Exploring the Role of Leadership in Enabling Contextual Ambidexterity

• Author: Deanne N. Den Hartog,Mary Uhl‐Bien,Liselore A. Havermans,Anne Keegan
• Published date: 01 December 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21764
• Date: 01 December 2015

Human Resource Management, December 2015, Vol. 54, No. S1. Pp. S179–S200

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21764

Correspondence to: Liselore Havermans, Assistant Professor in HRM-OB, Department of Management and

Organization FEWEB, VU University Amsterdam, Main Building HG 4A-64 De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam,

The Netherlands, Phone: +31 (0) 20 5982293, E-mail: l.a.havermans@vu.nl

pursue new knowledge while at the same time

using existing knowledge optimally (Levinthal

& March, 1993). A growing number of theorists

have conceptualized the dilemmas organizations

face in the simultaneous pursuit of exploration

and exploitation under the banner of organiza-

tional ambidexterity (Duncan, 1976; Gibson &

Birkinshaw, 2004; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996).

The challenge for organizations to respond

effectively to requirements to be flex-

ible and at the same time efficient has

been at the forefront of organizational

theorizing for many years. Successful,

sustainable organizing is held to be a function

of being able to exploit current strengths as well

as explore new possibilities (March, 1991) and to

EXPLORING THE ROLE

OFLEADERSHIP IN ENABLING

CONTEXTUAL AMBIDEXTERITY

LISELORE A. HAVERMANS, DEANNE N. DEN HARTOG,

ANNE KEEGAN, AND MARY UHL-BIEN

Sustainable success calls for contextually ambidextrous organizing. According

to theory, this entails enabling simultaneous high levels of exploration and

exploitation within a subsystem. The practices involved in enabling contextual

ambidexterity form a major and relatively unexplored leadership challenge. Our

main aim is to draw on a combination of ambidexterity and complexity theory

insights to understand how contextual ambidexterity emerges in dynamic con-

texts. We contribute to the literature on the role of leadership in enabling con-

textual ambidexterity by exploring the daily practices leaders enact to stimulate

exploration and exploitation as well as to shift dynamically between them to

(re)gain contextual ambidexterity. We present the results of two qualitative stud-

ies exploring leadership in project-based organizations where the pressure for

contextual ambidexterity is relevant. We show that in responding adaptively to

environmental stimuli, leaders shift between practices to emphasize exploitation

or exploration to (re)gain the needed high levels of both, and their enactments

are bounded by the conditions of keeping exploration and exploitation simulta-

neously high. We discuss the implications of these fi ndings for understanding

contextual ambidexterity as a dynamic accomplishment that emerges in every-

day interactions, the role of leaders in enabling contextual ambidexterity, and

the need for HR managers to support leaders in enacting this dynamic form of

leadership. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: leadership, contextual ambidexterity, requisite complexity,

qualitative studies

S180 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, DECEMBER 2015

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Contextual

ambidexterity is thus

conceptualized at the

individual and group

level, rather than at

the organizational

level. This form of

ambidexterity has

the advantages that

adaptation of the

entire subsystem

is facilitated and

that individuals are

encouraged to use

their own judgment in

combining alignment-

oriented and

adaptation-oriented

activities.

In organizational theorizing, ambidexterity is

defined as the capacity of an organization to be

“aligned and efficient in their management of

today’s business demands while simultaneously

adaptive to changes in the environment” (Raisch

& Birkinshaw, 2008, p. 375).

In line with a paradox perspective, the ambi-

dexterity literature indicates that both exploration

and exploitation should be pursued (Eisenhardt,

Furr, & Bingham, 2010; March, 1991; Smith &

Lewis, 2011). However, the extent to which this

should be done, or how, to reach the

ultimate balance between the two,

remains unanswered (Birkinshaw

& Gupta, 2013). In this article, we

draw on research informed by the

complexity sciences to clarify the

role leaders’ actions play in con-

tinuously (re)attaining this balance

between exploration and exploita-

tion. Specifically, we use the concept

of requisite complexity, that is, that

the complexity of external stimuli

has to be matched by the complex-

ity of internal responses by an orga-

nization (Boisot & McKelvey, 2010),

to argue that while ambidexterity

requires high levels of both explora-

tion and exploitation, the emphasis

on one or the other continuously

shifts in response to the complex-

ity of stimuli from the environ-

ment perceived by, among others,

an organization’s leaders. In other

words, the emphasis is on the ongo-

ing attaining or regaining of concur-

rent high levels of both.

While in the past theorists

have argued that it is difficult for

organizations to meet the needs

for both exploration and exploita-

tion (Hannan & Freeman, 1984),

recent approaches are character-

ized by attempts to specify the

different ways in which organiza-

tions can achieve the required balance between

these two (Lavie, Stettner, & Tushman, 2010).

Ambidexterity has, for example, been studied as

structurally or temporally separated processes of

balancing exploration and exploitation (Jansen,

Tempelaar, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009;

Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996), in which the balanc-

ing challenge is set at the organizational level

(Lavie et al., 2010). Ambidexterity has also been

identified with attempts to manage simultane-

ous exploration and exploitation within a subsys-

tem (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). This has been

referred to as “contextual ambidexterity” (Gibson

& Birkinshaw, 2004). Here, we also focus on con-

textual ambidexterity.

Building on the approach of Gibson and

Birkinshaw (2004) and Adler, Goldoftas, and

Levine (1999), research on contextual ambidex-

terity focuses on contextual factors that encour-

age or enable a behavioral orientation or capacity

for the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and

exploitation. The challenge, to achieve contextual

ambidexterity, is to enable individuals and groups

to deal with the inherent tension between the

processes of exploration and exploitation (Gibson

& Birkinshaw, 2004). Contextual ambidexter-

ity is thus conceptualized at the individual and

group level (Lavie etal., 2010), rather than at the

organizational level. This form of ambidexterity

has the advantages that adaptation of the entire

subsystem is facilitated and that individuals are

encouraged to use their own judgment in combin-

ing alignment-oriented and adaptation-oriented

activities (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).

Although the advantages of contextual ambi-

dexterity over structural or temporal separation of

exploration and exploitation are becoming more

widely recognized, achieving contextual ambidex-

terity is a major challenge, and research on how to

achieve such ambidexterity is still limited (Wang

& Rafiq, 2014). In addition, as most research has

focused on ambidexterity at the organization and

unit level, understanding of ambidexterity at the

level of the individual is still limited (Mom, Van

Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009). More research

is needed that explores how ambidexterity is

achieved through individuals as well as whether,

and how, the success of processes for achieving

ambidexterity is dependent on the context (Wang

& Rafiq, 2014).

Despite the crucial role attributed to leader-

ship in managing organizational paradoxes in

general (e.g., Smith & Lewis, 2011), and ambidex-

terity specifically (e.g., Boumgarden, Nickerson, &

Zenger, 2012), the role of leadership in contextual

ambidexterity has received only limited attention

to date (for exceptions, see Gibson & Birkinshaw,

2004; Nemanich & Vera, 2009; Rosing, Frese, &

Bausch, 2011). Leadership for ambidexterity has

mostly been studied in the form of relatively

stable features of leaders or groups such as trans-

formational leadership, behavioral integration,

and trust and discipline among followers (Adler

etal., 1999; Cao, Simsek, & Zhang, 2010; Jansen,

George, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2008; Jansen

et al., 2009; Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga,

2006; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). Thus, research

has been called for that takes the role of the con-

text, specific leadership practices, and dynamics