This article explores the tensions between different modes of action that a project leader uses throughout the course of a project. The study examines whether these different modes can be identified and, if so, whether there is a possibility for the project leader to change modes. This is referred to as ambidexterity. Ambidexterity is explored within two polar expeditions. Results are surprising. No conclusion can be reached about the advantage of one mode over the other. But what does stand out as a discriminating factor is the possibility of using all modes throughout the project.
ArttoK., KujalaJ., DietrichP., & MartinsuoM. (2008). What is project strategy?International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 4–12.
4.
BennerM. J., & TushmanM. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238–256.
5.
BesnerC., & HobbsB. (2008). Project management practice, generic or contextual: A reality check. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 16–34.
BréchetJ.-P., & DesreumauxA. (2006). Le projet dans Faction collective [The project in the collective action]. In AlloucheJ. (Ed.), Encyclopédie de gestion des ressources humaines [Encyclopedia of human resources management] (2nd ed., pp. 1015–1024). Paris: Vuibert.
8.
BredilletC. N. (2007). An evaluation of the management of a major project in France. In ClelandD. I., & IrelandL. R. (Eds.), Project management applied handbook (pp. 61–75). New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
BredilletC., RuizP., & YatimF. (2008, July). Investigating the development of project management: A time-distance analysis approach of G8, European G6, and outreach 5 countries. Paper presented at the 2008 PMI Research Conference, Warsaw.
10.
BrilmanJ. (1996). Lentreprise réinventée: Organisation par processus, structures plates, équipes en réseaux, … [The enterprise reinvented: Organization by processes, flat structures, teams in networks, …]. Paris: Les éditions d'organisation.
11.
BrionS., Favre-BontéV., & MotheC. (2007, June 6-9). Quelle ambidextrie pour l'innovation continue? Le cas du groupe SEB [Which ambidexterity for innovation: The case of SEB group]. Presented at the Colloque AIMS, Montréal.
12.
ChanalV., & MotheC. (2005). Comment concilier innovation d'ex-ploitation et innovation d'exploration: Une etude de cas dans le secteur automobile? [How to reconcile innovation from exploitation and innovation from exploration: A case study from the car industry?]. Revue Française de gestion, 31, 173–191.
13.
CicmilS. (2000). Quality in project environments: A non-conventional agenda. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17, 554–570.
14.
DavidA. (2000). La recherche-intervention, cadre général pour la recherche en management [The research-intervention, general framework for research in management]. In DavidA., HatchuelA., & LauferR., Les nouvelles fondations des sciences de gestion [The new foundations in management sciences] (pp. 193–214). Paris: Vuibert, Fond National pour l'Enseignement de la Gestion d'Entreprise.
15.
DeclerckR., DebourseJ., & NavarreC. (1983). Méthode de direction générale: Le management stratégique de l'entreprise [Method for general management: Enterprise strategic management]. Paris: Dunod.
16.
DinsmoreP., & Cooke-DaviesT. (2006). The right projects done right: From business strategy to successful project implementation.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
FarjaudonA. L., & SoulerotM. (2008). Les implications du dilemme exploitation/exploration sur le contrôle de gestion: Le cas d'une entreprise de produits de grande consommation [The implications of exploitation/exploitation dilemma on the management control: The case of an enterprise in large consumption products]. Cahier du GREFIGE, Universite Paris-Dauphine.
18.
ForayD. (2000). L'économie de la con-naissance [The knowledge economy]. Paris: Edition La Découverte.
19.
GarelG. (2003). Le management de projet [Project management]. Paris: Edition La Découverte/Collection Repères.
20.
GarelG. (2006). Etat des recherches en management de projet [The state of research in project management]. In LièvreP, LecoutreM., & Kaba TraorèM. (Eds.), Management de Projets, les règles de l'activité à projet [Management of projects, rules of project activity] (pp. 38–57). Paris: Hermés & Lavoisier.
21.
GarelG., & RosierR. (2008, May). Régime d'innovation et exploration [Regime of innovation and exploration]. Presented at the Colloque Ambidextrie, IREGE, Annecy.
22.
GautierA., LièvreP., & Rix-LièvreG. (2009). Les obstacles en matière d'apprentissage organisationnel au sein de l'organisation de la sécurité civile, une mise en perspective en termes de gestion des ressources humaines [Obstacles in the field of organizational learning in a civil security organization: A perspective in terms of human resources management]. Revue Politique et Management Public, 26, 137–168.
23.
GirinJ. (1990). Analyse empirique des situations de gestion: Éléments de theorie et de méthode [Empirical analysis of management situations: Elements of theory and method]. In MartinetA. (Ed.), Epistémologie et sciences de gestion [Epistemology and management sciences] (pp. 141–182). Paris: Economica.
24.
HällgrenM. (2007). Beyond the point of no return: On the management of deviations. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 773–780.
25.
JamesW. (2007). Le pragmatisme [Pragmatism]. Paris: Flammarion. (Original work published 1907)
26.
KerznerH. (2003). Project management: A system approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
27.
LundinR. A., & SöderholmA. (1995). A theory of the temporary organisation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11, 437–455.
28.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
29.
MaylorH. (2006). Editorial: Special issue on rethinking project management (EPSRC network 2004-2006). International Journal of Project Management, 24, 635–637.
30.
MidlerC. (1998). Lauto qui n'existait pas. Management des projets et transformation de l'entreprise [The car that didn't exist: Management of projects and enterprise transformation]. Paris: Dunod.
31.
MillerR., & HobbsB. (2005). Governance regimes for large complex projects. Project Management Journal, 36(3), 42–50.
32.
MintzbergH. (1994). Grandeur et décadence de la planification stratégique.Paris: Dunod.
33.
MomT. M. J., Van den BoschF. A. J., & VolberdaH. W. (2003). Managing concurrently the processes of knowledge exploration and exploitation. Presented at the DRUID Summer Conference, Copenhagen.
34.
MüllerR., & TurnerR. J. (2007). Matching the project manager's leadership style to project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21–32.
35.
PettigrewA. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organisation Science, 1, 267–292.
36.
Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide)—Fourth edition.Newtown Square, PA: Author.
37.
RivkingJ. W., & SiggelkowN. (2003). Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science, 49, 290–311.
38.
RixG., & BiacheJ. M. (2004). Enregistrement en perspective subjective située et entretien en re-situ subjectif: Une méthodologie de la constitution de l'expérience [Recording in subjective situated perspective and interview in subjective re-situ]. Intellectica, 38, 363–396.
39.
SengeP. (1994). The fifth discipline: Fieldbook strategies and tools for building a learning organization.New York: Doubleday.
40.
TushmanM. L., & O'ReillyC. A.III (1996). Ambidextrous organizations. Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.
41.
VergantiR. (1999). Planned flexibility. Linking anticipation and reaction in product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, 363–376.
42.
WilliamsT. (2005). Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management discourse in the light of project overruns. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52, 497–508.
