Much has been written (and argued) about "the Ambidextrous Organization" since the early 2000's when Charles O'Reilly and Michael Tushman found that ambidextrous organizations were significantly more successful in launching breakthrough products or services.
The idea makes perfect sense: ambidextrous organizations separate their new, exploratory units from their traditional, exploitative ones, allowing for different processes, structures, and cultures; at the same time, they maintain tight links across units at the senior executive level.
Yet is reality keeping up with the original idea? Are we indeed seeing better outcomes when innovation is structured with separate "units" for exploration vs exploitation?
During our recent #Innov8rs Connect on Strategy, Leadership and Governance we heard what's working (and what not) from Tim Kidd (Innovation Excellence Manager at DSM), Line Lyst (Global Head of New Ventures & Commercial Partnerships at GN Group) and Bernd Zimmermann (Global Head of Organization Development & Innovation at Siemens Healthineers), in conversation with Lysander Weiss (Partner at Venture Idea and Researcher at HHL). Here's the recording.