IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v15y2004i4p481-494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Zi-Lin He

    (Department of Management, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand)

  • Poh-Kam Wong

    (NUS Entrepreneurship Centre, National University of Singapore, 14 Prince George's Park, Singapore 118412)

Abstract

While exploration and exploitation represent two fundamentally different approaches to organizational learning, recent literature has increasingly indicated the need for firms to achieve a balance between the two. This balanced view is embedded in the concept of ambidextrous organizations. However, there is little direct evidence of the positive effect of ambidexterity on firm performance. This paper seeks to test the ambidexterity hypothesis by examining how exploration and exploitation can jointly influence firm performance in the context of firms' approach to technological innovation. Based on a sample of 206 manufacturing firms, we find evidence consistent with the ambidexterity hypothesis by showing that (1) the interaction between explorative and exploitative innovation strategies is positively related to sales growth rate, and (2) the relative imbalance between explorative and exploitative innovation strategies is negatively related to sales growth rate.

Suggested Citation

  • Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:15:y:2004:i:4:p:481-494
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Lori Rosenkopf & Atul Nerkar, 2001. "Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 287-306, April.
    3. Pankaj Ghemawat & Joan E. I Ricart Costa, 1993. "The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 59-73, December.
    4. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    5. Sidney G. Winter & Gabriel Szulanski, 2001. "Replication as Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(6), pages 730-743, December.
    6. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    7. Mikael Holmqvist, 2004. "Experiential Learning Processes of Exploitation and Exploration Within and Between Organizations: An Empirical Study of Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 70-81, February.
    8. Burgelman, Robert A., 2002. "Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Co-evolutionary Lock-in," Research Papers 1745, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    9. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    10. Roy Radner, 1975. "A Behavioral Model of Cost Reduction," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(1), pages 196-215, Spring.
    11. Robert A. Burgelman, 1991. "Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 239-262, August.
    12. Will Mitchell & Kulwant Singh, 1993. "Death of the Lethargic: Effects of Expansion into New Technical Subfields on Performance in a Firm's Base Business," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 152-180, May.
    13. Frans A. J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda & Michiel de Boer, 1999. "Coevolution of Firm Absorptive Capacity and Knowledge Environment: Organizational Forms and Combinative Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(5), pages 551-568, October.
    14. Ikujiro Nonaka & Ryoko Toyama, 2002. "A firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(5), pages 995-1009, November.
    15. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    16. Yu-Ting Cheng & Andrew H. Van de Ven, 1996. "Learning the Innovation Journey: Order out of Chaos?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(6), pages 593-614, December.
    17. Ghemawat, Pankaj & Ricart, Joan E., 1993. "Organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency, The," IESE Research Papers D/255, IESE Business School.
    18. Poh-Kam Wong, 2002. "Globalisation of US, European and Japanese production networks and the growth of Singapore's electronics industry," International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 55-81.
    19. Arie Y. Lewin & Chris P. Long & Timothy N. Carroll, 1999. "The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(5), pages 535-550, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hsu, Chia-Wen & Lien, Yung-Chih & Chen, Homin, 2013. "International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 58-67.
    2. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael, 2007. "Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma," Research Papers 1963, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    3. Piaskowska, D., 2005. "Essays on firm growth and value creation," Other publications TiSEM 89053610-79c6-4c52-9d1c-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Sabyasachi Sinha, 2015. "The Exploration–Exploitation Dilemma: A Review in the Context of Managing Growth of New Ventures," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 40(3), pages 313-323, September.
    5. Jia, Ning, 2018. "Corporate innovation strategy and stock price crash risk," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 155-173.
    6. Sung‐Choon Kang & Scott A. Snell, 2009. "Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A Framework for Human Resource Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 65-92, January.
    7. Basu, Sandip & Phelps, Corey & Kotha, Suresh, 2011. "Towards understanding who makes corporate venture capital investments and why," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 153-171, March.
    8. Arie Y. Lewin & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters, 2011. "Microfoundations of Internal and External Absorptive Capacity Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 81-98, February.
    9. Cynthia A. Lengnick-Hall & Robert J. Griffith, 2007. "Knowledge Resources, Exploration, and Exploitation: A New Perspective on the Interplay Between Innovation and Application," Working Papers 0027, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    10. Glenn B. Voss & Zannie Giraud Voss, 2013. "Strategic Ambidexterity in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Implementing Exploration and Exploitation in Product and Market Domains," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1459-1477, October.
    11. Arie Y. Lewin & Henk W. Volberda, 1999. "Prolegomena on Coevolution: A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(5), pages 519-534, October.
    12. Tom J. M. Mom & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Understanding Variation in Managers' Ambidexterity: Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of Formal Structural and Personal Coordination Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 812-828, August.
    13. Wu Zhan & Roger (Rongxin) Chen, 2013. "Dynamic capability and IJV performance: The effect of exploitation and exploration capabilities," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 601-632, June.
    14. Ming Piao & Edward J. Zajac, 2016. "How exploitation impedes and impels exploration: Theory and evidence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1431-1447, July.
    15. Mudambi, Ram & Swift, Tim, 2011. "Proactive R&D management and firm growth: A punctuated equilibrium model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 429-440, April.
    16. Jingoo Kang & Sang‐Joon Kim, 2020. "Performance implications of incremental transition and discontinuous jump between exploration and exploitation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(6), pages 1083-1111, June.
    17. Forés, Beatriz & Camisón, César, 2016. "Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 831-848.
    18. Volkan Yeniaras & Pinar Sener & Suheyl Unver, 0. "Is market learning the missing link between family involvement – firm performance relationship? A resource-based perspective," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-30.
    19. Volkan Yeniaras & Pinar Sener & Suheyl Unver, 2017. "Is market learning the missing link between family involvement – firm performance relationship? A resource-based perspective," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 575-604, June.
    20. Taehyon Choi, 2015. "Environmental turbulence, density, and learning strategies: when does organizational adaptation matter?," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 437-460, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:15:y:2004:i:4:p:481-494. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.