Search results

This study aims to examine how knowledge sharing contributes to organizations’ ambidexterity, their overall performance and the role of knowledge quality in this relationship. Knowledge sharing is conceptualized based on tacit and explicit dimensions, and ambidexterity is viewed as comprising exploitative and explorative capabilities.

This study uses a cross-sectional survey-based research design and structural equation modeling to test the proposed model of knowledge sharing and knowledge quality in organizational ambidexterity and the related hypotheses.

The results indicate that tacit knowledge sharing has a significant, direct impact on the exploitative and explorative capabilities of the organization and indirectly impacts both dimensions of ambidexterity (i.e. exploitative and explorative) through knowledge quality. In contrast, explicit knowledge sharing does not have a significant impact on knowledge quality and affects only the exploitative extent of ambidexterity. Both exploitative and explorative capabilities significantly impact organizational performance.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first study to empirically examine the role of knowledge quality in the context of knowledge sharing for ambidexterity, especially within the context of organizations in the United Arab Emirates.

The purpose of the study is to investigate how employee ambidexterity (studied as passive and active ambidexterity; EPA and EAA) impacts employee agility (in terms of proactivity, resilience and adaptability) along with the moderating influences of employee organizational tenure (EOT).

A simple random sampling technique is used to collect primary responses from bank managers working in various public, private and regional rural banks in India. The analysis is performed using AMOS (Version-25), a covariance-based structural equation modeling approach.

The two-folded findings include first, the EAA–agility relationship is stronger than the EPA–agility linkage. Second, EOT negatively influences the EAA–EPA–agility relationships.

Although the performance impact of ambidexterity is well documented in the literature there is a dearth of empirical investigation on its agility impact. Since most of the extant researchers have studied ambidexterity and agility from an organizational context, this research highlights the less-studied ambidexterity-agility connection from an employee perspective. Further, EOT is mostly studied as a control variable, while this research investigates as a moderator influencing the ambidexterity–agility linkage in the context of emerging economies such as India.

The manager of the 21st century is expected to succeed in an environment strongly characterized by unprecedented volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA). In fact, today’s business environment consists of contradictory pressure and tensions, where competitive advantage could be gained by ambidextrous activities. The concept of ambidexterity has already been discussed by many scholars, but still little is known about managerial practice and actions that are useful for finding the balance between the paradoxes that have been identified at that level. Although there are different tensions, dynamic and evolving according to the changes observed in the environment: more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, the pressure to remain flexible and simultaneously maintain the plan of development, seems to be essential. In recent research studies, networking perspective is mentioned as one of areas worth exploring while analyzing the concept of ambidexterity. For that reason, the main goal of this chapter is to investigate if networking is one of the factors useful for managing ambidexterity. To gain deeper insight, we investigated further, searching for the factors essential for managing ambidexterity: we compared the research results between companies of different sizes to identify any regularities. We focused on ambidexterity reflected by managerial practice where stability/plans and flexibility are implemented simultaneously. We investigated 150 managers using paper-and-pencil interviewing. Our research results confirmed that networking could be one of the main approaches having an impact on ambidextrous activities. However, we cannot conclude that companies are obliged to apply a networking perspective to be ambidextrous, although it could be recommended. Further analysis of companies of different sizes revealed the relationship between ambidexterity and networking in case of small and large companies, and no relation in medium-sized enterprises.

Due to the global labor market challenges, international companies react and adjust fast to these circumstances by implementing digital solutions into all business processes. Organizational ambidexterity is seen as the response of digital transformation and it can be divided into structural, contextual, and sequential dimensions. In this context, organizations representing the smart industry will need employees with specific competencies which let them meet technological challenges.

This chapter aims to clarify the state of opinion on expectations towards, and preparedness for, the impact of Industry 4.0 on human resources management and the implementation of various types of ambidexterity in these companies. We have conducted interviews with key HR informants from manufacturing companies operating in Germany and Poland. We have found that Industry 4.0 has a significant impact on HR practices. In both international companies, various digital solutions in employee recruitment, development, and performance, have been implemented. There have also been mature examples in both companies of structural, contextual, and sequential ambidexterity.

Since March (1991) presented his ideas on organizational learning, hundreds of empirical tests have been conducted on relationships among the activities of exploration, exploitation, ambidexterity, and firm performance. Despite continued interest in his ideas, there has not been a systematic assessment of extant research to reveal whether, and to what extent, these activities relate to firm performance. This study uses meta-analysis to take a next step by aggregating results of 117 studies from more than 21,000 firms. I find strong performance effects for exploration and exploitation, but contrary to received theory, I discover ambidexterity yields weaker effects than a focus on either exploration or exploitation. Thus, I leverage these findings to offer future research opportunities.

This paper develops a practice approach to institutional ambidexterity. In doing so, it first explores the ‘promise’ of institutional ambidexterity as a concept to address shortcomings with the treatment of complexity in institutional theory. However, we argue that this is an empty promise because ambidexterity remains an organizational level construct that neither connects to the institutional level, or to the practical actions and interactions within which individuals enact institutions. We therefore suggest a practice approach that we develop into a conceptual framework for fulfilling the promise of institutional ambidexterity. The second part of the paper outlines what a practice approach is and the variation in practice-based insights into institutional ambidexterity that we might expect in contexts of novel or routine institutional complexity. Finally, the paper concludes with a research agenda that highlights the potential of practice to extend institutional theory through new research approaches to well-established institutional theory questions, interests and established-understandings.

In this chapter, the authors examine the main effect of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) – a firm’s strategic entrepreneurial posture – on balancing exploration and exploitation in the form of organizational ambidexterity. Resource-constrained firms face an imperative to conduct innovative activities, survive hostile environments, and compete with larger and more resource-rich firms. The authors contend that firms can address these potential impediments through achieving ambidexterity via dynamic capabilities, firm-specific resources, and institutional factors. Specifically, The authors review the EO and ambidexterity literatures and summarize extant arguments related to the relationship between EO, exploration, and exploitation. The authors also discuss the most prominent scales and measures of EO, exploration, and exploitation. Moreover, the authors discuss operationalizational challenges that should be considered when conducting EO–ambidexterity research and suggest future research directions by specifying an agenda outlining useful theoretical perspectives and various contingencies that may influence the EO–ambidexterity relationship.

This paper develops a practice approach to institutional ambidexterity. In doing so, it first explores the ‘promise’ of institutional ambidexterity as a concept to address shortcomings with the treatment of complexity in institutional theory. However, we argue that this is an empty promise because ambidexterity remains an organizational level construct that neither connects to the institutional level, or to the practical actions and interactions within which individuals enact institutions. We therefore suggest a practice approach that we develop into a conceptual framework for fulfilling the promise of institutional ambidexterity. The second part of the paper outlines what a practice approach is and the variation in practice-based insights into institutional ambidexterity that we might expect in contexts of novel or routine institutional complexity. Finally, the paper concludes with a research agenda that highlights the potential of practice to extend institutional theory through new research approaches to well-established institutional theory questions, interests and established-understandings.

The highly unpredictable, complex, and dynamic business environment forces companies to innovate constantly. One organizational response to coping with environmental pressures is organizational ambidexterity, that is, the ability to pursue simultaneously the exploitation of existing capabilities and the exploration of new opportunities. It has an impact on the way of working, and consequently, organizations need to reevaluate their talent strategies. With this conceptual contribution, we first provide a fresh view on talent and talent management (TM) by suggesting an ambidextrous TM approach, including novel TM practices that have been rather neglected in the so far dominant traditional TM approach. It centers on the system-controlling element of an ambidextrous mindset. Second, in a theory-based framework, we explain how dynamic TM capabilities (hybrid, dual, and ambidextrous TM), which represent processes for deploying, developing, and shaping talent, can contribute to gaining competitive advantages in various ambidextrous structures reflecting the complexity and dynamism of and within human resource (HR) ecosystems. The authors advance the under-researched process perspective on TM by using the lenses of the HR ecosystems discussion, insights from a dynamic view on the person–environment fit, and dynamic capabilities. The authors conclude with a broad agenda for future research in TM in dynamic environments.

This paper has predicted digital supply chain (DSC) adoption through the role of firms' proactiveness, knowledge management capability (KMC), innovation ambidexterity and the moderating effect of environmental dynamism.

Survey data from 354 managers in manufacturing and service firms were analysed using the PLS-SEM model.

The present study's findings ascertained the significant role of innovation ambidexterity in influencing DSC adoption, given that innovation exploration's direct and mediating impacts were greater than innovation exploitation's. Firms' proactiveness had the highest path coefficient value among the endogenous variables as an indispensable source for firms to successfully embrace KMC and innovation ambidexterity. The role of firm size on DSC adoption was also significant, revealing that SMEs were more likely than larger firms to adopt DSC practices. Despite its significant effect on innovation ambidexterity, KMC surprisingly exhibited no direct influence on DSC adoption. Furthermore, the findings demonstrated the significant moderating role of environmental dynamism on the effect of KMC on innovation exploration.

This research endeavour has presented valuable insights for scholars and managers, furnishing them with a framework to facilitate decision-making processes regarding adopting DSC practices. A key insight gleaned from this study has been the remarkable value of firms' proactive behaviour and innovation ambidexterity in facilitating DSC adoption decisions. Such adoption has empowered organisations to deploy appropriate interventions and allocate resources efficiently, considering the pivotal role of innovation exploration in contrast to the relatively limited impact of innovation exploitation within this context. Managers may also underscore the significance of firm size in shaping DSC adoption decisions. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have been more likely to embrace DSC initiatives than their larger counterparts. The agile scale and streamlined organisational structures of SMEs often translate into faster decision-making processes, allowing for DSC adoption with relative ease. SMEs might also exhibit a greater openness to reap the benefits associated with DSC systems, such as improved operational efficiency and cost reduction.

The present study has advanced DSC adoption research by examining innovation ambidexterity, knowledge management capability and firms' proactiveness. It has also provided valuable insights for scholars and managers, presenting a framework for decision-making processes regarding DSC adoption in an emerging economy context.