Strategic enablers of service-sales ambidexterity: A preliminary framework and research agenda

In recent years, service-sales ambidexterity was proposed as a new type of ambidexterity. In particular, the emerging literature on service-sales ambidexterity builds on the contextual ambidexterity literature to argue that the two key activities of a salesperson – that is, service activities and sales activities – can be simultaneously maximized through finding and exploiting synergies between these two activities. While research in this area has so far focused on the drivers of service-sales ambidexterity, our knowledge regarding the strategic enablers of this construct is impoverished. In this paper, drawing upon the dynamic capabilities framework, we devise a preliminary framework of the strategic enablers of service-sales ambidexterity. Then, we further extend that framework by identifying key classes of strategic variables that can potentially enable service-sales ambidexterity and by providing illustrative examples. This paper has contributions to and implications for the literature on service-sales ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities.     

Playing a double game? Pursuing innovation through ambidexterity in an international acquisition program from the Arabian Gulf Region

Acquisitions represent a strategy for enhancing competitive responsiveness in the global management of technology and innovation. Even more than single and domestic acquisitions, cross‐border acquisition programs present opportunities for firms seeking to sustain innovation. Yet, scant attention has been paid to the innovation dynamics of pursuing multiple, international acquisitions. We remedy this gap by investigating a multinational logistics firm enacting a multi‐decade program of cross‐border, technology intensive acquisitions and achieving dual competencies in (1) innovation and ambidexterity, (2) the exploration and exploitation capabilities of ambidexterity, and (3) tight and loose integration approaches. We determine that the firm relied on contextual, temporal, and structural manifestations of ambidexterity in acquisition integration. Findings illuminate the processual nature of an international acquisition program and suggest how ambidexterity benefits the acquisition of both innovation and innovative capabilities, when a firm applies a portfolio of tight‐to‐loose integration approaches.     

Organizational Learning Ambidexterity,Strategic Flexibility,and New Product Development

Although organizational ambidexterity has gained momentum in recent innovation research, previous literature still offers a confusing and partial picture about how to leverage ambidexterity for new product development because of two limitations. First, previous research mainly focuses on static resource endowment and thus offers little insight about how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity. Second, conceptual confusion on the notion of the balance dimension of organization ambidexterity still exists. This study seeks to explore how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity for new product development and to bring greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. By extending the static resource assumption, which is central to the extant debate in organizational ambidexterity literature, this research unpacks ambidexterity into a relative exploratory dimension and an interactive dimension. We further investigated the moderating effect of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility on the impacts of the two dimensions on new product development performance. Based on the dynamic resource management view and organizational learning theory, we proposed six hypotheses and collected data from 213 firms through a survey to examine the hypotheses. Our results indicate that relative exploratory dimension and interactive dimension have different effects on new product development. Specifically, the relative exploratory dimension has an inverse U‐shaped effect on new product development while the interactive dimension has a positive effect. Furthermore, we find that resource flexibility and coordination flexibility have positive moderating effects on the relationships between the two dimensions of ambidexterity and new product development performance. Our study contributes to the ambidexterity research in three ways. First, from a dynamic resource management view, this study extends previous ambidexterity research from a static view to a dynamic view by exploring the moderating effects of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility. Second, we extend the understanding on ambidexterity by bringing greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. Third, this research provides new evidence on the effects of ambidextrous learning on new product development performance in transition economy such as China, where ambidextrous learning is crucial for firms to adapt to a dynamic environment.     

Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control system approach

Research on how managers control R&D activities has tended to focus on the performance measurement systems used to exploit existing knowledge and capabilities. This focus has been at the expense of how broader forms of management control could be used to enable R&D contextual ambidexterity, the capacity to attain appropriate levels of exploitation and exploration behaviors in the same R&D organizational unit. In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework for understanding how different types of control system, guided by different R&D strategic goals, can be used to induce and balance both exploitation and exploration. We illustrate the elements of this framework and their relations using data from biotechnology firms, and then discuss how the framework provides a basis to empirically examine a number of important control relationships and phenomena.     

The Mediating Role of Strategic Orientations on the Relationship between Ambidexterity‐Oriented Decisions and Innovative Ambidexterity

Building on upper echelon theory and strategic process theory, this article analyzes the relationship between ambidexterity‐oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. While ambidexterity‐oriented decisions embrace the capability of top management teams to manage contradictory strategic directions, namely adaptability and alignment, innovative ambidexterity captures the ability of firms to simultaneously develop discontinuous and incremental innovations. In addition to the direct relationship between ambidexterity‐oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity, it is argued that innovation orientation and cost orientation denote two cultural implementation mechanisms that mediate this effect. Using two top‐executive data sets collected in the United States (n = 83) and India (n = 78), the empirical analysis shows that innovation orientation and cost orientation partially mediate the direct influence of ambidexterity‐oriented decisions on innovative ambidexterity, thus further explaining how formulated decisions made by the top management team nurture ambidextrous innovation behavior. Hence, this article extends prior literature that emphasizes a positive influence of top managers on innovation through incorporating an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Second, this study contributes to ambidexterity literature through integrating strategic process theory. While ambidexterity‐oriented decisions primarily relate to strategy formulation, innovation orientation and cost orientation are associated with strategy implementation. The results show that both strategic subprocesses are vital in enabling ambidextrous innovation behavior. Third, an operationalization for the ability of top management to balance adaptability‐ and alignment‐oriented decisions is provided based on prior literature.     

Managing the Exploitation/Exploration Paradox: The Role of a Learning Capability and Innovation Ambidexterity

Some researchers have proposed that practices facilitating learning and knowledge transfer are particularly important to innovation. Some of the practices that researchers have studied include how organizations collaborate with other organizations, how organizations promote learning, and how an organization's culture facilitates knowledge transfer and learning. And while some have proposed the importance of combining practices, there has been a distinct lack of empirical studies that have explored how these practices work together to facilitate learning and knowledge transfer that leads to the simultaneous achievement of incremental and radical innovation, what we refer to as innovation ambidexterity (IA). Yet, a firm's ability to combine these practices into a learning capability is an important means of enabling them to foster innovation ambidexterity. In this study, learning capability is defined as the combination of practices that promote intraorganizational learning among employees, partnerships with other organizations that enable the spread of learning, and an open culture within the organization that promotes and maintains sharing of knowledge. This paper examines the impact of this learning capability on innovation ambidexterity and innovation ambidexterity's effect on business performance. The resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm is used to develop a conceptual foundation for combining these practices. This study empirically examines whether these practices constitute a learning capability by analyzing primary data gathered from 214 Taiwanese owned strategic business unit (SBUs) drawn from several industries where innovation is important. The results of this study make four important contributions. First, they demonstrate that the combination of these practices has a greater impact on innovation ambidexterity than any one practice individually or when only two practices are combined. Second, the results demonstrate a relationship between innovation ambidexterity and business performance in the form of revenues, profits, and productivity growth relative to competitors. Third, the results suggest that innovation ambidexterity plays a mediating role between learning capability and business performance. That is, learning capability has an indirect impact on business performance by facilitating innovation ambidexterity that in turn fosters business performance. This study also contributes to our understanding of ambidexterity literature in a non‐Western context, i.e., Taiwan.     

Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross‐level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes

Research suggests that unit‐level ambidexterity positively impacts subsequent unit performance but theory and testing on this impact remain impoverished. We develop a cross‐level model suggesting that structural and resource attributes of the organizational context significantly shape the relationship between unit ambidexterity and performance. Using multisource and lagged data from 285 organizational units located within 88 autonomous branches, results from hierarchical linear modeling show that this relationship is boosted when the organization is decentralized, more resource munificent, or less resource interdependent. We also find that structural differentiation of the organization does not condition the unit ambidexterity‐performance relationship. Through this cross‐level theory and testing, we develop a richer explanation of the effectiveness of ambidextrous units operating in multiunit contexts. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effect of ‘can do’ and ‘reason to’ motivations on service–sales ambidexterity

Salespersons are increasingly expected to explore cross-/up-selling opportunities while simultaneously fulfilling customer service requests; an activity known as service–sales ambidexterity. Engaging simultaneously in these seemingly conflicting tasks may pose self-regulatory and motivational challenges for salespersons. Drawing from regulatory mode and self-determination theories, this study argues that salespersons' engagement in service–sales ambidexterity is driven by the ‘can do’ motivations of locomotion and assessment orientations, and the ‘reason to’ motivations of enjoyment of work and driven to work. This study contributes to the new literature stream on service–sales ambidexterity by testing a model that integrates the two behavioral motivation explanations. Results indicate that service–sales ambidexterity is jointly determined by the ‘can do’ and the ‘reason to’ motivations, both directly and through their interactions. The study offers new theoretical and managerial implications on ambidexterity at the individual level of analysis.     

A Study of the Performativity of the “Ambidextrous Organizations” Theory: Neither Lost in nor Lost before Translation

Ambidextrous organizations succeed both in incremental and discontinuous innovation. However, there is little direct empirical evidence on how managers implement the principles of the “ambidextrous organizations” theory to dynamically align the structure and culture of ambidextrous organizations. Our study does not focus on analyzing the factors that give rise to organizational ambidexterity but focuses on analyzing whether the factors suggested by prior theorizing on “ambidextrous organizations” are implemented by managers in their daily practice as suggested by prior theorizing. Accordingly, this study does not investigate the traditionally conceptualized gap between academic theorizing and managerial practice since “ambidextrous organizations” theory can be characterized as rigorous and relevant. We investigate whether the “ambidextrous organizations” theory is implemented as suggested by prior theorizing and whether successful implementation is subject to managing in the way that scholars' prior theorizing suggests. Based on qualitative and quantitative data from two longitudinal case studies, we find that managers overlooked the process dimension in evaluating the required degree of ambidexterity. Furthermore, the organizational structure and culture for incremental innovation did not differ from the structure and culture for discontinuous innovation alongside the expected dimensions. Finally, the discontinuous innovation business unit had to be reintegrated to ensure sustained growth. During the reintegration processes, organizational capabilities mutated. We linked our findings on the processes and performativity of ambidextrous organizing to extant theories and developed the rationale for the observed novel phenomena of innovation myopia, second‐order competency traps, and capability mutations.     

Aligning Knowledge Assets for Exploitation,Exploration, and Ambidexterity: A Study of Companies in High‐Tech Parks in China

There is little research that has explored the effects of how knowledge assets are aligned with each other in exploitation and exploration innovation strategies. This study uses alignment theory to explore the effects of aligning knowledge assets on facilitating a firm's ability to pursue ambidexterity, which is defined as the simultaneous pursuit of explorative and exploitative innovation strategies. We also explore the relative influence of organizational and human capital in fostering an exploitation innovation strategy on the one hand, and an exploration innovation strategy on the other. Using a primary survey sample of 127 companies in two high‐tech parks in China, we found that greater reliance on relatively more organizational capital versus human capital has a significantly positive impact on the success of an exploitative innovation strategy. The amount of organizational capital relative to the amount of human capital has a stronger positive association with exploratory innovation strategy when social capital is greater. We also found that the combination of organizational, human, and social capital fosters ambidexterity, i.e., the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation. This study extends alignment theory and examines the effects of aligning these knowledge assets on a firm's ability to foster organizational ambidexterity.     

Knowledge exchange and knowledge protection in interorganizational learning: The ambidexterity perspective

Are knowledge exchange and knowledge protection conflicting or complementary? Although facilitating knowledge exchange and protecting core proprietary knowledge are important in interorganizational learning, extant studies often regard them as conflicting activities. Few studies have discussed the mechanisms that can help firms achieve both. In this current study, we extend the concept of ambidexterity to the interorganizational learning context and suggest several mechanisms that can enhance knowledge exchange and knowledge protection simultaneously. We conducted a survey and the empirical results reveal that experience sharing and shared interpretation are positively associated with knowledge exchange success. Hostage arrangement enhances the level of knowledge protection, whereas reciprocal investment has no effect on knowledge protection. Furthermore, ambidexterity (the product term of knowledge exchange success and knowledge protection) significantly affects the performance of a firm. Finally, we discuss the implications of this research and offer suggestions for future research.     

Ambidexterity's mediating impact on product development proficiency and new product performance

This study examines the mediating impact of ambidexterity on the relationship between product development proficiency and new product performance. Using survey data from 253 Taiwanese firms, the results indicate that the significance of the direct effect of marketing proficiency and technical proficiency on new product performance is reduced when the indirect effect of marketing proficiency and technical proficiency through ambidexterity is included in the model. Consequently, ambidexterity reflecting the interaction between exploitation and exploration plays a mediating role explaining the positive relationship between product development proficiency and new product performance. Managerial implications and future research directions are discussed.     

知识存量、双元学习与企业绩效关系研究

知识是企业的战略性资源，是企业竞争优势提升的重要源泉，但关于知识如何影响企业绩效的内在机理尚不明晰。本文引入企业双元学习中介，探索并检验知识存量对企业绩效的作用过程。采用回归方法分析了223家科研技术类企业数据后，本文得出结论：（1）企业知识存量对企业绩效有着促进作用；（2）知识存量是通过作用于双元学习而对企业绩效产生影响；（3）企业规模在此过程中有着显著调节作用。本文研究为企业有效开展知识积累及双元学习活动提供启示。     

How do young firms manage product portfolio complexity? The role of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity

Building a complex portfolio of products can be beneficial for young firms due to increased sales growth and competitiveness. Yet, the benefits from product portfolio complexity (PPC) are often outweighed by rising costs, leading to an inverted U‐shaped relationship between PPC and performance. Recent research has called for an increased understanding of how firms are able to better manage higher levels of PPC. We suggest that absorptive capacity and ambidexterity are vital to enhancing the benefits and mitigating the costs of increasing PPC. Using a sample of 215 young high technology firms, we find support for positive moderating effects of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity on the inverted U‐shaped relationship between PPC and firm performance. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization,alliances, and acquisitions

Prior research on ambidexterity has limited its concern to balancing exploration and exploitation via particular modes of operation. Acknowledging the interplay of tendencies to explore versus exploit via the internal organization, alliance, and acquisition modes, we claim that balancing these tendencies within each mode undermines firm performance because of conflicting routines, negative transfer, and limited specialization. Nevertheless, by exploring in one mode and exploiting in another, i.e., balancing across modes, a firm can avoid some of these impediments. Thus, we advance ambidexterity research by asserting that balance across modes enhances performance more than balance within modes. Our analysis of 190 U.S.‐based software firms further reveals that exploring via externally oriented modes such as acquisitions or alliances, while exploiting via internal organization, enhances these firms' performance. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on the ambidexterity-firm performance relationship for prospectors and defenders

Drawing on the resource-based view of the firm and, in particular, the capabilities perspective of firm performance, the authors examine the relationship between ambidexterity and firm performance for two strategy typologies: prospectors and defenders. Ambidexterity, defined as the combination of two discrete capabilities (exploration and exploitation), should have a less negative effect on firm performance among prospectors that add exploitation to exploration than among defenders who add exploration to exploitation. Hence, this research predicts an asymmetric effect of ambidexterity on firm performance for prospectors and defenders. The authors further posit that a boundary-spanning culture, such as market orientation, can function as a metaculture by integrating the subunit cultures generated by exploration and exploitation. As a result, market orientation should mitigate the negative effect of ambidexterity on firm performance, albeit differently for prospectors and defenders, and thus point to an asymmetric moderating role of market orientation. The findings provide mixed results, which the authors discuss along with some theoretical and managerial implications.     

Beyond the retention—acquisition trade-off: Capabilities of ambidextrous sales organizations

Sales organizations aim to grow their firms' business by acquiring new customers while retaining their existing ones. Although customer acquisition and retention are complementary processes, they involve different sales process capabilities that often compete for investments. However, firms that succeed in effectively combining these capabilities are “ambidextrous” and will enjoy superior growth and profits. Although developing ambidexterity is a fundamental sales management task, it has received little attention in research. Based on the Motivation-Opportunity-Ability framework we identify a set of organizational sales capabilities that can help sales organizations' joint management of acquisition and retention capabilities, and explain their influence drawing on Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory. Survey and time-lagged archival performance data from 174 firms provide an empirical test of the conceptual model and hypotheses developed. Results confirm that incentive management, cross functional cooperation, and the interaction of cross functional cooperation and sales training capabilities are positively correlated with sales organization ambidexterity. In addition, we find a positive correlation of customer prioritization on ambidextrous selling. Results confirm that firms with high levels and aligned acquisition and retention capabilities enjoy superior organic growth. However, contrary to expectation, increases in profit growth are only accomplished if acquisition capabilities are high.     

The Locus of Innovation: The Effect of a Separate Innovation Unit on Exploration,Exploitation, and Ambidexterity in Manufacturing and Service Firms

This paper investigates the effects of having a separate innovation unit on exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity in manufacturing and service firms according to traditional paradigms of the innovation management discipline that innovation units should be organized in a separate department. Many manufacturing firms have such a unit while few service firms do. This paper sets out to investigate the advantages of having such a unit for exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity, and whether there are differences between manufacturing and service firms that could help explain why such units are present or absent. The literature suggests that a separate innovation unit has a positive effect on exploration and ambidexterity in manufacturing firms. However, the effect on improving operational activities, that is, exploitation, is unclear. If exploration and exploitation are two ends of a continuum, as the literature suggests, more exploration comes at the cost of exploitation. On the other hand, others have suggested the possibility of an orthogonal relationship, where a separate unit can simultaneously enhance exploration and exploitation. In this paper, the Dutch Community Innovation Survey (CIS) is used to investigate these relationships for manufacturing and service firms, with a question added to the survey regarding the locus of innovation within each firm, that is, mostly within a dedicated innovation unit or dispersed throughout the firm. Our findings show that a separate innovation unit increases exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity in both manufacturing and service firms. It thereby provides support for the orthogonal view of ambidexterity. A separate unit enhances the ability to exploit and be ambidextrous equally in service and manufacturing firms, but has a weaker positive effect on exploration, and exploratory and ambidextrous performance in service firms. This finding implies that both manufacturing and service firms benefit from having a separate innovation unit, with the advantages being greatest for manufacturing firms. In service firms, such an innovation unit alone may not be sufficient, as such units are expensive to maintain, while they contribute less to ambidextrous performance than in manufacturing firms. Based on the latter finding, future studies should make a distinction between the ability to be ambidextrous in creating exploratory and exploitative innovations, and ambidextrous performance, the ability to gain financially from engaging in both types of activities simultaneously.     

Cannibalize and combine? The impact of ambidextrous innovation on organizational outcomes under market competition

How can a firm achieve ambidexterity? The present study proposes that the answer to this question lies in the distinction between ambidextrous culture and ambidextrous innovation. Drawing upon organizational learning theory and the source-position-performance framework, we propose that ambidexterity requires the adoption of two important organizational cultures, willingness to cannibalize (WTCA) and willingness to combine existing knowledge (WTCO), which allow firms to attain superior performance through the implementation of both radical and incremental (i.e., ambidextrous) innovations. Our major contribution lies in addressing the important debate in the literature on whether exploration and exploitation are complements or substitutes. Furthermore, competition intensity is a key condition that determines the degree to which the two types of organizational cultures and the two types of innovations are necessary for superior firm performance. The study uses data from multiple respondents from 199 Chinese firms. Our findings thus suggest that WTCA and WTCO, which are traditionally treated as opposites, are complements in generating radical innovations.