Search results

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 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.

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.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) use networks to overcome knowledge deficiencies in pursuing innovation. However, balancing the cost and risk of growing networks, especially internationally, with potential gains in knowledge remains a critical challenge. Searching for innovation knowledge in international and domestic networks can be complementary when learning is compressed or as competing when the SMEs capacity to use the new knowledge is exceeded. This paper aims to investigate whether knowledge searches in domestic and international networks are complementary or conflicting in pursuit of innovation.

This study is based on firm-level data set comprising 426 SMEs located in New Zealand, an advanced small and open economy. Using multi-level modelling, this study tests competing hypotheses, asking whether domestic and international network searches are complements or substitutes when seeking ambidexterity.

The research finds that, in contrast to earlier research, which shows increasing network breadth drives innovation activity, SMEs benefit less from knowledge search across combined domestic and international networks for exploration innovation and ambidexterity. In contrast, exploitation shows no effect, suggesting that combined networks could support exploitation.

This paper highlights how SMEs mitigate the influence resource constraints have on the partnerships they form and how this translates to ambidexterity. Specifically, recognising that an opportunistic approach to network development may impose future constraints on SME ambidexterity. From a management perspective, the paper recognises that balancing knowledge search across domestic and international networks can facilitate ambidexterity; however, to prevent spreading resources too thinly, this likely requires exit from early domestic innovation network partnerships.

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.

As a response to the increased frequency of disruptive events and intense competition, organizational agility has become a key concept in organizational research. Fostering organizational agility requires leveraging knowledge that exists both outside (exploration) and inside (exploitation) the organization. This research tests the so-called ambidexterity hypothesis, which claims that a balance between exploration and exploitation leads to increased organizational outcomes, including the development of organizational agility. Complementing previously established measurement models on ambidexterity, this research proposes an alternative measurement model to analyze how ambidexterity can enhance organizational agility and, indirectly, performance, taking into consideration the moderating effect of environmental competitiveness.

A review of existing measurement models for ambidexterity shows that tension, a crucial aspect of ambidexterity, is often neglected. The authors, therefore, develop a new measurement model of ambidexterity to incorporate ambidexterity-induced tension. Using this measurement model, they examine the effect of ambidexterity on the development of entrepreneurial and adaptive agility as well as performance.

Ambidexterity positively influences both entrepreneurial and adaptive agility, indicating that a balance between exploration and exploitation has superior organizational effects. This finding confirms the ambidexterity hypothesis with respect to organizational agility. Furthermore, both entrepreneurial and adaptive agility drive organizational performance. These two indirect effects via agility fully mediate the impact of ambidexterity on organizational performance. Finally, environmental competitiveness positively moderates the relationship between ambidexterity and adaptive agility.

The findings extend research on ambidexterity by showing its positive effects on organizational agility. Furthermore, the study proposes an alternative operationalization to capture the ambidexterity construct that may lay the groundwork for further applications of the ambidexterity concept.

Digital transformation (DT) is among the vital factors contributing to innovation ambidexterity, especially for advanced manufacturing firms (AMFs). However, the empirical studies on the relationship between DT and innovation ambidexterity in AMFs from the perspective of knowledge management are inadequate. Therefore, this study aims to systematically analyze the impact of DT on innovation ambidexterity and its mechanism of action.

This study selects 254 listed firms within the ten key areas of “Made in China 2025,” as they occupy a key position in China’s advanced manufacturing system. Based on the knowledge-based view (KBV) and contingency theory, it constructs a model of the influence mechanism of DT on innovation ambidexterity.

The results show that the DT of AMFs positively influence innovation ambidexterity. External pressure from environmental turbulence enhances the positive relationship between DT and innovation ambidexterity, demonstrating the “resilience effect,” external knowledge search (EKS) and broadening the knowledge base mediating roles between them, highlighting the “accumulation effect.”

By identifying this mediation mechanism of DT and innovation ambidexterity, this study provides new ideas for path research on the KBV. Moreover, this study explores the triggering effect of market environmental turbulence on the DT of firms. It reveals the boundary conditions of DT acting on innovation ambidexterity, expands the research perspective on organizational resilience and enriches the theory of power change.

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.