Explaining ambidextrous leadership in the aerospace and defense organizations

Researchers have increasingly been using the term of organizational ambidexterity to denote the simultaneous use of exploration and exploitation in organizations. Exploration refers to innovation, whereas exploitation addresses cost efficiency. However, despite the plethora of research output on ambidexterity, very few studies are actually providing insights into what specific behaviors and leadership styles accomplish ambidexterity and how organizational constraints influence ambidextrous leadership. In this research, we aim to explain the key properties of ambidextrous leadership, where we propose that ambidexterity is most efficiently promoted by ambidextrous leaders who combine two leadership styles: transformational leadership and transactional leadership. In our study, we associate transformational leadership to exploration, whereas transactional leadership is linked to exploitation. We conduct a research on ambidextrous leadership in the aerospace and defense organizations while also taking into account how organizational structure and environmental dynamism impact leadership styles. The results of our research reveal that both leadership styles are present at the senior management level. Top management, however, mostly uses transactional leadership in part because of structural and environmental constraints while also employing some limited form of transformational leadership style. Therefore, our study concludes that in this particular field the ambidextrous leaders are primarily focused on exploitative activities, while only a limited amount of their time is being allocated on exploration-oriented objectives.     

Managing skunkworks to achieve ambidexterity: The Robinson Crusoe effect

Literature on ambidexterity emphasizes the need for both exploration and exploitation. Large firms usually choose to implement structural ambidexterity to separate both activities. We here focus on an extreme case of such structural partitioning implemented as a secret skunkworks project in a large French automotive company. A qualitative survey using both primary and secondary data shows that the major basic and initial characteristics of a skunkworks (i.e. secrecy, urgency, and autonomy) created favorable conditions for the technological exploration. However, exploitation failed due to precisely those same characteristics coupled with the fact that the project did not respond to a specific market demand: The skunkworks suffered from what we call the "Robinson Crusoe effect." We therefore contribute to the literature on skunkworks, which have remained understudied in the academic literature, as well as on ambidexterity, by showing how the interrelation between different factors is crucial for structural ambidexterity to be successful     

Ambidexterity in family firms: The interplay between family influences within and beyond the executive suite

Ambidexterity commonly refers to the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation and may be particularly beneficial for family firms. In this study, we investigate how family CEO and top management team (TMT) family affiliation influence ambidexterity. In addition, we consider the role of family ownership dispersion and how it impacts the ability of the top managers of family firms to foster ambidexterity. We test our hypotheses on a unique dataset combining archival and multiple respondent survey data of 167 German family firms. Our results shed light on conditions under which family-led leadership can pursue ambidexterity.     

Pro-innovation culture,ambidexterity and new product development performance: Polynomial regression and response surface analysis

This study examines the intervening role of organizational ambidexterity in the relationship between pro-innovation culture and new product development (NPD) performance. The results indicate that organizational ambidexterity positively mediates the relationship between pro-innovation culture and NPD performance. The results show that when both exploration and exploitation are increased simultaneously, after an initial decline, NPD performance shows a rising trend. NPD performance tends to decline generally when there is an imbalance between the two though the plateau is at a point where exploitation is slightly higher than exploration. Additionally, pro-innovation culture can increase the gap between exploration and exploitation for exploration-oriented firms, which can lower their NPD performance. Overall, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms that explain why firms with pro-innovation culture have higher NPD performance. Further, it enhances our understanding of the role of pro-innovation culture as an organizational context for building organizational ambidexterity, and provides new insights that can help reconcile the combined and balanced views of ambidexterity in enhancing NPD performance.     

Top management team diversity and ambidexterity: The contingent role of shared responsibility and CEO cognitive trust

Earlier research has suggested that diversity is a double-edged sword when achieving organizational ambidexterity. While it may contribute to the development of new combinations of exploration and exploitation, it may also lead to disagreements and potential conflict within top management teams (TMTs). To improve our understanding of the effectiveness of diversity in ambidextrous organizations, we develop a synergistic perspective on TMT diversity and examine how two types of diversity – functional and age diversity – affect the achievement of organizational ambidexterity. We also identify shared responsibility and CEO cognitive trust as important contingencies that may complement the effects of diversity within TMTs in terms of resolving potential conflicts and managing tensions between exploration and exploitation effectively. Based on multisource data, our study shows that CEO cognitive trust and shared responsibility moderate the relationship between different types of diversity and ambidexterity. Our study has important implications for research on organizational ambidexterity, diversity, and senior leadership.     

平衡开发式创新和探索式创新一定有利于提升企业绩效吗?

在日益动态的商业环境下,平衡开发式创新和探索式创新是企业兼顾当前和未来竞争所必须重视的问题。现有研究过度强调了同时重视开发式创新和探索式创新的二元平衡的价值,假设二元平衡是对任何企业都普遍适用的,但实证检验的结果却并非如此。本研究注意到资源紧缺条件对企业开发式创新和探索式创新平衡战略的影响,发展了资源紧缺条件下中国企业开发式创新和探索式创新的平衡理论,指出,开发式创新和探索式创新的平衡策略不仅有二元平衡,还有间断平衡,究竟哪种策略有效取决于企业资源约束条件决定的开发式创新和探索式创新之间究竟是正交关系还是竞争关系起主导作用。最后,本研究以新创企业和成熟企业的大规模调查数据的比较性实证研究证实了本文的主要理论假设。     

The individual side of ambidexterity: Do individuals’ perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off?

The paper addresses the issue of the exploration–exploitation dilemma, adopting a micro level of analysis. Unlike the extensive literature on ambidexterity that investigates the organizational solutions that allow firms to pursue the balance between the two kinds of learning orientation, this research draws attention to the as yet barely analyzed individual dimension of ambidexterity. Specifically, in investigating personal ambidexterity we point to the relevance of individuals’ perceptions on what their role requires of them and the actual behaviors they perform.     

The role of organisational drivers of exploration and exploitation – Market dynamism as a contingency factor

Simultaneously engaging in exploration and exploitation is crucial to firms' short- and long-term survival. Therefore, it is remarkable that many open questions remain regarding organisational contextual factors which support these distinct and complementary practices. Consequently, this study analyses the relations of three knowledge-related organisational contextual factors, namely customer involvement, knowledge sharing, and data-driven decision-making, with exploratory and exploitative practices. We further propose that these relationships are contingent on the degree of market dynamism, which we identify as a pivotal environmental contingency factor. To test our hypotheses, we create and compare two structural equation models based on a sample of 779 German firms, which we split at the median value of market dynamism. The relationships of knowledge sharing and data-driven decision-making with exploitation are positive, stable, and contingent on the degree of market dynamism, while the relations between the organisational factors and exploration tend to be less systematic. These findings foster a nuanced understanding of knowledge-related organisational contextual factors facilitating organisations’ simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation in dependence on the market environment, which has not been extensively researched yet. Moreover, we illuminate links between the research on exploration and exploitation, ambidexterity, open innovation, information systems, and strategic management.     

Antecedents and effects of individual ambidexterity – A cross-level investigation of exploration and exploitation activities at the employee level

For long-term success, companies need to adapt to technological and environmental change. Organizational ambidexterity, which balances the exploration of new opportunities with the exploitation of existing capabilities, is increasingly viewed as a promising approach to tackle this challenge. However, despite the important role of individuals for firms' ambidexterity and performance, evidence on how exploration of new opportunities and exploitation of existing capabilities are triggered at an individual level and on their subsequent effects on overall performance is still lacking. Accordingly, the present research shifts the focus from organizational ambidexterity to individual ambidexterity. Based on data from 415 employees, the results of structural equation modeling show that both organizational architecture and organizational context can be used to induce individual ambidexterity. Furthermore, positive performance effects of individual ambidexterity across different organizational levels, namely the team and department levels, are confirmed.     

Empowering leadership and contextual ambidexterity – The mediating role of committed leadership for continuous improvement

Organisations nowadays try to be ambidextrous, that is, to balance exploitation and exploration, at the level of the organisational unit, or even at the individual level. Recent studies found that important drivers for contextual ambidexterity are a high level of empowerment and an orientation towards continuous improvement (CI) and innovation. It is, therefore, to be expected that empowering leadership and leader commitment to CI are associated with contextual ambidexterity. However, literature about the relationships between empowering leadership, committed leadership for CI and contextual ambidexterity is scant. Based on two separate survey studies, we validated both the relationship between empowering leadership and contextual ambidexterity, and the mediating effect of committed leadership for CI in the organisational unit level and the individual level. The managerial implications of this research is that organisations that want to facilitate contextual ambidexterity should not only empower employees so that they can decide more independently on how to organise their time and make choices when they conduct exploratory activities and when they perform exploitative activities. Management must also act as committed ambassadors for CI, as CI functions as an integration mechanism to create both alignment and adaptability, and hence contextual ambidexterity.     

How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity

Little is known about how top management teams (TMTs) make balanced strategic decisions (exploration and exploitation) and spearhead organizational ambidexterity. To address the theoretical call to explore how TMTs can help create ambidexterity, we propose a theoretical model where TMT behavioral integration cultivates behavioral complexity in a TMT that can build organizational ambidexterity. Further, we argue that the relationship between TMT behavioral complexity and organizational ambidexterity is moderated by contextual ambidexterity. Drawing on research in the areas of leadership, TMT, organizational context and ambidexterity, we explore implications for future research.     

The asymmetric effects of exploitation and exploration on radical and incremental innovation performance: An uneven affair

Scholars have argued that the exploitation–exploration interaction provides a source of competitive advantage beyond that provided by each individually. However, we know little about the mutual effects of exploitation and exploration on either incremental or radical innovation performance. To address this gap, we examine data from 171 manufacturing firms. We find incremental innovation performance is highest when exploitation interacts with an intermediary level of exploration. Radical innovation performance, however, is solely driven by exploration. A coupling with exploitation is not effective. We contribute to the extant literature, first, by disentangling the interaction effects of exploitation and exploration on radical and incremental innovation performance, respectively. Second, we extend extant literature that agrees that maintaining an appropriate balance of exploitation and exploration is critical for innovation performance and that has conceptualized this balance as symmetrical presence and magnitude of exploitation and exploration. In particular, we provide evidence in support of an asymmetric relationship.     

Ambidexterity penetration across multiple organizational levels in an aerospace and defense organization

The ambidexterity framework, which comprises two contradictory, yet interrelated processes of exploration and exploitation, has been researched using a variety of perspectives. Few studies, however, provide insight into the question: how is ambidexterity managed across multiple organizational levels? To address this question, we introduce the term ambidexterity penetration that refers to the enactment of ambidexterity across multiple organizational levels and develop a conceptual framework about how it is practiced (horizontally, vertically and organizationally). We empirically showcase this framework using findings from six business units of an aerospace and defense organization and analyzing data from 30 interviews. Overall, our study contributes to ambidexterity research and offers an empirical investigation of ambidexterity penetration across multiple organizational levels in the context of the aerospace and defense sector.     

Ambidextrous Organizational Culture,Contextual Ambidexterity and New Product Innovation: A Comparative Study of UK and Chinese High‐tech Firms

Contextual ambidexterity is of paramount importance for new product innovation and organizational success, particularly in high‐tech firms operating in a dynamic environment. Whilst it is recognized that contextual ambidexterity is grounded in organizational culture, existing research has not crystallized what kind of organizational culture enables contextual ambidexterity and consequently new product innovation. In this paper, drawing on data from 150 UK and 242 Chinese high‐tech firms, we conceptualize ambidextrous organizational culture as a higher‐order construct consisting of organizational diversity and shared vision, and examine its impacts on contextual ambidexterity and consequently on new product innovation outcomes. Using structural equation modelling, we find significant relationships between ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation outcomes; contextual ambidexterity mediates the relationship between ambidextrous organizational culture and new product innovation outcomes. Our findings also suggest that the above relationships are robust in the UK–China comparative research context, and that contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation outcomes are dependent on business unit level heterogeneity (i.e. ambidextrous organizational culture and research and development strength) rather than industry or cross‐cultural differences.     

Industrial productivity dilemma in management and economics: Retrospect and prospect

Industrial productivity dilemma refers to a situation in which modifying and refining existing technologies helps maximize an industry's productivity but constrains productivity from leaping forward. As substantial research exists on this topic in both management and economics, we seek to clarify the concept and its utility. We synthesize relevant studies in various disciplines by reviewing 731 pieces of literature. We summarize various mechanisms that explain why, as the industry develops, the proportion of disruptive innovation declines and the ratio of productivity research and development increases. Our results suggest that industrial productivity dilemma occurs because under a given technological paradigm, there are economic and natural limits to technological development. Only through disruptive innovation can industries improve their long-term adaptability to the environment and promote industrial upgrading or forming new industries. Although with modern technology developments, industrial productivity dilemma may be resolved, because some giant firms can balance the exploration–exploitation conflict well; moreover, structural problems occur as productivity is unbalanced among firms. The productivity dilemma (and its by-product, the structural problem) will always exist. We develop a conceptual framework based on the environment, industry, firm, and policy dimensions to guide future research.     

Understanding the emergence of redistributed manufacturing: an ambidexterity perspective

Abstract

This paper extends operations strategy theory on efficiency and flexibility trade-offs to the emergent phenomenon of redistributed manufacturing (RDM). The study adopts a multiple-case design including five small and five large pharmaceutical firms. We propose that organizations can gain the efficiency benefits of centralized manufacturing and the flexibility advantages of RDM by building an ambidexterity capability. To build such a capability, large firms can structurally partition their manufacturing and supply management functions, with one sub-unit managing centralized production and the other RDM. Smaller enterprises can build an ambidexterity capability by creating the right organizational context, where multi-skilled workers switch between efficient and flexible tasks. This paper contributes to theory by explaining the emergence of RDM using an organizational ambidexterity lens, laying the groundwork for new theory development in the field. We provide managers with a practical example of how to build an ambidexterity capability to realize flexibility and efficiency advantages.     

Internal networking and innovation ambidexterity: The mediating role of knowledge management processes in university research

This article focuses on public organizations to contribute to research on knowledge management processes, a field that until recently has focused primarily on private entities. Specifically, we analyse the mediating role of knowledge transfer and knowledge absorption in the relationship between the internal networking created in university research groups and innovation ambidexterity. Based on six hypotheses, the conceptual model is tested through a structural equations model with mediation effects. The data analysed come from 249 directors of Spanish public university research groups. The results show that the internal networking formed in university research groups has a positive and significant relationship to knowledge transfer and knowledge absorption, but we obtain different results for the relationship between knowledge transfer and knowledge absorption in the presence of innovation ambidexterity. Only knowledge absorption has a positive and significant influence on innovation ambidexterity. The most interesting results involve the mediating role of knowledge absorption in the relationship between internal networking and innovation ambidexterity. These results support the conclusion that directors of university research groups should promote development of knowledge absorption processes in order to stimulate innovation ambidexterity and thus to achieve ambidextrous innovative performance.     

汽车模具制造能力演化路径与能力构筑竞争:北京比亚迪模具案例

以北京比亚迪模具为案例研究对象,探讨中国汽车模具企业能力演化路径,能力构筑竞争的原因、过程与特征。通过对该企业的观察研究,发现模具制造能力演化经历3个阶段:创生静态能力阶段、发展改善能力阶段、保持复制能力阶段。吸收能力的层次不同深刻影响了企业能力演化路径。组织内外部、显隐性知识2个维度的应用与探索的双元能力将影响企业吸收能力的层次。从理论上探讨了吸收能力的双元性与企业能力演化路径、能力构筑竞争之间的相互关系。在实践方面,指出中国模具制造能力停留在复制能力阶段,缺乏自主创新能力的根本原因在于企业重视学习组织内外部的显性知识,不重视隐性知识的积累以及隐性知识的显性化。吸收能力的非双元性制约着中国企业自主创新能力的发展。     

Top Managers' cognition facilitates organisational ambidexterity: The mediating role of cognitive processes

It is empirically founded and tested that top management team group processes facilitate ambidexterity, whereas the role of top managers' cognition has remained empirically largely neglected. This study contributes to the literature of top managers' cognition by theoretically developing the relationship between cognitive frames and organisational ambidexterity, and the mediating process of cognitive differentiation and integration. The study empirically tests the proposed model in cross-sectional design by employing a sample of 101 top managers, using partial least squares structural equation modelling.The study shows that top managers' paradoxical frames encourage the engagement in cognitive differentiation and integration, whereas top managers' paradoxical frames are not significantly related to organisational ambidexterity. Solely appreciating exploitation and exploration does not foster ambidexterity, but is an antecedent for top managers' cognitive differentiation and integration. Top managers' cognitive differentiation and integration mediate the relationship between top managers' paradoxical frames and organisational ambidexterity. Additionally, top managers' cognitive integration moderates the effect between top managers' cognitive differentiation and organisational ambidexterity, which stresses the pivotal role of top managers' cognitive integration.     

Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma

How do organizations survive in the face of change? Underlying this question is a rich debate about whether organizations can adapt—and if so how. One perspective, organizational ecology, presents evidence suggesting that most organizations are largely inert and ultimately fail. A second perspective argues that some firms do learn and adapt to shifting environmental contexts. Recently, this latter view has coalesced around two themes. The first, based on research in strategy suggests that dynamic capabilities, the ability of a firm to reconfigure assets and existing capabilities, explains long-term competitive advantage. The second, based on organizational design, argues that ambidexterity, the ability of a firm to simultaneously explore and exploit, enables a firm to adapt over time. In this paper, we review and integrate these comparatively new research streams and identify a set of propositions that suggest how ambidexterity acts as a dynamic capability. We suggest that efficiency and innovation need not be strategic tradeoffs and highlight the substantive role of senior teams in building dynamic capabilities.