The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
A growing number of studies argue that organizational ambidexterity is increasingly important for the sustained competitive advantage of firms. However, organizational ambidexterity studies have been conducted in a wide variety of industries and methodological settings, and the empirical results have been mixed. The purpose of this article is to systematically examine the organizational ambidexterity–performance relationship to reconcile the mixed results of prior research. By conducting a meta-analysis of prior studies on organizational ambidexterity and performance, we find that positive and significant Organizational ambidexterity–performance relationships are to a large extent moderated by contextual factors and methodological choices: Organizational ambidexterity is particularly important for performance in nonmanufacturing industries and at higher levels of analysis. Also, the performance effects are stronger when “combined” measures of organizational ambidexterity and perceptual performance are used and when a cross-sectional or multimethod research design is applied. Our meta-analysis findings advance the field of organizational ambidexterity by revealing some of the moderators in the organizational ambidexterity–performance relationship, thereby providing a more fine-grained understanding of the effects of organizational ambidexterity on firm performance in prior studies. Our findings point to the gaps and methodological weaknesses in prior organizational ambidexterity research and propose avenues for future research.
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
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
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
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
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
Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach
Cooper, H. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071878644 · Cited by 1,716
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
How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 · Cited by 14,329
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
Effective sense-and-respond strategies: Mediating roles of exploratory and exploitative innovation
Ngo, L. V., Bucic, T., Sinha, A., & Lu, V. N. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.050 · Cited by 111
Push and pull factors in international franchising
Madanoglu, M., Alon, I., & Shoham, A. (2017) · International Marketing Review · doi:10.1108/imr-03-2015-0037 · Cited by 59
AMO model for neuro-inclusive remote workplace
Szulc, J. M. (2022) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-02-2022-0085 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Perspectives
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 299-312
- ISSN
- 1558-9080 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-4529
- OpenAlex
- W2164607255
- Cited by
- 888
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 36.35
- 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.