basic assumption of theories on ambidextrous organizations is the importance of
balancing and harmonising exploratory and exploitative innovations. Burns and
Stalker (1961), have claimed that two abruptly different organisational
designs, a mechanistic and organic structure, are appropriate for either
exploitative innovations or exploratory innovations. While there is little
empirical evidence how ambidextrous organizations are able to simultaneously
carry out exploratory and exploitative innovations, this is indeed the challenge
facing many organisations (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Bradarch, 1997).
Researchers have yet to realise how ambidextrous organizations can be organic as
well as mechanistic and pursue both types of innovations simultaneously.
customers (Benner & Tushman, 2003: 243).
Exploratory innovations require
new knowledge or departure from existing knowledge and are designed for
emerging customers or markets while Exploitative
innovations build upon existing knowledge and meet the needs of
between exploration and exploitation activities. In this paper, ‘ambidextrous
organization’ is used to refer to the ability of firms to perform exploratory and
exploitative innovations simultaneously. Some other literatures have stated the
fundamental assumption that firms need to enable both opposing elements simultaneously.
literatures have increasingly discussed the need for firms to achieve a
paper identifies, reviews and assesses the structural dilemma in business
management, how they affect business operations in an ambidextrous structure. Structural
dilemma in business management could be seen as a situation where an
organisation is faced with the challenges of having to choose between the
various structures available to be able to practice as an ambidextrous
organisation. This paper seeks to find the implications of an ambidextrous structure
in business management.