Professional Documents
Culture Documents
to access the most valuable and diverse information needed to avoid separation
of explorative and exploitative behaviors. The greater the interface between
TMTs and CEOs in small-to-medium sized organizations, the greater the amount
of ambidexterity.
The concept of ambidexterity was first formally introduced into the leadership
area by the Rosing, Frese and Bausch (2011) paper, holding the idea that leaders
should be able to lead their team to match the complexity and the pace of
innovation (Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001). Ambidextrous
leadership was defined as the leaders ability to foster both explorative and
exploitative behaviors in followers by increasing or reducing variance in their
behavior and flexibly switching between those behaviors (Rosing et al., 2011).
The construct of ambidextrous leadership has also been linked to the
combination of leadership styles (Jansen et al., 2009). Leaders who are
transformational encourage out of the box thinking, information sharing and
question assumptions.Transformational leaders promote exploration and
innovative thinking. Transactional leaders focus on making incremental
improvements and making the best use of existing process. The transactional
leadership style promotes exploitative behaviors. An ambidextrous leader is able
to
switch
back
and
forth
between
transformation/exploration
and
transaction/exploitation as needed, in other words, being able to switch between
different leadership styles at the appropriate time, in order to foster innovation
and then implement plans. Ambidextrous leadership consists of three elements
(1) opening leader behaviors to foster exploration, (2) closing leader behaviors to
foster exploitation, (3) and the temporal flexibility to switch between both as the
situation requires (Rosing et al., 2011). Opening leadership behaviors include:
allowing for multiple ways to accomplish a task, experimentation and errors,
whereas closing behaviors include; monitoring routines, sticking to plans and
minimizing errors. The Rosing et al. (2011)s model of leadership and innovation
was shown in Figure 1.
Controversy and Future Directions[edit]
Some scholars as well as practitioners have argued that established companies
simply lack the flexibility to explore new territories. [24]One contributing reason
could be the so-called success trap (i.e. the focus on their, historically successful,
current business activities) (Walrave, Van Oorschot, & Romme, 2011). A possible
solution for big companies is to adopt a venture capital model - funding
exploratory expeditions but otherwise not interfering too much with their
operations. Another suggestion is for the use of cross-functional teams to
achieve breakthrough innovations. Still others have suggested that a company
may be able to alternate between different organizational models, focusing
on exploitation and exploration at different time periods. For example, in a study
of biotechnology firms it is shown how an organization's management control
system can be adjusted periodically to achieve this changing focus on
exploitation and exploration.[11] Researchers also debate if ambidexterity can be
attained because exploration and exploitation tend to emerge from contradictory
information
and
knowledge
inputs
and
because
success
due
to exploration/exploitation tends to be self-reinforcing leading to the use of the
same methods in the future.[2][26] An empirical study of ambidexterity in
organizations (He & Wong, 2004) further cautions that very low levels of
both exploration and exploitation are not sufficient to contribute to superior firm
performance.
Ambidexterity
can
also
be
hampered
by
employee
desire
to
receive organizational rewards. If organizations base their evaluation andreward
systems on the completion of routine tasks, employees will be more likely to
conform to standardized procedures.[7] To avoid hindering ambidexterity,
organizations should be sure to reward innovative thinking as well as completion
of routine tasks.
Despite the controversy surrounding the possibility of organizational
ambidexterity, it is likely to continue to be a highly researched concept in the
future. Future research is likely to focus on the role of ambidextrous leaders,
ambidextrous teams and the social context of organizational ambidexterity.
(Rosing et al., 2011).
See also[edit]
Ambidexterity
Communities of innovation
Contingency Theory
Exploitation
Exploration
Innovation
Knowledge management
Leadership
Organizational culture
Organization design
Organizational learning
Organizational structure
Success trap
Tacit knowledge
Technological change
Transactional leadership
Transformational leadership
References[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to:a b Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization:
Designing dual structures for innovation. Killman, R. H., L. R. Pondy,
and D. Sleven (eds.) The Management of Organization. New York:
North Holland. 167-188.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and
exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 7187.
16.Jump up^ Doty, H. D., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit,
equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two
configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36,
1196-1250.
17.Jump up^ Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1986). Generic strategies and
performance: An empirical examination with American data Part I:
Testing Porter.Organization Studies, 7, 37-55.
18.Jump up^ Cantarello, S., Martini, A., & Nosella, A. (2012). A multilevel model for organizational ambidexterity in the search phase of
the innovation process.Creativity and Innovation Management, 21,
28-48.
19.Jump up^ Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. (1998). Competing on the
edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
20.Jump up^ Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily
divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated
organizational approaches to exploration and
adaptation. Organization Science, 14, 650-669.
21.^ Jump up to:a b Venkatraman, N., Lee, C. H., & Iyer, B.
(2007). Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: A longitudinal
test in the software sector. Unpublished Manuscript.
22.Jump up^ Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The
interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of
Management Journal, 4, 693-706.
23.Jump up^ Denison, D., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995).
Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity
in managerial leadership.Organization Science, 6, 524-540.
24.^ Jump up to:a b Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a
more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25,
760-776.
25.^ Jump up to:a b Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing
across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
26.Jump up^ Floyd, S. W. & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout
the Organization: Managing Role Conflict in Strategic Renewal. The
Academy of Management Review, 25, 154-177.
Further reading[edit]
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic
perspective on inn ovation: conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and
ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on
Science and Practice, 2(3).
Cao, Q., Simsek, Z., & Zhang, H. (2010). Modeling the joint impact of the
CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management
Studies, 47, 1272-1296.
Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H.
W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role
of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 797-811.
Jansen, J. J. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Exploratory
innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of
environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business
Review, 57, 351-363.
Jansen, J. J. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory
innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of
organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management
Science, 52, 1661-1674.
Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N. (1999). The co-evolution of new
organizational forms. Organization Science, 10, 535-550.
Raisch, S., & Hotz, F. (2008). Shaping the Context for Learning: Corporate
Alignment Initiatives, Environmental Munificence, and Firm
Performance. Strategic reconfigurations: Building dynamic capabilities in
rapid-innovation-based industries, 62-85.