Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Continuously Hanging by a Thread: Managing Contextually Ambidextrous Organizations

  • Ambidexterity
  • Published:
Schmalenbach Business Review Aims and scope

Abstract

Ambidexterity can be defined as an organization’s ability to simultaneously reconcile exploration and exploitation. I n this paper, we focus on contextual ambidexterity, i.e. ambidexterity that derives from the creation of a context that allows employees to pursue exploratory and exploitative activities. B uilding on empirical case study data from contextually ambidextrous organizations, we describe their idiosyncratic characteristics and we explain how their mode of knowledge transmission between exploratory and exploitative domains, based on fluid project structures, serves to generate competitive advantage. Furthermore, we analyze the role of balancing and orchestrating capabilities for enabling the firm to perform concurrently in exploration and exploitation.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, Paul S., Barbara Goldoftas, and David I. Levine (1999), Flexibility versus efficiency: A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system, Organization Science 10, 43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, Tina C., Kristiina Mäkelä, Julian Birkinshaw, and Pablo D’Este (2008), When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions, Journal of Management Studies 45, 1424–1447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancona, Deborah G., Paul Goodman, Barbara Lawrence, and Michael L. Tushman (2001), Time: A new research lens, Academy of Management Review 26, 645–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, Linda (1999), Organizational learning: Creating retaining and transferring knowledge, Norwell, MA: Kluwer Publ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, Christine M. (2006), The influence of founding team company affiliations of firm behavior, Academy of Management Journal 49, 741–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, Mary J. and Michael L. Tushman (2002), Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industry, Administrative Science Quarterly 47, 676–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradach, Jeffrey (1997), Using the plural form in the management of restaurant chains, Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 276–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, Robert A. (1983), A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm, Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, Robert A. (1991), Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation:Theory and field research, Organization Science 2, 239–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, Robert A. (1994), Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments, Administrative Science Quarterly 39, 24–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, Robert A. (2002), Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in, Administrative Science Quarterly 47, 325–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, Tom and George M. Stalker (1961), The management of innovation, London: Travistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, Henry and Richard Rosenbloom (2002), The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies, Industrial and Corporate Change 11, 529–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, Clayton M. (1997), The innovator’s dilemma, Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, Clayton M. and Joseph L. Bower (1996), Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms, Strategic Management Journal 17, 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Wesley M. and Daniel A. Levinthal (1990), Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly 15, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collis, David J. (1994), Research note: How valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic Management Journal 15 (Winter Special Issue), 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, John W. (2007), Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess, Gregory G., R. Douane Ireland, Shaker A. Zahra, Steven W. Floyd, Jay J. Janney, and Peter J. Lane (2003), Emerging Issues in Corporate Entrepreneurship, Journal of Management 29, 351–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, Robert B. (1976), The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation, in Louis R. Pondy and Dennis P. Slevin (eds.), The management of organization, Vol. 1, New York: North Holland, 167–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review 14, 488–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. and Jeffrey A. Martin (2000), Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal 21, 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. and Melissa E. Graebner (2007), Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges, Academy of Management Journal 50, 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, Steven W. and Peter Lane (2000), Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal, Academy of Management Review 25, 154–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galunic D. Charles and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt (2001), Architectural Innovation and Modular Corporate Forms, Academy of Management Journal 44, 1229–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow (1994), The new production of knowledge, London/Thousand Oaks/New Dehli: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, Cristina and Julian Birkinshaw (2004), The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity, Academy of Management Journal 47, 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Clark G. (2006), Change in the presence of residual fit: Can competing frames coexist?, Organization Science 17, 150–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, Sumantra and Christopher Bartlett (1994), Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality in management, Strategic Management Journal 15, 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss (1967), The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, New Brundswick/London: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, Anil K., Ken G. Smith, and Christina E. Shalley (2006), The interplay between exploration and exploitation, Academy of Management Journal 49, 693–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, Janet, Andrew Pettigrew, and Ewan Ferlie (2002), The determinants of research group performance: Towards mode 2, Journal of Management Studies 39, 747–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herriott, Scott R., Daniel A. Levinthal, and James G. March (1985), Learning from experience in organizations, American Economic Review 75, 298–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Ze-Lin and Poh-Kam Wong (2004), Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis, Organization Science 15, 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessels, Laurens and Harro van Lente (2008), Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda, Research Policy 37, 740–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, Justin J. P., Frans A. J. van den Bosch, and Henk W. Volberda (2005), Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents, Schmalenbach Business Review 57, 351–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, Justin J. P., Gerard George, Frans A.J. van den Bosch, and Henk Volberda (2008), Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership, Journal of Management Studies 45, 982–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, Dovev and Lori Rosenkopf (2006), Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation, Academy of Management Journal 49, 797–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, Dorothy (1992), Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development, Strategic Management Journal 13, 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, Daniel A. and James G. March (1993), The myopia of learning, Strategic Management Journal 14, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, Barbara and James G. March (1988), Organizational learning, Annual Review of Sociology 14, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, Arie Y. and Henk W. Volberda (1999), Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms, Organization Science 10, 519–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, Michael H., Zeki Simsek, Yan Ling, and John F. Veiga (2006), Ambidexterity and performance in small-to mediumsized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration, Journal of Management 32, 646–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas (1995), Social Systems, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madhok, Anoop and Carl Liu (2006), A coevolutionary theory of the multinational firm, Journal of International Management 12, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, James G. (1991), Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning, Organization Science 2, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, Edward F. and Richard Leifer (1983), Using simultaneous structures to cope with uncertainty, Academy of Management Journal 26, 727–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosella, Anna, Giorgio Petroni, and Chiara Verbano (2006), Innovation development in biopharmaceutical start-up firms: An Italian case study, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 23, 202–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, William G. (1979), A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms, Management Science 25, 833–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, William G. (1980), Markets, bureaucracies, and clans, Administrative Science Quarterly 25, 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, Sebastian and Julian Birkinshaw (2008), Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators, Journal of Management 34, 375–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savory, Clive (2006), Translating knowledge to build technological competence, Management Decision 44, 1052–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmickl, Christina and Alfred Kieser (2008), How much do specialists have to learn from each other when they jointly develop radical product innovations?, Research Policy 37, 473–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreyögg, Georg and Martina Kliesch-Eberl (2007), How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization, Strategic Management Journal 28, 913–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, Nicolai (2007), Persuasion with case studies, Academy of Management Journal 50, 20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, Nicolai and Daniel A. Levinthal (2003), Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation, Organization Science 14, 650–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Wendy K. and Michael L. Tushman (2005), Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing strategic innovations, Organization Science 16, 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stopford, John M. and Charles W. F. Baden-Fuller (1994), Creating Corporate Entrepreneurship, Strategic Management Journal 15, 521–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, Roy (2006), From the editors: What grounded theory is not, Academy of Management Journal 49, 633–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, Gabriel (1996), Exploring internal stickiness: Impedimants to the transfer of best practice within the firm, Strategic Management Journal 17, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, David J. (2007), Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance, Strategic Management Journal 28, 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, David J., Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strategic Management Journal 18, 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, Michael L. and Charles O’Reilly (1996), Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and Revolutionary change, California Management Review 38, 8–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, Michael L. and Charles O’Reilly (1997), Winning through innovation: A practical guide to managing organizational change and renewal, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, Freek and Harry Barkema (2001), Learning through acquisitions, Academy of Management Journal 44, 457–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verona, Gianmario and Davide Ravasi (2003), Unbundling dynamic capabilities: An exploratory study of continuous product innovation, Industrial & Corporate Change 12, 577–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, Henk W. and Arie Y. Lewin (2003), Co-evolutionary dynamics within and between firms: From evolution to co-evolution, Journal of Management Studies 40, 2111–2136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, Henk W., Charles Baden-Fuller, and Frans A. J. van den Bosch (2001), Mastering strategic renewal: Mobilizing renewal journeys in multi-unit firms, Long Range Planning 34, 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Sidney G. and Gabriel Szulanski (2001), Replication as Strategy, Organization Science 12, 730–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Sidney G. (2003), Understanding dynamic capabilities, Strategic Management Journal 24, 991–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Robert K. (2003), Case study research. Design and methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, Shaker A., Harry J. Sapienza, and Per Davidsson (2006), Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A review, model and research agenda, Journal of Management Studies 43, 917–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, Maurizio and Sidney G. Winter (2002), Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities, Organization Science 13, 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair for Organization and Strategic Management, University of Hamburg, Germany

    Wolfgang H. Güttel

  2. Department of Management, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration -, Germany

    Stefan W. Konlechner

Authors
  1. Wolfgang H. Güttel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan W. Konlechner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang H. Güttel.

Additional information

We would like to thank two anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Güttel, W.H., Konlechner, S.W. Continuously Hanging by a Thread: Managing Contextually Ambidextrous Organizations. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 61, 150–172 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396782

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396782

JEL-Classification

Keywords

Search

Navigation