The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited
Abstract
Organization and strategy research has stressed the need for organizations to simultaneously exploit existing capabilities while developing new ones. Yet this increasingly crucial challenge has been accompanied by an ongoing wave of managerial activity and institutional pressures for process management and control. We argue that these pressures stunt a firm’s dynamic capabilities. We develop a contingency view of process management’s influence on both technological innovation as well as organizational adaptation. We argue that while process management activities are beneficial for organizations in stable contexts, they are fundamentally inconsistent with all but incremental innovation and change. We argue that process management activities must be buffered from exploratory activities. As dynamic capabilities are rooted in both exploitative and exploratory activities, ambidextrous organizational forms provide the complex contexts for these inconsistent processes to co-exist. 3 More than twenty years ago, Abernathy (1978) suggested that a firm’s focus on productivity gains inhibited its flexibility and ability to innovate. Abernathy observed that in the automobile
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
Technological paradigms and technological trajectories
Dosi, G. (1982) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6 · Cited by 6,685
Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250131009 · Cited by 6,477
Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments
Burgelman, R. A. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393493 · Cited by 1,018
Assessing a Multidimensional Measure of Radical Technological Innovation
Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1995) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/17.403738 · Cited by 457
Organizational Adaptation and Environmental Selection-Interrelated Processes of Change
Levinthal, D. A. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.140 · Cited by 401
Cited by
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
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
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-citationOrganizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0428 · Cited by 2,224
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2003-04-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 238
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128500420
- Cited by
- 4,371
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 155.33
- 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: Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/30040711
- The paper
- Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited. The Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040711
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.