The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Organizational Ambidexterity Through the Lens of Paradox Theory: Building a Novel Research Agenda
Abstract
The organizational ambidexterity literature conceptualizes exploration and exploitation as conflicting activities, and proposes separation-oriented approaches to accomplish ambidexterity; namely, structural and temporal separation. We argue that viewing ambidexterity from the lens of paradox theory enables us to move beyond separation-oriented prescriptions toward synthesis or transcendence of paradoxical poles; as well as toward longitudinal explorations of how paradoxical poles dynamically interrelate over time. In this way, the conceptual repertoire of ambidexterity theory is enriched and empirical research can more closely and pragmatically track 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.
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
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113 · cited 2×
“Organizational learning Single-loop learning Double-loop learning Knowledge through experimentation Search Variation Old/new Argyris and Schön (1978); March (1991); Gupta et al.”
BackgroundExploration 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
Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories
Poole, M. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308389 · Cited by 1,905
Toward 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
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24870 · Cited by 953
Management paradoxes: A relational view
Clegg, S. R., da Cunha, J. V., & e Cunha, M. P. (2002) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726702555001 · Cited by 498
Paradoxical Thinking and Change in the Frames of Reference
Westenholz, A. (1993) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069301400104 · Cited by 175
Cited by
Perifanis, N.-A., & Kitsios, F. (2023) · Information · doi:10.3390/info14020085 · Cited by 407
Paradoxes and Dual Processes: A Review and Synthesis
Keller, J., & Sadler‐Smith, E. (2019) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12200 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S.
- Venue
- The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-10-10
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 71-93
- ISSN
- 0021-8863 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6879
- OpenAlex
- W2135468842
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 26.80
- 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 Ambidexterity Through the Lens of Paradox Theory: Building a Novel Research Agenda. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0021886314553101
- The paper
- Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2015). Organizational Ambidexterity Through the Lens of Paradox Theory: Building a Novel Research Agenda. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314553101
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.
