In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial reactions to innovation–efficiency tensions

Abstract

Whereas tensions arising from the pursuit of ambidexterity have been documented, how these are interpreted and managed by actors themselves remains largely unexplored. Based on in-depth case research in a large Scandinavian-based telecommunications organization pursuing ambidexterity, we identify a path-dependent process of tension interpretation and tension management at different levels of the organization. Our findings suggest that, in the context of an ambidextrous strategy, actors are actively involved in managing arising tensions based on their differing interpretations of these tensions (where ambidextrous demands are seen as complementary, conflicting or interrelated). We find that these interpretations are influenced by actors’ strategic orientation and organizational level. Our study extends understanding of the pursuit of ambidexterity in practice, offering a pluralist, path-dependent perspective of how actors perceive and deal with ambidexterity tensions.

Introducing conflict as the microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity

“…Notably, we conceive of these levels as nested. For example, Papachroni et al (2016) illustrate how individual differences in perceptions of the tensions between innovation and efficiency are linked to organizational levels. In line with microfoundations reasoning, we thus explore how individuals and their micro-level actions and cognitive processes aggregate to broader organizational phenomena, in our case ambidexterity.…”

“…In this respect, scholars frequently make the argument that the successful management of ambidexterity depends on the particular traits, abilities, or skills of individuals, or on specific coordination mechanisms (e.g., Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009;Bledow et al, 2009;Papachroni et al, 2016). More specifically, studies have investigated how executives and managers embrace paradox and act ambidextrously by skillfully mastering the arising tensions (e.g., Lewis et al, 2014;Miron-Spektor et al, 2017;Smith, 2014;Tushman et al, 2011 Tushman et al, 2011).…”

“…We argue that the tensions and contradictions between exploitation and exploration translate into distinct types of conflicts at different levels (Papachroni et al, 2016;Simsek, 2009). At the systemic level, organizations face conflicts between long-term and short-term demands; at the unit level, conflicts stem from different organizational groups possessing diverse ideas, demands, skills, interests, or power resources; and at the individual level, conflicts result from multiple roles, memberships, and perspectives.…”

“…However, despite the increasing popularity of research on ambidexterity, what is less well understood is how it is accomplished in organizations (e.g., Benner and Tushman, 2015;Cantarello et al, 2012;Cao et al, 2009;O'Reilly and Tushman, 2011;Turner et al, 2013) and increasingly between organizations (e.g., Kauppila, 2010;Lavie and Rosenkopf, 2006;Lavie et al, 2010), and how organizations manage the multilayered interfaces between exploitation and exploration. This shortcoming relates to the observation that we have only recently started to examine the microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity (see, for example, Eisenhardt et al, 2010;Jansen et al, 2008Jansen et al, , 2009Kauppila and Tempelaar, 2016;MironSpektor et al, 2017;Mom et al, 2007Mom et al, , 2009Papachroni et al, 2016;Rogan and Mors, 2014;Smith, 2014;Smith and Tushman, 2005;Turner et al, 2013).…”

“…This helps us to overcome the hierarchical bias in much ambidexterity research, which focuses primarily on the habits, cognitions, and actions of top managers (e.g., Tushman, 2004, 2008;Smith and Tushman, 2005)-thereby disregarding the role of lower-level employees. Third, our paper is one of the few (e.g., Birkinshaw et al, 2016;Papachroni et al, 2016) that contributes to the integration of the different approaches toward organizational ambidexterity. We develop the argument that organizations can steer ambidexterity through conflict management activities within a single approach.…”