Now, switch! Individuals’ responses to imposed switches between exploration and exploitation

Bidmon, Christina; Boe-Lillegraven, Siri Nordland

doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101928

Cited by 23 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different approaches exist in the literature with respect to conceptualising individual ambidexterity as an orthogonality (i.e., two independent activities that can be carried out simultaneously, e.g., Chang et al, 2016;Mu et al, 2020;Zacher et al, 2016) or as a continuity (i.e., two-ends of one spectrum that can only be carried out consecutively, e.g., Ahmadi et al, 2017;Bledow et al, 2009;Bidmon and Boe-Lillegraven, 2019;Håkonsson et al, 2016). While we acknowledge that there is no This is a post-print version 1 .…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses The Micro-level Foundatmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The literature on individual ambidexterity (Bidmon and Boe-Lillegraven, 2019;Mu et al, 2020;Zacher et al, 2016) has recognised that ambidexterity requires some mechanisms of balancing (or separation) to reconcile the tensions between performing exploration and exploitation activities. While organisations have the potential to pursue exploration and exploitation concurrently via allocating these activities to different business units (organisational separation, Lavie, Stettner and Tushman, 2010), individuals have to rely on temporal separation (i.e., shifting) between exploration and exploitation activities (Bidmon and Boe-Lillegraven, 2019;Keller and Weibler, 2015). In fact, at the individual level, "exploration and exploitation involve different modes of human attention, (…) [and thus] cannot be pursued simultaneously" (Keller and Weibler, 2015: 57).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses The Micro-level Foundatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2017: 10). To better understand these change processes, that is, how micro-switches 1 from exploration to exploitation occur in entrepreneurs, our study follows recent developments for using observational research to study switching behaviour in exploration and exploitation activities (Bidmon and Boe-Lillegraven, 2019;Håkonsson et al, 2016). That is, we applied a continuous highresolution assessment on micro-level exploration and exploitation activities.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses The Micro-level Foundatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, empirical work that examines whether such selfreinforcing mechanisms occur in individual behaviours is almost non-existent. To the authors knowledge, there is only one study which has so far explored the affective, cognitive, and behavioural reactions in individuals when they are switching from exploration to exploitation, and vice versa (Bidmon and Boe-Lillegraven, 2019). The qualitative and observational research study from Bidmon and Boe-Lillegraven (2019) investigated the response patterns of individuals unfolding around 38 situations during which switching between the two activities occurred.…”

Section: Individual Ambidexterity: Behavioural Tendencies To Switch Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, we make two contributions to the literature with this study. First, we contribute knowledge to the literature on individual ambidexterity, in particular, by answering the question of how individuals sequentially switch between exploration and exploitation over time (Bidmon and Boe-Lillegraven, 2019;Mu, van Riel and Schouteten, 2020). We focus on sequential patterns of ambidextrous behaviour and theorise that entrepreneurs are more likely to maintain their activity patterns.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Managing the paradox: Individual ambidexterity, paradoxical leadership and multitasking in entrepreneurs across firm life cycle stages

Klonek

Voléry

Parker

2020

International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ambidexterity requires both exploration and exploitation. However, our understanding of the individual ambidexterity concept, its association with multitasking behaviours and paradoxical leadership across the firm life cycle of entrepreneurs remains limited. In this article, we examine 4355 behavioural activities related to exploration and exploitation from 12 entrepreneurs. We first demonstrate that entrepreneurs display self-sustaining activity cycles; that is, exploration tended to be followed by exploration and exploitation tended to be followed by exploitation. Second, when multitasking behaviours were high, entrepreneurs had lower levels of ambidextrous switching. Third, we found an association between entrepreneurial ambidexterity and paradoxical leadership; this was moderated by the firm life cycle stage. As such, this article contributes to a better understanding of individual ambidexterity, leadership and multitasking in entrepreneurs.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses The Micro-level Foundatmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses The Micro-level Foundatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses The Micro-level Foundatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Individual Ambidexterity: Behavioural Tendencies To Switch Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Managing the paradox: Individual ambidexterity, paradoxical leadership and multitasking in entrepreneurs across firm life cycle stages

Klonek

Voléry

Parker

2020

International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A paradox theory lens on proactivity, individual ambidexterity, and creativity: An empirical look

Wang,

Kim,

Bateman

et al. 2024

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryParadox theory suggests that contradictory demands, like applying current work methods while exploring new ones, should be viewed as dualities with competing and complementary aspects. It advocates for employee ambidexterity, where employees must manage exploitation and exploration. We know little about how personal dispositions affect ambidexterity independently or when interacting with situational factors. Based on a time‐lagged survey of 364 employee–supervisor pairs from 74 R&D teams, we found that proactive disposition was positively related to ambidexterity, enhancing creativity. Guided by trait activation theory, we found further that paradoxical supervision and job autonomy enhanced the relationship between proactive disposition and employee ambidexterity and the indirect effect of proactive disposition on creativity via ambidexterity. We discuss these findings' theoretical and practical implications, extending the literature on proactivity, ambidexterity, and paradox theory.

show abstract

Taking a closer look at the regionally clustered firms: How can ambidexterity explain the link between management, entrepreneurship, and innovation in a post-industrialized world?

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extant literature shows that innovation emerges from an interorganizational process, where a division of labor (both exploitation and exploration related) occurs among the actors within the cluster. Clustered firms are ambidextrous when they balance innovative activities that exploit existing competencies and are open to new technological approaches through exploration. In this context, we are interested in the role of clusters as supportive structures creating an atmosphere that encourages the development of interorganizational relationships, which assume a key relevance in explaining the ambidexterity and innovation of firms within the cluster. The question is whether there is an ideal combination to compete today (exploitation) while preparing to compete tomorrow (exploration), and if the networks developed in an industrial cluster play a role on determining innovative performance. Therefore, this study contributes to deepen the knowledge about the role of ambidexterity and network clustering on innovation. Specifically, by presenting a framework that explores the influence of external stakeholders and other clustered agents in the response of ambidextrous organizations to the challenges raised by environmental changes, we extend our discussion to a higher level of abstraction showing how ambidexterity can be the “black box” that connects the entrepreneurship, management, and innovation fields. The analysis of 1467 Portuguese firms suggests that network clustering has a direct positive impact on innovative performance, but also an indirect, mediated effect through exploration. Additionally, we found that a combination of exploitation and exploration (i.e., combined ambidexterity), and the trade-off between the two dimensions (i.e., imbalanced ambidexterity), leads to better innovation in agglomeration contexts. Our results, therefore, provide evidence that ambidexterity is the key to manage innovation strategic entrepreneurship’s tensions but, the way in which they are managed, is contingent on the clustered firms’ ability or inability to simultaneously pursue both exploitation and exploration.

show abstract

Now, switch! Individuals’ responses to imposed switches between exploration and exploitation

Cited by 23 publications

References 71 publications

Managing the paradox: Individual ambidexterity, paradoxical leadership and multitasking in entrepreneurs across firm life cycle stages

Managing the paradox: Individual ambidexterity, paradoxical leadership and multitasking in entrepreneurs across firm life cycle stages

A paradox theory lens on proactivity, individual ambidexterity, and creativity: An empirical look

Taking a closer look at the regionally clustered firms: How can ambidexterity explain the link between management, entrepreneurship, and innovation in a post-industrialized world?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About