Ambidestria Dinâmica: Proposta de um Modelo Teórico e Hipotético
Artigo principal Conteúdo
Resumo
Contexto: a ambidestria é uma capacidade dinâmica que busca equilibrar iniciativas de exploitation e exploration. O desenvolvimento conjunto de exploitation e exploration pode ser alcançado por meio da ambidestria dinâmica. As discussões teóricas envolvendo a relação entre os conceitos de ambidestria e capacidades dinâmicas (CDs) já foram desenvolvidas na literatura. Entretanto, a forma como as três abordagens ambidestras (estrutural, contextual e sequencial) são baseadas em CDs ainda precisa ser observada pelos pesquisadores. Objetivo: o objetivo do estudo é propor um modelo teórico hipotético que explique a influência dos variados tipos de ambidestria organizacional (estrutural, contextual e sequencial) no desenvolvimento das CDs e sua relação com o desempenho organizacional. Metodologia: o estudo foi desenvolvido por meio de uma ampla revisão sistemática da literatura orientada por uma lógica indutiva, epistemologia interpretativa e abordagem qualitativa. Resultados: as análises e discussões possibilitaram a apresentação de um modelo teórico hipotético de ambidestria dinâmica que envolve nove construtos e onze hipóteses. Conclusão: acreditamos que o nosso estudo contribui teoricamente para o campo das estratégias organizacionais e pode possibilitar estudos alinhados com os conceitos de ambidestria dinâmica e CDs.
Não há dados estatísticos.
Detalhes do artigo
Esta revista continua sendo detentora dos direitos autorais dos artigos publicados. Para serem publicados, os autores devem assinar a Carta de Transferência de Direitos Autorais, que é enviada aos autores por e-mail, concedendo direitos, inclusive na tradução, à RAC. A revista concede a terceiros o direito de usar, reproduzir e compartilhar o artigo de acordo com o contrato de licença da Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0), conforme declarado nas versões em formato PDF do artigo.
Referências
Arend, R. J., & Chen, Y. (2012). Entrepreneurship as dynamic, complex, disequilibrious: A focus that benefits strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 10(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127011431340
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Assen, M. F. van. (2019). Empowering leadership and contextual ambidexterity – The mediating role of committed leadership for continuous improvement. European Management Journal, 38(3), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.12.002
Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652–1661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.11.007
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166789
Banfield, R., Lombardo, C. T., & Wax, T. (2015). Design sprint: A practical guidebook for building great digital products. Boston, MA: O’Reilly Media.
Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., & Weathersby, R. P. (1983). Developing “Complicated” Understanding in Administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1983.4284737
Bernstein, J. H. (2014). Disciplinarity and trandisciplinarity in the study of knowledge. Informing Science, 17, 241–273. Retrieved from http://academicworks.cuny.edu/kb_pubs
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431
Bever, D. Van, & Christensen, C. M. (2014). The Capitalist’s Dilemma. Harvard Business Review, 17(June), 1–17. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/06/the-capitalists-dilemma
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0167
Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Raisch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California Management Review, 58(4), 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.36
Bonesso, S., Gerli, F., & Scapolan, A. (2014). The individual side of ambidexterity: Do individuals’ perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off? European Management Journal, 32(3), 392–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.07.003
Boumgarden, P., Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Sailing into the wind: exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 587–610. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1972
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2(3), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.3.239
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock, London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2001). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 12(3), 391–392. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.3.391.10102
Cao, Q., Simsek, Z., & Zhang, H. (2010). Modelling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7), 1272–1296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00877.x
Carnahan, S., Agarwal, R., & Campbell, B. (2010). The effect of firm compensation structures on the mobility and entrepreneurship of extreme performers. Business, 1303, (December 2009), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1555659
Carter, W. R. (2015). Ambidexterity deconstructed: A hierarchy of capabilities perspective. Management Research Review, 38(8), 794–812. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2014-0116
Chen, Y. (2017). Dynamic ambidexterity: How innovators manage exploration and exploitation. Business Horizons, 60(3), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.01.001
Chou, C., Yang, K. P., & Chiu, Y. J. (2018). Managing sequential ambidexterity in the electronics industry: roles of temporal switching capability and contingent factors. Industry and Innovation, 25(8), 752–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1334538
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Retrieved from http://dspace.vnbrims.org:13000/jspui/bitstream/123456789/4699/1/The%20Innovator%27s%20Dilemma%20When%20New%20Technologies%20Cause%20Great%20Firms%20to%20Fail%20%28Management%20of%20Innovation%20and%20Change%20Series%29.pdf
Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining sucessfull growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 740-751. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040665
Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage-gates® idea-to-launch process - Update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00296.x
Cooper, R. G. (2014). What’s next? After stage-gate. Research Technology Management, 57(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5606963
Clercq, D. D., Thongpapanl, N., & Dimov, D. (2013). Shedding new light on the relationship between contextual ambidexterity and firm performance: An investigation of internal contingencies. Technovation, 33(4–5), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.12.002
Dranev, Y., Izosimova, A., & Meissner, D. (2020). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: Assessment approaches and empirical evidence. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11(2), 676–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0560-y
Ebben, J. J., & Johnson, A. C. (2005). Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(13), 1249–1259. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.503
Ederer, F. (2013). Incentives for Parallel Innovation. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2309664
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges diverse. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/job
Eitan, A. T., Smolyansky, E., & Harpaz, I. K. (2021). Connected Papers. Retrieved from https://www.connectedpapers.com/about
Eriksson, P. E. (2017). Procurement strategies for enhancing exploration and exploitation in construction projects. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 22(2), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMPC-05-2016-0018
Fourné, S. P. L., Rosenbusch, N., Heyden, M. L. M., & Jansen, J. J. P. (2019). Structural and contextual approaches to ambidexterity: A meta-analysis of organizational and environmental contingencies. European Management Journal, 37(5), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.04.002
Fu, N., Flood, P. C., & Morris, T. (2016). Organizational ambidexterity and professional firm performance: The moderating role of organizational capital. Journal of Professions and Organization, 3(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jov010
Fu, N., & Morris, T. J. (2014). Organizational Ambidexterity and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Organizational Capital. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), 14410. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.22
Ghemawat, P., & Ricart Costa, J. E. I. (1993). The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 59–73. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141007
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159573
Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2010). The other side of innovation: Solving the execution challenge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources. British Medical Journal, 331(7524), 1064–1065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68
Günsel, A., Altındağ, E., Kılıç Keçeli, S., Kitapçı, H., & Hızıroğlu, M. (2018). Antecedents and consequences of organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of networking. Kybernetes, 47(1), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-02-2017-0057
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. E. N. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-067X20140000014020
Halevi, M. Y., Carmeli, A., & Brueller, N. N. (2015). Ambidexterity in SBUs: TMT Behavioral Integration and Environmental Dynamism. Human Resource Management, 54(May), s223–s238. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21665
Han, M., & Celly, N. (2008). Strategic ambidexterity and performance in international new ventures. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 25(4), 335-349. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.84
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. (2014). Distributed cognition in top management teams and organizational ambidexterity: The influence of transactive memory systems. Journal of Management, 43(3), 919–945. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314545652
Heracleous, L., Papachroni, A., Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2017). Structural ambidexterity and competency traps: Insights from Xerox PARC. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.014
Hippel, E. Von (1986). Lead Users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791
Holland, J. H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial System. Ann Harbor, MI: University of MIchigan Press.
Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., Bosch, F. A. J. Van Den, & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00775.x
Jansen, J. J. P., Bosch, F. A. J. Van Den, & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
Johnson, N., & Phillips, M. (2018). Rayyan for systematic reviews. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 30(1), 46–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2018.1444339
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00050-X
Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0015
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1997). A estratégia em ação: Balanced scorecard (21st ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Harvard Business School Press; Elsevier do Brasil.
Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8(4), 283–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127010387409
Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N., & Mole, K. (2018). Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 47(2), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.003
Li, C. R. (2013). How top management team diversity fosters organizational ambidexterity: The role of social capital among top executives. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(5), 874–896. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2012-0075
Lô, A., & Fatien, P. (2018). Rethinking contextual ambidexterity through parallel structures: The case of Renault’s Fab Lab. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), 10076. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.10076abstract
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. (2013). The Paradox of Static and Dynamic Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2013(1), 11466. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2013.11466abstract
Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. (2018). Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29(3), 449–470. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1189
Mammassis, C. S., & Kostopoulos, K. C. (2019). CEO goal orientations, environmental dynamism and organizational ambidexterity: An investigation in SMEs. European Management Journal, 37(5), 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.08.012
Manso, G. (2017). Creating incentives for innovation. California Management Review, 60(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617725287
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Marín-Idárraga, D. A., Hurtado González, J. M., & Cabello Medina, C. (2016). The antecedents of exploitation-exploration and their relationship with innovation: A study of managers’ cognitive maps. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12139
Masood, S. A., Dani, S. S., Burns, N. D., & Backhouse, G. J. (2006). Transformational leadership and organizational culture: The situational strength perspective. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 220(6), 941–949. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544054JEM499
Minayo, M. C. de S., & Sanches, O. (1993). Quantitativo-qualitativo: Oposição ou complementaridade? Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 9(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X1993000300002
Minayo, M. C. de S. (2012). Análise qualitativa: Teoria, passos e fidedignidade. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 17(3), 621–626. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232012000300007
Myers, M. D. (2013). Qualitative research in business and management. London UK: SAGE Publications.
Nadkarni, S., & Chen, J. (2014). Bridging yesterday, today, and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1810–1833. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0401
Nemanich, L. A., Keller, R. T., & Vera, D. (2007). Managing the exploration/exploitation paradox in new product development. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 4(3), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877007001132
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
Ossenbrink, J., Hoppmann, J., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2019). Hybrid ambidexterity: How the environment shapes incumbents’ use of structural and contextual approaches. Organization Science, 30(6), 1125-1393. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1286
Peng, M. Y. P., Lin, K. H., Peng, D. L., & Chen, P. (2019). Linking organizational ambidexterity and performance: The drivers of sustainability in high-tech firms. Sustainability, 11(14), 3931. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143931
Perrin, B. (2002). How to — and How Not to — Evaluate innovation. Evaluation, 8(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1358902002008001514
Popadić, M., Černe, M., & Milohnić, I. (2015). Organizational ambidexterity, exploration, exploitation and firms innovation performance. Organizacija, 48(2), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1515/orga-2015-0006
Popadiuk, S., Luz, A. R. S., & Kretschmer, C. (2018). Dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity: How are these concepts related? Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 22(5), 639–660. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2018180135
Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (2002). Managing cognition and strategy: Issues, trends and future directions. In Handbook of Strategy and Management (pp. 165–181). Londron, UK: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608313.n8
Pryor, C., Holmes, R. M., Webb, J. W., & Liguori, E. W. (2019). Top executive goal orientations’ effects on environmental scanning and performance: Differences between founders and nonfounders. Journal of Management, 45(5), 1958–1986. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317737354
Radner, R., & Rothschild, M. (1975). On the allocation of effort. Journal of Economic Theory, 10(3), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(75)90006-X
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
Raisch, S., & Zimmermann, A. (2017). Pathways to ambidexterity: A process perspective on the exploration–exploitation paradox. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. New York, NY: Oxford Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198754428.013.17
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup. New York, New: Crown Business.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24840
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
Solís-Molina, M., Hernández-Espallardo, M., & Rodríguez-Orejuela, A. (2018). Performance implications of organizational ambidexterity versus specialization in exploitation or exploration: The role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Research, 91, 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.001
Stelzl, K., Röglinger, M., & Wyrtki, K. (2020). Building an ambidextrous organization: a maturity model for organizational ambidexterity. Business Research, 13(3), 1203–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00117-x
Stubner, S., Blarr, W. H., Brands, C., & Wulf, T. (2012). Organizational ambidexterity and family firm performance. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 25(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2012.10593570
Tamayo-Torres, J., Roehrich, J. K., & Lewis, M. A. (2017). Ambidexterity, performance and environmental dynamism. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 37(3), 282–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2015-0378
Tarba, S. Y., Jansen, J. J. P., Mom, T. J. M., Raisch, S., & Lawton, T. C. (2020). A microfoundational perspective of organizational ambidexterity: Critical review and research directions. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 102048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102048
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z
Tian, M., Deng, P., Zhang, Y., & Salmador, M. P. (2018). How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review. Management Decision, 56(5), 1088–1107. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0462
Tikkanen, H., Lamberg, J. A., Parvinen, P., & Kallunki, J. P. (2005). Managerial cognition, action and the business model of the firm. Management Decision, 43(6), 789–809. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510603565
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
Úbeda-García, M., Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., & Zaragoza-Sáez, P. (2019). Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations. Journal of Business Research, 112, 363-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.051
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past To Prepare for the Future: Writing a Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319
Wei, Z., Zhao, J., & Zhang, C. (2014). Organizational ambidexterity, market orientation, and firm performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 33, 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2014.06.001
Wilden, R., Hohberger, J., Devinney, T. M., & Lavie, D. (2018). Revisiting James March (1991): Whither exploration and exploitation? Strategic Organization, 16(3), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018765031
Wilms, R., Winnen, L. A., & Lanwehr, R. (2019). Top Managers’ cognition facilitate organisational ambidexterity: The mediating role of cognitive processes. European Management Journal, 37(5), 589–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.006
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10 Spec), 991–995. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Studies, 13(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780