Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The explore–exploit tension: A case study of organizing in a professional services firm

  • Aaron C. T. Smith (a1), David H. Gilbert (a2) and Fiona Sutherland (a3)

Abstract

This article reports on a case study of a decade-long organizing forms response to the need for groundbreaking innovation while maintaining existing operational performance – the explore–exploit conundrum. Employing ‘grounded research,’ data were collected on the experiences of the Asia-Pacific arm of a multinational professional service firm’s key decision-makers, innovators and entrepreneurs. The findings reveal a three-tiered organizing forms response to the explore–exploit paradox, characterized by a novel combination of heavy exploitation-driven actions alongside deep exploration projects. This case suggests that one successful approach to delivering on both explore and exploit focuses on a productive tension that emerges by enacting innovative organizing forms with contextual awareness. This productive tension was sufficiently powerful to impel individuals to innovate, but also sufficiently contained to avoid interfering with commercial outcomes. An explore–exploit framework conceptualizes organizational changes incorporating complexity and contradiction, without the implicit emphasis on removing or denying the existing tension.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Corresponding author: aaron.smith@rmit.edu.au

References

Hide All
Annells, M. (1996). Hermeneutic phenomenology: Philosophical perspectives and current use in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23, 705713.
Asch, D., & Salaman, G. (2002). The challenge of change. European Business Journal, 14(3), 133143.
Baghai, M. A., Everingham, B., & White, D. (2000). Growth down under. The Mckinsey Quarterly, 1, 1214.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, & process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238256.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rule. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 413452.
Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2002). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. London: Routledge.
Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7(2), 191207.
Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 809837.
De Vault, M. L. (1995). Ethnicity and expertise: Racial-ethnic knowledge in sociological research. Gender and Society, 9(5), 612631.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Brown, S. L. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Long Range Planning, 31(5), 786789.
Evans, P. (1999). HRM on the edge: A duality perspective. Organization, 6(2), 325338.
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202225.
Farquhar, J. D. (2012). Case study research for business. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Galvin, P. (2014). A new vision for the journal of management & organization: The role of context. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(1), 15.
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1995). Building the entrepreneurial corporation: New organizational processes, new managerial tasks. European Management Journal, 13(2), 139155.
Gillham, B. (2000a). Case study research methods. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Gillham, B. (2000b). Developing questionnaires. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co.
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. (2008). The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and change in forms of organizing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3), 265280.
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. (2011). Duality theory and the management of the change-stability paradox. Journal of Management and Organization, 17(4), 534547.
Groysberg, B., & Lee, L.-E. (2009). Hiring stars and their colleagues: Exploration and exploitation in professional service firms. Organization Science, 20(4), 740758.
Hammersley, M. (1989). The dilemma of qualitative method. London: Routledge.
Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 741.
Jackson, P., & Harris, L. (2003). E-business and organizational change: Reconciling traditional values with business transformation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(5s), 497511.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 16611674.
Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism research. Milton, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
Leana, C. R., & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 753759.
Lewin, A. Y., Long, C., & Carroll, T. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 535550.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to-medium-sized firms. Journal of Management, 32, 646672.
Luscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. E. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221240.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., & Hays, T. (2008). In-depth interviewing (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Moore, G. A. (2007). To succeed in the long term, focus on the middle term. Harvard Business Review, 8(7–8), 28.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 7481.
Pettigrew, S. (2000). Ethnography and grounded theory: A happy marriage? Advances in consumer research, 27, 256260.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685695.
Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous ‘morphing’: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 12631280.
Seo, M. G., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In Poole M. S., & Van De Ven A. H. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 73107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381403.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522536.
Sjoberg, G., Williams, N., Vaughan, T. R., & Sjoberg, A. F. (1991). The case study approach in social research. In Feagin, J. R., Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. (Eds.), A case for the case study (pp. 2779). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Strauss, A. (1995). Notes on the nature and development of general theories. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(1), 718.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In Denzin N. K., & Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 633642.
Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technical change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20(4), 718739.
Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Chapman Wood, R., Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 13311366.
Tushman, M., Lakhani, K., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2012). Open innovation and organizational design. Journal of Organizational Design, 1(1), 2427.
Volberda, H. W. (1998). Building the flexible firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whiteley, A. M. (2004). Grounded research: A modified grounded theory for the business setting. Qualitative Research Journal, 4(2), 2747.
Whittington, R., & Pettigrew, A. M. (2003). Complementarities thinking. In Pettigrew A. M., Whittington R. L., Melin L., Sanchez-Runde C., Van Den Bosch F. A. J., Ruigrok W., & Numagami T. (Eds.), Innovative forms of organizing (pp. 125132). London: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research – Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

The explore–exploit tension: A case study of organizing in a professional services firm

  • Aaron C. T. Smith (a1), David H. Gilbert (a2) and Fiona Sutherland (a3)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.