A Bibliometric Analysis of Organizational Ambidexterity: Trends, Themes, and Intellectual Structure

Abstract

The paper examines the dynamics of organizational ambidexterity through a bibliometrics trend over a period of more than five decades (1974 to 2025). Based on a sample of 3,678 academic publications published in 963 journals, the study will analyse the development of publications, the contribution of various countries, institutional affiliation, and citation styles to reveal the changing intellectual framework in the discipline. At a rate of 11.06 per annum with the co-authorship ratio on the international level rising to 32.38, the results reveal the growth of the ambidexterity research as well as its globalization.

Using bibliometric mapping and citation analysis, the study addresses three core research questions: (1) how has global scientific production on ambidexterity evolved over time? (2) Which countries, institutions, and journals have contributed most significantly to advancing the field? (3) What are the intellectual and citation patterns that shape the theoretical and practical discourse on ambidexterity? Findings indicate that USA and China lead in terms of publication volume whereas other countries such as Switzerland and the Netherlands have a disproportionate impact in terms of citation. Besides, the university of Alicante and university of science and technology of China become the most dominating affiliations with knowledge-based systems and journal of business research being the most powerful publication outlets.

The research study has a contribution to the literature by bridging a gap in the research on mapping the global trend of ambidexterity research in a systematic manner and establishing the emerging trends. Combining the aspects of productivity, collaboration, and citation impact, it brings to the fore the interaction between the already-existing foundations and the streams of inquiry that are emerging. The results are important to the scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to learn not just the direction that the ambidexterity research has taken but also where it is going to lead to, providing a roadmap to future theoretical development and cross-disciplinary integration.

References

Alrowwad, A. A., Abualoush, S. H., & Masa’deh, R. (2020). Innovation and intellectual capital as intermediary variables among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and organizational performance. Journal of Management Development, 39(2), 196–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2019-0062

Baker, H. K., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Fifty years of The Financial Review: A bibliometric overview. Financial Review, 55(2), 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/fire.12237

Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0426

Chalissery, J., Das, S., & Nair, P. (2023). Mapping the intellectual structure of ambidexterity research: A bibliometric review. Management Decision, 61(3), 702–722. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2022-0633

Donate, M. J., & de Pablo, J. D. S. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.022

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573

Goodell, J. W., Kumar, S., Lim, W. M., & Pattnaik, D. (2021). Bibliometric research in business and management: A review and future directions. International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102399

He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078

Inkinen, H. (2015). Review of empirical research on intellectual capital and firm performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(3), 518–565. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-01-2015-0002

Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576

Kent Baker, H., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Fifty years of The Financial Review: A bibliometric overview. Financial Review, 55(2), 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/fire.12237

Losse, S., & Geissdoerfer, M. (2021). Sustainability and ambidexterity: A systematic review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(3), 1467–1484. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2689

Mirjalili, S. (2016). Genetic algorithm for optimization problems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 109, 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2016.06.010

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025

Paltrinieri, A., Dreassi, A., Rossi, S., & Khan, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on risk and insurance: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 86(4), 859–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/jori.12214

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407911

Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.x

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, & D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact (pp. 285–320). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13