The role of individual ambidexterity for organizational performance: examining effects of ambidextrous knowledge seeking and offering

Abstract

Empirical research has confirmed positive effects of organizational ambidexterity for companies’ long-term performance. More recent research has shifted the focus from organizational level exploration and exploitation to the individual in order to understand psychological micro-foundations of individual ambidexterity. However, our current knowledge on how knowledge flows within individual ambidexterity are initiated and affect performance outcomes is limited. This study thus strives to shed light on the topic by introducing two mechanisms, namely ambidextrous knowledge seeking and ambidextrous knowledge offering, that capture how knowledge flows within individual ambidexterity are initiated. Based on survey-data from 415 employees, findings from structural equation modeling provide first empirical evidence that the focal constructs significantly affect knowledge accumulation on the department level as well as its performance. Finally, results from additional moderation analysis indicate, that ambidextrous knowledge offering leads to higher performance effects in environments characterized by the pursuit of radical innovations, while ambidextrous knowledge seeking is rather suited for environments with a focus on innovating incrementally.

Indonesian Hotels’ Dynamic Capability under the Risks of COVID-19

“…A supporting precondition of entrepreneurial and market orientation is crucial in the opportunity-seeking behavior (Bengesi and Roux 2014). This fact reiterates the importance of a dynamic environment to knowledge integration in finding potential innovation and even multiplied to firms focusing on radical innovation (Schnellbächer and Heidenreich 2020). Hotels' supporting environment toward creation leads to more dynamic capability (Seo et al 2021;Coreynen et al 2020).…”

High‐involvement human resource practices and their impact on organizational ambidexterity: The mediating role of employees' ambidextrous behaviors

“…Third, the current study shows that there is a lack of in-depth insights into ambidexterity since the vast majority of earlier research has focused on examining organizational ambidexterity at either the organizational level (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013;Caniels & Veld, 2016;Junni et al, 2013Junni et al, , 2015Zacher et al, 2014), or the individual level (Gurtner & Reinhardt 2016;Schnellbächer & Heidenreich, 2020;Schnellbächer et al, 2019;Suh et al, 2019). This gap in literature was addressed by using a multilevel approach to examine organizational ambidexterity and to provide a deeper understanding of the construct as it was analyzed at both the firm and individual levels.…”

Weaving the Knowledge Capabilities and Supply Chain Management Skills into the Fabric of Supply Chain Decision Makers: Coexist of Coping Capacity

“…A 23-items scale for DMC will be adopted from Siebert and Kunz (2015). As for measuring KC and CC, 13 items will be adopted from Schnellbächer and Heidenreich (2020) and 19 items from Coetzee et al (2020). As for SCMS, an 18-items scale will be adapted from Prajago and Sohal (2013).…”