Individual ambidexterity: the duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance

ABSTRACT Organizational ambidexterity has been established as an important antecedent of organizational innovation and performance. Recently, researchers have started to argue that ambidexterity is not only essential at the organizational, but also at the individual level. Thus, to be innovative, individuals need to engage in both explorative and exploitative behaviours. However, questions remain regarding the optimal balance of explorative and exploitative behaviours and how ambidexterity can be operationalized. At the organizational level, most empirical research utilized either the difference between, or the product of, exploration and exploitation. In this article, we criticize these approaches on conceptual and methodological grounds and argue for an alternative operationalization of ambidexterity: polynomial regression and response surface methodology. In two diary studies with daily and weekly data, we demonstrate the advantages of this approach. We discuss implications for ambidexterity research and innovation practice.

[1]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[2]  Jeremy B. Bernerth,et al.  A Critical Review and Best‐Practice Recommendations for Control Variable Usage , 2016 .

[3]  D. Chan Functional Relations among Constructs in the Same Content Domain at Different Levels of Analysis: A Typology of Composition Models , 1998 .

[4]  C. Fritz,et al.  Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi‐level study , 2010 .

[5]  Lisa Schurer Lambert,et al.  The phenomenology of fit: linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[6]  Andrew P. McAfee,et al.  Race against the machine : how the digital revolution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy , 2011 .

[7]  Fabrizio Gerli,et al.  The individual side of ambidexterity: Do individuals' perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off? , 2014 .

[8]  C. Gibson,et al.  THE ANTECEDENTS , CONSEQUENCES , AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY , 2004 .

[9]  Dean Keith Simonton,et al.  Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. , 1997 .

[10]  M. Frese,et al.  A Dynamic Perspective on Affect and Creativity , 2013 .

[11]  E. Naveh,et al.  The Effect of Conformist and Attentive-To-Detail Members on Team Innovation: Reconciling the Innovation Paradox , 2011 .

[12]  Isabel M. Prieto,et al.  Building ambidexterity: The role of human resource practices in the performance of firms from Spain , 2012 .

[13]  Kerrie L. Unsworth,et al.  Creative Requirement , 2005 .

[14]  S. Chatterjee,et al.  Regression Analysis by Example , 1979 .

[15]  R. Sitgreaves Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). , 1979 .

[16]  S. Snell,et al.  Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A Framework for Human Resource Management , 2009 .

[17]  Jeffrey R. Edwards,et al.  On the Use of Polynomial Regression Equations As An Alternative to Difference Scores in Organizational Research , 1993 .

[18]  Kerrie L. Unsworth,et al.  Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas , 2000 .

[19]  Michelle Rogan,et al.  A Network Perspective on Individual Level Ambidexterity in Organizations , 2014, Organ. Sci..

[20]  H. Christensen,et al.  A short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample , 1999 .

[21]  S. Tarba,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: A Meta-Analysis , 2013 .

[22]  Arnold B. Bakker,et al.  Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers , 2010 .

[23]  John Baer,et al.  Gender Differences in Creativity , 2008 .

[24]  C. Shalley,et al.  Matching Creativity Requirements and the Work Environment: Effects on Satisfaction and Intentions to Leave , 2000 .

[25]  S. Scott,et al.  DETERMINANTS OF INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR: A PATH MODEL OF INDIVIDUAL INNOVATION IN THE WORKPLACE , 1994 .

[26]  Michael Frese,et al.  Explaining the Heterogeneity of the Leadership-Innovation Relationship: Ambidextrous Leadership , 2011 .

[27]  C. Shalley,et al.  INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF GROWTH NEED STRENGTH, WORK CONTEXT, AND JOB COMPLEXITY ON SELF-REPORTED CREATIVE PERFORMANCE , 2009 .

[28]  J. Edwards Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. , 2002 .

[29]  J. M. Cortina,et al.  Interaction, Nonlinearity, and Multicollinearity: implications for Multiple Regression: , 1993 .

[30]  Sandra Ohly,et al.  Age and creativity at work The interplay between job resources, age and idea creativity , 2008 .

[31]  Hannes Zacher,et al.  Ambidextrous leadership and employees' self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors , 2016 .

[32]  R. Stine Graphical Interpretation of Variance Inflation Factors , 1995 .

[33]  H. Zacher,et al.  Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation , 2015 .

[34]  Enno Siemsen,et al.  Common Method Bias in Regression Models With Linear, Quadratic, and Interaction Effects , 2010 .

[35]  Diether Gebert,et al.  Fostering Team Innovation: Why Is It Important to Combine Opposing Action Strategies? , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[36]  Maurizio Zollo,et al.  The Neuroscientific Foundations of the ExplorationExploitation Dilemma , 2010 .

[37]  B. Nijstad,et al.  The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science , 2004 .

[38]  M. West Sparkling Fountains or Stagnant Ponds: An Integrative Model of Creativity and Innovation Implementation in Work Groups , 2002 .

[39]  Terri R. Kurtzberg Feeling Creative, Being Creative: An Empirical Study of Diversity and Creativity in Teams , 2005 .

[40]  C. Lance,et al.  The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria , 2006 .

[41]  Zeki Simsek,et al.  A Typology for Aligning Organizational Ambidexterity's Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes , 2009 .

[42]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Understanding Variation in Managers' Ambidexterity: Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of Formal Structural and Personal Coordination Mechanisms , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[43]  Ali S. Hadi,et al.  Regression Analysis by Example: Chatterjee/Regression , 2006 .

[44]  L. Argote,et al.  Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration , 2011 .

[45]  Daniel J. Beal,et al.  ESM 2.0: State of the Art and Future Potential of Experience Sampling Methods in Organizational Research , 2015 .

[46]  Miki Malul,et al.  Behavioral Ambidexterity: The Impact of Incentive Schemes on Productivity, Motivation, and Performance of Employees in Commercial Banks , 2015 .

[47]  Alexander Gerybadze,et al.  Innovation and international corporate growth , 2010 .

[48]  D. Watson,et al.  Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[49]  Constantine Andriopoulos,et al.  Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[50]  Carl-Walter Kohlmann,et al.  Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Version der "Positive and Negative Affect Schedule" (PANAS). , 1996 .

[51]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[52]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited , 2003 .

[53]  C. Binnewies,et al.  What makes a creative day? A diary study on the interplay between affect, job stressors, and job control. , 2011 .

[54]  J. Edwards The Study of Congruence in Organizational Behavior Research: Critique and a Proposed Alternative , 1994 .

[55]  Ko de Ruyter,et al.  Generating Sales While Providing Service: A Study of Customer Service Representatives' Ambidextrous Behavior , 2012 .

[56]  Ramesh K. Agarwal,et al.  A MODEL OF CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN ORGANIZATIONS , 2011 .

[57]  Lotte S. Luscher,et al.  Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox , 2008 .

[58]  Qing Cao,et al.  Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[59]  Filip Lievens,et al.  A cautionary note on the effects of range restriction on predictor intercorrelations. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[60]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The myopia of learning , 1993 .

[61]  Charles A. Scherbaum,et al.  Estimating Statistical Power and Required Sample Sizes for Organizational Research Using Multilevel Modeling , 2009 .

[62]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators , 2008 .

[63]  Neil Anderson,et al.  A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity , 2009, Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

[64]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The interplay between exploration and exploitation. , 2006 .

[65]  Marianne W. Lewis,et al.  PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TENSIONS: EXPLORING CONTRASTING STYLES OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT , 2002 .

[66]  Jeffrey R. Edwards,et al.  Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. , 2016 .

[67]  M. Frese,et al.  Ambidextrous Leadership in the Innovation Process , 2010 .

[68]  Donald W. Marquaridt Generalized Inverses, Ridge Regression, Biased Linear Estimation, and Nonlinear Estimation , 1970 .

[69]  H. Zacher,et al.  A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self‐reported employee innovation , 2014 .

[70]  K. Klein,et al.  Levels Issues in Theory Development, Data Collection, and Analysis , 1994 .

[71]  G. Graen,et al.  AN EXAMINATION OF LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: THE RELEVANCE OF TRAITS AND RELATIONSHIPS , 1999 .

[72]  Eric D. Heggestad,et al.  Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis: A Powerful Approach for Examining Moderation and Overcoming Limitations of Difference Scores , 2010 .

[73]  Raghu Garud,et al.  The innovation journey , 1999 .

[74]  A. Erez,et al.  The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of A Theory-Based Measure , 1998 .

[75]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Clarifying the Distinctive Contribution of Ambidexterity to the Field of Organization Studies , 2013 .

[76]  Paul E. Spector Method Variance in Organizational Research , 2006 .

[77]  M. Tushman,et al.  The ambidextrous organization. , 2004, Harvard business review.

[78]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[79]  James L. Farr,et al.  Knowledge Management Processes and Work Group Innovation , 2003 .

[80]  J. Edwards Ten Difference Score Myths , 2001 .

[81]  W. Stroebe,et al.  A Lifespan Perspective on Creativity and Innovation at Work , 2016 .

[82]  Markus Baer Putting Creativity to Work: The Implementation of Creative Ideas in Organizations , 2012 .

[83]  N. Bolger,et al.  Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[84]  J. Dawson Moderation in Management Research: What, Why, When, and How , 2014 .

[85]  M. Zollo,et al.  The neuro-scientific foundations of the exploration-exploitation dilemma , 2010 .

[86]  Tom J. M. Mom,et al.  Investigating Managers' Exploration and Exploitation Activities: The Influence of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Horizontal Knowledge Inflows , 2006 .

[87]  Michael A. West,et al.  Response: Ideas are ten a penny - It's team implementation not idea generation that counts , 2002 .

[88]  Justin J. P. Jansen,et al.  Managers’ Work Experience, Ambidexterity, and Performance: The Contingency Role of the Work Context , 2015 .

[89]  Pankaj C. Patel,et al.  Walking the Tightrope: An Assessment of the Relationship between High-Performance Work Systems and Organizational Ambidexterity , 2013 .

[90]  D. Good,et al.  Individual Ambidexterity: Exploring and Exploiting in Dynamic Contexts , 2013, The Journal of psychology.

[91]  Cynthia D. Fisher,et al.  A Within-Person Examination of Correlates of Performance and Emotions While Working , 2004, Emotion and Performance.

[92]  M. Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. , 1987 .

[93]  N. Anderson,et al.  Innovation and Creativity in Organizations , 2014 .

[94]  M. Lubatkin,et al.  Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration , 2006 .

[95]  M. Tushman,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future , 2013 .