Investigation of the impact of HR practices on individual and firm-level ambidexterity based on survey data from 467 managers within 52 financial services firms in Taiwan. Assumes ambidexterity is mediated by ability, motivation, and opportunity of managers.
Human resource (HR) perspective on managers’ ambidexterity. 337 managers from two large firms participated in a survey that measured manager ambidexterity against length of service in the organization and length of service in a function (organizational-functional tenure).
The authors were surprised to find that the longer managers remained in a functional area, the lower their ambidexterity became. They speculate that managers moving into new areas have to gain knowledge compared to existing functional, and/or that the longer managers remain in a functional post, the more they identify with that function rather than the organization.
Provides methods for measuring manager performance and manager ambidexterity (quantitively, using a survey).
Survey of 716 managers from four firms predicts managers' ambidexterity increases with (individual, rather than formal structural) decision-making authority, and their participation in cross-functional interfaces.
The authors suggest three characteristics of ambidextrous managers: they host contradictions; are multitaskers; and continuously update their knowledge, skills, and expertise.
Theory paper developing a "multilevel model" for ambidexterity based on a (valuable) review of the concepts in contemporaneous literature. Reviews definitions of ambidexterity from 20 previous papers.
Eight research-based "propositions" relating variables to ambidexterity and ambidexterity to performance. Including how highly-connected the unit is in its network, the diversity of its network, behavioural context (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), top management team (Smith & Tushman, 2005; Lubatkin et al, 2006), dynamism (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988) and environmental dynamism (Jansen et al, 2005, 2006), complexity and environmental complexity.
Conceptual review paper proposing four archetypes of ambidexterity, harmonic, cyclical, partitional, and reciprocal. Differentiating dimensions are time (sequential/simultaneous) and structural (separately/integrally) pursuit of ambidextrous goals.
Provides a valuable summary of 48 papers by tradeoffs, antecedents, key issue (focus), and outcomes, which I have converted into a single table. This is a useful taxonomy. For example:
Theoretical paper about how organizations (top management teams) manage contradictions.
Develops the concept of "paradoxical cognition." Eg. existing product is an "innovation stream" needing both incremental improvement (exploitative innovation) and exploration of new markets and/or technologies. Managing both activities successfully requires the TMT to recognise and embrace contradiction.
TMTs use:
Integration can be leader-centric or team-centric. Each has its own requirements (antecedents) in particular, the team-centric path depends on multi-level roles, goals, rewards, coaching, and analysis.
Useful summary of the key points of existing literature and highlights the (microfoundational) gaps that remain. Introduces a special issue of 'Long Range Planning' exploring "ambidexterity at the micro level."
Describes some of the gaps I am researching, "individual-level studies of organizational ambidexterity’s foundations that consider context more explicitly"
Seminal article that makes the case for ambidexterity with examples of firms evolving but failing to transform (evolution not revolution). Flavours of Business Process Reengineering and some of the cases have proved to be unfortunate (eg Apple has prospered and BA was taken-over). Ignited interest in ambidexterity.
"In the long-run, managers may be required to destroy the very alignment that has made their organizations successful." P.24
Survey of 88 German SMEs suggests the drivers of ambidexterity for a business unit may not be effective in combination. Structural, contextual, or leadership focus, rather than combinations, work best. Structural and contextual drivers together particularly put people at cross-purposes.
Investigation of the alliances with four suppliers shows how ambidexterity between firms may emerge beyond the original contract. This effect is shaped by managers, bottom-up and horizontally-out. Two alliances were exploitative (outsourcing) and two explorative (designing new products). One of each emerged into an ambidextrous alliance, whilst the other two were constrained by top management.
