INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Organisations and organisational actors in creative industries conceive, produce and distribute creative products (Jones et al., 2016), which confronts them with a tension between explorative and exploitative imperatives (e.g. Knight & Harvey, 2015; Lampel et al., 2000; March, 1991; Patrick, 2018; Tschang, 2007; Wu & Wu, 2016). They need to cultivate creativity and always include a certain degree of novelty in their productions while at the same time leveraging existing offerings (e.g., Jones et al., 2016; Lampel et al., 2000) to ensure their economic sustainability. This tension is further exacerbated in those creative industries whose production and distribution processes are semi or fully industrial and, therefore, require the reproduction of creative outputs (e.g., Slavich et al., 2014).
Existing research has so far suggested that the tension between exploration and exploitation could be managed by differentiating activities dedicated to each imperative, for example by developing differentiated spaces, units, or work sequences at the organisational (Amabile et al., 1996; Svejenova et al., 2007) or individual level (Wu & Wu, 2016). Alternatively, other scholars have suggested shifting the focus from managing tensions to transcending them and seeking synergies (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Papachroni & al., 2015). Our study extends this latter line of work and aims to contribute to a better understanding of how the tensions between the imperatives of exploration and exploitation are reconciled on a daily basis, with a focus on organisational practices in a particular creative industry.
CASE STUDY: Maison Pierre Hermé in the field of haute patisserie
To this end, we conducted an in-depth study of the paradigmatic case (Flyvbjerg, 2011) of Maison Pierre Hermé (MPH) in a haute patisserie. Haute patisserie (a reference to haute cuisine) is the sphere of fine, high-end patisserie where creativity is essential. In this sector, the creations are unique, but the cakes are then reproduced in large quantities to be sold to customers at a high price. Created in 1997, MPH is an Entreprise du Patrimoine Vivant (Living Heritage Company) with some 60 shops and 600 employees worldwide. Chef Hermé is renowned throughout the world for his exceptional know-how and some iconic creations. Journalists call him the "Picasso of pastry" (Vogue Magazine), a "pastry provocateur" (Food & Wine). In 2016, he was named the world's best pastry chef by the Academy of the World's 50 Best Restaurants, and Vanity Fair named him one of the most influential Frenchmen for his impact on the world of pastry.
Our data set consists of 17 one-on-one interviews with Chef Hermé and his team (more than 25 hours) and 7 long non-participant observations (more than 3 hours each), for a total of about 950 pages of transcripts. Our data set also includes secondary data, archival documents, including books by the chef.
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Organisational Practices. Our analysis revealed that managing ambidexterity is addressed through six organisational practices that combine exploration and exploitation, thereby transcending the tensions between these contradictory forces: visualising (creating and using visual representations), sourcing (identifying supplies and suppliers), testing (regular trials and careful progress), codifying (standardising some elements used in the different processes), meaning making (a common thread that guides and supports the way all organisational actors work in line with MPH's values) and reinterpreting (using existing elements differently in new creations).
Each practice is versatile and, while having a primary focus, is used for both exploration and exploitation (Figure 1).
Due to space limitations in this abstract, we illustrate our findings with only one practice, testing. Testing is largely exploratory, as we observed during R&D work sessions. For example:
They remove from the fridge a plate lined with bases for an individual coconut-mango creation. They want to test them before moving forward.
Holding the plate in front of them, they visually assess the pieces from all angles: ‘It seems ok at first glance; they look nice and well formed.’
Then they pick one item and slice it in two to examine its texture. They comment on the texture, which they find slightly gelatinous and ‘a bit too sticky when cut; it's not quite satisfying.’
They carry on and taste. Everyone takes a small piece and savors it carefully, attentive to both the taste and the texture in the mouth.
‘It tastes good actually… but it doesn’t work…’
Testing is also used by the MPH’ team in an exploitation perspective, such as the pre-production runs, which are carried out to test various aspects: volume production, delivery, and stability tests. The aim is to find out what works and what does not work under real conditions, not in the R&D laboratory, before going into full production.
Of the six practices, reinterpreting and sourcing, like testing, are predominantly oriented towards exploration. In contrast, codifying is more exploitative. Finally, visualising and meaning making are more evenly balanced between exploration and exploitation.
Combination of Organisational Practices
In addition to identifying distinctive organisational practices that allow for the reconciliation of exploitation and exploration, our findings show that some combinations of practices also allow for the management of ambidexterity, notably 'codifying' in combination with 'meaning making' and 'codifying' with 'visualising'. In contrast, other combinations are found to serve either exploration only (e.g., 'sourcing’ with ‘reinterpreting') or exploitation (e.g., 'codifying’ with ‘testing'). This level of combination allows us to reveal how the system as a whole can be seen as ambidextrous. It is not only the practices that transcend exploration and exploitation, but also the combination of practices.
DISCUSSION (in progress)
Considering exploration and exploitation as contradictory but closely linked forces, we explore the paradoxical challenge of ambidexterity in creative industries through the lens of organisational practices (e.g., Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Papachroni et al., 2015).
First, we contribute to this emerging stream of research by demonstrating how each identified practice is versatile, serving both exploratory and exploitative imperatives. Second, we highlight combinations of organisational practices, some of which appear particularly virtuous for dynamically transcending the tension between exploration and exploitation in a creative context.
Third, based on this, we reveal the 'power' of an ambidextrous system based on some organisational practices. In our view, MPH illustrates that managing the tension between exploration and exploitation is not only about dealing with these poles separately (e.g., Svejenova et al., 2007) or at the individual level (Petruzzelli & Savino, 2014, Wu & Wu, 2016), but also in the organisational system as a whole, beyond the creative individual.
While this research is still in progress, we hope that it will contribute to the emergence of ambidexterity-as-practice in the creative industries, which are increasingly faced with the tension between exploration and exploitation.
KEYWORDS
haute patisserie, exploration, exploitation, ambidexterity, practice
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 395, 1154–1184.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In K. Norman, L. Denzin & S. Yvona, D. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th edition, pp. 301–316). Sage.
Jones, C., Svejenova, S., Pedersen, J. S., & Townley, B. (2016). Misfits, mavericks and mainstreams: Drivers of innovation in the creative industries. Organization Studies, 37(6), 751–768.
Knight, E., & Harvey, W. (2015). Managing exploration and exploitation paradoxes in creative organisations. Management Decision, 53(4), 809–827.
Lampel, J., Lant, T., & Shamsie, J. (2000). Balancing act: Learning from organizing practices in cultural industries. Organization Science, 11(3), 263–269.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.
Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2015). Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Building a novel research agenda. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314553101
Patrick, H. (2018). Nested tensions and smoothing tactics: An ethnographic examination of ambidexterity in a theatre. Management Learning, 49(5), 559–577.
Petruzzelli, A-M., & Savino, T. (2014) Search, Recombination, and Innovation: Lessons from Haute Cuisine. Long Range Planning, 47(4), 224–238
Slavich, B., Cappetta, R., & Salvemini, S. (2014). Creativity and the reproduction of cultural products: The experience of Italian haute cuisine chefs. International Journal of Arts Management, 16(2), 29–41.
Svejenova, S., Mazza, C., & Planellas, M. (2007), Cooking up change in haute cuisine: Ferran Adrià as an institutional entrepreneur. Journal Organizational Behavior, 28, 539–561.
Tschang, F. T. (2007). Balancing the tensions between rationalization and creativity in the video games industry. Organization Science, 18(6), 989–1005.
Wu, Y., & Wu S. (2016). Managing ambidexterity in creative industries: A survey. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2388–2396.

Creatives include professionals in several industries, such as for example architects (Jones et al., 2012), designers (Fayard, Stigliani & Bechky, 2017), chefs (Slavich et al., 2020; Slavich & Castellucci, 2016), artists (Sgourev, 2013). What these actors have in common is that, in building their professional identity, they seek to achieve a balance between assimilation and differentiation (Simmel, 1957; Bourdieu, 1993; Coman & Opazo 2020). When looking at the work of producers in creative industries, (e.g. architecture, advertising, fashion, design, film, the fine arts, and high-end restaurants), these professionals need to build upon the conventions of their fields to be considered as legitimate artists and gain acceptance and recognition of their work (Becker, 2008). However, creatives also need to be able to show the newness of their work and to manage the pressure of achieving distinctiveness and a personal signature style (Elsbach, 2009). Research has explored these tensions by highlighting the importance for actors to achieve optimal distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991) with respect to other producers in their field.
When creating new products, creatives make choices that reveal their understanding of current developments in the field and their perception of themselves as creators in respect to other existing players. Research from Coman and Opazo (2020) has investigated how creatives sustain distinctiveness over time during their professional trajectories. They find different mechanisms that make it possible for creatives to achieve recognition while remaining heterodox in their fields. Throughout their professional journeys, individuals in creative fields shape their identities by establishing various affiliations, such as apprenticeships, collaborations, and partnerships. These affiliations enable them to critically assess the work of their peers and make decisions about the uniqueness of their creative output. Prior research has highlighted that apprenticeships, particularly those with established experts in a given field, are a prevalent form of affiliation in creative industries. Such apprenticeships offer novices the opportunity to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the profession, encompassing techniques, languages, rules, and industry practices. This process of learning and identity development occurs under the mentorship of highly experienced and skilled masters.
Previous research has highlighted some strategies that proteges adopt to separate from their mentors in creative work and shown that there are two main types of outcomes: continuing and redefining relationships. This research also identifies specific practices used to separate from mentors including material, discursive and financial (Demetri, working paper). Other studies have shown that the artistic identity of the masters (a mainstream or a maverick in the industry), as well as their status in the industry, is likely to impact the similarity of the apprentices’ products to the ones of the master (Castellucci & Slavich, 2019). Talking an audiences’perspective, some studies also focused on understanding how the apprentices’ similarity to their former master impact critics’ evaluations (Slavich & Castelluci, 2016).
Altogether, these studies highlight that creatives (former apprentices) develop their identity in relation to their former masters and that, over time, they seek to sustain their distinctiveness in relation to them. However, very little is known about the strategies creatives adopt to differentiate from their former masters and to develop their creative identity and how they sustain their distinctiveness over time. More research is needed to understand how and why creatives decide to deviate or conform to their master’s work, and more specifically, on the choices of continuity and divergence in master-apprentice relationship. In particular, we are interested in unraveling what part of the master’s creative offering is maintained and what is changed (and why) during the development of the creatives’ career after an apprenticeship. We aim at understanding the intentionality behind the creatives’ decisions and how these decisions change over time.
We conduct our research through a qualitative study in the high-end restaurant industry, by looking at the processes deployed by creatives (chefs) in the development of their work and in sustaining distinctiveness from their mentors after an apprenticeship. We focus on the case of Disfrutar, number 2 Best Restaurant in the World in 2023 according to the San Pellegrino Best Restaurant ranking, whose name translates as ‘enjoy’ – which is one of the most surprising restaurants in the world. The restaurant has been created by chefs Oriol Castro, Mateu Casañas and Eduard Xatruch to provide one of the most boundary-pushing gastronomic experiences in the world. The three chefs were former apprentices of Ferran Adria (one of the most influential chefs in the world) at the legendary elBulli (2016) within a year of each other, between 1996 and 1998. elBulli earned three Michelin stars for several consecutive years and the title of the Best Restaurant in the World an unprecedented five times, as chosen by Restaurant Magazine (2002, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009). Some of the major fine dining innovations pioneered by elBulli included new culinary techniques and concepts (e.g., foams, airs, deconstruction, six-sense), ingredients (use of xanthan gum, agar-agar, obulato), and technologies (e.g., caviar machine, siphon, Pacojet). During its existence, elBulli developed a total of 1,846 new dishes, completely renewing its menu every season.
After elBulli closed in 2011, the three chefs opened Compartir in Cadaqués in Catalonia, Spain, followed by Disfrutar – their most ambitious project –‘a thrilling rapid-fire, roller-coaster ride of a dining experience’. The chefs use avant-garde techniques and unconventional combinations of ingredients to surprise diners, as they used to do at El Bulli under the guidance of Ferran Adria. Dishes such as panchino (a fluffy bun) stuffed with caviar and sour cream, or multi-spherical pesto with tender pistachios and eel, are designed to ‘please, surprise and excite’. We believe that the case of Disfrutar provides a privileged setting to address our research question because, having studied with such a well-known master, whose style is highly recognizable, the former apprentices faced a strong pressure to achieve the same excellent standards of Ferran Adria, but also to achieve higher distinctiveness in a very mature industry. Our data is longitudinal in nature, as it includes interviews and archival data collected of the same chefs while they were apprentices and after they had opened their own restaurant and have achieved recognition for their new style.
By studying how creative professionals develop their products in relation to their affiliates, this article makes several contributions to the literature. First, it advances the understanding of how creatives develop their style (Elsbach, 2009), by highlighting the reasons and mechanisms behind their distinctiveness strategies. We try to go beyond existing studies by identifying what stays the same and what changes in the creatives’ work after they have separated from their mentors and in their attempts to build a style of their own. Our study also aims to understand the intentionality behind the creatives’ decisions over the course of their professional trajectories, that is, the reasons behind the strategies they chose to pursue over time. The longitudinal character of our study opens the possibility to search for instances of association versus differentiation from mentors and to unpack why certain paths were taken or discarded by proteges at different points in time.


REFERENCES

Becker, H. S. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). ‘The social self: on being the same and different at the same time,’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. New York: Columbia University Press.

Castellucci F. & Slavich B. (2020). ‘Stir it up: How master–apprentice relationships affect product offerings’ similarity in high- end restaurants,’ Industrial and Corporate Change, 29(2), pp. 459–483.

Coman S. & Opazo M.P. (2020). ‘A canon of one's own: A comparative analysis of cultural production in gastronomy and the visual arts.’ Poetics (82).

Demetri, D.. ‘Cutting up the strings: how proteges separate from their mentors in creative work’. Presented at ‘Work, Identity and Meaning’, Boston College Carroll School of Management, November, 2022.

Elsbach, K. D. (2009), ‘Identity affirmation through “signature style”: a study of toy car designers,’ Human Relations, 62(7),1041–1072.

Fayard, A.L., Stigliani, I., & Bechky, B.A. (2017). ‘How nascent occupations construct a mandate: The case of service designers’ ethos.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 62 (2), 270–303.

Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F.G., & Svejenova, S. (2012). ‘Rebels with a cause: Formation, contestation, and expansion of the de novo category ‘modern architecture’, 1870–1975,’ Organization Science, 23 (6), 1523–1545.

Opazo M.P. (2016). Appetite for innovation: Change and creativity at elBulli. New York: Columbia University Press.

Simmel, G. (1957). ‘Fashion.’ American Journal of Sociology, 62(6), 541–558.

Slavich, B. and F. Castellucci (2016). ‘Wishing upon a star: how apprentice-master similarity, status and career stage affect critics’ evaluations of former apprentices in the haute cuisine industry,’ Organization Studies, 37(6), 823–843.

Slavich, B., Svejenova, S., Opazo, M.P., & Patriotta, G. (2020): “Politics of meaning in categorizing innovation: How chefs advanced molecular gastronomy by resisting the label.” Organization Studies, 41 (2), 267–290.

Sgourev, S.V. (2013). ‘How Paris gave rise to Cubism (and Picasso): Ambiguity and fragmentation in radical innovation,’ Organization Science, 24 (6), 1601–1617.