Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T07:50:30.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploration–Exploitation Duality with Both Tradeoff and Synergy: The Curvilinear Interaction Effects of Learning Modes on Innovation Types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2023

Peter Ping Li ,
Heng Liu Open the ORCID record for Heng Liu [Opens in a new window] ,
Yuan Li  and
Haifeng Wang
Peter Ping Li
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham Ningbo China, China Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Heng Liu*
Affiliation:
Sun Yat-sen University, China
Yuan Li
Affiliation:
Shanghai Jiaotong University, China
Haifeng Wang
Affiliation:
Shanghai International Studies University, China
*
Corresponding author: Heng Liu (liuheng8@mail.sysu.edu.cn)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How can a firm apply the appropriate interaction between exploration and exploitation with the goal of either radical or incremental innovation? In this study, we seek to answer this puzzling question by reframing exploitation and exploration as a duality of learning (i.e., two modes that are partial complementary for synergy as well as partial conflicting for tradeoff). Specifically, rather than assuming either a positive or negative interaction between exploration and exploitation as prior literature has done, our study highlights a novel pattern of inverted U-shaped interaction between exploration and exploitation for both radical and incremental innovations. With a Chinese sample of 508 firms, our empirical evidence supports our prediction of two patterns of inverted U-shaped interaction of exploration and exploitation. Such unique findings showcase the unique value of reframing paradox into duality from the meta-perspective of yin-yang balancing to shed new light on organizational ambidexterity and innovation management.

Keywords

curvilinear interactionexploitation–exploration ambidexterityincremental innovationparadox as yin-yang dualityradical innovation
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , June 2023 , pp. 498 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Silvia Massini

References

REFERENCES

Acemoglu, D., & Cao, D. 2015. Innovation by entrants and incumbents. Journal of Economic Theory, 157: 255–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, M., Day, G., & Dougherty, D. 1998. Enhancing new product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(5): 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity and innovation in organizations: 396–239. Boston, US: Harvard Business School Background Note.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(3): 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. 2014. Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3): 474–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atuahene-Gima, K. 2005. Resolving the capability–rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4): 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Murray, J. Y. 2007. Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: A social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing, 15(2): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. 1990. Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: The case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5): 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskarada, S., & Watson, J. 2017. Managing the exploitation-exploration tradeoff: How leaders balance incremental and discontinuous innovation. Development and Learning in Organizations, 31(4): 13–16.Google Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 238–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, J. M. 2016. Balancing on the creative highwire: Forecasting the success of novel ideas in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3): 433–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchini, S., Krafft, J., Quatraro, F., & Ravix, J. 2015. Corporate governance, innovation and firm age: Insights and new evidence. GREDEG Working Papers Series, 68(275).Google Scholar
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. 1988. Organizational paradox and transformation. New York: Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. 2009. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4): 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. 1998. Organizational for radical product innovation: The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4): 474–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, E. L., & Katila, R. 2008. Rival interpretations of balancing exploration and exploitation: Simultaneous or sequential? In Smith, S. (Ed.), Handbook of technology and innovation management: 197–214. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. 1996. Customer power, strategic investment and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3): 197–218.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, C. M., McDonald, R. M., Altman, E. J., & Palmer, J. E. 2017. Disruptive innovation: Intellectual history and future paths. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.14218abstractCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, C., Li, C., & Lin, C. 2011. The joint effect of project-level exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development. European Journal of Marketing, 45(4): 531–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16: 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunha, M. P., Bednarek, R., & Smith, W. 2019. Integrative ambidexterity: One paradoxical mode of learning. Learning Organization, 26(4): 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dess, G. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2005. The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1): 147–156.Google Scholar
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11): 1422–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M., & Fiss, P. C. 2022. Thriving on contradiction: Toward a dialectical alternative to fit-based models in strategy (and beyond). Strategic Management Journal, 43(2): 340–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluation structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, D., & Michel, E. J. 2013. Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. Journal of Psychology, 147(5): 435–453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greve, H. R. 2007. Exploration and exploitation in product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(5): 945–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guisado-González, M., González-Blanco, J., & Coca-Pérez, J. L. 2017. Analyzing the relationship between exploration, exploitation and organizational innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5): 1142–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargadon, A., & Fanelli, A. 2002. Action and possibility: Reconciling dual perspectives of knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 13(3): 290–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2017. Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies, 38(3–4): 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, S. 2014. Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3): 324–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Z., & Wong, P. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4): 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1): 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, J. J., Kostopoulos, K. C., Mihalache, O. R., & Papalexandris, A. 2016. A socio-psychological perspective on team ambidexterity: The contingency role of supportive leadership behaviours. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6): 939–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1183–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M. W., & Boyer, K. K. 2007. Innovation-supportive culture: The impact of organizational values on process innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4): 871–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, N., & Atuahene-Gima, K. 2010. Using exploratory and exploitative market learning for new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(4): 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauritzen, G. D., & Karafyllia, M. 2019. Perspective: Leveraging open innovation through paradox. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(1): 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. 2006. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 797–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. 2010. Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1): 109–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1): 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., & Zhang, Y. 2007. The role of managers’ political networking and functional experience in new venture performance: Evidence from China's transition economy. Strategic Management Journal, 28(8): 791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2014. The unique value of yin-yang balancing: A critical response. Management and Organizational Review, 10(2): 321–332.Google Scholar
Li, P. P. 2016. Global implications of the indigenous epistemological system from the East: How to apply yin-yang balancing to paradox management. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(1): 42–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2021. The meta-perspective of yin-yang balancing: Salient implications for organizational management. In Bednarek, R., Cunha, M. P., Schad, J., & Smith, W. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary dialogues on organizational paradox: Learning from belief and science: Part 73A, Chapter 3: 51–73. Bingley, UK: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P., Zhou, S. S., & Zhou, A. J. 2016. The Taoist spirit of Haier: The metaphor of sea based on the symbolism of water. Management and Organization Review, 12(4): 803–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., Li, P. P., Wang, H., & Ma, Y. 2017. How do resource structuring and strategic flexibility interact to shape radical innovation? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(4): 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., Liu, Y., Li, M., & Wu, H. 2008. Transformational offshore outsourcing: Empirical evidence from alliances in China. Journal of Operations Management, 26(2): 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, X., & White, S. 2001. Comparing innovation systems: A framework and application to China's transitional context. Research Policy, 30(7): 1091–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. 2018. Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29(3): 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, X., & Mitchell, W. 1998. The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market. Research Policy, 26(7–8): 753–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Howell, R. 1996. The quality and effectiveness of marketing strategy: Effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict in intraorganizational relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24: 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2018. Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1): 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montag-Smit, T., & Maertz, C. P. Jr. 2017. Searching outside the box in creative problem solving: The role of creative thinking skills and domain knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 81: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murmann, J. P., & Zhu, Z. 2021. What enables a Chinese firm to create new-to-the-world innovations? A historical case study of intrafirm competition in the instant messaging service sector.Strategy Science, 6(4): 305–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. 1985. Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental design. Homewood, PA: Richard Irwin Inc.Google Scholar
Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. 2016. In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial reactions to innovation–efficiency tensions. Human Relations, 69(9): 1791–1822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piao, M., & Zajac, E. J. 2016. How exploitation impedes and impels exploration: Theory and evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7): 1431–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. 2003. Common methods biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, T. C. 1992. Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2): 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. 2016. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 65–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quintane, E., Casselman, R. M., Reiche, B. S., & Nylund, P. 2011. Innovation as a knowledge-based outcome. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6): 928–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustainable performance. Organization Science, 20(4): 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothaermel, F. T. 2001. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7): 687–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, R., & Sarkar, M. B. 2016. Knowledge, firm boundaries, and innovation: Mitigating the incumbent's curse during radical technological change. Strategic Management Journal, 37(5): 835–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seo, Y. W., Chae, S. W., & Lee, K. C. 2015. The impact of absorptive capacity, exploration, and exploitation on individual creativity: Moderating effect of subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 42: 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. 2003. Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6): 650–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirén, C. A., Kohtamäki, M., & Kuckertz, A. 2012. Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit performance, and the mediating role of strategic learning: Escaping the exploitation trap. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(1): 18–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. 2015. Reinsurance trading in Lloyd's of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3): 932–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 381–403.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Tracey, P. 2016. Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic Organization, 14(4): 455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, X. M., & Parry, M. E. 1996. What separates Japanese new product winners from losers? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(5): 422–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stacey, R. D. 1995. The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6): 477–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugarman, B. 2014. Dynamic capability seen through a duality–paradox lens: A case of radical innovation at Microsoft. In Noumair, D. A. & Shani, A. B. (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development: 141–189. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13): 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, K. H., & Yang, S. Y. 2013. Firm innovativeness and business performance: The joint moderating effects of market turbulence and competition. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(8): 1279–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. 1996. The ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O'Reilly, C. 2010. Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5): 1331–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. 2009. Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2): 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Deusen, C. A., & Mueller, C. B. 1999. Learning in acquisitions: Understanding the relationship between exploration, exploitation and performance. The Learning Organization, 6(4): 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Neerijnen, P., Tempelaar, M. P., & van de Vrande, V. 2021. Embracing paradox: TMT paradoxical processes as a steppingstone between TMT reflexivity and organizational ambidexterity. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211058640Google Scholar
Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. 2013. Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises: Implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market domains. Organization Science, 24(5): 1459–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xing, Y. 2016. A Daoist reflection on sea-like leadership and enlightened thinking. Management and Organization Review, 12(4): 807–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. 2016. Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1): 24–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Li, H., Li, Y., & Zhou, L. A. 2010. FDI spillovers in an emerging market: The role of foreign firms’ country origin diversity and domestic firms’ absorptive capacity. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9): 969–989.Google Scholar
Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. 2012. How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9): 1090–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar