Significant ambiguity remains in the literature regarding the conceptualization of organizational ambidexterity. We unpack this construct into one with two dimensions we term the balance dimension of ambidexterity (BD) and the combined dimension of ambidexterity (CD). BD corresponds to a firm's orientation to maintain a close relative balance between exploratory and exploitative activities, whereas CD corresponds to their combined magnitude. We reason that these dimensions are conceptually distinct, and rely on different causal mechanisms to enhance firm performance. We find that over and above their independent effects, concurrent high levels of BD and CD yield synergistic benefits. We also find that BD is more beneficial to resource-constrained firms, whereas CD is more beneficial to firms having greater access to internal and/or external resources. These results indicate that managers in resource-constrained contexts may benefit from a focus on managing trade-offs between exploration and exploitation demands, but for firms that have access to sufficient resources, the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation is both possible and desirable.

No abstract

Research suggests that unit‐level ambidexterity positively impacts subsequent unit performance but theory and testing on this impact remain impoverished. We develop a cross‐level model suggesting that structural and resource attributes of the organizational context significantly shape the relationship between unit ambidexterity and performance. Using multisource and lagged data from 285 organizational units located within 88 autonomous branches, results from hierarchical linear modeling show that this relationship is boosted when the organization is decentralized, more resource munificent, or less resource interdependent. We also find that structural differentiation of the organization does not condition the unit ambidexterity‐performance relationship. Through this cross‐level theory and testing, we develop a richer explanation of the effectiveness of ambidextrous units operating in multiunit contexts. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

While researchers continue to debate how firms might attain ambidexterity, recent research demonstrates that top management teams (TMTs) play a pivotal role. We enrich this line of inquiry by specifying a model that blends the effect of the CEO and the TMT on ambidexterity. Specifically, given the importance of networking and building social capital to the access of timely, valuable, and diverse information, we first envision that the CEO's network extensiveness will positively impact ambidexterity. Next, we argue that this impact will be bolstered when the CEO-TMT interactional interface, including communication richness, functional complementarity, and power decentralization, enable the entire TMT to process disparate information demands essential to attaining ambidexterity. We test and find general support for our model using multi-source survey data from 122 small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Copyright (c) 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies.

While conflicts (cognitive and affective) have been considered as important process variables to better understand the mixed findings on the relationship between top management team functional diversity and organizational innovation, such an input-process-outcome model is still incomplete without considering the environmental factors. This study was formulated to assess the importance of both competitive and institutional environments in moderating such upper echelon effects within a transition economy. The chief executive officers and chief technology officers of 122 Chinese firms were surveyed and both competitive uncertainty and institutional support were found to shape top management team decision making processes and their outcomes. 113Hypothesis 1b: Institutional support moderates the relationship between TMT functional diversity and cognitive conflict. Functional diversity is associated with more cognitive conflict when institutional support is weaker. 5 To address concerns about single source bias we also collected responses from the CTOs about competitive uncertainty and institutional support. The CTOs' ratings correlated strongly with the CEOs'. Supplementary analyses using aggregated CEO and CTO ratings yielded virtually unchanged results.