In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial reactions to innovation–efficiency tensions

Human Relations

Volumn 69, Issue 9, 2016, Pages 1791-1822

  Papachroni, Angeliki ^a   Heracleous, Loizos ^b   Paroutis, Sotirios ^b  

^a HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

case study; exploitation; exploration; organizational tensions; tension management

Indexed keywords

TELECOMMUNICATION; TENSION;

EID: 84979937185     PISSN: 00187267     EISSN: 1741282X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0018726715625343     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. D.F.Abell (1999) Competing today while preparing for tomorrow. Sloan Management Review40(3): 73–81.
2. P.AdlerM.S.BennerD.J.Brunner. (2009) Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. Journal of Operations Management27(2): 99–113.
3. P.S.AdlerB.GoldoftasD.I.Levine (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science10(1): 43–68.
4. C.AndriopoulosM.W.Lewis (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science20(4): 696–717.
5. C.AndriopoulosM.W.Lewis (2010) Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning43(1): 104–122.
6. S.AuhB.Menguc (2005) Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research58(12): 1652–1661.
7. D.Bamford (2008) The use of grounded theory in change management research. Journal of Change Management8(2): 111–121.
8. M.J.BennerM.L.Tushman (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review28(2): 238–256.
9. J.BirkinshawC.Gibson (2004) Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review45(4): 47–55.
10. J.BirkinshawK.Gupta (2013) Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives27(4): 287–298.
11. R.BledowM.FraseN.Anderson. (2009) A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial & Organizational Psychology2(3): 305–337.
12. P.BoumgardenJ.NickersonT.R.Zenger (2012) Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal33(6): 587–610.
13. S.BrionC.MotheM.Sabatier (2010) The impact of organisational context and competences on innovation ambidexterity. International Journal of Innovation Management14(02): 151–178.
14. R.A.Burgelman (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science2(3): 239–262.
15. J.L.CampbellC.QuincyJ.OssermanO.K.Pedersen (2013) Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research42(3): 294–320.
16. S.CantarelloA.MartiniA.Nosella (2012) A multi-level model for organizational ambidexterity in the search phase of the innovation process. Creativity & Innovation Management21(1): 28–48.
17. Q.CaoE.GedajlovicH.Zhang (2009) Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science20(4): 781–796.
18. A.ChandrasekaranK.LindermanR.Schroeder (2012) Antecedents to ambidexterity competency in high technology organizations. Journal of Operations Management30(1/2): 134–151.
19. J.CorbinA.L.Strauss (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20. S.DameronC.Torset (2014) The discursive construction of strategists’ subjectivities: Towards a paradox lens on strategy. Journal of Management Studies51(2): 291–319.
21. G.DevinsC.Kähr (2010) Structuring ambidextrous organizations: Exploitation and exploration as a key for long-term success. In: (eds) More than Bricks in the Wall: Organizational Perspectives for Sustainable Success. Wiesbaden: Springer-Gabler, 60–67.
22. R.B.Duncan (1976) The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In: (eds) The Management of Organization Design: Strategies and Implementation. New York: North Holland, 167–188.
23. K.M.Eisenhardt (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
24. K.M.EisenhardtN.R.FurrC.B.Bingham (2010) Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science21(6): 1263–1273.
25. C.FangJ.LeeM.A.Schilling (2010) Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science21(3): 625–642.
26. M.Farjoun (2010) Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review35(2): 202–225.
27. J.D.FordL.W.Ford (1994) Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review19(4): 756–785.
28. D.C.GalunicK.M.Eisenhardt (2001) Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal44(6): 1229–1249.
29. D.R.GarrisonM.Cleveland-InnesM.KooleJ.Kappelman (2006) Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. Internet and Higher Education9(1): 1–8.
30. A.GeertsF.Blindenbach-DriessenP.Gemmel (2010) Achieving a balance between exploration and exploitation in service firms: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Proceedings2010(1): 1–6.
31. S.GhoshalC.A.Bartlett (1994) Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal15: 91–112.
32. C.B.GibsonJ.Birkinshaw (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal47(2): 209–226.
33. D.A.GioiaK.G.CorleyA.L.Hamilton (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods16(1): 15–31.
34. B.GlaserA.Strauss (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
35. S.G.Goldstein (1985) Organizational dualism and quality circles. Academy of Management Review10(3): 504–517.
36. A.K.GuptaK.G.SmithC.E.Shalley (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal49(4): 693–706.
37. A.K.GuptaP.E.TeslukM.S.Taylor (2007) Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organization Science18(6): 885–897.
38. W.H.GüttelS.W.Konlechner (2009) Continuously hanging by a thread: Managing contextually ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR)61(2): 150–172.
39. Z.L.HeP.K.Wong (2004) Exploration vs. Exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science15(4): 481–494.
40. L.Heracleous (2013) Quantum strategy at Apple Inc. Organizational Dynamics42(2): 92–99.
41. L.HeracleousJ.Wirtz (2010) Singapore Airlines’ balancing act. Harvard Business Review88(7/8): 145–149.
42. A.E.IngramM.W.LewisC.AndriopoulosM.Gotsi (2008) Innovation tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Toward a collective paradox frame. Academy of Management Proceedings2008(1): 1–6.
43. J.J.P.JansenF.A.J.Van Den BoschH.W.Volberda (2005) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR)57(4): 351–363.
44. J.J.P.JansenF.A.J.Van Den BoschH.W.Volberda (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science20(4): 797–811.
45. P.JarzabkowskiJ.LêJKA.H.Van de Ven (2013) Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization11(3): 245–280.
46. J.Jay (2013) Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal56(1): 137–159.
47. A.O.LaplumeP.Dass (2009) Adaptive ambidexterity: Simulating Burgelman and Grove’s (2007) model of strategic dynamics. Academy of Management Proceedings2009(1): 1–6.
48. D.LavieU.StettnerM.L.Tushman (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals4: 109–155.
49. M.D.LeeS.M.MacDermidM.L.Buck (2000) Organizational paradigms of reduced-load work: Accommodation, elaboration, and transformation. Academy of Management Journal43(6): 1211–1226.
50. D.A.LevinthalJ.G.March (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal14: 95–112.
51. M.W.Lewis (2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review25(4): 760–776.
52. M.W.LewisC.AndriopoulosW.K.Smith (2014) Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California Management Review56(3): 58–77.
53. H.-E.LinE.F.McDonoughIII (2011) Investigating the role of leadership and organizational culture in fostering innovation ambidexterity. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management58(3): 497–509.
54. M.H.LubatkinZ.SimsekL.YanJ.F.Veiga (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management32(5): 646–672.
55. L.S.LuscherM.LewisA.Ingram (2006) The social construction of organizational change paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management19(4): 491–502.
56. I.P.McCarthyB.R.Gordon (2011) Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: A management control system approach. R&D Management41(3): 240–258.
57. J.G.March (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science2(1): 71–87.
58. J.A.Martin (2011) Dynamic managerial capabilities and the multibusiness team: The role of episodic teams in executive leadership groups. Organization Science22(1): 118–140.
59. A.MartiniB.T.LaugenL.GastaldiM.Corso (2013) Continuous innovation: Towards a paradoxical, ambidextrous combination of exploration and exploitation. International Journal of Technology Management61(1): 1–22.
60. T.J.M.MomF.A.J.Van den BoschH.W.Volberda (2009) Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science20(4): 812–828.
61. E.R.Morrissey (1974) Sources of error in the coding of questionnaire data. Sociological Methods and Research3(2): 209–232.
62. A.NosellaS.CantarelloR.Filippini (2012) The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization10(4): 450–465.
63. C.A.O’ReillyIIIM.L.Tushman (2004) The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review82(4): 74–81.
64. C.A.O’ReillyIIIM.L.Tushman (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior28: 185–206.
65. I.I.C.A.O’ReillyM.L.Tushman (2011) Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review53(4): 5–22.
66. A.PapachroniL.HeracleousS.Paroutis (2015) Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Building a novel research agenda. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science51(1): 71–93.
67. S.ParoutisL.Heracleous (2013) Discourse revisited: Dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during institutional adoption. Strategic Management Journal34(8): 935–956.
68. S.RaischJ.Birkinshaw (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management34(3): 375–409.
69. S.RaischJ.BirkinshawG.ProbstM.L.Tushman (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science20(4): 685–695.
70. V.P.RindovaS.Kotha (2001) Continuous ‘morphing’: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal44(6): 1263–1280.
71. K.RosingM.FreseA.Bausch (2011) Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly22(5): 956–974.
72. M.SarkeesJ.Hulland (2009) Innovation and efficiency: It is possible to have it all. Business Horizons52(1): 45–55.
73. G.SchreyöggM.Kliesch-Eberl (2007) How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal28(9): 913–933.
74. N.SiggelkowD.A.Levinthal (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science14(6): 650–669.
75. Z.Simsek (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies46(4): 597–624.
76. W.K.Smith (2014) Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal57(6): 1592–1623.
77. W.K.SmithM.W.Lewis (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review36(2): 381–403.
78. W.K.SmithM.L.Tushman (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science16(5): 522–536.
79. W.K.SmithA.BinnsM.L.Tushman (2010) Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning43(2): 448–461.
80. R.Suddaby (2006) From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal49(4): 633–642.
81. D.J.TeeceG.PisanoA.Shuen (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal18(7): 509–533.
82. N.TurnerL.Lee-Kelley (2012) Unpacking the theory on ambidexterity: An illustrative case on the managerial architectures, mechanisms and dynamics. Management Learning44(2): 179–196.
83. N.TurnerJ.SwartH.Maylor (2013) Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews15(3): 317–332.
84. M.L.TushmanC.A.O’ReillyIII (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review38(4): 8–30.
85. J.UotilaM.MaulaT.KeilS.A.Zahra (2009) Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal30(2): 221–231.
86. H.W.Volberda (1996) Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science7(4): 359–374.
87. C.L.WangM.Rafiq (2014) Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: A comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms. British Journal of Management25(1): 58–76.
88. R.Yin (2009) Case Study Research Design and Methods (4th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
89. D.Zand (1974) Collateral organization: A new change strategy. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science10(1): 63–89.