The individual side of ambidexterity: Do individuals’ perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.07.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Little is known about ambidexterity at the individual level of analysis.

  • We analyze personal ambidexterity along two dimensions: individuals’ perceptions and behaviors.

  • Comparing perceptions and behaviors, we provide a classification of personal ambidexterity.

  • Individual prior work and behavioral competencies impact on personal ambidexterity.

  • Individuals may change their type of personal ambidexterity to reduce the cognitive dissonance.

Abstract

The paper addresses the issue of the exploration–exploitation dilemma, adopting a micro level of analysis. Unlike the extensive literature on ambidexterity that investigates the organizational solutions that allow firms to pursue the balance between the two kinds of learning orientation, this research draws attention to the as yet barely analyzed individual dimension of ambidexterity. Specifically, in investigating personal ambidexterity we point to the relevance of individuals’ perceptions on what their role requires of them and the actual behaviors they perform.

Drawing on an inductive multiple case study carried out on managers who face daily a strong pressure to balance exploration and exploitation and are expected to perform ambidextrous behaviors, we identify four different situations at the individual level, depending on the consistency/inconsistency between individuals’ role perceptions and their actual behaviors: enacted personal ambidexterity, dominant learning orientation, perceived personal ambidexterity and full personal ambidexterity. Moreover, our study adds to the ambidexterity literature by suggesting theoretical propositions on how individual characteristics, namely prior work experience and behavioral competency profile, may impact on the different situations of personal ambidexterity we identified and how the consistency/inconsistency between individuals’ perceptions and behaviors may contribute to sustaining or jeopardizing full personal ambidexterity.

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)

  • R.E. Boyatzis

    Competencies as a behavioral approach to emotional intelligence

    Journal of Management Development

    (2009)
  • R.E. Boyatzis

    Developing emotional intelligence through coaching for leadership, professional and occupational excellence

  • R.E. Boyatzis et al.

    A technical note on ESCI and ESCI-U: Factor structure, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity Using EFA and CFA

    (2010)
  • R.E. Boyatzis et al.

    Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: Insights from the emotional competence inventory

  • R.E. Boyatzis et al.

    Assessing emotional intelligence competencies

  • R.A. Burgelman

    Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (2002)
  • M.A. Campion et al.

    Doing competencies well: best practices in competency modeling

    Personnel Psychology

    (2011)
  • Q. Cao et al.

    Modelling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity

    Journal of Management Studies

    (2010)
  • L.B. Cardinal

    Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The use of organizational control in managing research and development

    Organization Science

    (2001)
  • E. Chell

    Critical incident technique

  • J. Cooper

    Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory

    (2007)
  • A.C. Corbett

    Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation

    Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice

    (2005)
  • J. Corbin et al.

    Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory

    (2008)
  • R.M. Cyert et al.

    A behavioral theory of the firm

    (1963)
  • E. Danneels

    The dynamics of product innovation and firm competencies

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2002)
  • K.M. Eisenhardt

    Building theory form case study research

    Academy of Management Review

    (1989)
  • G. Ekaterini

    A qualitative approach to middle managers’ competences

    Management Research Review

    (2011)
  • M.D. Ensley et al.

    Shared cognition in top management teams: Implications for new venture performance

    Journal of Organizational Behavior

    (2001)
  • T. Felin et al.

    Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure

    Journal of Management Studies

    (2012)
  • L. Festinger

    A theory of cognitive dissonance

    (1957)
  • S. Fisher et al.

    The critical incident technique in library and information management research

    Education for Information

    (1999)
  • J.C. Flanagan

    The critical incident technique

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1954)
  • N.J. Foss

    Why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and what they may look like

    Journal of Management

    (2011)
  • C.B. Gibson et al.

    The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity

    Academy of Management Journal

    (2004)
  • C. Gilbert et al.

    Antecedents of front-line managers’ perceptions of HR role stressors

    Personnel Review

    (2011)
  • D.P. Goleman

    Working with emotional intelligence

    (1998)
  • D.P. Goleman et al.

    Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence

    (2002)
  • A.K. Gupta et al.

    The interplay between exploration and exploitation

    Academy of Management Journal

    (2006)
  • Z. He et al.

    Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis

    Organization Science

    (2004)
  • J.J.P. Jansen et al.

    Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators

    Management Science

    (2006)
  • C. Jasmand et al.

    Generating sales while providing service: A study of customer service representatives’ ambidextrous behavior

    Journal of Marketing

    (2012)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text