Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations

Academy of Management Annals

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 109-155

  Lavie, Dovev ^a   Stettner, Uriel ^b   Tushman, Michael L ^c  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^b TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^c HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957680144     PISSN: 19416520     EISSN: 19416067     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19416521003691287     Document Type: Review

References (148)

1. Adler, P., Benner, M.J., Brunner, D.J., MacDuffie, J.P., Osono, E., Staats, B.R., Takeuchi, H., Tushman, M., & Winter, S.G. (2009). Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. Journal of Operations Management, 27, 99-113.
2. Adler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10 (1), 43-68.
3. Ahuja, G., Lampert, C.M., & Tandon, V. (2008). Moving beyond Schumpeter: Management research on the determinants of technological innovation. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 1-98.
4. Albert, S., & Whetten, D.A. (2004). Organizational identity. In M.J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds.), Organizational identity (pp. 89-117). New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage.
6. Andrews, S.B., Basler, C.R., & Coller, X. (1999). Organizational structures, cultures, and identities: Overlaps and divergences. In S.B. Andrews & D. Knoke (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 16, pp. 213-235). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
7. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M.W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717.
8. Anteby, M. (2008). Identity incentives as an engaging form of control: Revisiting leniencies in an aeronautic plant. Organization Science, 19(2), 202-220.
9. Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652-1661.
10. Barnett, W.P. (1997). The dynamics of competitive intensity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 128-160.
11. Beckman, C.M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 741-758.
12. Beckman, C.M., Haunschild, P.R., & Phillips, D.J. (2004). Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization Science, 15(3), 259-275.
13. Benner, M.J. (2007). The incumbent discount: Stock market categories and response to radical technological change. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 703-720.
14. Benner, M.J., & Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676-706.
15. Benner, M.J., & Tushman, M. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256.
16. Boeker, W. (1997). Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and organizational growth. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 152-170.
17. Bourgeois, L.J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29-39.
18. Brierly, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 123-135.
19. Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198-213.
20. Brunner, D.J., Staats, B.R., Tushman, M.L., & Upton, D.M. (2009). Wellsprings of creation: Perturbation and the paradox of the highly disciplined organization. (Working Paper No. 09-011). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.
21. Burns, L.R., & Wholey, D.R. (1993). Adoption and abandonment of matrix management programs: Effects of organizational characteristics and interorganizational networks. Academy of Management Journal, 36(1), 108-138.
22. Burns, T., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). Mechanistic and organic systems of management. In T. Burns & G.M. Stalker (Eds.), The management of innovation (pp. 96-125). New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
24. Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.
25. Christensen, C.M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
26. Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
27. Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
28. Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095-1121.
29. Davis, J., Eisenhardt, K., & Bingham, C. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3), 413-452.
30. Deeds, D.L. (2001). The role of R&D intensity, technical development and absorptive capacity in creating entrepreneurial wealth in high technology start-ups. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18(1), 29-47.
31. Denison, D., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524-540.
32. Dess, G.G., & Beard, D.W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52-73.
33. Duncan, R.B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R.H. Killman, L.R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization design (Vol. 1, pp. 167-188). New York: North-Holland.
34. Ebben, J., & Johnson, A. (2005). Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(13), 1249-1259.
35. Eisenhardt, K.M., & Brown, S.L. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1-34.
36. Ethiraj, S., & Levinthal, D. (2009). Hoping for A to Z while rewarding only A: Complex organizations and multiple goals. Organization Science, 20(1), 4-21.
37. Fang, C., & Levinthal, D.A. (2009). The near-term liability of exploitation: Exploration and exploitation in multi-stage problems. Organization Science, 20(3), 538-551.
38. Fang, C., Lee, J., & Schilling, M.A. (forthcoming). Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science.
39. Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters: The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 137-147.
40. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management [Special issue]. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 91-112.
41. Gibson, C.B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
42. Gilsing, V., & Nooteboom, B. (2006). Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy, 35(1), 1-23.
43. Grant, R.M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61-84.
44. Greve, H.R. (2007). Exploration and exploitation in product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(5), 945-975.
45. Gupta, A.K., Smith, K., & Shalley, C.E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
46. Hambrick, D.C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the "team" label. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 16, pp. 171-213). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
47. Hambrick, D.C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A.C. (2005). Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 472-491.
48. Hannan, M.T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929-964.
49. Hannan, M.T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149-164.
50. Harreld, J., O'Reilly, C.A., III., & Tushman, M. (2007). Dynamic capabilities at IBM: Driving strategy into action. California Management Review, 49(4), 21-43.
51. He, Z.L., & Wong, P.K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494.
52. Helfat, C., & Peteraf, M. (2009). Understanding dynamic capabilities: Progress along a developmental path. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 91-102.
53. Hoang, H., & Rothaermel, F.T. (forthcoming). Leveraging internal and external experience: Exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance. Strategic Management Journal.
54. Hess, A.M., & Rothaermel, F.T. (2009). Ambidexterity and innovative performance: The role of intellectual human capital and strategic alliances. (Working Paper). Georgia Tech University.
55. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
56. Holmqvist, M. (2003). A dynamic model of intra-and interorganizational learning. Organization Studies, 24(1), 95-103.
57. Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15(1), 70-81.
58. Jansen, J.J.P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007.
59. Jansen, J.J.P., Tempelaar, M.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797-811.
60. Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. (2005). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57, 351-363.
61. Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674.
62. 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.
63. Kim, T., & Rhee, M. (2009). Exploration and exploitation: Internal variety and environmental dynamism. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 11-41.
64. Knott, A.M. (2002). Exploration and exploitation as complements. In N. Bontis & C.W. Choo (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge (pp. 339-358). New York: Oxford University Press.
65. Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411-432.
66. Koza, M.P., & Lewin, A.Y. (1998). The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 255-264.
67. Koza, M.P., & Lewin, A.Y. (2000). Managing partnerships and strategic alliances: Raising the odds of success. European Management Journal, 18(2), 146-151.
68. Landes, D. (1983). Revolution in time: Clocks and the making of the modern world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
69. Lane, P.J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461-477.
70. Lant, T.K., & Mezias, S.J. (1992). An organizational learning model of convergence and reorientation. Organization Science, 3(1), 47-71.
71. Lavie, D. (2006). Capability reconfiguration: An analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 153-174.
72. Lavie, D., & Miller, S. (2008). Alliance portfolio internationalization and firm performance. Organization Science, 19(4), 623-646.
73. Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797-818.
74. Lavie, D., Kang, J., & Rosenkopf, L. (2009). The performance effects of balancing exploration and exploitation within and across alliance domains. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, Chicago.
75. Lazer, D., & Friedman, A. (2007). The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(4), 667-694.
76. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 111-125.
77. Levinthal, D.A., & March, J.G. (1993). The myopia of learning [Special issue]. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95-112.
78. Levinthal, D.A., & Posen, H.E. (2009). Bringing context to the exploration-exploitation trade-off: Considering the impact of selection and turbulent environments. (Working paper). University of Michigan.
79. Lewin, A.Y., Long, C.P., & Carroll, T.N. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 535-550.
80. Li, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Schoenmakers, W. (2008). Exploration and exploitation in innovation: Reframing the interpretation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(2), 107-126.
81. Lin, Z.J., Yang, H., & Demirkan, I. (2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science, 53(10), 1645-1658.
82. 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.
83. March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
84. March, J.G., & Shapira, Z. (1992). Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychological Review, 99(1), 172-183.
85. McGrath, R.G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118-131.
86. Meyer, A. (1982). Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4), 515-537.
87. Meyer, A., Brooks, G., & Goes, J. (1990). Environmental jolts and industry revolutions: Organizational responses to discontinuous change. Strategic Management Journal, 11(1), 93-110.
88. Miles, R.E., & Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
89. Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 175-199.
90. Mom, T.J.M., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. (2007). Investigating managers' exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottomup, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910-931.
91. Mom, T.J.M., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., & 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.
92. Murmann, J.P. (2003). Knowledge and competitive advantage: The coevolution of firms, technology and national institutions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
93. Murmann, J., & Tushman, M. (1997). Organizational responsiveness to environmental shock as an indicator of organizational foresight and oversight: The role of executive team characteristics and organizational context. In R. Garud, P.R. Nayyar, & Z.B. Shapira (Eds.), Technological innovation: Oversights and foresights (pp. 261-278). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
94. Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1245-1264.
95. O'Reilly, C.A., III, & Chatman, J.A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, culture and commitment. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 157-200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
96. O'Reilly, C.A., III, & Tushman, M.L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206.
97. Osono, E., Shimizu, N., Takeuchi, H., & Dorton, J. (2008). Extreme Toyota: Radical contradictions that drive success at the world's best manufacturer. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
98. Park, S.H., Chen, R., & Gallagher, S. (2002). Firm resources as moderators of the relationship between market growth and strategic alliances in semiconductor start-ups. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 527-545.
99. Penrose, E.T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
100. Poole, M.S., & Van de Ven, A.H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578.
101. Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
102. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409.
103. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685-695.
104. Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 433-458.
105. Rivkin, J.W., & Siggelkow, N. (2003). Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science, 49(3), 290-311.
106. Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M.L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1141-1166.
107. Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287-306.
108. Rothaermel, F.T. (2001). Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 687-699.
109. Rothaermel, F.T., & Alexandre, M.T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), 759-780.
110. Rothaermel, F.T., & Deeds, D.L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201-221.
111. Rowley, T.B., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 369-386.
112. Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan, I. (1995). Cultural differences in innovation championing strategies. Journal of Management, 21(5), 931-952.
113. Sharfman, M.P., Wolf, G., Chase, R.B., & Tansik, D.A. (1988). Antecedents of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 601-614.
114. Sidhu, J.S., Commandeur, H.R., & Volberda, H.W. (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18(1), 20-38.
115. Sidhu, J.S., Volberda, H.W., & Commandeur, H.R. (2004). Exploring exploration orientation and its determinants: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 913-932.
116. Siggelkow, N. (2003). Change in the presence of fit: The rise, the fall, and the renaissance of Liz Claiborne. In B. Chakravarthy, G. Mueller-Stewens, P. Lorange, & C. Lechner (Eds.), Strategy process: Shaping the contours of the field (pp. 46-76). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
117. Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D.A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6), 650-669.
118. Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. (2006). When exploration backfires: Unintended consequences of multilevel organizational search. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 779-795.
119. Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597-624.
120. Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J.F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity's conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 864-894.
121. Singh, J.V. (1986). Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 562-585.
122. Smith, W.K., & Tushman, M.L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536.
123. Smith, W.K., & Tushman, M.L. (2009). Dynamic decision making: Supporting multiple strategic goals simultaneously. (Working paper). Harvard University.
124. Sorensen, J.B. (2002). The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 70-91.
125. Sorensen, J.B., & Stuart, T.E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81-112.
126. Steensma, H.K., Marino, L., Weaver, K.M., & Dickson, P.H. (2000). The influence of national culture on the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 951-973.
127. Stinchcombe, A.L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J.G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142-193). Chicago: Rand McNally.
128. Sull, D. (1999). The dynamics of standing still: Firestone Tire & Rubber and the radial revolution. Business History Review, 73, 430-464.
129. Takeuchi, H., Osono, E., & Shimizu, N. (2008). The contradictions that drive Toyota's success. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 96-104.
130. Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20(4), 718-739.
131. Teece, D. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285-305.
132. Tripsas, M. (2009). Technology, identity, and inertia through the lens of "the digital photography company. " Organization Science, 20(2), 441-460.
133. Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1147-1161.
134. Tushman, M.L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439-465.
135. Tushman, M.L., & O'Reilly, C.A., III. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.
136. Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 171-222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
137. Tushman, M.L., Smith, W.K., Wood, R., Westerman, G., & O'Reilly, C.A., III. (2003). Innovation streams and ambidextrous organizational designs: On building dynamic capabilities. (Working paper). Harvard University.
138. Uotila, J., Maula, M.V.J., Keil, T., & Zahra, S.A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 221-231.
139. Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., & de Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5), 551-568.
140. Van Deusen, C.A., & Mueller, C.B. (1999). Learning in acquisitions: Understanding the relationship between exploration, exploitation and performance. The Learning Organization, 6(4), 186-193.
141. Van Looy, B., Martens, T., & Debackere, K. (2005). Organizing for continuous innovation: On the sustainability of ambidextrous organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), 208-221.
142. Vassolo, R.S., Anand, J., & Folta, T.B. (2004). Non-additivity in portfolios of exploration activities: A real options-based analysis of equity alliances in biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 25(11), 1045-1061.
143. Venkatraman, N., Lee, C.H., & Iyer, B. (2007). Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: A longitudinal test in the software sector. (Working paper). Boston University.
144. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222-240.
145. Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 457-476.
146. Virany, B., Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. (1992). Executive succession and organization outcomes in turbulent environments: An organization learning approach. Organization Science, 3(1), 72-91.
147. Voss, G.B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z.G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on products exploration exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 147-164.
148. Westerman, G., McFarlan, F.W., & Iansiti, M. (2006). Organization design and effectiveness over the innovation life cycle. Organization Science, 17(2), 230-238.