Becoming an Ambidextrous Academic Library: How to Innovate Without Breaking What Works

Academic libraries are very good at sustaining what already works.

We keep the lights on.
We meet accreditation requirements.
We deliver instruction, access, and support—often with shrinking budgets and small teams.

And yet, we are also being asked to innovate: with AI, digital scholarship, new service models, new partnerships, and new expectations around equity, privacy, and student success.

This creates a familiar tension:
How do we experiment and evolve without jeopardizing the day-to-day work our institutions depend on?

One powerful answer comes from organizational research: the ambidextrous organization—and when paired with Appreciative Inquiry, it offers a humane, sustainable path forward for academic libraries.

What Is an Ambidextrous Organization?

An ambidextrous organization is one that can do two things at once:

• Exploit existing strengths (core services, workflows, expertise)

• Explore new possibilities (innovation, experimentation, disruption)

The key insight is structural—not motivational.

Rather than asking the same people to do everything at once, ambidextrous organizations create structurally independent units within the larger ecosystem. These units function like internal startups:

• Insulated from day-to-day operational pressures

• Protected from the organization’s instinct to squash disruptive change

• Given permission to work differently—at a different pace, with different norms

At the same time, these units are strategically integrated at the leadership level, ensuring alignment with mission, values, and institutional priorities.

In other words:

Separation at the operational level, integration at the leadership level.

For academic libraries, this distinction matters.

Why Innovation Often Dies in Academic Libraries

Let’s be honest: innovation in libraries doesn’t usually fail because of bad ideas.

It fails because:

• Staff are already overloaded

• New initiatives compete with core responsibilities

• Risk is punished more than rewarded

• “Business as usual” always wins by default

When experimentation is forced to live inside existing workflows, it becomes fragile. A single staffing shortage, deadline, or institutional crisis can bring it to a halt.

Ambidexterity solves this by designing protection into the system.

What Ambidexterity Looks Like in an Academic Library

In practice, ambidexterity in libraries doesn’t require new departments or massive restructuring. It can start small and scale intentionally.

Examples include:

• A pilot AI literacy initiative embedded in one course sequence, not the entire curriculum

• A temporary project team exploring new discovery tools or services, with explicit permission to work differently

• A sandbox space (virtual or physical) for experimentation, separate from production systems

• A time-bound innovation role or fellowship, rather than adding “innovation” to everyone’s job description

What matters most is not size—but intentional insulation.

These efforts are:

• Protected from routine service demands

• Evaluated with learning-focused metrics, not immediate ROI

• Supported—but not micromanaged—by library leadership

Where Appreciative Inquiry Comes In

Ambidexterity answers the structural question.
Appreciative Inquiry answers the cultural one.

Rather than framing innovation as a response to failure (“we need to fix what’s broken”), Appreciative Inquiry asks:

• What are we already doing well?

• Where are we already adapting successfully?

• What strengths can we amplify rather than replace?

In academic libraries—where morale, burnout, and change fatigue are real—this matters deeply.

When innovation units are framed through Appreciative Inquiry:

• Staff see experimentation as an extension of their values, not a rejection of their work

• Change feels additive, not extractive

• Curiosity replaces fear

This approach shifts the narrative from “you need to change” to “let’s build on what already works.”

Leadership Is the Integration Point

Ambidextrous organizations succeed or fail at the leadership level.

Library leaders play a crucial role by:

• Holding the long-term vision that connects experimentation to mission

• Translating learning from innovation units back into core services

• Protecting experimental work from premature evaluation or shutdown

• Modeling comfort with ambiguity and learning-in-progress

This is not about doing more—it’s about leading differently.

Leadership integration ensures that innovation doesn’t become a side project with no future, while insulation ensures it doesn’t get crushed by daily demands.

A Humane Model for Change

Ambidexterity is not about disruption for disruption’s sake.

For academic libraries, it offers:

• A way to innovate without burning people out

• A way to experiment without undermining trust

• A way to honor legacy services while preparing for what’s next

Paired with Appreciative Inquiry, it becomes a values-aligned strategy—one that respects people, protects core work, and creates space for meaningful change.

Innovation doesn’t have to come at the expense of stability.

With intentional structure, thoughtful leadership, and a strengths-based mindset, academic libraries can do both.