The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Balancing Exploration and Exploitation Through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning
Abstract
The classic trade-off between exploration and exploitation in organizational learning has attracted vigorous attention by researchers over the last two decades. Despite this attention, however, the question of how firms can better maintain the balance of exploration and exploitation remains unresolved. Drawing on a wide range of research on population and organization structure, we argue that an organization divided into semi-isolated subgroups may help strike this balance. We simulate such an organization, systematically varying the interaction pattern between individuals to explore how the degree of subgroup isolation and intergroup connectivity influences organizational learning. We also test this model with a range of contingency variables highlighted in the management research. We find that moderate levels of cross-group linking lead to the highest equilibrium performance by enabling superior ideas to diffuse across groups without reducing organizational diversity too quickly. This finding is remarkably resilient to a wide range of variance in factors such as problem complexity, environmental dynamism, and personnel turnover.
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 · cited 6×
“Furthermore, consistent with March (1991), we find that the average outcomes of learning decrease with these higher values of learning rates.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBurt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093
Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072
The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits
Hansen, M. T. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667032 · Cited by 5,809
Holland, J. H. (1992) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0792-66 · Cited by 5,764
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576 · Cited by 3,705
Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/432782 · Cited by 1,885
Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(00)00135-9 · Cited by 1,315
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24870 · Cited by 953
Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules
Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.3.413 · Cited by 804
Cited by
Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2011.590299 · Cited by 3,519
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
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001 · Cited by 1,863
Carnabuci, G., & Operti, E. (2013) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2084 · Cited by 596
Learning in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace
Noe, R. A., Clarke, A. D. M., & Klein, H. J. (2014) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091321 · Cited by 539
Collaborative learning in networks
Mason, W., & Watts, D. J. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1110069108 · Cited by 356
Partial connectivity increases cultural accumulation within groups
Derex, M., & Boyd, R. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1518798113 · Cited by 289
Know-how to lead digital transformation: The case of local governments
Pittaway, J. J., & Montazemi, A. R. (2020) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2020.101474 · Cited by 289
Social learning strategies modify the effect of network structure on group performance
Barkoczi, D., & Galesic, M. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms13109 · Cited by 131
Knowledge utilization, coordination, and team performance
Reagans, R., Miron-Spektor, E., & Argote, L. (2016) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2016.1078 · Cited by 119
Platform diffusion at temporary gatherings: Social coordination and ecosystem emergence
Fang, T. P., Wu, A., & Clough, D. R. (2021) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3230 · Cited by 85
Knowledge complexity and the performance of inter‐unit knowledge replication structures
Kim, S., & Anand, J. (. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2899 · Cited by 66
University of Dhaka, Khanom, K., Islam, M. T., Patuakhali Science and Technology University, Hasan, A. A.-T., Patuakhali Science and Technology University, Sumon, S. M., Patuakhali Science and Technology University, Bhuiyan, M. R. I., & Begum Rokeya University (2022) · Journal of Business Studies · doi:10.58753/jbspust.3.1.2022.6 · Cited by 17
Yan, J., Liu, R., & Zhang, G. (2018) · Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation · doi:10.18564/jasss.3854 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Fang, C., Lee, J., & Schilling, M. A.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2010-06
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 625-642
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2166401620
- Cited by
- 596
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 52.99
- 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
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.
