Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation
By Oksana Koryak, Andy Lockett, James C. Hayton, Nicos Nicolaou, K. Mole. 2018
305 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Abstract We view ambidexterity as a paradox whereby its components, exploration and exploitation, generate persistent and conflicting demands on an organization. Drawing on the attention based view of the firm (ABV), we examine three antecedents of organizational ambidexterity that reflect ABV’s three principles − the principle of focus of attention; the principle of situated attention; and the principle of structural distribution of attention. Specifically, we examine the influence of top management team (TMT) composition, whether or not the firm has a clear written vision, and the extent to which organizational attention is focused on investments in R&D, and continuous improvement. We empirically validate our model on a sample of 422 small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK and find that ambidexterity is supported by a blend of integration and differentiation approaches.
Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Management of Technology and Innovation, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/62f9c3498111349e89d60749c0196dcb8b34c918
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
In Management of Technology and Innovation
In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
Citations in the corpus
- Leading innovation: Empirical evidence for ambidextrous leadership from UK high-tech SMEs (2020, background): “Although, the CEO is considered to be most knowledgeable concerning issues such as innovation and firm performance (Baron and Hmieleski and Henry, 2012), communicating with CEOs can be difficult and could result to low response rate (Koryak et al., 2018).”