Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation

By Constantine Andriopoulos, Marianne W. Lewis. Organ. Sci., 2009

2,097 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/030351245e0583f3c90e3e2f06871eec56c4fb4e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Ambidexterity and organizational learning: revisiting and reconnecting the literatures (2019, background): “Organizational ambidexterity is a process consisting of two components, namely, exploration and exploitation (Gupta et al., 2006; Simsek, 2009; Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009) and the main argument for achieving improved performance is to balance the activities of exploration and exploitation (Brix, 2”
The Conjoint Influence of Top and Middle Management Characteristics on Management Innovation (2018, methodology): “…balancing these different modes of renewal, and we believe it is imperative to connect models of MI not only to models of change but also to models that emphasize the tensions inherent in different approaches to balancing stability and change (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Hill & Birkinshaw, 2014).”
Cognitive Frames, Learning Mechanisms, and Innovation Ambidexterity* (2014, background): “Some writers have theorized that the cognitive frames that individuals, teams, and organizations possess may play an important role in managing these tensions and fostering ambidextrous outcomes (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009; Raisch et al., 2009; Smith and Tushman, 2005).”
Creative Imitation: Exploring the Case of Cross-Industry Innovation (2010, positive): “We examined companies that had received important innovation awards and were ranked amongst Business Week’s 50 most innovative companies in 2008 (evidence of successful exploration) (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009).”
Flexing the Frame: TMT Framing and the Adoption of Non-Incremental Innovations in Incumbent Firms (2017, neutral): “Innovations can also vary in the extent to which they build on, fit with, and are commensurable with the firm’s existing capabilities and associated architecture (e.g., Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Cho & Hambrick, 2006; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008).”
Building innovation capability: The role of top management innovativeness and relative-exploration orientation (2017, neutral): “Since such exploration requires more resource commitment, it involves greater uncertainty and risk than exploitation does (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009).”
Paradox as a Metatheoretical Perspective (2014, background): “…span phenomena and levels of analysis, including work–life balance (Rothbard, 2001), identity (Huy, 2002; O’Mahony & Bechky, 2006), innovation (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; W. K. Smith & Tushman, 2005), strategic leadership (Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007), corporate governance (Sundaramurthy…”
The Interplay between Intuition and Rationality in Strategic Decision Making: A Paradox Perspective (2017, positive): “The more recent dynamic perspective on paradox management postulates (Smith & Lewis, 2011) and provides empirical evidence (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Jay, 2013; Smith, 2014) that the differentiating and integrating strategies can be used together, in purposeful and cyclical alternation over time.”
Leading innovation: Empirical evidence for ambidextrous leadership from UK high-tech SMEs (2020, background): “Based on the understanding that explorative and exploitative innovation behaviors are best conceived as having complementary effects on each other (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009), ambidextrous leadership theory has recently been proposed as a new approach to understand and manage the leadership of ex”