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

被引:1321
作者
Andriopoulos, Constantine [1 ]
Lewis, Marianne W. [2 ]
机构
[1] Brunel Univ, Brunel Business Sch, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, Middx, England
[2] Univ Cincinnati, Coll Business, Cincinnati, OH 45221 USA
关键词
innovation; organizational ambidexterity; paradox; tensions; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; KNOWLEDGE CREATION; MANAGEMENT; ANTECEDENTS; PERFORMANCE; CAPABILITY;
D O I
10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:696 / 717
页数:22
相关论文
共 63 条
[1]  
Alvesson M., 1995, MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE
[2]   Affect and creativity at work [J].
Amabile, TM ;
Barsade, SG ;
Mueller, JS ;
Staw, BM .
ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 2005, 50 (03) :367-403
[3]   Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation [J].
Atuahene-Gima, K .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 2005, 69 (04) :61-83
[4]  
Beckman CM, 2006, ACAD MANAGE J, V49, P741, DOI 10.2307/20159796
[5]   Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries [J].
Benner, MJ .
ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 2002, 47 (04) :676-706
[6]  
Birkinshaw J, 2004, MIT SLOAN MANAGE REV, V45, P47
[7]  
Brown JS, 2001, MIT SLOAN MANAGE REV, V42, P93
[8]  
Cameron K.S., 1988, PARADOX TRANSFORMATI, P12
[9]   A COEFFICIENT OF AGREEMENT FOR NOMINAL SCALES [J].
COHEN, J .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1960, 20 (01) :37-46
[10]   ABSORPTIVE-CAPACITY - A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION [J].
COHEN, WM ;
LEVINTHAL, DA .
ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 1990, 35 (01) :128-152