Reconsidering ambidexterity at the individual level: A social network perspective

Advances in Strategic Management

Volumn 28, Issue , 2011, Pages 389-424

  Simon, Fanny ^a   Tellier, Albéric ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886519218     PISSN: 07423322     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1108/S0742-3322(2011)0000028018     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Alter, N. (1995). Peut-on programmer l'innovation? Revue Franc-aise de Gestion, 103, 78-86.
2. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In: P. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 10, pp. 123-167). Greenwitch: JAI Press.
3. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
4. Audia, P., & Goncalo, J. (2007). Past success and creativiy over time: A study of inventors in the hard disk drive industry. Management Science, 53(1), 1-15.
5. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2002). Process management and technical innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quaterly, 47, 676-706.
6. Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47-55.
7. Bock, R. D., & Husain, S. Z. (1950). An adaptation of Holzinger's B-coefficients for the analysis of sociometric data. Sociometry (13), 143-153.
8. Bonner, J. M., & Walker, O. C. (2004). Selecting influential business-to-business customers in new product development: Relational embeddedness and knowledge heterogeneity considerations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(3), 155-169.
9. Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 50-65.
10. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
11. Burt, R. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399.
12. Burt, R. (2010). Neighbor networks competitive advantage local and personal. New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008). A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 19(6), 824-844.
14. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning & innovation. Administrative Science Quaterly, 35(1), 128-152.
15. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
16. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
17. Ducan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual, structures for innovation. In: R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization (vol. 1, pp. 167-188). New York: North-Holland.
18. Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quaterly, 52, 443-475.
19. Ford, C. M. (1995). Striking inspirational sparks and fanning creative flames. In: C. M. Ford & D. A. Goia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations (pp. 330-354). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
20. Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science, 11(2), 183-196.
21. Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organisational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-236.
22. Gilsing, V., & Nooteboom, B. (2006). Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy, 35, 1-23.
23. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
24. Hamel, G. (1996). Strategy as revolution. Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 69-82.
25. Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quaterly, 44, 82-1.
26. Hargadon, A. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 41-85.
27. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quaterly, 42, 716-749.
28. He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration versus exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidextry hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481-494.
29. Jansen, J., Tempelaar, M., van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 10(4), 797-811.
30. Kadushin, C. (1968). Power, influence and social circles: A new methodology for studying opinion makers. American Sociological Review, 33(5), 685-699.
31. Kijkuit, B., & Van den Ende, J. (2007). The organizational life of an idea: Integrating social network, creativity and decision-making perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 863-882.
32. Kijkuit, B., & Van den Ende, J. (2010). With a little help from our colleagues: A longitudinal study of social networks for innovation. Organization Studies, 31(4), 451-479.
33. Kratzer, J., Leenders, R., & Van Engelen, J. (2010). The social network among engineering design teams and their creativity: A case study among teams in two product development programs. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 428-436.
34. Latour, B. (1989). La science en action. Paris: La Découverte.
35. Lechner, C., Frankenberger, K., & Floyd, S. W. (2010). Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 865-889.
36. March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-86.
37. Marsden, P., & Campbell, K. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63, 482-501.
38. Maurer, I., & Ebers, M. (2006). Dynamics of social capital and their performance implications. Lessons from biotechnology start-ups. Administrative Science Quaterly, 51, 262-292.
39. Mom, T. J. M., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volderda, 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.
40. Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10(3), 313-351.
41. Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the Tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100-130.
42. O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business School Review, 82(April), 74-81.
43. Perry-Smith, J. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 85-101.
44. Perry-Smith, J., & Shalley, C. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89-106.
45. Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is a processual analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 337-348.
46. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685-695.
47. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quaterly, 48, 240-267.
48. Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structure: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 369-386.
49. Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2e éd). London: Sage publications.
50. Seidman, S. B. (1983). Network structure and minimum degree. Social Networks, 5(3), 269-287.
51. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536.
52. Stevenson, W. B., & Greenberg, D. (2000). Agency and social networks strategies of action in a social structure of position, opposition, and opportunity. Administrative Science Quaterly, 45, 651-678.
53. Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., & Newell, S. (2010). Why don't (or do) organizations learn from projects? Management Learning, 41(3), 325-344.
54. Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic Four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723-740.
55. Tiwana, A. (2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 251-272.
56. Tushman, M., & O'Reilly, C. A., III. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.
57. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quaterly, 42, 35-67.
58. Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447-504.
59. Van de Ven, A. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590-607.
60. Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.
61. Zaheer, A., & Soda, G. (2009). Network evolution: The origins of structural holes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 1-31.