Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Literature Review and Theoretical Propositions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation in High Reliability Ambidextrous Organizations

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

Abstract

The following “Literature Review and Theoretical Propositions” presents the theoretical foundations of this thesis that underpin the relevance of the subject. Section 2.1 explains the different streams in current literature in the domain of innovation and how they relate to this thesis. Section 2.2 also revisits the theoretical stream of organizational ambidexterity with a view to the objects of this thesis. Both of these sections also cover the status quo of academic literature regarding the subject at hand. The last section (Sect. 2.3) embeds the theoretical propositions of the research, which derived mainly from innovation and organizational ambidexterity literature. However, other related theoretical streams, such as organizational design, project management, leadership, and several others are also feeding into the eventual propositions.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

Bibliographical References

  • Abernathy WJ, Clark KB (1985) Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction. Elsevier Sicence Pubslishers B.V. (North-Holland), Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Abernathy WJ, Utterback JM (1978) Patterns of industrial innovation. Technol Rev 80(7):40–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Abetti PA (2000) Critical success factors for radical technological innovation: a five case study. Creat Innov Manag 9(4):208–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams R, Bessant J, Phelps R (2006) Innovation management measurement: a review. Int J Manag Rev 8:21–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler P, Heckscher C (2013) The collaborative, ambidextrous enterprise. Universia Business Review, Cuarto Tri

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler PS, Borys B (1996) Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive. Adm Sci Q 41:61–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota Production System. Organ Sci 10(1):43–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler PS, Kwon SW (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manag Rev 27:17–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile TM (1996) Creativity in context. Westview Press, Boulder, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile TM (1998) How to kill creativity. Harv Bus Rev (Sept/Oct):77–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson NR, West MA (1998) Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. J Organ Behav 19(3):235–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<235::AID-JOB837>3.0.CO;2-C

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson P, Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Adm Sci Q 35(4):605–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ Sci 20:696–717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff HI, Stewart JM (1967) Strategies for a technology-based business. Harv Bus Rev 45(November):71–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C, Schon D (1978) Organizational learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Astley GW (1985) The two ecologies: population and community perspectives on organizational evolution. Adm Sci Q 30:224–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auh S, Menguc B (2005) Balancing exploration and exploitation: the moderating role of competitive intensity. J Bus Res 58:1652–1661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahrami H, Evans S (1987) Stratocracy in high-technology firms. Calif Manag Rev 30:51–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldridge JV, Burnham RA (1975) Organizational innovation: individual, organizational and environment impacts. Adm Sci Q 20:165–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett CA, Ghoshal S (1989) Managing across borders: the transnational solution. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman CM (2006) The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Acad Manag J 49(4):741–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman CM, Haunschild PR, Phillips DJ (2004) Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organ Sci 15(3):259–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2002) Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industry. Adm Sci Q 47:676–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003a) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28:238–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Birken SA, Lee SY, Weiner BJ (2012) Uncovering middle managers’ role in healthcare innovation implementation. Implement Sci 7:28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw J, Gibson C (2004) Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Manag Rev (Summer):47–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG (ed) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood, New York, pp 241–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradach JL (1997) Using the plural form in the management of restaurant chains. Adm Sci Q 42:276–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Duguid P (2001) Creativity versus structure: a useful tension. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 42:93–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1997) The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Adm Sci Q 42(1):1–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, D. J., Staats, B. R., Tushman, M. L., Upton, D. M., & Morgan, T. (2010). Wellsprings of creation: how perturbation sustains exploration in mature organizations. Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman RA (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: theory and field research. Organ Sci 2(3):239–262. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.3.239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman RA (2002) Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Adm Sci Q 47:325–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns T, Stalker GM (1961) The management of innovation. Tavistrock, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt RS (1992) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Capon N, Farley JU, Lehmann DR, Hulbert JM (1992) Profiles of product innovators among large U.S. manufacturers. Manag Sci 38(2):157–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlile PR (2004) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ Sci 13(4):442–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll TN (2012) Designing organizations for exploration and exploitation. J Organ Des 1(2):64–68. https://doi.org/10.7146/jod.1.2.6344

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen G (2005) Newcomer adaption in teams: multi-level antecedents and outcomes. Acad Manag J 33:334–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen (2001) Assessing your organization’s innovation capabilities. Lead Lead 21:27–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity : a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Colurcio M, Wolf P, Kocher P-Y, Spena TR (2012) Asymmetric relationships in networked food innovation. Br Food J 114(5):702–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke-Davies T, Cicmil S, Crawford L, Richardson K (2007) We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto: mapping the strange landscape of complexity theory, and its relationship to project management. Proj Manag J 38(2):50–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell T, Nault BR (2004) Product variety and firm survival in the microcomputer software industry. Strateg Manag J 25:1005–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan MM, Apaydin M (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J Manag Stud 47(6):1154–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL (1978) Dual-core model of organizational innovation. Acad Manag J 21(2):193–210. https://doi.org/10.2307/255754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag Sci 32:554–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour F (1991) Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad Manag J 34(3):555–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels E (2002) The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strateg Manag J 23(12):1095–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davila T, Epstein MJ, Shelton R (2012a) Making innovation work: how to manage it, measure it, and profit from it, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Retrieved from https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/making-innovation-work/9780133093360/cover.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Denison D, Hooijberg R, Quinn RE (1995) Paradox and performance: toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organ Sci 6:524–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewar RD, Dutton JE (1986) The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: an empirical analysis. Manag Sci 32(11):1422–1433. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty D (2001) Reimaging the differentiation and integration of work for sustained product innovation. Organ Sci 12:612–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs GW, Mohr LB (1976) Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Adm Sci Q 21:700–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker PF (1985) Innovation and entrepreneurship. Harper & Row, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Duchesneau TD, Cohn S, Dutton J (1979) A study of innovation in manufacturing: determination, processes and methodological issues. Social Science Research Institute, Orono

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan R (1976) The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In: Killman RH, Pondy LR, Sleven D (eds) The management of organization. North Holland, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton JE, Ashford SJ (1993) Selling issues to top management. Acad Manag Rev 18:397–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton JE, Dukerich JM (1991) Keeping and eye on the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaption. Acad Manag J 34(3):517–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton J, Thomas A (1985) Relating technological change and learning by doing. In: Rosenbloom RD (ed) Research on technological innovation, management, and policy, vol 2. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 187–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer JH, Nobeoka K (2000) Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strateg Manag J 21:345–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebadi YM, Utterback J (1984) The effects of communication on technological innovation. Manag Sci 30:572–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebben JJ, Johnson AC (2005) Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strateg Manag J 26:1249–1259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach KD, Kramer MR (1996) Member’s responses to organizational identity threats: encountering and contering. Adm Sci Q 41:442–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle RL, Lopez ER, Chan JA, Charns MP (2017) What roles do middle managers play in implementation of innovative practices ? Health Care Manag Rev 42(1):14–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2009) Hoping for A to Z while rewarding only A: complex organizations and multiple goals. Organ Sci 20(1):4–21. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ettlie JE (1980) Manpower flows and the innovation process. Manag Sci 26(11):1086–1095. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.11.1086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ettlie JE, Bridges WP, O’Keefe RD (1984) Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Manag Sci 30(6):682–695. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.6.682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ettlie JE, Reza EM (1992) Organizational integration and process innovation. Acad Manag J 35(4):795–827. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evan WM (1966) Organizational Lag. Hum Organ 25:51–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd SW, Lane PJ (2000) Strategizing throughout the organization: managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Acad Manag Rev 25(1):154–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C (1982) The economics of industrial innovation. France Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith J (1973) Designing complex organizations. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon H, Tushman ML, Smith W, Anderson P (2002) A structural approach to assessing innovation: construct development of innovatoin locus, type and characteristics. Manag Sci 48(9):1103–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gergen KJ (1985) The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. Am Psychol 40:266–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal S, Bartlett CA (1997) The individualized corporation: a fundamentally new approach to management. Harper Business, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manag J 47(2):209–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert CG (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Acad Manag J 48(5):741–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert CG (2006) Change in the presence of residual fit: can competing frames coexist? Organ Sci 17:150–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein SG (1985) Organizational dualism and quality circles. Acad Manag Rev 10:504–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Goode WJ (1978) The celebration of heroes: prestige as a social control system. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopalakrishnan S, Damanpour F (1997) A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. OMEGA Int J Manag Sci 25:15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graen G (1976) Role making processes within complex organizations. In: Dunnette MD (ed) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp 1201–1245

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 17(Winter Special Issue):109–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve HR (2007) Exploration and exploitation in product innovation. Ind Corp Chang 16:945–975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R, Puranam P (2009) Renewal through reorganization: the value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organ Sci 20(2):422–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R, Puranam P, Tushman M (2012) Meta-organization design: rethinking design in interoganizational and community contexts. Strateg Manag J 33:571–586. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta AK, Govindrajan V (2000) Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strateg Manag J 21(4):473–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 49(4):693–706. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hage J (1980) Theories of organization. Wiley Interscience, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage J, Aiken M (1970) Social change in complex organizations. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson H (1987) Industrial technological development: a network approach. Croom Helm, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC (1994) Top management groups: a conceptual integration and reconsideration of the “team” label. In: Cummings LL, Staw BM (eds) Research in organizational behaviour, 16th edn. JAI Press, Greenwhich, CT, pp 171–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC, MacMillan IC (1985) Efficiency of product R&D in business units: the role of stragegic context. Acad Manag J 28:527–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel G, Prahalad CK (1993) Strategy as stretch and leverage. Harv Bus Rev (Mar–Apr):75–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan MT, Freeman J (1977) The population ecology of organizations. Am J Sociol 82(5):929–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan MT, Freeman J (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. Am Sociol Rev 49(2):149–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Adm Sci Q 44:82–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MT, Podolny JM, Pfeffer J (2001) So many ties, so little time: a task contingency perspective on the value of social capital in organizations. Soc Cap Organ 18:21–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harreld JB, O’Reilly C, Tushman ML (2007) Capabilities at IBM: driving strategy into action. Calif Manag Rev 49(4):21–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser JR, Zettelmeyer F (1997) Metrics to evaluate R, D & E. Res Technol Manag 40(4):32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He ZL, Wong PK (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidesterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15:481–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat CE (1997) Know-how and asset complementary and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of R&D. Strateg Manag J 18(5):339–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat CE, Peteraf MA (2003) The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strateg Manag J 24:997–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation : the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Adm Sci Q 35(1):9–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill CWL, Rothaermel FT (2003) The performance of incumbents firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Acad Manag Rev 28:257–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiskey DMS, Deezen E (2011a) Today i found out: feed your brain. Retrieved July 5, 2016, from http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/11/post-it-notes-were-invented-by-accident/

  • Holmqvist M (2003) A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning. Organ Stud 24(1):95–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmqvist M (2004a) Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical study of product development. Retrieved June 9, 2013, from https://vpn.deusto.es/ehost/pdfviewer/,DanaInfo=web.ebscohost.com+pdfviewer?sid=1fb32a04-dc1a-41b9-bcb1-c8de6c8b6ebf@sessionmgr12&vid=1&hid=9

  • Iansiti M, Clark KB (1994) Integration and dynamic capability: evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Ind Corp Chang 3:557–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICAO (2016a) Aviation partnerships for sustainable development. Retrieved June 6, 2016, from http://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx

  • Jacobs J (1965) The death and life of great American cities. Penguin Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, George G, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2008) Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity : the moderating role of transformational leadership. J Manag Stud 45(July):983–1007

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, Tempelaar MP, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organ Sci 20(4):797–811. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2005) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: the impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 57:351–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Manag Sci 52(11):1661–1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JP, Simsek Z, Cao Q (2012) Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strateg Manag J 33(March):1286–1303. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK (1993) Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. J Mark 57:53–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay J (2013) Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Acad Manag J 56(1):137–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Journal SE, Kleinbaum AM, Tushman ML, Lynch M (2007) Building bridges: the social structure of interdependent innovation. Strateg Entrep J 122(November):103–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej

    Google Scholar 

  • Katila R, Ahuja G (2002) Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introdution. Acad Manag J 45:1183–1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaudela-Baum S, Holzer J, Kocher P-Y (2014) Innonvation leadership. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimberly JR, Evanisko MJ (1981) Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption and adminstrative innovations. Acad Manag J 24(4):689–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King N (1992) Modelling the innovation process: an empirical comparison of approaches. J Occup Organ Psychol 65:89–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King N, Anderson N, West MA (1992) Organizational innovation: a case study of perceptions and processes. Work Stress 5:331–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klarner P, Raisch S (2013) Move to the beat: rhythms of change and firm performance. Acad Manag J 56(1):160–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinbaum AM, Tushman ML (2007) Building bridges: the social structure of interdependent innovation. Strateg Entrep J 122(November):103–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knott AM (2002) Exploration and exploitation as complements. In: Bontis N, Choo CW (eds) The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 339–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B (2000) The network as knowledge: generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strateg Manag J 21:405–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ Sci 3:383–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koza MP, Lewin AY (1998) The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organ Sci 3:255–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krone KJ, Jablin FM, Putnam L (1987) Communication theory and organizational communication. In: Krone KJ, Putnam LL, Roberts KH, Porter LM (eds) Handbook of organizational communication: an interdisciplinary perspective. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp 18–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakopoulos K, Moorman C (2004) Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: the overlooked role of market orientation. Int J Res Mark 21:219–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackner H, Güttel WH, Garaus C, Konlechner S, Müller B, Christiangarausjkuat CG, Stefankonlechnerjkuat SK (2011) Different ambidextrous learning architectures and the role of HRM systems. Linz, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie D, Rosenkopf L (2006) Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Acad Manag J 49(4):797–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman ML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad Manag Ann 4:37–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and environment, managing differentiation and integration. Division of Research, Grauduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton DA (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strateg Manag J 13:111–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strateg Manag J 14:95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leybourne AS, Sainter P (2012) Advancing project management. Proj Manag J 43(6):5–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leybourne SA, Sadler-Smith E (2006) Going-with-your-gut: the role of intuition and improvisation in project management. Int J Proj Manag 24(6):483–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin Z, Yang H, Demirkan I (2007) The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Manag Sci 53:1645–1658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin MH, Simsek Z, Ling Y, Veiga JF (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. J Manag 32(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712

  • Lukas CV, Charns MP, Cramer IE, Meterko M, Schwartz M, Cohen AB et al (2016a) Transformational change in health care: an organizational model. Health Care Manag Rev 32(4):309–320. Retrieved from http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/omtch/overview.html

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch KD (2007) Modeling role enactment: linking role theory and social cognition. J Theory Soc Behav 37(4):379–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maidique MA (1980) Entrepreneurs, champions and technological innovation. Sloan Manag Rev 2:59–67

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath RG (2001) Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Acad Manage J 44:118–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mensch G (1979) Stalemate in technology: innovations overcome the depression. Ballinger, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer AD, Brooks GR, Goes JB (1990) Environmentla jolts and industry revolutions: organizational response to discontinuous change. Strateg Manag J 11:93–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles RE, Snow CC (1978) Organizational strategy, structure, and process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Friesen PH (1983) Strategy-making and enviroment: the third link. Strateg Manag J 4:221–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Friesen PH (1984) Organizations: a quantum view. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Friesen PH (1982) Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firm: two models of strategic momentum. Strateg Manag J 3:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1989) Mintzberg on management: inside our strange world of organizations. Pree Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mom TJM, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2007) Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: the influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. J Manag Stud 44(6):910–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mom TJM, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organ Sci 20(4):812–828. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford MD, Licuanan B (2004) Leading for innovation: conclusions, issues, and directions. Leadersh Q 15:163–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23:242–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RE (1989) The strength of strong ties: social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Acad Manag J 32:377–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. Am Econ Rev 72(1):114–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Konno N (1998) The concept of “ba”: building a foundation for knowledge creation. Calif Manag Rev 40:40–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Toyama R, Nagata A (2000) A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm. Ind Corp Chang 9(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom B, Haverbeke WV, Duyster G, Gilsing V, von den Oord A (2006) Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Res Policy 36:1016–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA, Tushman M (2007) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.978493

  • O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2004) The ambidextrous organization. Harv Bus Rev 82:74–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Ojasalo J (2008) Management of innovation networks: a case study of different approaches. Eur J Innov Manag 11(2):51–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parthasarthy R, Hammond J (2002) Product innovation input and outcome: moderating effect of the innovation process. J Eng Technol Manag 19:75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perretti F, Negro G (2006) Filling empty seats: how status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration versus exploitation in team design. Acad Manag J 49(4):759–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters T, Waterman RH (2004) In search of excellence: lessons from America’s best-run companies, 2nd Editio edn. Profile Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew A (1985) The awakening giant: continuity and change in TCI. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM (1990) Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice. Organ Sci 1(3):267–292. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.3.267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto JK (2016) Project management: achieving competitive advantage, 4th edn. Pearson Education, Edinburgh, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittaway L, Robertson M, Munir K, Denyer D, Neevly A (2004) Networking and innovation: a sytematic review of the evidence. Int J Manag Rev 5(6):137–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny JM (1993) A status-based model of market competition. Am J Sociol 98:829–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Probst G, Raisch S (2005) Organizational crisis : the logic. Acad Manag Exec 19(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Putman RD (1993) Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam RD (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. J Democr 6:65–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S (2006) Exploration vs. exploitation: a metaparadigm view of ambidextrous organizational forms. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, August, Atlanta, Georgia

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S (2008) Balanced structures: designing organizations for profitable growth. Long Range Plan 41(5):483–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2008.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J Manag 34(3):375–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Tushman ML (2011) A dynamic perspective on ambidexterity : structural differentiation and boundary activities

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Tushman ML, Birkinshaw J, Probst G (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ Sci 20(4):685–695. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagans R, Zuckerman E, McEvily B (2004) How to make the team: social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Adm Sci Q 49:101–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2003) Balancing search and stability: inderdependancies among elements of organizational design. Manag Sci 49(3):290–311. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A (2001) Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strateg Manag J 22(4):287–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkranz NA (2012) Connecting the dots: studies on boundary-spanning ambidexterity at the individual, project, firm and alliance level, St. Gallen

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel FT (2001) Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strateg Manag J 22(6/7):687–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL (2004) Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strateg Manag J 25(3):201–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley T, Behrens D, Krackhardt D (2000) Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strateg Manag J 21:369–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos FM, Eisenhardt KM (2005) Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organ Sci 16(5):491–508. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saren MA (1984) A classification and review of process models of innovation. R&D Manag 14:11–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter JA (1942) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheremata W (2000) Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product devleopment under time pressure. Acad Manag Rev 25:389–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidhu J, Volberda H, Commandeur H (2004) Exploring exploration orientation and its determinants: some empirical evidence. J Manag Stud 41:913–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N, Levinthal D (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ Sci 14(6):650–669. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N, Rivkin J (2006) When exploration backfires: unintended consequences of organizational search. Acad Manag J 49:779–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek Z (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding. J Manag Stud 46(4):597–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek Z, Heavey C, Veiga JF, Souder D (2009) A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. J Manag Stud 46(5)

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith WK (2006) Top management team approaches to simultaneously managing exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management best conference paper proceedings

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith WK, Lewis MW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad Manag Rev 36(2):381–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith WK, Tushman ML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams. Organ Sci 16(5):522–536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson JB (2002) The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance. Adm Sci Q 47(1):70–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson JB, Stuart TE (2000) Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Adm Sci Q 45(1):81–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson O, Rivkin JW, Fleming L (2006) Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Res Policy 35(7):994–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender JC, Grant RM (1996) Knowledge and the firm: overview. Strateg Manag J 17(Special Issue)

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam M, Youndt MA (2005) The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Acad Manag J 48:450–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe K, Sitkin S, Browning L (2000) Tailoring process management to situational requirements. In: Cole R, Scott WR (eds) The quality movement and organization theory. Sage, London, pp 315–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor A, Helfat CE (2009) Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organ Sci 20(4):718–739. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece D (2006) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (long-run) enterprise performance. Working paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28:1319–1350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas J, Mengel T (2008) Preparing project managers to deal with complexity: advances project management education. J Proj Manag 26(3):304–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action. Manag J 28:553–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas M (2009) Technology, iodentity, and inertia through the lens of “The digital photography company”. Organ Sci 20(2):441–460. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas M, Gavetti G (2000) Capabilities, cognition, and interia: evidence from digital imaging. Strateg Manag J 21:1147–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai W (2001) Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business-unit innovation and performance. Acad Manag J 44:996–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai W (2002) Social structure of “coopetition” within a multi-unit organization: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organ Sci 13:179–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai W, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Acad Manag J 41(4):464–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman B (1965) Development sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull 63:384–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML (2011) Organizational ambidexterity in action. Calif Manag Rev 53(4)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Adm Sci Q 31(3):439–465. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Anderson P (1991) Managing through cycles of technological change. Res Technol Manag. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

  • Tushman ML, Nadler DA (1978) Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Acad Manag 3(3):613–624

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 3:8–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Romanelli E (1985) Organizational evolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in organizational behavior. JAI Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Smith WK (2002) Organization technology. In: Baum J (ed) Companion to organization. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 368–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman M, Nadler D (1980) A model for diagnosing organizational behavior. Organizational dynamics. AMACOM, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman M, Smith WK, Wood RC, Westerman G, O’Reilly C (2010) Organizational designs and innovation streams. Ind Corp Chang 19(5):1331–1366. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman MT, Moore WL (1986) Readings in the management of innovation. Strateg Manag J 6(3):296–297

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven A, Poole MS (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):510–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Vassolo RS, Anand J, Folta T (2004) Non-additivity in portfolios of exploration activities: a real option-based analysis of equity alliances in biotechnology. Strateg Manag J 25:1045–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman N, Lee C-H, Iyer B (2006) Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: a longitudinal test in the software sector. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, August, Hawaii, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Volberda H (1998) Building the flexible firm: how to remain competitive. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel E (1988) The sources of innovatoin. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh G, Venzin M (1995) Anhaltende Wettbewerbsvorteile durch Wissenmanagement. Die Unternehmung 6:417–436

    Google Scholar 

  • von Kutzschenbach M (2006) Organizational learning and social network structures: case studies of German and Norwegian forest sector organizations. Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg i. Brsg

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick K (1979) Cognitive processes in organizations. In: Staw BM (ed) Research in organizational behavior. JAI Press, Greenwich, CO, pp 41–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick K (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1976) Educational organizations of loosely coupled systems. Adm Sci Q 21(1):19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2007) Managing the unexpected: resilient performance in an age of uncertainty, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt B, Montgomery CA (1988) Tobin’s q and the importance of focus in firm performance. Am Econ Rev 78:246–251

    Google Scholar 

  • West MA (1990) The social psychology of innovation in groups. In: Farr JL (ed) Innovation and creativity at work: psychological and organizational strategies. Wiley, Chichester, England, pp 4–36

    Google Scholar 

  • West MA, Borrill CS, Dawson JF, Brodbeck F, Shapiro DA, Haward B (2003) Leadership clarity and team innovation in helath care. Leadersh Q 14:393–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerman G, McFarlan WF, Iansiti M (2006) Organizational design and effectiveness over the innovation life cycle. Organ Sci 17:230–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelwright SC, Clark KB (1992) Revolutioninizing product development. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter SG (1995) Four Rs of profitability: rents, resources, routines, and replication. In: Montgomery C (ed) Resource-based and evolutionary theories of the firm: towards a synthesis. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe RA (1994) Organizational innovation – review, critique and suggested reserach directions. J Manag Stud 31:405–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan A, Louis MR (1999) The migration of organizational functions to the work unit level: buffering, spanning, and bringing up boundaries. Hum Relat 52(1):25–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods, 5th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Zald MN, Denton P (1963) From evangelism to general service: the transformation of the YMCA. Adm Sci Q 7:214–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman GN, Duncan RB, Holbek J (1973) Innovations and organizations. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zmud RW (1982) Diffusion of modern software practices: influence of centralization and formalization. Manag Sci 28(12):1421–1431. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.12.1421

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lucerne University of Applied Sciences, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Jan Kraner

Authors
  1. Jan Kraner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kraner, J. (2018). Literature Review and Theoretical Propositions. In: Innovation in High Reliability Ambidextrous Organizations. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74926-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation