Search results

This article couples organizational theory with practice with the union of action learning and the ambidextrous organization. It aims to show how action learning contributes to the creation and sustainment of an ambidextrous (learning) organization.

A side-by-side comparison of action learning and the ambidextrous organization was used.

Action learning “teaches” and promotes the framework and processes of ambidexterity and the practical creation of learning organizations. An action learning team in action performs like an ambidextrous organization to the extent that “acting” is synonymous with exploitation and “learning” with exploration.

Action learning is a powerful tool for the ambidextrous organization, serving as a template for the practitioner to create a learning organization.

This paper extends the literature on organizational structure, leadership, culture and change as it relates to ambidexterity, learning organizations and action learning. It integrates learning theory through action learning with the practice of the ambidextrous organization. A synergistic theory/practice circle is created through the combination of the processes of “theory informing theory” from academia and “practice informing practice” from industry, creating a “theory informing practice and practice validating and updating better theory” circle.

Drawing on paradox theory, this study explores how ambidextrous sustainability relates to organisational performance in hybrid organisations represented by Swedish municipal housing corporations, and how this relationship is contingent on the organisational structure of these organisations.

The study relies on the data collected from Swedish municipal housing corporations. These data sources consist of a survey sent to the management team members in Swedish municipal housing corporations, financial and non-financial archival data on these corporations, interviews with the management team and board members, and observations of meetings involving the management team and board of directors at a Swedish municipal housing corporation. Quantitative data of the study were analysed using descriptive statistics, correlation analysis and linear multiple regression analysis. Qualitative data were analysed employing deductive thematic analysis and were used to illustrate and discuss the results of the quantitative analysis.

The quantitative findings show that ambidextrous sustainability, i.e. the alignment between an explorative orientation and an exploitative orientation towards sustainability, has a weakly positive relationship with financial performance and a positive relationship with social performance in hybrid organisations represented by Swedish municipal housing corporations. The study further shows that a high level of the structural element “connectedness” weakened the relationship between the ambidextrous sustainability and financial performance of the organisation in the study. In contrast, a lower level of connectedness reinforced and strengthened this relationship. Our qualitative material illustrates how the quantitative findings could be explained by the interaction between the board of directors and the management team of these hybrid organisations.

The study shows how ambidextrous sustainability, employed for conceptualisation of the sustainability strategy in hybrid organisations, represented by Swedish municipal housing corporations, can impact on facets of performance (i.e. financial, social and environmental) differently. The study further highlights the importance of organisational structures in these relationships in a hybrid context.

Establishing a competitive advantage in today's dynamic environment involves optimizing an organization's exploration and exploitation strategy. This paper aims to explore how an open innovation strategy complements the organization's ambidextrous strategy in attaining a competitive advantage. Organizational ambidexterity and dynamic capability theories are also explored to investigate the impact of open innovation on the organization's ambidextrous strategy and competitive advantage – especially inbound and outbound open innovation.

The authors conducted a systematic literature review using Boolean search techniques, which was focused on the research fields of the sub-areas of general management, strategy, innovation, organization studies, information management, entrepreneurship, international business, marketing, and economics, supplemented by the snowball technique.

Organizations that combine their ambidextrous strategy with open innovation attributes achieve a competitive advantage through developing their dynamic capabilities by which organizations change their value proposition. This study also shows that an ambidextrous strategy should no longer be viewed as a structural solution implemented by management, but also as a bottom-up intervention. Additionally, the authors found that the organization's dynamic capabilities establish a feedback loop, which changes the organization's ambidextrous strategy to resolve the efficiency–agility paradox.

Previous research has focused on strategic orientation; however, hardly any research has investigated how the interrelatedness of open innovation, organizational ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities support a competitive advantage. The authors present a conceptual model that inspires new research avenues.

The purpose of the paper is to describe ambidextrous learning in organizations within the customer order-based context (COBC), here based on a dynamic view of work processes. The study focuses on how organizations can learn while working with customer orders, considering learning in organizations as both a process and an outcome.

This conceptual article focuses on learning in the COBC, where the individual customer requirements represent a key input into the organization’s work processes, thus limiting the possibilities to plan and standardize. The COBC brings about challenges and potentials for learning in organizations where task variety and complexity are high and in which the contradictory interplay between efficiency and responsiveness is apparent not only at a strategic level but also at an operative level in the customer order fulfillment processes. Depending on the variations in tasks and parallel complex work processes between different units in the organization, the ambidextrous learning dynamic can appear in the COBC.

Five propositions were made from the analysis: Proposition 1: Learning in the COBC can occur both in real-time but also in retrospect and with sporadic and recurrent interventions. Proposition 2: Learning in the COBC can occur for, as well as from, customer order processes. Proposition 3: Learning in the COBC varies and will depend on the delivery strategy. Proposition 4: Learning can be stimulated by the variation in priorities among customer orders in the COBC because the work characteristics for the back office and front office differ between customer order fulfillment processes. Proposition 5: Learning in the COBC can occur both within the back office and front office but also between these organizational units. The paper discusses the importance of building learning infrastructure in COBC and how that can be supported by a suggested learning office.

The present study demonstrates the importance of functions being able to act both as back office and front office in relation to delivery strategy. It also shows the ambidextrous learning process for the sake of improving both the internal efficiency and external effectiveness across the organization.

The purpose of this study is to apply the concept of organizational ambidexterity as a conceptual lens to increase the understanding of tensions between exploitation (continuity) and exploration (change) in Agile software development (ASD) project teams, and particularly the balancing (ambidextrous) strategies utilized.

A conceptual framework was constructed from interdisciplinary sources on ambidexterity. A literature review of publications on ambidexterity in ASD was then performed, and the results from the selected publications were classified according to an extension of the conceptual framework.

Contextual ambidexterity in ASD is affected by the four basic coherent concepts: time, task, team and transition. The study found that most ambidextrous factors and strategies were task and team-related. In addition, a mixture of hard (performance) strategies and soft (social) strategies is needed in order for people/teams to (be able to) become ambidextrous.

To provide a better understanding of ASD, it is important to identify a broader set of ambidextrous factors and strategies that can impact ASD project teams. The expanded conceptual framework can serve as a basis for future empirical research and provide insights to practitioners on how to strengthen ambidexterity in ASD projects.

The contribution is of great importance for ASD research and practice, as ASD methods are a popular method for managing projects within ASD and in other nonsoftware organizations. In addition, as more and more organizations struggle to deal with rapidly changing environments, interest in the phenomena of paradoxical tensions and the strategy (ambidexterity) to deal with these tensions increase.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to propose how a bottom-up creation of an ambidextrous organization can be enabled. By integrating research on “contextual ambidexterity” and “individual and organizational capacity building”, an “innovation capacity building” framework is conceptualized that suggests how balance between exploration and exploitation can be maintained.

The study is conceptual. As no data are utilized, focus is on discussing the links between the two theoretical perspectives and the advantages of the proposed innovation capacity building framework.

The innovation capacity building framework discusses the influence, both positive and negative, of the local organizational context for ambidexterity, and the interactions required such as feedback between the management team and the employees so they together can build an ambidextrous working culture. A culture in which it is the individual employee that is responsible for switching between activities related to exploration and exploitation and where the management team empowers the employees to do so.

This study focuses on contextual ambidexterity and how contextual ambidexterity can be implemented as a way of working in contemporary organizations. The originality lies in the proposed framework and in the dedicated focus on “how” ambidexterity can be implemented in organizations.

This paper aims to understand what prevents established law firms from embracing digitalization and discusses barriers to solving the emerging ambidexterity problem. Law firms have been organized in the same way for decades. However, digital opportunities are emerging and new competitors are challenging established firms. This presents established law firms with an ambidexterity problem: How can law firms simultaneously uphold their successful way of working while entering a new world of digitalization, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning?

Previous research suggests that law firms are slow in digital transformation, compared to other Professional Service Firms (PSFs). In this paper, the authors explore why this happens. Interview data from representatives in law firms are complemented with data from architects as well as legal industry data and field notes. The data have been analyzed to spot patterns and emerging themes.

The authors find that established law firms face structural and cultural barriers to applying ambidextrous solutions. When comparing law firms with architecture firms, the authors see that while established architecture firms have combined digital exploration with ongoing exploitation, established law firms have focused on exploitation, leaving digital exploration to new legal tech firms. This difference can be attributed to industry context and professional culture.

This paper shows that both structural and contextual ambidexterity is a challenge for established law firms. This paper contributes to the understanding of barriers to embrace digital technology, and supports practitioners in efforts to remove these barriers.

This study, a conceptual paper, aims an answer the question, how significant cluster ambidexterity is for the resilience of individual clusters.

The authors draw up an abductive synopsis of empirical information and relevant theoretical sources. A case study is used to illustrate some of the findings.

The results of the analysis show that the ambidexterity of a cluster can contribute to its resilience when adverse external developments arise. Ambidexterity proves to be simultaneously a common strategy of key cluster actors and a mechanism for coping with critical situations and developments that can be activated by the cluster actors and may – eventually – lead to cluster resilience. While ambidexterity does not guarantee cluster survival, it can contribute significantly to their economic resilience under adverse conditions.

The concept is developed on a limited empirical basis and would need to be tested and deepened by comparing a wide range of case studies from different clusters.

A better understanding of the importance of ambidexterity for the development of industrial clusters contributes to a better fine-tuning of cluster support policies.

Ambidexterity as a concept originating from business administration has so far only been rudimentarily tapped for empirical and theoretical cluster research. The paper identifies and develops a path how this could be accomplished to a greater extent in the future.