The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clarifying the Distinctive Contribution of Ambidexterity to the Field of Organization Studies
Abstract
The concept of organizational ambidexterity has been applied to a wide variety of phenomena in recent years. Its growing appeal is a reflection of its versatility, but this versatility carries the risk of a lack of clarity in meaning and measurement. In this paper, we attempt to bring a sense of perspective to the field of ambidexterity by documenting its growth and usage in scholarly work. We chart the evolution of ambidexterity since its inception, analyzing the diversity in the views held on the topic. We conclude by discussing how ambidexterity research can benefit from greater focus, and we suggest some key areas where it can make a unique contribution.
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
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
Barney, J. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700108 · Cited by 48,334
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 45,910
A resource‐based view of the firm
Wernerfelt, B. (1984) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250050207 · Cited by 25,635
Coase, R. H. (1937) · Economica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x · Cited by 23,972
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250141009 · Cited by 7,283
Williamson, O. E. (1975) · Cited by 6,810
Carpenter, M. A., Cardon, M. S., McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011) · In Search of Research Excellence · doi:10.4337/9781849807630.00018 · Cited by 5,213
Cited by
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
Managerial challenges of Industry 4.0: an empirically backed research agenda for a nascent field
Schneider, P. (2018) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-018-0283-2 · Cited by 345
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2015.0042 · Cited by 343
The Role of Ambidexterity in Managing Buyer–Supplier Relationships: The Toyota Case
Aoki, K., & Wilhelm, M. (2017) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1156 · Cited by 130
Jing, H., Zhang, Y., & Ma, J. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21020 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Perspectives
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 287-298
- ISSN
- 1558-9080 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-4529
- OpenAlex
- W2117329012
- Cited by
- 734
- References
- 57
- FWCI
- 108.44
- 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: Clarifying the Distinctive Contribution of Ambidexterity to the Field of Organization Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/amp.2012.0167
- The paper
- Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the Distinctive Contribution of Ambidexterity to the Field of Organization Studies. Academy of Management Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0167
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.
