Organizational ambidexterity refers to a firm’s ability to pursue both exploitation and exploration orientations. Despite research that suggests ambidexterity is a critical phenomenon in family firms, few studies directly examine the role of ambidexterity over time in family business. This study examines how family firm ambidexterity changes over time as a result of temporal-, firm-, and industry-level factors. We find that family firm ambidexterity is stable over time, punctuated by dramatic changes. We also find that the level of innovation required to compete in an industry is a predictor of changes in exploration versus exploitation over time among family firms.
AllisonT. H.McKennyA. F.ShortJ. C. (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on microlending investment: An examination of the warm-glow effect. Journal of Business Venturing. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.01.003
2.
BaronJ. N.HannanM. T.BurtonM. D. (2001). Labor pains: Change in organizational models and employee turnover in young, high-tech firms. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 960-1012.
3.
BartholomewS.SmithA. D. (2006). Improving survey response rates from chief executive officers in small firms: The importance of social networks. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 83-96.
4.
BergfeldM. M. H.WeberF. M. (2011). Dynasties of innovation: Highly performing German family firms and the owners’ role for innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 13, 80-94.
5.
BourgeoisL. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6, 29-39.
6.
BromileyP. (1991). Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 37-59.
7.
BrownS. L.EisenhardtK. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1-34.
8.
BrushT. H.BromileyP.HendrickxM. (1999). The relative influence of industry and corporation on business segment performance: an alternative estimate. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 519-547.
9.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
CarneyM. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 249-265.
11.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.SteierL. (2005). Sources and consequences of distinctive familiness: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 237-247.
12.
ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J.SharmaP. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 19-40.
13.
CraigJ. B.DibrellC. (2006). The natural environment, innovation, and firm performance: A comparative study. Family Business Review, 19, 275-288.
14.
CraigJ. B.MooresK. (2006). A 10-year longitudinal investigation of strategy, systems, and environment on innovation in family firms. Family Business Review, 19, 1-10.
15.
De MassisA.FrattiniF.LichtenthalerU. (2012). Research on technological innovation in family firms: Present debates and future directions. Family Business Review. doi:10.1177/0894486512466258
16.
De MassisA.SharmaP.ChuaJ.ChrismanJ. (2012). Family business studies: An annotated bibliography. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
17.
DuriauV. J.RegerR. K.PfarrerM. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 5-34.
18.
García-ÁlvarezE.López-SintasJ. (2001). A taxonomy of founders based on values: The root of family business heterogeneity. Family Business Review, 14, 209-230.
19.
GeorgeJ. M.JonesG. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26, 657-684.
20.
GersickC. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10-36.
21.
GibsonC. B.BirkinshawJ. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209-226.
22.
Gómez-MejíaL. R.Núñez-NickelM.GutierrezI. (2001). The role of family ties in agency contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 81-95.
23.
GuptaA. K.SmithK. G.ShalleyC. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693-706.
24.
HatumA.PettigrewA. A. (2006). Determinants of organizational flexibility: A study in an emerging economy. British Journal of Management, 17, 115-137.
25.
HeZ. L.WongP. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481-494.
26.
HittM. A.BeamishP. W.JacksonS. E.MathieuJ. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385-1399.
27.
HittM. A.HoskissonR. E.JohnsonR. A.MoeselD. D. (1996). The market for corporate control and firm innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1084-1119.
28.
HoyF.SharmaP. (2010). Entrepreneurial family firms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
29.
JaffeA. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits and market value. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
30.
KetchenD. J.Jr.ThomasJ. B.SnowC. C. (1993). Organizational configurations and performance: A comparison of theoretical approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1278-1313.
31.
Le Breton-MillerI.MillerD. (2006). Why do some family businesses out-compete? Governance, long-term orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 731-746.
32.
LubatkinM. H.SimsekZ.LingY.VeigaJ. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646-672.
33.
LumpkinG. T.BrighamK. H. (2011). Long-term orientation and intertemporal choice in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 1149-1169.
34.
LyonD. W.LumpkinG.DessG. G. (2000). Enhancing entrepreneurial orientation research: Operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision making process. Journal of Management, 26, 1055-1085.
35.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87.
36.
McKennyA. F.PayneG. T.ZacharyM. A.ShortJ. C. (2012). Multilevel analysis in family business studies. In MelinL.SharmaP.NordqvistM. (Eds.), Sage handbook of family business (Part V, Chap. 30). London, England: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446247556
37.
McKennyA. F.ShortJ. C.PayneG. T. (2013). Using computer-aided text analysis to elevate constructs: An illustration using psychological capital. Organizational Research Methods. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1094428112459910
38.
McKennyA. F.ShortJ. C.ZacharyM. A.PayneG. T. (2012). Assessing espoused goals in private family firms using content analysis. Family Business Review, 25, 298-317.
39.
MillerD.FriesenP. H. (1980). Momentum and revolution in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 591-614.
40.
MillerD.FriesenP. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management Science, 30, 1161-1183.
41.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI. (2005). Management insights from great and struggling family businesses. Long Range Planning, 38, 517-530.
42.
PatelP. C.FietJ. O. (2011). Knowledge combination and the potential advantages of family firms in searching for opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 1179-1197.
43.
PayneG. T.BrighamK. H.BrobergJ. C.MossT. W.ShortJ. C. (2011). Organizational virtue orientation and family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 257-285.
44.
PuranamP.SinghH.ZolloM. (2006). Organizing for innovation: Managing the coordination-autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 263-280.
45.
RaischS.BirkinshawJ. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375-409.
46.
RaischS.BirkinshawJ.ProbstG.TushmanM. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685-695.
47.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
RomanelliE.TushmanM. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: an empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1141-1166.
49.
RumeltR. P. (1991). How much does industry matter?Strategic Management Journal, 12, 167-185.
50.
SalvatoC.MelinL. (2008). Creating value across generations in family-controlled businesses: The role of family social capital. Family Business Review, 21, 259-276.
51.
SalvatoC.SharmaP.ReayT. (2012). Expanding the temporal dimensions of family enterprise research (Call for Papers). Family Business Review. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/44531_FBR_CfP.pdf
52.
SharmaP. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17, 1-36.
53.
SharmaP.SalvatoC. (2011). Commentary: Exploiting and exploring new opportunities over life cycle stages of family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 1199-1205.
54.
ShortJ. C.BrobergJ. C.CogliserC. C.BrighamK. H. (2010). Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA). Organizational Research Methods, 13, 320-347.
55.
ShortJ. C.KetchenD. J.BennettN.du ToitM. (2006). An examination of firm, industry, and time effects on performance using random coefficients modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 259-284.
56.
ShortJ. C.PalmerT. B. (2003). Organizational performance referents: An empirical examination of their content and influences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 209-224.
57.
ShortJ. C.PayneG. T.BrighamK. H.LumpkinG. T.BrobergJ. C. (2009). Family firms and entrepreneurial orientation in publicly traded firms. Family Business Review, 22, 9-24.
58.
SiggelkowN. (2002). Evolution toward fit. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 125-159.
StubnerS.BlarrW.BrandsC.WulfT. (2012). Organizational ambidexterity and family firm performance. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 25, 217-229.
61.
TagiuriR.DavisJ. A. (1992). On the goals of successful family companies. Family Business Review, 5, 43-62.
62.
TushmanM. L.O’ReillyC. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8-30.
63.
TushmanM. L.RomanelliE. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171-222.
64.
UotilaJ.MaulaM.KeilT.ZahraS. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 221-231.
65.
VossG. B.SirdeshmukhD.VossZ. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 147-164.
66.
WebbJ. W.KetchenD. J.Jr.IrelandR. D. (2010). Strategic entrepreneurship within family-controlled firms: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1, 67-77.
67.
ZacharyM. A.McKennyA. F.ShortJ. C.DavisK. M.WuD. (2011). Franchise branding: An organizational identity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 629-645.
68.
ZacharyM. A.McKennyA.ShortJ. C.PayneG. T. (2011). Family business and market orientation construct validation and comparative analysis. Family Business Review, 24, 233-251.
69.
ZellwegerT.SiegerP. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation in long-lived family firms. Small Business Economics, 38, 67-84.
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.
