Managing Innovation Paradoxes: Ambidexterity Lessons from Leading Product Design Companies

By Constantine Andriopoulos, Marianne W. Lewis. 2010

397 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Business and International Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1c41ffee8127444007f41c159957db7d05e48620

How researchers see this paper

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

In Business and International Management

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

The coopetition paradox and tension: The moderating role of coopetition capability (2016, background): “…that firms tend to avoid having lower levels and units engage in simultaneous pursuit of contradictions (Ambos, Mäkelä, Birkinshaw & D'Este, 2008; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2008), and rather consider it is managers at the top who coordinate and integrate the spatially or temporally separated units…”
Ready to Be Open? Explaining the Firm-Level Barriers to Benefiting from Openness to External Knowledge (2017, positive): “…of openness to external knowledge and the contextual conditions (both external and firm-specific) under which those benefits are likely to transpire (e.g. Almirall and Casadesus-Masanell, 2010; Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2010, Lazzarotti et al., 2011; Enkel and Lenz, 2009; Trott and Hartmann, 2009).”
Culture, Conditions and Paradoxical Frames (2017, background): “For example, individuals often experience paradoxes when organizational innovation indicates they should explore and exploit (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009, 2010) or when organizational change indicates they should lead and follow (Luscher & Lewis, 2008).”
Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation (2018, background): “Recent research into ambidexterity recognises that exploration and exploitation form a paradoxical relationship (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2010; Raisch and Zimmermann, 2017; Smith and Lewis, 2011) as they require substantially different structures, processes, strategies and capabilities (Benner and Tu”
Mechanisms for Managing Ambidexterity: A Review and Research Agenda (2013, neutral): “Authors appear to have interpreted the concept of ambidexterity as the ability to pursue two contrasting objectives, which inherently leads to the creation of a tension that must be reconciled or accommodated (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2010).”