Configurations of Innovations across Domains: An Organizational Ambidexterity View

How do firms balance explorative and exploitative innovation for superior firm performance? While most prior studies have approached this issue by focusing on technology‐related innovation, the role of balancing exploration and exploitation in other important organizational domains, i.e., marketing, and the interaction effect of ambidexterity across different domains have been overlooked. This study contributes to this line of research by investigating how firms simultaneously balance exploration and exploitation across two critical domains, namely technology innovation and market innovation. The study distinguishes four types of configurations: market leveraging (technology exploration and market exploitation), technology leveraging (technology exploitation and market exploration), pure exploitation (technology exploitation and market exploitation), and pure exploration (technology exploration and market exploration). From an organizational ambidexterity perspective, the current work investigates whether and how these different combinations exert distinctive effects on firm performance. Specifically, the article posits that (a) technology exploration and market exploitation complement each other, and (b) technology exploitation and market exploration also complement each other, such that both market leveraging and technology leveraging strategies have positive effects on firm performance. The article also maintains that such positive relationships are fully mediated by differentiation and low cost advantages. Conversely, it is argued that (c) technology exploration and market exploration conflict with each other, and (d) so do technology exploitation and market exploitation, such that both pure exploration and pure exploitation have negative effects on firm performance. Hypotheses were tested using survey data collected from 292 manufacturing and service firms in China. The results supported most of the hypotheses, except that pure exploration demonstrated no significant relationship with firm performance.     

Cannibalize and combine? The impact of ambidextrous innovation on organizational outcomes under market competition

How can a firm achieve ambidexterity? The present study proposes that the answer to this question lies in the distinction between ambidextrous culture and ambidextrous innovation. Drawing upon organizational learning theory and the source-position-performance framework, we propose that ambidexterity requires the adoption of two important organizational cultures, willingness to cannibalize (WTCA) and willingness to combine existing knowledge (WTCO), which allow firms to attain superior performance through the implementation of both radical and incremental (i.e., ambidextrous) innovations. Our major contribution lies in addressing the important debate in the literature on whether exploration and exploitation are complements or substitutes. Furthermore, competition intensity is a key condition that determines the degree to which the two types of organizational cultures and the two types of innovations are necessary for superior firm performance. The study uses data from multiple respondents from 199 Chinese firms. Our findings thus suggest that WTCA and WTCO, which are traditionally treated as opposites, are complements in generating radical innovations.     

Achieving new product success via the synchronization of exploration and exploitation across multiple levels and functional areas

While ambidexterity has been identified as a critical prerequisite for new product success, synchronizing exploration and exploitation in practice represents a multifaceted enigma. Ambidexterity is not in reality limited to a single organizational level, or a specific functional area. Firms become ambidextrous when corporate-level exploratory and exploitative strategies interact with operational-level exploratory and exploitative capabilities across multiple functional areas. Data from a sample of technology-intensive industrial firms using a multi-informant design shows that operational-level exploratory and exploitative product innovation and marketing capabilities allow firms to implement corporate-level exploratory and exploitative strategies in the context of new product development (NPD). Further, the findings reveal that the integration of exploratory product innovation–exploratory marketing and exploitative product innovation–exploitative marketing is significant for the implementation of exploratory and exploitative strategies over deploying each capability in isolation. Finally, we show that the implementation of exploratory and exploitative strategies drives new product success through creating distinct positional advantages to customers in the form of both differentiation and cost efficiency. These positional advantages help to better explain the effects of exploratory and exploitative capabilities on new product market performance.     

Formal integration archetypes in ambidextrous organizations

Research suggests that organizational ambidexterity, an organization's capacity to pursue both exploratory and exploitative activities, is critical to firm innovation and performance. Extant research primarily emphasizes several firm‐level informal integration mechanisms, such as creating a common vision and relying on social integration, for integrating structurally ambidextrous units. Research has largely ignored, however, the formal mechanisms by which organizations have integrated such units. In this inductive study, using archival and interview data from organizations in Silicon Valley, we address this gap by identifying the formal integration archetypes that enable core business units to collaborate with new venture units to incubate new businesses. The four integration archetypes that enable collaboration vary along two key dimensions: who initiates new ventures and when collaboration is solicited. We identify formal administrative and resource mechanisms that enable such collaboration. We combine the disparate literatures of temporal and spatial separation of ambidextrous structures, and demonstrate how these must be combined at the business unit and new venture levels of analysis to achieve integration. The practical contribution of this study lies in identifying suitable contexts in which each of these archetypes can be utilized by practitioners for reintegrating new venture projects developed in separate structures.     

Organizational Learning Ambidexterity,Strategic Flexibility,and New Product Development

Although organizational ambidexterity has gained momentum in recent innovation research, previous literature still offers a confusing and partial picture about how to leverage ambidexterity for new product development because of two limitations. First, previous research mainly focuses on static resource endowment and thus offers little insight about how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity. Second, conceptual confusion on the notion of the balance dimension of organization ambidexterity still exists. This study seeks to explore how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity for new product development and to bring greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. By extending the static resource assumption, which is central to the extant debate in organizational ambidexterity literature, this research unpacks ambidexterity into a relative exploratory dimension and an interactive dimension. We further investigated the moderating effect of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility on the impacts of the two dimensions on new product development performance. Based on the dynamic resource management view and organizational learning theory, we proposed six hypotheses and collected data from 213 firms through a survey to examine the hypotheses. Our results indicate that relative exploratory dimension and interactive dimension have different effects on new product development. Specifically, the relative exploratory dimension has an inverse U‐shaped effect on new product development while the interactive dimension has a positive effect. Furthermore, we find that resource flexibility and coordination flexibility have positive moderating effects on the relationships between the two dimensions of ambidexterity and new product development performance. Our study contributes to the ambidexterity research in three ways. First, from a dynamic resource management view, this study extends previous ambidexterity research from a static view to a dynamic view by exploring the moderating effects of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility. Second, we extend the understanding on ambidexterity by bringing greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. Third, this research provides new evidence on the effects of ambidextrous learning on new product development performance in transition economy such as China, where ambidextrous learning is crucial for firms to adapt to a dynamic environment.     

Aligning Knowledge Assets for Exploitation,Exploration, and Ambidexterity: A Study of Companies in High‐Tech Parks in China

There is little research that has explored the effects of how knowledge assets are aligned with each other in exploitation and exploration innovation strategies. This study uses alignment theory to explore the effects of aligning knowledge assets on facilitating a firm's ability to pursue ambidexterity, which is defined as the simultaneous pursuit of explorative and exploitative innovation strategies. We also explore the relative influence of organizational and human capital in fostering an exploitation innovation strategy on the one hand, and an exploration innovation strategy on the other. Using a primary survey sample of 127 companies in two high‐tech parks in China, we found that greater reliance on relatively more organizational capital versus human capital has a significantly positive impact on the success of an exploitative innovation strategy. The amount of organizational capital relative to the amount of human capital has a stronger positive association with exploratory innovation strategy when social capital is greater. We also found that the combination of organizational, human, and social capital fosters ambidexterity, i.e., the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation. This study extends alignment theory and examines the effects of aligning these knowledge assets on a firm's ability to foster organizational ambidexterity.     

A Self‐Tuning Model for Smart Manufacturing SMEs: Effects on Digital Innovation

With the changing way people live, communicate, and work, enterprises are striving to shift their existing business model into a “self‐tuning” one. Enterprises are becoming more agile, adaptive, and ambidextrous in order to boost innovation in the current digital transformation era. Nowadays, “digital innovation” is closely associated with Industry 4.0 enablers and smart enterprises. Prior research has shown that while multinational enterprises—across many sectors—have already embraced the aforementioned advancements, their adoption by small and‐medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) has so far taken place mainly in the manufacturing sector. Thus, based on a sample of 280 self‐tuned smart manufacturing SMEs and having utilized the structural equation modeling (SEM), this study was aimed to investigate how digital innovation is influenced by the three pillars of self‐tuning models—agility, adaptation, and ambidexterity. Our paper has focussed on the digital systems in which SMEs, spurred by networking and open innovation solutions, operate and innovate in response to external triggers, displaying a balance between exploration and exploitation, and a strong agile capacity.     

Playing a double game? Pursuing innovation through ambidexterity in an international acquisition program from the Arabian Gulf Region

Acquisitions represent a strategy for enhancing competitive responsiveness in the global management of technology and innovation. Even more than single and domestic acquisitions, cross‐border acquisition programs present opportunities for firms seeking to sustain innovation. Yet, scant attention has been paid to the innovation dynamics of pursuing multiple, international acquisitions. We remedy this gap by investigating a multinational logistics firm enacting a multi‐decade program of cross‐border, technology intensive acquisitions and achieving dual competencies in (1) innovation and ambidexterity, (2) the exploration and exploitation capabilities of ambidexterity, and (3) tight and loose integration approaches. We determine that the firm relied on contextual, temporal, and structural manifestations of ambidexterity in acquisition integration. Findings illuminate the processual nature of an international acquisition program and suggest how ambidexterity benefits the acquisition of both innovation and innovative capabilities, when a firm applies a portfolio of tight‐to‐loose integration approaches.     

The Mediating Role of Strategic Orientations on the Relationship between Ambidexterity‐Oriented Decisions and Innovative Ambidexterity

Building on upper echelon theory and strategic process theory, this article analyzes the relationship between ambidexterity‐oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. While ambidexterity‐oriented decisions embrace the capability of top management teams to manage contradictory strategic directions, namely adaptability and alignment, innovative ambidexterity captures the ability of firms to simultaneously develop discontinuous and incremental innovations. In addition to the direct relationship between ambidexterity‐oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity, it is argued that innovation orientation and cost orientation denote two cultural implementation mechanisms that mediate this effect. Using two top‐executive data sets collected in the United States (n = 83) and India (n = 78), the empirical analysis shows that innovation orientation and cost orientation partially mediate the direct influence of ambidexterity‐oriented decisions on innovative ambidexterity, thus further explaining how formulated decisions made by the top management team nurture ambidextrous innovation behavior. Hence, this article extends prior literature that emphasizes a positive influence of top managers on innovation through incorporating an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Second, this study contributes to ambidexterity literature through integrating strategic process theory. While ambidexterity‐oriented decisions primarily relate to strategy formulation, innovation orientation and cost orientation are associated with strategy implementation. The results show that both strategic subprocesses are vital in enabling ambidextrous innovation behavior. Third, an operationalization for the ability of top management to balance adaptability‐ and alignment‐oriented decisions is provided based on prior literature.     

The architecture of coopetition: Strategic intent,ambidextrous managers,and knowledge sharing

The study investigates the significance of strategic intent, manager's ambidexterity, and knowledge sharing routines for firms in their quest to pursue coopetition. We utilize the resource-based view and the dynamic capabilities theory to ground our hypotheses. We test the hypotheses using the data collected from 313 firms that engage in coopetition relationships through an online survey. The findings forward knowledge sharing and ambidextrous managers as intervening variables, in that when complemented with knowledge sharing, a firm's strategic intent could better guide the firm's managers to pursue coopetition successfully. Findings further advocate that knowledge sharing complements to enable the relationship between a firm's strategic intent and its ambidextrous managers, as well as the relationship between strategic intent and coopetition. Furthermore, results also indicate that ambidextrous managers, with a skillset of a combination of exploration and exploitation, are positively associated to coopetition. Overall, the findings make important theoretical as well as empirical contributions to the coopetition and strategic alliance literature.     

Structural ambidexterity,transition processes,and integration trade‐offs: a longitudinal study of failed exploration

In order to overcome the exploration–exploitation paradox, structural ambidexterity literature suggests establishing differentiated units for exploitation and exploration with a carefully managed exploration–exploitation interface supporting cross‐fertilization without cross‐contamination. Recent research demonstrates the crucial role of integration mechanisms (i.e. how knowledge exchange between exploratory and exploitative units can be organized) and related transition modes (i.e. how exploratory innovations can ultimately be transferred back into the exploitative structures of core business) to deal with this challenge. However, a systematic account of the diverse tensions, risks, and trade‐offs associated with integration which may ultimately cause exploration failure is missing, so far. This paper presents a longitudinal process study uncovering the anatomy of an unsuccessful exploration of (green) technologies by a medium‐sized entrepreneurial firm. We investigated their transition processes to understand how the managers dynamically configured and reconfigured the exploration–exploitation interface over time. Our theoretical contribution lies in providing a framework of six integration trade‐offs (Exploratory‐complementary linking vs. contamination; Seeking legitimacy early on vs. frustration at discontinuation of innovation; Boundary spanning through job rotation vs. carrying over of old culture; Early vs. premature transfer; Reorganization vs. capability mutation; and Improved access to core business resources vs. resource starvation) linked to three phases in the transition process (before, at, and after transfer). We also highlight mechanism, pulling‐forward, and streamlining‐related failures linked to integration trade‐offs in resource‐constrained contexts. Our implication for R&D and top management is that the use of integration mechanisms for structural ambidexterity bears the risk of cross‐contamination between the exploitative and exploratory structures and are therefore inevitably linked to trade‐offs. To minimize negative side effects and prevent exploration failure, organizations have to consciously select, schedule, operationalize, and manage (re)integration mechanisms along the transition process. Our framework of integration trade‐offs systematically supports managers in their organizational design choices for integration mechanisms in the transition processes.     

Relational ties,innovation, and performance: A tale of two pathways

Relational ties are valuable resources that can generate substantial advantages for firms. Multiple studies show that relational ties enhance firm performance, but whether and how innovation intervenes in this process is largely unknown. This study examines how relational ties affect firm performance via two types of innovation. Drawing on the relational ties literature and exploration/exploitation literature, we differentiate between two types of ties (business ties versus political ties) and investigate how innovation (exploration versus exploitation) mediates relational ties and firm performance in two distinct ways. Survey data from China's semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries, both innovation-oriented industries, suggests that firms' business ties with buyers, suppliers, and competitors are more related to exploratory innovation, while their political ties with government officials are more related to exploitative innovation. Interestingly, competitive intensity demonstrates distinct moderating effects on both of these pathways.     

The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on the ambidexterity-firm performance relationship for prospectors and defenders

Drawing on the resource-based view of the firm and, in particular, the capabilities perspective of firm performance, the authors examine the relationship between ambidexterity and firm performance for two strategy typologies: prospectors and defenders. Ambidexterity, defined as the combination of two discrete capabilities (exploration and exploitation), should have a less negative effect on firm performance among prospectors that add exploitation to exploration than among defenders who add exploration to exploitation. Hence, this research predicts an asymmetric effect of ambidexterity on firm performance for prospectors and defenders. The authors further posit that a boundary-spanning culture, such as market orientation, can function as a metaculture by integrating the subunit cultures generated by exploration and exploitation. As a result, market orientation should mitigate the negative effect of ambidexterity on firm performance, albeit differently for prospectors and defenders, and thus point to an asymmetric moderating role of market orientation. The findings provide mixed results, which the authors discuss along with some theoretical and managerial implications.     

The ambidextrous patterns for managing technological and marketing innovation

Built upon organizational ambidexterity theory, this study provides a new perspective in managing technological and marketing innovation. It distinguishes between simultaneous and sequential patterns of innovation within a firm and takes a longitudinal approach in examining the differential effects of these two ambidextrous patterns of innovation on firm performance. Further, this study investigates the contingent roles of internal product scope and external market dynamism on the above relationships. Using panel data from 158 U.S. firms over 26 years, we find that both simultaneous and sequential patterns are positively associated with firm performance. Further, our findings indicate that a broader product scope strengthens the effect of the simultaneous pattern on firm performance, while weakening that of the sequential pattern on firm performance. When market dynamism increases, the effect of the simultaneous pattern on firm performance is strengthened, while that of the sequential pattern is weakened. Our findings offer managers guidance on the choice of innovation patterns under certain contingencies and how to better manage technological and marketing innovation over time.     

Ambidextrous balance and channel innovation ability in Chinese business circles: The mediating effect of knowledge inertia and guanxi inertia

Drawing on organizational learning theory and literature on guanxi, this study examines how and why ambidextrous learning balance influences firm innovation capability in Chinese business circles. We propose a U-shaped relation between ambidextrous learning balance and firm innovation capability which is mediated by guanxi inertia and knowledge inertia in different ways. Specifically, ambidextrous learning balance has an inverted U-shaped impact on guanxi inertia and further influences firm innovation capability. Whereas, ambidextrous learning balance has a linear positive influence on innovation capability through a decreased level of knowledge inertia. Based on survey data collected from, The results obtained from a sample of 197 Chinese channel enterprises using SEMs analysis provide strong support for our hypotheses. In addition, the findings based on firms with unbalanced ambidextrous learning indicate that as opposed to exploratory learning, higher level of exploitative learning leads to an increase in guanxi inertia and a decrease in knowledge inertia. These conclusions reveal how ambidextrous learning balance influence innovation capability for a firm with inherent learning preference which is not discussed by the extant research. At the same time, this study fills the gap of ambidextrous learning balance by considering the influence of culture. Our work also informs foreign practitioners of the optimal ways of learning for innovation in China.     

Cognitive Frames,Learning Mechanisms,and Innovation Ambidexterity

While there is general agreement about the need for firms to both exploit and explore, there has been little empirical research that has focused on understanding how firms can manage the tension that arises from engaging in these two activities. Some writers have theorized that the cognitive frames that individuals, teams, and organizations possess may play an important role in managing these tensions and fostering ambidextrous outcomes. However, a review of the extant literature on cognition and cognitive frames reveals that their role in managing this tension has not been examined at any level, including the strategic business unit (SBU) level. This paper has taken a first step in providing empirical validation for the notion that ambidextrous cognitive frames play an important role in generating innovation ambidexterity. To test the hypotheses, primary data were gathered from 178 Taiwanese companies (190 SBUs) operating in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, financial management, mechanical engineering, and electronic engineering sectors. Questionnaires were administered to senior level managers and middle‐level managers in each SBU. Because the theory and hypotheses of this study require an SBU level of analysis, respondents' individual scores on each variable were aggregated, and the SBU mean responses for each question were computed. Multiple regression analyses were performed to test the hypotheses. Different cognitive styles were found to impact different types of learning. An independent cognitive style was found to have a positive impact on intra‐SBU learning, while a reflection cognitive style had a positive impact on inter‐SBU learning. More importantly, ambidextrous cognitive frames, i.e., the combination of these two styles, were found to indirectly foster innovation ambidexterity by facilitating intra‐SBU learning and inter‐SBU learning simultaneously. These results suggest that managing the tension that arises from exploiting and exploring begins with the presence of dual cognitive styles. Ambidextrous cognitive frames enable SBUs to cognitively juxtapose contradictions and tensions in ways that allow them to “embrace” rather than avoid or deny these tensions. These findings provide validation for viewing SBUs as separate, holistic entities that collaboratively shape their cognitive frames. And it is these cognitive frames that enable their information processing which in turn causes the SBU to act or perform in a distinctive or characteristic manner. Additionally, these findings suggest that management teams may need to adopt ambidextrous cognitive frames that broaden the “problem space” to include multiple sources of learning that emanate from inside, as well as outside of the SBU or organization.     

Antecedents of Innovation Strategies in New Technology‐based Firms: Interactions between the Environment and Founder Team Composition

This research contributes to the ongoing stream of research on the integration of technical and business knowledge for successful innovation, but does so with a unique focus—that of new firm founder teams. This is in contrast to much of the existing literature, which focuses on organizational units in large firms. As part of their strategy for success, new technology‐based firms need to find an optimal balance between exploration and exploitation in their innovation activities. However, the resource constraints they typically face make it difficult for them to pursue both at the same time, which means that at any given point in time they are likely to opt for either exploration or exploitation rather than both. The purpose of this research is to investigate what influences new technology‐based firms to select one innovation strategy over another. Data collected in 145 new technology‐based firms are used to test hypotheses about how environmental conditions and founder team composition interact in their contributions to choice of innovation strategy. Based on hierarchical regression analysis of the data, the research findings suggest that teams consisting of individuals who have dissimilar backgrounds are more likely to adapt their innovation strategy to the characteristics of the environment than teams of individuals with similar backgrounds. Conversely, teams consisting of individuals with similar backgrounds are more likely to continue to follow their preferred strategy. However, as competitive intensity or environmental dynamism increases, such teams are likely to deviate from their preferred strategy.     

Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization,alliances, and acquisitions

Prior research on ambidexterity has limited its concern to balancing exploration and exploitation via particular modes of operation. Acknowledging the interplay of tendencies to explore versus exploit via the internal organization, alliance, and acquisition modes, we claim that balancing these tendencies within each mode undermines firm performance because of conflicting routines, negative transfer, and limited specialization. Nevertheless, by exploring in one mode and exploiting in another, i.e., balancing across modes, a firm can avoid some of these impediments. Thus, we advance ambidexterity research by asserting that balance across modes enhances performance more than balance within modes. Our analysis of 190 U.S.‐based software firms further reveals that exploring via externally oriented modes such as acquisitions or alliances, while exploiting via internal organization, enhances these firms' performance. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An empirical examination of vacillation theory

Research summary : Since Nickerson and Zenger (2002) proposed how vacillation may lead to organizational ambidexterity, large‐sample empirical tests of their theory have been missing. In this paper, we empirically examine the performance implications of vacillation. Building upon vacillation theory, we predict that the frequency and scale of vacillation will have inverted U‐shaped relationships with firm performance. We test our hypotheses using patent‐based measures of exploration and exploitation in the context of technological innovation and knowledge search. Managerial summary : Firms often shift their focus on technological innovation and knowledge search from seeking new and novel knowledge (i.e., exploration) to extending and refining existing knowledge (i.e., exploitation) or vice versa. We examine how the frequency and scale of firms vacillating between exploration and exploitation may affect their performance. We find that both too infrequent or too frequent changes and a too small or too large scale of changes are not desirable. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Managing the Exploitation/Exploration Paradox: The Role of a Learning Capability and Innovation Ambidexterity

Some researchers have proposed that practices facilitating learning and knowledge transfer are particularly important to innovation. Some of the practices that researchers have studied include how organizations collaborate with other organizations, how organizations promote learning, and how an organization's culture facilitates knowledge transfer and learning. And while some have proposed the importance of combining practices, there has been a distinct lack of empirical studies that have explored how these practices work together to facilitate learning and knowledge transfer that leads to the simultaneous achievement of incremental and radical innovation, what we refer to as innovation ambidexterity (IA). Yet, a firm's ability to combine these practices into a learning capability is an important means of enabling them to foster innovation ambidexterity. In this study, learning capability is defined as the combination of practices that promote intraorganizational learning among employees, partnerships with other organizations that enable the spread of learning, and an open culture within the organization that promotes and maintains sharing of knowledge. This paper examines the impact of this learning capability on innovation ambidexterity and innovation ambidexterity's effect on business performance. The resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm is used to develop a conceptual foundation for combining these practices. This study empirically examines whether these practices constitute a learning capability by analyzing primary data gathered from 214 Taiwanese owned strategic business unit (SBUs) drawn from several industries where innovation is important. The results of this study make four important contributions. First, they demonstrate that the combination of these practices has a greater impact on innovation ambidexterity than any one practice individually or when only two practices are combined. Second, the results demonstrate a relationship between innovation ambidexterity and business performance in the form of revenues, profits, and productivity growth relative to competitors. Third, the results suggest that innovation ambidexterity plays a mediating role between learning capability and business performance. That is, learning capability has an indirect impact on business performance by facilitating innovation ambidexterity that in turn fosters business performance. This study also contributes to our understanding of ambidexterity literature in a non‐Western context, i.e., Taiwan.