Thriving in the new: Implication of exploration on organizational longevity

Journal of Management

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1529-1554

  Piao, Ming ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

exploration; organizational longevity; temporal overlap

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957688702     PISSN: 01492063     EISSN: 15571211     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0149206310378367     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Abernathy, W.J., & Clark, K.B. 1985. Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14: 3-22.
2. Adler, P.S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D.I. 1999. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10: 43-68.
3. Adner, R., & Levinthal, D. 2008. Doing versus seeing: Acts of exploitation and perceptions of exploration. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 43-52.
4. Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A.M., & Sarkar, M.B. 2002. The role of knowledge in organizational formation and performance: Spin-out generation and survival. In Academy of Management Proceedings: D1-D6. Briarcliff, Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
5. Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A.M., & Sarkar, M.B. 2004. Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 501-522.
6. Agarwal, R., & Gort, M. 2002. Products and firm life cycles and firm survival. American Economic Review, 92: 184-190.
7. Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C.M. 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 521-543.
8. Allison, P. 1995. Survival analysis using the SAS system: A practical guide. Cary, NC: SAS Publishing.
9. Ancona, D.G., & Chong, C.L. 1992. Timing is everything: Entrainment and performance in organization theory. In Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings: 166-169. Briarcliff, Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
10. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M.W. 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20: 696-717.
11. Auh, S., & Menguc, B. 2005. Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58: 1652-1661.
12. Beckman, C.M. 2006. The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 741-758.
13. Benner, M.J., & Tushman, M. 2002. Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 676-706.
14. Bergh, D.D. 1993a. Don't waste your time! The effects of time series errors on empirical results: The case of ownership concentration and R&D spending. Journal of Management, 19: 897-914.
15. Bergh, D.D. 1993b. Watch the time carefully: The use and misuse of time effects in management research. Journal of Management, 19: 683-705.
16. Bierly, P.E., & Daly, P.S. 2007. Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. ET&P, July: 493-516.
17. Blanchard, O., Rhee, C., & Summers, L. 1993. The stock market, profit, and investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108: 115-136.
18. Breeden, J., Dionkelacker, F., & Huber, A. 1990. Noise in the modeling and control of dynamical systems. Physical Review A, 42: 5827-5836.
19. Brown, S.L., & Eisenhardt, K.M. 1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 1-34.
20. Burgelman, R.A. 1983. A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context, and the concept of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8: 61-71.
21. Burgelman, R.A., & Grove, A.S. 2007. Let chaos reign, then rein in chaos-Repeatedly: Managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 965-979.
22. Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., & Dewhurst, F. 2007. Linking organizational learning and customer capital through an ambidexterity context: an empirical investigation in SMEs. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18: 1720-1735.
23. Chesbrough, H.W. 1999. Arrested development: The experience of European hard disk drive firms in comparison with US and Japanese firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9: 287-329.
24. Chesbrough, H.W. 2003. Environmental influences upon firm entry into new sub-markets: Evidence from the worldwide hard disk drive industry conditionally. Research Policy, 32: 659-678.
25. Christensen, C.M. 1997. The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
26. Christensen, C.M., & Bower, J.L. 1996. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 197-218.
27. Christensen, C.M., Suarez, F.F., & Utterback, J.M. 1998. Strategies for survival in fast-changing industries. Management Science, 44(12): S207-S220.
28. Cottrell, T., & Nault, B.R. 2004. Product variety and firm survival in the microcomputer software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 1005-1025.
29. Cox, D.R., & Oakes, D. 1984. Analysis of survival data. London: Chapman & Hall.
30. Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
31. Danneels, E. 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 1095-1121.
32. D'Aveni, R.A. 1989. The aftermath of organizational decline: A longitudinal study of the strategic and managerial characteristics of declining firms. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 577-605.
33. Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35: 1504-1511.
34. Dougherty, D., & Heller, T. 1994. The illegitimacy of successful product innovation in established firms. Organization Science, 5: 200-218.
35. Downs, A. (1967). The life cycle of bureaus. In Inside bureaucracy: 296-309. San Francisco: Little, Brown.
36. Ebben, J.J., & Johnson, A.C. 2005. Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 1249-1259.
37. Fang, C., & Levinthal, D. 2009. Near-term liability of exploitation: Exploration and exploitation in multistage problems. Organization Science, 20: 538-551.
38. Franco, A.M., Sarkar, M.B., Agarwal, R., & Echambadi, R. 2006. The moderating effects of technological capabilities on the market pioneering-Firm survival relationship (Academy of Management Best Conference Paper). In Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings: I1-I6. Briarcliff, Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
39. Froot, K., Scharfstein, D., & Stein, J. 1993. Risk management: Co-ordinating corporate investment and financing policies. Journal of Finance, 48: 1629-1658.
40. Gary, M.S. 2005. Implementation strategy and performance outcomes in related diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 643-664.
41. Gersick, C.J.G. 1994. Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 9-45.
42. Gibson, C.B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 209-226.
43. Gilbert, C.G. 2002. Beyond resource allocation: Towards a process model of response to disruptive change. Working paper no. 03-018, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
44. Gort, M., & Klepper, S. 1982. Time paths in the diffusion of product innovations. The Economic Journal, 92: 630-653.
45. Greene, W.H. 2000. Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
46. Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., & Shalley, C.E. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 693-706.
47. Hambrick, D.C. 1994. Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the team label. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16: 171-213.
48. Hannan, M.T., & Carroll, G.R. 1992. Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, competition, and legitimation. New York: Oxford University Press.
49. He, Z.L., & Wong, P.K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15: 481-494.
50. Hitt, M.A., Gimeno, J., & Hoskisson, R.E. 1998. Current and future research methods in strategic management. Organizational Research Methods, 1: 6-44.
51. Hoang, H., & Rothaermel, F.T. 2010. Leveraging internal and external experience: Exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 734-758.
52. Holmqvist, M. 2003. A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning. Organization Studies, 24: 95-103.
53. Ingram, P., & Roberts, P.W. 2000. Friendships among competitors in the Sydney hotel industry. American Journal of Sociology, 106: 387-423.
54. Itami, H. 1987. Mobilizing invisible assets. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55. 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: 982-1007.
56. 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: 797-811.
57. 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: 1661-1674.
58. Jensen, M.C., & Meckling, W.H. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305-360.
59. Katila, R., & Chen, E.L. 2008. Effects of search timing on innovation: The value of not being in sync with rivals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 593-625.
60. Kim, T., & Rhee, M. 2009. Exploration and exploitation: Internal variety and environmental dynamism. Strategic Organization, 7: 11-41.
61. King, A.A., & Tucci, C.L. 2002. Incumbent entry into new market niches: The role of experience and managerial choice in the creation of dynamic capabilities. Management Science, 48: 171-186.
62. Klepper, S., & Graddy, E. 1990. The evolution of new industries and the determinants of market structure. RAND Journal of Economics, 21: 27-44.
63. Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K.T. 2001. Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management Science, 47: 1-21.
64. Lavie, D., Kang, J., & Rosenkopf, L. 2009. The performance effects of balancing exploration and exploitation within and across alliance domains. In Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings. Briarcliff, Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
65. Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. 2006. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 797-818.
66. Lavie, D., Stettner, U., Tushman, M.L. 2010. Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4: 109-155.
67. Lee, J., Lee, J., & Lee, H. 2003. Exploration and exploitation in the presence of network externalities. Management Science, 49: 553-570.
68. Lerner, J. 1997. An empirical exploration of a technology race. RAND Journal of Economics, 28: 228-247.
69. Levinthal, D.A. 1997. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43: 934-950.
70. Levinthal, D.A., & March, J.G. 1981. A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2: 307-333.
71. Levinthal, D.A., & March, J.G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-112.
72. Levitt, B., & March, J.G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319-340.
73. Leibenstein, H. 1969. Organizational or frictional equilibria, X-efficiency, and the rate of innovation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83: 600-623.
74. Lin, Z., Yang, H.B., & Demirkan, I. 2007. The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science, 53: 1645-1658.
75. 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: 646-672.
76. March, J.G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-87.
77. March, J.G. 2008. Explorations in organizations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
78. Mitchell, W. 1989. Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents' entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 208-230.
79. Mitchell, W. 1991. Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 85-100.
80. 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: 812-828.
81. Moses, D.O. 1992. Organizational slack and risk-taking behavior: Tests of product pricing strategy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 5(3): 38-54.
82. 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: 261-278. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
83. Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. 1996. Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1245-1264.
84. O'Brien, J.P. 2003. The capital structure implications of pursuing a strategy of innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 415-431.
85. O'Reilly, C.A., III, & Tushman, M.L. 2004, April. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review: 74-81.
86. O'Reilly, C.A., III, & Tushman, M.L. 2007. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Working paper no. 07-088, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
87. Penrose, E.T. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. London: Basil Blackwell.
88. Quinn, R.E. & Cameron, K. 1983. Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29: 33-51.
89. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34: 375-409.
90. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20: 685-695.
91. Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 287-306.
92. Rothaermel, F.T., & Deeds, D. 2004. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 201-221.
93. Schreyogg, G., & Kliesch-Eberl, M. 2007. How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 913-933.
94. Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D.A. 2003. Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14: 650-669.
95. Simsek, Z. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46: 597-624.
96. 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: 864-894.
97. Stalk, G., Jr. 1988. Time-The next source of competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, July-August: 41-51.
98. Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. 2009. Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20: 718-739.
99. Teece, D.J. 1982. Toward an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3: 39-63.
100. Tripsas, M. 1997. Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal, 18(summer special issue): 119-142.
101. Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. 2000. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1147-1161.
102. Tushman, M.L., & Anderson, P. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 439-465.
103. Tushman, M.L., & O'Reilly, C.A., III. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4): 8-30.
104. Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S.A. 2009. Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 Corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 221-231.
105. Uzzi, B., & Gillespie J.J. 2002. Knowledge spillover in corporate financing networks: Embeddedness and the firm's debt performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 595-618.
106. Wang, H.L., & Li, J.T. 2008. Untangling the effects of overexploration and overexploitation on organizational performance: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Journal of Management, 34: 925-951.
107. Westerman, G., McFarlan, F.W., & Iansiti, M. 2006. Organization design and effectiveness over the innovation life cycle. Organization Science, 17: 230-238.
108. Whetten, D.A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14: 490-495.
109. Wooldridge, J.M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.