Mechanisms for Managing Ambidexterity: A Review and Research Agenda

Mechanisms for Managing Ambidexterity:A Review and Research Agendaijmr_343 1..16

Neil Turner, Juani Swart1 and Harvey MaylorSchool of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedford MK43 0AL, UK, and

1School of Management, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UKCorresponding author email: [email protected]

Ambidexterity is of central importance to the competitive advantage of the firm, yet todate there is limited understanding of how it is managed. The theorization of ambidex-terity is inadequate for complex, practical realities and, in turn, this hinders the way inwhich it can aid the management of ambidexterity in practice. This paper asks: Whatare the mechanisms for achieving ambidexterity? The authors use a systematic reviewto develop a research framework which integrates intellectual capital resources (organ-izational, social and human capital) across various levels of analysis (organization,group and individual). This review extends understanding of the generic mechanisms(i.e. temporal, structural and contextual ambidexterity) that dominate the literature.This allows for a more fine-grained understanding of how ambidexterity is achievedand enables avenues for further research to be identified.

Introduction

Organizations within all sectors and markets faceescalating pressure to serve their customers betterby innovating in the delivery of goods and services,yet the competitive environment also demands ever-increasing operational efficiency. It is both a theoreti-cal and a practical challenge to balance the acts ofinnovation and efficiency within a single organiza-tional unit. Herein lies the challenge and the contri-bution of this paper: how can we categorize (i) whatresources are needed and (ii) the mechanisms that wecan adopt, i.e. how we manage the simultaneity ofrenewal (innovation) and refinement (efficiency)? Itis this simultaneity that we understand as ambidex-terity. March (1991) identifies this tension betweenthe twin requirements of exploration and exploita-tion. ‘Exploration includes things captured by termssuch as search, variation, risk taking, experimenta-tion, play, flexibility, discovery, innovation. Exploi-tation includes such things as refinement, choice,production, efficiency, selection, implementation,execution.’ (March 1991, p. 71). Short-term benefitmay be obtained by exploitation, yet this may sacri-

fice long-term performance if the organization failsto adapt to the requirements of the market. Excessivefocus on exploration, whereby an organization con-stantly seeks new ideas, may be similarly flawed(Levinthal and March 1993). Neither of these optionspromotes organizational longevity (O’Reilly andTushman 2011).

The argument put forward by Levinthal and March(1993, p. 105) is that ‘[t]he basic problem confront-ing an organization is to engage in sufficient exploi-tation to ensure its current viability and, at thesame time, to devote enough energy to explorationto ensure its future viability’. He and Wong (2004,p. 481) advise:

exploration and exploitation require substantiallydifferent structures, processes, strategies, capabili-ties, and cultures to pursue and may have differentimpacts on firm adaptation and performance. Ingeneral, exploration is associated with organicstructures, loosely coupled systems, path breaking,improvisation, autonomy and chaos, and emergingmarkets and technologies. Exploitation is associ-ated with mechanistic structures, tightly coupledsystems, path dependence, routinization, control

bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. *, *–* (2012)DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.x

© 2012 The AuthorsInternational Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA02148, USA

and bureaucracy, and stable markets andtechnologies.

Holmqvist (2009) reviews how either explorationor exploitation tends to drive out the other, makingit difficult for organizations to achieve both, yet thechallenge is to accommodate the two (Benner andTushman 2003). If these twin requirements competefor scarce organizational resources, there is a trade-off to be made between them. This is an instinctivelysensible approach, and in line with March (1991).There is, though, a growing body of scholarlywork focusing on ambidexterity (a term first used byDuncan 1976) as a concept by which to considerthe need to balance the requirements of exploitationand exploration and manage both effectively.However, there is a lack of consensus over exactlywhat this term means and how it can best be achieved(Cao et al. 2009; Gupta et al. 2006; Raisch et al.2009). As we shall show, there is a range of inter-pretations of the word, it has been used as a ‘label’(Örtenblad 2010) with multiple applications.

There is general agreement that achieving bothexploitation and exploration can be beneficial interms of financial performance (e.g. He and Wong2004; Kristal et al. 2010; Lubatkin et al. 2006;Morgan and Berthon 2008) and increased organ-izational durability (O’Reilly and Tushman 2011).Examples from a wide variety of industries andlocations highlight the benefits of ambidexterity atthe firm level. These include Canadian internationalnew ventures (Han and Celly 2008), high-tech firmsin Taiwan (Li et al. 2008), Indian pharmaceuticalfirms (Kale and Wield 2008), German high-techstart-ups (Kuckertz et al. 2010) and Spanish SMEsin the optometry and telecoms businesses (Cegarra-Navarro and Dewhurst 2007). Care must be takenin interpreting its benefits, though, as a single factorsuch as sales growth rate (e.g. He and Wong 2004)may be achieved by trading-off other aspects,whereas achieving multiple, potentially contradic-tory, objectives can be understood in terms of ambi-dexterity (Geraldi et al. 2011). In their survey ofsenior managers in publicly traded US firms, Sarkeesand Hulland (2009) found that an ambidextrous firmstrategy has a positive effect on four dimensions ofperformance: revenues, profits, customer satisfactionand new product introductions. They argue ‘[t]hefact that ambidextrous firms can outpace innovation-oriented firms in terms of new products is seeminglycounterintuitive. Yet, it confirms that efficiency andinnovation can be complementary rather than contra-

dictory strategies, as other management researchershave suggested’ Sarkees and Hulland (2009, p. 49).

We must be careful, though, in proposing thatambidexterity is always beneficial, or indeed that itcan be specifically identifiable in complex organiza-tional systems (Sugarman 2010). Ebben and Johnson(2005) studied small firms and found that thosefollowing efficiency or flexibility strategies out-performed those attempting both. This is not entirelysurprising, yet such results should caution scholarsand practitioners that success via ambidexterity isnot a foregone conclusion, and that considerationshould be given as to the reasons why an ambi-dextrous strategy should be pursued, if it is to beattempted.

The increasing interest in ambidexterity, first asa means for achieving innovation and second froma theoretically rich background, has resulted in diver-gent approaches being applied. Both theory andempirical data have supported the benefits of anambidextrous approach, yet a coherent understand-ing of the resources needed to enable ambidexterity,and a clear picture of how this may be achieved inpractice, is lacking. This is captured by O’Reilly andTushman (2011, p. 8):

what is missing is a clear articulation of those spe-cific managerial actions that facilitate the simultane-ous pursuit of exploitation and exploration . . . whatis needed is greater insight into the specific micro-mechanisms required for a manager to implementand operate an ambidextrous strategy.

This is the gap that we address in this paper. Wesynthesize the current diverse body of research onambidexterity into an organizing framework, and ourcontribution is to identify the mechanisms (i.e. pro-cesses, systems and structures) of ambidexterity. Wecategorize these both by the level of analysis (spe-cifically at the organizational, group and individuallevels) and by the underlying resources that underpinthose mechanisms, operationalized in terms of intel-lectual capital (IC) (namely organizational, socialand human capital).

The organizing framework was developed via asystematic literature review (Tranfield et al. 2003),which has been developed from the field of medicineand provides a basis for rigorously and systemati-cally examining the existing literature in line witha pre-defined search and evaluation strategy. Thisenables us to identify future research that will aid inthe coalescence of existing ideas in this field of study,of benefit to both scholars and practitioners.

2 N. Turner et al.

© 2012 The AuthorsInternational Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Methodology

A systematic review offers a comprehensivemethodology for assessing current knowledge usinga multi-stage review strategy (Pittaway et al. 2004).In this review, we followed the work of Tranfieldet al. (2003), with the key points as summarized byDenyer and Neely (2004, p. 133): the development ofclear and precise aims and objectives; pre-plannedmethods; a comprehensive search of all potentiallyrelevant articles; the use of explicit, reproduciblecriteria in the selection of articles; an appraisal ofthe quality of the research and the strength of thefindings; a synthesis of individual studies using anexplicit analytic framework; and a balanced, impar-tial and comprehensible presentation of the results.These aspects are now discussed.

The focus of this study was the mechanisms ofambidexterity. In order to meet the requirement ofdeveloping clear and precise aims and objectives, aninitial scoping review of the literature was carriedout. This identified that there are multiple organiza-tional levels addressed within the literature, and thatthe processes, systems and structures are different ateach level. The systematic review question was there-fore proposed as:

What are the mechanisms for achieving ambidex-terity at multiple organizational levels?

The lens through which this would be analysed wasthat of the IC resources which are used in eachof the mechanisms. This allows the identification ofthe unique and valuable knowledge at both individualand collective levels within an organization thatenables the production of goods or services (Swart2006). The review sought to categorize these mecha-nisms by the level of analysis and the IC resourcesemployed. We consequently use an organizing frame-work to illustrate which IC resource (organizational,social or human capital) functions at which level(organization, group or individual) to enable thesemechanisms to occur. This provides a clear picturesynthesized from the diverse literature. The results ofthis are shown later as Table 3.

A review protocol was designed to address thisquestion by searching for all ‘ambidexterity’ litera-ture, with no pre-conceived expectations. In termsof data location, the search included peer-reviewedacademic literature as well as practitioner literature,since many of the major articles have been aimed atpractitioners. The search databases were ABI/Inform

Proquest and EBSCO Business Source Premier,since they contain the major journals in which thissubject is discussed.

The primary search string used was ‘ambidex*’(to include the words ‘ambidextrous’ and ‘ambidex-terity’), and this returned 136 papers. This approachtook ‘ambidex*’ as a broad, ‘umbrella’, term (Örten-blad 2010). Tools were used to evaluate the papersidentified: inclusion criteria; theoretical and empiri-cal paper evaluation criteria; a quality assessmenttool; a relevance assessment tool; and a commondata extraction format. Some papers were eliminated(executive summaries of papers within an issue, shortpractitioner articles or other uses of ‘ambidexterity’outside the field of management). However, evenwith the systematic review and rating process,the intention was to be as inclusive as possible toavoid eliminating potentially valuable contributionsin the study. A meta-analysis of the literature data(Dixon-Woods et al. 2004) was intended to provide athorough summary of the theoretical issues raised byscholars, and also a review of the empirical researchmethods and findings, to gain an overall view of thestate of knowledge in this area, with a view to under-standing the underlying mechanisms.

From the 136 papers, 17 were eliminated, 34 wererated as conceptual and 85 were the results of empiri-cal field research. Of these 85, 26 were qualitative(based on cases and/or interviews) and 59 usedsurvey data and subsequent statistical analysis. Thejournals in which these papers were published arelisted in Table 1, along with the ABS 2010 journalrankings, and it is noteworthy that 63% are rated as3* or 4*, indicating the academic significance of thesubject.

Ambidexterity: defining the concept

From this review, we argue that the use of the word‘ambidexterity’ within the literature does not reflectmanagerial ‘activity’, it reflects ‘capability’. Insteadof being something that managers ‘do’, it is a wayof looking at what they do. The concept has beentaken by scholars to enlighten their field of studyand has, as Simsek (2009) observes, entered multipleareas of research, including strategic management(Jansen et al. 2008; Lubatkin et al. 2006; Voelpelet al. 2006), innovation and technology management(Ambos et al. 2008; He and Wong 2004;Tushman andO’Reilly 1996), organizational learning (Levinthaland March 1993), organization theory and behaviour

Mechanisms for Managing Ambidexterity 3


(Benner and Tushman 2003; Gibson and Birkinshaw2004) and operations management (Adler et al.2009).

Raisch and Birkinshaw (2008, p. 396) argue thatorganizational ambidexterity is taking shape as aresearch paradigm in organizational theory. Theydescribe this paradigm as ‘a theoretical framework ofa scientific school or discipline within which theories,generalizations, and the methods to test them areformulated’. It should be noted that, despite suchattention to the subject, few firms can actually achieveambidexterity (Sarkees and Hulland 2009), and hencefurther research into the nature of its mechanisms isimportant if the wider benefits are to be obtained byorganizations.

It is clear that the increasing use of the word‘ambidexterity’ within the literature has resultedin manifold uses of the terminology (Raisch andBirkinshaw 2008). The interpretation has moved onfrom the organizational learning (OL) literaturein which the concepts began and, indeed, we arguethat to conceive of ambidexterity as a subset of OLneglects the implications of the wider studies thathave developed around the word. We follow Örten-blad (2010, p. 449) and initially investigate the dif-ferent meanings before offering our interpretation.Table 2 shows some of the varied definitions.Authors appear to have interpreted the concept ofambidexterity as the ability to pursue two contrastingobjectives, which inherently leads to the creation ofa tension that must be reconciled or accommodated(Andriopoulos and Lewis 2010). Friedman et al.(2005, pp. 19–20) argue that ‘the so-called learningorganization is “a management Rorschach Test”because one can see whatever one wants to see in thisconcept’,1 and we view a corresponding issue withinthe field of ambidexterity. In this paper, we thereforeattempt to bring clarity to this diversity of views.

This range of meanings precludes a generic defi-nition that usefully encompasses them all. Based ona synthesis of the ambidexterity literature, our inter-pretation is:

Ambidexterity is the ability to both use and refineexisting knowledge (exploitation) while also creat-ing new knowledge to overcome knowledge defi-ciencies or absences identified within the executionof the work (exploration).

The essence of our work is therefore to investigatethe mechanisms by which this can be achieved,

1Rorschach ‘inkblot test’ as a psychological evaluation ofpersonality.

Table 1. Journal sources of referenced papers

Qty Journal

12 Organization Science (4*)7 Academy of Management Journal (4*)7 Journal of Management Studies (4*)6 Harvard Business Review (4*)5 International Journal of Technology Management (2*)3 California Management Review (3*)3 International Journal of Innovation Management (2*)3 Journal of Product Innovation Management (4*)3 Leadership Quarterly (4*)3 Long Range Planning (3*)3 Management Decision (1*)3 Management Science (4*)3 MIT Sloan Management Review (3*)3 Strategic Management Journal (4*)2 Advances in Developing Human Resources (2*)2 IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (3*)2 Industrial Marketing Management (3*)2 Industry and Innovation (2*)2 International Journal of Human Resource Management (3*)2 Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (1*)2 Journal of Change Management (1*)2 Journal Enterprise Culture (–)2 Journal of Management (4*)2 R&D Management (–)2 Schmalenbach Business Review (–)2 Strategic Organization (2*)2 Technovation (2*)1 Academy of Management Perspectives (3*)1 Business Horizons (1*)1 Communications of the ACM (3*)1 Creativity and Innovation Management (1*)1 European Journal of Marketing (3*)1 European Management Journal (2*)1 European Management Review (1*)1 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (4*)1 Human Relations (4*)1 Industrial and Corporate Change (3*)1 Information Systems Management (2*)1 Information Systems Research (4*)1 International Business Review (3*)1 International Journal of Automotive Technolgy &

Management (–)1 International Journal of Human Resource Development &

Management (–)1 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (3*)1 Journal of Business Chemistry (–)1 Journal of Business Strategy (–)1 Journal of International Marketing (3*)1 Journal of Marketing (4*)1 Journal of Management Information Systems (3*)1 Journal of Operations Management (4*)1 Journal. of Organizational Change Management (2*)1 Personnel Review (2*)1 Project Management Journal (2*)1 Research Tech Management (–)1 Research Policy (4*)1 Strategy and Leadership (–)

Total: 119

4 N. Turner et al.


categorized by the IC resources needed and theorganizational levels at which they occur. We basethis in the terminology of March (1991) and acceptthat this necessarily omits some interpretations.

Categorizing the literature:a multi-level approach

In reviewing the empirical literature (85 papers), wecategorized the research into themes representingthe levels of analysis of the studies. These were atthe organization level (including firm performance,strategy, structure and operations, a total of 44papers and by far the most prevalent), the grouplevel (primarily the importance of social contextand team interactions, total 9) and the individuallevel (emphasizing the significance of the managerialrole, attributes and leadership behaviour, total 7),or a combination of these (group–organization, 15;individual–organization, 6; individual–group, 4).

In order to further categorize the mechanismsaccording to the resources needed at each level,we drew upon the framework of Kang and Snell(2009). They address the issue of how organizationalresources are used in the process of ambidexterity.They consider the organization’s knowledge assets(see also Blackler 1995), and operationalize these interms of IC. This is a significant body of literature

in itself (Swart 2006) and beyond the scope of thiswork to review. However, Kang and Snell (2009)identify the subcomponents as organizational capital(OC, structures and processes within the firm), socialcapital (SC, knowledge embedded within thenetwork of relationships) and human capital (HC,skills embodied within individuals). Importantly,they propose that these can be characterized withboth exploitative and exploratory elements. HC canbe specialist (e.g. technical expertise – exploitative)or generalist (such as wide-ranging managementexperience – exploratory) yet exists in the headsof individuals (Bontis 1998; Hedberg 1981). A co-operative (exploitative) approach to SC uses densesocial networks, e.g. established teams with strongties; whereas an entrepreneurial (exploratory)approach uses a network of weaker ties to seek newknowledge (Burt 1992; Granovetter 1973; Hansen1999; Reagans and McEvily 2003). Organizationalcapital, in which organizational knowledge is pre-served (Daft and Weick 1984), can be mechanisticor organic in nature (Burns and Stalker 1961). Theknowledge assets are therefore identifiable in sixdiscrete forms. Kang and Snell (2009) furthermoreoffer two alternative frameworks for building anambidextrous organization, each synthesized usingthree of the six elements. They advocate either blend-ing specialist HC and cooperative SC with organicOC (i.e. allowing more flexibility for close-knit

Table 2. Definitions of ambidexterity

Author(s) Definition Theoretical perspective

Achrol (1991) Simultaneous efficiency, innovation and flexibility Organization theory and marketing strategyTushman and O’Reilly (1996) Able to manage both incremental and revolutionary

change (temporal ambidexterity)Innovation and technology management

Benner and Tushman (2003) Exploitative and exploratory innovation Innovation and technology managementGibson and Birkinshaw (2004) ‘Contextual ambidexterity’ as adaptability and alignment Organization theory and behaviourO’Reilly and Tushman (2004) ‘Structural ambidexterity’, separation between exploratory

and exploitative unitsBusiness strategy

Graetz and Smith (2005) Controllability and responsiveness Organizational changeMoore (2005) Complex systems together with volume operations Business strategyAhn et al. (2006) New product development both in terms of business

performance and knowledge performanceInnovation and technology management

Danneels (2006) Developing and marketing both sustaining and disruptiveinnovations

Innovation and technology management

Lee et al. (2006) Balancing flexibility and rigour in global softwaredevelopment

Innovation and technology management

Gratton and Erickson (2007) Leaders need to be task- and relationship-oriented in themanagement of large teams.

Organizational behaviour

Lin et al. (2007) The simultaneous and balanced presence of both existingand new partners in a firm’s network of alliances.

Organization theory and behaviour

Sarkees and Hulland (2009) Innovation and efficiency Marketing managementSchreyögg and Sydow (2010) Adaptable fluidity and efficient stability Organization theory



experts) or combining generalist HC with entre-preneurial SC and mechanistic OC (i.e. imposingmore rigour and control on loose-knit generalists).Intuitively, this concurs with observed practice, butare these ideas supported by the body of empiricalevidence on ambidexterity?

The review was undertaken by looking at themechanisms at each level (organization, group andindividual) and deriving a further classification bylooking at the resources, specifically IC (OC, SC,HC), that were needed to make the actions possible.This provides a very detailed categorization as wecan identify:

(a) which mechanisms enable ambidexterity(b) which IC resources (OC, SC, HC) are used

within each mechanism(c) at which level (organization, group, individual)

of analysis the mechanism and the resource existto enable ambidexterity.

This provides a clear matrix within which we cancategorize the mechanisms. The resulting frameworkis shown in Table 3, and the empirical studies andtheoretical arguments will now be framed in this way.We proceed to high-level forms of ambidexterity,

then the mechanisms according to the underlyingknowledge assets used, and how they can be under-stood through the levels.

Generic mechanisms for achieving ambidexterity

The three major, high-level, implementation appro-aches at the organizational level identified withinthe literature are those of temporal, structural andcontextual ambidexterity, and these are now brieflysummarized. Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) showthat, during periods of incremental, evolutionary,improvement, an organization can focus on exploita-tive learning, becoming better at serving its markets.However, many markets experience discontinuous,revolutionary, change, with a radical organizationalresponse required. This represents a temporal strat-egy, where exploitative and exploratory modes aredistinguished by time (i.e. one mode follows theother, and they are not coexistent). This is the punc-tuated equilibrium model of organizational ambi-dexterity, which may not be sufficient to understandmany practical issues. The high-level temporalunderstanding is difficult to reconcile with the rich-ness and complexity of the real organizations thatwe see, and hence its applicability may be rare. For

Table 3. A multi-level categorization of ambidexterity mechanisms

Levels ofanalysis

Intellectual capital resources

Organizational capital Social capital Human capital

Organization Structural configuration and separation.Development and maintenance of

inter-organizational relationships.

Knowledge-sharing relationshipswith new and existing externalparties.

Individuals reconcile and coordinateexploitative and exploratoryfunctions.

Coexistence of formal and informalstructures.

HR practices supportive ofambidexterity.

Management ability to reconfigureorganizational assets.

TMT behavioural integration andcomplexity.

Group Reward systems to support ambidexterity. Complex network of strong andweak ties for effectiveknowledge-sharing, supportedby formal and informalbehaviours.

Relationships supportive ofambidexterity.

Strong, compelling vision.

Processes for creating dense socialrelationships and informal coordination.

Shared values and goals.

Participation in cross-functionalinterfaces.

Formal and informal managerial integrationand control mechanisms.

Transformational leadership.

Individual Multiple cross-functional interfaces toaccommodate formal and informalcoordination.

Individuals creating andsupporting the context forambidexterity.

Taking the initiative; cooperativebehaviour; multitasking; brokering.

Use of both ‘best-practice’ and localmanagerial discretion and judgement.

Both relational- and task-focusedleadership.

6 N. Turner et al.


example, Swart and Kinnie (2007) show how a mar-keting agency works within both a planned, longer-term framework at account level and an acceleratedshorter-term view to meet client needs, and how theability to accommodate these is critical to organiza-tional success.

O’Reilly and Tushman (2004) also identify struc-tural ambidexterity, whereby firms can implement anambidextrous approach by using separate businessunits to perform either standard operations or radicalinnovations. This is also advocated by, for example,Bower and Christensen (1995), and is the ‘parti-tional’ approach (Simsek et al. 2009), whereby oneorganizational unit focuses on exploitation, anotheron exploration. These structurally separate, looselycoupled, subsystems must be integrated at the seniorteam level (Benner and Tushman 2003). Resourcesare allocated to each group, but it is important toensure that tailored and appropriate processes arefollowed by each, since existing systems may beinappropriate for exploratory activities. This, there-fore, helps overcome the fundamentally differentorganizational design requirements. In their study,O’Reilly and Tushman (2004) found that ambidex-trous firms using this technique were significantlymore successful in launching breakthrough productsor services. It is necessary to distinguish the levelof analysis here, because, as Raisch and Birkinshaw(2008, pp. 396–397) elaborate:

choices about how to resolve the tension at onelevel of analysis are often resolved at the next leveldown. So for example, a business unit may becomeambidextrous by creating two functions or sub-divisions with different foci, a manufacturing plantmay become ambidextrous by creating two differentteams (one in charge of enhancements to flexibilityand another in charge of efficiency improvements),and a single team may become ambidextrous byallocating different roles to each individual.

However, taking a more complicated organiza-tional structure as the unit of analysis, where multi-ple coalitions, functions and departments interact, aholistic approach recognizes the difficulty of fittinga simpler model to this environment. We mustacknowledge that taking each domain on its own maygive a different view, yet the more levels of hierarchywe attempt to consider within an organization, theless clear it is that a single model of ambidexteritycan be usefully applied. Benner and Tushman (2003,p. 242) argue for lower-level analysis of this capabil-ity, where ‘ambidextrous organizations are com-posed of multiple tightly coupled subunits that are

themselves loosely coupled with each other. Withinsubunits the tasks, culture, individuals, and organiza-tional arrangements are consistent, but across subu-nits tasks and cultures are inconsistent and looselycoupled.’ Gupta et al. (2006) also point out thatexploratory research and development (R&D) unitscan work effectively with slower-moving and stand-ardized manufacturing and sales groups within anorganization, so the boundary can be consideredas less distinct in this case. However, within thisexample, the R&D units will also incorporate stand-ard, exploitative, administrative functions, and themanufacturing group could be trialling novel tech-niques alongside well-established processes. Theliterature does not appear to capture this complexityexplicitly, and it is not clear that this reality is wellunderstood theoretically. In line with Gupta et al.(2006) and Raisch and Birkinshaw (2008), we arguethat the lack of multi-level, multi-domain analysisof ambidexterity is limiting our understandingof the concept, and this represents an inadequacywithin existing theory. The high-level approaches(e.g. Tushman et al. 2011) have not resulted in asynthesis of the actions managers can consider toachieve ambidexterity at the operating level in com-plex organizations.

These issues are in part due to the conception ofthe relationship between exploitation and explora-tion. For temporal and structural ambidexterity,the emphasis is on dualism where exploitation andexploration preclude one another. Farjoun (2010)contends that stability and change, in terms ofexploitation and exploration, can be consideredas a duality, whereby stability may enable change,and change may enable stability. Regarding theirinterdependence and complementarities, he com-ments: ‘Duality suggests instead that stability andchange in different units and hierarchical levels mayintertwine and depend on common practices and thatrather than negating and displacing one another, theycan mutually reinforce each other in a process ofrenewal’ (Farjoun 2010, p. 218). Furthermore, ‘theduality view casts doubts on organizations’ ability toseparate elements of stability and change so neatly.Individuals engaged in routine tasks exercise somedegree of experimentation, and those engaged increative tasks use routines to some degree’ (Farjoun2010, p. 218).

The consideration of the constructs as a dualityallows an enhanced understanding of ambidexterity.This informs our view of Gibson and Birkinshaw’s(2004) approach. They identify business-unit level



contextual ambidexterity, which they define as ‘thebehavioural capacity to simultaneously demon-strate alignment and adaptability’ (p. 209). Theformer refers to coherent business activities workingtowards a common goal (i.e. knowledge refinement/exploitation), whereas the latter refers to the capacityto reconfigure those activities as required by the taskenvironment (i.e. knowledge renewal/exploration).They argue that a context characterized by a combi-nation of stretch, discipline, support and trust facili-tates this contextual ambidexterity, and the resultsof their survey support the link between this andorganizational success. Again, this is challenging toreconcile with complicated organizational reality.Contextual ambidexterity infers a tendency towardsresource homogeneity, which is inconsistent with thereality of most organizations that contain a multitudeof dynamically interacting groups and skills.

The comparison of structural and contextual ambi-dexterity leads to a key theoretical discussion withinthe literature. Gupta et al. (2006) review the subjectand debate whether the concepts of exploration andexploitation represent a continuum (correspondingto the dualism view) or whether they are in factorthogonal (coexisting, not competing, emphasizingduality). They argue that if the resources in a singledomain are scarce and pursuing one path necessitateslack of investment in the other, as March (1991)contends, then they may be mutually exclusive. In anorganizational form where these modes are structur-ally separated, the rationale of the units is clear.Within a single business unit demonstrating contex-tual ambidexterity, though, it is more reasonableto argue that there is no specific resource trade-off(Gupta et al. 2006; Raisch et al. 2009), but that theseare orthogonal dimensions (as tested by He andWong (2004) and Cao et al. (2009)), i.e. both exploi-tation and exploration may be performed togetherwithout trade-off. Structural and contextual ambi-dexterity may also be considered as the end-pointsof a continuum. At one end is ‘full’ structural ambi-dexterity (characterized by the separation of theexploitative and exploratory units, combined withmanagerial oversight), at the other is organization-level contextual ambidexterity (inferring greaterresource homogeneity). These are theoreticallyvaluable, yet neither captures the reality of mostorganizations, which contain multiple, interacting,departments and groups.

Herein lies the problem. Ambidexterity is not yetfully established as an explicit managerial strategy,and the higher-level concepts in the literature are not

sufficient to explain the realities of modern organiza-tions. A knowledge of the mechanisms by whichambidexterity is achieved in such settings is vital tofurther the understanding of both scholars and prac-titioners. This is the gap that we address in the paper.We take this organizational complexity on board witha view to synthesizing a coherent multi-level view ofthe subject of ambidexterity and its implementation,using the concepts of OC, SC and HC. In the sectionthat follows, we present our discussion of the litera-ture review which we have organized according tothe dominant IC resource that is adopted, i.e. OC, SCor HC, to achieve ambidexterity. In addition, we con-sider whether the resource IC operates at the indi-vidual, group or organizational level. This enablesus to present a fine-grained account of the currentliterature on the mechanisms for ambidexterity, andthis is the main contribution of the paper.

The role of organizational capital

In this section, we identify from the literature thestructural and process mechanisms for achievingambidexterity that are enabled by OC. When consid-ering OC, it is important to look outside the bounda-ries of the firm, as well as within, to understand thesemechanisms, as supply chain strategy can be used tooffset internal weaknesses in either exploitation orexploration (Kristal et al. 2010; Luo and Rui 2009;Russo and Vurro 2010).

The benefits of an internal structural partitioningmechanism (achieving both exploitation and explora-tion by separating them) in high-tech firms have beensubstantiated (e.g. Vinekar et al. 2006; Visscher andDe Weerd-Nederhof, 2006). In implementing this,Menguc and Auh (2010) find that radical productinnovation is best supported by an informal structure,whereas incremental innovation is best supported by aformal structure. However, Grover et al. (2007) iden-tify that both rigid/formal and organic/informal struc-tures can coexist to promote incremental and radicalinnovation, and we find this to be a more useful line ofenquiry. It is unclear how these issues are reconciled.What guidance does the literature provide in thisrespect? O’Connor and DeMartino (2006) investigatehow large organizations can foster radical innovationsinternally and caution that the structural separationapproach may be insufficient to develop longer-termorganizational capability. They identify that a modelof discovery–incubation–acceleration is beneficial insupporting commercialization. This adds more detailto the structural separation argument, and highlights

8 N. Turner et al.


the difficulty of creating long-term business benefit. Italso shows that the distinction between exploitationand exploration is not so clear-cut under these condi-tions, further complicating potential guidance. The‘pure’ structural approach to ambidexterity loses itsvalue when we consider the nature of modern organ-izations, and multiple levels of hierarchy.

Similarly, there is a problem for process mecha-nisms in modern organizations. The multi-levelcontext is also difficult to reconcile with a ‘pure’model of temporal ambidexterity. Although the widerorganization may be exhibiting exploitation or explo-ration, it is likely that a lower-level analysis wouldreveal aspects of the other form at any point in time,since there are always ‘standard’ processes beingundertaken, together with new problems to overcome.

How, then, can organizational structures and proc-esses aid in ambidexterity? Brown (2004) describeshow the firm must not only look after its core busi-ness, but also be cognisant of events at the peripherythat may become mainstream. This may be accom-plished by, for instance, establishing ‘listening posts’or communities of practice. This stream of researchis important, as it shows how organizational ambi-dexterity may be underpinned by the enabling socialdynamics, and the role of SC is discussed shortly.Using these may be difficult, though. Judge andBlocker (2008) propose that organizational capacityfor change is an antecedent of strategic ambidexter-ity, and Morgan and Berthon (2008) use an innova-tion strategy map to represent how exploration is afar more significant organizational shift than theexploitative equivalent. The challenge therefore is tounderstand better the mechanisms by which this canbe accommodated within the particular context.

At the group level, the achievement of both exploi-tation and exploration can be supported by structure,but this is not necessarily sufficient. The evidenceshows that this needs reward systems (processes)that encourage the support of both exploitation andexploration (Ambos et al. 2008; Chang et al. 2009),together with a long-term view and support forrisk-taking (Brion et al. 2010; Sethi and Sethi 2009).Processes for creating dense social relations andinformal coordination mechanisms are also benefi-cial (Jansen et al. 2005, 2006), although distributedteams require more rigour as the tacit knowledgeis harder to share (Lee et al. 2006). Additionally,Kaplan and Henderson (2005) suggest that incen-tives and cognition co-evolve so that organizationalcompetencies or routines are as much about buildingknowledge of ‘what should be rewarded’ as they are

about ‘what should be done’, which is difficult underconditions of uncertainty. Creating and managingeffective operating social structures and rewardsystems is therefore important at the group level,such that both exploitation and exploration can besupported. It is notable that this overlaps with theconcept of SC, and a clear delineation between OCand SC is challenging in this respect.

Much of the ‘managerial role’ literature isinextricably linked with the structural aspects (akey element underpinning structural ambidexteritytheory). However, some elements of organizationalpractice can be identified separately. For instance, itis important to balance the use of established ‘bestpractices’ with allowing operational flexibility atmanagers’ discretion (Matson and Prusak 2003). Theuse of both formal and informal managerial integra-tion and control mechanisms (processes), includ-ing cross-functional interfaces, also contribute toimproved performance (Jansen et al. 2009; Tiwana2010). This is important in showing how both for-mality and informality are required to be balancedto achieve ambidexterity, and this can be part of theorganizational structural and process design.

In summary, the literature review indicates thatmanagers can influence exploitation and explora-tion at multiple levels when considered in terms ofOC. Externally, they must be mindful of the widernetwork and supply chain and the rationale for thoserelationships. Internally, although structural separa-tion of exploitative and exploratory elements ispresented as an implementation mechanism, in com-plicated organizational structures this requiresfurther refinement, since this partitioning may besignificantly more complex. At the group and indi-vidual levels, structure needs to be reinforced withboth incentives and practical routines to enable boththe informal and formal mechanisms. The benefitsof ambidexterity can be achieved through a combi-nation of both the mechanistic (exploitative) andorganic (exploratory) processes of OC, i.e. they canbe understood as coexisting and orthogonal.

The role of social capital

In this section, we discuss the nature and implica-tions of relationships at all levels in achieving ambi-dexterity. The importance comes through stronglyfrom the literature, and this SC can be understoodin terms of structural, affective and cognitivedimensions (Kang et al. 2007; Nahapiet and Ghoshal1998). The ability to exploit and explore depends



upon access to the appropriate knowledge, togetherwith a social support structure, as also highlightedabove in terms of its relationship to OC. Looking atthe inter-firm level, links are influenced by organiza-tional strategy, and Im and Rai (2008) support theview that exploitative and exploratory knowledge-sharing practices are reinforcing and synergisticin long-term inter-organizational relationships.Studies also confirm the benefit of ambidexteritywhen considered at the industrial network level. Linet al. (2007) argue that ambidexterity in this contextis the simultaneous and balanced presence of bothexisting and new partners in a firm’s network ofalliances, and Riccaboni and Moliterni (2009) con-clude that companies able to dynamically combineexploitation and exploration occupy a stable positionat the core of the network structure and enjoy com-petitive advantage.

At the operational level, these networks of relation-ships can be crucial to organizational performance.Tiwana (2008) provides a powerful conception ofambidexterity in terms of social ties. He looks at theeffect of weak/bridging ties (for exploratory access)and strong ties (for exploitative access), based onthe work of Burt (1992) and Granovetter (1973). Heargues that a ‘network of collaborators with strongties has greater capacity to implement innovativeideas, but has inherently lower capacity to generatethem; a network that is rich in structural holes (i.e.greater bridging ties) has greater capacity to generatenew ideas, but has a lower capacity to implementthem . . . In other words, strong ties should com-plement bridging ties’ (Tiwana 2008, pp. 251–252).Using data from a large American services conglom-erate, his research showed that a portfolio of bothstrong and bridging ties leads to effective knowledgeintegration, and that this positively influences ambi-dexterity. His explanation is that ‘[a] project teamthat simultaneously possesses strong ties and bridgingties will have access to a diverse array of specializedknowledge, perspectives, and skills and have themechanisms to integrate that knowledge at the projectlevel. This combination of tie characteristics is whatBurt (1992) would describe as an ideal configuration’(Tiwana 2008, p. 259).

In a similar vein, Beckman (2006) looked at howfirm behaviours were influenced by their foundermembers’ previous employment affiliations. From asample of 141 Silicon Valley firms, founders whosemembers came from the same company exhibitedmore exploitative behaviour, while those from manydifferent companies were more exploratory. Those

with both were more ambidextrous in their approachand, importantly, had higher levels of performance.These ideas allow us to understand better how thenature and management of social ties can enableambidexterity at the group or organization level. Therole of social support is also emphasized withinthe literature. Gulati and Puranam (2009) show thatinformal organizational operation can complementthe formal structure, causing ‘compensatory fit’,which can aid ambidexterity, and Lee and MacMillan(2008) find that deploying both procedural knowledgeand commonly held values is positively related tofirm subsidiary performance. Güttel and Konlechner(2009) provide a qualitative account of contextualambidexterity using a case study approach, high-lighting the importance of flexibility, cultural valuesand social norms. They identify that the managementteam maps out the boundaries of the ‘strategic corri-dor’ that the organization must keep within, monitor-ing rather than integrating the exploitative andexploratory activities. These more subtle, social,aspects are harder to ‘manage’ in such a direct way.Similarly, Güttel et al. (2009), Katz (2005), Ketkarand Sett (2009), López-Cabrales et al. (2011) andMcLaughlin et al. (2008) show that organizationalculture and HR practices can support ambidexterity,but these must be considered in light of the prevailingmarket dynamics. Gratton and Erickson (2007) alsoconsider the team leadership role, where ambidex-trous leaders must focus both on task completion andsustaining individual relationships, emphasizing theimportance of the social aspects of the role.

To summarize the SC perspective, relationshipscan underpin the achievement of ambidexterity. Thesimultaneous combination of both exploitative andexploratory aspects is evident in these studies, indi-cating that they are also orthogonal and complemen-tary. The theoretical basis for this is best captured inthe Tiwana (2008) concept of a network of ties suchthat working groups can most effectively accessand integrate knowledge. Consideration and activemanagement of these ties can be beneficial in sup-porting both exploitation and exploration, but theseshould be considered within the support structureof HR practices and the prevailing organizationalculture.

The role of human capital

In this section, we consider the leadership andmanagement aspects that have emerged as key con-tributors to ambidexterity (Lin and McDonough

10 N. Turner et al.


2011; Rosing et al. 2011). Within structural ambi-dexterity, these are the mechanism for reconcilingexploitative and exploratory activities (Tushman et al.2011). O’Reilly and Tushman (2008, p. 200) advisethat ‘ambidexterity is a specific capability embodiedin senior leadership’s learning and expressed throughtheir ability to reconfigure existing organizationalassets and competencies in a repeatable way to adaptto changing circumstances’. If organizational unitsare structurally separated to achieve ambidexterity, itis the responsibility of the top management team(TMT) to ensure coordination such that, together,organizational strategy is executed. Jansen et al.(2008) identify that this may lead to conflict ifindividuals within the senior management team areresponsible for those units, yet a strong and compel-ling shared vision can help resolve those conflicts,aiding both exploitative and exploratory efforts.Lubatkin et al. (2006) find that TMT behaviouralintegration positively influences ambidexterity, whichpositively influences firm performance. In line withthis, Carmeli and Halevi (2009) theorize that TMTbehavioural integration gives rise to behavioural com-plexity in a team, which in turn enables strategicdecisions balancing exploitation and exploration.They argue that this ability to engage in a wide reper-toire of behaviours provides key mechanisms thatenable organizational ambidexterity, via the actions ofthe senior leaders.

This view is extended further by Nemanich andVera (2009), who show that transformational leader-ship is positively related to ambidexterity, and Momet al. (2009) show that managers’ decision-makingauthority and participation in cross-functional inter-faces are also positively related to ambidexterity.They emphasize the relatively large effect of per-sonal coordination compared with more formalmechanisms. The interaction effects of the formalmechanisms with the personal coordination mecha-nisms are greater than the sum of their parts – thecomplementary contributions aid ambidexterity. Thisechoes the structural and social issues emphasizingthe benefits of both formality and informality in OC.

In addition to the leadership and managementaspects of structural ambidexterity, Gibson and Bir-kinshaw’s (2004) contextual ambidexterity researchshowed four ambidextrous behaviours in individuals.These were: taking the initiative outside their ownjob roles; cooperative behaviour; brokering, lookingto build internal linkages; and multitasking, ‘com-fortable wearing more than one hat’ (Birkinshaw andGibson 2004, p. 49). This conception of ambidexter-

ity as embedded in mental models of operation ispowerful and provides a significantly different viewfrom many other authors. There is, though, limitedtheorization regarding individual managerial ambi-dexterity (especially at lower levels of the organiza-tional hierarchy) and what this means in practice.Interestingly, Dover and Dierk (2010) interpretthe role of managers as more exploitative, leadersas more ambidextrous, and entrepreneurs as moreexploratory.

To summarize the HC view, the findings indicatethat specialist managerial expertise is required, yetthis needs to be balanced with a flexible, wider over-view of the organization, supporting the view thatHC can also be considered as orthogonal.

In our review of the literature on the mechanismswhich enable ambidexterity, we applied the catego-rizations of (i) the type of IC resource needed and (ii)the level at which the resource is used (see Table 3).This presents, for the first time, a comprehensiveanalysis of how to achieve ambidexterity across mul-tiple levels. We view this in line with O’Reilly andTushman’s (2008) dynamic capability argument,whereby ambidexterity is enabled by organizationalasset reconfiguration, and the resulting framework(Table 3) is a powerful means with which to under-stand the mechanisms and asset usage underlyingexploitation and exploration. The derivation of thistable has highlighted some important aspects. First,the empirical findings to date hint that the formsof IC are orthogonal and coexisting. Second, it isdifficult to disentangle and categorize the elementswithin Table 3, inferring that they are interwoven.Indeed, Kang and Snell (2009, p. 86) suggest that‘human, social, and OC are conceptually distinct, thethree may be related in practice – one may affect theothers’. The existence of these elements in combina-tion supports this, and to consider a ‘simple’ modelmay be an insufficient theorization of ambidexterity.

Conclusions and avenues forfuture research

We conducted a systematic review to identify howIC resources (OC, SC and HC) are used to enableambidexterity at various levels (organizational,group and individual). This pinpoints the mecha-nisms for achieving exploitation and exploration ateach level. In doing this, we build on the architecturalperspective of Kang and Snell (2009) to offer a moreflexible conceptualization and framework (Table 3),



which enables us to identify the mechanisms formanaging ambidexterity. Through this work, we haveextended Kang and Snell’s (2009) work in two ways.First, we incorporated the duality perspective, recog-nizing the orthogonal exploitative and exploratoryIC elements at each level, rather than conceiving ofthem as either/or. Second, we identify the entangle-ment of the different forms of capital, addressing theissues that the authors identify in their paper (high-lighted above).

We posit that the role of management is toorchestrate the knowledge assets such that the mostappropriate orientation (exploitative/exploratory/ambidextrous) is achieved to obtain the requiredorganizational results. However, the options inTable 3 show that this is far from straightforward.Analysis of the previous research indicates thateach form of IC (OC, SC, HC) can be interpreted asorthogonal and coexisting in both exploitative andexploratory forms. Also, and importantly, it is diffi-cult in practice to delineate between the forms of IC(i.e. the level of knowledge resource). They appearto be inherently related and mutually reinforcingwith complex interactions. It is similarly challengingto identify exploitation as separate from exploration,reinforcing the duality conception of the subject(Farjoun 2010). To consider any single aspects of theanalysis in isolation neglects some of the operationalmechanisms on which it relies.

This makes sense if we conceive of the organiza-tion as a complicated, dynamic, configuration ofmultiple departments, or a matrix structure serving aproject-based business. We can readily envisage thedual aspects of OC allowing controlled processes toenable smooth functioning, with the flexibility toadapt to the situation at hand. This is beneficial incomplex scenarios when the work cannot be scriptedperfectly in advance. Similarly, we can conceiveof the social aspects as balancing the (exploitative)stronger ties for complex knowledge-sharing withweaker (exploratory) ties to access new knowledge.Finally, we can understand both specialist andgeneralist HC operating within or outside the bound-ary of the organization. We have identified that thereis a complex interweaving of these aspects (i.e. toconsider one facet in isolation of the others misseskey aspects of its practical operation), and recogniz-ing this entanglement further enriches our view ofthe subject. We therefore argue that to understandbetter the nature of ambidexterity, we must firstacknowledge the complexities that are inherentin its operationalization. This is of importance to

practitioners, who can consider their roles both interms of the management of resources within theirorganizations (identified as the forms of IC), but alsowith respect to the mechanisms in Table 3.

This systematic review has shown that ambidex-terity is emerging as an important area of scholarlytheory and empirical investigation. However, thereare areas worthy of future research. Specifically,there is a lack of generalizable theory regarding howambidexterity can be understood as a deliberate strat-egy within a complex organizational structure. Theconceptions of temporal, structural and contextualambidexterity are well documented, yet the applica-tion of such constructs to a multi-level organizationalconfiguration is difficult. The review has shown thatcurrent empirical work favours collective and struc-tural approaches to ambidexterity, mostly quantita-tive, and there are a lower proportion of ‘micro-level’studies of the mechanisms underlying the achieve-ment of ambidexterity looking at the individual andsocial levels. These studies fully explain neither howsuch micro-mechanisms enable ambidexterity norexactly how ambidexterity leads to organizationalbenefit. Similarly, although the role of managers andmanagement teams has been studied, relatively littlehas been demonstrated regarding how managers canactually orchestrate exploitation and exploration. Theframework that we have developed (Table 3) allowsmechanisms to be considered either in terms ofthe underlying resources (by examining the verticalcategorization) or actions applicable at each level(horizontal), allowing both scholars and practitionersa more holistic, multi-level, understanding.

The role and interaction of organizational assetscan offer valuable insight into the micro-mechanismsenabling ambidexterity, and as yet these have beenunderexplored. Studying this orchestration maypresent a clearer picture of ambidexterity at themicro-level than is currently understood usingorganizational-level themes of structural, contextualand temporal ambidexterity. Greater richness may befound by examining high- and low-novelty work, andthe effect of discontinuities (such as critical incidents)that require managerial action. Qualitative investiga-tions under circumstances such as these may providefurther explanatory data to promote a more detailedunderstanding of the links between actions and ben-efits. This may also enable a greater clarity of theeffects on, and perceptions of, employees working inan ambidextrous organization.

Finally, a broader approach can be taken in con-sidering the benefits of ambidexterity. The detailed

12 N. Turner et al.


operational mechanisms and linkages between ambi-dexterity and financial performance are not fullyunderstood, yet we may look further than this inexamining how developing this capability may itselfoffer differentiating advantage to the organizationand be beneficial in enabling future competitiveness.Longitudinal studies may allow researchers tocomprehend better how ambidexterity ‘works inpractice’, including at the micro-level, to enhanceunderstanding of this subject, and its drivers andoutcomes. Studies so far have not generally takenthis approach, yet using such a basis for researchallows a greater understanding of some of the issuesraised within the literature, including how complexbenefits unfold over time.

In summary, the key contribution of the paper is theidentification of the mechanisms which support theachievement of ambidexterity. The prominent mecha-nisms were identified through a systematic reviewof the current literature. We have categorized thesemechanisms according to the IC resource (OC, SC orHC) and the level at which the particular mechanismoperates (organizational, group or individual). Thiscategorization is presented in Table 3 and enablesus to understand, in a fine-grained manner, how toachieve ambidexterity in practice.

ReferencesAchrol, R.S. (1991). Evolution of the marketing organiza-

tion: new forms for turbulent environments. Journal ofMarketing, 55, pp. 77–93.

Adler, P. et al. (2009). Perspectives on the productivitydilemma. Journal of Operations Management, 27,pp. 99–113.

Ahn, J., Lee, D. and Lee, S. (2006). Balancing businessperformance and knowledge performance of new productdevelopment: lessons from ITS industry. Long RangePlanning, 39, pp. 525–542.

Ambos, T.C., Mäkel, K., Birkinshaw, J. and D’Este, P.(2008). When does university research get commercial-ized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions.Journal of Management Studies, 45, pp. 1424–1447.

Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M.W. (2010). Managinginnovation paradoxes: ambidexterity lessons from lead-ing product design companies. Long Range Planning, 43,pp. 104–122.

Beckman, C.M. (2006). The influence of founding teamcompany affiliations on firm behavior. Academy ofManagement Journal, 49, pp. 741–758.

Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003). Exploitation,exploration, and process management: the productivitydilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28,pp. 238–256.

Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexter-ity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review,45, pp. 47–55.

Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organ-izations: an overview and interpretation. OrganizationStudies, 16, pp. 1021–1046.

Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: an exploratorystudy that develops measures and models. ManagementDecision, 36, pp. 63–76.

Bower, J.L. and Christensen, C.M. (1995). Disruptivetechnologies: catching the wave. Harvard BusinessReview, 73, pp. 43–53.

Brion, S., Mothe, C. and Sabatier, M. (2010). The impact oforganisational context and competences on innovationambidexterity. International Journal of InnovationManagement, 14, pp. 151–178.

Brown, J.S. (2004). Minding and mining the periphery. LongRange Planning, 37, pp. 143–151.

Burns, T. and Stalker, G. (1961). The Management ofInnovation. London: Tavistock.

Burt, R. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure ofCompetition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. and Zhang, H. (2009). Unpackingorganizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies,and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20,pp. 781–796.

Carmeli, A. and Halevi, M.Y. (2009). How top managementteam behavioral integration and behavioral complexityenable organizational ambidexterity: the moderating roleof contextual ambidexterity. Leadership Quarterly, 20,pp. 207–218.

Cegarra-Navarro, J. and Dewhurst, F. (2007). Linkingorganizational learning and customer capital throughan ambidexterity context: an empirical investigationin SMEs. International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 18, pp. 1720–1735.

Chang, Y., Yang, P.Y. and Chen, M. (2009). The determi-nants of academic research commercial performance:towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective.Research Policy, 38, pp. 936–946.

Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984). Toward a model oforganizations as interpretation systems. Academy ofManagement Review, 9, pp. 284–295.

Danneels, E. (2006). Dialogue on the Effects of DisruptiveTechnology on Firms and Industries. Oxford: Blackwell.

Denyer, D. and Neely, A. (2004). Introduction to specialissue: innovation and productivity performance in theUK. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6,pp. 131–135.

Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Young, B., Jones, D.and Sutton, A. (2004). Integrative Approaches to Quali-tative and Quantitative Evidence. London: NHS HealthDevelopment Agency.

Dover, P.A. and Dierk, U. (2010). The ambidextrousorganization: integrating managers, entrepreneurs andleaders. Journal of Business Strategy, 31, pp. 49–58.



Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: design-ing dual structures for innovation. In Kilmann, R., Pondy,L. and Slevin, D. (eds), The Management of Organization.New York: North-Holland, pp. 167–188.

Ebben, J.J. and Johnson, A.C. (2005). Efficiency, flexibility,or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance insmall firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26, pp. 1249–1259.

Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: stability and change asa duality. Academy of Management Review, 35, pp. 202–225.

Friedman, V.J., Lipshitz, R. and Popper, M. (2005).The mystification of organizational learning. Journal ofManagement Inquiry, 14, pp. 19–30.

Geraldi, J.G., Kutsch, E. and Turner, N. (2011). Towards aconceptualisation of quality in information technologyprojects. International Journal of Project Management,29, pp. 557–567.

Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents,consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambi-dexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, pp. 209–226.

Graetz, F. and Smith, A. (2005). Organizing forms in changemanagement: the role of structures, processes andboundaries in a longitudinal case analysis. Journal ofChange Management, 5, pp. 311–328.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 78, pp. 1360–1380.

Gratton, L. and Erickson, T.J. (2007). 8 ways to buildcollaborative teams. Harvard Business Review, 85,pp. 100–109.

Grover, V., Purvis, R.L. and Segars, A.H. (2007). Exploringambidextrous innovation tendencies in the adoption oftelecommunications technologies. IEEE Transactions onEngineering Management, 54, pp. 268–285.

Gulati, R. and Puranam, P. (2009). Renewal throughreorganization: the value of inconsistencies betweenformal and informal organization. Organization Science,20, pp. 422–440.

Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G. and Shalley, C.E. (2006). Theinterplay between exploration and exploitation. Academyof Management Journal, 49, pp. 693–706.

Güttel, W.H. and Konlechner, S.W. (2009). Continuouslyhanging by a thread: managing contextually ambidextrousorganizations. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 61,pp. 150–172.

Güttel, W.H., Konlechner, S., Kohlbacher, F. and Haltmeyer,B. (2009). Strategies against competency obsolescence:the case of R&D-intensive organisations.

Han, M. and Celly, N. (2008). Strategic ambidexterity andperformance in international new ventures. CanadianJournal of Administrative Sciences, 25, pp. 335–349.

Hansen, M.T. (1999). The search–transfer problem: therole of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organiza-tion subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,pp. 82–111.

He, Z. and Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: anempirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organiza-tion Science, 15, pp. 481–494.

Hedberg, B. (1981). How organisations learn and unlearn.In Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H. (eds), Handbookof Organisational Design. London: Cambridge UniversityPress, p. 3.

Holmqvist, M. (2009). Complicating the organization: a newprescription for the learning organization? ManagementLearning, 40, pp. 275–287.

Im, G. and Rai, A. (2008). Knowledge sharing ambidexterityin long-term interorganizational relationships. Manage-ment Science, 54, pp. 1281–1296.

Jansen, J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. and Volberda, H.W.(2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambi-dexterity: the moderating role of transformational leader-ship. Journal of Management Studies, 45, pp. 982–1007.

Jansen, J.J.P., Tempelaar, M.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J.and Volberda, H.W. (2009). Structural differentiationand ambidexterity: the mediating role of integrationmechanisms. Organization Science, 20, pp. 797–811.

Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J. and Volberda, H.W.(2005). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation,and ambidexterity: the impact of environmental andorganizational antecedents. Schmalenbach BusinessReview (SBR), 57, pp. 351–363.

Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J. and Volberda, H.W.(2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation,and performance: effects of organizational antecedentsand environmental moderators. Management Science, 52,pp. 1661–1674.

Judge, W.Q. and Blocker, C.P. (2008). Organizational capac-ity for change and strategic ambidexterity flying the planewhile rewiring it. European Journal of Marketing, 42,pp. 915–926.

Kale, D. and Wield, D. (2008). Exploitative and explorativelearning as a response to the TRIPS agreement inIndian pharmaceutical firms. Industry & Innovation, 15,pp. 93–114.

Kang, S. and Snell, S.A. (2009). Intellectual capital archi-tectures and ambidextrous learning: a framework forhuman resource management. Journal of ManagementStudies, 46, pp. 65–92.

Kang, S., Morris, S.S. and Snell, S.A. (2007). Relationalarchetypes, organizational learning, and value creation:extending the human resource architecture. Academy ofManagement Review, 32, pp. 236–256.

Kaplan, S. and Henderson, R. (2005). Inertia and incentives:bridging organizational economics and organizationaltheory. Organization Science, 16, pp. 509–521.

Katz, R. (2005). Motivating technical professionals today.Research Technology Management, 48, pp. 19–27.

Ketkar, S. and Sett, P.K. (2009). HR flexibility and firmperformance: analysis of a multi-level causal model.International Journal of Human Resource Management,20, pp. 1009–1038.

14 N. Turner et al.


Kristal, M.M., Huang, X. and Roth, A.V. (2010). The effectof an ambidextrous supply chain strategy on combinativecompetitive capabilities and business performance.Journal of Operations Management, 28, pp. 415–429.

Kuckertz, A., Kohtamaki, M. and Droege gen. Korber, C.(2010). The fast eat the slow – the impact of strategy andinnovation timing on the success of technology-orientedventures. International Journal of Technology Manage-ment, 52, pp. 175–188.

Lee, G., Delone, W. and Espinosa, J.A. (2006). Ambidex-trous coping strategies in globally distributed softwaredevelopment projects. Communications of the ACM, 49,pp. 35–40.

Lee, J.Y. and MacMillan, I.C. (2008). Managerialknowledge-sharing in chaebols and its impact on theperformance of their foreign subsidiaries. InternationalBusiness Review, 17, pp. 533–545.

Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993). The myopia oflearning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. 95–112.

Li, C., Lin, C. and Chu, C. (2008). The nature ofmarket orientation and the ambidexterity of innovations.Management Decision, 46, pp. 1002–1026.

Lin, H. and McDonough, E.F. (2011). Investigating the roleof leadership and organizational culture in fostering inno-vation ambidexterity. IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement, 58, pp. 497–509.

Lin, Z., Yang, H. and Demirkan, I. (2007). The performanceconsequences of ambidexterity in strategic allianceformations: empirical investigation and computationaltheorizing. Management Science, 53, pp. 1645–1658.

López-Cabrales, A., Valle, R. and Galan, J.L. (2011).Employment relationships as drivers of firm flexibilityand learning. Personnel Review, 40, pp. 625–642.

Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. and Veiga, J.F. (2006).Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management teambehavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32,pp. 646–672.

Luo, Y. and Rui, H. (2009). An ambidexterity perspectivetoward multinational enterprises from emerging econo-mies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, pp.49–70.

March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation inorganizational learning. Organization Science, 2,pp. 71–87.

Matson, E. and Prusak, L. (2003). The performancevariability dilemma. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45,pp. 39–44.

McLaughlin, P., Bessant, J. and Smart, P. (2008). Developingan organisation culture to facilitate radical innovation.International Journal of Technology Management, 44,pp. 298–323.

Menguc, B. and Auh, S. (2010). Development and returnon execution of product innovation capabilities: the roleof organizational structure. Industrial Marketing Manage-ment, 39, pp. 820–831.

Mom, T.J.M., Van den Bosch, F. and Volberda, H.W. (2009).Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity:investigating direct and interaction effects of formalstructural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organ-ization Science, 20, pp. 812–828.

Moore, G.A. (2005). Strategy and your stronger hand (coverstory). Harvard Business Review, 83, pp. 62–72.

Morgan, R.E. and Berthon, P. (2008). Market orientation,generative learning, innovation strategy and businessperformance inter-relationships in bioscience firms.Journal of Management Studies, 45, pp. 1329–1353.

Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellec-tual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy ofManagement Review, 23, pp. 242–266.

Nemanich, L.A. and Vera, D. (2009). Transformationalleadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acqui-sition. Leadership Quarterly, 20, pp. 19–33.

O’Connor, G.C. and DeMartino, R. (2006). Organizing forradical innovation: an exploratory study of the structuralaspects of RI management systems in large establishedfirms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23,pp. 475–497.

O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2004). The ambidex-trous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, pp. 74–81.

O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M. (2008). Ambidexterity as adynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma.Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, pp. 185–206.

O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2011). Organizationalambidexterity in action: how managers explore andexploit. California Management Review, 53, pp. 5–22.

Örtenblad, A. (2010). Odd couples or perfect matches? Onthe development of management knowledge packaged inthe form of labels. Management Learning, 41, pp. 443–452.

Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D.and Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: asystematic review of the evidence. International Journalof Management Reviews, 5/6, pp. 137–168.

Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambi-dexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators.Journal of Management, 34, pp. 375–409.

Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G. and Tushman, M.L.(2009). Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploita-tion and exploration for sustained performance. Organ-ization Science, 20, pp. 685–695.

Reagans, R. and McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure andknowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range.Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, pp. 240–267.

Riccaboni, M. and Moliterni, R. (2009). Managing techno-logical transitions through R&D alliances. R&D Manage-ment, 39, pp. 124–135.

Rosing, K., Frese, M. and Bausch, A. (2011). Explainingthe heterogeneity of the leadership–innovation relation-ship: ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22,pp. 956–974.



Russo, A. and Vurro, C. (2010). Cross-boundary ambi-dexterity: balancing exploration and exploitation in thefuel cell industry. European Management Review, 7,pp. 30–45.

Sarkees, M. and Hulland, J. (2009). Innovation and effi-ciency: it is possible to have it all. Business Horizons, 52,pp. 45–55.

Schreyögg, G. and Sydow, J. (2010). Organizing for fluid-ity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. OrganizationScience, 21, pp. 1251–1262.

Sethi, R. and Sethi, A. (2009). Can quality-oriented firmsdevelop innovative new products? Journal of ProductInnovation Management, 26, pp. 206–221.

Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: towardsa multilevel understanding. Journal of ManagementStudies, 46, pp. 597–624.

Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J.F. and Souder, D. (2009).A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’sconceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journalof Management Studies, 46, pp. 864–894.

Sugarman, B. (2010). Organizational learning and reform atthe New York City Police Department. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 46, pp. 157–185.

Swart, J. (2006). Intellectual capital: disentanglingan enigmatic concept. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7,pp. 136–159.

Swart, J. and Kinnie, N. (2007). Simultaneity of learningorientations in a marketing agency. Management Learn-ing, 38, pp. 337–357.

Tiwana, A. (2008). Do bridging ties complement strongties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity.Strategic Management Journal, 29, pp. 251–272.

Tiwana, A. (2010). Systems development ambidexterity:explaining the complementary and substitutive roles offormal and informal controls. Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, 27, pp. 87–126.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003). Towards amethodology for developing evidence-informed manage-ment knowledge by means of systematic review. BritishJournal of Management, 14, pp. 207–222.

Tushman, M.L. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1996). Ambidextrousorganizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionarychange. California Management Review, 38, pp. 8–30.

Tushman, M.L., Smith, W.K. and Binns, A. (2011).The ambidextrous CEO. Harvard Business Review, 89,pp. 74–80.

Vinekar, V., Slinkman, C.W. and Nerur, S. (2006). Can agileand traditional systems development approaches coexist?An ambidextrous view. Information Systems Manage-ment, 23, pp. 31–42.

Visscher, K. and De Weerd-Nederhof, P.C. (2006). Rise andfall of an innovative organisation: the innovation journeyof Ericsson Enschede. International Journal of Innova-tion Management, 10, pp. 217–235.

Voelpel, S.C., Leibold, M. and Tekie, E.B. (2006). Managingpurposeful organizational misfit: exploring the natureof industry and organizational misfit to enable strategicchange. Journal of Change Management, 6, pp. 257–276.

16 N. Turner et al.


Documents

Mechanisms for Managing Ambidexterity: A Review and Research Agenda