Exploration, Exploitation, Ambidexterity, and Firm Performance: A Meta-Analysis

Mathias, Blake D.

doi:10.1108/s1479-067x20140000014009

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our search began in 1991 because this was the year of March's seminal article regarding the importance of balancing exploration and exploitation. We searched Google Scholar, Business Source Premier, ProQuest, ResearchGate, and SSRN databases for studies containing the keywords “ambidexterity,” “exploration,” “exploitation,” or “balance.” We also checked the reference sections of articles that have reviewed aspects of ambidexterity (i.e., Gupta et al, ; Junni et al, ; Lavie et al, ; Mathias, ; Mueller, Rosenbusch, & Bausch, ; O'Reilly & Tushman, ; Raisch & Birkinshaw, ; Raisch et al, ; Simsek et al, ) to identify studies that were not captured in our search. We then more carefully inspected each of the papers to ensure that their theory, constructs, and measures met our criteria.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing the tensions between exploration and exploitation: The role of time

Mathias

McKenny²,

Crook

2018

Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary Organizational ambidexterity reflects an organization's capacity to balance the pursuit of exploration and exploitation. Although the role of time has been central to ambidexterity theory, studies incorporate time in myriad ways, leading to an unclear understanding of how different aspects of time influence the relationship between ambidexterity and performance. We conduct a meta‐analysis of 52 studies involving more than 13,000 organizational observations and find that the performance effects of ambidexterity are stronger among older firms and firms that simultaneously balance exploration and exploitation throughout the organization. However, we also find that the ambidexterity‐performance relationship is weaker when ambidexterity is measured dynamically and when linked to long‐term performance. Managerial Summary Although academics have long espoused that firms should balance investments between exploration and exploitation activities because doing so improves firm performance, little research has explicitly modeled the role of time in this balance. We combined all known evidence to assess the role of time on balancing and performance. The two key takeaways for entrepreneurs and managers are that, on average, “balancing” leads to stronger financial performance for (a) older organizations and (b) firms that simultaneously balance activities throughout the organization. Managers may not see the strongest benefits from such a balance when attempting to influence long‐term performance or when this balance occurs at different times or places inside the organization.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing the tensions between exploration and exploitation: The role of time

Mathias

McKenny²,

Crook

2018

Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much research on ambidexterity suggests that balancing exploration and exploitation can better improve firm performance (Birkinshaw and Gupta, 2013). However while the positive impact of focus and ambidexterity on firm performance has been shown, research is inconclusive about their relative value, for example Choi et al (2019) and the meta-study of Mathias (2014). In practice, it is often challenging for firms to resolve the problem of how to achieve this balance due to the competition for scarce resources in the organization, the tendency of self-reinforcing behaviors and the different demands on organizational practices between exploratory and exploitative activities (March, 1991; Birkinshaw and Gupta, 2013; Stettner and Lavie, 2014).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

From focus to ambidexterity: the choice of catch-up strategy for EMNEs

Peng

Fang

Lockett

2021

CCSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeEmerging-market multinational enterprises (EMNEs) can choose focused or ambidextrous strategies to catch up with global market leaders through overseas foreign direct investment (OFDI). The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched by the Chinese government in 2013, had a profound impact on Chinese multinational enterprises’ international behavior. This paper analyses how EMNEs select focused or ambidextrous catch-up strategies before and after the BRI, integrating ambidexterity and catch-up theories to provide a more nuanced understanding of the evolution of EMNE strategy.Design/methodology/approachA case study is well suited for deriving rich descriptions of empirical phenomena for which little theory exists. Because the existing literature has not yet fully explored and conceptually modeled the influence of windows of opportunity on international catch-up strategies, we use qualitative research to explore the mechanisms of strategy evolution in EMNEs.FindingsThe results show that the choice of catch-up strategy is influenced by the nature of windows of opportunity and the firm's accumulated technological capability. Specifically, the opening of institutional windows as a result of the BRI could give significant momentum to the international catch-up process by providing incentives and opportunities for EMNEs to enter more markets and new technology fields. The EMNEs studied underwent a transition from a focused strategy in the catch-up stage to an ambidextrous strategy in the beyond catch-up stage.Originality/valueThese conclusions can not only deepen our understanding of the dynamics of catch-up strategies in the global context but also enrich the research on the ambidexterity of EMNEs, especially in the context of the BRI.

show abstract

“…A balanced view of ambidexterity holds that organisations pursuing both activities in a balanced way are better off than firms pursuing single focus (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008;Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009 companies that can attain complementarity and pursue both activities can achieve higher performance (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008). However, instead of its reported advantages, research has opposed the combination approach, and suggested that emerging companies should direct all their efforts towards either exploration or exploitation (Mathias, 2014).…”

Section: Conceptualisation and Operational Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A combining vs. subtracting view of ambidexterity holds that exploration and exploitation activities are interdependent, non-interchangeable and separated from each other; companies that can attain complementarity and pursue both activities can achieve higher performance (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008). However, instead of its reported advantages, research has opposed the combination approach and suggested that emerging companies should direct all their efforts towards either exploration or exploitation (Mathias, 2014). Nonetheless, for mature organisations, it becomes necessary not only to balance both activities, but also there will be a crucial need for integration of exploration and exploitation activities (Chiu, 2014).…”

Section: Ambidexterity and Coopetition In Rfscsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the role of ambidexterity and coopetition in designing resilient fashion supply chains: a multi-evidence-based approach

Makhashen

Rafi-Ul-Shan

Bashiri

et al. 2020

JEIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the knowledge gaps in the extant literature on the role of ambidexterity and coopetition in designing resilient fashion supply chains (RFSCs), and to develop a contextual framework for effective decision-making to enable practitioners to enhance their supply chain resilience.Design/methodology/approachThe study adopts a novel multi-evidence-based approach comprising Denyer and Tranfield's (2009) systematic literature review (SLR) with context, intervention, mechanism and outcome (CIMO) logic, text mining and network analysis. The approach constitutes a rigorous methodology that cross-validates results and ensures the reliability and validity of findings.FindingsThe authors identified key knowledge gaps in the literature and explored the main contribution categories (e.g. conceptual understandings, operational impacts, use of theories and frameworks). Subsequently, we developed a contextual framework of ambidextrous coopetition to design RFSCs. Finally, an empirical research agenda is proposed with the five research directions to address the gap and take forward the notion of ambidextrous coopetition and RFSCs.Research limitations/implicationsThe multi-evidence-based approach is a structured and triangulated SLR approach and thus lacks empirical study.Practical implicationsThis research proposes a contextual framework of ambidextrous coopetition that can be used by fashion companies to embed resilience into their structures and operations. This research also presents an agenda for the future empirical research.Originality/valueThis paper contributes by providing a combinatory synthesis on the role of ambidexterity and coopetition in designing RFSCs. This paper introduces a novel methodological triangulation for improving the quality and validity of SLRs. It identifies significant knowledge gaps and defines directions for future research.

show abstract

Exploration, Exploitation, Ambidexterity, and Firm Performance: A Meta-Analysis

Cited by 13 publications

References 78 publications

Managing the tensions between exploration and exploitation: The role of time

Managing the tensions between exploration and exploitation: The role of time

From focus to ambidexterity: the choice of catch-up strategy for EMNEs

Exploring the role of ambidexterity and coopetition in designing resilient fashion supply chains: a multi-evidence-based approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About