_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest

10 August 2015 16:06
_______________________________________________________________
Universidad Autnoma de Colombia

10 August 2015

ProQuest

Tabla de contenido
1. A Configurational View on the Causalities between Ambidexterity and Innovation.....................................

10 August 2015

ii

ProQuest

Documento 1 de 1

A Configurational View on the Causalities between Ambidexterity and Innovation

Enlace de documentos de ProQuest
Resumen: This study aims to explain why and how exactly aspects of ambidexterity relate to an organisation's
ability to innovate. Qualitative research is conducted through semi-structured interviews with innovation experts
from an outdoor company that is renowned for its pioneering products. Template analysis is used to develop a
holistic configurational view on ambidexterity. It is found that structural ambidexterity positively affects
innovation, as it allows for explorative and exploitative activities to be pursued separately and in this way
appears to be most beneficial regarding each activity. Furthermore, the findings indicate that aspects of
contextual ambidexterity within each structural subunit create alignment and integration between both units and
contribute to the effectiveness of the structural solution. Hence, the most significant indication of these findings
is that ambidexterity should contain both structural and contextual elements in order to benefit firms in their
pursuit of incremental and radical innovations.
Enlaces: Más en ebrary
Texto completo: Headnote
Abstract: This study aims to explain why and how exactly aspects of ambidexterity relate to an organisation's
ability to innovate. Qualitative research is conducted through semi-structured interviews with innovation experts
from an outdoor company that is renowned for its pioneering products. Template analysis is used to develop a
holistic configurational view on ambidexterity.
It is found that structural ambidexterity positively affects innovation, as it allows for explorative and exploitative
activities to be pursued separately and in this way appears to be most beneficial regarding each activity.
Furthermore, the findings indicate that aspects of contextual ambidexterity within each structural subunit create
alignment and integration between both units and contribute to the effectiveness of the structural solution.
Hence, the most significant indication of these findings is that ambidexterity should contain both structural and
contextual elements in order to benefit firms in their pursuit of incremental and radical innovations.
Keywords: Innovation; Ambidexterity; Structural; Contextual; Holism; Configurational.
1 The Need for Organisational Ambidexterity
A rapid rise in market competitiveness, economic volatility and customer expectations makes innovation a
crucial capability for competitive survival. Organisations need to pursue radical innovations that will provide
them with a competitive advantage in the future, but at the same time have to incrementally innovate in order to
keep up with the rapid changes in their environment. However, identifying the right balance is a complex
challenge; too much focus on radical innovation can threaten the firm's liquidity, whereas concentrating too
much on incremental innovation will leave the firm lagging behind competitors (Lin et al., 2013). Furthermore,
both activities require fundamentally different ways of learning and management. Therefore organisations that
want to excel at both have to cope with this strategic dilemma (March, 1991).
The ability to simultaneously exploit existing competences and explore new opportunities has, through the
seminal work of Duncan (1976), become known as organisational ambidexterity. The academic debate around
the concept of ambidexterity has significantly gained momentum in recent years (Raisch et al., 2009). This is
because ambidexterity has repeatedly been proven to benefit organisations in their innovation efforts
(Rothaermel and Alexandre, 2009), yet the ways in which it is best achieved remain debated.
2 The Current Understanding of Organisational Ambidexterity
Ambidexterity theory challenges the view that the trade-offs between exploration and exploitation are
insurmountable by offering ways in which organisations can excel at both activities with equal dexterity (Raisch
et al., 2009). In essence, ambidexterity is about an organisation's search to achieve both stability and change
10 August 2015

Page 1 of 10

ProQuest

by accommodating seemingly paradox attributes, such as habit-creativity, structure-agency, and order-freedom

(Farjoun, 2010).
Tushman and O'Reilly (1996, p. 17) define ambidexterity as "the ability to simultaneously pursue both
incremental and discontinuous innovation and change results from hosting multiple contradictory structures,
processes, and cultures within the same firm."
The seminal concepts of ambidexterity focused on its achievement through architectural solutions that separate
the contradictory, yet interdependent, activities of exploration and exploitation into different units (Tushman and
O'Reilly, 1996). Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) refer to this as structural ambidexterity.
Contrary to the structural approach, contextual ambidexterity allows for exploitation and exploration behaviours
to occur within one organisational unit through the use of organisational stimuli (e.g. processes, leadership,
rewards) (McCarthy and Gordon, 2011). Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) argue that firms can achieve contextual
ambidexterity through processes and systems that enable and encourage employees to decide individually how
much time to allocate around exploration and exploitation .
Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009, p. 696) provide further clarification of the distinction between architectural /
structural and contextual approaches:
"Architectural [structural] ambidexterity proposes dual structures and strategies to differentiate efforts, focusing
actors on one or the other form of innovation. In contrast, contextual approaches use behavioral and social
means to integrate exploitation and exploration."
However, the reduction of ambidexterity to a matter of deciding between the separation of units or leaving the
decision down to an individuals' judgement has been criticised for its simplicity (Cantarello et al., 2012).
Consequently, recent research has put forward more complex views in which the development and sustenance
of ambidexterity depends on combinations of structural, contextual, managerial, and cultural aspects (Cantarello
et al., 2012; Prieto et al., 2009).
These combinatory views argue that structural differentiation requires integrative efforts and mechanisms
between the explorative and the exploitative activities in order to coordinate them and create synergistic effects
of ambidexterity (Jansen et al., 2009; Cao et al., 2009; Raisch et al., 2009). Jansen et al. (2009) elaborate that
the need for coordination and mutual interactions stems from resource interdependency and is an important
moderator that impacts the effectiveness of each unit. Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009) provide a comprehensive
view on the exploration-exploitation tensions that they identified within three paradoxes of innovation. The
authors propose complementary tactics involving both integration and differentiation in order to deal with these
paradoxes and to create virtuous cycles of ambidexterity (see figure 1). They further highlight that the
management of paradoxes has to occur at multiple organisational levels and that the dominance of either
extreme should be avoided (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009).
Several studies have empirically identified the positive effects of ambidexterity on firm performance (Gibson and
Birkinshaw, 2004; He and Wong, 2004; Han and Celly, 2008; Rothaermel and Alexandre, 2009; Li and Huang,
2012). O'Reilly III and Tushman (2008) discuss the benefits of ambidexterity on the strategic level of the firm
and propose that it can become a firm's dynamic capability through which it can secure its competitive survival.
However, studies have indicated variations in the effectiveness of ambidexterity depending on firm size (Cao et
al., 2009; Lee and Huang, 2012). It has been argued that large firms can extract more value from ambidextrous
learning than small firms (Lee and Huang, 2012). Cao et al. (2009) suggest that resourceconstrained firms may
benefit from maintaining a close relative balance between exploratory and exploitative activities, whereas larger
firms can push further into both extremes.
3 Aim of this Study
This research aims to supplement the current debate on ambidexterity by providing an in-depth understanding
of the relationship between aspects of ambidexterity and innovation capability. The research aim is to provide a
holistic and configurational view on organisational ambidexterity that explains why and how aspects of
10 August 2015

Page 2 of 10

ProQuest

ambidexterity influence an organisation's ability to innovate.

4 Methodology
4.1 Data Collection
A case study was developed to get a true impression of how these practices function. According to Eisenhardt
(1989, p. 534) case studies "focus on understanding the dynamics present within single settings". Thus, a case
study provides an optimal way of investigating the 'why' of actions and phenomena that occur in organisational
settings.
Primary qualitative data was collected through semi-structured face-to-face interviews that were conducted in a
narrative nature, as this provided a good way to gain an in-depth 'understanding of the interviewee's experience
and perspective through stories, accounts, and explanations' (Lindof and Taylor, 2002, p. 173). In order to elicit
how and why ambidexterity occurs in organisations the authors identified success stories in relation to
innovation activities of six individuals (Ambrosini and Bowman, 2001).
The first interview was conducted with a board member who, because of his position and in-depth knowledge of
the organisation, was able to act as an informant on the company's innovation strategy and the key actors
within it. With the exception of the initial contact, all participants were chosen using nonprobability snowball
sampling (Lindof and Taylor, 2002).
4.2 Data Analysis
The drawback of qualitative research is that it results in large amounts of data in the form of words that have
multiple meanings and are context-dependent, therefore making the analysis complex and prone to subjectivity.
To mitigate this issue and to increase the objectivity of the analysis, the data was evaluated through template
analysis with the computer software 'NVivo'. Template analysis was chosen for its flexible and data-driven
method of analysis (King, 2004). The use of the software NVivo contributed to the clarity, efficiency, and
flexibility of the coding and analysis process. Nonetheless, it has to be acknowledged that the researcher
always forms part of the research and his interpretation of the data inevitably causes a certain degree of
subjectivity.
Existing theory has largely studied ambidexterity in relation to innovation by empirically measuring the
relationships between certain variables (for instance, De Visser et al., 2010; Jansen et al., 2009; Van den Bosch
et al., 2005). This reductionist research analyses individual variables in isolation or measures the relationship
between selected variables, but fails to explain the functioning of the whole.
Hence, this research takes a holistic view that embraces the complexities of a system in order to understand
and explain how the parts cause the functioning of the whole (Jackson, 2006; Jackson, 2001; Meyer et al.,
1993). As Jackson (2006) points out, holistic theories are more closely linked to real-world practices than
reductionist theories.
Configurational theory is applied, which analyses how configurations of causal variables (referred to as
elements) lead to certain outcomes (El Sawy et al., 2010). The relationship between configuration and outcome
may be of a variety of natures (e.g. supportive, suppressive, complementing) and can be non-linear, i.e. the
cause may be disproportionate to the effect (El Sawy et al., 2010). Also, different configurations of elements
may lead to the same outcome, a concept referred to as equifinality (El Sawy et al., 2010). The theory is built on
the insight that despite the mathematical possibility of vast numbers of constellations between elements of a
system, research has shown that in practice the same or similar constellations occur with a high frequency
(Meyer et al., 1993; Fiss, 2009; Miller, 1990). This phenomenon, which can be caused by strong
interdependencies between the elements, is referred to as limited diversity (El Sawy et al., 2010; Miller, 1990;
Fiss, 2009). It is what makes the inference of causality possible for the researcher (El Sawy et al., 2010).
5 Findings
The case organisation, referred to as Company A hereafter, started its business activities as an importer of
specialist outdoor products. Over time Company A realised that there was a market for its own outdoor
10 August 2015

Page 3 of 10

ProQuest

products. Subsequently, Company A started to successfully develop and sell its own range of outdoor products.
One of Company A's key ingredients for success was the hand-inglove collaboration with key customers and
suppliers throughout the innovation process. Company A has a market presence in over 30 countries and has
introduced many outdoor product innovations since its inception. Due to confidentiality reasons financial figures
cannot be disclosed here.
5.1 Configuration identified in the Case Organisation
Figure 2 below shows a holistic view of the identified themes and their interrelations. These have been classed
into two configurations that, each on its own, can lead to either the exploration of new possibilities or the
exploitation of old certainties, according to the definition by March (1991). Due to the restricted length of this
article the focus will be put on only some elements that are most central to answering the research question.
Based on this figure, the configurations identified in this study as well as how and why ambidexterity influences
innovation will be explained in the sections below. The identification of the themes highlighted in the figure
above is based on Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 82) who state that "[...] the 'keyness' of a theme is not
necessarily dependent on quantifiable measures,/ but rather on whether it captures something important in
relation to the overall research question."
The first theme identified in the interviews was the need for adequate resources in order to explore and
innovate, as highlighted by these illustrative quotes:
"I think any designer, if they are given the permission to be creative and the time and space to be creative they
would come up with better product and be commercially more successful. Not only with coming up with really
true new to the world innovation but the things to develop products and enhance them [...]. They would be more
successful first time, because at the moment we spend a lot of time at the back end rectifying problems with
designs that aren't really executable because they haven't had enough time at the front end to fully explore the
ideas [...]. Having that time to think about what you are doing would be very well spent from this perspective."
"I think for that real serious step change innovation there has to be an acceptance, investment, and
understanding that it might take five years to actually do the amount of planning, research, design, testing, to
actually make that kind of thing happen."
The findings also indicate that innovation requires risk-taking and while this may be the leading reason that
limits the innovation efforts of many organisations, it simultaneously is the reason why innovation provides so
much potential for competitive advantage. Therefore, the exploratory side of innovating requires the acceptance
of risk and uncertainty, which is expressed in the following illustrative quote:
"They need to keep understanding that it can be experimental and the more experimental you are, the more
innovative you might become, instead of backtracking into safe territory, which is often what brands do when the
economy isn't so good. They just want to stick with what they know sells, but actually it is going to be the
innovative product that is going to give them the edge."
In addition, if organisations want to achieve breakthrough innovations that push the limits of their industry,
failures will inevitably occur. It is the way in which these are dealt with that determines whether the organisation
derives some form of benefit from its efforts. Respondents repeatedly pointed out that failure should be seen as
an opportunity for learning and making it better in the next attempt:
"We celebrate it [the failure], because in this area it is OK to fail. Because what you are ultimately doing is you
are pushing the boundaries and pushing the limits of what is available today in order to pursue a better solution
for tomorrow. Therefore you have to go through the process of trying something and you may get the
breakthrough and in some cases you may not."
Accordingly, existing limits can only be pushed if failure is used as a learning opportunity instead of a reason to
stop. And for this to happen, the acceptance of risk and uncertainty is paramount.
Innovation success stories told by respondents have highlighted that often the organisational boundaries need
to be crossed in order to innovate. In one example, individuals from the case company worked with a supplier in
10 August 2015

Page 4 of 10

ProQuest

Asia in order to change the part they supply in a way that allows it to be used innovatively in a different product
than the one it is intended for. These crossorganisational interactions, again, depend on the availability of
required resources.
5.2 How and why ambidexterity affects innovation
The case organisation addressed the innovation paradox mostly through a structural solution in which
differentiated subunits focused on either exploration or exploitation. These subunits will be referred to as Unit A
and Unit B.
Unit A can be argued to form the exploitative unit of the business. It generates the company's highest sales,
both in numbers and revenue. Products incorporate proven technologies from previous seasons. The range
composition and product characteristics are largely based on past sales figures. Strict timelines and limited
resources restrict designers to only refine existing products and incrementally improve old technologies.
On the contrary, Unit B is given longer and more flexible timelines, fewer products per designer, more financial
resources per project, and the ability to draw people into project teams as required. This allows for more indepth research, higher risks, and learning through trial and failure. Instead of aiming for profitability or high sales
volume, the output of Unit B rather consist of highperformance products that promote the brand credibility and
reputation. Furthermore, new technologies developed by this unit that prove successful are cascaded down into
high-volume product ranges. As stated by two managers in Company A:
"Because [unit B] is looking at product that is at the top end and the top end products are small volume and
therefore usually small value. So it generally has a lesser effect on the bottom line of the company. But, having
said that, if we cultivate a culture of innovation within the business, that culture starts to expand out all over the
business. So the same way [the founder] was an innovative enthusiastic and passionate man about the
outdoors and outdoor product and that kind of energy and enthusiasm radiated off and became infectious for
everybody else. The same would happen for [the brand] if we radiate that infectious energy of innovation out to
our customers. They will feel more confident about buying us, they will see that we are a technical brand, that
we are doing interesting product that the retailer can sell off easily. If we start to give off that vibe then retailer
are more likely to buy from us. Although [unit B] in itself perhaps is a small money generator, indirectly it is one
of the most important initiatives we could ever do."
"There is various consumer researches that showed that in the last five years we weren't perceived as
innovative anymore and that was the catalyst to start [unit B] to re-establish that history of innovation,
reestablish ourselves as a high-end technical brand. Because what the sales figures don't show is the aspiration
that that creates and that then gives people the reason to buy into the brand. It is the credibility that you can't
put a price on."
This structural ambidexterity allows the case company to accept a higher degree of risk and uncertainty within
Unit B because it is balanced by the work of Unit A. Unit A provides the necessary safety buffer that can
compensate for slow or failing returns from innovation projects of Unit B. The efficiency of Unit A also enables
Unit B to use more resources for its projects. As the identified variables that contribute to knowledge exploration
show, exploration requires letting go of conventional management practices aimed at creating efficiency and
reducing variation. Structural ambidexterity provides the possibility to do this without putting the survival of the
organisation at risk. An illustrative quote reflecting this, was provided by a manager of Company A:
" [...] we also have the benefit that out of the product that are in the lower end of the range, so the high volume
products, things that you would see in the high street stores, those ones we know we will do a reasonable
volume of because they are sold through the retailers, that allows you to then set off the margin at the top end.
You make a decent margin at the high volume end means you can offset a little bit of the margin at the
mountaineering end."
Despite the structural differentiation, both units undergo cycles that consist of both exploitative and explorative
activities. Unit B temporarily changes from exploration to exploitation when it is getting closer to the launch of a
10 August 2015

Page 5 of 10

ProQuest

new topend product. Unit A, while mainly focused on exploitation, still enters phases of exploration that are
necessary for developing progressive versions of existing products. Although the lengths of these phases are
very differently balanced within each of the two units, the findings suggest that ambidexterity exist within both
units.
Furthermore, ambidexterity was also created through creative-commercial partnerships (i.e. partnerships
between product designers and commercial managers) that exist in both units. In these relationships the
designers predominantly exhibit behaviours that aim at creating variation (i.e. variation in routine working
processes, e.g. by trying out new materials and working with new people/organisations), whereas the managers
ensure alignment with the business goals. While respondents reported that designers become overly attached
to the innovative projects they envision, they also voiced concerns over commercially-orientated people's
tendency to cling to products that have been successful in the past. The collaborative creative-commercial
partnership therefore acts as a mediating mechanism that prevents either extreme from dominating. Although
the balance of power between these partners is significantly different between the two units, this form of
ambidexterity also exists within both units. These behaviours are reflected in the two illustrative quotes below:
"They [commercial managers] will say, for example, 'no, no, we are still selling many of these, it is absolutely
fine, we are not changing them' and the design and developer team say 'actually, compared with our competitor
it is looking slightly dated [...]. Sales men... it is a real rear mirror syndrome, instead of being forward thinking."
"Designers have already seen that product, it is gone and they have gone on to design the next one, and the
next one, and are further on and the sales guys still see what is selling well and they don't anticipate that life
cycle to tip over the edge. Quite often you get a case where designers suggest a change, the change may be
agreed, the product is changed and the sales guys will keep the old one in because they are to scared to let go.
And then it will start declining and they will go 'oh dear, it's declining, we didn't see that coming!"
These observations suggest that aspects of contextual ambidexterity within each of the structural units are
necessary for the structural solution to work. The reason for this is that without these aspects of contextual
ambidexterity Unit A would not be able to create incremental innovation and would also be more restricted in its
ability to pass on ideas and knowledge to Unit B. Moreover, contextual ambidexterity is required in Unit B in
order to apply its newfound knowledge into products. Without this there might be a risk of experimenting with
ideas that have no practical application. Hence, these aspects of contextual ambidexterity can prevent each unit
from drifting too far into the extreme of either exploration or exploitation. Consequently, the two units remain
integrated and aligned in order to remain mutually-reinforcing.
These findings show a strong concurrence with what Simsek et al. (2009) class as a reciprocal type of
ambidexterity in which exploration and exploitation are pursued reciprocally and sequentially within and across
subsystems. The authors argue that this type of ambidexterity "assumes a reciprocal interdependence in which
the outputs of exploitation from Unit A become the inputs for exploration by Unit B and the outputs of Unit B
cycle back to become the inputs of Unit A" (Simsek et al., 2009, p. 886). This is exactly what is present in the
case organisation. Unit A provides the financial basis (and occasionally identifies new problems, ideas, and
insights) that fuel the actions of Unit B. Unit B passes on its innovations in order for them to be applied in the
products of Unit A.
It was identified that structural ambidexterity positively affects innovation, as it allows for explorative and
exploitative activities to be pursued separately. This seems to be most beneficial in relation to each activity.
Furthermore, the findings indicate that aspects of contextual ambidexterity within each structural subunit create
alignment and integration between both units and therefore contribute to the effectiveness of the structural
solution. Hence, the most significant indication of these findings is that ambidexterity should contain both
structural and contextual elements in order to benefit firms in their pursuit of incremental and radical
innovations.
6 Contribution
10 August 2015

Page 6 of 10

ProQuest

The authors of this paper offer a holistic view of deductively and inductively generated exploration and
exploitation themes and their interrelations. These have been classed into two configurations that, each in its
entirety, lead to either the exploration of new possibilities or the exploitation of old certainties according to the
definition by (March, 1991).
Unlike existing studies that examined ambidexterity in relation to innovation by measuring the relationships
between variables with empirical methods (De Visser et al., 2010), this research offers a configurational view of
organisational ambidexterity that explains how and why aspects of ambidexterity influence an organisation's
ability to innovate.
It was found that the structural separation of exploration from exploitation allows for either activity to be pursued
on a level that would normally not be sustainable for an organisation. The extreme focus of one unit on
exploration sustains the other unit's extreme focus on exploitation. Yet, paradoxically, the findings indicate that if
the two extremes are not mediated through aspects of contextual ambidexterity within each unit, their mutual
reinforcement will wane. Hence, the findings support the combinatory views on ambidexterity (Raisch et al.,
2009) in that they suggest that structural ambidexterity can and even must co-exist with aspects of contextual
ambidexterity in order to strengthen the organisation's ability to innovate.
The novel approach of applying contextual theory to the study of ambidexterity has shown to be beneficial to
understanding the causalities within an ambidextrous organisation. Through the holism of the contextual method
the authors could embrace the complexities of the ambidexterity phenomenon without having to narrow down
the focus on just one or few selected aspects. This proved to be helpful in order to explain how the combined
contributions of different aspects caused the functioning of the whole.
7 Practical Implications
The findings suggest that organisations might enhance their ability to pursue both incremental and radical
innovation by introducing a structural separation between units that focus mainly on either explorative or
exploitative activities. This is because it allows for either activity to be pursued more effectively.
However, in order for the increased effectiveness to translate into innovation that brings organisational success,
the two organisational units that formed part of this research should remain integrated in order to ensure their
alignment and enable cross-unit knowledge sharing and knowledge integration.
References
8 References
AMBROSINI, V. &BOWMAN, C. 2001. Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for operationalization. Journal of
Management Studies, 38, 811-829.
ANDRIOPOULOS, C. &LEWIS, M. W. 2009. Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational
Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696-717.
BRAUN, V. &CLARKE, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,
77-101.
CANTARELLO, S., MARTINI, A. &NOSELLA, A. 2012. A Multi-Level Model for Organizational Ambidexterity in
the Search Phase of the Innovation Process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 28-48.
CAO, Q., GEDAJLOVIC, E. &ZHANG, H. 2009. Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions,
Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects. Organization Science, 20, 781-796.
DE VISSER, M., WEERD-NEDERHOF, P., FAEMS, D., SONG, M., VAN LOOY, B. &VISSCHER, K. 2010.
Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes. A firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on
innovation performance. Technovation, 30, 291-299.
DUNCAN, R. 1976. The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In: KILLMAN, R.
H., PONDY, L. R. &SLEVEN, D. (eds.) The Management of Organization. New York: North Holland.
EISENHARDT, K. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14,
532-550.
10 August 2015

Page 7 of 10

ProQuest

EL SAWY, O. A., MALHOTRA, A., PARK, Y. &PAVLOU, P. A. 2010. Seeking the configurations of digital
ecodynamics: It takes three to tango. Information systems research, 21, 835-848.
FARJOUN, M. 2010. Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change as a Duality. Academy of Management Review, 35,
202-225.
FISS, P. 2009. Case studies and the configurational analysis of organizational phenomena. In: BYRNE, D.
&RAGIN, C. C. (eds.) The Sage handbook of case-based methods. London: Sage Publications.
GIBSON, C. B. &BIRKINSHAW, J. 2004. The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of
Organizational Ambidexterity. The Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209-226.
HAN, M. &CELLY, N. 2008. Strategic ambidexterity and performance in international new ventures. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 25, 335-349.
HE, Z. L. &WONG, P. K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis.
Organization Science, 15, 481-494.
JACKSON, M. C. 2001. Critical systems thinking and practice. European Journal of Operational Research, 128,
233-244.
JACKSON, M. C. 2006. Creative holism: A critical systems approach to complex problem situations. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 23, 647^657.
JANSEN, J. J. P., TEMPELAAR, M. P., VAN DEN BOSCH, F. A. J. &VOLBERDA, H. W. 2009. Structural
Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms. Organization Science, 20,
797-811. KING, N. 2004. Using template analysis in the thematic analysis of text. In: CASSELL, C. &SYMON,
G. (eds.) Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. London: Sage Publications.
LEE, C. Y. &HUANG, Y. C. 2012. Knowledge stock, ambidextrous learning, and firm performance: Evidence
from technologically intensive industries. Management Decision, 50.
LI, Y.-H. &HUANG, J.-W. 2012. Ambidexterity's mediating impact on product development proficiency and new
product performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 1125-1132.
LIN, H.-E., MCDONOUGH, E. F., LIN, S.-J. &LIN, C. Y.-Y. 2013. Managing the Exploitation/Exploration
Paradox: The Role of a Learning Capability and Innovation Ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 30, 262-278.
LINDOF, T. R. &TAYLOR, B. C. 2002. Qualitative Communication Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage.
MARCH, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87.
MCCARTHY, I. P. &GORDON, B. R. 2011. Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a
management control system approach. R&D Management, 41, 240-258.
MEYER, A. D., TSUI, A. S. &HINNINGS, C. R. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1175-1995.
MILLER, D. 1990. Organizational configurations: cohesion, change, and prediction. Human Relations, 43, 771789.
O'REILLY III, C. A. &TUSHMAN, M. L. 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's
dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206.
PRIETO, I. M., REVILLA, E. &RODRIGUEZ-PRADO, B. 2009. Managing the knowledge paradox in product
development. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13, 157-170.
RAISCH, S., BIRKINSHAW, J., PROBST, G. &TUSHMAN, M. L. 2009. Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing
Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance. Organization Science, 20, 685-695.
ROTHAERMEL, F. T. &ALEXANDRE, M. T. 2009. Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role
of Absorptive Capacity. Organization Science, 20, 759-780.
SIMSEK, Z., HEAVEY, C., VEIGA, J. F. &SOUDER, D. 2009. A Typology for Aligning Organizational
Ambidexterity's Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864-894.
10 August 2015

Page 8 of 10

ProQuest

TUSHMAN, M. L. &O'REILLY, C. A. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and

revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8-30.
VAN DEN BOSCH, F. A. J., VOLBERDA, H. W. &JANSEN, J. J. P. 2005. Exploratory innovation, exploitative
innovation and ambidexterity. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57, 351-363.
AuthorAffiliation
Julian von Gottberg
Holanda 87, Dpto. 210, Providencia, Santiago de Chile, Chile.
Email: julian@vgottberg.de
Thomas Matheus*
Northumbria University, Newcastle Business School, 87 Newbridge Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST,
United Kingdom.
E-mail: thomasmatheus@gmail.com
* Corresponding author
Materia: Studies; Innovations; Organizational behavior; Causality;
Clasificacin: 9130: Experiment/theoretical treatment; 2500: Organizational behavior
Ttulo: A Configurational View on the Causalities between Ambidexterity and Innovation
Autor: von Gottberg, Julian; Matheus, Thomas
Ttulo de publicacin: ISPIM Conference Proceedings
Pginas: 1-14
Nmero de pginas: 14
Ao de publicacin: 2014
Fecha de publicacin: 2014
Ao: 2014
Editorial: The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM)
Lugar de publicacin: Manchester
Pas de publicacin: United Kingdom
Materia de publicacin: Engineering
Tipo de fuente: Conference Papers & Proceedings
Idioma de la publicacin: English
Tipo de documento: Feature
ID del documento de ProQuest: 1690362471
URL del documento: http://www.isp.fuac.edu.co/wis/biblos/docview/1690362471?accountid=45659
Copyright: Copyright AJIT - e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology 2014
ltima actualizacin: 2015-06-29
Base de datos: ABI/INFORM Global

_______________________________________________________________

10 August 2015

Page 9 of 10

ProQuest

Contactar con ProQuest

Copyright 2015 ProQuest LLC. Reservados todos los derechos. - Trminos y condiciones

10 August 2015

Page 10 of 10

ProQuest