Complements or Substitutes? A Microfoundations Perspective on the Interplay between Drivers of Ambidexterity in SMEs

Complements or Substitutes? A Microfoundations Perspective on the Interplay between Drivers of Ambidexterity in SMEs

Summary for agile leaders

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.

Reviewed: 23 Dec 2022 by Russ Lewis
Request full analysis of this paper 
Authors: 
Alexander Zimmermann, Susan A. Hill, Julian Birkinshaw, Martin Jaeckel
Publication date: 
2020
DOI: 
10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101927

My classifications

Tags: 

Abstract

Research on the microfoundations of ambidexterity has identified a number of drivers that shape the ability of individuals to overcome exploration-exploitation tensions. However, little is known about how these drivers interact and whether they act as complements or substitutes. In a two-stage survey of small and medium-sized enterprises, we find that formal structural drivers and informal contextual drivers of ambidexterity do not demonstrate complementarity, as generally assumed, but rather act at cross-purposes with each other. Furthermore, we find that behaviorally complex executives (those with the ability to think and act ambidextrously) appear to render the effects of the other two drivers relatively unimportant, and are only ever associated with moderate levels of ambidexterity. These findings permit the development of important theoretical insights for ambidexterity research from a microfoundations perspective.

Cite as (Harvard referencing)

Zimmermann, A. et al. (2020) ‘Complements or substitutes? A microfoundations perspective on the interplay between drivers of ambidexterity in SMEs’, Long Range Planning, 53(6), p. 101927

Latest posts

5 Reasons Hanging by a Thread is my new favourite paper!

Read more...