Evidence-based management for today’s “ambidextrous” organizations

Abstract

Purpose This paper examines how evidence based management (EBM) can help managers build more flexible organizations. In the context of this article, we define the need to build for this capacity around the challenge of “ambidexterity”, or the need for companies to continue operations while also allowing for innovation. We present a framework to help managers create strategies that help them build ambidexterity in their organizations, whether they operate in highly regulated, compliance driven or un-regulated, non-compliance climates. Design/methodology/approach This paper identifies four organizational design strategies each of which represents a different leadership and organization consideration that may focus on how evidence based management practices are linked to competency building (i.e., exploitation), the need innovation, or an equal balance between the two (i.e., ambidexterity). Findings Our findings reveal that an organization’s use of data given these four strategic orientations reflect different uses of data (verifiability and codification concerns) and ways of embedding compliance and ambidexterity (exploitation vs. exploration) considerations. Practical implications These four strategies help managers expose biases in their current decision-making practices, and how they subsequently may affect lifecycle, change management, and data practice in ambidexterity development. Originality/value While EBM acknowledges the importance of utilizing evidence, it remains limited toward understanding how it might be used to build for ambidexterity in organizations.

Enabling organisational ambidexterity: A leadership perspective

“…This research aimed to explore, from a leadership perspective, the ambidexterity paradox as it pertains to the organisational structure required to sustain it. Leadership styles, including transformational and situational leadership, and capabilities required to enable ambidexterity have been outlined in the literature (Appelbaum, Calla, Desautels, & Hasan, 2017a;Jackson & Leung, 2018;Kim & Shin, 2019;Kollenscher et al, 2017;Srivastava & Jain, 2017). Furthermore, exploration of the organisational structures, processes, business models and cultures required to enable ambidexterity at the organisational level of analysis has also been reported (Galbraith, 2008;Leavy, 2014;Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).…”

“…Ambidexterity requires specific change capabilities to be developed within each individual. These capabilities enable the individual to sense and seize the opportunities (Jackson & Leung, 2018;Leavy, 2014;Liu et al, 2019;Luu, Rowley, & Dinh, 2018;Salas Vallina et al, 2019;Schweiger, Kump, & Hoorman, 2016).…”

“…The decision goal of this paradox is to find a revised objective that maximises the advantages, and minimises the disadvantages, of these elements concurrently. However, exploration and exploitation can require conflicting and opposing processes and structures (Jackson & Leung, 2018;Leavy, 2014;Lewis et al, 2014).…”

“…Alternatively, if an organisation's leadership can balance the paradoxical tensions, it can produce creative tension and constructive conflict. This could lead to the questioning of the status quo and initial assumptions whilst still working towards a shared common goal, ultimately enabling innovation and growth of market share (Jackson & Leung, 2018;Leavy, 2014;Lewis et al, 2014;Liu et al, 2019).…”

“…However, context matters. In a highly regulated environment, where incremental innovation sustains profitability, an organisation can remain competitive through industry analysis and strategic positioning and realignment as the market changes (Jackson & Leung, 2018), rather than continuously developing new products. In contrast, where value chain specialisation and market disruptions are a reality, organisations are required to be more explorative, continuously developing new and customer-centric products to stay ahead of the competition (Jackson & Leung, 2018;Leavy, 2014).…”