P rior studies have emphasized that structural attributes are crucial to simultaneously pursuing exploration and exploitation, yet our understanding of antecedents of ambidexterity is still limited. Structural differentiation can help ambidextrous organizations to maintain multiple inconsistent and conflicting demands; however, differentiated exploratory and exploitative activities need to be mobilized, coordinated, integrated, and applied. Based on this idea, we delineate formal and informal senior team integration mechanisms (e.g., contingency rewards and social integration) and formal and informal organizational integration mechanisms (e.g., cross-functional interfaces and connectedness) and examine how they mediate the relationship between structural differentiation and ambidexterity. Overall, our findings suggest that the previously asserted direct effect of structural differentiation on ambidexterity operates through informal senior team (i.e., senior team social integration) and formal organizational (i.e., cross-functional interfaces) integration mechanisms. Through this richer explanation and empirical assessment, we contribute to a greater clarity and better understanding of how organizations may effectively pursue exploration and exploitation simultaneously to achieve ambidexterity.
Although research on organizational ambidexterity has exploded in the past several years, the determinants of individual-level ambidexterity have received little scholarly attention. This is surprising given that management scholars increasingly highlight the benefits of combining explorative and exploitative activities in individual employees' work roles. Using data collected by a two-wave survey of 638 employees nested in 173 groups across 34 organizations, our research demonstrates that both psychological factors and leadership predict employees' ambidextrous behaviour. Our results demonstrate that general self-efficacy positively predicts ambidextrous behaviour through learning orientation. In addition, we show that employees exhibit higher ambidexterity when their group managers demonstrate paradoxical leadership; that is, a leadership style that couples strong managerial support with high performance expectations. Paradoxical leadership also moderates the relationship between learning orientation and individual ambidexterity such that employees' ambidextrous behaviour is highest when paradoxical leadership and employee learning orientation are simultaneously at high levels.
This article contributes to the growing body of research that focuses on the microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity, that is, understanding what enables individuals to address the exploitation-exploration dilemma. One central challenge generated by ambidexterity is the multiplicity and divergence of organizational roles, to which individuals need to cater when exploiting and exploring. Specifically, we point to the relevance of how individuals identify with and enact this multiplicity of role demands. Following identity theory, we apply the logic of role integration and role segmentation, a foundational classification of how individuals cognitively manage role multiplicity. Further, as different role domains often require the interaction with other organizational functions, we test for the moderating effect of cross-functional coordination on the relationship between role segmentation and individual ambidexterity. Based on data from 120 global account managers employed by multinationals with an average size of 73,348 employees, our results indicate that role segmentation negatively influences an individual's ability to behave ambidextrously. Interestingly, though, when operating in cross-functional teams, the impact of role segmentation becomes positive. We conclude by highlighting the scope and significance of these findings for theory, managerial practice, and future research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.