Whereas tensions arising from the pursuit of ambidexterity have been documented, how these are interpreted and managed by actors themselves remains largely unexplored. Based on in-depth case research in a large Scandinavian-based telecommunications organization pursuing ambidexterity, we identify a path-dependent process of tension interpretation and tension management at different levels of the organization. Our findings suggest that, in the context of an ambidextrous strategy, actors are actively involved in managing arising tensions based on their differing interpretations of these tensions (where ambidextrous demands are seen as complementary, conflicting or interrelated). We find that these interpretations are influenced by actors’ strategic orientation and organizational level. Our study extends understanding of the pursuit of ambidexterity in practice, offering a pluralist, path-dependent perspective of how actors perceive and deal with ambidexterity tensions.
AbellDF (1999) Competing today while preparing for tomorrow. Sloan Management Review40(3): 73–81.
2.
AdlerPBennerMSBrunnerDJ. (2009) Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. Journal of Operations Management27(2): 99–113.
3.
AdlerPSGoldoftasBLevineD I (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science10(1): 43–68.
4.
AndriopoulosCLewisMW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science20(4): 696–717.
5.
AndriopoulosCLewisMW (2010) Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning43(1): 104–122.
6.
AuhSMengucB (2005) Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research58(12): 1652–1661.
7.
BamfordD (2008) The use of grounded theory in change management research. Journal of Change Management8(2): 111–121.
8.
BennerMJTushmanML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review28(2): 238–256.
9.
BirkinshawJGibsonC (2004) Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review45(4): 47–55.
10.
BirkinshawJGuptaK (2013) Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives27(4): 287–298.
11.
BledowRFraseMAndersonN. (2009) A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial & Organizational Psychology2(3): 305–337.
12.
BoumgardenPNickersonJZengerTR (2012) Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal33(6): 587–610.
13.
BrionSMotheCSabatierM (2010) The impact of organisational context and competences on innovation ambidexterity. International Journal of Innovation Management14(02): 151–178.
14.
BurgelmanRA (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science2(3): 239–262.
15.
CampbellJLQuincyCOssermanJPedersenOK (2013) Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research42(3): 294–320.
16.
CantarelloSMartiniANosellaA (2012) A multi-level model for organizational ambidexterity in the search phase of the innovation process. Creativity & Innovation Management21(1): 28–48.
ChandrasekaranALindermanKSchroederR (2012) Antecedents to ambidexterity competency in high technology organizations. Journal of Operations Management30(1/2): 134–151.
19.
CorbinJStraussAL (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
DameronSTorsetC (2014) The discursive construction of strategists’ subjectivities: Towards a paradox lens on strategy. Journal of Management Studies51(2): 291–319.
21.
DevinsGKährC (2010) Structuring ambidextrous organizations: Exploitation and exploration as a key for long-term success. In: StadtlerLSchmittAKlarnerPStraubT (eds) More than Bricks in the Wall: Organizational Perspectives for Sustainable Success. Wiesbaden: Springer-Gabler, 60–67.
22.
DuncanRB (1976) The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In: KilmannRHPondyLRSlevinDP (eds) The Management of Organization Design: Strategies and Implementation. New York: North Holland, 167–188.
23.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
24.
EisenhardtKMFurrNRBinghamCB (2010) Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science21(6): 1263–1273.
25.
FangCLeeJSchillingMA (2010) Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science21(3): 625–642.
26.
FarjounM (2010) Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review35(2): 202–225.
27.
FordJDFordLW (1994) Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review19(4): 756–785.
28.
GalunicDCEisenhardtKM (2001) Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal44(6): 1229–1249.
29.
GarrisonDRCleveland-InnesMKooleMKappelmanJ (2006) Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. Internet and Higher Education9(1): 1–8.
30.
GeertsABlindenbach-DriessenFGemmelP (2010) Achieving a balance between exploration and exploitation in service firms: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Proceedings2010(1): 1–6.
31.
GhoshalSBartlettCA (1994) Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal15: 91–112.
32.
GibsonCBBirkinshawJ (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal47(2): 209–226.
33.
GioiaDACorleyKGHamiltonAL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods16(1): 15–31.
34.
GlaserBStraussA (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
35.
GoldsteinSG (1985) Organizational dualism and quality circles. Academy of Management Review10(3): 504–517.
36.
GuptaAKSmithKGShalleyCE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal49(4): 693–706.
37.
GuptaAKTeslukPETaylorMS (2007) Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organization Science18(6): 885–897.
38.
GüttelWHKonlechnerSW (2009) Continuously hanging by a thread: Managing contextually ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR)61(2): 150–172.
39.
HeZLWongPK (2004) Exploration vs. Exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science15(4): 481–494.
40.
HeracleousL (2013) Quantum strategy at Apple Inc. Organizational Dynamics42(2): 92–99.
41.
HeracleousLWirtzJ (2010) Singapore Airlines’ balancing act. Harvard Business Review88(7/8): 145–149.
42.
IngramAELewisMWAndriopoulosCGotsiM (2008) Innovation tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Toward a collective paradox frame. Academy of Management Proceedings2008(1): 1–6.
43.
JansenJJPVan Den BoschFAJVolberdaHW (2005) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR)57(4): 351–363.
44.
JansenJJPVan Den BoschFAJVolberdaHW (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science20(4): 797–811.
45.
JarzabkowskiPLêJKVan de VenAH (2013) Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization11(3): 245–280.
46.
JayJ (2013) Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal56(1): 137–159.
47.
LaplumeAODassP (2009) Adaptive ambidexterity: Simulating Burgelman and Grove’s (2007) model of strategic dynamics. Academy of Management Proceedings2009(1): 1–6.
48.
LavieDStettnerUTushmanML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals4: 109–155.
49.
LeeMDMacDermidSMBuckML (2000) Organizational paradigms of reduced-load work: Accommodation, elaboration, and transformation. Academy of Management Journal43(6): 1211–1226.
50.
LevinthalDAMarchJG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal14: 95–112.
51.
LewisMW (2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review25(4): 760–776.
52.
LewisMWAndriopoulosCSmithWK (2014) Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California Management Review56(3): 58–77.
53.
LinH-EMcDonoughEFIII (2011) Investigating the role of leadership and organizational culture in fostering innovation ambidexterity. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management58(3): 497–509.
54.
LubatkinMHSimsekZYanLVeigaJF (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management32(5): 646–672.
55.
LuscherLSLewisMIngramA (2006) The social construction of organizational change paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management19(4): 491–502.
56.
McCarthyIPGordonBR (2011) Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: A management control system approach. R&D Management41(3): 240–258.
57.
MarchJG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science2(1): 71–87.
58.
MartinJA (2011) Dynamic managerial capabilities and the multibusiness team: The role of episodic teams in executive leadership groups. Organization Science22(1): 118–140.
59.
MartiniALaugenBTGastaldiLCorsoM (2013) Continuous innovation: Towards a paradoxical, ambidextrous combination of exploration and exploitation. International Journal of Technology Management61(1): 1–22.
60.
MomTJMVan den BoschFAJVolberdaHW (2009) Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science20(4): 812–828.
61.
MorrisseyER (1974) Sources of error in the coding of questionnaire data. Sociological Methods and Research3(2): 209–232.
62.
NosellaACantarelloSFilippiniR (2012) The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization10(4): 450–465.
63.
O’ReillyCAIIITushmanML (2004) The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review82(4): 74–81.
64.
O’ReillyCAIIITushmanML (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior28: 185–206.
65.
O’ReillyII CATushmanML (2011) Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review53(4): 5–22.
66.
PapachroniAHeracleousLParoutisS (2015) Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Building a novel research agenda. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science51(1): 71–93.
67.
ParoutisSHeracleousL (2013) Discourse revisited: Dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during institutional adoption. Strategic Management Journal34(8): 935–956.
68.
RaischSBirkinshawJ (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management34(3): 375–409.
69.
RaischSBirkinshawJProbstGTushmanML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science20(4): 685–695.
70.
RindovaVPKothaS (2001) Continuous ‘morphing’: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal44(6): 1263–1280.
71.
RosingKFreseMBauschA (2011) Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly22(5): 956–974.
72.
SarkeesMHullandJ (2009) Innovation and efficiency: It is possible to have it all. Business Horizons52(1): 45–55.
73.
SchreyöggGKliesch-EberlM (2007) How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal28(9): 913–933.
74.
SiggelkowNLevinthalDA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science14(6): 650–669.
75.
SimsekZ (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies46(4): 597–624.
76.
SmithWK (2014) Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal57(6): 1592–1623.
77.
SmithWKLewisMW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review36(2): 381–403.
78.
SmithWKTushmanML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science16(5): 522–536.
79.
SmithWKBinnsATushmanML (2010) Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning43(2): 448–461.
80.
SuddabyR (2006) From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal49(4): 633–642.
TurnerNLee-KelleyL (2012) Unpacking the theory on ambidexterity: An illustrative case on the managerial architectures, mechanisms and dynamics. Management Learning44(2): 179–196.
83.
TurnerNSwartJMaylorH (2013) Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews15(3): 317–332.
84.
TushmanMLO’ReillyCAIII (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review38(4): 8–30.
85.
UotilaJMaulaMKeilTZahraSA (2009) Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal30(2): 221–231.
86.
VolberdaHW (1996) Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science7(4): 359–374.
87.
WangCLRafiqM (2014) Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: A comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms. British Journal of Management25(1): 58–76.
88.
YinR (2009) Case Study Research Design and Methods (4th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
89.
ZandD (1974) Collateral organization: A new change strategy. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science10(1): 63–89.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
