Organizing for Continuous Innovation: On the Sustainability of Ambidextrous Organizations

By Bart Van Looy, T. Martens, Koenraad Debackere. 2005

176 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ddaff5c2d3ade496929fb4a13198f54f733bf947

How researchers see this paper

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

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Exploration and Exploitation in Innovation: Reframing the Interpretation (2008, background): “Vanhaverbeke & Peeters (2005) Exploration is interpreted as the corporate venturing/NBD, which is related to ‘structural ambidextrous’ organization.”
The Performance Consequences of Ambidexterity in Strategic Alliance Formations: Empirical Investigation and Computational Theorizing (2007, background): “Vol. 53, No. 10, October 2007, pp. 1645–1658 issn 0025-1909 eissn 1526-5501 07 5310 1645 informs ® doi 10.1287/mnsc.1070.0712 ©2007 INFORMS The Performance Consequences of Ambidexterity in Strategic Alliance Formations: Empirical Investigation and Computational Theorizing Zhiang (John) Lin School of”
Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators (2008, background): “Similarly, Van Looy et al. (2005) argue that ambidexterity yields long-term payouts rather than the short-term maximization of profits.”
Strategic Ambidexterity in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Implementing Exploration and Exploitation in Product and Market Domains (2013, background): “Moreover, realizing subsequent benefits requires an extended time frame, even after the capabilities have been developed (Van Looy et al. 2005).”
Organizational Ambidexterity Through the Lens of Paradox Theory (2015, background): “Structural ambidexterity Contradictory poles, dualisms Spatial separation Institute separate business units with different designs, cultures, and processes focused on exploration or exploitation Jansen, Tempelaar, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda (2009); Kauppila (2010); Tushman and O’Reilly (1996)”
Longitudinal associations between employees’ beliefs about the quality of the change management process, affective commitment to change and psychological empowerment (2016, background): “For example, the concept of organizational ‘ambidexterity’ (e.g. Kang and Snell, 2009; Van Looy et al., 2005) was recently introduced to recognize the need for organizations to combine orthogonal strategies (e.g. exploitation/exploration; top-down/bottom-up) as a way to sustain adaptation to…”
The Uncertainty of Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2011, background): “…1996; Johannessen et al. 1999; McDermott & O’Connor 2002; Thamhain 2003; Linder et al. 2003; Rose-Anderssen et al. 2005; Välikangas & Gibbert 2005; van Looy et al. 2005; Ortt & Smits 2006; Bernasconi et al. 2006; McAdam et al. 2007; Xu et al. 2007; York & Venkatraman 2010; Hall et al. 2011).”
Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: A firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on innovation performance (2010, background): “Relying on organizational learning theory (e.g., March, 1991; Levinthal and March, 1993), several scholars (e.g., Gibson and Birkenshaw, 2004; Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2004; Van Looy et al., 2005) have argued that, if a company wants to excel in both improving existing prod”