Google's secret formula? Business ambidexterity or exploration: Entrepreneurial ambidexterity for success.

Efficiency or innovation? Why the wrong answer can ruin your business

In a world that's spinning faster than ever before, companies face a critical test: How can they polish their existing core business to a high sheen while simultaneously being bold enough to find the next big thing that might even render that core business obsolete? This question isn't an academic exercise, but an existential one. The graveyards of economic history are full of former giants like Kodak, Nokia, and Blockbuster, who masterfully optimized their current business—and in doing so, marched with remarkable efficiency into their own irrelevance.

The answer to this fundamental dilemma lies in a concept that sounds as simple as it is challenging to implement: organizational ambidexterity, the entrepreneurial ability to be both hands-on. Imagine a company acting like a person equally skilled with both hands. With one hand – exploitation – it perfects its existing products and processes with precision and efficiency to maximize short-term profits. With the other hand – exploration – it experiments with a willingness to take risks, searching for new technologies, markets, and business models, thus securing its long-term survival.

Yet this simultaneity is a profound paradox. It forces organizations to unite two completely opposing logics under one roof: a culture of control and error avoidance on the one hand, and a culture of creativity and tolerance for failure on the other. This article delves deep into the world of organizational ambidexterity. It illuminates why this balancing act has become the most important skill of modern management, what organizational structures and leadership styles are necessary for it, and how companies can productively use the inherent tensions not only to survive but also to actively shape the future.

Suitable for:

• Europe's competitiveness in the crisis: Organizational ambidexterity as a strategic way out

When the simultaneity of stability and change becomes a matter of survival

In an economic world characterized by disruptive technologies, volatile markets, and geopolitical upheavals, companies face a fundamental dilemma. They must operate their established business model with maximum efficiency while simultaneously laying the groundwork for their own future disruption. This balancing act between optimizing the existing and exploring the new constitutes the core challenge of modern corporate management and is referred to in management theory as organizational ambidexterity.

The term ambidexterity comes from Latin and means ambidexterity, the ability to use both hands equally skillfully. Applied to organizations, it describes the competence to master two fundamentally different, even contradictory, activity patterns simultaneously. On the one hand, there is exploitation, the systematic use of existing resources, skills, and business models to generate short-term profitability. On the other hand, exploration requires a risk-taking search for new markets, technologies, and business areas that will only bear fruit in the long term.

The scientific foundation of this concept is largely due to James March, who as early as 1991 identified the fundamental tension between exploration and exploitation as a central problem of organizational learning. His work showed that organizations systematically tend to fall either into an exploration trap, in which constant experimentation yields no usable results, or into an exploitation trap, in which perfecting established patterns leads to organizational inertia. Later, Michael Tushman and Charles O'Reilly systematically developed the concept of organizational ambidexterity and empirically demonstrated that companies that master both dimensions simultaneously are superior to their competitors in the long run.

The relevance of this topic stems from the accelerated pace of change in our time. Digitization, artificial intelligence, demographic shifts, and climate change are creating a situation summarized by the acronym VUCA: volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. In this environment, simply increasing efficiency is no longer sufficient. Companies that invest all their energy in optimizing existing processes risk marching, with high efficiency, into irrelevance. The graveyards of economic history are full of former market leaders who failed due to their own pursuit of perfection: Kodak perfected film photography and disappeared in the digital age; Nokia dominated the mobile phone market and lost to smartphone manufacturers; Blockbuster optimized the video rental business and was swept away by streaming services.

The economic relevance of ambidexterity can be demonstrated by several empirical findings. Meta-analyses show a significantly positive correlation between organizational ambidexterity and corporate success, as measured by profitability, growth rates, and innovation performance. Companies that pursue both exploration and exploitation achieve higher survival rates in turbulent markets and can adapt more quickly to disruptive changes. However, it is important to note that the relationship between ambidexterity and performance is complex and context-dependent. Simply pursuing both activity patterns in parallel does not automatically lead to superior performance. Rather, it depends on the right balance, suitable organizational structures, and the leadership's ability to manage the inherent tensions productively.

The paradox of two logics

A theoretical analysis of the ambidexterity problem reveals a fundamental economic paradox. Exploration and exploitation are not simply two different strategies to choose between. Rather, they represent two incompatible organizational logics that place opposing demands on virtually all dimensions of corporate management.

Exploitation focuses on efficiency, productivity gains, control, and security. It operates with clearly defined goals, standardized processes, hierarchical structures, and a culture of error avoidance. The time horizon is short-term, risks are calculable, and success is measured precisely. Exploitation utilizes explicit knowledge that can be codified in procedures and routines. Organizational structures are mechanistic and centralized, and the leadership style is authoritarian and top-down. Successful exploitation maximizes the return on previous investments in technologies, markets, and competencies. It thrives on the continuous improvement of existing products and processes, cost reduction, and quality enhancement. Innovations are incremental, and changes occur in small, controlled steps.

Exploration, on the other hand, demands a willingness to take risks, a spirit of experimentation, flexibility, and tolerance for failure. It operates with vague goals in uncertain markets, requires organic and decentralized structures, and a culture that views failure as a learning opportunity. The time horizon is long-term, the risks are high, and success only becomes apparent over time. Exploration leverages implicit knowledge that emerges from creative processes and experiments. Organizational structures are flat and autonomous, and the leadership style is transformational and visionary. Successful exploration unlocks new technologies, new markets, and new business models. It thrives on radical innovations, disruptive changes, and the willingness to cannibalize one's own business model.

These conflicting demands create multiple organizational tensions. At the strategic level, short-term profitability and long-term viability compete for limited resources. At the structural level, efficiency orientation clashes with the pressure to innovate. At the cultural level, a focus on security and a willingness to take risks collide. At the individual level, employees must navigate between contradictory behavioral expectations. What is unique about these tensions is that they cannot be resolved through a rational decision. Unlike a classic dilemma, where one can choose an alternative, a paradox requires both conflicting demands to be met simultaneously.

James March explains the economic logic behind this paradox with differing learning curves. Exploitation produces fast, predictable, and positive results. It reinforces itself through experience curve effects: the more often a process is performed, the more efficient it becomes. This creates incentives for further exploitation and gradually crowds out exploration. March calls this the success trap. Exploration, on the other hand, initially generates costs and failures. Most experiments fail, and only a few lead to usable results. This creates incentives to abandon exploration and focus on tried-and-tested patterns. March calls this the failure trap. Without conscious guidance, organizations tend to either remain in a state of perpetual, fruitless searching or become rigid in highly efficient routine.

Ambidexterity research distinguishes between different conceptualizations of how companies can deal with this paradox. Structural ambidexterity separates exploration and exploitation spatially and organizationally. Separate units, each with its own structures, cultures, and incentive systems, are dedicated to either innovation or efficiency. The advantage lies in the clear focus and the avoidance of compromises. The challenge is to establish the necessary integration between the areas without the core business dominating the innovation unit or the innovation unit becoming detached from the core business. Contextual ambidexterity, on the other hand, allows individuals and teams to switch between exploratory and exploitative activities depending on the situation. This requires a corporate culture that tolerates ambiguity and gives employees the competence and autonomy to decide for themselves when which behavior is appropriate. Sequential ambidexterity describes the temporal alternation between exploration and exploitation. Organizations go through phases of intensive innovation, followed by phases of consolidation and efficiency improvement. This is particularly noticeable in start-ups that initially act exploratively and later switch to exploitation.

The economic mechanism of ambidexterity

The economic impact of ambidextrous organizational forms can be analyzed from various theoretical perspectives. From a resource-based perspective, ambidexterity creates unique capabilities that are difficult to imitate and thus generate sustainable competitive advantages. While individual products or technologies can be easily copied, the organizational ability to be both efficient and innovative is a complex, socially embedded phenomenon that is the result of years of development. This dynamic capability enables companies to continuously renew their resource base and adapt to changing environmental conditions.

From a transaction cost perspective, ambidexterity reduces strategic uncertainty and dependencies. Companies that rely solely on exploitation become dependent on the stability of their current markets and technologies. A technological disruption or a shift in customer preferences can render their entire business model obsolete. The costs of such strategic vulnerability can be existential, as the examples of Nokia, Kodak, and Blockbuster demonstrate. Ambidexterity acts as strategic insurance in this context. While investments in exploration may negatively impact profitability in the short term, they ensure long-term viability.

The empirical evidence regarding the relationship between ambidexterity and corporate performance is nuanced. A seminal meta-analysis by Junni et al. from 2013, which evaluated 25 individual studies with over 26,000 companies, found a significantly positive, but relatively weak, correlation between ambidexterity and corporate success. Interestingly, it shows that neither exploration nor exploitation is inherently superior. Both correlate with success, but along different dimensions: exploitation with short-term profitability and efficiency, and exploration with growth and long-term adaptability. The impact of ambidexterity depends heavily on contextual factors. In dynamic, technology-intensive industries, the effect on success is stronger than in stable markets. Company size also plays a role: large companies benefit more from structural separation, while smaller companies should focus more on contextual ambidexterity.

One particularly interesting finding concerns the question of whether companies should pursue a balanced or a combined approach. The balanced approach prioritizes exploration and exploitation equally, even if this necessitates compromises in both dimensions. The combined approach, on the other hand, attempts to maximize both dimensions simultaneously. Empirical evidence suggests that the combined approach is superior, but also significantly more demanding to implement. This requires not only separate structures for each activity pattern, but also sophisticated integration mechanisms that facilitate productive knowledge exchange.

The effects of ambidexterity manifest themselves on several levels. At the product level, it enables a balanced innovation portfolio of incremental improvements and radical breakthroughs. At the market level, it allows for the simultaneous processing of established and new market segments. At the organizational learning level, it combines exploitative single-loop learning with exploratory double-loop learning. At the resilience level, it creates strategic flexibility and adaptability. This multidimensionality explains why the effects of ambidexterity are not always clearly demonstrable in empirical studies. Success often only becomes apparent with a time lag and in the ability to weather crises.

A critical economic question concerns resource allocation. How much should be invested in exploration? The classic business administration answer would suggest portfolio optimization, where investments are distributed according to risk-return profiles. Google's 70-20-10 rule, which allocates roughly 70 percent of resources to core business, 20 percent to adjacent innovations, and 10 percent to radical experimentation, exemplifies such an approach. However, practice shows that rational portfolio models often fail due to organizational and political realities. The power of established business units, the short-term results orientation of financial markets, and the cognitive fixation on proven patterns systematically lead to underinvestment in exploration.

Our EU and Germany expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More about it here:

• Xpert Business Hub

A topic hub with insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform on the global and regional economy, innovation and industry-specific trends
• Collection of analyses, impulses and background information from our focus areas
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• Topic hub for companies that want to learn about markets, digitalization and industry innovations

The architecture of simultaneity

Paradox as a strategy: Why ambidextrous companies win in the long run

The practical implementation of ambidexterity requires conscious organizational design at multiple levels. The structural dimension concerns how exploration and exploitation are anchored organizationally. The classic approach to structural ambidexterity recommends the creation of separate units. In the automotive sector, for example, many manufacturers have established separate business units for electromobility and autonomous driving, which are organizationally separate from the traditional internal combustion engine business. This structural separation protects the innovation unit from the dominance of the core business and enables different processes, cultures, and incentive systems.

The challenge lies in integration. Pure separation leads to silos and prevents the necessary knowledge transfer. The innovation unit needs access to the resources, customer relationships, and expertise of the core business. Conversely, the core business benefits from the insights and technologies of the innovation unit. Successful structural ambidexterity therefore requires carefully designed interfaces: shared strategic leadership, cross-functional teams, shared resources in selected areas, and regular communication. The example of USA Today under CEO Tom Curley demonstrates how the deliberate integration of print and online operations leveraged synergies without sacrificing the necessary autonomy.

Contextual ambidexterity operates on a different logic. Instead of organizational separation, a company culture is created that allows all employees to act exploratively or exploitatively, depending on the situation. Google is known for its policy allowing employees to dedicate 20 percent of their working time to their own projects. This exploration led to successful products like Gmail and Google News. The challenge lies in the fact that contextual ambidexterity places high demands on employees. They must be able to switch between contradictory behavioral patterns, tolerate ambiguity, and independently decide when which behavior is appropriate. This requires not only competence but also psychological safety and trust.

Leadership plays a crucial role in enabling ambidexterity. Ambidextrous leadership means that leaders develop a broad behavioral repertoire and can switch between different leadership styles depending on the situation. In core business operations, a transactional, results-oriented leadership style that sets clear goals and controls deviations may be appropriate. In the innovation domain, however, a transformational, visionary leadership style is needed that provides inspiration and enables experimentation. Research shows that the combination of hierarchical and shared leadership is particularly effective. Hierarchical leadership provides orientation and structure, while shared leadership fosters creative empowerment. Companies with this leadership combination exhibit ten percent higher levels of ambidextrous behavior among their employees.

The cultural dimension of ambidexterity is particularly challenging. Exploitation-oriented cultures value reliability, efficiency, control, and error avoidance. Exploration-oriented cultures, on the other hand, emphasize creativity, risk-taking, autonomy, and a learning orientation. An ambidextrous culture must integrate both value sets without lapsing into arbitrary ambiguity. Successful ambidextrous organizations achieve this through an overarching vision that legitimizes both poles. At Toyota, for example, the Kaizen principle of continuous improvement provides a cultural framework that encompasses both incremental optimization and radical innovation.

At the performance management level, ambidexterity requires differentiated measurement and incentive systems. The traditional focus on short-term financial metrics systematically disadvantages exploration, the success of which only becomes apparent over time. Ambidextrous organizations therefore use dual metrics: For exploitation, efficiency, profitability, market share, and customer satisfaction are measured. For exploration, on the other hand, learning speed, the number of experiments conducted, prototypes developed, and long-term option values ​​are recorded. Crucially, both sets of metrics must be recognized as equally important and considered in decision-making.

Resource allocation is another critical success factor. Many companies proclaim the importance of innovation, but in reality, they allocate almost all resources to their core business. Ambidexterity requires explicit budget allocations for exploration, protected from access by the core business. Some companies use venture funds or corporate accelerators as vehicles to institutionalize exploration budgets. This structural anchoring prevents exploration from being the first thing to be cut during economically challenging times.

Suitable for:

• “How to optimize yourself into a standstill” – The survival secret for companies: Why you have to lead with both hands

The limits of ambidexterity

Despite the conceptual strength and empirical evidence for the benefits of ambidexterity, practice shows that its implementation is fraught with significant challenges. The first fundamental difficulty lies in cognitive overload. Leaders and employees must navigate between fundamentally different logics and tolerate ambiguity. This conflicts with the human preference for consistency and clarity. Psychological research shows that people tend to resolve cognitive dissonance by choosing one side or the other. Simultaneously pursuing contradictory goals creates stress and can lead to burnout.

Organizational inertia presents another barrier. Over time, organizations develop stable routines, processes, and power structures that resist change. The more successful an organization has been with its established business model, the stronger this inertia. The power of the core business is evident in budget negotiations, the appointment of leaders, and the definition of success criteria. Innovation units are often marginalized, under-resourced, or hampered by bureaucracy.

The political dimension of ambidexterity is often underestimated in the literature. Exploration and exploitation are not only different strategies, but also represent different interests and power bases within the organization. Managers in the core business fear the cannibalization of their areas by new business models. They have an incentive to block or delay innovation. The example of the French advertising group Havas shows how a conceptually convincing ambidextrous strategy failed due to the political blockades of the established business units. The influential figures in the traditional business unit prevented integration and led to the failure of the ambidextrous design.

Resource scarcity poses a particular challenge for medium-sized enterprises. While large corporations can finance separate innovation units, smaller companies often lack the resources for structural ambidexterity. A study of European SMEs shows that they must focus more on contextual ambidexterity, i.e., enabling their employees to take on both roles. However, this requires that employees possess the necessary skills and are not already fully occupied with day-to-day operations.

A critical voice in research fundamentally questions the conceptual separation of exploration and exploitation. Quanyi Zhou argues that March's dichotomy may not be clear-cut and that, in practice, many activities contain elements of both poles. Empirical studies show that clearly classifying organizational activities as either exploration or exploitation is often difficult. Furthermore, it is questionable whether both concepts actually describe separate organizational activities or whether they are rather outcomes or evaluation criteria. This conceptual ambiguity complicates the practical implementation and empirical measurement of ambidexterity.

The danger of this becoming a management fad should not be overlooked. The term ambidexterity has experienced a surge in popularity in recent years, similar to previous terms like reengineering or the balanced scorecard. The fear is that ambidexterity will be misused as a label for all sorts of reorganizations without the underlying structural and cultural changes actually being implemented. Consultants sell ambidextrous concepts, companies implement ambidextrous structures, but the fundamental tension between exploration and exploitation remains unresolved or is masked rather than addressed by formal structures.

The future of organizational ambidexterity

The importance of ambidexterity is more likely to increase than decrease in the coming years. The megatrends of digitalization, demographic change, climate crisis, and geopolitical fragmentation are creating an environment of permanent disruption. Companies can no longer rely on stable periods in which exploration and exploitation can be carried out sequentially. Simultaneity is becoming the norm.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) places new demands on ambidextrous organizations. AI can be used for both exploitation and exploration. In exploitation, AI optimizes processes, automates routines, and improves efficiency. In exploration, AI enables new business models, analyzes complex patterns, and accelerates innovation cycles. The challenge lies in not using AI solely for short-term efficiency gains, but also in unlocking its exploratory potential. Ambidextrous leadership in the AI ​​age means pursuing both application logics in parallel and developing the necessary competencies within the organization.

The transformation towards sustainability also requires ambidextrous capabilities. Companies must optimize their existing business models in line with circular economy principles and climate neutrality, while simultaneously developing fundamentally new, sustainable business models. This dual transformation is particularly crucial in energy-intensive and emissions-rich industries. Ambidexterity research offers conceptual tools to shape this transformation without destabilizing the company.

The democratization of innovation through digital platforms is changing the modalities of exploration. Companies can increasingly access external sources of innovation: open innovation, crowdsourcing, collaborations with startups, and partnerships with research institutions expand the exploration potential. This diminishes the need to conduct all exploration internally and enables new forms of hybrid ambidexterity, combining internal and external exploration.

The individualization of career paths and the pluralization of work arrangements influence contextual ambidexterity. Employees' ability to switch between exploratory and exploitative roles is facilitated by flexible work models, project-based organization, and iterative team structures. New Work and agile methods can be understood as the organizational infrastructure for contextual ambidexterity, provided they are not reduced to mere efficiency gains.

The strategic necessity of paradox

The analysis of organizational ambidexterity reveals a fundamental tension in modern corporate management. The simultaneous demands of efficiency and innovation, short-term profitability and long-term viability, stability and change are not temporary phenomena, but rather a structural requirement in a world of accelerated change. Empirical evidence shows that companies that master this ambidexterity outperform their competitors. At the same time, it becomes clear that implementation is challenging and requires profound organizational, cultural, and leadership transformations.

A thorough theoretical analysis of the ambidexterity concept makes it clear that it is not a management formula that can be applied mechanically. Rather, it is about the ability to deal productively with paradoxes and to create organizational structures that can simultaneously meet conflicting demands. This requires a shift in thinking away from traditional organizational models designed for consistency, clarity, and optimization, towards organizational forms that institutionalize ambiguity, tension, and exploration.

The practical relevance of this concept is evident in the multitude of companies that consciously or unconsciously develop ambidextrous structures. From Google's 20 percent projects to the structural separation of electromobility and combustion engines in the automotive industry, and on to innovation labs in the financial sector, there are numerous attempts to integrate exploration and exploitation organizationally. Success depends less on the chosen structural form than on the leadership's ability to withstand the inherent tensions and create the necessary integration mechanisms.

The future outlook shows that ambidexterity is not a passing management fad, but a permanent requirement in a world of constant disruption. The integration of new technologies such as artificial intelligence, the transformation towards sustainability, and the individualization of work will further increase the importance of ambidextrous organizational forms. Companies that learn to operate equally skillfully with both hands will be the winners of the coming decades. Those that either become stuck in efficient routine or lose themselves in constant exploration will fall behind.

☑️ Our business language is English or German

☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your national language!

Konrad Wolfenstein

I would be happy to serve you and my team as a personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form or simply call me on +49 89 89 674 804 (Munich) . My email address is: wolfenstein ∂ xpert.digital

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitalization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs

Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, fivefold expertise in a comprehensive service package | R&D, XR, PR & Digital Visibility Optimization - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital has in-depth knowledge of various industries. This allows us to develop tailor-made strategies that are tailored precisely to the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continually analyzing market trends and following industry developments, we can act with foresight and offer innovative solutions. Through the combination of experience and knowledge, we generate added value and give our customers a decisive competitive advantage.

More about it here:

• Use the 5x expertise of Xpert.Digital in one package - starting at just €500/month