IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v26y2020i2d10.1007_s10588-020-09311-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Back to the basics: reconciling the continuum and orthogonal conceptions of exploration and exploitation

Author

Listed:
  • Sasanka Sekhar Chanda

    (Indian Institute of Management Indore)

  • Bill McKelvey

    (University of California, Los Angeles)

Abstract

Extant research is vertically divided on the question whether exploration and exploitation constitute two ends of a continuum or whether they are orthogonal activities. We suggest that both characterizations are admissible, albeit under different sets of assumptions. Using March’s iconic model, we demonstrate that the continuum conception concerns leveraging an organization’s internal knowledge heterogeneity where managers use their prior knowledge and experiences to formulate actions to attain the maximum possible extent of organizational knowledge at equilibrium. In contrast, the orthogonal conception mainly concerns assimilating heterogeneous knowledge from sources outside the organization through risky experimentation, leading to order-creation in systems operating in far-from-equilibrium conditions. We further demonstrate that the change in outcome obtained by switching from low to high rate of exploitation is larger—and therefore easier to detect—for the continuum conception. We speculate that many managers and researchers favor conceptualizing exploration–exploitation in the continuum sense, for this reason. Moreover, companies obtain far higher organizational knowledge by functioning in the orthogonal mode, than what is attainable by functioning in the continuum mode. Organizations should, therefore, strive to create conditions that foster cultivation of outside knowledge through autonomous actions of employees.

Suggested Citation

  • Sasanka Sekhar Chanda & Bill McKelvey, 2020. "Back to the basics: reconciling the continuum and orthogonal conceptions of exploration and exploitation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 175-206, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:26:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10588-020-09311-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-020-09311-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-020-09311-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-020-09311-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Gavetti & Daniel A. Levinthal & Jan W. Rivkin, 2005. "Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: the power of analogy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(8), pages 691-712, August.
    2. Dovev Lavie & Jingoo Kang & Lori Rosenkopf, 2011. "Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1517-1538, December.
    3. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    4. Katsuhiko (Katsu) Shimizu, 2012. "Risks of Corporate Entrepreneurship: Autonomy and Agency Issues," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 194-206, February.
    5. Christina Fang & Jeho Lee & Melissa A. Schilling, 2010. "Balancing Exploration and Exploitation Through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 625-642, June.
    6. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda & Sougata Ray, 2015. "Optimal exploration and exploitation: the managerial intentionality perspective," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 247-273, September.
    7. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda, 2017. "Inferring final organizational outcomes from intermediate outcomes of exploration and exploitation: the complexity link," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 61-93, March.
    8. Lori Rosenkopf & Patia McGrath, 2011. "Advancing the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Novelty in Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1297-1311, October.
    9. David G. Sirmon & Michael A. Hitt, 2003. "Managing Resources: Linking Unique Resources, Management, and Wealth Creation in Family Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 27(4), pages 339-358, October.
    10. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    11. Felipe A. Csaszar & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2016. "Mental representation and the discovery of new strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(10), pages 2031-2049, October.
    12. Rodan, Simon, 2005. "Exploration and exploitation revisited: Extending March's model of mutual learning," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 407-428, December.
    13. Hua Zhang & Youmin Xi, 2010. "Exploration and Exploitation in Parallel Problem Solving: Effect of Imitation Strategy and Network Structure," International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science (IJKSS), IGI Global, vol. 1(3), pages 55-67, July.
    14. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    15. Kent D. Miller & Shu-Jou Lin, 2015. "Analogical reasoning for diagnosing strategic issues in dynamic and complex environments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(13), pages 2000-2020, December.
    16. Eni Gambeta & Balaji R. Koka & Robert E. Hoskisson, 2019. "Being too good for your own good: A stakeholder perspective on the differential effect of firm‐employee relationships on innovation search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 108-126, January.
    17. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    18. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    19. Grimm, Volker & Berger, Uta & DeAngelis, Donald L. & Polhill, J. Gary & Giske, Jarl & Railsback, Steven F., 2010. "The ODD protocol: A review and first update," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(23), pages 2760-2768.
    20. Robert A. Burgelman, 1983. "Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights from a Process Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(12), pages 1349-1364, December.
    21. Juha Uotila & Markku Maula & Thomas Keil & Shaker A. Zahra, 2009. "Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 221-231, February.
    22. Gerald C. Kane & Maryam Alavi, 2007. "Information Technology and Organizational Learning: An Investigation of Exploration and Exploitation Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 796-812, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olga Kassotaki, 2022. "Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    2. Jin Xu & Joep Cornelissen, 2023. "Disequilibrium and complexity across scales: a patch-dynamics framework for organizational ecology," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juha Uotila, 2018. "Punctuated equilibrium or ambidexterity: dynamics of incremental and radical organizational change over time," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 131-148.
    2. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda, 2017. "Inferring final organizational outcomes from intermediate outcomes of exploration and exploitation: the complexity link," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 61-93, March.
    3. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    4. Partanen, Jukka & Kohtamäki, Marko & Patel, Pankaj C. & Parida, Vinit, 2020. "Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    5. Manuel Guisado-González & Jennifer González-Blanco & José Luis Coca-Pérez, 2019. "Exploration, exploitation, and firm age in alliance portfolios," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(4), pages 387-406, December.
    6. Yasser Alizadeh & Antonie J. Jetter, 2019. "Pathways for Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Innovations: A Review and Expansion of Ambidexterity Theory," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(05), pages 1-33, August.
    7. YoungKi Park & Paul A. Pavlou & Nilesh Saraf, 2020. "Configurations for Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity with Digitization," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1376-1397, December.
    8. Katsuki Aoki & Miriam Wilhelm, 2017. "The Role of Ambidexterity in Managing Buyer–Supplier Relationships: The Toyota Case," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 1080-1097, December.
    9. Veider, Viktoria & Matzler, Kurt, 2016. "The ability and willingness of family-controlled firms to arrive at organizational ambidexterity," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 105-116.
    10. Sunkee Lee & Philipp Meyer-Doyle, 2017. "How Performance Incentives Shape Individual Exploration and Exploitation: Evidence from Microdata," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 19-38, February.
    11. Vahlne, Jan-Erik & Jonsson, Anna, 2017. "Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 57-70.
    12. Mavroudi, Eva & Kesidou, Effie & Pandza, Krsto, 2020. "Shifting back and forth: How does the temporal cycling between exploratory and exploitative R&D influence firm performance?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 386-396.
    13. Olga Kassotaki, 2022. "Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    14. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    15. Jiewei Zu & Jianan Wang & Jun Ma, 2022. "Ambidexterity in a Rapidly Changing Environment of China: Top Management Team Decision Making and Sustained Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    17. Úbeda-García, Mercedes & Claver-Cortés, Enrique & Marco-Lajara, Bartolomé & Zaragoza-Sáez, Patrocinio, 2020. "Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 363-372.
    18. Andreea N. Kiss & Dirk Libaers & Pamela S. Barr & Tang Wang & Miles A. Zachary, 2020. "CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2200-2233, December.
    19. Strobl, Andreas & Bauer, Florian & Matzler, Kurt, 2020. "The impact of industry-wide and target market environmental hostility on entrepreneurial leadership in mergers and acquisitions," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).
    20. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann, 2019. "Polytope Conditioning and Linear Convergence of the Frank–Wolfe Algorithm," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 1319-1348, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:26:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10588-020-09311-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.