Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 163

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Micro-foundational ambidexterity and multinational enterprises: A systematic review and a conceptual framework

Open access
Christofi, Michael, Vrontis, Demetris, Cadogan, John W.·2021·International Business Review
DOI 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101625
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract During the past decade, ambidexterity research has broadened from its traditional macro-level focus to examine the micro-level perspectives of ambidexterity on various settings. The authors systematically review and critically appraise the literature of ambidexterity from a micro-foundational perspective, within the context of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs). By synthesizing the review findings, the authors develop a comprehensive framework that maps extant literature within and across various disciplines and multiple levels of analysis. As part of their review, the authors also identify and discuss important emerging themes and fruitful areas for future research and present the implications to both research and management practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101625

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 92

  1. Abell, 2008, Building microfoundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links, Managerial and Decision Economics, 29, 489, 10.1002/mde.1413 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Aguinis, 2012, What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda, Journal of Management, 38, 932, 10.1177/0149206311436079 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Ahuja, 2012, The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks, Organization Science, 23, 434, 10.1287/orsc.1110.0695 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Alzahrani, 2017, Analysing the critical factors influencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens’ perspective: A systematic review and a conceptual framework, International Business Review, 26, 164, 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.06.004 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Atuahene-Gima, 2007, Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: A social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China, Journal of International Marketing, 15, 1, 10.1509/jimk.15.2.1 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bapuji, 2012, Intentions, intermediaries, and interaction: Examining the emergence of routines, Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1586, 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01063.x · DOI
  7. Baron, 2014, Service (s) marketing research: Developments and directions, International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 150, 10.1111/ijmr.12014 · DOI
  8. Birkinshaw, 2016, How do firms manage strategic dualities? A process perspective, Academy of Management Discoveries, 2, 51, 10.5465/amd.2014.0123 · DOI
  9. Boiral, 2018, Adoption and outcomes of ISO 14001: A systematic review, International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, 411, 10.1111/ijmr.12139 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Bresciani, 2018, The management of organizational ambidexterity through alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) smart city projects, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 331, 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Bridoux, 2014, Microfoundationsfor stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives, Strategic Management Journal, 35, 107, 10.1002/smj.2089 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Bröring, 2008, Organising new business development: Open innovation at Degussa, European Journal of Innovation Management, 11, 330, 10.1108/14601060810888991 · DOI
  13. Chebbi, 2015, Building multiunit ambidextrous organizations–A transformative framework, Human Resource Management, 54, s155, 10.1002/hrm.21662 · DOI
  14. Child, 2017, SME international business models: The role of context and experience, Journal of World Business, 52, 664, 10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.004 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Christoffersen, 2013, A review of antecedents of international strategic alliance performance: Synthesized evidence and new directions for core constructs, International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 66, 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00335.x · DOI · Paper page
  16. Christofi, 2017, Marketing research on mergers and acquisitions: A systematic review and future directions, International Marketing Review, 34, 629, 10.1108/IMR-03-2015-0100 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Crossan, 2010, A multi‐dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature, Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1154, 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x · DOI · Paper page
  18. De Menezes, 2011, Flexible working and performance: A systematic review of the evidence for a business case, International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 452, 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00301.x · DOI · Paper page
  19. Dezi, 2019, The role of external embeddedness and knowledge management as antecedents of ambidexterity and performances in Italian SMEs, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
  20. Devinney, 2013, Is microfoundational thinking critical to management thought and practice?, The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 81, 10.5465/amp.2013.0053 · DOI
  21. Eisenhardt, 2010, Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments, Organization Science, 21, 1263, 10.1287/orsc.1100.0564 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Felin, 2005, Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations, Strategic Organization, 3, 441, 10.1177/1476127005055796 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Felin, 2015, The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory, The Academy of Management Annals, 9, 575, 10.5465/19416520.2015.1007651 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Felin, 2012, Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure, Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1351, 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01052.x · DOI · Paper page
  25. Ferraris, 2019, Ambidextrous work in smart city project alliances: Unpacking the role of human resource management systems, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30, 680, 10.1080/09585192.2017.1291530 · DOI
  26. Ferraris, 2018, Ambidextrous IT capabilities and business process performance: An empirical analysis, Business Process Management Journal, 24, 1077, 10.1108/BPMJ-07-2017-0201 · DOI
  27. Fiset, 2013, Combining old and new tricks: Ambidexterity in aerospace design and integration teams, Team Performance Management, 19, 314, 10.1108/TPM-10-2012-0031 · DOI
  28. Foss, 2011, Why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and what they may look like, Journal of Management, 37, 1413, 10.1177/0149206310390218 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Foss, 2013, Micro-foundations for strategy: A goal-framing perspective on the drivers of value creation, The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 85, 10.5465/amp.2012.0103 · DOI
  30. Fu, 2016, Intellectual capital and organizational ambidexterity in Chinese and Irish professional service firms, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness People and Performance, 3, 94, 10.1108/JOEPP-03-2016-0021 · DOI
  31. Gavetti, 2005, Cognition and hierarchy: Rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities’ development, Organization Science, 16, 599, 10.1287/orsc.1050.0140 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Gebauer, 2017, Business model innovation in base of the pyramid markets, The Journal of Business Strategy, 38, 38, 10.1108/JBS-05-2016-0051 · DOI
  33. George, 2016, Bringing Africa in: Promising directions for management research, The Academy of Management Journal, 59, 377
  34. Geppert, 2014, Politics and power within multinational corporations: Mainstream studies, emerging critical approaches and suggestions for future research, International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 226, 10.1111/ijmr.12018 · DOI
  35. Grigoriou, 2014, Structural microfoundations of innovation: The role of relational stars, Journal of Management, 40, 586, 10.1177/0149206313513612 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Haas, 2010, The double-edged swords of autonomy and external knowledge: Analyzing team effectiveness in a multinational organization, The Academy of Management Journal, 53, 989
  37. Han, 2007, Achieving superior internationalization through strategic ambidexterity, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 15, 43, 10.1142/S0218495807000046 · DOI
  38. Horwitz, 2015, Human resources management in multinational companies in Africa: A systematic literature review, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 2786, 10.1080/09585192.2014.934899 · DOI
  39. Hughes, 2010, Realizing product-market advantage in high-technology international new ventures: The mediating role of ambidextrous innovation, Journal of International Marketing, 18, 1, 10.1509/jimk.18.4.1 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Jones, 2014, Editorial: The future of writing and reviewing for IJMR, International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 249, 10.1111/ijmr.12038 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Josserand, 2017, Balancing present needs and future options: How employees leverage social networks with clients, The Journal of Business Strategy, 38, 14, 10.1108/JBS-01-2016-0003 · doi:10.1108/jbs-01-2016-0003
  42. Junni, 2015, Guest editors’ introduction: The role of human resources and organizational factors in ambidexterity, Human Resource Management, 54, s1, 10.1002/hrm.21772 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Junni, 2013, Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis, The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299, 10.5465/amp.2012.0015 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Kao, 2016, Antecedents, consequences and moderators of ambidextrous behaviours among frontline employees, Management Decision, 54, 1846, 10.1108/MD-05-2015-0187 · DOI
  45. Kemper, 2013, Social capital as a microlevel origin of organizational capabilities, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 589, 10.1111/jpim.12004 · DOI
  46. Kostopoulos, 2015, Ambidexterity and unit performance: Intellectual capital antecedents and cross‐level moderating effects of human resource practices, Human Resource Management, 54, s111, 10.1002/hrm.21705 · DOI
  47. Leonidou, 2018, An integrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innovation management and entrepreneurship development, Journal of Business Research
  48. Li, 2018, Do MNEs from developed and emerging economies differ in their location choice of FDI? A 36-year review, International Business Review, 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.03.012 · DOI
  49. Lindenberg, 2011, Managing joint production motivation: The role of goal framing and governance mechanisms, The Academy of Management Review, 36, 500
  50. Lippman, 2003, The payments perspective: Micro-foundations of resource analysis, Strategic Management Journal, 24, 903, 10.1002/smj.346 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Loch, 2013, The microevolution of routines: How problem solving and social preferences interact, Organizational Science, 24, 99, 10.1287/orsc.1110.0719 · DOI
  52. López‐Duarte, 2016, International business and national culture: A literature review and research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, 18, 397, 10.1111/ijmr.12070 · DOI
  53. Luger, 2018, Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity, Organization Science, 29, 449, 10.1287/orsc.2017.1189 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Mallett, 2012, The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research, Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4, 445, 10.1080/19439342.2012.711342 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Miller, 2014, The role of transactive memory in the formation of organizational routines, Strategic Organization, 12, 109, 10.1177/1476127014521609 · DOI
  56. Mom, 2007, Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top‐down, bottom‐up, and horizontal knowledge inflows, Journal of Management Studies, 44, 910, 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00697.x · DOI · Paper page
  57. Mom, 2009, Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms, Organization Science, 20, 812, 10.1287/orsc.1090.0427 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Nadeem, 2018, Examining cross-cultural compatibility of high performance work practices, International Business Review, 27, 563, 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.10.006 · DOI
  59. Nemanich, 2009, Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition, The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 19, 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.002 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Nofal, 2018, Biology and management: A review, critique, and research agenda, Journal of Management, 44, 7, 10.1177/0149206317720723 · DOI
  61. Paruchuri, 2012, Microfoundations of firm R&D capabilities: A study of inventor networks in a merger, Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1509, 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01066.x · DOI
  62. Patriotta, 2013, Coordinating knowledge transfer: Global managers as higher-level intermediaries, Journal of World Business, 48, 515, 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.09.007 · DOI
  63. Pisani, 2017, How global is international CSR research? Insights and recommendations from a systematic review, Journal of World Business, 52, 591, 10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.003 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Raisch, 2008, Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators, J. Management, 34, 375
  65. Rajwani, 2015, Political activity and firm performance within nonmarket research: A review and international comparative assessment, Journal of World Business, 50, 273, 10.1016/j.jwb.2014.10.004 · DOI
  66. Rao-Nicholson, 2016, The impact of leadership on organizational ambidexterity and employee psychological safety in the global acquisitions of emerging market multinationals, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, 2461, 10.1080/09585192.2016.1204557 · DOI
  67. Rashman, 2009, Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of the literature, International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 463, 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00257.x · DOI · Paper page
  68. Revilla, 2011, Team vision in product development: How knowledge strategy matters, Technovation, 31, 118, 10.1016/j.technovation.2010.10.007 · DOI
  69. Rogan, 2014, A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations, Organization Science, 25, 1860, 10.1287/orsc.2014.0901 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Rozen-Bakher, 2018, The trade-off between synergy success and efficiency gains in M&A strategy, EuroMed Journal of Business, 10.1108/EMJB-07-2017-0026 · doi:10.1108/emjb-07-2017-0026
  71. Schuler, 1993, An integrative framework of strategic international human resource management, Journal of Management, 19, 419, 10.1177/014920639301900209 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Sefiani, 2018, Performance of SMEs in Tangier: The interface of networking and wasta, EuroMed Journal of Business, 13, 20, 10.1108/EMJB-06-2016-0016 · DOI
  73. Snehvrat, 2018, Multi-level ambidexterity in new product introduction at Tata Motors, India: The role of metaroutines, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness People and Performance, 10.1108/JOEPP-07-2017-0062 · DOI
  74. Sousa, 2008, The determinants of export performance: A review of the research in the literature between 1998 and 2005, International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 343, 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00232.x · DOI · Paper page
  75. Stumbitz, 2018, Maternity management in SMEs: A transdisciplinary review and research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, 500, 10.1111/ijmr.12143 · DOI
  76. Teece, 2007, Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance, Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319, 10.1002/smj.640 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Terjesen, 2016, Comparative international entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda, Journal of Management, 42, 299, 10.1177/0149206313486259 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Tranfield, 2003, Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review, British Journal of Management, 14, 207, 10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · DOI · Paper page
  79. Turner, 2013, Unpacking the theory on ambidexterity: An illustrative case on the managerial architectures, mechanisms and dynamics, Management Learning, 44, 179, 10.1177/1350507612444074 · DOI
  80. Turner, 2013, Ambidexterity in managing business projects–an intellectual capital perspective, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6, 379, 10.1108/17538371311319089 · DOI
  81. Turner, 2013, Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 317, 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.x · DOI · Paper page
  82. Vahlne, 2017, Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA, International Business Review, 26, 57, 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.05.006 · DOI
  83. Van der Borgh, 2014, Do retailers really profit from ambidextrous managers? The impact of frontline mechanisms on new and existing product selling performance, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 710, 10.1111/jpim.12158 · DOI
  84. Volberda, 2010, Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field, Organization Science, 21, 931, 10.1287/orsc.1090.0503 · DOI · Paper page
  85. Vrontis, 2019, R&D internationalization and innovation: A systematic review, integrative framework and future research directions, Journal of Business Research
  86. Vrontis, 2017, Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 374, 10.1007/s10961-016-9502-7 · DOI · Paper page
  87. Wang, 2014, Entrepreneurial learning: Past research and future challenges, International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 24, 10.1111/ijmr.12007 · DOI · Paper page
  88. Winter, 2011, Problems at the foundation? Comments on Felin and foss, Journal of Institutional Economics, 7, 257, 10.1017/S1744137410000470 · DOI
  89. Xiao, 2013, A multidisciplinary cognitive behavioural framework of impulse buying: A systematic review of the literature, International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 333, 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00345.x · DOI
  90. Yan, 2016, Contributive roles of multilevel organizational learning for the evolution of organizational ambidexterity, Information Technology and People, 29, 647, 10.1108/ITP-04-2015-0079 · DOI
  91. Yang, 2017, Entrepreneurial marketing of international high-tech business-to-business new ventures: A decision-making process perspective, Industrial Marketing Management, 64, 147, 10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.01.007 · DOI
  92. Zhou, 2016, Averting risk or embracing opportunity? Exploring the impact of ambidextrous capabilities on innovation of Chinese firms in internationalization, Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23, 569, 10.1108/CCSM-07-2014-0085 · DOI

Cited by

See all 163

Metadata

Authors
Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., & Cadogan, J. W.
Venue
International Business Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
101625
ISSN
0969-5931 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101625
OpenAlex
W2975198653
Cited by
163
References
2
FWCI
3.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Micro-foundational ambidexterity and multinational enterprises: A systematic review and a conceptual framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101625
The paper
Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., & Cadogan, J. W. (2021). Micro-foundational ambidexterity and multinational enterprises: A systematic review and a conceptual framework. International Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101625

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.