advantages of both has become a focus of current researches. Grounded on the "means-end" relationship, effectuation and causation are proposed as two alternative logics of strategic decision-making and provide a new perspective for studying paths to ambidexterity. Through a qualitative comparative analysis of innovation behaviors of 79 small and medium-sized firms, this paper finds that four dimensions of effectuation logic, including means, affordable loss, control and contingency orientations, are interconnected with causation logic measured by expected return orientation. These five antecedents combine to create four paths to ambidexterity:(1) "classical effectuation" path where all four orientations of effectuation logic are present while expected return orientation of causation logic is absent; (2) "flexible control" path where control and contingency orientations are present while means and affordable loss orientations are absent; (3) "profit-oriented control" path where control and expected return orientations are present while affordable loss and means orientations are absent; (4) "profit-oriented trail"path where expected return and means orientations are present while affordable loss and control orientations are absent. Furthermore, this paper compares these four paths with the four paths leading to unbalanced exploration and exploitation (either stronger exploration or stronger exploitation) and identifies their causal asymmetry. By extending the effectuation logic born in the field of entrepreneurship to the field of innovation, this paper not only reveals the paradoxical relationships between effectual and and causal logic, but also deepens the research on the organizational ambidexterity and provides implications for dealing with other forms of paradoxes.

Key words: effectuation, exploration, exploitation, ambidexterity, qualitative comparative analysis