Search results

While the performance benefits of relational resources and managerial ambidexterity have been widely discussed in coopetition literature, there is only limited evidence that illustrates the underlying relationships between these relational resources and managerial ambidexterity. Against this background, this paper aims to investigate how managerial ambidexterity moderates the innovation ambidexterity effects of relational resources (i.e. reciprocal investments and complementary resources).

This study forwards various hypotheses that are grounded within the theoretical tenets of the relational view and the dynamic capabilities perspective. To test the hypotheses, this study uses survey data provided by 313 firms that pursue horizontal coopetition relationships.

The research findings offer important insights in that while reciprocal investments lead to innovation ambidexterity, complementary resources do not result in such benefits. Additionally, managerial ambidexterity complements the relational resources to develop innovation ambidexterity if and only if both managerial exploration and exploitation are applied simultaneously.

As opposed to widely-held beliefs, this study finds that firms' use of complementary resources is not likely to lead to innovation ambidexterity even though such resources can help in developing strong relationships. In addition, although often overlooked, managerial ambidexterity plays a vital role in transforming relational resources into useful innovations for firms involved in coopetition relationships. It is crucial for firms that their managers balance their ambidextrous activities of exploration and exploitation so as to develop innovation ambidexterity.

Ambidexterity increases an organisation’s capability to successfully navigate dynamic and uncertain environments. While leaders are expected to model flexible learning and practices throughout the organisation, little is known about the leader characteristics and contextual factors that underpin ambidexterity. This study aims to explore whether paradoxical thinking, integrator behaviours and managerial role and level influence the likelihood of leaders exhibiting ambidexterity.

This study relied on a self-report questionnaire completed by 152 managers of a large, public health-care organisation in New Zealand. A k-means cluster analysis of the data was conducted to identify leader ambidexterity clusters, and the hypothesised effects were tested with multinomial logistic regressions.

Health-care managers favoured exploitation and moderate ambidexterity. Higher levels of integrator behaviours (i.e. reflective learning and context responsiveness) were found among leaders who showed high ambidexterity. Context responsiveness was the sole significant predictor distinguishing between high ambidexterity and other ambidexterity profiles. No statistically significant differences in ambidexterity cluster membership were found between clinical and non-clinical roles and across managerial levels.

While our study relied on a cross-sectional self-reported design, the findings underscore the importance of learning behaviours and context responsiveness to ambidexterity. This study discusses avenues for future research and leadership development towards improved organisational learning systems and practices.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of the first to test the contribution of paradoxical thinking and integrator behaviours to health-care leader ambidexterity and to examine differences in ambidexterity profiles across managerial levels and roles. The factor analysis suggests that integrator behaviours represent two distinct constructs: reflective le`arning and context responsiveness.

Conventional wisdom posits that firms in slow clockspeed industries usually favor exploitation over exploration, prioritizing the need to increase efficiency, reduce costs and invest in process improvements. However, what happens when such firms face structural changes in the long run? The authors claim that even firms in slow clockspeed industries should be ambidextrous, that is, they should develop both exploration and exploitation capabilities. Supply chain (SC) managers are key players in enabling organizational ambidexterity. This paper aims to identify the abilities that characterize the ambidextrous SC managers.

The authors collected data from an in-depth case study through ethnographic research, non-participant observation and interviews with SC managers at a Brazilian chemical firm embedded in a slow clockspeed network of clients. These longitudinal data were used to demonstrate the process of implementing new projects in an SC department.

The authors propose a set of key abilities that enable ambidexterity in SC managers for them to contribute effectively to the SC exploration and exploitation practices: a holistic yet focused view; prior experience in multiple functional areas; technical knowledge; openness towards network connectivity; openness to sharing ideas with other managers; empathy; and entrepreneurial capabilities.

This paper contributes to the SCM ambidexterity literature by bringing to light the abilities of successful ambidextrous SC managers. The seven abilities identified are discussed. The authors formulate theoretical propositions on how these abilities enable SC managers’ ambidexterity.

This study provides SC managers with the knowledge of a set of individual abilities they should develop among their SC personnel to offer a more suitable environment in their departments for ambidexterity to take place. In addition, these abilities can be used as screening criteria in personnel selection processes to increase the proportion of ambidextrous employees within the firm. The identified characteristics could also be used as recruitment criteria for managerial positions in SCM.

This research advances SC literature by studying SC managers through the lens of the organizational ambidexterity literature. Using a combination of case study, non-participant observation and ethnographic research, the authors derive a set of propositions for the characteristics of ambidextrous SC managers.

The purpose of this paper is to report on lab experiments conducted to determine what impact managerial top-down knowledge transfer has on a middle manager’s individual ambidexterity and decision performance.

The authors designed an experimental approach using a business simulator to test the hypotheses with middle managers. The methodological approach provides the authors with a framework to enhance the middle manager’s understanding of how to attain superior short-term financial results by exploiting current resources, in addition to mastering new strategies to avoid a potential business bankruptcy.

The results suggest that top-down managerial knowledge inflow benefits middle manager strategic decision making, as well as his/her short- and long-term performance. Nonetheless, the best short-term results were achieved by those middle managers that mastered both exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously.

The contribution of this paper is to identify and test a control mechanism called top-down inflows that enhance middle manager’s ability to exploit current resources to increase financial performance, and exploring new strategies to avoid a business bankruptcy.

The purpose of this paper is to study the potential interest in and the possible limits of the concept of organizational ambidexterity (Duncan, 1976; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996) in the context of public non-profit organizations (PNPOs), a concept that is frequently studied in the private sector.

From an inductive and qualitative approach, this research is based on observations of ambidextrous innovation processes implemented in a French PNPO in charge of job search and unemployment compensation operations.

This research shows that the concept of organizational ambidexterity might provide some strategic leads for balancing the possible paradoxes within different kinds of expectations of the stakeholders of PNPOs. It might also facilitate the combination of the stability of public service deliverance and organizational transformation. Beyond its interest, this study identifies the limits of the concept in the context of PNPOs. For overcoming its limits, the study suggests a renewed understanding of organizational ambidexterity by taking account of PNPOs’ specificities, especially in terms of the regulation of the different tensions generated by ambidextrous organizational change.

This research proposes a conceptual framework built with the integration of sectorial and organizational characteristics of the public non-profit sector for understanding the organizational ambidexterity and its possible strategic, organizational and management implications in this sector. The results are limited to the context the author studied because of several sectorial, national, organizational and cultural specificities.

The results might inspire management practices in PNPOs and potentially in private non-profit organizations or in voluntary organizations, since these three types of organizations could have certain similar organizational characteristics and might encounter similar questions in terms of strategy and innovation management.

This research suggests a renewed understanding of the concept of organizational ambidexterity in a sector in which the complexities, tensions and paradoxes generated by different stakeholders’ expectations are probably more present but less explicit than other organizations.

Boundary-spanning managers need to recognize, learn and implement external knowledge while balancing the conflicts emerging from new and existing knowledge. The authors' study explores how a paradox mindset (PM) and a learning focus [learning goal orientation (LGO)] promote two managerial capabilities: absorptive capacity (ACAP) and ambidexterity. The authors' study explores the inter-relationship between the mindsets and the capabilities required for innovative work behavior.

The authors use survey data from 113 technology/product managers employed in boundary-spanning roles in a large Indian automotive equipment manufacturing firm. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis and bootstrapping (using PROCESS MACRO) are used to test for direct and mediation effects respectively.

Both PM and LGO are found to affect individual ambidexterity (IA) via the mediation of individual absorptive capacity (IACAP). While IACAP partially mediates the relationship between PM and IA, there is full mediation in the case of LGO.

The authors focus on a sample of managers from a single, large Indian automotive firm. Although single case studies can help provide novel conceptual insights and to test theoretical relationships, future research needs to confirm the authors' findings in different types of firms.

This study shows how a learning orientation and the ability to be energized from conflicts help boundary-spanning managers produce innovative outcomes.

The authors reveal fresh insights on how both ACAP and ambidexterity share the focus on learning and paradox management. The authors explicate how LGO and PM uniquely impact the critical capabilities of IACAP and IA for boundary-spanning managers.

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.

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.

A hierarchy involving zero-, first- and second-order ambidexterity is developed. Mechanisms and capabilities for creating and sustaining each type of ambidexterity are described.

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.

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.

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.

Global production networks (GPN) propel process and product upgrading of the latecomer firm (LCF), promoting its present operating efficiency on one hand, but, on the other hand, probably hindering the LCF's function and chain upgrading, resulting in the undermining of its future adaptive capability. Previous studies have suggested that ambidexterity is influential to the upgrading of the LCF. However, little is known about how the LCF builds ambidexterity to upgrade in GPN. The purpose of this paper is to examine how the LCF constructs ambidexterity resulting from tie diversity to break through the upgrading dilemma.

This paper intends to fill relevant gaps in the literatures on the LCF and explore the emerging fields of ambidexterity. The authors employ a longitudinal case study by examining how a manufacturer – Haitian Group – originating from China's plastic equipment industry has managed its diverse ties to build ambidexterity over the past 20 years.

The research reveals that: the key to successfully transferring from process and product upgrading to function or chain upgrading in GPN for the LCF is to establish its ambidexterity over time; LCF could achieve ambidexterity through creating diverse ties in GPN, namely develop diverse cooperative partners and patterns in different value functions over time; and the process of the LCF building ambidexterity in GPN is incremental, which needs the previous exploitation as a basis.

Previous studies have paid little attention to how the LCF makes use of tie diversity to build ambidexterity to sustainable upgrading in GPN. This paper fills the gaps and contributes to the theory of upgrading in GPN.

In this study, the authors aim to address the following two research questions: (1) How do technology innovation paradoxes manifest themselves in technological changes? (2) How do incumbent firms manage technology innovation paradoxes through multi-level organizational ambidexterity? To do so, the authors examine technology innovation in cloud computing, which has taken shape and brought about changes to the information technology industry. Specifically, the authors examine how a traditional software company, China Standard Software Co., Ltd. (CS2C), successfully navigated the technological transition to cloud computing from its existing operating systems business by managing innovation paradoxes through multi-level ambidexterity capabilities.

This study examines a single exploratory case and conducts an in-depth analysis of how technology innovation paradoxes manifest themselves in technological changes and how incumbent firms manage technology innovation paradoxes through multi-level organizational ambidexterity. The data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously through three phases. In Phase 1, one of the authors who had worked at CS2C for many years enabled the authors to obtain access to the company. The data analysis during this phase provided the authors with the history and current situation of CS2C, enabling them to understand the external circumstances, such as particular historical period, and internal conditions, such as cultural and technological changes, that would be relevant throughout the course of their study. It also helped the authors identify organizational ambidexterity capability as the guiding theoretical concept for their research. In Phase 2, the authors engaged in site visits and conducted detailed interviews with employees working at CS2C. In Phase 3, most of the data analysis was conducted. When the interview data were not sufficient to support the theoretical analysis, additional data were collected via phone calls and emails, to assure data-theory-model alignment.

The authors’ findings show that technology innovation paradoxes manifest themselves as contradictory relationships and mutual support relationships between exploitative and exploratory innovation. In addition, the authors identify three integration mechanisms as key to multi-level organizational ambidexterity capabilities in managing technology innovation paradoxes in technological changes.

Three important theoretical implications can be drawn from our case analysis. First, this research contributes to the knowledge of innovation paradoxes during technological changes. Second, this research provides a model of multi-level organizational ambidexterity capability in technological changes. Third, this research proposes three integration mechanisms driven by three types of ambidexterity capability at different organizational levels.

This paper aims to analyze how business units can use their employees’ external social capital to explore and exploit the resources available in their environment. Based on multiple interviews with the employees of the global commodity firm Gamma Chemical (around 50,000 employees), the research aims at gaining an understanding of the contextual conditions required to successfully build and leverage individuals’ external social client network ties for business unit ambidexterity.

The authors conducted a single-case study at Gamma Chemical that entailed 33 semi-directive interviews, each of which lasted 1-4 h, at different organizational levels (ranging from top-level management to production workers). We had access to three regional business units. The interviews addressed the links between the individuals in the business units and external actors. The authors also collected information about the company’s strategic objectives, the local competitive environment and work organization. Open-ended questions were used to allow the interviewees to freely relate anecdotes about their own network development. In particular, the authors asked the respondents to identify business contacts with whom they interacted privately and to describe the relationships.

The research findings are two-fold. First, and contrary to prior studies, the authors find that individuals’ social capital contributes to both exploration and exploitation at the business unit level. Second, developing and leveraging individuals’ external social capital requires a specific organizational context at the business unit level that allows employees to develop and nurture their personal business relationships with clients.

The study is limited by the scope of the sample (a study of one large multinational firm). Further research conducted in similar contexts may therefore be useful for comparability purposes and to generalize the results.

Several practical recommendations describe how managers can effectively make use of their employees’ social connections with clients. In particular, the results suggest that managers should seek business unit flexibility on the basis of team-based structures, an autonomous leadership style and by actively creating a degree of critical social network tie redundancy, encouraging a shared network culture. These three specific conditions allow employees’ personal client networks to not only flourish but also contribute to business unit ambidexterity.

Prior social capital studies have analyzed intra-firm and inter-firm relationships in terms of contributing to firm ambidexterity. However, these findings have often been difficult to translate into specific organizational levels. Given business units’ critical role in identifying and implementing business opportunities for a firm, the authors focus on the micro-foundations of exploratory and exploitative learning by using a social capital perspective to explore the link between employees’ private external social relationships with clients and business unit ambidexterity. In this way, we contribute to the social capital literature and research on business unit ambidexterity and to extant contextual ambidexterity research by specifying the conditions that help firms develop and leverage their employees’ own external social capital for exploration and exploitation.