Dimensions Of Ambidexterity Research Articles

Ambidextrous Strategy and Firm Performance: The Moderating Effects of Organizational Slack and Organizational Life Cycle

The relationship between ambidexterity and firm performance holds a prominent place in the literature. However, studies that examine the conditions under which ambidexterity leads to success are relatively scarce. Based on a sample of 226 firms in China, this study examines the moderating effects of organizational slack and organizational life cycle on the relationship between balance dimension of ambidexterity and combined dimension of ambidexterity and firm performance. The empirical results reveal that pursuing a high level of combined dimension of organizational ambidexterity is only beneficial to firms with a high level of organizational slack or firms in maturity stage, while pursuing a high level of balance dimension of organizational ambidexterity is only beneficial to firms in growth stage, but not to firms in maturity stage.

Ambidexterity in Alliance Portfolio Development and Firms’ Invention Productivity

Grounded in organizational learning theory, the present study addresses the link between firms’ invention productivity and two distinct dimensions of ambidexterity in the structural domain of firms...

Ambidexterity for Corporate Social Performance

The literature on corporate social performance advocates that firms address social issues based on instrumental as well as moral rationales. While both rationales trigger initiatives to increase corporate social performance, these rest on fundamentally different and contradicting foundations. Building on the literature on organizational ambidexterity and paradox in management, we propose in this conceptual article that ambidexterity represents an important determinant of corporate social performance. We explain how firms achieve higher levels of corporate social performance through the ambidextrous ability to simultaneously pursue instrumentally and morally driven social initiatives. We distinguish between a balance dimension and a combined dimension of ambidexterity, which both enhance corporate social performance through distinct mechanisms. With the balance dimension, instrumental and moral initiatives compensate for each other – which increases the scope of corporate social performance. With the combined dimension, instrumental and moral initiatives supplement each other – which increases the scale of corporate social performance. The article identifies the most important determinants and moderators of the balance and the combined dimension to explain the conditions under which we expect firms to increase corporate social performance through ambidexterity. By focusing on the interplay and tensions between different types of social initiatives, an ambidextrous perspective contributes to a better understanding of corporate social performance. Regarding managerial practice, we highlight the role of structural and behavioral factors for achieving higher corporate social performance through the simultaneous pursuit of instrumental and moral initiatives.

Ambidexterity deconstructed: a hierarchy of capabilities perspective

Purpose– The aim of this paper is to deconstruct the organizational capability of ambidexterity into a typology of hierarchical dimensions that includes each type’s enabling mechanisms and capabilities.Design/methodology/approach– This work reviews and integrates extant literature on ambidexterity and the hierarchy of capabilities to distinguish dimensions of ambidexterity and link each type to capabilities identified in prior research.Findings– A hierarchy involving zero-, first- and second-order ambidexterity is developed. Mechanisms and capabilities for creating and sustaining each type of ambidexterity are described.Research limitations/implications– As only an initial and conceptual foray toward the purpose stated above, this research does not attempt to argue a comprehensive theoretical framework. Nor does it intend to extend or propose new theory regarding the origins of ambidexterity capabilities or the specific causal relationships between them.Practical implications– Although prior literature emphasizes approaches for achieving and maintaining ambidexterity, these generally refer to what is described here as zero-order ambidexterity. The hierarchical and holistic system view offered in this research suggests greater importance for second-order ambidexterity and capabilities of top managers for exercising cognitive, behavioral and process leadership complexity.Originality/value– Recent literature on ambidexterity begins to suggest varied types or levels of ambidexterity. No known work, however, has expressly deconstructed ambidexterity into component dimensions via the hierarchy of capabilities framework.

Organizational Ambidexterity, Exploration, Exploitation and Firms Innovation Performance

Abstract Background and Purpose: The construct of organizational ambidexterity (OA) has attracted the growing attention in management research. Previous empirical research has investigated the effect of organisational ambidexterity on performance from various perspectives. This study aims to resolve the contradictory previous research findings on the relationship between organisational ambidexterity and innovation performance. We unpack this construct with combined dimension of ambidexterity, which relates to a combination of high levels of both exploration and exploitation (introduction of products or services that were new to the market and new to the firm). Methodology: We frame our ambidexterity hypothesis in terms of firm’s innovation orientation. The hypothesis is tested by using Community Innovation Survey (CIS) 2006 micro data at the organizational level in twelve countries. To operationalize an ambidexterity and firms innovation outcome, we used self-reported measures of innovativeness. Results: To test our hypothesis, we developed a set of models and tested them with multiple hierarchical linear regression analyses. The results indicate that exploration and exploitation are positively related to firm’s innovation performances which supports our assumption that both are complementary. Furthermore, we find that above and over their independent effects, through combining them into a single construct of organizational ambidexterity, this variable remains negatively and significantly related to innovation performance. Conclusion: These results provides the managers with an idea of when managing trade-offs between exploration and exploitation would be more favorable versus detrimental. For firms with lower organizational ambidexterity, the relationship between exploration-exploitation and the firm’s innovation performance is a more positive one.

Standardized individuality versus individualized standardization: the role of the context in structurally ambidextrous organizations

Sustaining success requires the integration of the contradicting aims of short-term efficiency and long-term innovation. Coupling exploitation and exploration is therefore a major challenge for organizations. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) suffer particularly from resource constraints for nurturing both learning modes concurrently. In this paper, we draw on empirical case-study evidence of a globally operating SME to show how managing the interplay of organizational structure and context enables firms to combine exploration and exploitation for achieving ambidexterity. Our findings show that creating ambidexterity requires firms to manage different tensions on multiple levels. In particular, we distinguish between the learning dimension and the flexibility dimension of ambidexterity. The learning dimension refers to balancing incremental and radical innovations, while the flexibility dimension refers to balancing alignment and adaptability in terms of a firm’s organizational design. Both dimensions have to be balanced simultaneously to create organizational ambidexterity. We show how the creation of a common frame of reference enables the behavioral integration of exploration and exploitation and the formation of knowledge bridges at multiple levels of the organization in a structurally ambidextrous firm. Further, our findings suggest that dealing with tensions between incremental/radical innovation and adaptability/alignment refers to managing a “second-order”-balance between exploration and exploitation.

Tipping the scales: ambidexterity practices on e-HRM projects

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to examine and conceptualise the ways in which a balance can be achieved between optimising the efficiency and effectiveness of electronic human resource management (e-HRM) systems for human resource management (HRM) and enabling innovation to occur during the system implementation.Design/methodology/approach– An interpretive case study of a UK local authority e-HRM system implementation is examined using the notion of ambidexterity as an analytical device. Ambidexterity relates to how an organisation develops the ability to operate efficiently in the now, while at the same time being able to adapt to environmental changes around and ahead of them in order to grow into the future.Findings– As an intra-organisational capability, ambidexterity is found to derive from the simultaneous interplay and balancing of dual capabilities: exploitation and exploration. e-HRM exploitation concerned the capability to generate new knowledge with innovatory effects, created through the everyday practices performed by practitioners at all levels in the organisation. e-HRM exploration, rather than being a purposeful act, was found to be an accidental consequence of engaging in exploitation to maintain the status quo.Research limitations/implications– The notion of ambidexterity was originally constructed within strategic management and studies in the field have previously been confined to this area. This makes this study theoretically and empirically experimental, making it a challenging research endeavour. Another limitation is that the authors only sought views from the interviewees on how external forces might limit or facilitate their ambidexterity, as opposed to actually studying those forces themselves.Practical implications– The authors suggest that those in organisations who are responsible for strategic HRM need to consider ways in which “intentional” opportunities for ambidexterity in e-HRM systems implementation can be identified and harnessed to ensure better balances between exploitation and exploration in such endeavours and to guard against innovation only occurring through chance.Originality/value– There is a lack of detailed investigation of how organisations actually achieve ambidexterity, particularly in three under-researched areas: ambidexterity in the public sector, at human resourcing functional level and e-HRM systems implementation. Bundling these three areas into an integrated examination allows us to both identify how exploitation and exploration play out in the ambidextrous practices of an e-HRM project and also to identify the dimensions of ambidexterity in balancing e-HRM work.

How Does Ambidexterity Matter for Radical and Incremental Innovation Capabilities?

The notion that ambidextrous learning—involving both exploration and exploitation—will improve firm performance, has become prominent in academia and practice. While arguing that innovation capabilities are central to the ambidexterity hypothesis, we investigate how the two dimensions of ambidextrous learning (combined and balanced) affect firms’ incremental and radical innovation capabilities. Based on organizational learning theory, we develop theoretical arguments underpinning the idea that the combined dimension of ambidexterity drives incremental innovation capability while the balance dimension of ambidexterity positively influences radical innovation capability. We base our empirical analysis on a survey of high-tech firms in China. We find support for our theoretical arguments.

Organizational Learning Ambidexterity, Strategic Flexibility, and New Product Development

Although organizational ambidexterity has gained momentum in recent innovation research, previous literature still offers a confusing and partial picture about how to leverage ambidexterity for new product development because of two limitations. First, previous research mainly focuses on static resource endowment and thus offers little insight about how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity. Second, conceptual confusion on the notion of the balance dimension of organization ambidexterity still exists.This study seeks to explore how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity for new product development and to bring greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. By extending the static resource assumption, which is central to the extant debate in organizational ambidexterity literature, this research unpacks ambidexterity into a relative exploratory dimension and an interactive dimension. We further investigated the moderating effect of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility on the impacts of the two dimensions on new product development performance.Based on the dynamic resource management view and organizational learning theory, we proposed six hypotheses and collected data from 213 firms through a survey to examine the hypotheses. Our results indicate that relative exploratory dimension and interactive dimension have different effects on new product development. Specifically, the relative exploratory dimension has an inverse U‐shaped effect on new product development while the interactive dimension has a positive effect. Furthermore, we find that resource flexibility and coordination flexibility have positive moderating effects on the relationships between the two dimensions of ambidexterity and new product development performance. Our study contributes to the ambidexterity research in three ways. First, from a dynamic resource management view, this study extends previous ambidexterity research from a static view to a dynamic view by exploring the moderating effects of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility. Second, we extend the understanding on ambidexterity by bringing greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. Third, this research provides new evidence on the effects of ambidextrous learning on new product development performance in transition economy such as China, where ambidextrous learning is crucial for firms to adapt to a dynamic environment.

The individual side of ambidexterity: Do individuals’ perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off?

The paper addresses the issue of the exploration–exploitation dilemma, adopting a micro level of analysis. Unlike the extensive literature on ambidexterity that investigates the organizational solutions that allow firms to pursue the balance between the two kinds of learning orientation, this research draws attention to the as yet barely analyzed individual dimension of ambidexterity. Specifically, in investigating personal ambidexterity we point to the relevance of individuals’ perceptions on what their role requires of them and the actual behaviors they perform.Drawing on an inductive multiple case study carried out on managers who face daily a strong pressure to balance exploration and exploitation and are expected to perform ambidextrous behaviors, we identify four different situations at the individual level, depending on the consistency/inconsistency between individuals’ role perceptions and their actual behaviors: enacted personal ambidexterity, dominant learning orientation, perceived personal ambidexterity and full personal ambidexterity. Moreover, our study adds to the ambidexterity literature by suggesting theoretical propositions on how individual characteristics, namely prior work experience and behavioral competency profile, may impact on the different situations of personal ambidexterity we identified and how the consistency/inconsistency between individuals’ perceptions and behaviors may contribute to sustaining or jeopardizing full personal ambidexterity.

Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects

Significant ambiguity remains in the literature regarding the conceptualization of organizational ambidexterity. We unpack this construct into one with two dimensions we term the balance dimension of ambidexterity (BD) and the combined dimension of ambidexterity (CD). BD corresponds to a firm's orientation to maintain a close relative balance between exploratory and exploitative activities, whereas CD corresponds to their combined magnitude. We reason that these dimensions are conceptually distinct, and rely on different causal mechanisms to enhance firm performance. We find that over and above their independent effects, concurrent high levels of BD and CD yield synergistic benefits. We also find that BD is more beneficial to resource-constrained firms, whereas CD is more beneficial to firms having greater access to internal and/or external resources. These results indicate that managers in resource-constrained contexts may benefit from a focus on managing trade-offs between exploration and exploitation demands, but for firms that have access to sufficient resources, the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation is both possible and desirable.