Ambidextrous organizations

Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

1996

Volume

38

Issue

4

Pages

8-30

DOI

10.2307/41165852

DOI registrant

SAGE Publications

Link

https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852

Cited from

biology_ecology, futurism_foresight, organizational_management, sociology_anthropology, systems_cybernetics

Cited by

9 citations across 9 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Absorptive Capacity

  • This sourceArgues firms must simultaneously pursue incremental and discontinuous innovation by building ambidextrous structures and cultures.

• Adaptation
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Adaptive Capacity
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Ambidexterity (Exploit vs. Explore)
  • The structural separation mechanism (ambidextrous organization designs) that isolates exploration activities from exploitation pressures to permit risk-taking and longer development horizons

    This sourceArgues that ambidextrous organizations host structurally separate units with distinct cultures, structures, and processes for exploitation and exploration, achieving superior long-term performance — the structural-separation mechanism.

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    Abstract only: it confirms the ambidextrous organization as simultaneously pursuing incremental and discontinuous innovation, but never states the structural separation of exploration from exploitation.

    “They must, in other words, create an ambidextrous organization—one capable of simultaneously pursuing both incremental and discontinuous innovation.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

• Diversity
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Institutional Lag
  • Tushman and O'Reilly (1996) frame this design problem in their model of ambidextrous organizations that simultaneously sustain stable operations and adaptive capacity.

    This sourceModels ambidextrous organizations that simultaneously sustain stable operations and adaptive capacity, addressing the design problem of institutions that must balance adaptive and stable responses to fast-changing conditions.

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    The 1996 abstract defines the ambidextrous organization as one simultaneously pursuing incremental and discontinuous innovation, backing the frame but not the wording 'stable operations and adaptive capacity'.

    “They must, in other words, create an ambidextrous organization—one capable of simultaneously pursuing both incremental and discontinuous innovation.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

• System Slack
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Three Horizons Analysis
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Variation Strategies
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 9 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:8fa45f5b24e5 · see in the full table