Abstract
This chapter argues that duality theory offers the greatest scope as a conceptual framework for connecting ambidexterity capabilities and simultaneous explore—exploit outcomes. Duality theory provides direction by emphasizing characteristics such as dynamism, minimal thresholds, and improvisation. Collectively, these elements engender responsive, adaptive thinking across interconnected explorative and exploitative ventures. The chapter includes a comprehensive review of duality theory and its evolution. Drawing on this review and ensuing critique of duality characteristics, it maintains that ambidexterity capability underpinned by five duality characteristics reinforces the organizing tension that delivers both explore and exploit outcomes. The chapter concludes by proposing developmental measures for enhancing ambidexterity capabilities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.
Brooks, S. M., & Saltzman, J. M. (2016). Creating the vital organization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539–553.
Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (2010). West meets east: Toward an ambicultural approach to management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 17–22.
Clegg, S. R., da Cunha, J. V., & e Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.
Doz, Y., & Thanheiser, H. (1993). Regaining competitiveness: A process of organizational renewal. In J. Hendry, G. Johnson, & J. Newton (Eds.), Strategic thinking: Leadership and the management of change (pp. 293–310). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Evans, P., & Doz, Y. (1989). The dualistic organization. In P. Evans, Y. Doz, & A. Laurent (Eds.), Human resource management in international firms: Change, globalization, innovation (pp. 219–242). London, UK: Macmillan.
Evans, P., & Doz, Y. (1992). Dualities: A paradigm for human resource and organizational development in complex multinationals. In V. Pucik, N. Tichy, & C. Barnett (Eds.), Globalizing management: Creating and leading the competitive organization (pp. 85–106). New York: Wiley.
Fenton, E., & Pettigrew, A. (2000). Theoretical perspectives on innovative forms of organizing. California: Sage.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. California: University of California Press.
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. (2006). Critical perspectives on the evolution of new forms of organising. International Journal of Strategic Change Management, 1(1–2), 127–142.
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. (2008). The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and change in forms of organizing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3), 265–280.
Hampden-Turner, C. M. (1990a). Charting the corporate mind: From dilemma to strategy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hampden-Turner, C. M. (1990b). Corporate culture: From vicious circles to virtuous circles. London: Hutchinson/Economist Books.
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
Hedberg, B., Nystrom, P., & Starbuck, W. H. (1976). Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self designing organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 41–65.
Jackson, D. (2000). Becoming dynamic: Creating and sustaining the dynamic organization. London, UK: Macmillan Business.
Jackson, W. A. (1999). Dualism, duality and the complexity of economic institutions. International Journal of Social Economics, 26(4), 545–558.
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.
Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797–811.
Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (1999). The world in two and a third way out? The concept of duality in organization theory and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 15(2), 121–139.
Keller, T., & Weibler, J. (2015). What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager: Linking leadership and cognitive strain to balancing exploration and exploitation. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 22(1), 54–71.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.
Liedtka, J. M. (1998). Linking strategic thinking with strategic planning. Strategy and Leadership, 26(4), 30–35.
Limerick, D., & Cunnington, B. (1993). Managing the new organisation. Sydney: Business and Professional Publishing.
Lewin, A.Y., Long, C., & Carroll, T. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 535–50.
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.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nadler, D. A., Shaw, R. B., & Walton, A. E. (1995). Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transformation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.
Paine, L. (2010). The China rules. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 103–108.
Pettigrew, A. M., & Fenton, E. M. (2000). Complexities and dualities in innovative forms of organizing. In A. M. Pettigrew & E. M. Fenton (Eds.), The innovative organization (pp. 279–300). London, UK: Sage.
Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (Eds.). (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.
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.
Reed, M. I. (1997). In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinking agency and structure in organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 18(1), 21–42.
Seo, M. G., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 73–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swart, J., Turner, N., van Rossenberg, Y., & Kinnie, N. (2016). Who does what in enabling ambidexterity? Individual actions and HRM practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–28. doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1254106.
Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technical change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20(4), 718–739.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
Turner, N., Swart, J., Maylor, H., & Antonacopoulou, E. (2016). Making it happen: How managerial actions enable project-based ambidexterity. Management Learning, 47(2), 199–222.
Turner, S. F., & Rindova, V. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23(1), 24–46.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). The ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.
Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Chapman Wood, R., Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1331–1366.
Weick, K. E. (1982). Management of organizational change among loosely coupled elements. In P. S. Goodman & Associates (Eds.), Change in organizations: New perspectives in theory, research and practice (pp. 375–348). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E. (1998). Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9(5), 543–555.
Whittington, R. (1994). Sociological pluralism, institutions and managerial agency. In J. Hassard & M. Parker (Eds.), Towards a new theory of organizations (pp. 53–74). London: Routledge.
Whittington, R., & Pettigrew, A. M. (2003). Complementarities thinking. In A. M. Pettigrew, R. L. Whittington, L. Melin, C. Sanchez-Runde, F. A. J. Van Den Bosch, W. Ruigrok, & T. Numagami (Eds.), Innovative forms of organizing (pp. 125–132). London, UK: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, A.C.T., Sutherland, F., Gilbert, D.H. (2017). Duality Theory. In: Reinventing Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57213-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57213-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57212-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57213-0
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)