Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity
Introduction
Organizational learning is a necessary resource and capability for firms seeking to sustain a competitive advantage in today's marketplace (Barney, 1991). According to resource-based theory, resources include all the “assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc., controlled by a firm that enable the firm to conceive of and implement strategies that are efficient and effective” (Barney, 1991, p. 101). In this light, organizational learning, defined as the capability for organizations to create, disseminate, and act upon generated knowledge, can be regarded as a resource. Scholars have explored this capability using different types of learning: double loop vs. single loop learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978); generative vs. adaptive learning (Senge, 1990); and product innovation vs. production-oriented learning (McKee, 1992). Despite the diverse terminologies, commonalities can be readily observed and two distinct concepts of learning can be identified. One branch of research is chiefly concerned with revolutionary change; change that requires tasks to be accomplished under new organizational assumptions and frameworks (e.g., “S” curve; Foster, 1986). The other is more concerned with evolutionary, incremental changes; improvements based on existing platforms that benefit from repetition and routine (e.g., experience curve).
This distinction suggests that double loop, generative, and product-innovation learning are closely aligned with exploration while single loop, adaptive, and production oriented learning are aligned with exploitation approach to learning. Having asserted that exploration and exploitation are different modes of organizational learning, we further posit that these two types of learning represent organizational resources and capabilities that firms can use to develop and sustain their competitive advantage under changing environmental conditions.
Despite the apparent differences between the two types of learning, scholars and practitioners have long believed that a well-balanced combination of the two types of learning is essential for a healthy organization (Levinthal and March, 1993, March, 1991). Excessive exploration at the expense of exploitation can be costly, as the tangible outcomes of exploration will only be realized in the distant future and then only with considerable uncertainty. On the other hand, a concentration on exploitation without exploration discourages the organization from pursuing learning and development. This can direct firms to focus only on the near future and potentially miss out on long-term investments and opportunities that may prove valuable. Therefore, the recommendation of a well-balanced combination of the two should come as no surprise.
However, what is less understood and less well-documented in the literature is the contingency perspective of organizational learning that underscores the effectiveness of both types of learning under different contextual conditions. We draw on the strategy typology of Miles and Snow (1978) to examine how prospectors and defenders benefit by balancing exploration and exploitation when competition intensifies. We expect that the same exploratory or exploitative action will have different effects on performance depending on whether it is used by prospectors and defenders. The rationale for this belief rests on our assumption of prospectors' strong orientation towards exploration and defenders' strong orientation towards exploitation and the differential consequences of these actions under conditions of intensifying competition.
The goal of this paper is to develop a contingency model that tests the moderating role of competitive intensity on the relative effectiveness of exploration and exploitation on firm performance for prospectors and defenders. In addition, we provide a further refinement to existing measures of firm performance by looking at the categories of effective and efficient firm performance.
This study also explores the validity of Miles and Snow's (1978) construct of strategy type, using the concepts of exploration and exploitation. Despite the theoretical linkage between organizational learning (e.g., exploration and exploitation) and strategy type (e.g., prospectors and defenders), no research to date has empirically tested the validity of the models of exploration and exploitation and their differential effects on firm performance as a function of strategy type. Our study explicitly tests this assertion. Moreover, although prospectors and defenders, largely by assumption, are known to react differently to environmental change, no empirical results exist to confirm how the balance of exploration and exploitation alters for prospectors and defenders with intensified competitive pressure. In what is to follow, we provide the theoretical background four our argument along with testable hypotheses. This is followed by a presentation of empirical results and a discussion of the results. We end with a discussion of limitations and future research directions.
Section snippets
Exploration and exploitation as organizational learning
March (1991) defines exploration as a learning mechanism which has the goal of experimentation with new alternatives. Exploration is thus a manifestation of organizational learning (Sinkula, 1994, Slater and Narver, 1995) and it entails activities such as search, variation, risk-taking, discovery, innovation, and research and development. Sitkin et al. (1994) associate total quality learning (TQL) with exploratory activities. These include such activities as exploring new skills and resources,
Conceptual model and hypothesis development
Our conceptual model is shown in Fig. 1. Both exploration and exploitation should be positively related to firm performance under certain circumstances. Douglas and Judge (2001) found that organizations employing an exploration and control focus had TQM practices that were positively related to organizational performance under certain circumstances. Organizational researchers have argued for multiple dimensions of organizational performance such as effectiveness and efficiency (Mahoney, 1988,
Pre-test and measures
A draft questionnaire, prepared using well-established scales drawn from the relevant literature, was subjected to a pre-test. We first purchased a list of 1000 firms operating in a variety of manufacturing industries in Australia from a leading market research/databank company. We then contacted a random selection of 20 CEOs or senior executives. We delivered a draft form of the survey questionnaire and asked each person to evaluate the contents and meaningfulness of the items. Accordingly,
Measurement assessment
We followed a two-step procedure to assess the validity, unidimensionality, and reliability of the constructs (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). We assessed the underlying factor structure of the scale items using an exploratory factor analysis. To do so, we randomly divided the dataset into two halves (i.e., prospectors and defenders). The first half of the data (104 prospectors) was used to purify the scale items. All the items loaded on their respective factors (i.e., <.40) and items did not show
Discussion
The goal of this paper was two-fold. First, we wanted to address the question of how two different learning modes, namely exploration and exploitation, are differently related to efficient and effective firm performance for prospectors and defenders. Despite the strong theoretical suggestion leading to such a research question, the extant literature has not explicitly tested this hypothesis. Our results generally point to the existence of different impacts of exploration and exploitation on
Limitations and future research
The results of this study are subject to several limitations. First, for theory-testing purposes, we conducted our study in manufacturing organizations. While we collected the data from a variety of sectors in the manufacturing industry, and thereby reached a greater source of variance, the generalizability of this study's findings to other types of organizations is still limited. Hence, future researchers may replicate and extend this study to sectors other than manufacturing.
Second, we
Acknowledgement
The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Committee of the Faculty of Economics and Commerce, the University of Melbourne.
References (38)
An organizational learning approach to product innovation
J Prod Innov Manag
(1992)Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: a taxonomic approach
J Bus Venturing
(1993)- et al.
Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship–performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis
J Bus Venturing
(1995) - et al.
Multiple regression testing and interpreting interactions
(1991) - et al.
Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two step approach
Psychol Bull
(1988) - et al.
Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective
(1978) - et al.
Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys
J Mark Res
(1977) - et al.
When does trust matter? Antecedents and contingent effects of supervised trust on performance in selling new products in China and the United States
J Mark
(2002) - et al.
On the evaluation of structural equation models
J Acad Mark Sci
(1988) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage
J Manage
(1991)
Management of statistical techniques for quality and productivity
Dimensions of organizational task environment
Adm Sci Q
Total quality management implementation and competitive advantage: the role of structural control and exploration
Acad Manage J
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
J Mark Res
Innovation: the attacker's advantage
An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment
J Mark Res
Basic Econometrics
Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of Miles and Snow's strategic types
Acad Manage J
Market orientation: antecedents and consequences
J Mark
Cited by (585)
The influence of digitalization on SMEs’ OFDI in emerging countries
2024, Journal of Business ResearchFrom organizational ambidexterity to organizational performance: The mediating role of value co-creation
2024, Industrial Marketing ManagementWhen and under what conditions ambidextrous supply chains prove effective? Insights from simulation and empirical studies
2024, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
- 1
Tel.: +1 905 688 5550; fax: +1 905 984 4188.