Strategic Management Concepts

Core Competencies and Core Rigidities

• Tripsas and Gavetti (2000) argued that core competencies can become core rigidities, hindering an organization's ability to adapt to change. Polaroid’s adherence to its razor/blade business model, while successful in the past, ultimately impeded its digital innovation and led to its decline.

Managing Strategic Contradictions

• Smith & Tushman (2005) Emphasize the importance of balancing exploration and exploitation simultaneously to navigate strategic contradictions, leading to long-term success. Maintaining a balance requires an approach that embraces both exploration and exploitation simultaneously.

Organizational Ambidexterity

• O'Reilly & Tushman (2013) suggest that structural ambidexterity, where firms maintain separate units for exploration and exploitation, allows for effective innovation while maintaining strategic alignment.

Decision-Making Traps

• Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa (1998) highlight the importance of considering multiple perspectives and avoiding framing biases that can limit options and lead to suboptimal decisions. Decision-makers often fall into the trap of framing decisions in ways that limit their options.

Learning from Failures

• Khanna, Guler, & Nerkar (2016) argue that frequent, small R&D failures provide valuable learning opportunities, ultimately leading to improved R&D performance over time. Small failures in R&D are more valuable for improving overall performance than large failures.

Corporate Venture Capital (CVC)

• Maula, Keil, & Zahra (2012) highlight CVC's crucial role in providing early warnings of technological discontinuities and external innovation threats, enabling companies to adapt more effectively to change.

Digitalization and Organizational Transformation

• Collis & Tunker (2018) emphasize that digitalization strategies, particularly in Siemens' case, are aimed at transforming business models and operational processes through digital innovations, not merely short-term profit maximization.

Dynamic Capabilities

• Teece (1997) proposes that dynamic capabilities are essential for firms' ability to adapt to changing environments and build long-term competitive advantages. They enable firms to sense, seize, and reconfigure resources in response to changing opportunities and threats.

Scenario Planning

• Meissner & Wulf (2013) show that scenario planning helps organizations by limiting decision-makers' biases when evaluating long-term options, by encouraging a forward-thinking approach and considering a variety of potential futures.

Corporate Culture and Radical Innovation

• Tellis, Prabhu, & Chandy (2009) found that a supportive and innovative corporate culture is crucial for facilitating radical innovation across national borders. A culture that embraces risk-taking, experimentation, and collaboration is essential for fostering radical breakthroughs.

Multibusiness Diversification and Disruptive Technologies

• Lange, Boivie, & Henderson (2009) argue that while corporate parents often endorse disruptive technologies, their subsidiaries may struggle to adopt them due to conflicting organizational contexts and incentives. Disruptive technologies often pose a greater threat to established businesses with rigid structures than to more adaptable, leaner subsidiaries, who have greater freedom.

Framing Non-Incremental Innovation

• Raffaeilli, Glynn, & Tushman (2018) emphasize the importance of effectively framing non-incremental innovation within established firms to encourage radical change without alienating core business processes. Framing innovation in a way that resonates with established organizational values and practices can help firms avoid resistance and facilitate successful implementation.

Organizational Ambidexterity (continued)

• O'Reilly & Tushman (2013) advocate for achieving ambidexterity by establishing separate teams for exploration and exploitation while maintaining strategic alignment, to reduce the friction between these activities and maximize their impact.

Contextual Ambidexterity

• Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) describe contextual ambidexterity as achieving alignment and adaptability within the same unit through shared organizational context. This approach encourages innovation within the same unit by fostering a shared understanding of the organization's goals and values.

Differentiation and Integration in Corporate Entrepreneurship

• Burgers & Covin (2016) suggest that differentiation and integration in corporate entrepreneurship are contingent on organizational size and environmental stability. Larger organizations facing higher uncertainty benefit from a more differentiated approach to innovation, whereas smaller organizations operating in stable environments may opt for a more integrated model.

Breakthrough Innovation and Managerial Identities

• Perra, Sidhu, & Volberda (2017) highlight the challenge many established firms face with breakthrough innovations due to rigid managerial identities. Managers may resist radical change if it threatens their established roles and power dynamics within the organization. They recommend that organizations foster flexibility and encourage experimentation at all levels to overcome these challenges.

Ambidexterity and Flexibility

• O'Reilly & Tushman (2013) emphasize the importance of a flexible leadership style for achieving ambidexterity. Leaders should encourage collaboration between exploration and exploitation teams, and create a culture of open communication and experimentation.

Technology and Organizational Identity

• Tripsas (2009) suggests that technology and identity are closely linked in organizations because organizational identity shapes how firms react to technological changes. An organization's values, beliefs, and history influence how it perceives and responds to new technologies, ultimately shaping its technology adoption strategy.

Breakthrough Innovations

• Schilling (2017) states that breakthrough innovations are frequently driven by the separateness, self-efficacy, and idealism of individuals within an organization.

Decision-Making Traps

• Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa (1998) highlight that decision-makers often fall into the trap of framing decisions in ways that limit their available options.

Contextual Ambidexterity

• Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) argue that contextual ambidexterity relies on the ability of employees to adapt their behavior to different situations, switching between alignment and adaptability as required.

Organizational Ambidexterity and Leadership

• O’Reilly & Tushman (2013) emphasize the critical role of senior leaders in fostering organizational ambidexterity by modeling adaptable behavior and supporting a balanced organizational context.

Internal Corporate Venturing and Capabilities

• Keil, McGrath, & Tukiainen (2009) highlight that internal corporate venturing contributes to the creation of new capabilities within established firms.

Managing Radical Innovation

• O’Connor & DeMartino (2006) propose that a dedicated group operating independently of the core business is a key structural aspect for managing radical innovation in large firms.

Organizational Identity and Technology Adoption

• Tripsas (2009) suggests that organizational identity influences how firms adopt and develop new technologies.

Corporate Venture Capital and Technological Discontinuities

• Maula, Keil, & Zahra (2012) argue that corporate venture capital (CVC) acts as an alert mechanism for technological discontinuities by providing early access to emerging technologies and business models.

Radical Innovation Definition

• O’Connor (2008) defines radical innovation as innovations that introduce significant market disruption and high uncertainty.

Successful Innovation Strategy

• Raish & Tushman (2016) emphasize that a successful innovation strategy necessitates a balance between integration and differentiation.

Managing Innovation Streams

• Smith & Tushman (2005) suggest that managing innovation streams effectively requires the ability to simultaneously balance both exploitation and exploration activities.

Large Firms and Radical Innovation Management

• O’Connor & DeMartino (2006) observe that large firms can effectively manage radical innovation by creating separate, dedicated units focused on innovation.

Top Management and Non-Incremental Innovation

• Raffaeilli, Glynn, & Tushman (2018) argue that top management teams influence non-incremental innovation by framing innovation as a strategic priority for the organization.

Heuristics in Decision-Making

• Tversky & Kahneman (1974) discovered that individuals frequently rely on heuristics when making decisions under uncertainty. An example of this is anchoring, where individuals place excessive weight on the initial piece of information they encounter.

Achieving Digital Innovation

• Gilsing (2022), in Lecture 3.1, argues that achieving digital innovation necessitates integrating both technology and market-driven approaches.

AI and Knowledge Worker Productivity

• Dell’Aqua et al.(2023) note that AI impacts knowledge worker productivity by enhancing worker productivity on specific tasks while disrupting performance in others.

Corporate Culture and Radical Innovation

• Tellis, Prabhu, & Chandy (2009) argue that corporate culture plays a significant role in facilitating or hindering radical innovation in global markets.

Differentiation and Integration in Corporate Entrepreneurship

• Burgers & Covin (2016) state that the impact of differentiation and integration on corporate entrepreneurship is dependent on organizational size and environmental dynamism.

R&D Performance in the Pharmaceutical Industry

• Khanna, Guler, & Nerkar (2016) suggest that R&D performance in the pharmaceutical industry is significantly influenced by learning from small failures, which improves long-term R&D outcomes.

Strategic Contradictions in Top Management Teams

• Smith & Tushman (2005) argue that top management teams can navigate strategic contradictions by simultaneously pursuing both exploitation and exploration strategies.

Dynamic Capabilities

• Teece (1997) defines dynamic capabilities as a firm’s ability to adjust internal routines to changes in the external environment.

Organizational Ambidexterity

• O’Reilly & Tushman (2013) state that organizational ambidexterity is best achieved when a firm dedicates separate teams to exploration and exploitation but maintains a unified strategic focus.

Cross-Functional Interfaces in Large Organizations

• Burgers & Covin (2016) found that cross-functional interfaces in large organizations foster corporate entrepreneurship by enabling knowledge sharing.

Top Management Team (TMT) Framing and Innovation

• Raffaeilli, Glynn, & Tushman (2018) argue that top management team (TMT) framing influences innovation by establishing a clear narrative that supports non-incremental innovations within the firm.

Sustaining Radical Innovation

• O’Connor (2008) argues that firms can sustain radical innovation by developing a dynamic capability system that supports continuous learning.

Polaroid’s Inability in Digital Imaging

• Tripsas and Gavetti (2000) argue that Polaroid’s inability to succeed in digital imaging was due to managerial cognition and adherence to outdated business models, such as the razor/blade model.

Drivers of Radical Innovation

• Tellis, Prabhu, & Chandy (2009) argue that one of the primary drivers of radical innovation across nations is corporate culture that encourages risk-taking and experimentation.

Organizing for Radical Innovation

• O’Connor & DeMartino (2006) found that organizing for radical innovation requires a decentralized structure that allows flexibility and autonomy for innovation teams.

Contextual Ambidexterity

• Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) suggest that contextual ambidexterity can be achieved through creating a supportive organizational context where employees manage both alignment and adaptability.

Balancing Integration and Differentiation

• Raish & Tushman (2016) argue that a successful balance between integration and differentiation can help organizations build new corporate businesses without jeopardizing existing ones.

Scenario Planning and Decision-Making

• Meissner & Wulf (2013) argue that scenario planning reduces decision-making biases and improves long-term decision quality.

Managing Innovation Streams

• Smith & Tushman (2005) state that managing innovation streams requires top management teams to balance the contradictory demands of exploration and exploitation simultaneously.

Breakthrough Innovation and Managerial Identity

• Perra, Sidhu, & Volberda (2017) argue that breakthrough innovation requires a shift in managerial identity to promote new product-market solutions.

Digitalization at Siemens

• Collis & Tunker (2018) found that digitalization at Siemens involved a comprehensive transformation of both business models and operational processes.

Internal Corporate Venturing and Firm Innovation

• Keil, McGrath, & Tukiainen (2009) argue that internal corporate venturing contributes to firm innovation by enabling firms to develop new capabilities and transform existing ones.

Firm Adaptation to Discontinuous Technological Change & Ambidexterity

• Firms adapt to discontinuous technological change by bridging dynamic capabilities and organizational ambidexterity to remain adaptable - Birkinshaw, Zimmerman & Raisch (2016)
• Firms achieve success by separating exploration and exploitation into different units - O'Reilly & Tushman (2013)
• Ambidextrous organizations require a decentralized culture that promotes trust and shared vision - Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004)
• Senior executives play a key role in adapting by modelling adaptable behavior and fostering a supportive organizational context - O’Reilly & Tushman (2013)

Innovation Management & Breakthrough Innovation

• Internal corporate venturing helps to encourage the creation of new capabilities and transforming existing ones - Keil, McGrath & Tukiainen (2009)
• Top management teams must balance strategic contradictions by simultaneously engaging in both exploration and exploitation activities - Smith & Tushman (2005)
• Radical innovation management requires a dedicated unit specifically responsible for radical innovation projects - O’Connor & DeMartino (2006)
• Breakthrough innovation is often facilitated by the separateness, self-efficacy, and idealism of individuals within organizations - Schilling (2017)

Decision-Making & Heuristics

• Heuristics simplify decision-making but can lead to biases - Tversky & Kahneman (1974)
• Scenario planning helps organizations reduce decision-making biases and improve long-term decision quality - Meissner & Wulf (2013)

Non-incremental Innovation Adoption

• Top management team (TMT) framing plays a critical role in supporting the adoption of non-incremental innovations by incumbent firms - Raffaeilli, Glynn & Tushman (2018)

R&D & Learning

• Frequent small failures in R&D help improve overall performance through learning - Khanna, Guler & Nerkar (2016)

Technology, Identity & Organizational Change

• Organizational identity shapes how firms react to technological changes - Tripsas (2009)

Dynamic Capabilities

• Dynamic capabilities refer to the firm’s ability to adapt, integrate, and reconfigure internal and external resources in response to environmental changes - Teece (1997)

AI & Knowledge Worker Productivity

• AI enhances productivity in tasks that fall within its technological frontier - Dell'Aqua et al. (2023)

Differentiation & Corporate Entrepreneurship

• The relationship between differentiation and corporate entrepreneurship is moderated by organizational size and environmental dynamism - Burgers & Covin (2016)

Polaroid's Failure in Digital Imaging

• Polaroid's failure in the digital imaging market was due to core rigidities, where the razor/blade model impeded digital innovation.

Balancing Exploration and Exploitation

• Organizations can manage innovation streams by simultaneously balancing exploration and exploitation.

Sustaining Radical Innovation

• Radical innovation in large firms can be sustained by establishing a separate, autonomous group that handles radical innovation.

Ambidextrous Organizations

• Ambidextrous organizations are successful when they create a unified strategy that links separate exploration and exploitation units.

Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance

• Organizational ambidexterity leads to increased perceived performance of business units.

Organizational Adaptability

• Organizational adaptability to technological change depends on how firms balance dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity.

Corporate Culture and Radical Innovation

• Corporate culture affects radical innovation by promoting risk-taking and exploration.

Corporate Ventures and Capability Development

• Internal corporate ventures help firms by fostering the development of new capabilities within existing business structures.

Scenario Planning and Cognitive Biases

• Scenario planning is useful because it allows organizations to anticipate a wide range of future possibilities, reducing cognitive biases.

Heuristics and Decision-Making

• Individuals rely on heuristics because they provide a faster and more efficient way to make decisions under uncertainty.

TMT Role in Non-Incremental Innovation

• Top management teams (TMTs) play a key role in promoting non-incremental innovation by framing innovation as a core strategic priority within the organization.

Breakthrough Innovation and Autonomy

• Breakthrough innovation often occurs when individuals within the organization are given autonomy and resources to pursue their ideas.

Successful New Businesses

• Organizations can build successful new businesses by combining both integration and differentiation strategies.

Frequent Small Failures in R&D

• Frequent small failures in R&D contribute to improved long-term R&D performance through organizational learning.

Adapting to Technological Discontinuities

• Firms can adapt to technological discontinuities by balancing dynamic capabilities with organizational ambidexterity.

Organizational Ambidexterity and Alignment

• Organizational ambidexterity improves performance by enabling business units to simultaneously achieve alignment and adaptability.

Radical Innovation and a Systems Approach

• Radical innovation requires a systems approach that integrates multiple organizational elements.

Siemens' Digitalization Efforts

• Siemens' digitalization efforts focused on transforming both business models and operational processes through digital innovations.

Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity

• Achieving organizational ambidexterity requires flexible leadership that encourages both exploration and exploitation activities.

Organizational Adaptation to Discontinuous Technological Change

• Birkinshaw, Zimmerman, & Raisch (2016) recommend combining dynamic capabilities (ability to reconfigure resources for change) with ambidextrous organizational structures to adapt to discontinuous technological change.
• Ambidextrous structures allow firms to balance exploration (innovation) with exploitation (efficiency) for long-term success.

Contextual Ambidexterity

• Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) argue that contextual ambidexterity, where employees can adapt to different situations, is crucial for organizational performance.
• This flexibility enables employees to align with existing strategies and adapt to new challenges, depending on the context.

AI and Knowledge Worker Productivity

• Dell'Aqua et al. (2023) discovered that AI enhances productivity for knowledge workers in tasks within AI's technological frontier.
• AI assists in automating and optimizing tasks within its scope, leading to efficiency gains.

Breakthrough Innovation

• Schilling (2017) emphasizes the role of individuals' self-efficacy and idealism in driving breakthrough innovation.
• Independent individuals with strong belief in their ideas significantly contribute to radical innovation within organizations.

Internal Corporate Ventures and Innovation

• Keil, McGrath, & Tukiainen (2009) argue that internal corporate ventures (ICVs) are crucial for developing new capabilities within established business lines.
• ICVs allow companies to explore new markets and technologies without disrupting existing operations, fostering innovation.

Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) and Technological Discontinuities

• Maula, Keil, & Zahra (2012) state that CVC serves as an alert mechanism for identifying technological discontinuities.
• CVC allows companies to invest in startups and monitor emerging technologies, keeping them aware of disruptive trends.

Organizational Identity and Technological Change

• Tripsas (2009) highlights that organizational identity influences how firms adapt to technological change in dynamic markets.
• A firm's values, beliefs, and past experiences shape its response to technological shifts, impacting its ability to adapt.

Corporate Culture and Radical Innovation

• Tellis, Prabhu, & Chandy (2009) found that a corporate culture encouraging risk-taking and exploration fosters radical innovation.
• Cultures that prioritize experimentation and embrace uncertainty enable companies to develop bold, new ideas.

Balancing Exploration and Exploitation

• Smith & Tushman (2005) argue that managing innovation streams requires balancing exploration (new ideas) with exploitation (existing resources).
• This strategic contradiction necessitates a careful approach to ensure both stability and adaptation.

Organizing for Radical Innovation

• O’Connor & DeMartino (2006) suggest creating dedicated units with autonomy to handle radical innovation projects.
• Separating radical innovation efforts from the core business allows for more experimentation and flexibility.

Top Management Team (TMT) Framing

• Raffaeilli, Glynn, & Tushman (2018) argue that TMT framing is vital for supporting non-incremental innovations in large companies.
• TMTs play a crucial role in setting the strategic direction and influencing the acceptance of disruptive innovations.

Organizational Size and Environmental Dynamism

• Burgers & Covin (2016) found that organizational size and environmental dynamism influence the relationship between differentiation (offering unique products/services), integration (coordination across departments), and corporate entrepreneurship.
• Companies need to adapt their organizational structure and innovation strategies based on their size and the complexity of their operating environment.

Successful Radical Innovation

• O’Connor (2008) argues that successful radical innovation requires continuous learning and adaptation.
• Companies need to be constantly learning from market feedback and adapting their strategies to ensure long-term success.

Dynamic Capabilities

• Teece (1997) defines dynamic capabilities as the ability to reconfigure and adapt organizational resources in response to environmental changes.
• This dynamism is crucial for organizations to successfully navigate the ever-changing business landscape.

Organizational Ambidexterity

• Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004): Organizational ambidexterity is achieved through a supportive environment that allows employees to manage alignment and adaptability
• Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004): Companies with ambidextrous business units tend to have improved performance over time.

Navigating Technological Discontinuities

• Birkinshaw, Zimmerman, & Raisch (2016): Success in navigating technological discontinuities involves balancing dynamic capabilities and organizational ambidexterity.

Innovation and Corporate Venturing

• Raish & Tushman (2016): Creating successful new businesses requires a blend of integration and differentiation within an organization.
• Schilling (2017): Breakthrough innovation is driven by the autonomy and ideals of individuals within an organization.
• O’Connor & DeMartino (2006): Firms involved in radical innovation should establish independent units to explore high-risk projects.
• Keil, McGrath, & Tukiainen (2009): Internal corporate venturing allows organizations to develop new capabilities while preserving existing business lines.

Managing Innovation Risks

• Khanna, Guler, & Nerkar (2016): Small failures in R&D can provide learning opportunities that enhance long-term performance
• O’Connor (2008): Large businesses can sustain radical innovation by prioritizing continuous learning and dynamic capability development.

The Role of Culture

• Tellis, Prabhu, & Chandy (2009): National culture plays a role in encouraging risk-taking behavior and radical innovation.

The Impact of Organizational Identity

• Tripsas (2009): A firm's identity shapes their response to technological changes.

Decision-Making and the Future

• Tversky & Kahneman (1974): Individuals use heuristics in decision-making to simplify choices in uncertain situations.
• Meissner & Wulf (2013): Scenario planning assists organizations in anticipating future uncertainties and minimizing decision-making biases.

Leadership and Change

• O’Reilly & Tushman (2013): Senior executives can promote ambidexterity through modeling adaptability and encouraging organizational alignment.

Digital Transformation

• Collis & Tunker (2018): Siemens' digitalization efforts aim to transform both their business model and operational processes.

Dynamic Capabilities

• Teece (1997): Dynamic capabilities allow organizations to adapt to environmental changes by integrating, building, and reconfiguring internal and external resources.

Corporate Entrepreneurship

• Burgers & Covin (2016): Corporate entrepreneurship is influenced by the level of differentiation and integration within an organization.

Strategic Contradictions

• Smith & Tushman (2005): Balancing exploration and exploitation is essential for managing strategic contradictions within an organization,

Decision-Making and Biases

• Tversky & Kahneman (1974): Decision-making under uncertainty often relies on heuristics – mental shortcuts that simplify decision-making but can introduce biases.

Polaroid's Failure in Digital Imaging

• Tripsas and Gavetti (2000): Polaroid's failure to succeed in the digital camera market was due to core rigidities stemming from their reliance on the razor/blade business model. This model, which depended on selling both cameras and film, prevented them from adapting to the changing market.

Organizational Ambidexterity

• O’Reilly & Tushman (2013): Successful ambidextrous organizations manage exploration (seeking new opportunities) and exploitation (optimizing existing activities) by separating these functions into different organizational units while maintaining a unified strategy.

Scenario Planning and Decision-Making

• Meissner & Wulf (2013): Scenario planning improves decision-making by reducing cognitive biases by considering multiple future scenarios. This helps firms make more informed decisions in uncertain environments.

Navigating Technological Discontinuities

• Birkinshaw, Zimmerman, & Raisch (2016): Firms can navigate technological discontinuities by balancing dynamic capabilities (the ability to reconfigure resources) with organizational ambidexterity. This allows them to adapt to disruptive changes while maintaining their core business.

Breakthrough Innovation and Individualism

• Schilling (2017): Breakthrough innovation is often driven by independent individuals who possess self-efficacy (belief in their abilities) and idealism. These individuals are willing to take risks and challenge the status quo to pursue new ideas.

Internal Corporate Venturing and Innovation

• Keil, McGrath, & Tukiainen (2009): Internal corporate venturing contributes to firm innovation by developing new capabilities while transforming existing business models. This allows firms to experiment with new ideas and technologies without disrupting their core operations.

Supporting Radical Innovation

• O’Connor & DeMartino (2006): Radical innovation is best supported by creating dedicated, autonomous units to handle high-risk innovation projects. These dedicated units provide the space and resources for radical ideas to develop without being stifled by the constraints and priorities of established businesses.

Dynamic Capabilities and Market Adaptability

• Teece (1997): Dynamic capabilities are a firm's ability to reconfigure resources in response to changing market conditions. This allows firms to leverage their resources to seize new opportunities or adapt to threats.

Culture and Radical Innovation

• Tellis, Prabhu, & Chandy (2009): Radical innovation across nations is influenced by a corporate culture that encourages risk-taking and exploration. This cultural environment supports experimentation, learning, and the pursuit of groundbreaking ideas.

Contextual Ambidexterity and Organizational Alignment

• Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004): Contextual ambidexterity allows firms to achieve both alignment and adaptability by creating the right organizational context. This involves establishing structures and processes that support both exploration and exploitation, allowing firms to navigate complex and dynamic environments.

Learning from Failures in R&D

• Khanna, Guler, & Nerkar (2016): Frequent small failures in R&D lead to improved learning and long-term R&D performance. This suggests that embracing and analyzing failures is crucial for ongoing innovation.

TMT Framing and Innovation

• Raffaeilli, Glynn, & Tushman (2018): Top management team (TMT) framing is important for supporting the introduction of non-incremental innovations in incumbent firms. The way TMTs communicate and shape the vision for innovation significantly influences a firm's willingness to embrace change.

Systems Approach to Radical Innovation

• O’Connor (2008): Successful radical innovation requires a systems approach that integrates various organizational elements. This involves aligning different aspects of the organization – such as culture, leadership, structure, and processes – to support the pursuit of radical innovation.

Differentiation and Integration in Corporate Entrepreneurship

• Burgers & Covin (2016): Differentiation and integration strategies in corporate entrepreneurship are affected by organizational size and environmental dynamism. Larger firms may struggle to innovate quickly, while rapidly changing environments require quick adaptation and flexibility.

Technological Advancements and Organizational Identity

• Tripsas (2009): Technological advancements and organizational identity are closely linked because organizational identity shapes how firms react to new technological developments. This means that firms tend to embrace innovations that align with their core values, capabilities, and identity.

Internal Corporate Venturing and Business Transformation

• Keil, McGrath, & Tukiainen (2009): Internal corporate venturing helps firms by encouraging the development of new capabilities that transform existing businesses. This allows firms to create new markets, products, and services, leading to growth and long-term success.

Fostering Organizational Ambidexterity

• O’Reilly & Tushman (2013): Senior executives can foster organizational ambidexterity by modeling adaptable behavior and promoting an organizational context for both exploration and exploitation. This involves creating a culture that values both innovation and efficiency, encouraging risk-taking and embracing change.

This quiz covers essential concepts in strategic management, including core competencies and rigidities, managing strategic contradictions, and organizational ambidexterity. It also explores decision-making traps and their implications for effective strategy execution.