O'Reilly Charles A.

Bio: O'Reilly Charles A. is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Ambidexterity & Emerging technologies. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 1079 citations.

Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future

Abstract: Organizational ambidexterity refers to the ability of an organization to both explore and exploit--to compete in mature technologies and markets where efficiency, control, and incremental improvement are prized and to also compete in new technologies and markets where flexibility, autonomy, and experimentation are needed. In the past 15 years there has been an explosion of interest and research on this topic. We briefly review the current state of the research, highlighting what we know and don't know about the topic. We close with a point of view on promising areas for ongoing research.

Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing – Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises

Abstract: Hybrid organizations that combine multiple organizational forms deviate from socially legitimate templates for organizing, and thus experience unique organizing challenges. In this paper, we introduce and develop the concept of hybrid organizing, which we define as the activities, structures, processes and meanings by which organizations make sense of and combine multiple organizational forms. We propose that social enterprises that combine the organizational forms of both business and charity at their cores are an ideal type of hybrid organization, making social enterprise an attractive setting to study hybrid organizing. Based on a literature review of organizational research on social enterprise and on our own research in this domain, we develop five dimensions of hybrid organizing and related opportunities for future research. We conclude by discussing how insights from the study of hybrid organizing in social enterprises may contribute to organization theory.

Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract: A growing number of studies argue that organizational ambidexterity is increasingly important for the sustained competitive advantage of firms. However, organizational ambidexterity studies have been conducted in a wide variety of industries and methodological settings, and the empirical results have been mixed. The purpose of this article is to systematically examine the organizational ambidexterity–performance relationship to reconcile the mixed results of prior research. By conducting a meta-analysis of prior studies on organizational ambidexterity and performance, we find that positive and significant Organizational ambidexterity–performance relationships are to a large extent moderated by contextual factors and methodological choices: Organizational ambidexterity is particularly important for performance in nonmanufacturing industries and at higher levels of analysis. Also, the performance effects are stronger when “combined” measures of organizational ambidexterity and perceptual performance are use...

Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward

Abstract: Paradox studies offer vital and timely insights into an array of organizational tensions. Yet this field stands at a critical juncture. Over the past 25 years, management scholars have drawn foundational insights from philosophy and psychology to apply a paradox lens to organizational phenomena. Yet extant studies selectively leverage ancient wisdom, adopting some key insights while abandoning others. Using a structured content analysis to review the burgeoning management literature, we surface six key themes, which represent the building blocks of a meta-theory of paradox. These six themes received varying attention in extant studies: paradox scholars emphasize types of paradoxes, collective approaches, and outcomes, but pay less attention to relationships within paradoxes, individual approaches, and dynamics. As this analysis suggests, management scholars have increasingly simplified the intricate, often messy phenomena of paradox. Greater simplicity renders phenomena understandable and testable, however, oversimplifying complex realities can foster reductionist and incomplete theories. We therefore propose a future research agenda targeted at enriching a meta-theory of paradox by reengaging these less developed themes. Doing so can sharpen the focus of this field, while revisiting its rich conceptual roots to capture the intricacies of paradox. This future research agenda leverages the potential of paradox across diverse streams of management science.

Designing and Implementing Cross‐Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging

Abstract: Theoretical and empirical work on collaboration has proliferated in the last decade. The authors’ 2006 article on designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations was a part of, and helped stimulate, this growth. This article reviews the authors’ and others’ important theoretical frameworks from the last decade, along with key empirical results. Research indicates how complicated and challenging collaboration can be, even though it may be needed now more than ever. The article concludes with a summary of areas in which scholarship offers reasonably settled conclusions and an extensive list of recommendations for future research. The authors favor research that takes a dynamic, multilevel systems view and makes use of both quantitative and qualitative methods, especially using longitudinal comparative case studies.