Factors affecting the effect of exploitation and exploration on performanceA meta-analysis

Bibliographic References

• Abebe M. A., Angriawan A. (2014). Organizational and competitive influences of exploration and exploitation activities in small firms. Journal of Business Research, 67, 339–345. Crossref
• Adler P., Benner M. J., Brunner D. J., MacDuffie J. P., Osono E., Staats B. R., Takeuchi H., Tushman M., Winter S. G. (2009). Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. Journal of Operations Management, 27, 99–113. Crossref
• Anand J., Mesquita L., Vassolo R. (2009). The dynamics of multimarket competition in exploration and exploitation activities. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 802–821. Crossref
• Andriopoulos C., Lewis M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696–717. Crossref
• Atuahene-Gima K. (2005). Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69, 61–63. Crossref
• Atuahene-Gima K., Murray J. Y. (2007). Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: A social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing, 15, 1–29. Crossref
• Auh S., Menguc B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1652–1661. Crossref
• Bauer F., Strobl A., Dao M. A., Matzler K., Rudolf N. (2018). Examining links between pre and post M&A value creation mechanisms — exploitation, exploration and ambidexterity in central European SMEs. Long Range Planning, 51, 185–203. Crossref
• Beckman C. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 741–758. Crossref
• Belderbos R., Faems D., Leten B., Van Looy B. (2010). Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: Exploitation and exploration within and between firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 869–882. Crossref
• Benner M. J., Tushman M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238–256. Crossref
• Bernal P., Maicas J. P., Vargas P. (2019). Exploration, exploitation and innovation performance: Disentangling the evolution of industry. Industry and Innovation, 26, 295–320. Crossref
• Bierly P. E., Daly P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 493–516. Crossref
• Bierly P. E., Damanpour F., Santoro M. D. (2009). The application of external knowledge: Organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 481–509. Crossref
• Birkinshaw J., Gupta K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 287–298. Crossref
• Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley.
• Bourgeois L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6, 29–39. Crossref
• Bowen F. E., Rostami M., Steel P. (2010). Timing is everything: A meta-analysis of the relationships between organizational performance and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1179–1185. Crossref
• Burns T., Stalker G. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock.
• Burton R. M., Obel B. (2004). Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: The dynamics of fit. Kluwer Academic.
• Cabello-Medina C., Carmona-Lavado A., Cuevas-Rodríguez G. (2011). Organisation of R&D departments as determinant of innovation: Testing alternative explanations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23, 383–400. Crossref
• Calantone R., Rubera G. (2012). When should RD&E and marketing collaborate? The moderating role of exploration-exploitation and environmental uncertainty. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 144–157. Crossref
• Camisón-Zornoza C., Lapiedra-Alcamí R., Segarra-Ciprés M., Boronat-Navarro M. (2004). A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size. Organization Studies, 25, 331–361. Crossref
• Cao Q., Gedajlovic E., Zhang H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20, 781–796. Crossref
• Card N. A. (2011). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. The Guilford Press.
• Carney M., Gedajlovic E., Heugens P., Van Essen M., Van Oosterhout J. (2011). Business group affiliation, performance, context, and strategy: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 437–460. Crossref
• Cegarra-Navarro J. G., Sánchez-Vidal M. E., Cegarra-Leiva D. (2011). Balancing exploration and exploitation of knowledge through an unlearning context: An empirical investigation in SMEs. Management Decision, 49, 1099–1119. Crossref
• Centobelli P., Cerchione R., Esposito E., & Shashi. (2019). Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: A twisting learning path model of ambidexterity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 172–194. Crossref
• Chandrasekaran A., Linderman K., Schroeder R. (2012). Antecedents to ambidexterity competency in high technology organizations. Journal of Operations Management, 30, 134–151. Crossref
• Chandrasekaran A., Mishra A. (2012). Task design, team context, and psychological safety: An empirical analysis of R&D projects in high technology organizations. Production and Operations Management, 21, 977–996. Crossref
• Chang Y. Y., Hughes M., Hotho S. (2011). Internal and external antecedents of SMEs’ innovation ambidexterity outcomes. Management Decision, 49, 1658–1676. Crossref
• Chen Y. C., Li P. C., Evans K. R. (2012). Effects of interaction and entrepreneurial orientation on organizational performance: Insights into market driven and market driving. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 1019–1034. Crossref
• Chu C. P., Li C. R., Lin C. J. (2011). The joint effect of project-level exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development. European Journal of Marketing, 45, 531–550. Crossref
• Clausen T. H., Korneliussen T., Madsen E. L. (2013). Modes of innovation, resources and their influence on product innovation: Empirical evidence from R&D active firms in Norway. Technovation, 33, 225–233. Crossref
• Cui A. P., Walsh M. F., Zou S. (2014). The importance of strategic fit between host-home country similarity and exploration exploitation strategies on small and medium-sized enterprises’ performance: A contingency perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 22, 67–85. Crossref
• De Clercq D., Thongpapanl N., Dimov D. (2014). Contextual ambidexterity in SMEs: The roles of internal and external rivalry. Small Business Economics, 42, 191–205. Crossref
• Dess G. G., Beard D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 52–73. Crossref
• Dewar R. D., Dutton J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32, 1422–1433. Crossref
• Dutta S. K. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Fostering ambidexterity. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 9, 81–92.
• Ettlie J. E., Rubenstein A. H. (1987). Firm size and product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4, 89–108. Crossref
• Fang S. R., Chou C. H., Yang S. M., Ou C. C. (2012). Enhancing innovation through learning: The roles of market orientation and interorganisational knowledge stores. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24, 285–298. Crossref
• Farjoun M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35, 202–225. Crossref
• Fernhaber S. A., Patel P. C. (2012). How do young firms manage product portfolio complexity? The role of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1516–1539. Crossref
• Field A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6, 161–180. Crossref
• Fleming L., Sorenson O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 909–928. Crossref
• Fourné S., Rosenbusch N., Heyden M., Jansen J. J. (2019). Structural and contextual approaches to ambidexterity: A meta-analysis of organizational and environmental contingencies. European Management Journal, 37, 564–576. Crossref
• Gedajlovic E., Cao Q., Zhang H. (2012). Corporate shareholdings and organizational ambidexterity in high-tech SMEs: Evidence from a transitional economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 652–665. Crossref
• Geiger S. W., Makri M. (2006). Exploration and exploitation innovation processes: The role of organizational slack in R & D intensive firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 17, 97–108. Crossref
• Gibson C. B., Birkinshaw J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226. Crossref
• Gilsing V., Nooteboom B. (2006). Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy, 35, 1–23. Crossref
• Greco L. M., Charlier S. D., Brown K. G. (2019). Trading off learning and performance: Exploration and exploitation at work. Human Resource Management Review, 29, 179–195. Crossref
• Green B. (1984). Quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 37–53. Crossref
• Greve H. R. (2007). Exploration and exploitation in product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 945–975. Crossref
• Guerrero-Villegas J., Pérez-Calero L., Hurtado-González J. M., Giráldez-Puig P. (2018). Board attributes and corporate social responsibility disclosure: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 10, 4808. Crossref
• Guisado-González M., González-Blanco J., Coca-Pérez J. L. (2017). Analyzing the relationship between exploration, exploitation and organizational innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21, 1142–1162. Crossref
• Guisado-González M., González-Blanco J., Coca-Pérez J. L. (2019). Exploration, exploitation, and firm age in alliance portfolios. Eurasian Business Review, 9, 387–406. Crossref
• Günsel A., Altındağ E., Kılıç Keçeli S., Kitapçı H., Hızıroğlu M. (2018). Antecedents and consequences of organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of networking. Kybernetes, 47, 186–207. Crossref
• Gupta A. K., Smith K. G., Shalley C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706. Crossref
• Han M., Celly N. (2008). Strategic ambidexterity and performance in international new ventures. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 25, 335–349. Crossref
• Hancock J. I., Allen D. G., Bosco F. A., McDaniel K. R., Pierce C. A. (2013). Meta-analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance. Journal of Management, 39, 573–603. Crossref
• He Z. L., Wong P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–495. Crossref
• Hedges L., Olkin I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.
• Heirati N., O’Cass A., Sok P. (2017). Identifying the resource conditions that maximize the relationship between ambidexterity and new product performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32, 1038–1050. Crossref
• Hernández-Espallardo M., Sánchez-Pérez M., Segovia-López C. (2011). Exploitation- and exploration-based innovations: The role of knowledge in inter-firm relationships with distributors. Technovation, 31, 203–215. Crossref
• Higgins J., Thompson S., Deeks J., Altman D. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560. Crossref
• Ho H. (Dixon), & Lu R. (2015). Performance implications of marketing exploitation and exploration: Moderating role of supplier collaboration. Journal of Business Research, 68, 1026–1034. Crossref
• Hoang H., Rothaermel F. T. (2010). Leveraging internal and external experience: Exploration, exploitation, and R&D Project performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 734–758. Crossref
• Holmqvist M. (2003). A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning. Organization Studies, 24, 95–123. Crossref
• Holmqvist M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15, 70–81. Crossref
• Hsiao Y. C., Wu M. H. (2020). How organizational structure and strategic alignment influence new product success. Management Decision, 58, 182–200. Crossref
• Hsu C. W., Lien Y. C., Chen H. (2013). International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 48, 58–67. Crossref
• Huang J. W., Li Y. H. (2012). Slack resources in team learning and project performance. Journal of Business Research, 65, 381–388. Crossref
• Huang Y. F. (2009). Strategic renewal within an information technology firm: Exploration, exploitation and corporate venturing. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 15, 436–452. Crossref
• Huedo-Medina T. B., Sánchez-Meca J., Marín-Martínez F., Botella J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 Index? Psychological Methods, 11, 193–206. Crossref
• Hunter J. E., Schmidt F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). SAGE.
• Hwang G. H., Lee K. C., Seo Y. W. (2018). How does Six Sigma influence creativity and corporate performance through exploration and exploitation? Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 29, 1668–1684. Crossref
• Im G., Rai A. (2008). Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Science, 54, 1281–1296. Crossref
• Jansen J. J., Simsek Z., Cao Q. (2012). Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1286–1303. Crossref
• Jansen J. J., Van Den Bosch F. A., Volberda H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661–1674. Crossref
• Jansen J. J., Vera D., Crossan M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 5–18. Crossref
• Jaworski B. J., Kohli A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.
• Jin J. L., Zhou K. Z., Wang Y. (2016). Exploitation and exploration in international joint ventures: Moderating effects of partner control imbalance and product similarity. Journal of International Marketing, 24, 20–38. Crossref
• Junni P., Sarala R. M., Taras V., Tarba S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299–312. Crossref
• Kammerlander N., Burger D., Fust A., Fueglistaller U. (2015). Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized enterprises: The effect of CEOs’ regulatory focus. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 582–602. Crossref
• Kaplan R. S., Norton D. P. (2005). The balanced scorecard: Measures That drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 83, 172–180.
• Kassotaki O. (2019). Explaining ambidextrous leadership in the aerospace and defense organizations. European Management Journal, 37, 552–563. Crossref
• Katila R., Ahuja G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194. Crossref
• Katila R., Chen E. L. (2008). Effects of search timing on innovation: The value of not being in sync with rivals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 593–625. Crossref
• Katila R., Shane S. (2005). When does lack of resources make new firms innovative? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 814–829. Crossref
• Kauppila O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8, 283–312. Crossref
• Kim C., Song J., Nerkar A. (2012). Learning and innovation: Exploitation and exploration trade-offs. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1189–1194. Crossref
• Kim H., Park N. K., Lee J. (2014). How does the second-order learning process moderate the relationship between innovation inputs and outputs of large Korean firms? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31, 69–103. Crossref
• Kim N., Atuahene-Gima K. (2010). Using exploratory and exploitative market learning for new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 519–536. Crossref
• Kirca A. H., Jayachandran S., Bearden W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69, 24–41. Crossref
• Knott A. M. (2002). Exploration and exploitation as complements. In Choo C. W., Bontis N. (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge (pp. 339–358). Oxford University Press.
• Koryak O., Lockett A., Hayton J., Nicolaou N., Mole K. (2018). Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 47, 413–427. Crossref
• Kostopoulos K. C., Bozionelos N. (2011). Team exploratory and exploitative learning: Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group and Organization Management, 36, 385–415. Crossref
• Koza M. P., Lewin A. Y. (1998). The of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9, 255–264.
• Kyriakopoulos K., Moorman C. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: The overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 219–240. Crossref
• Kyrgidou L. P., Petridou E. (2011). The effect of competence exploration and competence exploitation on strategic entrepreneurship. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23, 697–713. Crossref
• Land S., Engelen A., Brettel M. (2012). Top management’s social capital and learning in new product development and its interaction with external uncertainties. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 521–530. Crossref
• Laureiro-Martinez D., Brusoni S., Tata A., Zollo M. (2019). The manager’s notepad: Working memory, exploration, and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 56, 1655–1682. Crossref
• Lavie D., Kang J., Rosenkopf L. (2011). Balance within and across domains: The performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organization Science, 22, 1517–1538. Crossref
• Lavie D., Rosenkopf L. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation: A multidimensional perspective. Academy of Management, 49, 797–818. Crossref
• Lavie D., Stettner U., Tushman M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 109–155. Crossref
• Lee C. Y., Huang Y. C. (2012). Knowledge stock, ambidextrous learning, and firm performance: Evidence from technologically intensive industries. Management Decision, 50, 1096–1116. Crossref
• Lee J. Y., Park Y. R., Ghauri P. N., Park B.Il. (2014). Innovative Knowledge Transfer Patterns of Group-Affiliated Companies: The effects on the Performance of Foreign Subsidiaries. Journal of International Management, 20, 107–123. Crossref
• Lee D. D., Madhavan R. (2010). Divestiture and firm performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 36, 1345–1371. Crossref
• Lee G., Xia W. (2006). Organizational size and IT innovation adoption: A meta-analysis. Information & Management, 43, 975–985. Crossref
• Levinthal D. A., March J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112. Crossref
• Lewin A. Y., Long C. P., Carroll T. N. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10, 535–550. Crossref
• Li C. R., Chu C. P., Lin C. J. (2010). The contingent value of exploratory and exploitative learning for new product development performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 1186–1197. Crossref
• Li C. R., Lin C. J., Huang H. C. (2014). Top management team social capital, exploration-based innovation, and exploitation-based innovation in SMEs. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 26, 69–85. Crossref
• Li W., Wang L. (2019). Strategic choices of exploration and exploitation alliances under market uncertainty. Management Decision, 57, 3112–3133. Crossref
• Li Y., Chen H., Liu Y., Peng M. W. (2014). Managerial ties, organizational learning, and opportunity capture: A social capital perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31, 271–291. Crossref
• Li Y., Vanhaverbeke W., Schoenmakers W. (2008). Exploration and exploitation in innovation: Reframing the interpretation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17, 107–126. Crossref
• Li Y., Wang L., Liu Y. (2011). Organisational learning, product quality and performance: The moderating effect of social ties in Chinese cross-border outsourcing. International Journal of Production Research, 49, 159–182. Crossref
• Li Y., Wei Z., Zhao J., Zhang C., Liu Y. (2013). Ambidextrous organizational learning, environmental munificence and new product performance: Moderating effect of managerial ties in China. International Journal of Production Economics, 146, 95–105. Crossref
• Li Y. H., Huang J. W. (2013). Exploitative and exploratory learning in transactive memory systems and project performance. Information & Management, 50, 304–313. Crossref
• Lin H. E., McDonough E. F., Lin S. J., Lin C. Y. (2013). Managing the exploitation/exploration paradox: The role of a learning capability and innovation ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 262–278. Crossref
• Lipsey M. W., Wilson D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE.
• Lisboa A., Skarmeas D., Lages C. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation, exploitative and explorative capabilities, and performance outcomes in export markets: A resource-based approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 1274–1284. Crossref
• Lisboa A., Skarmeas D., Lages C. (2013). Export market exploitation and exploration and performance: Linear, moderated, complementary and non-linear effects. International Marketing Review, 30, 211–230. Crossref
• Liu L., Leitner D. (2012). Simultaneous pursuit of innovation and efficiency in complex engineering projects: A study of the antecedents and impacts of ambidexterity in project teams. Project Management Journal, 43, 97–110. Crossref
• Lubatkin M. H., Simsek Z., Ling Y., Veiga J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646–672. Crossref
• Luger J., Raisch S., Schimmer M. (2018). Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29, 449–470. Crossref
• Lumpkin G. T., Dess G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 429–451. Crossref
• March J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. Crossref
• Marín-Idárraga D. A., Hurtado González J. M., Cabello Medina C. (2016). The antecedents of exploitation-exploration and their relationship with innovation: A study of managers’ cognitive maps. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25, 18–37. Crossref
• McCaskey M. B. (1974). An introduction to organizational design. California Management Review, 17, 13–20. Crossref
• McDermott C. M., Prajogo D. I. (2012). Service innovation and performance in Mexican service SMEs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32, 216–237. Crossref
• Menguc B., Auh S. (2010). Development and return on execution of product innovation capabilities: The role of organizational structure. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 820–831. Crossref
• Miller D., Friesen P. H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: The third link. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 221–235. Crossref
• Mintzberg H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Prentice Hall.
• Mom T. J., Van Den Bosch F. A., Volberda H. W. (2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 910–931. Crossref
• Morgan R. E., Berthon P. (2008). Market orientation, generative learning, innovation strategy and business performance inter-relationships in bioscience firms. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1329–1353. Crossref
• Moss T. W., Payne G. T., Moore C. B. (2014). Strategic consistency of exploration and exploitation in family businesses. Family Business Review, 27, 51–71. Crossref
• Mueller V., Rosenbusch N., Bausch A. (2013). Success patterns of exploratory and exploitative innovation: A meta-analysis of the influence of institutional factors. Journal of Management, 39, 1606–1636. Crossref
• Nerkar A. (2003). Old is gold? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Management Science, 49, 211–229. Crossref
• Ngo L. V., Bucic T., Sinha A., Lu V. N. (2019). Effective sense-and-respond strategies: Mediating roles of exploratory and exploitative innovation. Journal of Business Research, 94, 154–161. Crossref
• Nicolau-Juliá D., Expósito-Langa M., Tomás-Miquel J.-V. (2015). Knowledge exploration and exploitation in the business context. Validation of scales in a low-tech industry. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 21, 139–147. Crossref
• Nielsen B. B., Gudergan S. (2012). Exploration and exploitation fit and performance in international strategic alliances. International Business Review, 21, 558–574. Crossref
• Nohria N., Gulati R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1245–1264. Crossref
• Nooteboom B., Vanhaverbeke W., Duysters G., Gilsing V., Van Den Oord A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36, 1016–1034. Crossref
• Nudurupati S. S., Bititci U. S., Kumar V., Chan F. T. S. (2011). State of the art literature review on performance measurement. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 60, 279–290. Crossref
• Nwankpa J. K., Datta P. (2017). Balancing exploration and exploitation of IT resources: The influence of Digital Business Intensity on perceived organizational performance. European Journal of Information Systems, 26, 469–488. Crossref
• Ojha D., Struckell E., Acharya C., Patel P. C. (2018). Supply chain organizational learning, exploration, exploitation, and firm performance: A creation-dispersion perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 204, 70–82. Crossref
• Oliver C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15, 241–265. Crossref
• O’Reilly C. A., Tushman M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 324–338. Crossref
• Orwin R. G., Vevea J. L. (2009). Evaluating coding decisions. In Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 177–203). Russell Sage Foundation.
• Patel P. C., Terjesen S., Li D. (2012). Enhancing effects of manufacturing flexibility through operational absorptive capacity and operational ambidexterity. Journal of Operations Management, 30, 201–220. Crossref
• Peng M. Y. P., Lin K. H. (2019). Disentangling the antecedents of the relationship between organisational performance and tensions: Exploration and exploitation. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 1–17. Crossref
• Pérez-Calero L., Hurtado-González J. M., López-Iturriaga F. J. (2019). Do the institutional environment and types of owners influence the relationship between ownership concentration and board of director independence? An international meta-analysis. International Review of Financial Analysis, 61, 233–244. Crossref
• Pertusa-Ortega E. M., Molina-Azorín J. F. (2018). A joint analysis of determinants and performance consequences of ambidexterity. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 21, 84–98. Crossref
• Phelps C. (2010). A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 890–913. Crossref
• Phene A., Tallman S., Almeida P. (2012). When do acquisitions facilitate technological exploration and exploitation? Journal of Management, 38, 753–783. Crossref
• Piao M. (2014). A long life after exploitation and exploration. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 209–228. Crossref
• Prange C., Verdier S. (2011). Dynamic capabilities, internationalization processes and performance. Journal of World Business, 46, 126–133. Crossref
• Raisch S. (2008). Balanced structures: Designing organizations for profitable growth. Long Range Planning, 41, 483–508. Crossref
• Raisch S., Birkinshaw J., Probst G., Tushman M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695. Crossref
• Rosenbusch N., Brinckmann J., Bausch A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 441–457. Crossref
• Rosenbusch N., Rauch A., Bausch A. (2013). The mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation in the task environment-performance relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39, 633–659. Crossref
• Rosenkopf L., Nerkar A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 287–306. Crossref
• Rosenthal R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. SAGE.
• Rosenthal R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 118, 183–192. Crossref
• Rothaermel F. T., Alexandre M. T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20, 759–780. Crossref
• Rothaermel F. T. (2001). Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 687–699. Crossref
• Rothaermel F. T., Deeds D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 201–221. Crossref
• Russo A., Vurro C. (2010). Cross-boundary ambidexterity: Balancing exploration and exploitation in the fuel cell industry. European Management Review, 7, 30–45. Crossref
• Sahi G. K., Gupta M. C., Cheng T. C. E. (2020). The effects of strategic orientation on operational ambidexterity: A study of indian SMEs in the industry 4.0 era. International Journal of Production Economics, 220, 107395. Crossref
• Salazar A., Hurtado Gonzalez J. M., Duysters G., Sabidussi A., Allen M. (2016). The value for innovation of inter-firm networks and forming alliances: A meta-analytic model of indirect effects. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 285–298. Crossref
• Sanders N. R. (2008). Pattern of information technology use: The impact on buyer-suppler coordination and performance. Journal of Operations Management, 26, 349–367. Crossref
• Santiago F., Alcorta L. (2012). Human resource management for learning through knowledge exploitation and knowledge exploration: Pharmaceuticals in Mexico. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23, 530–546. Crossref
• Sarkees M., Hulland J., Prescott J. (2010). Ambidextrous organizations and firm performance: The role of marketing function implementation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18, 165–184. Crossref
• Schnellbächer B., Heidenreich S., Wald A. (2019). Antecedents and effects of individual ambidexterity—A cross-level investigation of exploration and exploitation activities at the employee level. European Management Journal, 37, 442–454. Crossref
• Schultz C., Schreyoegg J., Von Reitzenstein C. (2013). The moderating role of internal and external resources on the performance effect of multitasking: Evidence from the R&D performance of surgeons. Research Policy, 42, 1356–1365. Crossref
• Severgnini E., Vieira V. A., Cardoza Galdamez E. V. (2018). The indirect effects of performance measurement system and organizational ambidexterity on performance. Business Process Management Journal, 24, 1176–1199. Crossref
• Sharma R. R., Nguyen T. K., Crick D. (2018). Exploitation strategy and performance of contract manufacturing exporters: The mediating roles of exploration strategy and marketing capability. Journal of International Management, 24, 271–283. Crossref
• Shirokova G., Vega G., Sokolova L. (2013). Performance of Russian SMEs: Exploration, exploitation and strategic entrepreneurship. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 9, 173–203. Crossref
• Sidhu J. S., Volberda H. W., Commandeur H. R. (2004). Exploring exploration orientation and its determinants: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 913–932. Crossref
• Simsek Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 597–624. Crossref
• Simsek Z., Heavey C., Veiga J. F., Souder D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864–894. Crossref
• Sirén C. A., Kohtamäki M., Kuckertz A. (2012). Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit performance, and the mediating role of strategic learning: Escaping the exploitation trap. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6, 18–41. Crossref
• Solís-Molina M., Hernández-Espallardo M., Rodríguez-Orejuela A. (2018). Performance implications of organizational ambidexterity versus specialization in exploitation or exploration: The role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Research, 91, 181–194. Crossref
• Stettner U., Aharonson B. S., Amburgey T. L. (2014). The interplay between exploration and exploitation in SMEs. Technology, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Competitive Strategy, 14, 3–13. Crossref
• Su Z., Li J., Yang Z., Li Y. (2011). Exploratory learning and exploitative learning in different organizational structures. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28, 697–714. Crossref
• Subramani M. (2004). How do suppliers benefit from information technology use in supply chain relationships? MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 28, 45–73. Crossref
• Sun L. Y., Pan W. (2011). Market orientation, intrapreneurship behavior, and organizational performance: Test of a structural contingency model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 274–285. Crossref
• Tsai M. C., Wang C. (2017). Linking service innovation to firm performance: The roles of ambidextrous innovation and market orientation capability. Chinese Management Studies, 11, 730–750. Crossref
• Turner N., Swart J., Maylor H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 317–332. Crossref
• Vagnani G. (2015). Exploration and long-run organizational performance: The moderating role of technological interdependence. Journal of Management, 41, 1651–1676. Crossref
• Van Wijk R., Jansen J. J., Lyles M. A. (2008). Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 830–853. Crossref
• Venkatraman N., Ramanujam V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11, 801–814. Crossref
• Venkatraman N., Ramanujam V. (1987). Measurement of business economic performance: An examination of method convergence. Journal of Management, 13, 109–122. Crossref
• Vorhies D. W., Orr L. M., Bush V. D. (2011). Improving customer-focused marketing capabilities and firm financial performance via marketing exploration and exploitation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 736–756. Crossref
• Voss G. B., Sirdeshmukh D., Voss Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 147–164. Crossref
• Wang H., Li J. (2008). Untangling the effects of overexploration and overexploitation on organizational performance: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Journal of Management, 34, 925–951. Crossref
• Wensley A. K., Cegarra-Navarro J. G., Cepeda-Carrión G., Millán A. G. (2011). How entrepreneurial actions transform customer capital through time: Exploring and exploiting knowledge in an open-mindedness context. International Journal of Manpower, 32, 132–150. Crossref
• Wilms R., Winnen L. A., Lanwehr R. (2019). Top managers’ cognition facilitate organisational ambidexterity: The mediating role of cognitive processes. European Management Journal, 37, 589–600. Crossref
• Yalcinkaya G., Calantone R. J., Griffith D. A. (2007). An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities: Implications for product innovation and market performance. Journal of International Marketing, 15, 63–93. Crossref
• Yamakawa Y., Yang H., Lin Z. (2011). Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performance implications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit. Research Policy, 40, 287–296. Crossref
• Yang H., Zheng Y., Zhao X. (2014). Exploration or exploitation? Small firms’ alliance strategies with large firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 146–157. Crossref
• Yang T. T., Li C. R. (2011). Competence exploration and exploitation in new product development: The moderating effects of environmental dynamism and competitiveness. Management Decision, 49, 1444–1470. Crossref
• Yuen K. F., Wang X., Wong Y. D., Ma F. (2019). A contingency view of the effects of sustainable shipping exploitation and exploration on business performance. Transport Policy, 77, 90–103. Crossref
• Zahra S. A. (1996). Technology strategy and financial performance: Examining the moderating role of the firm’s competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 189–219. Crossref
• Zhan W., Chen R. (2013). Dynamic capability and IJV performance: The effect of exploitation and exploration capabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 601–632. Crossref
• Zhan W., Luo Y. (2008). Performance implications of capability exploitation and upgrading in international joint ventures. Management International Review, 48, 227–253. Crossref
• Zhang H., Wu F., Cui A. S. (2015). Balancing market exploration and market exploitation in product innovation: A contingency perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32, 297–308. Crossref
• Zhang D., Linderman K., Schroeder R. G. (2012). The moderating role of contextual factors on quality management practices. Journal of Operations Management, 30, 12–23. Crossref
• Zhang J. A., Edgar F., Geare A., O’Kane C. (2016). The interactive effects of entrepreneurial orientation and capability-based HRM on firm performance: The mediating role of innovation ambidexterity. Industrial Marketing Management, 59, 131–143. Crossref
• Zhou K. Z., Wu F. (2010). Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 547–561.