IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v20y2009i4p696-717.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Constantine Andriopoulos

    (Brunel Business School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, United Kingdom)

  • Marianne W. Lewis

    (College of Business, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221)

Abstract

Achieving exploitation and exploration enables success, even survival, but raises challenging tensions. Ambidextrous organizations excel at exploiting existing products to enable incremental innovation and at exploring new opportunities to foster more radical innovation, yet related research is limited. Largely conceptual, anecdotal, or single case studies offer architectural or contextual approaches. Architectural ambidexterity proposes dual structures and strategies to differentiate efforts, focusing actors on one or the other form of innovation. In contrast, contextual approaches use behavioral and social means to integrate exploitation and exploration. To develop a more comprehensive model, we sought to learn from five, ambidextrous firms that lead the product design industry. Results offer an alternative framework for examining exploitation-exploration tensions and their management. More specifically, we present nested paradoxes of innovation: strategic intent (profit-breakthroughs), customer orientation (tight-loose coupling), and personal drivers (discipline-passion). Building from innovation and paradox literature, we theorize how integration and differentiation tactics help manage these interwoven paradoxes and fuel virtuous cycles of ambidexterity. Further, managing paradoxes becomes a shared responsibility, not only of top management, but across organizational levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:20:y:2009:i:4:p:696-717
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406?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. Andrew Hargadon & Angelo Fanelli, 2002. "Action and Possibility: Reconciling Dual Perspectives of Knowledge in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 290-302, June.
    2. Justin J. P. Jansen & Frans A. J. Van Den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2006. "Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1661-1674, November.
    3. Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    4. Andrew B. Hargadon & Beth A. Bechky, 2006. "When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 484-500, August.
    5. Michael Lubatkin & Zeki Simsek & Yan Ling & John F. Veiga, 2006. "Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to Medium-Sized Firms : The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration," Post-Print hal-02311781, HAL.
    6. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    7. Erwin Danneels, 2003. "Tight–loose coupling with customers: the enactment of customer orientation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 559-576, June.
    8. Giuseppe Delmestri & Fabrizio Montanari & Alessandro Usai, 2005. "Reputation and Strength of Ties in Predicting Commercial Success and Artistic Merit of Independents in the Italian Feature Film Industry," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(5), pages 975-1002, July.
    9. Joseph Lampel & Theresa Lant & Jamal Shamsie, 2000. "Balancing Act: Learning from Organizing Practices in Cultural Industries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 263-269, June.
    10. Daniel R. Denison & Robert Hooijberg & Robert E. Quinn, 1995. "Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(5), pages 524-540, 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. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    2. Andreea N. Kiss & Dirk Libaers & Pamela S. Barr & Tang Wang & Miles A. Zachary, 2020. "CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2200-2233, December.
    3. Karl Aschenbrücker & Tobias Kretschmer, 2022. "Performance-based incentives and innovative activity in small firms: evidence from German manufacturing," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(2), pages 47-64, June.
    4. Swarup Kumar Dutta, 2013. "Ambidexterity as a Mediating Variable in the Relationship between Dynamism in the Environment, Organizational Context and Strategic Renewal," Jindal Journal of Business Research, , vol. 2(1), pages 27-41, June.
    5. Mirta Díaz & Susana Pasamar & Ramón Valle, 2012. "Are Ambidextrous Intellectual Capital and HRM Needed for an Ambidextrous Learning?," Working Papers 12.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Business Organization and Marketing (former Department of Business Administration).
    6. Youngtak M. Kim & John R. Busenbark & Seung-Hwan Jeong & Son K. Lam, 2022. "The performance impact of marketing dualities: a response surface approach to resolving empirical challenges," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(5), pages 915-940, September.
    7. Jürgen Weibler & Tobias Keller, 2011. "Ambidextrie in Abhängigkeit von Führungsverantwortung und Marktwahrnehmung: Eine empirische Analyse des individuellen Arbeitsverhaltens in Unternehmen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 155-188, March.
    8. Busola Oluwafemi, Tolulope & Mitchelmore, Siwan & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2020. "Leading innovation: Empirical evidence for ambidextrous leadership from UK high-tech SMEs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 195-208.
    9. Matthews, Lane & Heyden, Mariano L.M. & Zhou, Dan, 2022. "Paradoxical transparency? Capital market responses to exploration and exploitation disclosure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    10. Alexander Linhart & Maximilian Röglinger & Katharina Stelzl, 2020. "A Project Portfolio Management Approach to Tackling the Exploration/Exploitation Trade-off," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(2), pages 103-119, April.
    11. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    12. Wang, Pengfei & Van De Vrande, Vareska & Jansen, Justin J.P., 2017. "Balancing exploration and exploitation in inventions: Quality of inventions and team composition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1836-1850.
    13. Arjan Kozica & Ina Ehnert, 2014. "Lernen von Nachhaltigkeit: Exploration und Exploitation als Lernmodi einer vollständig ambidextren Organisation," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 66(68), pages 147-167, January.
    14. Kammerlander, Nadine & Burger, Dominik & Fust, Alexander & Fueglistaller, Urs, 2015. "Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized enterprises: The effect of CEOs' regulatory focus," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 582-602.
    15. Veider, Viktoria & Matzler, Kurt, 2016. "The ability and willingness of family-controlled firms to arrive at organizational ambidexterity," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 105-116.
    16. Schnellbächer, Benedikt & Heidenreich, Sven & Wald, Andreas, 2019. "Antecedents and effects of individual ambidexterity – A cross-level investigation of exploration and exploitation activities at the employee level," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 442-454.
    17. Lin, H.E., 2010. "Effects of strategy, context and antecedents and capabilities on the outcomes of ambidexterity : A multiple country case study of the US, China and Taiwan," Other publications TiSEM c0eab7d6-d6c7-4b55-9822-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Olga Kassotaki, 2022. "Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    19. 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.
    20. Úbeda-García, Mercedes & Claver-Cortés, Enrique & Marco-Lajara, Bartolomé & Zaragoza-Sáez, Patrocinio, 2020. "Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 363-372.

    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:20:y:2009:i:4:p:696-717. 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.