Often the point is not that organisations lack ambition. Most have plenty of it but what they lack is balance, once growth sets in.
As businesses scale, pressure builds from two sides at once. The core operation is expected to deliver predictable results, quarter after quarter, with increasing efficiency and control. At the same time, leadership is asked to invest in new capabilities, new models and new technologies that may not pay off for years. These demands collide daily in executive meetings, capital allocation decisions and talent debates. Left unmanaged, they quietly pull the organisation out of shape.
This tension is easy to discuss in theory but it becomes far more consequential once complexity creeps in. Decision making slows as more stakeholders are drawn into the room and risk tolerance becomes inconsistent across teams. Leaders swing between protecting what works and pursuing what might work next, often without a clear view of how the two interact. While momentum may not be lost overnight, it erodes through hesitation, rework and internal friction.
This is where the idea of organisational ambidexterity earns its place as a practical strategic discipline, rather than as a piece of management theory. Ambidextrous organisations are able to exploit their existing strengths while deliberately building new ones, without allowing either agenda to crowd out the other. Getting there is difficult, but when it works, it changes how resilient the organisation feels under pressure.
That understanding comes from operating inside environments where performance could not dip, even as the business was being asked to evolve. In those situations, innovation stops being an abstract good, but it carries real consequences for delivery, accountability and trust. Every experiment draws resources away from something else. Every structural change introduces new dependencies. The real question becomes how to evolve without destabilising the engine that pays for the journey.
In practical terms, ambidexterity shows up as an ability to move at different speeds inside the same organisation. Some parts of the business need consistency, discipline and repetition. Others need room to test, learn and occasionally fail. Applying identical governance, incentives and timelines to both almost always leads to frustration, either choking innovation or unsettling the core.
Many organisations attempt to resolve the tension between the standardisation and predictability needed in core operations and the protection and focus needed by innovation by setting up dedicated innovation units. Others embed innovation into existing teams. Both approaches can succeed, and both can disappoint. The deciding factor is rarely the structure itself. It is whether leadership is explicit about the trade offs involved and disciplined in maintaining them once the initial enthusiasm fades.
Where ambidexterity breaks down, familiar patterns appear. Innovation becomes smothered by day-to-day operational demands and never escapes pilot mode. Or it drifts too far from the core business, producing impressive demonstrations that struggle to translate into sustained value. In both cases, confidence in the innovation agenda weakens and the organisation reverts to short-term thinking.
The UK offers several useful reference points for how different approaches to ambidexterity play out in practice.
Lloyds Banking Group has taken in the past a deliberately measured path. It has invested heavily in technology while maintaining a clear distinction between its core banking operations and its innovation capacity. Progress has been steady rather than dramatic, reflecting a conscious decision to protect resilience while modernising gradually.
Ocado illustrates a more pronounced separation. By distinguishing its technology platform from its retail operation, it has been able to scale innovation globally without diluting focus on either side. That separation is as much a strategic decision as a technical one.
There are also cases where ambidexterity has proved harder to sustain. he experience of the Government Digital Service highlights the difficulty of operating in constrained environments. Tasked with modernising legacy systems across government, GDS has had to balance innovation against procurement rules, skills shortages and political accountability. Progress has been tangible, but the tension between change and continuity remains unresolved.
What these examples share is a simple lesson. Ambidexterity does not emerge from intent alone but it requires deliberate choices about structure, governance and leadership attention, reinforced over time.
From a strategic perspective, effective leadership teams recognise that innovation competes with the core business for resources, time and credibility. Rather than denying that competition, they design around it. Innovation is shielded from short-term performance pressures, yet held accountable for relevance and eventual integration. The core business is protected, but not allowed to ossify.
Across Sivgen’s work with organisations if all sizes navigating these transitions, ambidexterity surfaces repeatedly as a defining strategic challenge. Misalignment between core operations and innovation rarely announces itself loudly, but it steadily drags on performance, decision quality and morale. Restoring balance is seldom about generating new ideas. It is about re-establishing coherence between ambition and execution.
When that coherence is in place, innovation feels less disruptive and more cumulative. The core business remains dependable without becoming rigid. New capabilities develop with a clear connection to strategic intent. Leadership conversations shift away from managing internal tension, towards managing a portfolio of bets with greater confidence.
Strategic ambidexterity is best understood as a posture. One that accepts tension as part of growth and designs for it deliberately. In an environment where change is constant and organisational capacity is finite, that posture often determines whether adaptation feels controlled or chaotic.