Exploration and Exploitation in Latin American Firms: The Determinants of Organizational Ambidexterity and The Country Effect


  • Juan Acevedo ESE Business School, Universidad de Los Andes
  • Iván Díaz-Molina ESE Business School, Universidad de Los Andes




ambidexterity, innovation, absorptive capacity, country environment,


In this article, we explore the determinants of organizational ambidexterity across Latin American countries -Chile, Ecuador, and Peru- from innovation surveys of 2,786 manufacturing companies. The study introduces valuable information on ambidextrous organizations in emerging economies, contrasting to traditional literature frequently focusing on developed countries. Findings confirm the importance to measure ambidexterity in a multidimensional perspective, relating exploration to radical innovation, and breaking down exploitation into incremental exploitation, related to incremental innovation and repetitive exploitation related to operational efficiency. This work also finds that higher GDP per capita relates to higher exploration and exploitation ability of firms and supported our hypotheses that political and economic uncertainty of each country impact on organizational ambidexterity. Additionally, we expand on Diaz-Molina´s model (2018), on the relationship between strategic and operational absorptive capacity on ambidexterity by validating his findings across several countries and uncovering a positive interaction term between strategic and operational absorptive capacity when both impact on ambidexterity.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


Alvarez, R. &. (2018). Innovation and entrepreneurship in Latin America: What do we know? What would we like to know? Estudios de Economía, 45(2), 157-171.

Alvarez, R., & Grazzi, M. (2018). Innovation and entrepreneurship in Latin America: What do we know? What would we like to know? Estudios de Economía, 45(2), 157-171. doi:doi:10.4067/s0718-52862018000200157

Auh, S. & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1652-1661. doi:doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.11.007

Autry, C.W., Grawe, S.J., Daugherty, P.J., Richey, R.G. (2010). The effects of technological turbulence and breadth on supply chain technology and adoption. Journal of Operations Management, 28, 522–536. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.03.001

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120. doi:10.1016/s0742-3322(00)17018-4

Chen, J., Chen, Y. & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011). The influence of scope, depth and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms. Technovation, 31, 362–373. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.03.002

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. doi:doi.org/10.2307/2393553

Corrado, C., Haskel, J. & C. Jona-Lasinio. (2011). Productivity Growth, Intangible Assets and ICT: Some International Evidence. European Commission.

Crespi G.A., Tacsir E. & Vargas, F. (2016). Innovation Dynamics and Productivity: Evidence for Latin America. En M. &. Grazzi, Firm Innovation and Productivity in Latin America and the Caribbean: The Engine of Economic Development (págs. 37-71). Inter-American Development Bank. doi:10.1057/978-1-349-58151-1_2

Crespi, G. & Zuñiga, P. (2012). Innovation and Productivity: Evidence from Six Latin American Countries. World Development, 40(2), 273-290. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1818752

Datta, A. (2012). IT-based knowledge capability and commercialization of innovations: Modeling the impacts of ambidexterity and absorptive capacity. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 83-97. doi:10.4018/jkm.2012070105

Díaz-Molina, I. (2018). The Role of Strategic and Operational Absorptive Capacity in Organizational Ambidexterity. Engaged Management Scholarship Conference. Philadelphia. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3235526

Eustace, C. (2000). The Intangible Economy: Impact and Policy Issues. En Report of the European High Level Expert Group on the Intangible Economy . European Commission.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. Sage.

Geldes, C., Felzensztein, C., Palacios, J.,. (2017). Technological and non-technological innovations, performance and propensity to innovate across industries: The case of an emerging economy. Ind. Mark. Manag, 61, 55-66. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.10.010

Gibson, C. & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and ediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209-226. doi:10.5465/20159573

Guellec, D., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2002). R&D and productivity growth. OECD Economic Studies, 2001(2), 103-126.

Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706. doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083026

Hall, R., & C. Jones. (1999). Why Do Some Countries Produce so Much More Output Per Worker Than Others? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1), 83–116. doi:10.3386/w6564

Han, M. & Celly, N. (2008). Strategic ambidexterity and performance in international new ventures. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 25, 335-349. doi:10.1002/cjas.84

Harris, R. & Lee, T. (s.f.). Absorptive capacity in New Zealand firms: Measurement and importance. Motu Working Paper, 18(1). doi:10.29310/wp.2018.01

Haskel J. (2015). Understanding innovation better: an intangible investment approach. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 22, 13-23. doi:10.1080/16081625.2015.1010268

Heredia Pérez, J., Geldes, C.,Kunc, M. & Flores, A. (2019). New approach to the innovation process in emerging economies: The manufacturing sector case in Chile and Peru. Technovation(79), 35-55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.012

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, 1661–74. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576

Jansen, P., Tempelaar, M., van den Bosch, F. & Volberda, H. (2009). Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms. 20(4), 797-811. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0415

Lane, P.J., Salk, J.E. & Lyles, M.A. (2001). Absorptive Capacity, Learning, and Performance in International Joint Ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1139-1161. doi:10.1002/smj.206

Laursen, K. & Salter,A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovative performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150. doi:10.1002/smj.507

Lederman, D. (2010). An international multilevel analysis of product innovation. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 606-619. doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.30

Lee, R. Ö. (2015). Introduction to the special issue on “innovation in and from emerging economies". Industrial Marketing Management, 50, 16-17. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.07.005

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 95-112.

Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 822-846. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.43670902

Lin, H., Zeng, S., Liu, H., & Li, C. (2016). How do intermediaries drive corporate innovation? A moderated mediating examination. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4831-4836. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.039

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71

Netter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. (1990). Applied linear statistical models. irwin inc.

O’Reilly, C. & Tushman, M. (2007). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206. doi:10.2139/ssrn.978493

OECD. (1997). The measurement of scientific and technological activities: Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data. Oslo manual OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264192263-en

O'Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4). doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0025

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(3), 201-220. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2011.10.004

Piao, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2016). How exploitation impedes and impels exploration: Theory and evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1431-1447. doi:10.1002/smj.2402

Rouvinen, P. (2002). R&D-Productivity Dynamics: Causality, Lags, and Dry Holes. Journal of Applied Economics, 1, 123–156. doi:10.1080/15140326.2002.12040573

Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R. & Volberda, H. W. (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18, 20–38. doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0212

Siggelkow, N. & Levinthal, D. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science,, 14, 650-669. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24870

Simsek ,Z. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597-624. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.x

Tu, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Ragu-Nathan, T.S., Sharkey, T.W. (2006). Absorptive capacity: enhancing the assimilation of time-based manufacturing practices. Journal of Operations Management, 24(5), 692–710. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2005.05.004

van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda. (2012). How firms shape knowledge to explore and exploit: A study of knowledge flows, knowledge stocks and innovative performance across units. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(9), 929-950. doi:10.1080/09537325.2012.718666

Venkatraman, N., Lee, C. & Iyer, B. (2006). Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: A longitudinal test in the software sector. Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 457-478. doi:10.5465/3069364

Yan, M., Yu, Y., & Dong, X. (2016). Contributive roles of multilevel organizational learning for the evolution of organizational ambidexterity. Information Technology & People,, 29(3), 647-667. doi:10.1108/itp-04-2015-0079

Zacharia, Z.G., Nix, N.W., Lusch, R.F. (2011). Capabilities that enhance outcomes of an episodic supply chain collaboration. Journal of operations Management, 29(6), 591–603. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2011.02.001

Zahler, A., Goya, D., and Caamaño, M. (2018). The Role of Obstacles to Innovation. Working Paper Series Inter-American Development Bank. doi:10.18235/0001505

Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 185-203. doi:10.5465/amr.2002.6587995




How to Cite

Acevedo, J., & Díaz-Molina, I. (2019). Exploration and Exploitation in Latin American Firms: The Determinants of Organizational Ambidexterity and The Country Effect. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 14(4), 6-16. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242019000400006



Research Articles