|
Prof. Dr. Satya Subrahmanyam Professor & Director Department of Accounting Catholic University in Erbil, Kurdistan satya.sub@cue.edu.krd |
Abstract
Ambidexterity, defined as the corporate's
capability in supporting both explorations as well as exploitation, is
recognized as anessentialmeans to be innovative. While in the beginning,it was
considered a corporate empathetic capability, but the accomplishment of an
ambidextrous corporate is initially and also primarily a leadership challenge. Advocating
the concept of ambidextrous leadership as a perceptual tool to be innovative, Rosing
et al., (2011) developed a plan to explain how an ambidextrous leader can
flexibly shift between the open and also closing behaviours based on the
requirement of a specific task to perform innovatively. The core purpose of
this research was to advocate the aspects that trigger a corporate leader
shifting successfully between both opposing behaviours of leadership as well as
contributing indicators to measure those results generated due to shifting
between contrasting leadership behaviours.
Keywords:
Ambidexterity, Innovation, Corporate Leadership, Exploration, Exploitation
Introduction
The impact of
corporate leadership on innovation is a matter of increasing importance in the
academic literature. Some researchers argue that organizational leadership is
one of the key determinants of innovation (Mumfort et al., 2002), but major
developments are currently considered one of the greatest challenges in the process
of innovation (Oke, Munshi &Walumkbwa, 2009).
Ambidexterity and Innovation
Innovationcan be
specified as, a task of individual or group; or concept, process,
element or treatment; a completely new proposal and application,
developed and deliberate to benefit the individual, group,
corporate or larger society in a consistent adoption system (As shown in
West & Far, 1990 Rosing, Frese& Bausch, 2011). Research
scholars agree that the effective recognition of innovation adds
to corporate changes to obtain a competitive advantage (Keupp,
Palmie&Gassman, 2012; Wagner, 2012)
and differentiation (Cui & Loch, 2011). Besides,
it was found to be essential for corporates’ growth and existence (Gnyawali
and Srivastava, 2013).
To ensure success and
thus survival, corporates are constantly struggling with
the barrier to improving the current environment and
positioning strategies on the one hand to improve performance and appearance. Stable for range and on the
other hand increase flexibility. These activities are
called exploration (flexibility) and exploitation (positioning) in the
literature. Gibson and Birkin Shaw (2004) presented the
principle of ambidexterity with corporate context so that the
ability to simultaneously positioning and flexibility could be
devised as a way to strengthen these two antagonistic
activities. Since both exploration and exploitation are considered basic
functions of innovation, that ambidexterity is an important function of innovation
(Rosing et al., 2011).
Corporate Leadership
Challenge and Ambidexterity
Birkinshaw and Gupta
(2013) and Junni et al., (2013) observed that ambidexterity was originally
considered as the corporate ability, but later, various researchers
started emphasizing ambidexterity as a
multi-stage phenomenon. Since this balance of different
forms of corporate leadership is important not only for
corporates, but also for managers of brilliant groups and individuals
(Rosing et al., 2011), and to attain that, there is a need to pay
attention to and deal with stress at all hierarchical levels besides
inconsistencies between the activity of exploration and exploitation (Probst,
Reish &Tushman, 2011). In this regard, the tactical role of
middle and lower management to influence the actions of
subordinates is emphasized, since supervisors do not directly
influence the behaviour of first-line members (Jansen, George, Van den
Bosch & Volberda, 2008). Ambidexterity, hence, is primarily
seen as a challenge for corporate leadership (Bledow, Frese,
Anderson, Erez & Farr, 2009).
Connecting Corporate
Leadershipwith Ambidexterity
Numerous researchers have begun to observe
the effects of ambidextrous leadership on innovation by linking the ambidexter
strategic principle for corporate leadership to develop ambidextrous leadership
(Probst et al., 2011; Keller & Weibler, 2014).
The issue of ambidextrousleadership finally becomes
particularly relevant because it has been established that
existing leadership models, such as transformative and transactional
leadership models (Bass, 1999) passively capture the complexity and
pace of innovation. To name just a few factors, this
is because leadership research is generally considered
inaccessible and very complete, especially in the context of promoting
innovation (Rosing, et al., 2011). Besides, researchers say that innovation
cannot be promoted effectively through corporate governance. To this end, previous
studies have demonstrated the need to develop an alternative method
for effective innovation management (Bledow, Frese& Mueller,
2011).
As a result, Rosing et al., (2011)
developed a completely new theory of ambidextrous
leadership that specifies that corporate leadership is capable
of openbehaviours (exploration) and closed behaviours (exploitation). The
openness of leadership behaviours resides in this respectful behaviour which
further enhances the difference in subordinates' behaviours. In this regard,
the corporate, for example, provides room for independent thought and action, encourages
secondary executives to challenge the status quo and stimulates experimentation
with the open environment by developing a culture that supports errors and
omissions. On the other hand, a corporate leadershipfocusing on minimizing the
extent of secondary behaviours (diminishing variations) to promote a business
will carefully exploit tomanage and achieve the objective; pre-structures jobs
and specifies work goals, as well as continually looking for
work and taking remedial action.
Since there is no methodological
concept that anticipates the moment when exploration and exploitation take place
during the entire innovation process, company
managers should switch flexibly between both open behaviour and
closing behaviours according to the situational requirements of
innovation task.All hierarchical level design of corporate, Rosing et al.,
(2011) is related to the fact that it is identified
in the team level context and aims to explain the
relationship between task performance and group development.
Innovation
Innovation is specified in different ways.
Among the leaders who emphasized its value was Joseph Schumpeter (described in
1934 and 42; mentioned by Aghion & Howitt, 1990 and O'Sullivan, 2008) who
described innovation as "creative destruction." To this end,
he says, innovation represents a brand-new mix of
features and methods. The second view of innovation is
focused on qualitatively different outcomes.
Understanding innovation as a mechanism is verified by
the meaning provided by Rikers (1985), who comprehends innovation
as a mechanism of action. For more information, he
describes innovation as a mechanism to make system
problems (requirements) brand new and to match those
requirements. Sources of innovation are internal
to the corporate or market, for instance, unexpected
events, procedural requirements or market changes, completely new understandings,
or corrections in client understanding (Drucker, 2002).
In this context, researchers also agree for
innovation apart from the idea of imagination. Imagination is considered an
important basis for innovation (O'Sullivan, 2008) which relates to a
psychological process that leads to the ideation of initial, appropriate and
beneficial concepts (West, 2002). Beyond the simple production of originals,
innovation is associated with the treatment of exit from the imagination process
that can occur like promotion, execution, and business transmission (Roberts,
1988). Simply put, innovation is understood as a mixture of invention and
exploitation.
Exploration
and Exploitation
Initially, both exploration and
exploitation weredefined as two types of corporate learning by March
(1991). Subsequent research on exploration and exploitation are
diverse, and different scholarsexplain the elements to
compare these two activities.
Table 1: Characteristics
|
Exploration |
Exploitation |
|
Exploration or discovery
through research activities is combined with a completely new understanding
and the purchase of discovery in changing markets,
protecting future economic benefits (Lavie et al., 2010). |
Exploitationis related to
the improvement and expansion of existing capabilities,
innovations and patterns that generate profitable, near-predictablereturns(March 1991). |
|
In regards to innovation,
exploration is connected to extreme innovation, getting in brand-new item
markets and brand-new innovation (Rosing et al., 2010). |
Exploitative crucial
understanding consists of the reuse of present proficiencies, regular jobs
and steady innovations that straight affect the job result (Huang
&Commins, 2011). |
|
Exploratory crucial
understanding consists of special technological advancements and
understanding extensions that straight affect the job result (Huang
&Commins, 2011). |
In the context of
innovation, exploitation instead of the application of
existing products or services, incremental innovation, improvement (Rosing
et al., 2010). |
|
Deal brand-new styles,
produce brand-new markets and establish brand-new circulation channels
(Jansen et al., 2008). |
|
However, inversely linked
to the requirements, exploitation and exploration represent the
basic activities of the innovation process. For this factor, both should
be considered important for innovation or effective leadership
consulting work, respectively.
Understanding
Ambidextrous Corporate and Ambidexterity
One way to determine the ideal equilibrium between exploration
and exploitation is related to the Ambedexter principle. Ambidexterity
adopted from the Latin words ambos (both) and dexter
(right), which signifies the best of both sides
and describes people's ability to use both hands
with equal abilities. The concept of ambidexterity was originally
introduced by Duncan in 1976 with a corporate
context. It defines the corporate principles that they
formulate and implement in today's management, while
at the same time they are sufficiently inadequate to change the
environment that will happen tomorrow.
March (1991) was the first to see ambidexterity
as a necessary criterion for the corporate world to survive and sustain. This
was based on the fact that a company's ability to leverage existing skills and
even learn new opportunities is at the heart of learning of the corporate (as
described in Bonesso, Gerli&Scapolan, 2014). Thus, the notion of
ambidexterity may not only relate to the invention and stabilization of
exploration and exploitation, but also similar growth and extreme development, partnerships and
modifications, or a balance between the natural and mechanical
structures of the corporate (Rosing, Rosenbush& Frese, 2010).
Finally, it is clear since exploitation ensures
that there are sufficient resources for exploration and that exploration
creates new ways and means that can be used at a later date (Bledow et al.,
2011).
Ambidexterity
- Types
There is a category of ambiguity,
often associated with the use of exploration and exploitation or various
groups or different business systems
for search activities (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2004). From
a progressive perspective, this view of innovation
is constantly associated with ambidexterity. On the
contrary, consistent ambidexterity indicates that in addition to
the innovation process, there is a constant need for a
balance between exploration and exploitation.
Instead
of structural or short-term segregation of exploitative
and exploitative activities, contextual ambidexterity is a
multidimensional structure in which exploration and exploitation constitute a
separate, interconnected and non-substituted entity. From
this point of view, ambidexterity is best obtained to
develop a context that shares its time
between people's conflicting needs to study and to
realise them (Carmeli &Halvi, 2009). Similarly, it was found
that ambidextrous corporate style (reference environment)
is more reliable in major streams of innovation than
practical, cross-functional, and spin-style (structural ambidexterity) (Tushman
et al., 2010).
Ambidextrous
Leadership
The preliminary conception of ambidextrous
leadership was established by Vera and Crossan (2004), who declared that it was
necessary to conceive a combined leadership because, at specific times, the
learning process incorporates flourishes under transactional leadership
and at other times, they benefit more of
transformative leadership. This contingent vision of
leadership responds to the pressure of corporates that need
to verify and use simultaneously to manage the
various conditions resulting from the speed and complexity of
the current competitive environment. For this factor, tactical
leaders must be ambidextrous (Tushman & O'Reilly, 2006). The
ambidextrous performance suggests that
they need the ability to execute several
strategies at the same time and should have the ability
to administer an abundant combination of knowledge procedures at
multiple levels to support exploration and exploitation (Jansen et al.,
2009).
Likewise, Bledow and Associates
(2011) declare that corporate leaders need to foster
the imagination of subordinates and at the same time simplify
their organization. Subsequently, ambidextrous leadership
as the perfect design for supervisory management (Bucic et
al., 2010), however, reveals both transaction and transformation
modes in different dimensions (Bass, 1999). An effective group
leadership should, under these factors, be
able to identify and change its leadership design to meet
the current and emerging situation to select and incorporate leadership
behaviours that fit the situation, the ability to participate and
favourable flow for secondary groups (Bucic et al., 2010). This leads
to the results of Chang and Hughes (2012), who from
their research conclude that leadership behaviour that identifies persistence
and risk tolerance show workers' need for ambidexterity.
Rossing et al., (2011)
present the new principle of corporate leadership as a holistic
type of ambidexterity:
According to the
dialectical vision of innovation, Rosing et al., (2010 and 2011)
present a new theory of corporate leadership as a unified
type of ambidexterity. Bledow et al., (2009) on the theoretical
structure, Rising and his colleagues have mentioned that, in the
idea of innovation, corporate leaders should be able to support
subordinates in their efforts to perform ambidextrous tasks. Therefore, they perceive their theory
of ambidextrous leadership as a leader who can cultivate exploration through open
behaviour and exploitation by closed behaviour and following these behaviours
according to situational work needs (Rising et al., 2010).
For them, to be innovative, the
most essential function of corporate leadership is to foster
exploration by promoting changes in subordinates '
behaviour and reducing exploitation by subordinates' behaviour correspondingly.
Although increasing variability is the core of the study,
reducing variability is considered the basis of
exploitation (Gupta, Smith & Shalley, 2006).
Subsequently, Rosing et al., (2011) suggest that open leadership behaviour
is positively associated with subordinate exploration, whereas closed
leadership behaviour is positively associated with subordinate exploitative activities.
In contradiction, promoting differentiation of
subordinate behaviour by open leadership behaviour is expected to be
appropriate in situations where the job of innovation requires exploration. It
needs to be innovative and create a concept. Conversely, promoting exploitation
indicates a reduction insubordinate "behavioural differences", while
closed behaviour describes leadership behaviour that focuses on limiting and
improving subordinate behaviour. Therefore, closed behaviours
are considered desirable in scenarios where subordinates need
an innovation job (Rosing et al., 2011).
Table 2: Open and Closed Leadership Behaviours
|
Open Leadership Behaviour |
Closed Leadership Behaviour |
|
• Develop an
open environment. • Show the requirement and
the opportunity to experiment and motivate the creation of your originalities
in the past. • Support attempts to
question existing techniques and to promote
the development of new techniques to problems. • Provide space for
independent thinking and acting Belief beyond the package and separate
guidelines to search for services outside the safe area. • Create a
culture of mistakes and strengthen efforts and therefore show a high
tolerance for mistakes. |
• Punish mistakes and
failure • Pre-structure jobs,
specify specific work objectives, set standards and offer concrete guidelines
about how jobs are to be performed. • Highlight the dependence
on trained skills and developed regimens. • Take restorative action. •Pursue consistent job
achievement. • Display and control
objective achievement. • Meet due dates and stay
with strategies. • Promote effective acting
and staying with guidelines. • Boost stringent
hierarchies. |
Techniques for incorporating both open and
closed leadership behaviours are recommended so that the combination of different
leadership behaviours is important. This contradictory behaviour must be
understood globally, reflecting the specific needs of modern work.
Consequently, in addition to participating in the open or closed behaviours, Rosing et
al., (2011) emphasize the need for versatility in switching between
open and closed behaviours, as there is no methodological plan
by which it is known. When it comes to using and when
to test, the fact has been
shown that modern concepts can also
benefit from the use of corporate understanding (Bain et al.,
2001), while exploration is not only necessary for production but also the
implementation of ideas (Van de Ven, 1986). Besides, Chi (2012) integrates versatility
for explicit governance and change of behaviour with additional capabilities at
different positions of corporate leadership. In this regard, the corporates
must operate among certain types of versatilities, which, in its
opinion, have ambidextrous leadership.
Figure 1: Proposed Ambidextrous Leadership (Rosing
et al., 2011)
Practical Context
First, the principle
of ambidextrous leadership must be extended to the
corporate world and other environments, instead of ideas of concepts of
innovation with defined outcomes, time frame and
budget planning. This may be relevant because the corporate's
approach favours exploration and exploitation and can affect the frequency
of their activities required at the group levels. For this reason,
the required leadership behaviours
can be influenced by the
corporate approach to achieve ambidexterity, as well as the
truth of whether a corporate chooses a structural
or contextual ambidextrous method.
Beyond that, in preliminary
research by Rosing et al., (2011), the creative results generated were compared
with the degree of innovation. It is an extreme and gradual innovation, still
below, that uses several possibilities of evolution, validation and important
reflections. However, as indicated in the following statement, corporate
leadership can always be difficult to understand and measure.
“Corporate Leadership is like beauty: it is hard
to define, but you know it when you see it” (Bennis, 2009).
Conflict of Interest
The author confirms that there is no conflict
of interest to declare for this publication.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Research
Center of Catholic University. I thank Dr. Sabha Al. Maleh, President &
Chancellor of Catholic University who provided insight and expertise that
greatly assisted the research, although they may not agree with all of the
interpretations/conclusions of this paper.
Nobody has been more important to me in the
pursuit of this project than the members of my family. I would like to thank my
parents; whose love and guidance are with me in whatever I pursue. They are the
ultimate role models. Most importantly, I wish to thank my loving and
supportive wife, Ms. Kumari, and my
only wonderful daughter, Ms. Gnana Satya
Sri, who provide unending
inspiration.
Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1990). A model
of growth through creative destruction (No. w3223). National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Bain, P. G., Mann, L., &Pirola-Merlo, A.
(2001). The innovation imperative: The relationships between team climate,
innovation, and performance in research and development teams. Small Group
Research, 32(1), 55–73.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and
development in transformational leadership. European journal of work and
organizational psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
Bennis, W. (2009). On becoming a leader.
Basic Books.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013).
Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of
organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, amp-2012.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M.,
& Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting
demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 2(3), 305-337.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., & Mueller, V.
(2011). Ambidextrous Leadership for Innovation: The Influence of Culture.
Bonesso, S., Gerli, F., &Scapolan, A.
(2014). The individual side of ambidexterity: Do individuals' perceptions match
actual behaviours in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off? European
Management Journal, 32 (3), 392-405
Bucic, T., Robinson, L., &Ramburuth, P.
(2010). Effects of leadership style on team learning. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 22(4), 228-248.
Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How
top management team behavioural integration and behavioural complexity enable
organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 207-218.
Chang, Y. Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers
of innovation ambidexterity in small-to-medium-sized firms. European
Management Journal, 30(1), 1-17.
Chi, A. (2012). Capturing the ability of
Ambidextrous Leadership: The role of different types of flexibility.
Cui, Z., & Loch, C. (2011). A Strategic
Decision Framework for Innovation Outsourcing. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 15(05), 899930.
Drucker, P. F. (2002). The discipline of
innovation. 1985. Harvard business review, 80(8), 95-100.
Gibson, C.B. &Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The
antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy
of Management Journal 2004, Vol. 47, No. 2, 209–226.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Srivastava, M. K.
(2013). Complementary effects of clusters and networks on firm innovation: A
conceptual model. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
30(1), 1-20.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., &Shalley, C. E.
(2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Huang, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2011). When
Critical Knowledge Is Most Critical Centralization in Knowledge-Intensive
Teams.Small Group Research, 42(6), 669699.
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.
Jansen, J. J., Vera, D., &Crossan, M.
(2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating
role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5-18.
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,22(1), 54-71.
Keupp, M. M., Palmié, M., & Gassmann, O.
(2012). The strategic management of innovation: a systematic review and paths
for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4),
367-390.
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., &Tushman, M. L.
(2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The
Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109-155
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and
exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1),
71-87.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., &
Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships.
The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705-750.
Oke, A., Munshi, N., & Walumbwa, F. O.
(2009). The influence of leadership on innovation processes and activities. Organizational
Dynamics, 38(1), 64-72.
O Reilly, C. A., &Tushman, M. L. (2004).
The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74-83.
O'Sullivan, D., & Dooley, L. (2008).
Applying innovation. Sage publications.
Petty, N. J., Thomson, O. P., & Stew, G. (2012). Ready for a
paradigm shift? Part 2: Introducing qualitative research methodologies and
methods. Manual Therapy, 17(5), 378-384.
Probst, G., Raisch, S., &Tushman, M. L.
(2011). Ambidextrous leadership: Emerging challenges for business and HR
leaders. Organizational Dynamics, 40(4), 326-334.
Rickards, T. (1985). Stimulating innovation:
A systems approach. London: Frances Pinter.
Roberts, E. D. (1988). What we have
Learned-Managing invention & innovation. Research Technology Management,
1, 11-29.
Rosing, K., Rosenbusch, N., &Frese, M.
(2010). Ambidextrous leadership in the innovation process. In Innovation and
international corporate growth (pp. 191-204). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011).
Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship:
Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly III, C. A.
(2006). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary
change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-29.
Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C.,
Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational designs and innovation
streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1331-1366.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in
the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.
Vera, D., &Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic
leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review,
29(2), 222-240.
Wagner, S. M. (2012). Tapping supplier
innovation. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(2), 37-52.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or
stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation
implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355-387
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation
at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at
work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3–13). Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons.
