This article uses the sociological method of structured observation to explore the every day behaviour of entrepreneurs from an exploration-exploitation perspective. Six entrepreneurs leading successful growth-oriented businesses were observed for a four-day period and 2305 ‘units of action’ performed by the entrepreneurs were recorded. Six behavioural patterns that allowed them, their management team or the organisation as a whole to pursue ambidexterity were identified. In contrast with the existing high-level approaches of ambidexterity, this study provides a synthesis of entrepreneur behaviours and competencies to achieve ambidexterity at the operating level.
AndriopoulosCLewisMW (2009) Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science20(4): 696–717.
2.
BierlyPDalyP (2007) Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice31(4): 493–516.
3.
BirdBSchjoedtL (2009) Entrepreneurial behavior: Its nature, scope, recent research and agenda for future research. In: CarsrudALBrännbackM (eds) Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind, International Studies in Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, pp.327–358.
4.
BirdBSchjoedtLBaumRL (2012) Entrepreneurs’ behavior: Elucidation and measurement. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice36(5): 889–913.
5.
BontisNCrossanMHullandJ (2002) Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies39(4): 437–69.
6.
BoumgardenPNickersonJZengerTR (2012) Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal33(6): 587–610.
7.
CaoQSimsekZZhangH (2010) Modelling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies47(7): 1272–1296.
8.
CarmeliAHaleviM (2009) How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. Leadership Quarterly20(2): 207–218.
9.
DuttaDKThornhillS (2008) The evolution of growth intentions: Toward a cognition-based model. Journal of Business Venturing23(3): 307–332.
10.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
11.
FangCLeeJSchillingMA (2010) Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organization learning. Organization Science2(3): 625–642.
12.
FarjounM (2010) Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review35(2): 202–225.
13.
FloydSLaneP (2000) Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review25(1): 154–177.
14.
GibsonCBBirkinshawJ (2004) The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal47(2): 209–226.
15.
GlaserBStraussA (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
16.
GroenAWakkeeIde Weerd-NederhofP (2008), Managing tensions in a high-tech start-up: An innovation journey in social system perspective. International Small Business Journal26(1): 57–81.
17.
GuptaAKSmithKGShalleyCE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal49(4): 693–706.
18.
GuptaVMacMillanICSurieG (2004) Entrepreneurial leadership: Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business Venturing19(2): 241–260.
19.
HarrisJSaltstoneRFraboniM (1999) An evaluation of the job stress questionnaire with a sample of entrepreneurs. Journal of Business and Psychology13(3): 447–455.
20.
HeZLWongPK (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science15(4): 481–494.
21.
KollmannTKuckertzAStäckmannC (2009) Continous innovation in entrepreneurial growth companies: Exploring the ambidextrous strategy. Journal of Enterprising Culture17(3): 297–322.
22.
KuckertzAKohtamäkiMDroegeC (2010) The fast eat the slow: The impact of strategy and innovation timing on the success of technology-oriented ventures. International Journal of Technology Management52(1–2): 175–188.
23.
LavieDStettnerUTushmanM (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals4(1): 109–155.
24.
LevinthalDMarchJ (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal13(14): 95–112.
25.
LewisMW (2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review25(4): 760–776.
26.
LubatkinMHSimsekZLingY. (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.
27.
McGrathRG (2001) Exploratory learning, innovative capacity and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal44(1): 118–131.
28.
MarchJG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science2(1): 71–87.
29.
MintzbergH (1973) The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row.
30.
MomTVan Den BoschFVolberdaH (2007) Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies44(6): 910–931.
31.
MomTVan den BoschFVolberdaH (2009) Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science20(4): 812–828
32.
O’ReillyCATushmanML (2004) The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review82(4): 74–81.
33.
O’ReillyCATushmanML (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behaviour28: 185–206.
34.
O’ReillyCATushmanML (2011) Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review53(4): 5–22.
35.
ParrySB (1998) Just what is a competency? (And why should you care?)Training35(6): 58–64.
36.
RaischSBirkinshawJProbstG. (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science20(4): 685–695.
37.
RosingKFreseMBauschA (2011) Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership–innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly22(5): 956–974.
38.
ShaneSAVenkataramanS (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review25(1): 217–226.
39.
SidhuJSVolberdaHWCommandeurHR (2004) Exploring exploration orientation and its determinants: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Management Studies41(6): 913–932.
40.
SimsekZ (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies46(4): 597–624.
41.
SmithKGCollinsCJClarkKD (2005) Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal48(2): 346–357.
42.
SmithWKTushmanML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science16(5): 522–536.
43.
SmithWKLewisMW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review36(2): 381–403.
44.
TurnerNSwartJMaylorH (2012) Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews. Epub ahead of print, 6 June 2012.
45.
TushmanMLSmithWKBinnsA (2011) The ambidextrous CEO. Harvard Business Review89(6): 74–80.
46.
WalraveBvan OorschotKERommeAGL (2011) Getting trapped in the suppression of exploration: A simulation model. Journal of Management Studies48(8): 1727–1751.
47.
WrightMMarlowS (2012) Entrepreneurial activity in the venture creation and development process. International Small Business Journal30(2): 107–114.
