Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploration and organizational longevity: The moderating role of strategy and environment

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of exploration and exploitation on organizational longevity. We ask two questions: (1) How does the balance between exploration and exploitation influence organizational longevity? and (2) How is the appropriate balance affected by organizational and environmental contexts? This study conceptualizes exploration and exploitation as two ends of a continuum in terms of innovation context and tests the hypotheses on balancing exploration and exploitation. An analysis of data from the Korean IT industry during 1981–2011 reveals an inverted U-shaped curvilinear relationship between the extent of exploratory innovation and organizational longevity, providing support for the ambidexterity perspective. We further examine the moderating effects of competitive strategy and environmental dynamism on the relationship between exploratory innovation and organizational longevity. The results indicate that differentiation strategy moderated the exploration–longevity relationship and call for a contingency approach for a better understanding of performance implications of the exploration–exploitation balance.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abernalthy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. 1985. Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14: 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 521–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. 1995. Survival analysis using the SAS system: A practical guide. Cary, NC: SAS Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. 1990. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. 2001. Organizational environments and industry exit: The effects of uncertainty, munificence and complexity. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(3): 675–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auh, S., & Menguc, B. 2005. Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58: 1652–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. 2000. Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity and limitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 909–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C. M., Haunschild, P. R., & Phillips, D. J. 2004. Friends of strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization Science, 15(3): 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M., & Tushman, M. 2002. Process management and technological innovation: Longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 676–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28: 238–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. 2013. Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 287–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J., III. 1980. Strategy and environment: A conceptual integration. Academy of Management Review, 5: 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, B. K. 1995. CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 301–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., & Creve, A. S. 2007. Let chaos reign, the reign in chaos-repeatedly: Managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 965–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell, T., & Nault, B. R. 2004. Product variety and firm survival in the microcomputer software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 1005–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D. R., & Oakes, D. 1984. Analysis of survival data. London: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, J. S., Hwang, Y., Pei, B. K., & Reneau, W. 2002. The performance effects of congruence between product competitive strategies and purchasing management design. Management Science, 48: 866–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. 1984. Dimensions of organizational task environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Davis, P. S. 1984. Porter’s generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27: 52–73.

  • Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32: 1422–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebben, J. J., & Johnson, A. C. 2005. Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 1249–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, F. 1966. Identifiability criteria in nonlinear systems. Econometrica, 33.

  • Fleming, L. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47: 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. 2001. Technology as a complex adaptive system. Research Policy, 30: 1019–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, C. G. 2005. Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource vs. routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 741–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gittelman, M. 2008. The value of European patents. European Management Review, 5: 85–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R. 2003. A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 685–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R. 2007. Exploration and exploitation in product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(5): 945–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 4: 693–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. 1983. High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: A contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 687–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5): 929–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49: 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, W. L., & Wong, P. K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15: 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. 1994. Measuring competences? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. 1988. Differentiation versus low cost or differentiation and low cost: A contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 13: 401–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M. C. 2012. Technological innovation capabilities in the thin film transistor-liquid crystal display industries of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Research Policy, 41: 541–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. R., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2005. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57: 351–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. R., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2006. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52: 1661–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1183–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., & Chen, E. L. 2008. Effects of search timing on innovation: The value of not being in sync with rivals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4): 593–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. 1988. A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 570–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, G., & Huh, M.-G. 2014. Ambidexterity and organizational survival: Evidence from Korean SMEs. In U. Stettner, B. S. Aharonson, & T. L. Amburgey (Eds.). Exploration and exploitation in early stage ventures and SMEs: 123–148. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Koza, M. P., & Lewin, A. Y. 1998. The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 3: 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. 2004. Tradeoffs in marketing exploration and exploitation strategies: The overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21: 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. 2006. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 797–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. 2010. Exploration and exploitation within and across organization. Academy of Management Annals, 4: 109–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D., & March, J. 1993. Myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & Posen, H. E. 2008. Bringing context to the exploration-exploitation trade-off: Considering the impact of selection and turbulent environments. Working paper, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. 2006. Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5): 646–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magretta, J. 2012. Understanding Michael Porter. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. 1978. Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. 1988. Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2): 280–308.

  • Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. 1986. Generic strategies and performance: An empirical examination with American data, Part I: Testing Porter. Organization Studies, 7(1): 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. D., Zhao, M., & Calantone, R. J. 2006. Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to March's exploration-exploitation model. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 709–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair, A., & Filer, L. 2003. Cointegration of firm strategies within groups: A long-run analysis of firm behavior in the Japanese steel industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. 2013. Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 324–338.

  • Phelps, C. C. 2010. A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 890–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piao, M. 2010. Thriving in the new: Implication of exploration on organizational longevity. Journal of Management, 36: 1529–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. 1983. The technological dimension of competitive strategy. In R. S. Rosenbloom (Ed.). Research on technological innovation, management and policy, 1: 1–33. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

  • Porter, M. E. 1996. What is strategy. Harvard Business Review, 74(6): 61–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M., & Siggelkow, N. 2008. Contextuality within activity systems and sustainability of competitive advantage. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(2): 34–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, A., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34: 375–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramani, S. W., & de Looze, M. A. 2002. Using patent statistics as knowledge base indicators in the biotechnology sectors: An application to France, Germany and the UK. Scientometrics, 54: 319–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. R., & Alexandre, M. T. 2009. Ambidexerity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4): 759–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. 2004. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3): 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simerly, R. L., & Li, M. 2000. Environmental dynamism, capital structure and performance: A theoretical integration and an empirical test. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. 2007. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32: 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5): 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. 2000. Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, Z., Li, J., Yang, Z., & Li, Y. 2011. Exploratory learning and exploitative learning in different organizational structures. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(4): 697–714.

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38: 8–30.

  • Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. 2009. Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N., Lee, C. H., & Iyer, B., 2007. Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: A longitudinal test in the software sector. Unpublished manuscript; an earlier version presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, 2005.

  • Volberda, H. 1996. Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7: 359–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H., & Lesin, A. 2003. Co-evolutionary dynamics within and between firms: From evolution to coevolution. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 2111–2136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. 2008. The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on products exploration exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M. 2011. To explore or to exploit? An empirical investigation of acquisitions by large incumbents. Research Policy, 40: 1217–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Li, J. 2008. Untangling the effects of overexploration and overexploitation on organizational performance: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Journal of Management, 34: 925–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamakawa, Y., Yang, H., & Lin, Z. J. 2011. Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performance implications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit. Research Policy, 40: 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Z., Zhou, X., & Zhang, P. 2014. Discipline versus passion: Collectivism, centralization, and ambidextrous innovation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1–25.

  • Zahra, S. A. 1996. Technology strategy and financial performance: Examining the moderating role of the firm’s competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 11: 189–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Bogner, W. C. 1999. Technology strategy and software new venture’s performance: Exploring effect of the competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 135–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, Kyungpook National University, 80, Daehak-ro, Buk-gu, Daegu, South Korea

    Guktae Kim & Moon-Goo Huh

Authors
  1. Guktae Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Moon-Goo Huh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moon-Goo Huh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, G., Huh, MG. Exploration and organizational longevity: The moderating role of strategy and environment. Asia Pac J Manag 32, 389–414 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-014-9399-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-014-9399-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation