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

References

• Alvesson M.Management of Knowledge-Intensive Companies (1995) (De Gruyter, Berlin and New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amabile T. M., Barsade S. G., Mueller J. S., Staw B. M. Affect and creativity at work. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2005) 50:367–403Crossref, Google Scholar
• Atuahene-Gima K. Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. J. Marketing (2005) 69:61–83Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beckman C. M. The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Acad. Management J. (2006) 49:741–758Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner M. J., Tushman M. Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2002) 47:676–706Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birkinshaw J., Gibson C. Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Rev. (2004) 45:47–55Google Scholar
• Brown J. S., Duguid P. Creativity versus structure: A useful tension. MIT Sloan Management Rev. (2001) 42:93–94Google Scholar
• Cameron K. S., Quinn R. E., Quinn R. E., Cameron K. S. Organizational paradox and transformation. Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management (1988) (Ballinger, Cambridge, MA) 12–18Google Scholar
• Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Ed. Psych. Measurement (1960) 20:37–46Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1990) 35:128–153Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collins J. C., Porras J. I.Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (1994) (HarperCollins, New York) Google Scholar
• Danneels E. Tight-loose coupling with customers: The enactment of customer orientation. Strategic Management J. (2003) 24:559–576Crossref, Google Scholar
• Delmestri G., Montanari F., Usai A. Reputation and strength of ties in predicting commercial success and artistic merit of independents in the Italian feature film industry. J. Management Stud. (2005) 42:975–1002Crossref, Google Scholar
• Denison D. R., Hooijberg R., Quinn R. E. Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organ. Sci. (1995) 6:524–540Link, Google Scholar
• Dougherty D., Clegg S. R., Hardy C., Nord W. R. Organizing for innovation. Handbook of Organization Studies (1996) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
• Duncan R., Kilman R., Pondy L. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organizational Design (1976) (North Holland, New York) 167–188Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Management Rev. (1989) 14:532–550Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M. Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: The new language of change and pluralism. Acad. Management Rev. (2000) 25:703–705Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M., Bourgeois L. J. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Acad. Management J. (1988) 31:737–770Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt K. M., Graebner M. E. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Management J. (2007) 50:25–32Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forster N., Cassell C., Symon G. The analysis of company documentation. Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (1994) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
• Ghoshal S., Bartlett C. A.The Individualized Corporation: A Fundamentally New Approach to Management (1997) (Harper Business, New York) Google Scholar
• Gibson C. B., Birkinshaw J. The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Management J. (2004) 47:209–226Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glaser B., Strauss A.The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967) (Aldine, New York) Google Scholar
• Gupta A. K., Smith K. G., Shalley C. E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad. Management J. (2006) 49:693–706Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick D. C., Cummings L. L., Staw B. M. Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the “team” label. Research in Organizational Behavior (1994) 16(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 171–213Google Scholar
• Hargadon A., Bechky B. When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organ. Sci. (2006) 17:484–500Link, Google Scholar
• Hargadon A., Fanelli A. Action and possibility: Reconciling dual perspectives of knowledge in organizations. Organ. Sci. (2002) 13:290–302Link, Google Scholar
• Hargadon A., Sutton R. I. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1997) 42:716–749Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargadon A., Sutton R. I. Building an innovation factory. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2000) 78(3):157–166Google Scholar
• Jansen J. J. P., van den Bosch F. A. J., Volberda H. W. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Sci. (2006) 52(11):1661–1674Link, Google Scholar
• Lampel J., Lant T., Shamsie J. Balancing act: Learning from organizing practices in cultural industries. Organ. Sci. (2000) 11:263–269Link, Google Scholar
• Leonard D., Swap W.When Sparks Fly: Igniting Creativity in Groups (1999) (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Levitt T. Creativity is not enough. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2002) 80:137–145Google Scholar
• Lewis M. W. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad. Management Rev. (2000) 25:760–776Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lubatkin M. H., Simsek Z., Ling Y., Veiga J. F. Ambidexterity and performance in small-to-medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. J. Management (2006) 32:646–672Crossref, Google Scholar
• March J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. (1991) 2:71–87Link, Google Scholar
• Mauzy J., Harriman R. A. Three climates for creativity. Res. Tech. Management (2003) 46:27–30Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonough E. F., Leifer R. Using simultaneous structures to cope with uncertainty. Acad. Management J. (1983) 26:727–735Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miles M. B., Huberman A. M.Qualitative Data Analysis (1994) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
• Miner A. S., Bassoff P., Moorman C. Organizational improvisation and learning: A field study. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2001) 46:304–337Crossref, Google Scholar
• O'Reilly C. A., Tushman M. L. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2004) 82(4):74–81Google Scholar
• Poole M. S., Van de Ven A. H. Using a paradox to build management and organization theories. Acad. Management R. (1989) 14:562–578Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P., Singh H., Zollo M. Organizing for innovation: Managing the coordination-autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions. Acad. Management J. (2006) 49:263–280Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raisch S., Birkinshaw J. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J. Management (2008) 34:375–409Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robertson M., Swan J. “Control—What control?” Culture and ambiguity within a knowledge intensive firm. J. Management Stud. (2003) 40:831–858Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robinson A. G., Stern S.Corporate Creativity (1998) (Berret-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco) Google Scholar
• Sharma A. Central dilemmas of managing innovation in large firms. California Management Rev. (1999) 41:149–165Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sheremata W. A. Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Acad. Management Rev. (2000) 25:389–408Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slaatte H. A.The Pertinence of Paradox (1968) (Humanities Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Smith K. G., Collins C. J., Clark K. D. Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Acad. Management J. (2005) 48:346–357Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith W. K., Tushman M. L. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organ. Sci. (2005) 16(5):522–536Link, Google Scholar
• Spradley J. P.The Ethnographic Interview (1979) (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York) Google Scholar
• Strauss A., Corbin J.Basics of Qualitative Research (1990) (Sage, Newbury Park, CA) Google Scholar
• Subramaniam M., Youndt M. A. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Acad. Management J. (2005) 48:450–463Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sutton R. I., Hargadon A. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1996) 41:685–718Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor A., Greve H. R. Superman or the Fantastic Four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Acad. Management J. (2006) 49:723–740Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman M. L., O'Reilly C. A. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Rev. (1996) 38(4):8–30Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Maanen J. The fact of fiction in organization ethnography. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1979) 24:539–550Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wadhwa A., Kotha S. Knowledge creation through external venturing: Evidence from the telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. Acad. Management J. (2006) 49:819–835Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wheelwright S. C., Clark K. B.Revolutionizing Product Development (1992) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Yin R.Case Study Research: Design and Methods (1994) (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA) Google Scholar