Organizational research suggests that ambidexterity is attainable if top managers cultivate collective behavioral routines that enable them to synthesize large amounts of information and decision alternatives, and manage conflict and ambiguity. However, the type of information and knowledge sources that enable top managers to meet the knowledge demands of ambidexterity remains poorly understood. Toward that end, we argue that the extensiveness of top managers’ social networks inside and outside the firm, on an integrative basis, can offer the dual knowledge benefits conducive to ambidexterity. Because ambidexterity entails the firm's departure from existing products, technologies, and practices, we further argue that the contribution of extensive networks to ambidexterity is conditional upon the collective volition of top managers to parlay extensive network opportunities into innovative pursuits. From a study of CEOs and top management teams in SMEs operating in technology‐based industries, we find support for both a network extensiveness effect and the moderating role of a proactive commitment to innovation in shaping this effect. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Organizational researchers have long used imprinting as a theoretical lens for a historically embedded understanding of diverse, significant phenomena for explanatory, evaluative, and managerial purposes. The intuitive appeal of imprinting has facilitated its widespread diffusion throughout numerous disciplines and research fields, but the growing fragmentation of associated theory and evidence has blurred our understanding of the nature, sources, and mechanisms of imprinting as well as the context in which imprinting shapes the behavior and outcomes of distinct entities. To address these issues, we begin by developing a framework for generalizing theoretical constructs, statements, and relationships across levels of analysis, contexts, and disciplinary boundaries. Using the core themes of this framework, we next provide a systematic review of 119 imprinting studies allowing for more definitive statements about what we know, do not know, and should know about imprinting. Finally, by building on the review, together with the proposed framework, we chart a focused course for future inquiry and applications for organizational research on imprinting.

Interfaces are of growing importance for theorizing and testing the influence of strategic leaders on firm behavior and actions. But despite their relevance and ubiquity, the lack of a commonly accepted definition and unifying framework has hindered researchers’ ability to take stock, synthesize, and systematize extant knowledge. We first develop an encompassing definition and organizing framework to review 122 prior studies across three decades. We then chart promising directions for future research around three concepts central to the framework and review: (1) Why do interfaces occur? (2) What happens at these interfaces? and (3) What are the impacts of interfaces? Together, the encompassing definition, framework, review, and specific directions for future research provide the much needed platform to agglutinate research and advance strategic leader interfaces as the next frontier of strategic leadership research.

In this study, we first develop a framework that presents systematicity as an encompassing orientation toward the application of explicit methods in the practice of literature reviews, informed by the principles of transparency, coverage, saturation, connectedness, universalism, and coherence. We then supplement that conceptual development with empirical insights into the reported practices of systematicity in a sample of 165 published reviews across three journals in organizational research. We finally trace implications for the future conduct of literature reviews, including the potential perils of systematicity without mindfulness.

In this essay, we seek to focus scholarly discourse on the conceptual identity, boundaries, and precision of strategic entrepreneurship as an organizational construct. To give a "face" to a construct, lines must be drawn, marking off what it encompasses and what it does not. We, thus, first frame and assess prior conceptualizations from a construct clarity perspective. Our intent here is not to exhaustively catalogue all the varied conceptualizations available, but rather to map the content domain of strategic entrepreneurship as a theoretical construct, illuminate points of convergence and divergence, and reveal potential blind spots and ambiguities in extant definitions. Then, we advance a meta-framework for stimulating discourse around the key construct parameters. We say "meta-framework" because we do not seek to offer a "silver bullet" but rather advance a core set of questions to view strategic entrepreneurship with greater clarity and precision. We conclude with a set of suggestions for guiding and stimulating future research.