Research on exploration and exploitation is burgeoning, yet our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of both activities remains rather unclear. We advance the growing body of literature by focusing on the apparent differences of exploration and exploitation and examining implications for using formal (i.e., centralization and formalization) and informal (i.e., connectedness) coordination mechanisms. This study further examines how environmental aspects (i.e., dynamism and competitiveness) moderate the effectiveness of exploratory and exploitative innovation. Results indicate that centralization negatively affects exploratory innovation, whereas formalization positively influences exploitative innovation. Interestingly, connectedness within units appears to be an important antecedent of both exploratory and exploitative innovation. Furthermore, our findings reveal that pursuing exploratory innovation is more effective in dynamic environments, whereas pursuing exploitative innovation is more beneficial to a unit's financial performance in more competitive environments. Through this richer explanation and empirical assessment, we contribute to a greater clarity and better understanding of how ambidextrous organizations coordinate the development of exploratory and exploitative innovation in organizational units and successfully respond to multiple environmental conditions.organizational learning, performance, coordination mechanisms, exploration/exploitation

This study explores how organizational antecedents affect potential and realized absorptive capacity. Our study identifies differential effects for both components of absorptive capacity.Results indicate that organizational mechanisms associated with coordination capabilities (i.e. ABSTRACTThis study explores how organizational antecedents affect potential and realized absorptive capacity. Our study identifies differential effects for both components of absorptive capacity.Results indicate that organizational mechanisms associated with coordination capabilities (i.e. cross-functional interfaces, participation in decision-making, and job rotation) primarily enhance a unit's potential absorptive capacity. Organizational mechanisms associated with socialization capabilities (i.e. connectedness and socialization tactics) primarily increase a unit's realized absorptive capacity. Our findings reveal why units may have difficulties in managing levels of potential and realized absorptive capacity and vary in their ability to create value from their absorptive capacity.3

P rior studies have emphasized that structural attributes are crucial to simultaneously pursuing exploration and exploitation, yet our understanding of antecedents of ambidexterity is still limited. Structural differentiation can help ambidextrous organizations to maintain multiple inconsistent and conflicting demands; however, differentiated exploratory and exploitative activities need to be mobilized, coordinated, integrated, and applied. Based on this idea, we delineate formal and informal senior team integration mechanisms (e.g., contingency rewards and social integration) and formal and informal organizational integration mechanisms (e.g., cross-functional interfaces and connectedness) and examine how they mediate the relationship between structural differentiation and ambidexterity. Overall, our findings suggest that the previously asserted direct effect of structural differentiation on ambidexterity operates through informal senior team (i.e., senior team social integration) and formal organizational (i.e., cross-functional interfaces) integration mechanisms. Through this richer explanation and empirical assessment, we contribute to a greater clarity and better understanding of how organizations may effectively pursue exploration and exploitation simultaneously to achieve ambidexterity.

Research on organizational knowledge transfer is burgeoning, and yet our understanding of its antecedents and consequences remains rather unclear. Although conceptual and qualitative reviews of the organizational knowledge transfer literature have emerged, no study has attempted to summarize previous quantitative empirical findings. As a first step towards that goal, we use meta-analytic techniques to examine how knowledge, organization and network level antecedents differentially impact organizational knowledge transfer. Additionally, we consolidate research on the relationship between knowledge transfer and its consequences. We also demonstrate how the intra- and inter-organizational context, the directionality of knowledge transfers, and measurement characteristics moderate the relationships studied. By aggregating and consolidating existing research, our study not only reveals new insights into the levers and outcomes of organizational knowledge transfer, but also provides meaningful directions for future research. Copyright (c) Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2008.

No abstract