Unpacking the theory on ambidexterity: An illustrative case on the managerial architectures, mechanisms and dynamics

Abstract

Research on ambidexterity has been focused primarily at the organisational level. There is little in the literature detailing ambidexterity in more complex forms of organising. While much is written on the ‘what’ of ambidexterity – its enactment has been shown to be beneficial – there is a gap in our understanding of the underlying mechanisms, architectures and dynamics by which organisations can achieve both exploration and exploitation. In this article, we use the lens of intellectual capital to extend current architectural theory. A case study of a project management office in an IT/IS multinational provides the context in which to qualitatively unpack the underpinning intellectual capital architecture, illustrating the interwoven application of human, social and organisational capital in a complicated organisational setting. We reveal the co-existence and mutual interdependence of multiple intellectual capital and process elements, further explaining the ‘how’ of this increasingly important area of study.

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

“…As a result, the pursuit of ambidexterity cannot be treated monologically, as if it only has one meaning, or one way of managing tensions. Instead, our research supports scholars who argue for a multi-domain analysis of ambidexterity in order to gain a clearer picture of how ambidexterity is achieved and sustained in practice (Turner and Lee-Kelley, 2012, Gupta et al, 2006, Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008 Practical Implications. The pursuit of ambidexterity has become an imperative for most organizations, and successful ambidextrous organizations have developed ways of dealing with the opposing tensions (Heracleous, 2013;Heracleous & Wirtz, 2010).…”

Hard, soft or ambidextrous? Which influence style promotes managers’ task performance and the role of political skill

“…Specifically, managers must be capable of promoting both creativity and discipline (Wang & Rafiq, 2014), by allowing experimentation, while at the same time enforcing tight control (Turner & Lee-Kelley, 2012), contradictions that have been found to be synergistic in achieving organizational ambidexterity (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). Hence, in their quest to meet work goals related to 4 ambidexterity, managers need to exert diverse and often contradicting (e.g., hard and soft) influence tactics, which are relevant to the situation and responsive to the target's (e.g., their subordinates, peers and supervisors) reactions.…”

A resource-advantage perspective on the orchestration of ambidexterity

“…While there is clear evidence of the 'what' of ambidexterity within the literature−its enactment at the organisational level has been shown to be beneficial (Turner & Lee-Kelley, 2012)−our data suggests that the middle managerial level is an important point of observation from which to study the 'how' of ambidexterity. One could argue that the ways in which middle managers at AIRCOM worked with strategic directives and plans is what they were expected to do anyway.…”

“…The study of how both adaptability and alignment can be achieved simultaneously, rather than being seen as mutually exclusive, is addressed within the literature on ambidexterity but is primarily understood at a macro level (Turner & Lee-Kelley, 2012). In other words, prior research on ambidexterity has typically been positioned at the macro-level of the firm or the business unit, while empirical studies that examine the construct at a more micro managerial-level are scarce (Nosella, Cantarello, & Filippini, 2012).…”