Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

More than Bricks in the Wall: Organizational Perspectives for Sustainable Success pp 60–67Cite as

Structuring Ambidextrous Organizations: Exploitation and Exploration as a Key for Long-Term Success

  • Chapter

Abstract

In today’s environment, innovation and agility are deemed central to a firm’s sustainable growth and prosperity. Moreover, to ensure short-term viability, there should be a focus on operational efficiency and the continuous improvement of existing capabilities. The article at hand explains how this balance might be achieved through structural ambidexterity. Its three structural forms, namely cyclical separation, structural separation, and parallel organizations, allow for the conciliation of the two opposing activities: exploitation of current capabilities and exploration of new opportunities. Furthermore, we maintain that different types of innovation might require different organizational structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Argyris, C. 1977. Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5): 115-125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C. M. 2006. The Influence of Founding Team Company Affilations on Firm Behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 741-758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2003. Eploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 238-256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, G. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushe, G. R., & Shani, A. B. 1988. A Review of the Literature on the Use of Parallel Learning Structure Interventions in Bureaucratic Organizations. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 258-262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C.M. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail illustrated edition. Mcgraw-Hill Professional, Columbus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. 1994. Companies need not hire outside CEOs to stimulate fundamental change. Directorship, 19(9): 8-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni, R. A. 1994. Hypercompetition. New York, Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J.E. 1986. The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis. Management Science, 32(11): 1422-1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. B. 1976. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.): The management of organization (pp. 167-188). North-Holland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farjaudon, A., & Saulerot, M. 2006. Les implications du dilemme exploitation / exploration sur le contrôle de gestion: le cas d’une entreprise de produits de grande consommation. Research Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. 2000. Strategizing throughout the Organization: Managing Role Conflict in Strategic Renewals. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 154-177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, R. N., & Kaplan, S. 2001. Creative destruction. New Yersey, Financial Times Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C.B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209-226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, S. G. 1985. Organizational Dualism and Quality Circles. Academy of Management Review, 10(3): 504-517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. 1996. Prospering in Dynamically-competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration. Organization Science, 7(4): 375-387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. T. 1999. Organizational Innovation and Organizational Change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 597-622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. 1983. Some Tests of the Effectiveness and Functional Attributes of Miles and Snow’s Strategic Types. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1): 5-26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, Z., Wong. 2004. Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4): 481-494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. 2005. Ambidextrous Organizations - A Multiple-level Study of Absorptive Capacity, Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation, and Performance. NL: Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The Myopia of Learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Yan Ling, & Veiga, J.F. 2006. Ambidexterity and Performance in Smallto Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration. Journal of Management, 32(5): 646-672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and Exploitaiton in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71-87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D. & Coleman, J. 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3): 546-562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, M. L., & Tushman, C. A. 2004. The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4): 74-81.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, M. L., & Tushman, C. A. 2007. Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator’s Dilemma. Research Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, T. J., & Waterman Jr., R. H.1982. How the best-run companies turn so-so performers into big winners. Management Review, 71(11): 8-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. 1998. Growth strategies. Executive Excellence, 15(1): 6-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S. 2008. Balanced Structures: Designing Organizations for Profitable Growth. Long Range Planning, 41(5): 483-508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3): 375-409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., Probst, G. & Gomez, P. 2007. Wege zum Wachstum: Wie Sie nachhaltigen Unternehmenserfolg erzielen 1. Aufl. Gabler, Betriebswirt.-Vlg, Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams. Organization Science, 16(5): 522-536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. 1986. Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3): 439-465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1996. Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4): 8-30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. 2006. Organizational Desings and Innovation Streams. Research Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhaverbeke, W., & Peeters, N. 2005. Embracing Innovation as Strategy: Corporate Venturing, Competence Building and Corporate Strategy Making. Creativity & Innovation Management, 14(3): 246-257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W. 1996. Toward the Flexible Form: How to Remain Vital in Hypercompetitive Environments. Organization Science, 7(4): 359-374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, R. R., & Ruefli, T. W. 2002. Sustained Competitive Advantage: Temporal Dynamics and the Incidence and Persistence of Superior Economic Performance. Organization Science, 13(1): 82-105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zand, D. 1974. Collateral Organization: A New Change Strategy. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10(1): 63-89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. HEC, University of Geneva, Geneva

    Gaëtan Devins & Caroline N. Kähr

Authors
  1. Gaëtan Devins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caroline N. Kähr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Gabler Verlag | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Devins, G., Kähr, C.N. (2010). Structuring Ambidextrous Organizations: Exploitation and Exploration as a Key for Long-Term Success. In: More than Bricks in the Wall: Organizational Perspectives for Sustainable Success. Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-8945-1_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation