Abstract
A firm that simultaneously engages in a high degree of both innovation and
efficiency follows an approach that is often referred to as an ambidextrous strategy.
Surprisingly, relatively few firms are able to balance these two emphases. Internal
battles for resources often tip the scales in favor of efficiency over innovation, or vice
versa. Management gurus frequently warn that simultaneously pursuing both can set
the firm up for mediocre performance, yet the turbulent nature of today’s markets
and cut-throat competition create a renewed need for firms to reconsider this dual
approach for longer-term success. Unfortunately, practical insights from empirical
studies regarding performance benefits and implementation issues are still scant.
Perhaps this is one reason why few firms are successful in both efficiency and
innovation. In this article, we provide evidence–—using a cross-industry survey of
senior marketing managers in publicly-traded U.S. firms–—that firms which successfully
employ an ambidextrous strategy outperform those which overemphasize either
efficiency or innovation. Furthermore, we highlight marketing’s role as an example of
the often overlooked need for successful functional implementation. Finally, we
provide useful methods for managers to answer three key questions: (1) Is my firm
ambidextrous?; (2) Should my firm be ambidextrous?; and, if so (3) How can my firm
become ambidextrous?
# 2008 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.