Managers’ Work Experience, Ambidexterity, and Performance: The Contingency Role of the Work Context

• Author: Sebastian P. L. Fourné,Tom J. M. Mom,Justin J. P. Jansen
• Published date: 01 December 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21663
• Date: 01 December 2015

Human Resource Management, December 2015, Vol. 54, No. S1. Pp. S133–S153

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21663

Correspondence to: Tom J. M. Mom, Associate Professor, RSM Erasmus University, Burg. Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA

Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Phone: +31 (0)10 408 2628, Fax: +31 10 408 9013, E-mail: tmom@rsm.nl

MANAGERS’ WORK

EXPERIENCE, AMBIDEXTERITY,

AND PERFORMANCE:

THECONTINGENCY ROLE

OF THE WORK CONTEXT

TOM J. M. MOM, SEBASTIAN P. L. FOURNÉ,

ANDJUSTIN J. P. JANSEN

Scholars have suggested that we need a better understanding about the drivers

and performance implications of managers’ ambidexterity. By building a human

resource management perspective on managers’ ambidexterity, this article not

only examines organizational and functional tenure as important antecedents,

but also provides novel insights into the contextual conditions under which the

ambidextrous behavior of managers contributes to individual performance.

Based on survey research among managers of two large fi rms, our results indi-

cate that while organizational tenure contributes to managers’ ambidextrous

behavior, functional tenure actually limits such complex behavior. Our study also

reveals how managers’ performance results from the interaction between their

ambidextrous behavior and the uncertainty as well as the interdependence of

their work context. Results indicate that managers’ ambidexterity contributes

to individual performance in more uncertain and interdependent work contexts.

©2015 Wiley Periodicals,Inc.

Keywords: ambidexterity, HRM, experience, performance, individual level,

work context, uncertainty, interdependence

In today’s turbulent business environment,

it has become an imperative for firms to act

ambidextrously, that is, to be aligned and

efficient in the management of today’s busi-

ness demands while simultaneously adaptive

to environmental changes (Raisch & Birkinshaw,

2008). However, the emergence of ambidexterity

brings about internal tensions because it requires

firms to host contradictory logics associated with

exploration and exploitation (March, 1991; Smith

& Lewis, 2011). Although studies have typically

focused on organizational structures and sys-

tems for cultivating both competences (Gibson

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

scholars have increasingly argued that ambidex-

terity may also root in the ambidextrous behav-

iors of their managers. For instance, managers

may need to engage in paradoxical thinking, a

S134 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, DECEMBER 2015

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Despite the notion

that ambidextrous

organizations need

ambidextrous

managers, we still

lack a thorough

understanding about

when managers

may need to act

ambidextrously

to improve their

performance and how

they actually may be

able to do so.

Griffiths, 2001; Ng & Feldman, 2010; Quinones,

Ford, & Teachout, 1995). Recent meta-analytic

studies support the claim that work experience

is one of the preeminent drivers of behaviors

(Sturman, 2003; Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, 2010)

and show that it shapes behavior-driving cognitive

processes, skills, and motivations (Ng & Feldman,

2010). The length of service within organizations

and functions are the most commonly encoun-

tered concepts in personnel and work experience

research (Quinones et al., 1995). Yet, although

previous research has suggested that they affect

a manager’s motivations and repertoire of skills

and competences (Beier & Ackerman, 2001;

C. J. Collins, Smith, & Stevens, 2001), research

on HRM and ambidexterity has ignored potential

effects from work experience on the ability and

motivation of managers to be ambidextrous. By

examining how organizational and functional

tenure jointly shape the ambidextrous behavior of

individual managers, our study addresses this gap.

As such, we are able to make important inferences

about experience-shaping HRM practices, which

may help attain and sustain managers’ ambidex-

terity, and it may provide important implications

for management development programs as well

as for decisions regarding attracting and retaining

managers (Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994;

McEnrue, 1988; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008).

Third, our understanding about the condi-

tions under which ambidextrous managers may

be most effective is far from complete, and fun-

damental pieces are missing. For instance, pre-

vious research has tended to suggest that senior

executives operating at upper echelons within

the organization should behave ambidextrously

in order to engage in balanced resource alloca-

tion across exploratory and exploitative activities

(Smith & Tushman, 2005; Tushman & O’Reilly,

1996). Other studies, however, have argued that

exploratory and exploitative activities need to be

integrated at lower hierarchical levels within the

organization, and as such, lower-level managers

may also need to act ambidextrously in order to

improve their performance (Gibson & Birkinshaw,

2004). In this sense, scholars have called for bet-

ter understanding about the conditions under

which ambidexterity leads to success, particu-

larly at the individual level (Lavie, Stettner, &

Tushman, 2010; Raisch etal., 2009). Building on

the notion that individual performance is the out-

come of the interaction between a person’s behav-

ior at work and the specific formal and informal

demands imposed by that person’s work context

(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Griffin, Neal, &

Parker, 2007; Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999), we suggest

that the effectiveness of ambidextrous managers

repertoire of diverse activities and roles, and dif-

ferent kinds of learning (Mom, Van Den Bosch,

& Volberda, 2009; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004;

Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, & Tushman, 2009;

Smith & Tushman, 2005). Despite the notion that

ambidextrous organizations need ambidextrous

managers, we still lack a thorough understanding

about when managers may need to act ambidex-

trously to improve their performance and how

they actually may be able to do so. In order to

answer these intriguing questions, we develop a

human resource perspective on managers’ ambi-

dexterity and contribute to current literatures in

at least three important ways.

First, studies on human resource management

(HRM) have provided insights into how high-

performance work systems or high-involvement

practices may be conducive to the

emergence of organizational ambi-

dexterity, and they have argued that

organizational ambidexterity roots

in the ambidextrous behavior of the

workforce (Kang & Snell, 2009; Patel,

Messersmith, & Lepak, 2013; Prieto

& Santana, 2012). Yet this earlier

research has not captured the variety

among individuals within the same

organization and, hence, has not

been able to explain how and why

some managers may be more ambi-

dextrous than others as to improve

their performance. Similarly, evi-

dence on the relationship between

ambidexterity and performance

only exists at more aggregate levels

of analysis than the individual level

(Junni, Sarala, Taras, & Tarba, 2013).

Unlike treating HRM practices and

ambidexterity as overarching phe-

nomena at the organizational level,

we examine how personal charac-

teristics and immediate work con-

texts of individual managers drive

and shape the relationship between their ambi-

dextrous behavior and performance (Gibson &

Birkinshaw, 2004; Smith & Tushman, 2005). As

such, our study suggests going beyond examining

organizational-level implications of HRM to facili-

tate the emergence of organizational ambidexter-

ity and to reveal how HRM practices and systems

may be adapted and geared toward distinct needs

and requirements of individual managers within

organizations.

Second, in understanding the underpinnings

of managers’ ambidextrous behavior, we exam-

ine the importance of organizational and func-

tional tenure (Farrell & McDaniel, 2001; Guile &