The individual side of ambidexterity: Do individuals’ perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off?
Introduction
The ability of a firm to exploit its current competencies as well as to explore new opportunities represents the core of organizational learning. However, due to the incompatible nature of the exploitative and exploratory activities (March, 1991), the trade-off to pursue both these kinds of learning orientation has been tackled for a long time, suggesting different ambidextrous organizational solutions: structural, sequential and contextual ambidexterity (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004, Siggelkow and Levinthal, 2003, Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Despite the valuable insights that this body of literature has provided, a main limitation can be highlighted. These studies, adopting the firm level of analysis, implicitly assume homogeneity at the individual level, neglecting how the organizational members might influence the firm’s ability to pursue a balance between exploration and exploitation
The contributions of the behavioral theory of the firm (Cyert and March, 1963, March and Simon, 1958, Simon, 1985), reinforced by the recent debate on the micro-level origins of a firm’s capabilities (Felin et al., 2012, Foss, 2011), have shown that the individuals’ characteristics are important antecedents of the development of organizational capabilities. In addition, recent literature reviews on ambidexterity have called for research spanning multiple levels of analysis (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008, Raisch et al., 2009, Rosing et al., 2011, Turner et al., 2012). However, only few studies have delved into the micro-foundation of ambidexterity. These contributions point to the relevance of the individual characteristics as well as preferences in orientating the performance of exploratory and exploitative activities.
This paper maintains the explanatory relevance of a more fine-grained level of analysis in studying ambidexterity since, according to Raisch et al. (2009), investigating further the individual side of ambidexterity (personal ambidexterity) may contribute to understanding how to balance exploration and exploitation within a unit or firm (organizational ambidexterity). First, as suggested by prior contributions, even if individuals could correctly perceive the kind of learning orientation expected by their role (people’s perceptions of what their job requests of them), at the same time they might not activate consistent behaviors in their daily activities since they may not be able to face the challenge of reconciling dual demands (Gupta et al., 2006, Raisch et al., 2009). Second, research on role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1966) and cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) shows that when perceptions are consistent with actual behaviors individuals tend to be more satisfied and to perform more. Such a complex relationship between individuals’ role perceptions on what they are expected to perform and their actual behaviors suggests that both these two different dimensions should be considered in investigating personal ambidexterity. Moreover, if ambidexterity at the individual level may present different facets according to the consistency/inconsistency between role perceptions and actual behaviors, a further advantage of adopting the micro level of analysis is the possibility to investigate those personal characteristics that favor individuals to be ambidextrous not only in their perceptions but also in their actions. As argued in prior research, the possession of personal characteristics (such as technical competence) moderate the relationship between task characteristics and role perceptions, as well as leading to a more efficient and effective performance of behaviors (Gilbert, De Winne, & Sels, 2011). Although ambidexterity literature acknowledges that ambidextrous individuals have to fulfill different and contradictory activities, what makes individuals correctly perceive their ambidextrous role and behave consistently is still an open issue. Accordingly, the research questions addressed in this paper are: (a) how can ambidexterity at individual level be detected and classified? (b) how may individual characteristics contribute to achieving personal ambidexterity?
Our contribution is twofold. First, we add to the studies on personal ambidexterity by proposing a classification of ambidexterity at individual level which depends on the comparison between the individual’s perceptions and behaviors. Second, the paper offers new insights into the role of individual characteristics that explain why individuals may or may not perceive that a balance between exploration and exploitation is expected from them and may or may not perform a consistent behavior. From the analysis of the empirical evidence we have developed some propositions that can be further tested in future research.
In order to answer our research questions and to build novel theory on personal ambidexterity, we carried out an inductive multiple case study (Eisenhardt, 1989) on individuals who face daily a strong pressure to balance exploration and exploitation and are expected to perform ambidextrous behaviors.
This paper is organized as follows: the following section introduces the notion of personal ambidexterity against the backdrop of previous research targeting the organizational level of analysis. The method section provides details about the cases, data collection and data analysis. Next, we present the empirical evidence illustrating the classification of personal ambidexterity we propose, and we explain the factors that may impact on the challenge to reconcile both exploration and exploitation at the individual level. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the results, implications, and directions for further research.
Section snippets
Overview of the extant literature on organizational ambidexterity
Organizational ambidexterity is the firm’s capability to pursue learning through two apparently conflicting sets of activities: exploiting existing competencies and exploring new opportunities. According to March’s original article, learning through exploitative activities requires the performance of refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, and execution; whereas learning through explorative activities implies search, variation, risk taking, experimentation,
Research methods
We adopted an inductive case-based methodology (Eisenhardt, 1989, Yin, 2009). Case studies are “particularly well suited to new research areas” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 548) and to generate “novel theory” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 546), since they provide useful insights into answering “‘how?’ and ‘why?’ questions” (Yin, 2009, p. 9) and in “examining contemporary events” (Yin, 2009, p. 11).
More specifically, following a “literal and theoretical replication logic” (Yin, 2009, p. 54) we conducted a
Empirical evidence
Table 2 reports data on individuals’ perceptions on what kind of learning orientation their role requires of them and data on the behaviors they performed, showing first of all that some individuals perceive that a balanced orientation between exploration and exploitation is requested of them; while others perceive that their role requires more exploratory or more exploitative activities (i.e. an unbalanced orientation). At the same time, the data highlight how some individuals behaved
Discussion
Our research shows that, in order to examine ambidexterity at the individual level, the analysis of individuals’ perceptions needs to be complemented with the observation of their actual behaviors, since individuals may show inconsistency between the kind of learning orientation they perceive as requested by their role and the kind of learning orientation they actually perform. More specifically, comparing individuals’ role perceptions with their actual behaviors, we contribute to existent
Conclusions
Our research contributes to the existing literature on ambidexterity at individual level in three ways. First, we added to the analysis of actual behaviors, performed by individuals who are expected to fulfill ambidextrous roles, the investigation of their perceptions on the learning orientation requested of them by their role. In doing so, we suggest a classification of personal ambidexterity, which compares the individuals’ perceptions with their actual behaviors highlighting that individuals
References (83)
- et al.
Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small-to-medium-sized firms
European Management Journal
(2012) - et al.
Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma
Research in Organizational Behavior
(2008) - et al.
Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership
The Leadership Quarterly
(2011) - et al.
Critical Incident technique and explicitation interviewing in studies of information behavior
Library and Information Science Research
(2003) - et al.
Studies in the reliability and validity of the critical incident technique
Journal of Applied Psychology
(1964) - et al.
Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited
Academy of Management Review
(2003) The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm
Administrative Science Quarterly
(1991)Consulting and change in storytelling organization
Journal of Organizational Change Management
(1991)The competent manager: A model of effective performance
(1982)Transforming qualitative information
(1998)