‘I’d Give My Right Arm to Be Ambidextrous’: Exploration Unit Managers Facing Competing Demands for Differentiation and Integration
Abstract
This paper examines how managers of internal exploration units – also labeled as innovation labs – address the competing demands of differentiation and integration over time, and the implications for their unit’s ability to execute its intended exploration strategy. Based on a longitudinal study of four exploration units implemented by established firms, we find that their managers face two types of undocumented paradoxical tensions: one related to the evolution of the mandated charter and the other related to the implementation of the performance management system. In response, we show that exploration unit managers adopt four balancing patterns to face these paradoxical tensions: decoupling, conforming, promoting, and synchronizing. These patterns consist of specific combinations of differentiating and/or integrating practices. Drawing on paradox research, we show how each pattern facilitates or impedes the pursuit of the unit’s intended exploration strategy. Our research contributes to the development of a more integrative and systemic understanding of the locus of structural ambidexterity and how it is pursued in practice, and to current debates about the different types of responses adopted when faced with paradoxes. Finally, we provide managerial insights into the management of exploration units and innovation labs within established firms.
Downloads
References
Amaratunga, D. & Baldry, D. (2002). Moving from performance measurement to performance management. Facilities, 20(5–6), 217–223. doi: 10.1108/02632770210426701
Andriopoulos, C. & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
Bardon, T., Garreau, L., Abdallah, C., Journé, B., et al. (2020). Rethinking observation: Challenges and practices. M@n@gement, 33(2), 1–8. doi: 10.37725/mgmt.v23i3.5562
BenMahmoud-Jouini, S. & Charue-Duboc, F. (2022). Integration of an exploration program with its parent organization: A lifecycle perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 40(5), 587–597. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.05.006
Berti, M. & Cunha, M. P. E. (2023). Paradox, dialectics or trade‐offs? A double loop model of paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 60(4), 861–888. doi: 10.1111/joms.12899
Berti, M. & Simpson, A. V. (2021). The dark side of organizational paradoxes: The dynamics of disempowerment. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 252–274. doi: 10.5465/amr.2017.0208
Birkinshaw, J. & Lingblad, M. (2005). Intrafirm competition and charter evolution in the multibusiness firm. Organization Science, 16(6), 674–686. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0142
Blindenbach‐Driessen, F. & van den Ende, J. (2014). The locus of innovation: The effect of a separate innovation unit on exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity in manufacturing and service firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(5), 1089–1105. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12146
Bouty, I., Gomez, M.-L. & Chia, R. (2019). Strategy emergence as wayfinding. M@n@gement, 22(3), 438–465. doi: 10.3917/mana.223.0438
Burgelman, R.A., & Valikangas, L. (2005), Managing internal corporate venturing cycles. Sloan Management Review 46 (4), 26–34. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/managing-internal-corporate-venturing-cycles/
Buvat, J., Gilchriest, B., Turkington, E. & Kvj, S. (2018), The discipline of innovation. Making sure your innovation center actually makes your organization more innovative. Capgemini Digital Transformation Institute. Retrieved from https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/dti_innovationcenter_report.pdf
Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
Crockett, D. R., McGee, J. E. & Payne, G. T. (2013). Employing new business divisions to exploit disruptive innovations: The interplay between characteristics of the corporation and those of the venture management team. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 856–879. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12034
Cunha, M. P. E. & Putnam, L. L. (2019). Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 95–106. doi: 10.1177/1476127017739536
Donada, C., Mothe, C. & Alegre, J. (2021). Managing skunkworks to achieve ambidexterity: The Robinson Crusoe effect. European Management Journal, 39(2), 214–225. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2020.07.008
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2021). What is the Eisenhardt method, really? Strategic Organization, 19(1), 147–160. doi: 10.1177/1476127020982866
Es-Sajjade, A., Pandza, K. & Volberda, H. (2021). Growing pains: Paradoxical tensions and vicious cycles in new venture growth. Strategic Organization, 19(1), 37–69. doi: 10.1177/1476127020929003
Friesl, M., Garreau, L. & Heracleous, L. (2019). When the parent imitates the child: Strategic renewal through separation and reintegration of subsidiaries. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 62–94. doi: 10.1177/1476127018794850
Gaim, M., Clegg, S. & Cunha, M. P. E. (2021). Managing impressions rather than emissions: Volkswagen and the false mastery of paradox. Organization Studies, 42(6), 949–970. doi: 10.1177/0170840619891199
Galunic, D. C. & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1996). The evolution of intracorporate domains: Divisional charter losses in high-technology, multidivisional corporations. Organization Science, 7(3), 255–282. doi: 10.1287/orsc.7.3.255
Galunic, D. C. & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1229–1249. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/3069398
Garcias, F., Dalmasso, C. & Sardas, J.-C. (2015). Paradoxical tensions in learning processes: Exploration, exploitation and exploitative learning. M@n@gement, 18(2), 156–178. doi: 10.3917/mana.182.0156
Gibson, C. B. & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/20159573
Gilbert, B. A., McDougall, P. P. & Audretsch, D. B. (2006). New venture growth: A review and extension. Journal of Management, 32(6), 926–950. doi: 10.1177/0149206306293860
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G. & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
Jansen, J. J. P., Simsek, Z. & Cao, Q. (2012). Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross‐level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1286–1303. doi: 10.1002/smj.1977
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K. & van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 245–280. doi: 10.1177/1476127013481016
Knight, E. & Paroutis, S. (2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 403–432. doi: 10.1177/0170840616640844
Lavie, D., Stettner, U. & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155. doi: 10.5465/19416521003691287
Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47. doi: 10.2307/2391211
Lewis, M. & Moultrie, J. (2005). The organizational innovation laboratory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 73–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00327.x
Lewis, M. W., Andriopoulos, C. & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California Management Review, 56(3), 58–77. doi: 10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.58
Lewis, M. W. & Smith, W. K. (2022). Reflections on the 2021 AMR Decade Award: Navigating paradox is paradoxical. Academy of Management Review, 47(4), 528–548. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amr.2022.0251
Locke, K. (2003). Grounded theory in management research. Sage. doi: 10.4135/9780857024428
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. doi: 10.1177/0149206306290712
Luger, J., Raisch, S. & Schimmer, M. (2018). Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29(3), 449–470. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2017.1189
Magadley, W. & Birdi, K. (2009). Innovation labs: An examination into the use of physical spaces to enhance organizational creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 315–325. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00540.x
Maniak, R., Midler, C., Lenfle, S. & Le Pellec-Dairon, M. (2014). Value management for exploration projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 55–66. doi: 10.1002/pmj.21436
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
O’Reilly, C. A. & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: A framework for management control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10(4), 363–382. doi: 10.1006/mare.1999.0115
Raisch, S. & Tushman, M. L. (2016). Growing new corporate businesses: From initiation to graduation. Organization Science, 27(5), 1237–1257. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2016.1081
Schiuma, G. & Santarsiero, F. (2023). Innovation labs as organisational catalysts for innovation capacity development: A systematic literature review. Technovation, 123, 102690. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102690
Schmitt, A., Probst, G. & Tushman, M. L. (2010). M@n@gement in times of economic crisis: Insights into organizational ambidexterity. M@n@gement, 13(3), 128–150. doi: 10.3917/mana.133.0128
Sekhar Chanda, S., Ray, S. & Mckelvey, B. (2018). The continuum conception of exploration and exploitation: An update to March’s theory. M@n@gement, 21(3), 1032–1079. doi: 10.3917/mana.213.1032
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0932
Taylor, A. & Helfat, C. E. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20(4), 718–739. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0429
Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G. et al. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1331–1366. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtq040
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage.
Zimmermann, A., Raisch, S. & Birkinshaw, J. (2015). How is ambidexterity initiated? The emergent charter definition process. Organization Science, 26(4), 1119–1139. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2015.0971
Zimmermann, A., Raisch, S. & Cardinal, L. B. (2018). Managing persistent tensions on the frontline: A configurational perspective on ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 55(5), 739–769. doi: 10.1111/joms.12311
Copyright (c) 2024 The Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the AIMS.
Published by 