The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art
Abstract
Organizational ambidexterity, defined as the ability of a complex and adaptive system to attain and manage conflicting activities by achieving high levels of both in a simultaneous way, has gained increasing interest in recent years. The recent frenetic development of ambidexterity as well as the complexity of the questions posed, call for an analysis of the intellectual evolution of the construct. This article, after analysing the evolution of the conceptualization of organizational ambidexterity, uses bibliometric techniques to explore the structure of the field. The analysis provides a detailed overview on the current literature concerning the issue of ambidexterity, highlighting in particular the areas where research efforts have been more focused and those areas that require further study. Important issues for further research are therefore suggested.
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
The application of electronic computers to factor analysis
Kaiser, H. F. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000116 · Cited by 12,459
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
Ramos‐Rodríguez, A., & Ruíz‐Navarro, J. (2004) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.397 · Cited by 1,626
The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.454 · Cited by 912 · cited 2×
“We then decided to limit our articles only to works published in journals covered in the ISI Journal Citation Reports, as these are likely to have the highest impact in the field (Podsakoff et al., 2005) and to consider only papers published after Tushman and O’Reilly published their seminal paper in 1996.”
BackgroundMethod
Cited by
Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114562629 · Cited by 7,495
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
Clarifying the Distinctive Contribution of Ambidexterity to the Field of Organization Studies
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0167 · Cited by 734
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2015.0042 · Cited by 343
Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2285704 · Cited by 282
Metadata
- Authors
- Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., & Filippini, R.
- Venue
- Strategic Organization
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-11
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 450-465
- ISSN
- 1476-1270 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-315X
- OpenAlex
- W2332928533
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 27.74
- 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: The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1476127012457979
- The paper
- Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., & Filippini, R. (2012). The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127012457979
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.
