Abstract

This paper summarizes the arguments and counterarguments within the scientific discussion on the issue of ambidexterity in leadership. The main purpose of the research is to provide a theoretical guidance on those antecedents and perspectives of Ambidextrous Leadership (AL) which is based on a literature review. Literary sources and approaches dealing with these paradoxical behaviours indicate that besides a contextual organizational framework especially managers are mainly in the focus of research. The relevance of the decision of this scientific problem is that many organizations today need to be flexible and adaptable simultaneously for fulfilling their goals. Investigation of the topic AL in the paper is carried out in the following logical sequence. After introducing the relevance and need of new approaches in leadership, the fundamental theory and consequences on AL are provided. Therefore, the theoretical basis for ambidexterity is explained and reasons to understand ambidexterity as a leadership challenge are given. Methodological tools of the research methods were undertaken through a review of 25 papers that have been published in peer-reviewed journals since 2004 and up to 2017. For this, a more detailed understanding and discussion are also provided, which has been based on the analysis of the most-cited articles. The analysis has been based on English and German language articles that appear in EBSCO and Beluga. The paper presents the results of a first attempt to provide a literature review which covered the concept of ambidexterity and its relevance as a scientific contribution. The theoretical concept provided the main determinants and consequences for the need for flexible, adaptable, and sustainable leadership. It becomes clear that the antecedents of ambidexterity can be used to understand the positive effects on this need and that this management approach has prospects for sustainability. The research literarily confirms and theoretically proves that ultimately; besides implementation and conceptual problems many management issues can take with this approach. The results of the research can be useful for leading researchers and practitioners. The selected papers may be also used as a valid starting point to research AL with respect to antecedents and perspectives. Managers can also benefit from a better understanding of this concept.

Keywords: adaptability, ambidextrous leadership, antecedents, concept, content-based literature review, exploitation, exploration, perspectives.

JEL Classification: D21, D23, M12.

Cite as: Kraft, M. G. H. (2018). Antecedents & perspectives of ambidextrous leadership. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 5-13. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2018.4-01

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696-717.
2. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, Prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of management, 40(5), 1297-1333.
3. Bucic, T., Robinson, L., & Ramburuth, P. (2010). Effects of leadership style on team learning. Journal of Workplace learning, 22(4), 228-248.
4. Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20 (4), 781-796.
5. Chang, Y. Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small-to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1-17.
6. Elbe, M. (2012). Management von Ungewissheit: Zukünftige Zumutungen der Führung. In S. Grote (Hrsg.). Die Zukunft der Führung(S. 173-189). Berlin: Springer.
7. Erpenbeck, J. & von Rosenstiel, L. (2007). Handbuch Kompetenzmessung. Stuttgart: SchäfferPoeschel.
8. Fließ, S. (2009). Dienstleistungsmanagement: Kundenintegration gestalten und steuern. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
9. Gebert, D., & Kearney, E. (2011). Ambidextre Führung. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie A&O.
10. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
11. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G. & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4), 693-70.
12. Han, M. & Celly, N. (2008). Strategic ambidexterity and performance in Interna- tional New Ventures. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 25 (4), 335-349.
13. He, Z. L. & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15 (4), 481-494.
14. Hobus, B. & Busch, M. W. (2011). Organisationale Ambidextrie. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 71 (2), 189-193.
15. Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. The leadership quarterly, 13(5), 493-504.
16. Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007.
17. Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J. & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20 (4), 797-811.
18. Jong, A. D., Ruyter, K. D., & Lemmink, J. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of the service climate in boundary-spanning self-managing service teams. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 18-35.
19. Kearney, N. (2013). Die Effekte ambidextrer Führung auf die Ideengenerierung und Ideenimplementierung, die Team-Innovation und die allgemeine Teamleistung.
20. Keller, T. (2012). Verhalten zwischen Exploration und Exploitation: ein Beitrag zur Ambidextrieforschung auf der organisationalen Mikroebene.
21. 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. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 90-180.
22. Lewin, K.: Action Research und Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues, 1946, Heft 2, S. 34-64.
23. Longenecker, C. O., Neubert, M. J., & Fink, L. S. (2007). Causes and consequences of managerial failure in rapidly changing organizations. Business Horizons, 50(2), 145-155.
24. Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32 (5), 646-672
25. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science,2(1), 71-87.
26. O’Reilly, C. A. & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74-81.
27. Probst, G., Raisch, S., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Ambidextrous leadership: Emerging challenges for business and HR leaders. Organizational Dynamics, 40(4), 326-334.
28. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G. & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20 (4), 685-695.
29. Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: AL. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.
30. Roth, S., & Bösener, K. (2015). The influence of customer satisfaction on customer price behavior: literature review and identification of research gaps. Management Review Quarterly, 65(1), 1-33.
31. Rigotti, T. & Otto, K. (2013). Prozedurale Fairness als Mediator zwischen transformationaler Führung und psychischer Beanspruchung am Arbeitsplatz. Eine Mehrebenenstudie. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 57(4), 163-176.
32. Schreyögg, Georg. Organisation: Grundlagen moderner Organisationsgestaltung. 3rd., Wiesbaden: Gabler, 1999.
33. Sustainability Leadership Institute, 2017. Website www.sustainabilityleadershipinstitute.org [Accessed 15 October 2017].
34. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403.
35. Steenkamp, J. B. E., Hofstede, F. T., & Wedel, M. (1999). A cross-national investigation into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. The Journal of Marketing, 55-69.
36. Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. InternationalJournal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317-332.
37. Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T. & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (2), 221-231.
38. Voss, G. B., Siredeshmukh, D. & Voss, Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on products exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (1), 147-164.