Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational Ambidexterity

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management

  • 401 Accesses

Abstract

A fundamental challenge for organizations is how to compete in mature markets where the organizational alignment emphasizes exploitation (efficiency and control), and simultaneously in new or emerging technologies and markets where the alignment emphasizes exploration (innovation and autonomy). This ability has been referred to as ‘organizational ambidexterity’. Recent research has suggested that a firm’s dynamic capabilities underlie this ability as senior managers orchestrate the reallocation of resources to pursue both exploration and exploitation

This entry was originally published on Palgrave Connect under ISBN 978-1-137-49190-9. The content has not been changed.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adler, P., B. Goldoftas, and D. Levine. 1999. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science 10: 43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., and C.E. Helfat. 2003. Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24: 1011–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., and M. Gort. 1996. The evolution of markets and entry, exit, and survival of firms. Review of Economics and Statistics 78: 489–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S.L., and K.M. Eisenhardt. 1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-based evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell, T., and B.R. Nault. 2004. Product variety and firm survival in the microcomputer software industry. Strategic Management Journal 25: 1005–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. 2010. Trying to become a different type of company: Dynamic capability at Smith Corona. Strategic Management Journal 32: 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dew, N., B. Goldfarb, and S. Sarasvathy. 2006. Optimal inertia: When organizations should fail. Ecology and Strategy 23: 73–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R.B. 1976. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In The management of organization design: Strategies and implementation, ed. R.H. Kilmann, L.R. Pondy, and D. Slevin. New York: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K.M., and J.A. Martin. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal 21: 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindarajan, V., and C. Trimble 2005. Building breakthrough businesses within established organizations. Harvard Business Review, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M.T., and G.R. Carroll. 1992. Dynamics of organizational populations. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harreld, J.B., C.A. O’Reilly, and M.L. Tushman. 2007. Dynamic capabilities at IBM: Driving strategy into action. California Management Review 49: 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, Z.-L., and P.-K. Wong. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of ambidexterity. Organization Science 15: 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C.E., S. Finkelstein, W. Mitchell, M.A. Peteraf, H. Sing, D. Teece, and S.G. Winter. 2007. Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmqvist, M. 2004. Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science 15: 70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J.J., M.P. Tempelaar, F.A. Van den Bosch, and H.W. Volberda. 2009. Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science 20: 797–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D., and J. March. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal 14: 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. 1994. The evolution of evolution. In Evolutionary dynamics of organizations, ed. J. Baum and J. Singh. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, J., and T. Zenger. 2002. Being efficiently fickle: A dynamic theory of organizational choice. Organization Science 13: 547–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C.A., and M.L. Tushman. 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior 28: 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C.A., J.B. Harreld, and M.L. Tushman. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: IBM and emerging business opportunities. California Management Review 51: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Probst, G., and S. Raisch. 2005. Organizational crisis: The logic of failure. Academy of Management Executive 19: 90–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom, R.S. 2000. Leadership, capabilities, and technological change: The transformation of NCR in the electronic era. Strategic Management Journal 21: 1083–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N., and J. Rivkin. 2005. Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science 16: 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sine, W.D., H. Mitsuhashi, and D.A. Kirsch. 2006. Revisiting burns and stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal 49: 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W.K. 2009. Managing strategic ambidexterity: Top management teams and cognitive process to explore and exploit simultaneously. Paper presented at the 25th EGOS Colloquium, Barcelona, 3 July.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbart, C.I., and M.B. Knight. 2006. The case of the disappearing firms: Empirical evidence and implications. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27: 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas, M. 1997. Surviving radical technological change through dynamic capability: Evidence from the typesetter industry. Industrial and Corporate Change 6: 341–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M.L., and C.A. O’Reilly. 1996. The ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review 38: 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M.L., W.K. Smith, R.C. Wood, G. Westerman, and C.A. O’Reilly. 2010. Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change 19: 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uotila, J., M. Maula, T. Keil, and S.A. Zhara. 2008. Exploration, exploitation and firm performance: An analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal 30: 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S.G. 2003. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24: 991–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhiang, L., H. Yang, and I. Demirkan. 2007. The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science 53: 1645–1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA, USA

    Charles A. O’Reilly III

Authors
  1. Charles A. O’Reilly III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles A. O’Reilly III .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Stanford University , Stanford, California, USA

    Mie Augier

  2. Tusher Ctr Intellectual Capital, University of California Tusher Ctr Intellectual Capital, Berkeley, California, USA

    David J. Teece

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this entry

Cite this entry

O’Reilly, C.A. (2016). Organizational Ambidexterity. In: Augier, M., Teece, D. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_611-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_611-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-349-94848-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Business and ManagementReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation