Advertisement

Individuals’ knowledge and their explorative and exploitative behaviors

  • Tim SchweisfurthEmail author
  • Christoph Stockstrom
  • Christina Raasch
Chapter

Abstract

A growing body of literature has been focusing on the question how individuals in organizations combine exploitation and exploration so as to help organizations become ambidextrous. We take a knowledge-based perspective to understand employees’ explorative and exploitative behaviors and conceptualize knowledge-based precursors to these behaviors along two dimensions: (1) focus on internal and external knowledge (level of existing knowledge vs. absorptive capacity) and (2) knowledge domain (need vs. solution knowledge). This focus addresses two significant gaps in the ambidexterity research (Lavie et al. 2010; Raisch et al. 2009): (1) the tensions of focusing on internal vs. external knowledge and (2) the interactions between different knowledge domains.

Drawing on a sample of 864 employees in the home appliances sector, we use regression analyses to test six hypotheses. We argue that existing knowledge will relate positively to exploitative behavior, and that absorptive capacity for new knowledge from outside will relate positively to explorative behavior. Our data supports these conjectures, and shows that these relationships increase non-linearly for all tested relationships, except for the positive relationship between need knowledge and exploitative behavior. We also find support for the hypothesized negative interaction between need and solution knowledge on exploitation and a negative interaction effect of need and solution absorptive capacity on exploration.

Our findings make three primary contributions to the research on individual ambidexterity and absorptive capacity. First, we extend the understanding of the cognitive precursors of ambidexterity at the individual level by exploring how individuals’ knowledge and absorptive capacities shape their exploration and exploitation. Second, we show that need knowledge and solution knowledge are substitutes in their effects on exploitative behavior and, analogically, that need knowledge and solution knowledge are substitutes in their absorptive capacity effects on explorative behavior. Third, we contribute to the literature on individual absorptive capacity, introducing individual absorptive capacity for need and solution knowledge as precursors of explorative behavior, which extends the understanding of the micro-level outcomes of this capacity.

Keywords

Explorative Behavior Exploitative Behavior Absorptive Capacity Individual Ambidexterity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexy, O., George, G. & Salter, A. 2013. Cui bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of management review, 13, 270-291Google Scholar
  2. Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J. & D’este, P. 2008. When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1424-1447.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, J. S. & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396-402.Google Scholar
  4. Autio, E., Dahlander, L. & Frederiksen, L. 2013. Information exposure, opportunity evaluation and entrepreneurial action: An empirical investigation of an online user community. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1348-1371Google Scholar
  5. Balka, K., Raasch, C. & Herstatt, C. 2014. The Effect of Selective Openness on Value Creation in User Innovation Communities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 392–407.Google Scholar
  6. Bierly, P. E. & Daly, P. S. 2007. Alternative Knowledge Strategies, Competitive Environment, and Organizational Performance in Small Manufacturing Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 493-516.Google Scholar
  7. Burgers, J. H., van den Bosch, F. A. & Volberda, H. W. 2008. Why new business development projects fail: coping with the differences of technological versus market knowledge. Long Range Planning, 41, 55-73.Google Scholar
  8. Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. & Zhang, H. 2009. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20, 781-796.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, K. B. 1985. The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy, 14, 235-251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.Google Scholar
  11. Colombo, M. G., Piva, E. & Rossi-Lamastra, C. 2013. Authorising employees to collaborate with communities during working hours: when is it valuable for firms? Long Range Planning, 46, 236-257.Google Scholar
  12. Dahlander, L., o’Mahony, S. C. & Gann, D. 2016. One Foot in, One Foot Out: How Does Individuals’ External Search Breadth Affect Innovation Outcomes? Strategic Management Journal, 37, 280–302.Google Scholar
  13. Danneels, E. 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1095-1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Danneels, E. 2007. The process of technological competence leveraging. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 511-534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deng, X., Doll, W. J. & Cao, M. 2008. Exploring the absorptive capacity to innovation/productivity link for individual engineers engaged in IT enabled work. Information & Management, 45, 75-87.Google Scholar
  16. Flynn, L. R. & Goldsmith, R. E. 1999. A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46, 57-66.Google Scholar
  17. George, E. & Chattopadhyay, P. 2005. One foot in each camp: The dual identification of contract workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 68-99.Google Scholar
  18. Gibson, C. B. & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209-226.Google Scholar
  19. Good, D. & Michel, E. J. 2013. Individual Ambidexterity: Exploring and Exploiting in Dynamic Contexts. The Journal of Psychology, 147, 435-453.Google Scholar
  20. Gruber, M., Macmillan, I. C. & Thompson, J. D. 2012. From Minds to Markets How Human Capital Endowments Shape Market Opportunity Identification of Technology Start-Ups. Journal of Management, 38, 1421-1449.Google Scholar
  21. Gruber, M., Macmillan, I. C. & Thompson, J. D. 2013. Escaping the prior knowledge corridor: What shapes the number and variety of market opportunities identified before market entry of technology start-ups? Organization Science, 24, 280-300.Google Scholar
  22. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G. & Shalley, C. E. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693-706.Google Scholar
  23. Haans, R. F., Pieters, C. & He, Z. L. 2015. Thinking about U: theorizing and testing U‐and inverted U‐shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal.Google Scholar
  24. He, Z. L. & Wong, P. K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481-494.Google Scholar
  25. Hess, A. M. & Rothaermel, F. T. 2011. When are assets complementary? Star scientists, strategic alliances, and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 895-909.Google Scholar
  26. Hoang, H. & Rothaermel, F. T. 2010. Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 734-758.Google Scholar
  27. Im, G. & Rai, A. 2008. Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Science, 54, 1281-1296.Google Scholar
  28. Jansen, J. J. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J. & Volberda, H. W. 2006. Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661-1674.Google Scholar
  29. Jiménez-Castillo, D. & Sánchez-Pérez, M. 2013. Nurturing employees’ market knowledge absorptive capacity through unified internal communication and integrated information technology. Information & Management, 50, 76-86.Google Scholar
  30. Katila, R. & Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183-1194.Google Scholar
  31. Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R. & Pathak, S. 2006. The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31, 833-863.Google Scholar
  32. Lane, P. J. & Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461-477.Google Scholar
  33. Laureiro-Martínez, D., Brusoni, S. & Zollo, M. 2010. The neuroscientific foundations of the exploration− exploitation dilemma. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 3, 95.Google Scholar
  34. Laureiro‐Martínez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N. & Zollo, M. 2014. Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An MRI study of attention control and decision‐making performance. Strategic Management Journal.Google Scholar
  35. Lavie, D. & ROsenkopf, L. 2006. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 797-818.Google Scholar
  36. Lavie, D., Stettner, U. & Tushman, M. L. 2010. Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 109-155.Google Scholar
  37. Lee, T. H., Gerhart, B., Weller, I. & Trevor, C. O. 2008. Understanding voluntary turnover: Path-specific job satisfaction effects and the importance of unsolicited job offers. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 651-671.Google Scholar
  38. Levinthal, D. A. & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95-112.Google Scholar
  39. LI, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W. & Schoenmakers, W. 2008. Exploration and exploitation in innovation: reframing the interpretation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17, 107-126.Google Scholar
  40. Lin, Z., Yang, H. & Demirkan, I. 2007. The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science, 53, 1645-1658.Google Scholar
  41. Lindell, M. K. & Whitney, D. J. 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114-121.Google Scholar
  42. Liu, W. 2006. Knowledge exploitation, knowledge exploration, and competency trap. Knowledge and Process Management, 13, 144-161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lowik, S., Kraaijenbrink, J. & Groen, A. J. The Effects of Prior Knowledge, Networks, and Cognitive Style on Individuals’ Absorptive Capacity. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2012. Academy of Management.Google Scholar
  44. Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. & Veiga, J. F. 2006. Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of management, 32, 646-672.Google Scholar
  45. Maccormack, A., Baldwin, C. & Rusnak, J. Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the mirroring hypothesis. Research Policy.Google Scholar
  46. Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S. & Patil, A. 2006. Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52, 1865-1883Google Scholar
  47. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matusik, S. F. & Heeley, M. B. 2005. Absorptive capacity in the software industry: identifying dimensions that affect knowledge and knowledge creation activities. Journal of Management, 31, 549-572.Google Scholar
  49. Milgrom, P. & Roberts, J. 1995. Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19, 179-208.Google Scholar
  50. Mom, T., Reinmuller, P., Neerijnen, P. & Verwaal, E. 2015a. Relational Capital and Individual Exploration: Unravelling the influence of goal alignment and knowledge acquisition. Organization Studies.Google Scholar
  51. Mom, T. J., Fourné, S. P. & Jansen, J. J. 2015b. Managers’ Work Experience, Ambidexterity, and Performance: The Contingency Role of the Work Context. Human Resource Management.Google Scholar
  52. Mom, T. J., van den Bosch, F. A. & Volberda, H. W. 2009. Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 812-828.Google Scholar
  53. Mom, T. J. M., van den Bosch, F. A. J. & Volberda, H. W. 2007. Investigating Managers’ Exploration and Exploitation Activities: The Influence of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Horizontal Knowledge Inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 910-931.Google Scholar
  54. Murovec, N. & Prodan, I. 2009. Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation, 29, 859-872.Google Scholar
  55. Nerkar, A. & Roberts, P. W. 2004. Technological and product‐market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 779-799.Google Scholar
  56. o’Reilly, C. A. & Tushman, M. L. 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206.Google Scholar
  57. Park, J.-H., Suh, H.-J. & Yang, H.-D. 2007. Perceived absorptive capacity of individual users in performance of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) usage: The case for Korean firms. Information & Management, 44, 300-312.Google Scholar
  58. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.Google Scholar
  59. Podsakoff, P. M. & ORGAN, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544Google Scholar
  60. Raisch, S. & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375-409.Google Scholar
  61. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G. & Tushman, M. L. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685-695.Google Scholar
  62. Rammstedt, B. & John, O. P. 2007. Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203-212.Google Scholar
  63. Rogan, M. & Mors, M. L. 2014. A Network Perspective on Individual-Level Ambidexterity in Organizations. Organization Science.Google Scholar
  64. Rosenkopf, L. & Nerkar, A. 2001. Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 287-306.Google Scholar
  65. Rothaermel, F. T. 2001. Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent’s advantage: an empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 30, 1235-1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rothaermel, F. T. & Deeds, D. L. 2004. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strategic management journal, 25, 201-221.Google Scholar
  67. Schweisfurth, T. G. & Raasch, C. 2015. Absorptive capacity for need knowledge - an empirical study of its antededents and its effects for innovativeness. TIE Conference. Potsdam.Google Scholar
  68. Schweisfurth, T. G. & Raasch, C. 2018. Absorptive capacity for need knowledge: Antecedents and effects for employee innovativeness. Research Policy, 47, 687-699.Google Scholar
  69. Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L. & Blum, T. C. 2009. Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 489-505.Google Scholar
  70. Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R. & Volberda, H. W. 2007. The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18, 20-38.Google Scholar
  71. Simon, F. & Tellier, A. 2011. Reconsidering Ambidexterity at the Individual Level: A Social Network Perspective. In: Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L. & Täube, F. (eds.) Project-Based Organizing and Strategic Management.Google Scholar
  72. Simsek, Z. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 597-624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F. & Souder, D. 2009. A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864-894.Google Scholar
  74. Tiwana, A. 2008. Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 251-272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Todorova, G. & Durisin, B. 2007. Absorptive capacity: valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32, 774-786.Google Scholar
  76. Tortoriello, M. 2014. The social underpinnings of absorptive capacity: The moderating effects of structural holes on innovation generation based on external knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 586–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Trevor, C. O. 2001. Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 621-638.Google Scholar
  78. Tushman, M. L. & o’Reilly, C. A. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8-30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Schweisfurth
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christoph Stockstrom
    • 2
  • Christina Raasch
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Southern Denmark, Technology Entrepreneurship and InnovationOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.Fachbereich WirtschaftswissenschaftenNordakademie HamburgElmshornGermany
  3. 3.Professor for Digital EconomyKühne Logistics University HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations