The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Organizational designs and innovation streams
Abstract
This article empirically explores the relations between alternative organizational designs and a firm's ability to explore as well as exploit. We operationalize exploitation and exploration in terms of innovation streams; incremental innovation in existing products as well as architectural and/or discontinuous innovation. Based on in-depth, longitudinal data on 13 business units and 22 innovations, we describe the consequences of organization design choices on innovation outcomes as well as the ongoing performance of existing products. We find that ambidextrous organization designs are relatively more effective in executing innovation streams than functional, cross-functional, and spinout designs. Further, transitions to ambidextrous designs are associated with increased innovation outcomes, while shifts away from ambidextrous designs are associated with decreased innovation outcomes. We describe the nature of ambidextrous organizational designs--their characteristics, underlying processes, and boundary conditions. More broadly, we suggest that the locus of integration and degree of structural differentiation together affect a firm's ability to explore and exploit. We suggest that the senior team's ability to attend to and deal with contradictory internal architectures is a crucial determinant of a firm's ability to exploit in the short term and explore over time. Copyright 2010 The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1978.4305755 · Cited by 4,527
Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0078 · Cited by 3,737 · cited 2×
“…there is substantial literature on the benefits of balancing exploration with exploitation (eg Siggelkow and Levinthal, 2003; Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, and Veiga, in press; He and Wong, 2004), there are contrasting and inconsistent results on those organization designs that facilitate this balance.”
Design Rules: The Power of Modularity
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2366.001.0001 · Cited by 3,504
Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393701 · Cited by 2,426
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24870 · Cited by 953
Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design
Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2003) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.3.290.12740 · Cited by 900
Cited by
Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0025 · Cited by 2,580
Self-citationAmbidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002 · Cited by 2,431
Self-citationToward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0223 · Cited by 1,631
Self-citationParadox research in management science: Looking back to move forward
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422 · Cited by 1,385
Self-citationDynamic Managerial Capabilities: Review and Assessment of Managerial Impact on Strategic Change
Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314561301 · Cited by 1,045
Metadata
- Authors
- Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O'Reilly, C.
- Venue
- Industrial and Corporate Change
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-06-08
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1331-1366
- ISSN
- 0960-6491 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3650
- OpenAlex
- W1967290073
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 44.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Organizational designs and innovation streams. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/icc/dtq040
- The paper
- Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O'Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq040
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.