Digitalization is causing organizations and their members to reflect and rethink their knowledge bases and needs, as well as organizational forms and means for staying competitive. For professional service firms (PSFs), this is especially challenging as they rely on—and offer their clients—professional expertise that builds on a well-defined domain of knowledge and professional jurisdiction. In this article, we explore how two classic, elite PSFs organize to learn about digital technologies residing outside their organizational and professional boundaries. Building on the literature on ambidextrous learning, we find that they do so by adapting to learn, that is, starting innovation labs aimed at explorative learning. This also enables them to learn to adapt, meaning that they develop abilities to dynamically adapt to contextual changes. Based on our analysis we develop three propositions for what aspects influence how PSFs organize for structural and/or contextual ambidexterity. We contribute to the theorizing of how PSFs can organize to encourage ambidextrous learning and digital innovation while at the same time protecting the professional core and organizational culture and reputation.
AhujaS (2023) Professional identity threats in interprofessional collaborations: A case of architects in professional service firms. Journal of Management Studies60(2): 428–453.
2.
AlvessonMKärremanD (2007) Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review32(4): 1265–1281.
3.
AlvessonMRobertsonM (2006) The best and the brightest: The construction, significance and effects of elite identities in consulting firms. Organization13(2): 195–224.
4.
AlvessonMKärremanDSullivanK (2015) Professional service firms and identity. In: EmpsonLMuzioDBroschakJP, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Professional Service Firms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 403–424.
5.
AntebyMChanCKDiBenignoJ (2016) Three lenses on occupations and professions in organizations: Becoming, doing, and relating. Academy of Management Annals10(1): 183–244.
6.
AshleyLEmpsonL (2013) Differentiation and discrimination: Understanding social class and social exclusion in leading law firms. Human Relations66(2): 219–244.
7.
AthanasopoulouAMartiERisiD, et al. (2025) How companies restrain means–Ends decoupling: A comparative case study of CSR implementation. Journal of Management Studies62(1): 214–245.
8.
AversaPHuygheABonadioG (2021) First impressions stick: Market entry strategies and category priming in the digital domain. Journal of Management Studies58(7): 1721–1760.
9.
BarrettMHiningsB (2015) Service innovation in professional service firms. In: EmpsonLMuzioDBroschakJP, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Professional Service Firms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 238–254.
10.
BrixJ (2019) Ambidexterity and organizational learning: Revisiting and reconnecting the literatures. The Learning Organization26(4): 337–351.
11.
ChangYYHughesM (2012) Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small-to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal30(1): 1–17.
12.
ClarysseBWrightMBruneelJ, et al. (2014) Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy43(7): 1164–1176.
13.
CreswellJWPothCN (2016) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
CrossanMMLaneHWWhiteRE (1999) An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review24(3): 522–537.
15.
DyerJWGWilkinsAL (1991) Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review16(3): 613–619.
16.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
17.
ElkjaerB (2022) Taking stock of “Organizational Learning”: Looking back and moving forward. Management Learning53(3): 582–604.
18.
FaulconbridgeJ (2015) Knowledge and learning in professional service firms. In: EmpsonLBroschakJMuzioD, et al. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Professional Service Firms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 425–451.
19.
FaulconbridgeJSarwarASpringM (2023) How professionals adapt to artificial intelligence: The role of intertwined boundary work. Journal of Management Studies. Epub ahead of print 31 May. DOI: 10.1111/joms.12936.
20.
FournéSPRosenbuschNHeydenML, et al. (2019) Structural and contextual approaches to ambidexterity: A meta-analysis of organizational and environmental contingencies. European Management Journal37(5): 564–576.
21.
FuNFloodPCMorrisT (2016) Organizational ambidexterity and professional firm performance: The moderating role of organizational capital. Journal of Professions and Organization3(1): 1–16.
22.
GibsonCBBirkinshawJ (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal47(2): 209–226.
23.
GioiaDACorleyKGHamiltonAL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational research methods16(1): 15–31.
24.
GreenwoodRLiSXPrakashR, et al. (2005) Reputation, diversification, and organizational explanations of performance in professional service firms. Organization Science16(6): 661–673.
25.
HagbergJJonssonA (2022) Exploring digitalisation at IKEA. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management50(13): 59–76.
26.
HansenNKSchnittkaO (2018) Applicants’ likelihood to apply for jobs at professional service firms: The role of different career models. Human Resource Management57(5): 1009–1022.
27.
JonssonA (2015) Beyond knowledge management—Understanding how to share knowledge through logic and practice. Knowledge Management Research and Practice13(1): 45–58.
28.
JonssonAFossNJ (2011) International expansion through flexible replication: Learning from the internationalization experience of IKEA. Journal of International Business Studies42(9): 1079–1102.
29.
KangSCSnellSA (2009) Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: A framework for human resource management. Journal of Management Studies46(1): 65–92.
30.
KronbladC (2020) How digitalization changes our understanding of professional service firms. Academy of Management Discoveries6(3): 436–454.
31.
KronbladCPregmarkJEBerggrenR (2023) Difficulties to digitalize: Ambidexterity challenges in law firms. Journal of Service Theory and Practice33(2): 217–236.
32.
LugerJRaischSSchimmerM (2018) Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science29(3): 449–470.
33.
MalhotraNMorrisT (2009) Heterogeneity in professional service firms. Journal of Management Studies46(6): 895–922.
34.
MalhotraNSmetsMMorrisT (2016) Career pathing and innovation in professional service firms. Academy of Management Perspectives30(4): 369–383.
35.
MarchJG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science2(1): 71–87.
36.
McGillMESlocumJWJr (1993) Unlearning the organization. Organizational Dynamics22(2): 67–79.
37.
MuzioDAulakhSKirkpatrickI (2019) Professional Occupations and Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
O’ReillyCATushmanML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives27(4): 324–338.
39.
PattonMQ (1980) Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
40.
PemerF (2021) Enacting professional service work in times of digitalization and potential disruption. Journal of Service Research24(2): 249–268.
41.
PemerFWerrA (2023) Defusing digital disruption through creative accumulation: Technology-induced innovation in professional service firms. Journal of Management Studies. Epub ahead of print 11 July. DOI: 10.1111/joms.12972.
42.
PinningtonAMorrisT (2003) Archetype change in professional organizations: Survey evidence from large law firms. British Journal of Management14(1): 85–99.
43.
RaischSZimmermannA (2017) Pathways to ambidexterity. A process perspective on the exploration–exploitation paradox. In: SmithWKLewisMW (eds) The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox, 315.
44.
ReihlenMWerrA (eds) (2012) Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship in Professional Services. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
45.
ReihlenMSecklerCWerrA (2018) Entrepreneurship and professional service firms: The team, the firm, the ecosystem and the field. In: SaksMMuzioD (eds) Professions and Professional Service Firms: Private and Public Sector Enterprises in the Global Economy. Routledge, 110–133.
46.
RiveraLA (2012) Diversity within reach: Recruitment versus hiring in elite firms. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science639(1): 71–90.
47.
SartaADurandRVergneJP (2021) Organizational adaptation. Journal of Management47(1): 43–75.
48.
SimsekZ (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies46(4): 597–624.
49.
SnellSMorrisS (2021) Time for realignment: The HR ecosystem. Academy of Management Perspectives35(2): 219–236.
50.
SusskindRESusskindD (2015) The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts. New York: Oxford University Press.
51.
SwartJKinnieN (2007) Simultaneity of learning orientations in a marketing agency. Management Learning38(3): 337–357.
52.
TurnerNLee-KelleyL (2013) Unpacking the theory on ambidexterity: An illustrative case on the managerial architectures, mechanisms and dynamics. Management Learning44(2): 179–196.
53.
TurnerNSwartJMaylorH (2013) Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews15(3): 317–332.
54.
TurnerNSwartJMaylorH, et al. (2016) Making it happen: How managerial actions enable project-based ambidexterity. Management Learning47(2): 199–222.
55.
VahlneJEJonssonA (2017) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA. International Business Review26(1): 57–70.
56.
Von NordenflychtA (2010) What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms. Academy of Management Review35(1): 155–174.
57.
Von NordenflychtAMalhotraNMorrisT, et al. (2015) Sources of homogeneity and heterogeneity across professional services. In: EmpsonLBroschakJMuzioD, et al. (eds) (2015) Oxford Handbook of Professional Service Firms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 135–163.
58.
ZhouQDekkersRChiaR (2023) Are James March’s ‘exploration’and ‘exploitation’separable? Revisiting the dichotomy in the context of innovation management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change192: 122592.
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.
