Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis

Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis

Summary for agile leaders

Study of 206 manufacturing firms shows that ambidextrous technical innovation strategies predict performance in sales growth. Findings imply managers need to become more explicitly aware of the need to balance resources between explorative and exploitative innovation. Measures of explorative/exploitative product/process innovation could improve awareness.

Reviewed: 11 Nov 2022 by Russ Lewis
Request full analysis of this paper 
Authors: 
Zi-Lin He, Poh-Kam Wong
Publication date: 
2004
DOI: 
10.1287/orsc.1040.0078

My classifications

Abstract

While exploration and exploitation represent two fundamentally different approaches to organizational learning, recent literature has increasingly indicated the need for firms to achieve a balance between the two. This balanced view is embedded in the concept of ambidextrous organizations. However, there is little direct evidence of the positive effect of ambidexterity on firm performance. This paper seeks to test the ambidexterity hypothesis by examining how exploration and exploitation can jointly influence firm performance in the context of firms' approach to technological innovation. Based on a sample of 206 manufacturing firms, we find evidence consistent with the ambidexterity hypothesis by showing that (1) the interaction between explorative and exploitative innovation strategies is positively related to sales growth rate, and (2) the relative imbalance between explorative and exploitative innovation strategies is negatively related to sales growth rate.

Cite as (Harvard referencing)

He, Z.-L., Wong, P.-K., 2004. Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science 15, 481–494

Latest posts

5 Reasons Hanging by a Thread is my new favourite paper!

Read more...
Copyright © Russ G Lewis 2022-2023