1-2 paragraph response to include apa style I text citation and reference page
The conceptual theory that will be used is the nested paradoxes of information theory. The nested paradoxes of information theory was posited by Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009). The theory was used to offer a potential explanation for the contrasting characteristics of two main components of constructs underlying organizational ambidexterity; exploration and exploitation. Although organizational ambidexterity suggests that exploration and exploitation can be practiced simultaneously and are symbiotic, the nested paradoxes of information theory indicates that the types of knowledge and resources needed are potentially mutually-exclusive. Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009) found that exploitation requires (a) convergent thinking and (b) efficiency to fully capitalize on current business operations. However, exploration requires (c) research and (d) divergent thinking to innovate and identify new revenue streams. Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009) conclude that exploitation and exploration are conflicting processes. Chou and Kimbrough (2016) later extend on this theory of paradoxes by concluding that exploitation, termed incremental effort, is based on incubment knowledge and techniques. On the other hand, exploration, termed radical efforts, requires an extension of existing knowledge towards experimentation and innovation. As applied to this study, the theory of nested paradoxes of information holds that I would expect the propositions advanced by the theory to allow interviewees and participants to effectively and accurately determine contrasting perceptions, experiences and misalignments in multinational companies as they relate to organizational ambidexterity. Moreover, the propositions put forth in this study provide distinct constrasting conceptual constructs, namely divergent and convergent thinking, incumbent resources and innovation, incremental and radical efforts.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, (4), 696. Retrieved from the Walden Library Databases.
Chou, C., & Kimbrough, S. O. (2016). An agent-based model of organizational ambidexterity decisions and strategies in new product development. Computational And Mathematical Organization Theory, 22(1), 4-46. Retrieved from the Walden Library Databases.