Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation
Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
复制
发表时间：
2009-07-01
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Lewis, Marianne W.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Andriopoulos, Constantine;Lewis, Marianne W.
实现开发和探索可以取得成功，甚至生存，但也会带来挑战性的紧张局势。Ambibliquus组织擅长利用现有产品实现渐进式创新，并探索新的机会以促进更激进的创新，但相关研究有限。大量的概念性、轶事性或单一案例研究提供了架构或上下文方法。建筑双元性提出了双重结构和策略来区分努力，将参与者集中在一种或另一种形式的创新上。与此相反，情境方法使用行为和社会手段来整合开发和探索。为了开发一个更全面的模型，我们试图向五家领先产品设计行业的公司学习。研究结果提供了一个替代框架，研究开发勘探的紧张局势及其管理。更具体地说，我们提出了创新的嵌套悖论：战略意图（利润突破），客户导向（紧松耦合）和个人驱动力（纪律激情）。从创新和悖论文献的建设，我们的理论整合和差异化策略如何帮助管理这些交织的悖论和燃料的双元性的良性循环。此外，管理悖论成为一项共同的责任，不仅是高层管理人员的责任，而且是整个组织层面的责任。
Achieving exploitation and exploration enables success, even survival, but raises challenging tensions. Ambidextrous organizations excel at exploiting existing products to enable incremental innovation and at exploring new opportunities to foster more radical innovation, yet related research is limited. Largely conceptual, anecdotal, or single case studies offer architectural or contextual approaches. Architectural ambidexterity proposes dual structures and strategies to differentiate efforts, focusing actors on one or the other form of innovation. In contrast, contextual approaches use behavioral and social means to integrate exploitation and exploration. To develop a more comprehensive model, we sought to learn from five, ambidextrous firms that lead the product design industry. Results offer an alternative framework for examining exploitation-exploration tensions and their management. More specifically, we present nested paradoxes of innovation: strategic intent ( profit-breakthroughs), customer orientation (tight-loose coupling), and personal drivers (discipline-passion). Building from innovation and paradox literature, we theorize how integration and differentiation tactics help manage these interwoven paradoxes and fuel virtuous cycles of ambidexterity. Further, managing paradoxes becomes a shared responsibility, not only of top management, but across organizational levels.