Ambidestria Organizacional em Pequenas Empresas: Da Eficiência à Inovação

Lucas Silva Silveira; Amanda Wolek Rocha; Jefferson Marlon Monticelli

doi:10.5020/2318-0722.2025.31.e16248

Autores/as

Lucas Silva Silveira Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3469-2373
Amanda Wolek Rocha Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8051-261X
Jefferson Marlon Monticelli Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1605-7090

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5020/2318-0722.2025.31.e16248

Palabras clave:

exploitation, exploration, ambidestreza, innovación, pequeñas empresas

Resumen

La ambidestreza organizacional es fundamental para comprender cómo las empresas equilibran distintas formas de innovación, incremental y exploratoria, garantizando la adaptación a los cambios y la competitividad. Por lo tanto, este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar cómo la ambidestreza organizacional se manifiesta durante el proceso de transición organizacional y de qué manera contribuye a la expansión del mercado y a la adaptación estratégica de pequeñas empresas en mercados emergentes. La ambidestreza, compuesta por exploitation y exploration, representa, respectivamente, la mejora continua de los procesos existentes y la exploración de nuevas oportunidades de negocio, siendo esencial para afrontar los desafíos en entornos de rápida transformación y de recursos escasos. Aunque ha sido ampliamente estudiada en grandes corporaciones y en sectores de alta tecnología, su aplicación en pequeñas empresas, especialmente en contextos de transición organizacional, aún es poco comprendida. El análisis se realizó mediante grupos focales con directivos y colaboradores de dos empresas que comparten el mismo núcleo de competencias. Los resultados indican que, incluso ante limitaciones de recursos humanos y financieros, es posible alcanzar de manera simultánea una ambidestreza secuencial y contextual, equilibrando la eficiencia operativa y la innovación. En términos teóricos, la investigación contribuye a la comprensión de cómo las pequeñas empresas desarrollan capacidades ambidiestras durante procesos de transición organizacional. Desde una perspectiva práctica, se ofrecen insumos para gestores que enfrentan el desafío de equilibrar la eficiencia operativa y la innovación en contextos de cambio y restricción de recursos.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Lucas Silva Silveira, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil

Lucas Silva Silveira es licenciado en Administración de Empresas por la Universidad Unisinos de Porto Alegre, Brasil. Actualmente trabaja como director del Instituto Empreendedorismo de Verdade y como director ejecutivo y fundador de Startta.

Amanda Wolek Rocha, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil

Amanda W. Rocha tiene un máster en Administración de Empresas por la Universidad Unisinos, Porto Alegre, Brasil, y actualmente está cursando un doctorado en Administración de Empresas en la misma universidad. Su principal interés investigador está relacionado con la teoría institucional, la legitimidad y los negocios internacionales.

Jefferson Marlon Monticelli, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil

Jefferson M. Monticelli es profesor adjunto en la Universidad Unisinos. Tiene un posdoctorado en el Departamento de Gestión de la Producción y las Operaciones de la Fundación Getúlio Vargas, Escuela de Administración de Empresas de São Paulo (FGV EAESP), São Paulo, Brasil. Fue estudiante visitante en el Departamento de Estudios Empresariales de la Universidad de Uppsala, Suecia, durante su doctorado.

Citas

Aftab, J., Veneziani, M., Sarwar, H., & Ishaq, M. I. (2022). Organizational ambidexterity, firm performance, and sustainable development: Mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation in Pakistani SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132956

Belik, I., & Knudsen, M. P. (2022). Data-driven management of organizational networks for ambidexterity. Journal of Business Research, 152, 113555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113555

Berard, C., & Fréchet, M. (2020). Organizational antecedents of exploration and exploitation in SMEs: The role of structural and resource attributes. European Business Review, 32(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-12-2018-0216

Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). Building an ambidextrous organisation. Advanced Institute of Management Research Paper, 1(3). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1306922

Brix, J. (2020). Building capacity for sustainable innovation: A field study of the transition from exploitation to exploration and back again. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122381

Clauss, T., Abebe, M., Tangpong, C., & Hock, M. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity and competitive advantage: The role of strategic agility in the exploration–exploitation paradox. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6(4), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2020.07.001

Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In L. R. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. P. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization design: Strategies and implementation (pp. 167–188). North-Holland.

Dunphy, D., & Stace, D. (1993). The Strategic Management of Corporate Change. Human Relations, 46(8), 905–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600801

Garud, R., & Van De Ven, A. H. (2002). Strategic Change Processes. In A. M. Pettigrew, H. Thomas & R. Whittington (Eds.). Handbook of Strategy and Management (Cap. 10, pp. 207–232). Sage.

Gilsing, V. (2002). Exploration, exploitation and co-evolution in innovation networks [Doctoral dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam]. Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM).

Ginsberg, A. (1988). Measuring and modelling changes in strategy: Theoretical foundations and empirical directions. Strategic Management Journal, 9(6), 559–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090604

He, Z., & Wong, P. (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

Jaidi, Y., Liu, Y., & Ahmad, M. I. (2022). Ambidexterity behavior of creative SMEs for disruptive flows of innovation: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030141

Jansen, J. J. P., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00775.x

Kokubun, K. (2025). Ambidextrous SMEs for a sustainable society: A narrative review considering digitalization, open innovation, human resources and green innovation. Next Research, 2(4), 100839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexres.2025.100839

Kolster, R. (2020). Structural ambidexterity in higher education: Excellence education as a testing ground for educational innovations. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1850312

Laplume, A. O., & Dass, P. (2012). Exploration and exploitation approaches for various stages of firm growth through diversification. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2012(1), 14220. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2012.11420abstract

Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals 4(1), 109–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416521003691287Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712

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

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–83. http://www.iot.ntnu.no/innovation/norsi-pims-courses/tushman/O%C3%86Reilly%20&%20Tushman%20(2004).pdf

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308508000105

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5

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

O’Reilly, C. A., Harreld, J. B., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: IBM and emerging business opportunities. California Management Review, 51(4), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166506

Peng, X., Lockett, M., Liu, D., & Qi, B. (2022). Building dynamic capability through sequential ambidexterity: A case study of the transformation of a latecomer firm in China. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(3), 502–521. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.64

Pettit, K. L., Balogun, J., & Bennett, M. (2023). Transforming Visions into Actions: Strategic change as a future-making process. Organization Studies, 44(11), 1775–1799. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406231171889

Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2 S), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250121008

Rajagopalan, N., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Towards A Theory Of Strategic Change: A Multi-Lens Perspective And Integrative Framework. Academy of Management Proceedings. 51-55. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1996.4978183

Reischl, A., Böhm, S., & Homburg, C. (2022). Contextual ambidexterity: Tackling the exploitation and exploration dilemma of innovation management in SMEs. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877022500067

Shiu, J.-M., Dallas, M. P., Wang, Z.-R., & Lin, P.-Y. (2023). The generational transition and sequential ambidexterity in the Android ecosystem. Academy of Management Proceedings,2023(1), 12082. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2023.12082abstract

Silva, K. A. L. da, Souza, A. P. de, Brito, R. M., Cruz, F. C., Pinheiro, K. C., & Silva, M. M. da.

(2025). Ambidestria organizacional como competência estratégica: O equilíbrio entre exploração e explotação. Revista de Gestão e Secretariado, 16(6), 01–17. https://doi.org/10.7769/gesec.v16i6.4944

Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 448–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.003

Sun, X., Rong, N., Sun, M., & Zhu, F. (2023). Combining structural and sequential ambidexterity: A configurational approach using fsQCA. Management and Organization Review, 19(4), 803–837.

Sutcliffe, K., Sitkin, S., & Browning, L. (2000). Tailoring process management to situational requirements. In R. Cole & W. Scott (Eds.), The quality movement & organization theory, 315–330.

Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20(4), 718–739. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0429

Teece, D. J., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management Review, 58(4), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13

Tian, H., Dogbe, C. S. K., Pomegbe, W. W. K., Sarsah, S. A., & Otoo, C. O. A. (2020). Organizational learning ambidexterity and openness as determinants of SMEs’ innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2), 414–438. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2019-0140

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852

Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171–222. https://kendlevidian.pbworks.com/f/Tushman+%26+Romanelli+1985.pdf

Úbeda-García, M., Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., & Zaragoza-Sáez, P. del C. (2020). Organizational ambidexterity in subsidiaries of knowledge-intensive sectors. Estudios Gerenciales, 36(157), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.18046/j.estger.2020.157.3906

Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2013). Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises: Implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market domains. Organization Science, 24(5), 1459–1477. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0790

Wójcik-Karpacz, A., Karpacz, J., & Rudawska, J. (2019). Exploration and exploitation of good practices by technology parks: Empirical findings from Poland. Managing Global Transitions, 17(4), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-6935.17.317-334