Ambidexterity

  • Christian GarausEmail author
  • Wolfgang H. Güttel
  • Stefan Konlechner
  • Hubert Lackner
  • Barbara Müller
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6616-1_253-2
  • 108 Downloads

Synonyms

Balanced organizational learning; Exploration-exploitation balance; Innovation-Efficiency

The question how organizations survive and prosper within changing environments is a central topic in contemporary management theory and practice. In order to gain and sustain competitive advantage, organizations need to reconcile two seemingly incompatible learning capabilities simultaneously: exploration (i.e., building new competencies) and exploitation (i.e., using and refining existing ones) (March 1991). The tensions between exploration and exploitation emerge from their competition for scarce resources and their self-reinforcing nature (Gupta et al. 2006). Most firms tend to overemphasize exploitation because payoffs of exploitation are more predictable and closer in time. Although firms focusing solely on exploitation may reap the short-term benefits of exploitation, they suffer from the lack of new ideas in the long run (“competency trap”). Likewise, focusing on exploration to...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Benner MJ, Tushman ML. Exploration, exploitation, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev. 2003;28:238–56.Google Scholar
  2. Garaus C, Güttel WH, Konlechner S, Koprax I, Lackner H, Link K, Müller B. Bridging knowledge in ambidextrous HRM systems: empirical evidence from hidden champions. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2016;27(3):355–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manag J. 2004;47:209–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J. 2006;49:693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Güttel WH, Konlechner S. Continuously hanging by a thread: dynamic capabilities in ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Bus Rev. 2009;61:150–72.Google Scholar
  6. Güttel WH, Konlechner S, Müller B, Trede JK, Lehrer M. Facilitating ambidexterity in replicator organizations: artifacts in their role as routine-re-creators. Schmalenbach Bus Rev. 2012;64:187–203.Google Scholar
  7. Güttel WH, Konlechner S, Trede JK. Standardized individuality versus individualized standardization: the role of the context in structurally ambidextrous organizations. Rev Manag Sci. 2015;9(2):261–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Levie J, Lichtenstein BB. A terminal assessment of stages theory: introducing a dynamic states approach to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract. 2010;34:217–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Levinthal D, March J. The myopia of learning. Strateg Manag J. 1993;14:95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. March JG. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci. 1991;2:71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML. The ambidextrous organisation. Harv Bus Rev. 2004;82(4):74–81.Google Scholar
  12. O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML. Organizational ambidexterity in action: how managers explore and exploit. Calif Manag Rev. 2011;53(4):5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML. Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future. The Acad Manage Perspect. 2013;27(4):324–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Raisch S, Birkinshaw J. Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J Manag. 2008;34:375–409.Google Scholar
  15. Simsek Z, Heavey C, Veiga JF, Souder D. A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. J Manag Stud. 2009;46:864–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Turner N, Swart J, Maylor H. Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: a review and research agenda. Int J Manag Rev. 2013;15(3):317–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA. Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev. 1996;38:8–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Garaus
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wolfgang H. Güttel
    • 2
  • Stefan Konlechner
    • 2
  • Hubert Lackner
    • 2
  • Barbara Müller
    • 2
  1. 1.WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business)Institute for Strategy, Technology and OrganizationViennaAustria
  2. 2.Institute of Human Resource and Change ManagementJohannes Kepler UniversityLinzAustria

Section editors and affiliations

  • David F. J. Campbell
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty for Interdisciplinary StudiesAlpen-Adria-University KlagenfurtViennaAustria