• Login
  • Register
  • Search

How Knowledge Seeking in Individual Ambidexterity can be Managed to Overcome the Limitations of Organizational Ambidexterity

Yan Xiao, Riga Wu


Researchers have verified the significant effects of organizational ambidexterity on the long-term development of firms. To understand knowledge accumulation and how it fosters performance, recent researchers have shifted their focus from organizational ambidexterity to individual ambidexterity. They have investigated knowledge accumulation, knowledge flow practices of top-down/bottom-up/horizon, knowledge flowing of seeking and offering in individual ambidexterity, however few researches have paid particular attention to knowledge seeking process in individual ambidexterity. Thus, based on their research trend, this paper investigates knowledge seeking process in individual ambidexterity and discusses such suggestions’ significances for overcoming limitations of organizational ambidexterity. Our aim is to draw the attention of managers to the contribution of employee (individual) ambidexterity to organizational ambidexterity. Particularly, it suggests four types of knowledge seeking process and each has two stages: Stage 1(core)+Stage 2(outside → own), Stage 1 (core)+Stage 2(outside → others), Stage 1 (core)+Stage 2(core → own), Stage 1(core)+Stage 2(core → outside). This suggestion makes management for organizational ambidexterity more flexible and requires less coordination work from top management.


Exploration; Exploitation; Ambidexterity

Full Text:



J.G. March, Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 1991,2(1): 71-87.

M. L. Tushman & C. A. O’Reilly, Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 1996,38(4): 7-30.

C. A. O'Reilly & M. L. Tushman, Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2008(28): 185-206.

C.A. O’Reilly & M. L. Tushman, Lead and Disrupt: How to Solve the Innovator’s Dilemma, Stanford: Stanford Business Books. 2016.

T. Suh, O. Khan, B. Schenellbaecher & S. Heidenreich, Strategic accord and tension for business model innovation: examining different tacit knowledge types and open action strategies. International Journal of Innovation Management, 2020.24(4), doi: 10.1142/S1363919620500395.

B. Schnellbacher& S. Heidenreich, The role of individual ambidexterity for organizational performance: examining effects of ambidextrous knowledge seeking and offering. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2020.45(1): 1535-1559.

T. Mom, F. Bosch & H. W. Volberda, Investigating managers' exploration and exploitation activities: the influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 2010. 44(6): 910-931.

C. Schultz, J. Schreyoegg & C. V. Reitzenstein, The moderating role of internal and external resources on the performance effect of multitasking: evidence from the D&D performance of surgeons. Research Policy, 2013.42(8): 1356-1365.

D.A. Levinthal & J.G. March, The Myopia of Learning. Strategic Management Journal, 1993. 14(S2): 95-112.

Z.L. He & P. K. Wong, Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 2004. 15(4),: 375-497.

S. Blank, Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 2013.91(5): 63-72.

C. B. Gibson & J. Birkinshaw, The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. The Academy of Management Journal, 2004.47(2): 209-226.

R. Adner & D. Levinthal, Doing versus seeing: acts of exploitation and perceptions of exploration. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2008.2(1): 43-52.

Bonesso, S., Gerli, F & Scapolan, A. (). The individual side of ambidexterity: do individuals' perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off? European Management Journal, Vol. 32(3): 392-405.

M. Rogan & M. L. Mors, A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization science, 2014. 25 (6): 1860-1877.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18686/mmf.v6i2.4155