The Effect of Employees’ Individual Characteristics on Contextual Ambidextrous Behaviors

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• Kamal Sakhdari ¹
• Hassan Abedini ²

¹ Associate Professor, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Iran

² M.A in Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/tmj.2022.31049.0

Abstract

1-INTRODUCTION
One of the main challenges for businesses to achieve better and higher performance is to discover new opportunities in addition to taking advantage of existing opportunities and resources. organizational ambidexterity is defined as balancing the conflicting activities of exploration (identifying new ideas and opportunities) and exploitation (making the best use of existing resources and opportunities). empirical results show that ambidextrous organizations have higher performance than their competitors. According to the organizational ambiguity literature, organizations use different mechanisms to achieve organizational ambidexterity. One of the most common ways is structural separation (structural ambidexterity) in which the organization creates a separate unit (such as a research and development unit) to carry out exploratory activities. however, there are problems such as reducing the possibility of knowledge integration between units and agency costs due to structural separation. Recently, researchers have pointed out the importance of synchronizing exploration and exploitation behaviors at the individual level. The so-called contextual ambiguity refers to ambidextrous behaviors performed by employees in the organization. In other words, instead of creating separate structural units, employees are encouraged to perform exploratory behaviors while doing their daily work. However, the challenges of innovative behaviors discourage employees from undertaking ambidextrous behaviors. Research on contextual ambidextrous is emerging and mainly focused on the effects of contextual ambiguity as well as the favorable organizational environment for such behaviors. There is little knowledge about individual factors affecting employees’ ambidextrous behaviors, especially in developing countries like iran. therefore, the main purpose of this study is to identify the individual affecting factors of contextual ambidexterity as well as the individual moderators.
 
2-THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The current study integrates the entrepreneurial orientation theory and the ethical orientation literature to suggest that employees with higher levels of entrepreneurial and ethical orientations are more likely to get engaged in contextual ambidexterity behaviors and that there is a synergetic effect between these two orientations in shaping individual ambidextrous behaviors. the entrepreneurial orientation theory suggests that not all people are equally inclined to innovate and take the risks of entrepreneurial actions. Researches on intra-entrepreneurship also show that one of the main reasons for employees’ low entrepreneurial behaviors is the risks associated with them such as dismissal and job loss. Therefore, employees with a more entrepreneurial orientation are expected to be more involved in individual ambidextrous behaviors. The second theoretical basis is based on research on ethics and moral orientation suggesting the values and ethical standards guide individuals’ behaviors. It is suggested that the opportunistic behaviors resulting from having authority for innovation and creativity are less likely in individuals with low moral orientation and, as a result, morality increases the employees’ ambidextrous behaviors. Since entrepreneurial and ethical orientation can shape employees’ innovative behaviors, it seems that they reinforce each other and have a synergistic effect on ambidextrous behaviors.
3-METHODOLOGY
The food industry in iran is one of the most dynamic industries and employees’ ambidextrous behaviors are more likely to happen in such contexts. therefore, the current research was accomplished in this industry and surveyed the employees of food companies in tehran. needed data was gathered by distributing a questionnaire and 203 well-qualified ones were finally returned. After investigating the measurement models, the reliability and validity of variables were confirmed. The conceptual model was estimated using regression analysis.
 
4-RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
The results indicated that both the entrepreneurial and ethical orientation positively influenced employees’ ambidextrous behaviors. However, contrary to the prediction, the synergetic effect of these orientations was not confirmed, implying that they independently affect contextual ambidexterity in organizations.
 
5-CONLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS
While the literature on ambidexterity research is growing, there is little knowledge about its individual-level antecedents. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of entrepreneurial and ethical orientations on employees’ ambidextrous behaviors. the results confirmed the first hypothesis that employees’ entrepreneurial orientation has a positive effect on their ambidextrous behaviors. in other words, employees who tend to be more innovative, proactive, and risk-taker are more likely to engage in exploratory behaviors while doing their daily work. the findings also confirmed that employees with more professional ethics are more likely to engage in exploratory and innovative behavior. These results provide new insights for linking ethical variables to individual and organizational outputs. While previous research has focused on applying mechanisms, such as performance management, to control opportunistic behaviors resulting from employee authority, this research shows that internal control due to ethics can encourage employees to undertake ambidextrous behaviors. this is particularly important in the moral and cultural context of Iran. However, contrary to expectations, the third hypothesis representing the synergistic effect of entrepreneurship and ethics on contextual ambidexterity was not confirmed. it seems that each of these variables independently affects ambidextrous behaviors. Future research can identify potential moderators and other predictors by examining this relationship in other fields and industries, and especially by conducting in-depth exploratory qualitative research.

Keywords

• contextual ambidexterity
• entrepreneurial orientation
• ethical orientation
• exploration
• exploitation

References

Burgers, J. H., & Covin, J. G. (2016). The contingent effects of differentiation and integration on corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 37(3), 521-540.

Chang, Y. Y.; Chang, C. Y.; Chen, C. W.; Chen, Y. C. K., & Chang, S. Y. (2019). Firm-level participative leadership and individual-level employee ambidexterity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. doi/10.1108/LODJ-08-2018-0308/full/html

Chang, S.; Lin, R.; Chang, F., & Chen, R. (2007). Achieving manufacturing flexibility through entrepreneurial orientation. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(7), 997–1017. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570710816711

Cong, C.; Dempsey, M., & Xie, H. M. (2017). Political skill, entrepreneurial orientation and organizational justice. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-05-2015-0103

Covin, J. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: reflections on a needed construct. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(5), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00482.x.

Davidsson, P. (2004). Researching entrepreneurship (Vol. 5). New York: Springer.

Fang, C.; Lee, J., & Schilling, M. A. (2010). Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science, 21(3), 625-642.

Fang, N.; Yuli, Z., & Hongzhi, X. (2008). Acquisition of resources, formal organization and entrepreneurial orientation of new ventures. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/17561390910916877.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

Geerts, A. (2010). Acheiveing a balance between exploration and exploitation in service firms: a longitudinal study. Academy of Management, (1), 1–6.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.

Goossen, M. C., & Bazzazian, N. (2012). Consistently capricious: the performance effects of simultaneous and sequential ambidexterity. Unpublished Paper Presented at DRUID Academy, 35.

Gupta, A. K.; Smith, K. G.; Shalley, C. E.; Smith, K. E. N. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The Interplay between Exploration and Exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.

Güttel, W. H., & Konlechner, S. W. (2009). Continuously hanging by a thread: Managing contextually ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Business Review, 61(2), 150-172.

Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Ready or not: How do we accelerate the developmental readiness of leaders? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1181-1187.

Hill, S. A., & Birkinshaw, J. (2014). Ambidexterity and Survival in Corporate Venture Units. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1899–1931. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312445925

Junni, P.; Sarala, R. M.; Taras, V. a S., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational Ambiexterity and Performance: A Meta-Analysis. The Academy of Management Perspective, 27(4), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0015.

Karimi, A., & Rahmani, S. (2014). The impact of entrepreneurial tendency on the performance of businesses by mediation of the knowledge creation process (case study: small and medium businesses), Innovation and Creativity in the Humanities, 5 (3), 143-171. (in Persian)

Koryak, O.; Lockett, A.; Hayton, J.; Nicolaou, N., & Mole, K. (2018). Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 47(2), 413-427.

Li, Y. H., & Huang, J. W. (2012). Ambidexterity’s mediating impact on product development proficiency and new product performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(7), 1125–1132.

 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.05.002

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

Miao, C.; Coombs, J. E.; Qian, S., & Sirmon, D. G. (2017). The mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation: a meta-analysis of resource orchestration and cultural contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 77, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.016

Miller, D. (1983). The Correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms author (s): danny miller published by : informs stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/2630968, 29(7), 770–791.

Moradi, M.; Ebrahimpour, M., & Membini, Y. (2014). Explaining organizational dualism as a new concept in the management of student organizations. Journal of Technological Development, 10 (40), 27-18. (in Persian).

Morris, M. H.; Coombes, S.; Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial and market orientations in a non-profit context: theoretical and empirical insights. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(4), 12–39.

 https://doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130040401

Pittino, D.; Visintin, F., & Lauto, G. (2017). A configurational analysis of the antecedents of entrepreneurial orientation. European Management Journal, 35(2), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.07.003.

Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409.

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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.

Sakhdari, K.; Burgers, H.; Yadollahi Farsi, J., & Rostamnezhad, S. (2020). Shaping the organisational context for corporate entrepreneurship and performance in Iran: the interplay between social context and performance management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(8), 1020-1046.

Shimizu, K. (2012). Risks of corporate entrepreneurship: Autonomy and agency issues. Organization Science, 23(1), 194-206.

Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597-624.

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852

Vrontis, D.; Thrassou, A.; Santoro, G., & Papa, A. (2017). Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), 374-388.

Wales, W.; Monsen, E., & McKelvie, A. (2011). The organizational pervasiveness of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 895–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750316669906.

Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: a comparative study of UK and C hinese high‐tech firms. British Journal of Management, 25(1), 58-76.

Yadolahi Farsi, J. (2014). Identify the two-component components that affect the business performance of academic research. Journal of Higher Education Research and Planning, 63, 90-69. (in Persian).

Zehir, C.; Can, E., & Karaboga, T. (2015). Linking entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: the role of differentiation strategy and innovation performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 210, 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.381

Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.; Lee, S. H., & Chen, L. B. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation, organizational learning, and performance: evidence from china. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(2), 293–317.

 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00359.x

 Zimmermann, A.; Hill, S. A.; Birkinshaw, J., & Jaeckel, M. (2019). Complements or substitutes? a microfoundations perspective on the interplay between drivers of ambidexterity in SMEs. Long Range Planning, 101927.