Breaking Out

  • Aaron C. T. SmithEmail author
  • Fiona Sutherland
  • David H. Gilbert


This chapter examines a case study focusing on ambidexterity capabilities. The leadership in this chapter’s case firm made a bold commitment to positioning innovation as a core feature of its culture. An experimental approach was adopted that heightened the explore—exploit tension, propelling the firm’s innovation objectives. They iteratively developed an innovation mindset designed to stimulate new, ‘ahead of the curve,’ services in order to secure a sustainable turnover of new revenue. The chapter emphasizes the case firm’s formation of an agile, technology-focused, product-oriented business unit that turned the traditional services firm business model upside-down by using low touch services, remote connections, self-service clients, and a high volume of transactions and clients, all within more modest margins. The chapter presents the firm’s response as a form of ambidexterity capability.


Spin out Experimentation Agile Technology 


  1. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baghai, M. A., Everingham, B., & White, D. (2000). Growth down under. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1(1), 12–14.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, M.-J., & Miller, D. (2010). West meets East: Toward an ambicultural approach to management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(4), 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rule. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3), 413–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Brown, S. L. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Long Range Planning, 31(5), 786–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ethiraj, S., & Levinthal, D. (2004). Bounded rationality and the search for organizational architecture: An evolutionary perspective on the design of organizations and their evolvability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 404–437.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, P., Pucik, V., & Bjorkman, I. (2011). The global challenge: International human resource management (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Google Scholar
  10. Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galunic, C. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate form. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1229–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1995). Building the entrepreneurial corporation: New organizational processes, new managerial tasks. European Management Journal, 13(2), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilbert, D. H., Smith, A. C. T., & Sutherland, F. (2015). Osmotic strategy: Innovating at the core to inspire at the edges. Organizational Dynamics, 44(3), 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hegel, G. W. F. (1899). Trans. by J. Sibree. Philosophy of history. New York: The Colonial Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jackson, P., & Harris, L. (2003). E-business and organisational change: Reconciling traditional values with business transformation. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 16(5), 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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(11), 1661–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leana, C. R., & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 753–759.Google Scholar
  18. Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to-medium-sized firms. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. E. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore, G. A. (2007). To succeed in the long term, focus on the middle term. Harvard Business Review, 85(7–8), 2–8.Google Scholar
  21. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schilling, M. A., & Steensma, H. (2001). The use of modular organizational forms: An industry-level analysis. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1149–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seo, M. G., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 73–107). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
  25. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technical change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20(4), 718–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tushman, M., Lakhani, K., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2012). Open innovation and organizational design. Journal of Organizational Design, 1(1), 24–27.Google Scholar
  28. Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Chapman Wood, R., Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1331–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang, C., & Ahmed, P. (2003). Structure and structural dimensions for knowledge-based organizations. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(1), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aaron C. T. Smith
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fiona Sutherland
    • 2
  • David H. Gilbert
    • 3
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.La Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations