IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulp/sbbeta/2016-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fractal and dynamic organizational ambidexterity

Author

Listed:
  • Lesya DYMYD
  • Patrick LLERENA

Abstract

The ability to combine exploration and exploitation activities is a critical factor for organizational sustainability and survival. For the large number of companies, achieving ambidexterity is a desired, but a highly challenging process. Many of them fail to compete for both agendas simultaneously. The reason is the inability to implement a fractal ambidexterity, which is able to replicate exploration and exploitation simultaneously at multiple levels of a company. We argue that ambidexterity is fractal and dynamic phenomenon. By crossing levels of analysis, our research shows that in ambidextrous organizations, exploration and exploitation can emerge in diverse structures and take different forms. Both activities able to appear at diverse levels and change the degree of their intensity. To be sustainably innovative, an ambidextrous company needs to define and to achieve the appropriate proportion of exploration and exploitation simultaneously at different organizational levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Lesya DYMYD & Patrick LLERENA, 2016. "Fractal and dynamic organizational ambidexterity," Working Papers of BETA 2016-03, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2016-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://beta.u-strasbg.fr/WP/2016/2016-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burgelman, Robert A., 2002. "Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Co-evolutionary Lock-in," Research Papers 1745, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    2. Cohendet Patrick & Llerena Patrick & Simon Laurent, 2014. "The Routinization of Creativity: Lessons from the Case of a Video-game Creative Powerhouse," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 234(2-3), pages 120-141, April.
    3. Patrick Cohendet & Laurent Simon, 2007. "Playing across the playground : paradoxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm," Post-Print hal-00279260, HAL.
    4. Patrick Cohendet & Patrick Llerena, 2003. "Routines and incentives: the role of communities in the firm," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(2), pages 271-297, April.
    5. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    6. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    7. Peter Boumgarden & Jackson Nickerson & Todd R. Zenger, 2012. "Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 587-610, June.
    8. Nonaka, Ikujiro & Kodama, Mitsuru & Hirose, Ayano & Kohlbacher, Florian, 2014. "Dynamic fractal organizations for promoting knowledge-based transformation – A new paradigm for organizational theory," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-146.
    9. Li Liu & Xuerong Wang & Zhaohan Sheng, 2012. "Achieving ambidexterity in large, complex engineering projects: a case study of the Sutong Bridge project," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 399-409, March.
    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. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Armin Anzenbacher & Marcus Wagner, 2020. "The role of exploration and exploitation for innovation success: effects of business models on organizational ambidexterity in the semiconductor industry," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 571-594, June.
    4. Mavroudi, Eva & Kesidou, Effie & Pandza, Krsto, 2020. "Shifting back and forth: How does the temporal cycling between exploratory and exploitative R&D influence firm performance?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 386-396.
    5. 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.
    6. Manuel Guisado-González & Jennifer González-Blanco & José Luis Coca-Pérez, 2019. "Exploration, exploitation, and firm age in alliance portfolios," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(4), pages 387-406, December.
    7. Jiewei Zu & Jianan Wang & Jun Ma, 2022. "Ambidexterity in a Rapidly Changing Environment of China: Top Management Team Decision Making and Sustained Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    9. Jan Mattsson & Helge Helmersson & Katarina Stetler, 2016. "Motivation Fatigue As A Threat To Innovation: Bypassing The Productivity Dilemma In R&D By Cyclic Production," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-23, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Hyojung Kim & Namgyoo Park & Jeonghwan Lee, 2014. "How does the second-order learning process moderate the relationship between innovation inputs and outputs of large Korean firms?," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 69-103, March.
    12. Andrew D. Henderson & Melissa E. Graebner, 2020. "Entering a Golden Age of Sustained Superiority: Entrepreneurial Creation or Discovery?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 1432-1451, November.
    13. Uriel Stettner & Dovev Lavie, 2014. "Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(13), pages 1903-1929, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Wenke, Kathrin & Zapkau, Florian B. & Schwens, Christian, 2021. "Too small to do it all? A meta-analysis on the relative relationships of exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity with SME performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 653-665.
    16. Tina Wolf & Uwe Cantner & Holger Graf & Michael Rothgang, 2019. "Cluster ambidexterity towards exploration and exploitation: strategies and cluster management," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1840-1866, December.
    17. Gilles Garel, 2019. "Organiser la conception innovante ou comment rester un explorateur : le cas de l’entreprise Creaholic," Post-Print hal-02557361, HAL.
    18. Daniella Laureiro-Martínez & Stefano Brusoni & Nicola Canessa & Maurizio Zollo, 2015. "Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 319-338, March.
    19. 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.
    20. Solís-Molina, Miguel & Hernández-Espallardo, Miguel & Rodríguez-Orejuela, Augusto, 2018. "Performance implications of organizational ambidexterity versus specialization in exploitation or exploration: The role of absorptive capacity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 181-194.

    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:ulp:sbbeta:2016-03. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bestrfr.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.