Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Review of Managerial Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell P, Felin T, Foss N (2008) Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Manag Dec Ec 29:489–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner R, Helfat CE (2003) Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strateg Manag J 24:1011–1025

    Google Scholar 

  • Alchian AA, Demsetz H (1972) Production, information costs, and economic organization. Am Econ Rev 62:777–795

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 47:1343–1364

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 8:21–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Avolio BJ, Gardner WL (2005) Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadersh Q 16:315–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney JB, Felin T (2013) What are microfoundations? Acad Manag Perspect 27:138–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskarada S, Watson J, Cromarty J (2016) Leadership and organizational ambidexterity. J Manag Dev 35:778–788

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass BM, Bass R (2008) The Bass handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker SO, Woessmann L (2009) Was weber wrong? A human capital theory of protestant economic history. Q J Ecol 124:531–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker SO, Woessmann L (2010) The effect of Protestantism on education before the industrialization: evidence from 1816 Prussia. Econ Lett 197:224–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2002) Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industry. Adm Sci Q 47:676–706

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw J, Gupta K (2013) Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Acad Manag Perspect 27:287–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitektine A, Haack P (2014) The “Macro” and the “Micro” of legitimacy: toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Acad Manag Rev 40:49–75

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 41–69

  • 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 32:392–405

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 28:37–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman RA (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: theory and field research. Org Sci 2:239–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnes B, Cooke B (2012) The past, present and future of organization development: taking the long view. Human Relat 65:1395–1429

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 42:8–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantoni D (2014) The economic effects of the protestant reformation: testing the weber hypothesis in the German Lands. J Eur Econ Assoc 13:561–598

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 20:207–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang Y-Y, Hughes M (2012) Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms. Eur Manag J 30:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS (1986) Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. Am J Sociol 91:1309–1335

    Google Scholar 

  • Csaszar FA (2013) An efficient frontier in organization design: organizational structure as a determinant of exploration and exploitation. Org Sci 24:1083–1101

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen J, Turnbull S (2005) A meta-review of the management development literature. Human Resource Dev Rev 4:335–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Dansereau FJ, Alutto JA, Yammarino FJ (1984) Theory testing in organizational behavior: the varient approach. Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Dansereau FJ, Yammarino FJ, Markham SE, Alutto JA, Newman J, Dumas M (1995) Individualized leadership: a new multiple-level approach. Leadersh Q 6:413–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Devinney TM (2013) Is microfoundational thinking critical to management theory and practice. Acad Manag Perspect 27:81–84

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 25:6–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon-Wood M, Booth A, Sutton AJ (2007) Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res 7:375–422

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 167–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser H (2016) Foundations of Social Theory’ oder ‘Foundations of Sociology. Anal Kritik—J Philos Soc Theory 14:129–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Felin T, Foss N, Heimeriks KH, Madsen TL (2012) Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: individuals, processes, and structure. J Manag Stud 49:1351–1373

    Google Scholar 

  • Felin T, Foss NJ, Ployhart RE (2015) The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Acad 9:575–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford JD, Ford LW, D’Amelio A (2008) Resistance to change: the rest of the story. Acad Manag Rev 33:362–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss N, Lindenberg S (2013) Microfoundation of strategy: a goal-framing perspective on the drivers of value creation. Acad Manag Perspect 27:85–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson C, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manag J 47:209–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Good D, Michel EJ (2013) Individual ambidexterity: exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. J Psychol 147:435–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman PS (2000) Missing organizational linkages: tools for cross-level research. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:1080–1103

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 6:219–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve HR (2013) Microfoundation of management: behavioral strategies and levels of rationality in organizational action. Acad Manag Perspect 27:103–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Güttel WH, Konlechner SW (2009) Continuously hanging by a thread: managing contextually ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 61:150–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Güttel WH, Konlechner SW, Trede JK (2015) Standardized individuality versus individualized standardization: the role of the context in structurally ambidextrous organizations. Rev Manag Sci 9:261–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazy JK (2006) Measuring leadership effectiveness in complex sociotechnical systems. Emergence 8:58–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedström P, Ylikoski P (2010) Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annu Rev Sociol 36:4967

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyse V (2004) Kompetenztraining. 64 Informations-und Trainingsprogramme. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinterhuber HH (2007) Leadership. Strategisches Denken systematisch schulen von Sokrates bis heute. Faz, Frankfurt a.M

  • Hodgkinson IR, Ravishankar MN, Aitken-Fischer M (2014) A resource-advantage perspective on the orchestration of ambidexterity. Ser Ind J 34:1234–1252

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 45:982–1007

    Google Scholar 

  • Junni P, Arala RM, Taras V, Tarba SY (2013) Organizational ambidexterity and performance: a meta-analysis. Acad Manag Perspect 27:299–312

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 30:582–602

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 22:54–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff K (2013) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 36:319–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton D (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strateg Manag J 13:111–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strateg Manag J 14:95–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Li C-R (2014) Top management team diversity in fostering organizational ambidexterity: examining TMT integration mechanisms. Innovation 16:303–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin H-E, McDonough EFI (2011) Inverstigating the role of leadership and organizational culture in fostering innovation ambidexterity. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 58:497–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken CC (2003) Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Commun Res 28:587–604

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 32:646–672

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 29:338–359

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Org Sci 2:71–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz R (2004) Mechanisms in the analysis of social-macro phenomena. Philos Soc Sci 34:237–259

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 8:128–148

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 349–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Sardais C (2011) A concept of leadership for strategic organization. Strat Org 9:174–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Toyama R (2002) A firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm. Ind Corp Change 11:995–1009

    Google Scholar 

  • Northouse PG (2010) Leadership: theory and practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosella A, Cantarello S, Filippini R (2012) The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: a bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strat Org 10:450–465

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly C (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future. Acad Manag Perspect 27:324–338

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • O’Reilly C, Tushman ML (2011) Organizational ambidexterity in action: how managers explore and exploit. Calif Manag Rev 53:5–22

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly C, Harreld JB, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity. IBM and emerging business opportunities. Calif Manag Rev 51:75–99

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 6:172–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Pertusa-Ortega EM, Molina-Azorin JF (2018) A joint analysis of determinants and performance consequences of ambidexterity. Bus Res Q 21:84–98

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:589–615

    Google Scholar 

  • Probst G, Raisch S, Tushman ML (2011) Ambidextrous leadership: emerging challenges for business and HR leaders. Org Dyn 40:326–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn RE, Cameron KS (1988) Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Ballinger Publishing Co, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J Manag 34:375–409

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 27:2461–2487

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzl B, Rost M, Kaschube J (2013) Facilitating ambidexterity with HR practices–A case study of an automotive supplier. Ind J Auto Tech Manag: forthcoming

  • Rogan M, Mors ML (2014) A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Org Sci 25:1860–1877

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogan M, Mors ML (2015) A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Org Sci 25:1860–1877

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosing K, Frese M, Bausch A (2011) Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: ambidextrous leadership. Leadersh Q 22:956–974

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle TP, Barbuto JEJ (2013) A multilevel framework: expanding and bridging micro and macro levels of positive behavior with leadership. J Leadersh Org Stud 20:274–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender JC, Kessler EH (1995) Managing the uncertainties of innovation: extending Thompson (1967). Human Relat 48:35–56

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:285–316

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 25:805–816

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturdy A, Grey C (2003) Beneath and beyond organizational change management: exploring alternatives. Org 10:651–662

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugarman B (2010) Organizational learning and reform at the New York City Police Department. Behav Sci 46:157–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorne S, Jensen L, Kearney MH, Noblit G, Sandelowski M (2004) Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res 14:1342–1365

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton PH, Ocasio W, Lounsbury M (2013) Microfoundations of Institutional Logics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Brit J Manag 14:207–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner N, Lee-Kelley L (2012) Unpacking the theory on ambidexterity: an illustrative case on the managerial architectures, mechanisms and dynamics. Manag Learn 44:179–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner N, Swart J, Maylor H (2013) Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: a review and research agenda. Int J Manag Rev 15:317–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner N, Swart J, Maylor H, Antonacopoulou E (2016) Making it happen: how managerial actions enable project-based ambidexterity. Manag Learn 47:199–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) The ambidextrous organization: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38:8–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Smith WK, Rc Wood, Westerman G, O’Reilly CA III (2010) Organizational designs and innovation streams. Ind Corp Change 19:1331–1366

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Smith WK, Binns A (2011) The ambidextrous CEO. Harv Bus Rev: 74–80

  • Venugopal A, Krishnan TN, Kumar M (2018) Identifying the focal role of top management paradoxical cognition in ambidextrous firms. Manag Dec 56:47–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Translation of the 1904/1905 German edition by Talcott Parsons, Allen and Unwin

  • Weed M (2005) “Meta Interpretation”: A method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research. Forum Qual Res 6: Art 37

  • Will MG (2015) Successful organizational change through win-win: how change managers can organize mutual benefits. J Account Org Change 11:193–214

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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 Netherlands

  • 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, Spain

  • Yammarino FJ (2013) Leadership: past, present, and future. J Leadersh Org Stud 20:149–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Yammarino FJ, Dansereau F (2011) Multi-level issues in evolutionary theory, organization science, and leadership. Leadersh Q 22:1042–1057

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacher H, Wilden RG (2014) A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self-reported employee innovation. J Occup Organ Psychol 87:813–820

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 811–824

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Strategic Management, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Grosse Steinstr. 73, 06108, Halle, Saale, Germany

    Julia Mueller

  2. Chair of Management and Organization, Universität Stuttgart, Keplerstr. 17, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany

    Birgit Renzl

  3. Chair of Economic Ethics, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Große Steinstraße 73, 06108, Halle, Saale, Germany

    Matthias Georg Will

Authors
  1. Julia Mueller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Birgit Renzl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthias Georg Will
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Mueller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mueller, J., Renzl, B. & Will, M.G. Ambidextrous leadership: a meta-review applying static and dynamic multi-level perspectives. Rev Manag Sci 14, 37–59 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0297-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0297-9

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation