The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Typology for Aligning Organizational Ambidexterity's Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes
Abstract
We take stock of the current body of knowledge and understanding on organizational ambidexterity to further specify the construct and develop a typology to focus this line of research. To that end, we first synthesize the various insights on ambidexterity's conceptualization in extant research. We then develop a parsimonious, yet coherent typology that delineates four archetypes of ambidexterity using two primary dimensions underlying previous conceptualizations of this construct. To help focus and align extant research, we next map these types onto the most salient theories, antecedents, and outcomes that are uniquely germane to each. Finally, we offer several recommendations and promising avenues for future inquiries that follow from our typology and associated discussion.
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
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
Barney, J. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700108 · Cited by 48,334
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
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
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
Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Organizations
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.1080/19416521003691287 · Cited by 1,650
Clauss, T., Kraus, S., Kallinger, F. L., Bican, P. M., Brem, A., & Kailer, N. (2021) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2020.07.003 · Cited by 363
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2015.0042 · Cited by 343
Modelling the Joint Impact of the CEO and the TMT on Organizational Ambidexterity
Cao, Q., Simsek, Z., & Zhang, H. (2010) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00877.x · Cited by 314
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-05-26
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 864-894
- ISSN
- 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6486
- OpenAlex
- W2145128393
- Cited by
- 660
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 55.88
- 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: A Typology for Aligning Organizational Ambidexterity's Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.x
- The paper
- Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A Typology for Aligning Organizational Ambidexterity's Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.x
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.
