Advertisement

Ambidextrous leadership: a meta-review applying static and dynamic multi-level perspectives

  • Julia Mueller
  • Birgit Renzl
  • Matthias Georg Will
Review Paper
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

The ability to achieve ambidexterity is seen as an important prerequisite for sustaining competitive advantages in organizations. One means to this end is ambidextrous leadership, which, by definition, attempts to achieve an improved corporate outcome on the macro level through leadership behavior on the micro-level. We present here a meta-review of the field of ambidextrous leadership research that indicates that the studies therein lack explicit definition of the levels analyzed within this multi-level concept as well as links between these levels. We first address the development of static and dynamic multi-level models in management and sociological research. Second, we describe the multi-level characteristics of the concept of ambidextrous leadership. Third, we use the static and dynamic multi-level models to analyze how current research reflects different levels of ambidextrous leadership and the links between these levels. Based on our meta-review, we identify new areas for future investigation and we develop an agenda for systematizing leadership research by explicitly considering the micro and macro level of an organization.

Keywords

Ambidextrous leadership Multi-level concept Micro-level Macro level Meta-review Microfoundations 

JEL classification

D 23 D 91 L 21 M12 

References

  1. Abell P, Felin T, Foss N (2008) Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Manag Dec Ec 29:489–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adner R, Helfat CE (2003) Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strateg Manag J 24:1011–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alchian AA, Demsetz H (1972) Production, information costs, and economic organization. Am Econ Rev 62:777–795Google Scholar
  4. Alexiev AS, Jansen JJP, Van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2010) Top management team advice seeking and exploratory innovation: the moderating role of TMT heterogeneity. J Manag Stud 47:1343–1364Google Scholar
  5. Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Volmink J (2008) Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodology 8:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avolio BJ, Gardner WL (2005) Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadersh Q 16:315–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barney JB, Felin T (2013) What are microfoundations? Acad Manag Perspect 27:138–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baskarada S, Watson J, Cromarty J (2016) Leadership and organizational ambidexterity. J Manag Dev 35:778–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bass BM, Bass R (2008) The Bass handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Becker SO, Woessmann L (2009) Was weber wrong? A human capital theory of protestant economic history. Q J Ecol 124:531–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Becker SO, Woessmann L (2010) The effect of Protestantism on education before the industrialization: evidence from 1816 Prussia. Econ Lett 197:224–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2002) Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industry. Adm Sci Q 47:676–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Birkinshaw J, Gupta K (2013) Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Acad Manag Perspect 27:287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bitektine A, Haack P (2014) The “Macro” and the “Micro” of legitimacy: toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Acad Manag Rev 40:49–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bledow R, Frese M, Mueller V (2011) Ambidextrous leadership for innovation: the influence of culture. In: Mobley, WH, Li, M, Wang, Y (eds) Advances in global leadership, edn. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 41–69Google Scholar
  16. Bonesso S, Gerli F, Scapolan A (2014) The individual side of ambidexterity: do individuals’ perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off? Eur Manag J 32:392–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Briscoe JP, Hall DT (1999) Grooming and picking leaders using competency frameworks: do they work?—An alternative approach and new guidelines for practice. Org Dyn 28:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burgelman RA (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: theory and field research. Org Sci 2:239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burnes B, Cooke B (2012) The past, present and future of organization development: taking the long view. Human Relat 65:1395–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Buyl T, Boone C, Matthyssens P (2012) The impact of top management team’s knowledge diversity on organizational ambidexterity–a conceptual framework. Int Stud Manag Org 42:8–29Google Scholar
  21. Cantoni D (2014) The economic effects of the protestant reformation: testing the weber hypothesis in the German Lands. J Eur Econ Assoc 13:561–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carmeli A, Halevi MY (2009) How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. Leadersh Q 20:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chang Y-Y, Hughes M (2012) Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms. Eur Manag J 30:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coleman JS (1986) Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. Am J Sociol 91:1309–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Csaszar FA (2013) An efficient frontier in organization design: organizational structure as a determinant of exploration and exploitation. Org Sci 24:1083–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cullen J, Turnbull S (2005) A meta-review of the management development literature. Human Resource Dev Rev 4:335–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dansereau FJ, Alutto JA, Yammarino FJ (1984) Theory testing in organizational behavior: the varient approach. Prentice Hall, Engelwood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  28. Dansereau FJ, Yammarino FJ, Markham SE, Alutto JA, Newman J, Dumas M (1995) Individualized leadership: a new multiple-level approach. Leadersh Q 6:413–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Devinney TM (2013) Is microfoundational thinking critical to management theory and practice. Acad Manag Perspect 27:81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dionne SD, Gupta A, Sotak KL, Shirreffs KA, Serban A, Hao C, Kim DH, Yammarino FJ (2014) A 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research. Leadersh Q 25:6–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dixon-Wood M, Booth A, Sutton AJ (2007) Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res 7:375–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Duncan RB (1976) The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In: Kilmann RH, Pondy LR, Slevin D (eds) The management of organization design: strategies and implementation, edn. Elsevier, New York, pp 167–188Google Scholar
  33. Esser H (2016) Foundations of Social Theory’ oder ‘Foundations of Sociology. Anal Kritik—J Philos Soc Theory 14:129–142Google Scholar
  34. Felin T, Foss N, Heimeriks KH, Madsen TL (2012) Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: individuals, processes, and structure. J Manag Stud 49:1351–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Felin T, Foss NJ, Ployhart RE (2015) The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Acad 9:575–632Google Scholar
  36. Ford JD, Ford LW, D’Amelio A (2008) Resistance to change: the rest of the story. Acad Manag Rev 33:362–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Foss N, Lindenberg S (2013) Microfoundation of strategy: a goal-framing perspective on the drivers of value creation. Acad Manag Perspect 27:85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gibson C, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manag J 47:209–226Google Scholar
  39. Good D, Michel EJ (2013) Individual ambidexterity: exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. J Psychol 147:435–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goodman PS (2000) Missing organizational linkages: tools for cross-level research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Gooty J, Serban A, Thomas JS, Gavin MB, Yammarino FJ (2012) Use and misuse of levels of analysis in leadership research: an illustrative review of leader-member exchange. Leadersh Q 23:1080–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Graen GB (1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: developemnt of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh Q 6:219–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Greve HR (2013) Microfoundation of management: behavioral strategies and levels of rationality in organizational action. Acad Manag Perspect 27:103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Güttel WH, Konlechner SW (2009) Continuously hanging by a thread: managing contextually ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 61:150–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Güttel WH, Konlechner SW, Trede JK (2015) Standardized individuality versus individualized standardization: the role of the context in structurally ambidextrous organizations. Rev Manag Sci 9:261–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hazy JK (2006) Measuring leadership effectiveness in complex sociotechnical systems. Emergence 8:58–77Google Scholar
  47. Hedström P, Ylikoski P (2010) Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annu Rev Sociol 36:4967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Heyse V (2004) Kompetenztraining. 64 Informations-und Trainingsprogramme. Schäffer-Poeschel, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  49. Hinterhuber HH (2007) Leadership. Strategisches Denken systematisch schulen von Sokrates bis heute. Faz, Frankfurt a.MGoogle Scholar
  50. Hodgkinson IR, Ravishankar MN, Aitken-Fischer M (2014) A resource-advantage perspective on the orchestration of ambidexterity. Ser Ind J 34:1234–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jansen J, George G, Van den Bosch F, Volberda H (2008) Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of transformational leadership. J Manag Stud 45:982–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Junni P, Arala RM, Taras V, Tarba SY (2013) Organizational ambidexterity and performance: a meta-analysis. Acad Manag Perspect 27:299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kammerlander N, Burger D, Fust A, Fueglistaller U (2015) Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized enterprises: the effect of CEO’s regulatory focus. J Bus Venturing 30:582–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Keller T, Weibler J (2014) What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager. Linking leadership and cognitive strain to balancing exploration and exploitation. J Leadersh Org Stud 22:54–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Krippendorff K (2013) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  56. Laureiro-Martínez D, Brusoni S, Canessa N, Zollo M (2015) Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: an fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strateg Manag J 36:319–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Leonard-Barton D (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strateg Manag J 13:111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strateg Manag J 14:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Li C-R (2014) Top management team diversity in fostering organizational ambidexterity: examining TMT integration mechanisms. Innovation 16:303–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lin H-E, McDonough EFI (2011) Inverstigating the role of leadership and organizational culture in fostering innovation ambidexterity. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 58:497–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken CC (2003) Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Commun Res 28:587–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lubatkin MH, Simsek Z, Ling Y, Veiga JF (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small- and medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. J Manag 32:646–672Google Scholar
  63. Luo B, Zheng S, Ji H, Liang L (2018) Ambidextrous leadership and TMT-member ambidextrous behavior: the role of TMT behavioral integration and TMT risk propensity. Int J Human Resource Manag 29:338–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Org Sci 2:71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mayntz R (2004) Mechanisms in the analysis of social-macro phenomena. Philos Soc Sci 34:237–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mihalache OR, Jansen JJP, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2014) Top management team shared leadership and organizational ambidexterity: a moderated mediation framework. Strat Entrep J 8:128–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Miller GJ (2008) Solutions to principal-agent problems in firms. In: Ménard C, Shirley MM (eds) Handbook of new institutional economics, edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 349–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Miller D, Sardais C (2011) A concept of leadership for strategic organization. Strat Org 9:174–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nonaka I, Toyama R (2002) A firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm. Ind Corp Change 11:995–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Northouse PG (2010) Leadership: theory and practice. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  71. Nosella A, Cantarello S, Filippini R (2012) The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: a bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strat Org 10:450–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. O’Reilly C (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future. Acad Manag Perspect 27:324–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. O’Reilly C, Tushman ML (2007) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Stanford, CA, Research Paper No. 1963, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=978493. Accessed 7 Aug 2018
  74. O’Reilly C, Tushman ML (2011) Organizational ambidexterity in action: how managers explore and exploit. Calif Manag Rev 53:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. O’Reilly C, Harreld JB, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity. IBM and emerging business opportunities. Calif Manag Rev 51:75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pearce CL, Sims HP (2002) Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dyn 6:172–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pertusa-Ortega EM, Molina-Azorin JF (2018) A joint analysis of determinants and performance consequences of ambidexterity. Bus Res Q 21:84–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Prieto-Pastor I, Martin-Perez V (2015) Does HRM generate ambidextrous employees for ambidextrous learning? the moderating role of management support. Int J Human Resource Manag 26:589–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Probst G, Raisch S, Tushman ML (2011) Ambidextrous leadership: emerging challenges for business and HR leaders. Org Dyn 40:326–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Quinn RE, Cameron KS (1988) Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Ballinger Publishing Co, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  81. Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J Manag 34:375–409Google Scholar
  82. Rao-Nicholson R, Khan Z, Akhtar P, Merchant H (2016) The impact of leadership on organizational ambidexterity and employee psychological safety in the global acquisitions of emerging market multinationals. Int J Human Resource Manag 27:2461–2487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Renzl B, Rost M, Kaschube J (2013) Facilitating ambidexterity with HR practices–A case study of an automotive supplier. Ind J Auto Tech Manag: forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  84. Rogan M, Mors ML (2014) A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Org Sci 25:1860–1877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rogan M, Mors ML (2015) A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Org Sci 25:1860–1877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rosing K, Frese M, Bausch A (2011) Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: ambidextrous leadership. Leadersh Q 22:956–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Searle TP, Barbuto JEJ (2013) A multilevel framework: expanding and bridging micro and macro levels of positive behavior with leadership. J Leadersh Org Stud 20:274–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Spender JC, Kessler EH (1995) Managing the uncertainties of innovation: extending Thompson (1967). Human Relat 48:35–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sperber S, Linder C (2018) The impact of top management teams on firm innovativeness: a configurational analysis of demographic characteristics, leadership style and team power distribution. Rev Manag Sci 12:285–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Spisak BR, Grabo AE, Arvey RD, van Vugt M (2014) The age of exploration and exploitation: younger-looking leaders endorsed for change and older-looking leaders endorsed for stability. Leadersh Q 25:805–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sturdy A, Grey C (2003) Beneath and beyond organizational change management: exploring alternatives. Org 10:651–662Google Scholar
  92. Sugarman B (2010) Organizational learning and reform at the New York City Police Department. Behav Sci 46:157–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Thorne S, Jensen L, Kearney MH, Noblit G, Sandelowski M (2004) Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res 14:1342–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Thornton PH, Ocasio W, Lounsbury M (2013) Microfoundations of Institutional Logics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  95. Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Brit J Manag 14:207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Turner N, Lee-Kelley L (2012) Unpacking the theory on ambidexterity: an illustrative case on the managerial architectures, mechanisms and dynamics. Manag Learn 44:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Turner N, Swart J, Maylor H (2013) Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: a review and research agenda. Int J Manag Rev 15:317–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Turner N, Swart J, Maylor H, Antonacopoulou E (2016) Making it happen: how managerial actions enable project-based ambidexterity. Manag Learn 47:199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) The ambidextrous organization: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38:8–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Tushman ML, Smith WK, Rc Wood, Westerman G, O’Reilly CA III (2010) Organizational designs and innovation streams. Ind Corp Change 19:1331–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Tushman ML, Smith WK, Binns A (2011) The ambidextrous CEO. Harv Bus Rev: 74–80Google Scholar
  102. Venugopal A, Krishnan TN, Kumar M (2018) Identifying the focal role of top management paradoxical cognition in ambidextrous firms. Manag Dec 56:47–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Weber M (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Translation of the 1904/1905 German edition by Talcott Parsons, Allen and UnwinGoogle Scholar
  104. Weed M (2005) “Meta Interpretation”: A method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research. Forum Qual Res 6: Art 37Google Scholar
  105. Will MG (2015) Successful organizational change through win-win: how change managers can organize mutual benefits. J Account Org Change 11:193–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Will MG, Mueeller J (2014c) Microfoundations of Organizational Change and Development: Linking the Micro and the Macro Level of an Organization. th EIASM Colloquium on Organisational Change and Development THE FUTURE OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT, September 12-13, 2014 Essen (Germany)Google Scholar
  107. Will MG, Mueller J (2014a) Change management: An economic model to link the micro and the macro level. 30th EGOS Colloquium 03-05.07.2014 Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  108. Will MG, Mueller J (2014b) Microfoundations of Management Research: A Model to Analyze the Interdependence between the Organizational Macro- and Micro-Level. 14th European Academy of Management Annual Conference, 04.-07.06.2014 Valencia, SpainGoogle Scholar
  109. Yammarino FJ (2013) Leadership: past, present, and future. J Leadersh Org Stud 20:149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Yammarino FJ, Dansereau F (2011) Multi-level issues in evolutionary theory, organization science, and leadership. Leadersh Q 22:1042–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  112. Zacher H, Wilden RG (2014) A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self-reported employee innovation. J Occup Organ Psychol 87:813–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Zarb KB, de la Robertie CS, Zouaoui SK (2016) Ambidextrous leadership as a multidimensional construct. In: Bilgin, MH (eds) Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management, and Entrepreneurship, Springer: Berlin, pp 811–824Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia Mueller
    • 1
  • Birgit Renzl
    • 2
  • Matthias Georg Will
    • 3
  1. 1.Chair of Strategic ManagementMartin-Luther-University Halle-WittenbergHalle, SaaleGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Management and OrganizationUniversität StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  3. 3.Chair of Economic EthicsMartin-Luther-University Halle-WittenbergHalle, SaaleGermany

Personalised recommendations