Switching Hats: The Effect of Role Transition on Individual Ambidexterity

Abstract

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.

The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework

“…For instance, some individual characteristics that may play a moderating role are age (Van der Borgh & Schepers, 2014), job experience (Patterson et al, 2014), proactive personality and emotional intelligence (Kao & Chen, 2016), or motivation (K. Sok et al, 2016). Organizational moderators that have been studied in the antecedents' relationships are related to leadership styles (Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016;Yu et al, 2018), management support (Prieto-Pastor & Martin-Perez, 2015) or cross-functional coordination (Tempelaar & Rosenkranz, 2019). These relationships between antecedents, individual ambidexterity, and contingent effects are summarized in Figure 3, with black arrows, distinguishing between organizational and individual antecedents.…”

Ambidexterity as Practice: Individual Ambidexterity Through Paradoxical Practices

“…Focusing on individual-level competencies and characteristics is expected to shed new light on why certain individuals are more effective than others in undertaking ambidextrous roles (Bonesso et al, 2014). A growing body of microlevel studies has approached individual ambidexterity from a cognitive perspective (Tempelaar & Rosenkranz, 2019) based on the premise that exploration and exploitation are distinct behaviors associated with different cognitive processes (Gupta et al, 2006; Laureiro-Martínez et al, 2015). In that context, individual ambidexterity is conceptualized as the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation activities within a single work role (Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016) and is reflected in an individual’s capacity to engage with and shift between opposing tasks (Bledow et al, 2009; Smith & Tushman, 2005).…”

The Learning Spiral: A Process Perspective on Paradox

“…This Point – Counterpoint shows that tensions emerge across multiple organizational levels and concern actors throughout the organization. We encourage more micro‐level research to better understand how and when individuals notice environmental changes and what they make of them in response to tensions (see also Tempelaar and Rosenkranz, ; Zimmermann et al, ). Leadership is a key topic in this context.…”