Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational ambidexterity: exploring the knowledge base

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present research work shows the results of an analysis about the existing literature on one of the ‘topics’ which is currently raising greater interest among scholars and researchers in the fields of strategic management and organization science, namely: organizational ambidexterity. More precisely, and seeking to identify and visualize the intellectual structure or knowledge base of the research developed in relation to this construct, a decision was made to analyze a total of 283 research papers which appeared after the publication in the journal California Management Review in the summer of 1996 of the seminal work by Tushman and O’Reilly III entitled ‘Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change,’ where these authors suggested that organizations need to explore and exploit simultaneously if they want to be ambidextrous. As for the methodology applied, it was based on the utilization of bibliometric techniques—particularly citation analyses and author co-citation analyses and social networks analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. On the whole, what the literature actually suggests is that no methodological guide or way of acting has been established in this respect, which is why the choice usually results from a series of tests so that the possibility exists to obtain a co-citation matrix with a suitable size for its statistical treatment or its graphic representation. This same view is shared by authors such as Schildt et al. (2006, p. 401) in connection with the field of Entrepreneurship.

  2. More precisely, such values can be treated in two ways. The first one (White and Griffith 1981) consists in taking the sum of the three highest values or absolute frequencies on the corresponding row or column—note that it is a symmetrical matrix—and dividing that sum by two, which provides a value that, according to the aforesaid authors, could illustrate the importance of a given paper in the field under study; the other option (McCain 1990) simply starts from regarding such values as missing data or values and applying the pairwise deletion criterion when carrying out the calculations to be developed; that is, from ignoring the main diagonal values when calculating the correlation coefficients between each pair of documents, for example.

  3. Authors such as Tripsas and Gavetti (2000) stress in their paper how difficult it is for the top managers of these companies to adapt their mental schemes or models—essentially based on their own previous experience and on their system of beliefs and cases associated with the reality and the world that surround them—to the new environmental conditions, thus favoring inertia and giving as a result a poor organizational performance insofar as no new capabilities are being developed.

References

  • Abernathy, W., & Clark, K. (1985). Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 550–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2004). Author cocitation analysis and Pearson’s r. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(9), 843. (letter to the editor).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Evertong, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R., & Youjae, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equations models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 741–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2002). Process management and technological innovation. A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT. Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, A. K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity of the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2(3), 239–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 325–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Penan, H. (1993) Cienciometría. La medición de la actividad científica: de la bibliometría a la vigilancia tecnológica [Scientometrics. The measurement of scientific activity: from bibliometrics to technological vigilance]. Gijón: Ediciones Trea, S.L.

  • Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. R., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cawkell, A. E. (1976). Understanding science by analysing its literature. Essays of an Information Scientist, 2, 543–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s Dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, N., Monarch, I., & Konda, S. (1998). Software engineering as seen through its research literature: A study in co-word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(13), 1206–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culnan, M. J. (1986). The intellectual development of management information systems, 1972–1982: A co-citation analysis. Management Science, 32(2), 156–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Solla Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. Kilmann, L. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization design (Vol. I, pp. 167–188). New York: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamics capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E., Malin, M. V., & Small, H. (1978). Citation data as science indicators. In Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R. K. Merton, A. Thackray, & H. Zuckerman (Eds.), Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators (pp. 179–208). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P., & Ricart, J. E. (1993). The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, C. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gmür, M. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, D., Freyne, J., Smyth, B., & Cunningham, P. (2008) An analysis of research themes in the CBR conference literature. In K. Althoff, R. Bergmann, M. Miner & A. Hanft (Eds.), Advances in case-based reasoning: 9th European conference, ECCBR 2008 proceedings, Trier, September 1–4, 2008 (pp. 18–43). Berlin: Springer.

  • Griffiths, A., Robinson, L. A., & Willet, P. (1984). Hierarchic agglomerative clustering methods for automatic document classification. Journal of Documentation, 40(3), 175–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F, Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15(1), 70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004a). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004b). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Im, G., & Rai, A. (2008). Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Science, 54(7), 1281–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Boch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B., & Kohli, A. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(July), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8(4), 283–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristal, M. M., Huang, X., & Roth, A. V. (2010). The effect of an ambidextrous supply chain strategy on combinative capabilities and business performance. Journal of Operations Management, 69(7), 415–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: The overlooker role of marketing orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., Kang, J., & Rosenkopf, L. (2011). Balance within and across domains: The performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organization Science, 22(6), 1517–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z., Yang, H., & Demirkan, I. (2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Organization Science, 53(10), 1645–1658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to-medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshakova, I. V. (1973). System of document connection based on references. Nauchno-Teknichescaya Informatisya Seriya, 2, 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118–131.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mom, T. J. M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating manager’s exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mom, T. J. M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., & Filippini, R. (2012). The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization, 10(4), 450–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s Dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28(1), 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P. F., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1993). Co-word-based science maps of chemical engineering. Part I: Representations by direct multidimensional scaling. Research Policy, 22(1), 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., & Courtial, J. (1984). Co-word maps of biotechnology: An example of cognitive scientometrics. Scientometrics, 6(6), 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), 759–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, A., & Vurro, C. (2010). Cross-boundary ambidexterity: Balancing exploration and exploitation in the Fuel Cell Industry. European Management Review, 7(1), 30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäffer, U., Nevries, P., Fikus, C., & Meyer, M. (2011). Is finance research a “normal science”? A bibliometric study of the structure and development of finance research from 1988 to 2007. Schmalenbach Business Review, 63(4), 189–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpää, A. (2006). Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: A co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheremata, W. A. (2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 389–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6), 650–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597–624.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A Typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 864–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relation between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stettner, U., & Lavie, D. (2014). Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 35(13), 1903–1929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamics capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L., Autio, E., & Gann, D. (2014). Architectural leverage: Putting platforms in context. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 198–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1147–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker. R., & Van den Berg, J. (2010). A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS. CoRR, abs/1003.2551.

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2008). Appropriate similarity measures for author co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(10), 1653–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize co-occurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1635–1651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 163–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1996). Reassessment of co-citation methods for science indicators: Effect of methods improving recall rates. Scientometrics, 37(2), 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., & Okubo, Y. (2000). Shadows of the past in international cooperation: Collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science. Scientometrics, 47(3), 627–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamics capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, University of Alicante, P.O. Box 99, 03080, Alicante, Spain

    Francisco García-Lillo, Mercedes Úbeda-García & Bartolomé Marco-Lajara

Authors
  1. Francisco García-Lillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mercedes Úbeda-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bartolomé Marco-Lajara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco García-Lillo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

García-Lillo, F., Úbeda-García, M. & Marco-Lajara, B. Organizational ambidexterity: exploring the knowledge base. Scientometrics 107, 1021–1040 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1897-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1897-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation