View
1.351
Download
9
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Organizational ambidexterity is a theoretical concept on how to manage the tension between exploitation (sales) and exploration (innovation). Following the suggestion of Simsek et al. (2009) to do further research on leadership styles and organizational ambidexterity, this master thesis describes the outcome of a research conducted at Philips and Royal HaskoningDHV on organizational ambidexterity and leadership.
Citation preview
The ambidextrous organization Leadership and the administration paradox of modern
organizations.
2
Student : C.L. (Cornelis) de Kloet
Student number : 4100417
Master : Business Administration
Specialization : Innovation & Strategy
University : Radboud University Nijmegen
Faculty : Nijmegen School of Management
Supervisor : prof. dr. J.A.C.M. (Hans) Doorewaard
Second readers : dr. J.M.I.M. (Jan) Achterbergh
: drs. C.J. (Kees) Beuving
: ir. R.P. (Rudolf) Mulder
Title : The ambidextrous organization: Leadership and the administration
: paradox of modern organizations.
Version : Final - 17.0
Date : 29th of March 2012
3
Management Summary This summary provides a brief overview on the research presented in this thesis.
Background and objective
More than forty years ago Thompson (1967) already emphasized the tension and
incompatibility between the exploitation and exploration activities of an organization.
Thompson described this tension as the ‘paradox of administration’. This paradox manifests
itself by organizations having to manage exploitative activities that are focused on increasing
efficiency and stability of the current activities, while also pursuing explorative activities that
are focused on realizing innovations and flexibility. Thompson and many other researchers
argued that both activities are necessary for an organization in order to survive on the short
and long term. Duncan (1976) introduced the term ‘ambidextrous organization’ as a solution
for the paradox between exploitation and exploration activities. Nowadays researchers and
practitioners are using the notion of ambidexterity to describe firms that are able to exploit
and explore. Thereby the concept of ambidextrous organization is referred to as the
organizations ability to master two contrary things - exploitation and exploration activities - in
order to succeed on the short and long term.
Despite an increasing interest in organizational ambidexterity, an examination of the literature
reveals that some important research issues remain unexplored, indefinite or conceptually
vague. Previous research has shown that the role of leadership is of great importance in
fostering organizational ambidexterity. However, there is still relatively little known about what
type of leadership is needed in order to realize organizational ambidexterity, since most of
the previous research is focusing on structural antecedents. Following the suggestion of
Simsek et al. (2009) to do further research on leadership styles and organizational
ambidexterity, the following research objective was defined:
The objective of this research is to provide theoretically insights into which leadership styles do
best support the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal – of organizational
ambidexterity, defined by Simsek et al. (2009).
Theoretical framework
The organizational ambidexterity model developed by Simsek et al. (2009), depicted in figure
3 on page 12, was used as the base of this research. By distinguishing a structural and
temporal dimension this model delineates four types of organizational ambidexterity –
harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal - that comprehend all prior research on
organizational ambidexterity into one construct. In order to determine which leadership styles
do best support these four types of organizational ambidexterity, a third leadership dimension
was added to the organizational ambidexterity model of Simsek et al. (2009), by using the
eight leadership styles of the Competing Values Framework (CVF), developed by Quinn and
Rohrbaugh (1983), depicted in figure 8 on page 24. This framework encompasses four
transactional and four transformational leadership styles, based on four quadrants that
represent ‘ideal models’ of efficient organizations. Both theoretical models were linked to
each other after a thorough research into both underlying theoretical assumptions. This
resulted in a revised organizational ambidexterity model, depicted in figure 13 on page 32,
which was thereafter studied in practice by investigating four cases at two different
companies.
Research methodology
Based on the research objective and the exploratory nature of this research, a case study
was performed at two companies. An important reason for choosing the case study strategy
can be found in the need to collect in-depth information regarding ‘how’ leadership styles (a
social phenomenon) are employed in the organizational ambidexterity context at two
companies (natural environment). Four cases are investigated, three cases at engineering
and consultancy company DHV and one case at Royal Philips Electronics. These four cases
were selected because together they covered all four types of organizational ambidexterity.
By investigating four cases this research can be defined as a multiple-case study.
Furthermore, this research can be characterized as a theory-oriented research. Since this
research intends to contribute to the organizational ambidexterity literature by providing
4
theoretical insights into which leadership styles do best support the four types of
organizational ambidexterity. In addition, due to the fact that this research is aimed at
developing a theory, instead of testing pre-defined hypotheses, this research can be labeled
as a theory-developing multiple-case study.
The empirical data was primarily gathered by conducting semi-structured interviews among
employees of the four cases. In total fourteen interviews were held, ten interviews at
engineering and consultancy company DHV and the other four at Royal Philips Electronics.
Next to the interviews observations took place, as well as document research on (policy)
documents and vision plans regarding leadership and exploitation and exploration activities.
By combining interviews, document research and observations data triangulation was
achieved. Thereby the researcher was able to verify acquired information and facts between
multiple resources, which contributed to the internal validity of this research.
Results
The results of the investigation in practice revealed some very interesting findings regarding
(theoretically proposed) combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational
ambidexterity.
The most significant findings are:
• First, the investigation in practice revealed that all cases, except one, pursue a
combination of the four types of organizational ambidexterity. Therefore it is argued
that units tend to pursue ‘hybrid forms of organizational ambidexterity’ (hereafter
named: hybrid ambidexterity), instead of only one of the four individual types of
organizational ambidexterity.
• Second, the theoretical suggestion that ‘behavioral complexity’ is needed while
pursuing organizational ambidexterity is completely confirmed by the investigation in
practice. Every interviewee argued that managers need to be able to employ various
leadership styles in order to balance contradictory demands. Thus, there is no single
best leadership style while pursuing the four types of organizational ambidexterity.
• Third, while investigating the types of organizational ambidexterity and leadership
styles employed, some additional findings were obtained that can affect the
leadership styles that are necessary while pursuing the four types of organizational
ambidexterity. These findings are categorized into internal and external factors.
Internal factors are the type of activities of a unit, the financial accountability
structure of a company, the hierarchical position of a leader and the use of stage-
gate models. External factors are the influence of the markets, changing work
environments and the influence of shareholders.
The organizational ambidexterity continuum model
The consequence of these findings is that the theoretical model with combinations of
leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity, might be too general and too
static in order to determine which leadership styles are needed while pursuing organizational
ambidexterity. In other words, it is less relevant to determine which leadership styles are most
appropriate per type of organizational ambidexterity, because in practice units tend to
pursue hybrid forms of organizational ambidexterity. In addition, the specific forms of hybrid
ambidexterity and the required leadership styles are influenced by various internal and
external factors.
Based on these obtained insights it is argued that organizations, departments and units
prevail to pursue (over time) hybrid forms of ambidexterity and that this is a form of
organizational ambidexterity that can be found on a continuum between two (extreme)
types of organizational ambidexterity. Therefore a new model of organizational ambidexterity
is developed: ‘The organizational ambidexterity continuum model’, depicted in figure 28 on
page 72. By using this model it is better possible to map (hybrid) forms of organizational
ambidexterity and the required leadership styles, as well as factors that influence these forms
and leadership styles. Finally, based on this new organizational ambidexterity continuum
model, four ‘ideal dimensions’ of organizational ambidexterity were defined, together with
eight hypotheses for further research on leadership styles and (hybrid) forms of organizational
ambidexterity.
5
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................7
1.1 The challenge of balancing exploration and exploitation...................................................................7
1.2 Four types of organizational ambidexterity and the leadership antecedent ...........................7
1.3 Research objective ......................................................................................................................................................8
1.4 Research model.............................................................................................................................................................9
1.5 Research questions ...................................................................................................................................................10
1.6 Outline research..........................................................................................................................................................11
2. Types of organizational ambidexterity and the third leadership dimension ................................. 12
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................12
2.2 Organizational ambidexterity model .............................................................................................................12
2.3 Organizational ambidexterity and the four types ...................................................................................13
2.3.1 Organizational ambidexterity....................................................................................................................14
2.3.2 Four types of organizational ambidexterity .......................................................................................17
2.4 Leadership and leadership styles ......................................................................................................................20
2.4.1 Transactional and transformational leadership ..............................................................................21
2.4.2 Leadership styles................................................................................................................................................23
2.5 Combinations of leadership styles and the four types of organizational ambidexterity ..26
2.5.1 Behavioral complexity ...................................................................................................................................26
2.5.2 Leadership styles and the four types of organizational ambidexterity ..............................26
2.6 Three dimensional model of organizational ambidexterity ...............................................................32
3. Research methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 34
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................34
3.2 Research strategy ......................................................................................................................................................34
3.2.1 Case study research .......................................................................................................................................34
3.2.2 Unit of analysis.....................................................................................................................................................35
3.2.3 Case selection ....................................................................................................................................................35
3.3 Data collection............................................................................................................................................................37
3.3.1 Preparation of data collection .................................................................................................................37
3.3.2 Interviews ...............................................................................................................................................................37
3.3.3 Document research ........................................................................................................................................38
3.3.4 Observations ........................................................................................................................................................38
3.4 Data analyses...............................................................................................................................................................38
3.5 Validity and reliability ...............................................................................................................................................39
3.5.1 Validity.....................................................................................................................................................................39
3.5.2 Reliability ................................................................................................................................................................40
4. Case study results...................................................................................................................................................... 41
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................41
4.2 Case results: unit Asset and Information Management (DHV) ........................................................41
4.2.1 Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued by case ...........................................................41
4.2.2 Leadership styles employed to pursue organizational ambidexterity................................43
4.2.3 Additional findings............................................................................................................................................45
4.3 Case results: unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (DHV)................................................46
4.3.1 Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued by case ...........................................................46
4.3.2 Leadership styles employed to pursue organizational ambidexterity................................47
4.3.3 Additional findings............................................................................................................................................50
6
4.4 Case results: unit Real Estate (DHV) .................................................................................................................50
4.4.1 Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued by case ...........................................................50
4.4.2 Leadership styles employed to pursue organizational ambidexterity................................51
4.4.3 Additional findings............................................................................................................................................53
4.5 Case results: Philips Incubators ...........................................................................................................................54
4.5.1 Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued by case ...........................................................54
4.5.2 Leadership styles employed to pursue organizational ambidexterity................................56
4.5.3 Additional findings............................................................................................................................................59
5. Analyses and hypotheses ..................................................................................................................................... 60
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................60
5.2 Differences and similarities between the four investigated cases ................................................60
5.3 Differences and similarities between theoretical model and investigation in practice ...63
5.4 Conclusion on the additional findings ...........................................................................................................66
5.5 Contribution to the organizational ambidexterity theory ...................................................................68
5.5.1 Theoretical model as point of departure............................................................................................68
5.5.2 Implications and conclusions.....................................................................................................................69
5.5.3 New theoretical model and hypotheses for further research ................................................71
5.6 Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................................83
5.7 Reflection ........................................................................................................................................................................84
5.7.1 Theory ......................................................................................................................................................................84
5.7.2 Research ................................................................................................................................................................84
5.7.3 Results ......................................................................................................................................................................85
References......................................................................................................................................................................... 86
Appendix 1 – Interviewees......................................................................................................................................... 91
Appendix 2 – Interview guide................................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix 3 – Studied documents .......................................................................................................................... 93
Appendix 4 – Similarities and differences analysis......................................................................................... 94
7
1. Introduction
1.1 The challenge of balancing exploration and exploitation
In industrial company’s as well as in professional service companies managers struggle with
the question how they can manage today’s business in an efficient way, while also being
adaptable to changes in the environment so that they are still around tomorrow (Duncan,
1976; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Due to increasing competition within national and
international markets, changing legislation, rapid technological change and shortening of
product lifecycles this question has become more and more prevalent for organizations
(Floyd & Lane, 2000; Grant, 1996a). After all not only the number of changes, but also the
intensity of market development, confront organizations with a tension between efficiency
and cost reduction on the one hand and flexibility and innovativeness on the other hand
(Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991).
More than forty years ago Thompson (1967) already emphasized the tension and
incompatibility between the exploitation and exploration activities of an organization.
Thompson described this tension as the ‘paradox of administration’ (p. 15). This paradox
manifests itself by organizations having to manage exploitative activities that are focused on
increasing efficiency and stability of the current activities, while also pursuing explorative
activities that are focused on realizing innovations and flexibility. Duncan (1976) and also
Abernathy (1978) noted that both activities are necessary for an organization in order to
survive on the short and long term. Duncan introduced the term ‘ambidextrous organization’
as a solution for the paradox between exploitation and exploration activities. The word
ambidexterity is derived from the Latin ambos, ‘both’ and dexter, ‘right’ (as opposed to left).
Ambidexterity can have three meanings: using both hands with equal ease, being
characterized by duplicity or double-dealing, or being unusually skillful or versatile (Merriam-
Webster, 2009; Simsek, Heavey, Veiga & Souder, 2009). Increasingly, researchers and
practitioners are using the notion of ambidexterity to describe firms that are able to exploit
and explore. Thereby the concept of ambidextrous organization is referred to as the
organizations ability to master two contrary things - exploitation and exploration activities - in
order to succeed on the short and long term (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004). Previous research
found empirical evidence that organizations that are able to manage exploitation and
exploration activities – ambidextrous organizations – perform better than organizations that
focus on only one of both activities. Too much focus on exploitation may enhance short-term
performance, but it can result in a competence trap (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008: p. 392) since firms may not able to respond adequately to environmental changes (Henderson & Clark,
1990; Jansen, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2005; Sorenson & Stuart, 2000; Tushman & Anderson, 1986). On the other hand excessive exploration may enhance a firm’s ability to
continually renew their knowledge, but can trap organizations in an endless cycle of search and failure and unrewarding change (Birkinshaw & Raisch, 2008: p. 377). Despite an increasing interest in organizational ambidexterity, an examination of the literature
reveals that some important research issues remain unexplored, indefinite or conceptually
vague. Although near consensus exist on the need to manage the tension between
exploitation and exploration activities, there is still relatively little known on how to do this.
1.2 Four types of organizational ambidexterity and the leadership antecedent
The last decade a lot of research has been done on the concept of organizational
ambidexterity and investigated the antecedents and moderators that influence the tension
between exploitation and exploration activities. According to Birkinshaw et al. (2009), ‘the
number of studies in leading management journals that explicitly refer to organizational
ambidexterity increased from less than 10 in 2004 to more than 80 today (p. 685)’. In addition,
as Birkinshaw and Raisch (2008) describe, ‘researchers of various literature streams have
contributed to the discussion on organizational ambidexterity. The contradictions between
exploitation and exploration, as well as the need to reconcile the two different activities,
have been discussed in contexts such as organizational learning, technological innovation,
organizational adaption, strategic management and organizational design (p. 377)’. In all this
research organizational ambidexterity has been extensively used to broadly refer to an
8
organization’s ability to perform differing and often competing acts, simultaneously or
sequentially (Simsek et al., 2009).
Based on various literature streams and previous studies two distinct overarching dimensions
of organizational ambidexterity can be distinguished. The first dimension is the ‘temporal
dimension’ and it captures the extent to which organizational ambidexterity is pursued
simultaneously or sequentially over time. The second dimension is based on Thompson’s
(1967) distinction on structure. This dimension captures whether or not organizational
ambidexterity is realized within an independent organizational unit (e.g. a business unit) or
within interdependent units (e.g. divisions of a multidivisional corporation or firms engaged in
a strategic alliance). By putting together the two dimensions, Simsek et al. (2009) presented a
two-by-two typology that delineates four types described as harmonic, cyclical, partitional
and reciprocal ambidexterity. Simsek et al. based these four types on previous research.
Harmonic ambidexterity is described in prior research as contextual ambidexterity (Birkinshaw
& Gibson, 2004; Adler et al., 1999) and is achieved through concurrently pursuing exploitation
and exploration harmoniously within a single organizational unit. Cyclical ambidexterity is
based on the punctuated ambidexterity theory (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000; Winter &
Szulanski, 2001). Cyclical ambidexterity is a type of ambidexterity in which organizations
engage in long periods of exploitation, interspersed by sporadic episodes of exploration
(Simsek et al., 2009). Partitional ambidexterity is achieved by creating separate units or
divisions for exploitation and exploration activities with each unit embodying distinct strategic
and operating logics, cultures, and incentive systems. This type is based on prior research
concerning structural and network ambidexterity (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996, 1997; Lin et al.,
2007). Reciprocal ambidexterity occurs when the outputs of exploitation from an
organizational unit become the inputs for exploration by a second unit and the outputs of
second unit cycle back to become the inputs of the first unit.
Previous research has shown that the role of leadership is of great importance in fostering
organizational ambidexterity. Whether it is about maintaining tight links between separate
units pursuing exploitation and exploration activities, or managing the switch between
periods of exploitation and exploration, leadership always plays a vital role (Gibson &
Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen et al., 2009; Tushman & O’Reilly, 2011). However, there is still relatively
little known about what type of leadership is needed in order to realize organizational
ambidexterity, since most of the previous research is focusing on structural antecedents.
Consequently, various researches have indicated that further research is needed regarding
leadership and organizational ambidexterity. Following the suggestion of Simsek et al. to do
further research on leadership styles and organizational ambidexterity, this research
investigates which leadership styles do best support the four types - harmonic, cyclical,
partitional, reciprocal - of ambidexterity. In doing so, this research builds upon on the model
of organizational ambidexterity from Simsek et al. (2009), as described above. This model
elaborates four types of organizational ambidexterity that comprehend all prior research on
organizational ambidexterity into one construct.
1.3 Research objective
The preceding paragraphs provide some insights that substantiate further investigation. In
addition, some gaps in prior research are indentified in brief. Given these relevant insights and
observed gaps, this research intends to contribute to the organizational ambidexterity
literature in the following way.
The objective of this research is to provide theoretically insights into which leadership styles do
best support the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal - of ambidexterity.
These insights will be obtained by adding a third - transformational and transactional -
leadership dimension to the organizational ambidexterity model of Simsek et al. (2009). This
‘revised’ model will make it possible to determine which leadership styles do best support
harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity. Subsequently this revised model
will be investigated in practice via case studies at two companies, engineering and
consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics. These case studies will be carried
out through interviews with unit managers and other relevant persons, document research
and observations.
9
1.4 Research model
Theory on organizational ambidexterity and leadership styles will be assessed in order to
determine an organizational ambidexterity model with three dimensions (A). This model is
based on the organizational ambidexterity model from Simsek et al. (2009). In addition to the
temporal and structural dimension, a third - transformational and transactional - leadership
dimension will be added to the organizational ambidexterity model of Simsek et al. (2009). By
doing so, a three dimensional model is constructed instead of two dimensional model. This
revised model will be the point of departure to describe which leadership styles do best
support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity. Subsequently this three
dimensional model will be investigated in practice by four cases, three cases at engineering
and consultancy company DHV and one case at Royal Philips Electronics (B). To examine
the differences and similarities between the four cases, the results of the cases will be
compared to each other (C). Based on the case studies and the comparison of the results,
hypotheses will be defined on which leadership styles do best support harmonic, cyclical,
partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity (D).
Below, in Figure 1, a graphic presentation of the research model is depicted.
Figure 1: Graphic presentation of the research model.
Theory
Leadership styles
Three dimensional-
model Organizational
ambidexterity
Hypotheses
Theory
Organizational
ambidexterity
Unit Asset and
Information
Management (DHV)
Analyses results
(D) (A) (B) (C)
Philips Incubators
Unit Real Estate (DHV)
Unit Urban
development, Legal
and Finance (DHV)
Analyses results
Analyses results
Analyses results
10
1.5 Research questions
To adequately fulfill the research objective, as described in paragraph 1.3, various research
questions have been formulated. This section will set out the theoretical, empirical and
analytical core research questions and sub-questions. By the answering of these questions,
enough information will be derived as to ultimately reach the research objective and define
hypotheses on organizational ambidexterity and leadership styles.
Theoretical questions
Which transformational and transactional leadership styles, based on prior research, do best
support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?
• What is transformational and transactional leadership?
• Which transformational and transactional leadership styles can be distinguished?
• What is an ambidextrous organization?
• What is harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?
• Which transformational and transactional leadership styles do best support
harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?
Empirical questions
Which leadership styles are used in practice by the cases at engineering and consultancy
company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics in order to carry out harmonic, cyclical,
partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?
• Which types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal – of organizational
ambidexterity are pursued by the cases at engineering and consultancy company
DHV?
• Which types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal – of organizational
ambidexterity are pursued by the case Philips incubators at Royal Philips Electronics?
• Which leadership styles are employed by the cases at engineering and consultancy
company DHV in order to pursue harmonic, cyclical, partitional or reciprocal
organizational ambidexterity?
• Which leadership styles are employed by the case Philips incubators at Royal Philips
Electronics in order to pursue harmonic, cyclical, partitional or reciprocal
organizational ambidexterity?
Analytical questions
What are the most important differences and similarities between the theoretical
combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity and the
combinations used in practice at engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal
Philips Electronics, as well as the most important differences and similarities between the
results of the exploratory study at engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal
Philips Electronics?
• What are the most important differences and similarities between the results of the
four investigated cases at both engineering and consultancy company DHV and
Royal Philips Electronics?
• To which extent do the proposed theoretical combinations of leadership styles and
types of organizational ambidexterity correspond with the combinations in practice at
engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics?
• Which leadership styles do best support the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional,
reciprocal - of ambidexterity, based on the theoretical research and exploratory study
in practice engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics?
11
1.6 Outline research
The structure of this research is outlined in the following graphic figure.
Theoretical framework
Empirical framework
Synthesis
Figure 2: Graphic presentation of the research structure.
After the introduction this research continues with the second chapter, which is completely
dedicated to the theoretical exploration of the topics of this research. In this chapter the
theoretical questions, as described in paragraph 1.5, are answered by providing a thorough
literature overview. Chapter three includes an explanation of the methods used for this
research. The results of this research can be found in chapter four, these results provide an
answer on the empirical questions as described in paragraph 1.5. Chapter five contains an
elaboration on the analytical questions of paragraph 1.5. By answering these questions,
conclusions are drawn and hypotheses for further research are defined. This last chapter
concludes by reflecting on the applied theories, the empirical data gathering and the
obtained results.
Ch 1: Introduction
Ch 2: Types of organizational ambidexterity and the
third leadership dimension
Ch 5: Analyses and hypotheses
Ch 3: Research methodology Ch 4: Case study results
12
2. Types of organizational ambidexterity and the third leadership dimension
2.1 Introduction
The previous chapter outlined the context of this research and based on this context the
theoretical research framework is elaborated in this chapter. This chapter explores the current
literature on leadership styles and the four types of organizational ambidexterity. This was
done under the guidance of the theoretical research questions as defined in paragraph 1.5.
The main question (see below) is answered in paragraph 2.5. Before answering this main
question logically the sub-questions need to be dealt with; these questions are answered in
paragraph 2.3 and 2.4. Moreover, complementary to these questions the organizational
ambidexterity model from Simsek et al. (2009) is presented in paragraph 2.2. In paragraph 2.5
combinations of leadership styles that do best support the four types of organizational
ambidexterity are proposed, based on the literature discussed in previous paragraphs.
Ultimately this results in a revised organizational ambidexterity model, portrayed in paragraph
2.6.
The main and sub theoretical questions that are answered in this chapter are:
Which transformational and transactional leadership styles, based on prior research, do best
support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?
• What is an ambidextrous organization?
• What is harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?
• What is transformational and transactional leadership?
• Which transformational and transactional leadership styles can be distinguished?
• Which transformational and transactional leadership styles do best support
harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?
2.2 Organizational ambidexterity model
Based on the various literature streams and studies two distinct overarching dimensions of
organizational ambidexterity can be distinguished. The first dimension is the ‘temporal
dimension’ and it captures the extent to which organizational ambidexterity is pursued
simultaneously or sequentially over time. The simultaneously pursuit of organizational
ambidexterity is based on
organizational context and culture
literature (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989;
Burgelman, 1991). In this case the
organization needs to support the
simultaneous pursuit of exploitation
and exploration activities. The
sequentially pursuit of organizational
ambidexterity is based on the
punctuated equilibrium theory from
Gersick (1991, p. 14). As such,
organizational ambidexterity is
attained via a system of temporal
cycling in which the organization
alternate between long periods of
exploitation (equilibrium) and short
bursts of exploration (punctuated)
(Gupta et al., 2006).The second
dimension is based on Thompson’s (1967) distinction on structure. This dimension captures
whether or not organizational ambidexterity is realized within an independent organizational
unit (e.g. a business unit) or within interdependent units (e.g. divisions of a multidivisional
corporation or firms engaged in a strategic alliance). Put differently, when both exploitation
Figure 3: Four types of organizational ambidexterity.
13
and exploration activities are pursued by the same unit, the pursuit of ambidexterity is viewed
as structurally independent. Conversely when these pursuits involve two or more separate
units, for example an R&D unit for exploration activities and a Sales unit for exploitation
activities, ambidexterity is viewed as structurally interdependent. If the latter one is the case,
although each unit may operate independently of the other, they are purposefully
interdependent in their pursuit of organizational ambidexterity (Simsek et al., 2009). Birkinshaw
& Gibson (2004, 2008) make a similar distinction, they use the terms ‘structural ambidexterity’
(across various units) and ‘contextual ambidexterity’ (within one unit).
By putting together the two dimensions, Simsek et al. (2009), a two-by-two typology is
presented that delineates four types described as harmonic, cyclical, partitional and
reciprocal ambidexterity (figure 3). Simsek et al. based these four types on previous research.
Harmonic ambidexterity is described in prior research as contextual ambidexterity (Birkinshaw
& Gibson, 2004; Adler, 1999) and is achieved through concurrently pursuing exploitation and
exploration harmoniously within a single organizational unit. Cyclical ambidexterity is based
on the punctuated ambidexterity theory (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000; Winter & Szulanski,
2001). Cyclical ambidexterity is a type of ambidexterity in which organizations engage in long
periods of exploitation (or relative stability), interspersed by sporadic episodes of exploration
(or change). Partitional ambidexterity is achieved by creating separate units or divisions for
exploitation and exploration activities, with each unit embodying distinct strategic and
operating logics, cultures, and incentive systems. This type is based on prior research
concerning structural and network ambidexterity (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996, 1997; Lin et al.,
2007). Reciprocal ambidexterity occurs when the outputs of exploitation from an
organizational unit become the inputs for exploration by a second unit and the outputs of
second unit cycle back to become the inputs of the first unit.
Both Birkinshaw and Gibson (2008) and Simsek et al. (2009) did an extensive review on the
various literature streams and developed a comprehensive overview that covers research
into the antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of organizational ambidexterity. According
to Birkinshaw & Gibson (2008) and Simsek et al. (2009) organizational structures, behavioral
contexts, and leadership processes are the main promoters (antecedents) of organizational
ambidexterity. However, both meta-analyses indicate that most of the reviewed studies focus
on structural antecedents and that more research is needed concerning organizational
ambidexterity and context and leadership antecedents. Following the suggestion of Simsek
et al. (2009) to do further research on leadership style and organizational ambidexterity, this
research will investigate which leadership styles do best support the four types - harmonic,
cyclical, partitional, reciprocal - of ambidexterity. In doing so, this research will build upon on
the model of organizational ambidexterity from by Simsek et al. (2009) as described and
depicted above.
After some further investigation in the literature on leadership theories, the theory regarding
transformational and transactional leadership of Bass and Avolio’s (1991, 1994, 1998, 1999,
2002) will be used to add the third dimension to the model of Simsek et al. (2009). The choice
for the distinction between transformational and transactional leadership is based on earlier
research from Jansen et al. (2009). This research proved a significant relation between
transformational leadership and exploration activities and transactional leadership and
exploitation activities. A more specific justification for this choice is given in paragraph 2.4. In
this same paragraph it is described which transformational and transactional leadership styles
can be distinguished. Preceding these paragraphs, the next paragraph describes the four
types of organizational ambidexterity in detail.
2.3 Organizational ambidexterity and the four types
This paragraph answers the first two theoretical sub-question as presented in paragraph 2.1.
The first question is: ‘what is an ambidextrous organization’? The second is: ‘what is harmonic,
cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity’?
In the next section general principles related to organizational ambidexterity are assessed, as
well as the four types of organizational ambidexterity and the determinants of these types.
14
2.3.1 Organizational ambidexterity
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word ambidexterity is derived from the Latin
ambos, ‘both’ and dexter, ‘right’ (as opposed to left). Ambidexterity can have three
meanings: using both hands with equal ease, being characterized by duplicity or double-
dealing, or being unusually skillful or versatile (Merriam-Webster, 2009). The most common
used explanation is ambidextrous as the ability to be equally skilled with each hand rather
than being either ‘right-handed’ or ‘left handed’. Organization theorists have adopted this
characteristic as a metaphor to describe a type of organization. In 1976 Duncan was the first
who used the word ambidexterity to work out the term ‘organizational ambidexterity’, which
Duncan defined as the firm’s ability to design dual structures (i.e. mechanic versus organic)
that facilitates the initiating and implementation stages of innovation. Duncan argued that
the use of dual structures allows organizations to manage the tension between exploitation
activities and exploration activities. Long before Duncan introduced the term ‘organizational
ambidexterity’ researchers like Schumpeter (1934), Cyert and March (1963), Winter (1971),
Holland (1975), Hedberg, Nystrom and Starbuck (1976) and Weick (1976) where already
working on the tension between exploitation and exploration activities of organizations. From
this early research up to now, a growing body of research studies how organizations can
manage both exploitation and exploration - ambidextrous organizations – in a successful
manner. The contradictions between exploitation and exploration, as well as the need to
reconcile the two different activities, have been discussed in various literature streams such as
organizational learning, technological innovation, organizational adaption, strategic
management and organizational design (Birkinshaw & Raisch, 2008: p. 377).
In order to get a clear understanding of the term organizational ambidexterity, the next
section describes the different use of the concept of organizational ambidexterity in the
various literature streams.
• Organizational learning. ‘In the learning literature there is some discussion about
whether exploitation and exploration activities should both be associated with
learning activities. One group of researchers defined exploitation as the reuse of
existing knowledge and thus assigned all instances of learning to exploration (Argyris &
Schon, 1978; March, 1991; Levinthal & March, 1993; Baum, Li & Usher, 2000; He& Wong,
2004; Gupta et al., 2006). Another group of researchers differentiated between
exploitation and exploration by focusing on the type or degree of learning rather than
the presence or absence of learning. For instance Baum, Li, and Usher (2000, p. 768)
suggest that ‘exploitation refers to learning gained via local search, experiential
refinement, and selection and reuse of existing routines. Exploration refers to learning
gained through processes of concerted variation, planned experimentation, and
play’. However, despite the differences between the two views, researchers have
agreed that a well-balanced combination of two types of learning is essential for
long-term organizational success (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008: p. 377)’. Cegarra-Navarro
and Dewhurst (2007) define organizational ambidexterity as an organizations ability to
achieve alignment and adaptability simultaneously within the organization learning
processes. March (1991) also noted organizational ambidexterity as the simultaneous
pursuit of exploitation of existing competencies and exploration of new
competencies. Thereby in context of the learning literature organizational
ambidexterity can be defined as achieving a well-balanced combination of two
fundamentally different learning activities.
• Technological innovation. This literature stream defines the tension between
exploitation and exploration activities by the distinction between incremental and
radical innovation (Abernathy & Clark, 1985; Dewar & Dutton, 1986; Dougherty, 1992;
Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Acona et al, 2001; Holmqvist, 2004; Smith & Tushman, 2005).
‘Incremental innovations are relatively minor adaptations of existing products and
business concepts. In contrast, radical innovations refer to fundamental changes
leading to a switch from existing products or concepts to completely new ones
(Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008: p. 378)’. Smith and Tushman (2005) describe incremental
innovations as exploitative activities and radical innovations as explorative activities.
Tushman and O’Reilly define organizational ambidexterity as ‘the ability to
simultaneously pursue both incremental and discontinuous innovation’ (1996, p. 24).
Other definitions of organizational ambidexterity within this literature stream are: ‘the
15
ability to maintain superior performance in established business, while managing
innovation in targeted areas (Nadler & Tushman, 1999)’ and ‘organizations achieving
both high levels of exploratory and exploitative innovations simultaneously (Gibson &
Birkinshaw, 2004)’.
• Organizational adaption. Raisch and Birkinshaw (2008) described, ‘that researchers of
this literature stream have suggested that long-term success requires an
organizational balance between continuity and change (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985;
Volberba, 1996; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Leana & Barry, 2000; Probst & Raisch; Meyer
& Stensaker, 2006). ‘The need for balance between continuity and change is also
reflected by related constructs for example organizational identity (Dutton &
Dukerich, 1991; Schultz, & Corley, 2000), absorptive capacity (Jansen, Van den Bosch,
& Volberda, 2005b; Zahra & George, 2002) and organizational routines (Feldman &
Pentland, 2003) (p. 379)’. He and Wong (2004) defined organizational ambidexterity
as being aligned and efficient in managing today’s demands, while also being
adaptable to changes in the environment. In the context of these theories
organizational ambidexterity can be defined as the ability of organizations to
balance the need to implement changes and the need to maintain daily operations
(Meyer & Stensaker, 2006).
• Strategic management. Various researchers on this literature stream have described
the concept of organizational ambidexterity. ‘Foremost Burgelman (1991, 2002), he
makes a distinction between induced strategic processes and autonomous strategic
processes. The induced processes concerns initiatives that are within the scope of the
organizations current strategy and build on existing knowledge, whereas the
autonomous processes concerns initiatives that emerge outside the current strategies
scope and involve the creation of new competencies. Burgelman explicitly relates
induced strategic processes to exploitation activities and autonomous strategy
processes to exploration activities Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008: p. 379)’. Burgelman also
suggested that a combination of the two strategic processes may be the most
beneficial: ‘organizations may have to keep both processes in play at all times, even
though this means that the organization never completely maximizes its efforts in the
current domain’ (p. 256). Other researches within this literature stream make a similar
distinction between strategic processes. As described by Raisch and Birkinshaw
(2008), ‘Ricart i Costa (1993) makes an distinction between static efficiency and
dynamic efficiency, with the former concerned about the refinement of existing
products, processes, and capabilities and the latter concerned about the
development of new ones (p. 380)’. From this strategic management perspective
organizational ambidexterity can be described as the ability of an organization to
keep both induced strategic processes and autonomous strategy processes in play at
all times (Burgelman, 1991, 2002; Hamel & Prahald, 1993; Volberba et al, 2001;).
• Organizational design. Researchers on this literature stream define the tension
between exploitation and exploration activities by the distinction between efficiency
and flexibility (Thompson 1967; Duncan, 1976; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Adler et al,
1999; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen et al, 2005; Hill & Birkinshaw; O’Reilly &
Tushman, 2007; Jansen et al, 2008). Burns and Stalker (1961) and later on Duncan
(1976) argued that organizations require two types of structures in order to manage
both efficiency and flexibility. ‘The organic structure to create innovations and
mechanistic structure to implement and deploy innovations’. Several researchers
argue that mechanistic and organic features are difficult to reconcile within a single
business unit (Birkinshaw & Raisch, 2008: p. 380)’. On the other hand researches also
claim that firms can resolve the tension between efficiency and flexibility by
combining mechanistic and organic features within one unit (Adler et al., 1999;
Jansen et al., 2005; Sheremata, 2000) or developing a collective organizational
context (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). In an attempt to describe the differences
between the two views Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) distinguished structural
ambidexterity as creating different units for exploitation and exploration activities and
contextual ambidexterity as the concept of combining exploration and exploitation
activities within one unit. Besides, the different perspective on structure there is also a
discussion between researchers of this literature stream (and other streams) on
whether organizational ambidexterity is pursued simultaneously or sequentially.
16
‘Several researchers have suggested that firms should temporarily cycle through
periods of exploitation and exploration (e.g., Brown and Eisenhardt 1998, Nickerson &
Zenger 2002, Siggelkow & Levinthal 2003) (Birkinshaw & Raisch, 2008: p. 389)’. This
perspective is based on the punctuated equilibrium theory from Gersick (1991, p. 14)
and is in the context of organizational ambidexterity further elaborated as the
punctuated ambidexterity theory (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000; Winter & Szulanski,
2001). From this perspective, organizational ambidexterity is achieved by alternating
between long periods of exploitation (equilibrium) and short bursts of exploration
(punctuated). Conversely, researchers define organizational ambidexterity as the
simultaneous pursuit of exploitation and exploration (Gupta et al., 2006; Birkinshaw &
Raisch, 2008). From this perspective an organization is pursuing exploitation and
exploration activities at the same time, within or across units. Despite the different
perspectives practically all researchers agree that an organization should pursue both
exploitation and exploration activities in order to ensure future viability.
Table 1 recites the most prevalent definitions of organizational ambidexterity used in the
various literature streams as described above.
Literature stream Definition organizational ambidexterity
Organizational learning ‘The ability to achieve alignment and adaptability
simultaneously within the organization learning processes
(Cegarra-Navarro & Dewhurst, 2007).’
‘Organizational ambidexterity is the simultaneous pursuit of
exploitation of existing competencies and exploration of new
competencies (March, 1991).’
Technological innovation ‘The ability to simultaneously pursue both incremental
innovations and discontinuous innovations’ (Tushman & O’Reilly,
1996).’
‘The ability to maintain superior performance in established
business, while managing innovation in targeted areas (Nadler
& Tushman, 1999)’.
‘Organizations achieving both high levels of exploratory and
exploitative innovations simultaneously (Gibson & Birkinshaw,
2004).’
Organizational adaption ‘Organizational ambidexterity is being aligned and efficient in
managing today’s demands, while also being adaptable to
changes in the environment (He & Wong, 2004).’
‘The ability of organizations to balance the need to implement
changes and the need to maintain daily operations (Meyer &
Stensaker, 2006).’
Strategic management ‘The ability of an organization to keep both induced strategic
processes and autonomous strategy processes in play at all
times’ (Burgelman, 1991)’.
Organizational design ‘The simultaneous pursuit of exploitation and exploration
(Gupta et al., 2006; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008)’.
‘The ability to alternate between periods of exploitation
(equilibrium) and short bursts of exploration (punctuated)
(Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998)’.
‘The firm’s ability to design dual structures (i.e. mechanic versus
organic) that facilitates the initiating and implementation
stages of innovation (Duncan, 1976; Burns & Stalker, 1961)’
Table 1: Definitions of organizational ambidexterity.
17
As described above, it becomes clear that researchers have diversely defined organizational
ambidexterity based on their perspective and theoretical background. In these studies,
organizational ambidexterity was related as the organizations ability to pursue induced and
autonomous strategic processes, stability and transformation in organizational adaptation,
induced and autonomous strategic processes, incremental and radical innovation and
efficiency and flexibility in organizational design. However, while these studies have focused
on different elements of organizational ambidexterity they refer to the same underlying
construct. In all this research the term organizational ambidexterity has been used to broadly
refer to an organizations ability to perform differing and often competing activities,
simultaneously or sequentially. Although there is a wide consensus on this description of
organizational ambidexterity it is still very general. Moreover it is not specific enough
concerning the ongoing discussion on whether organizational ambidexterity is the concept of
pursuing exploration and exploitation activities simultaneously or sequentially. Some
researchers define the difference between simultaneously or sequentially as two completely
different mechanisms. They describe the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation
activities as ‘organizational ambidexterity’ and the sequential pursuit as ‘punctuated
equilibrium’ (Levinthal & March, 1993; Vermeulen & Barkema, 2001). Additionally, as Gupta et
al. argued, ‘theories about the ease or difficulty with which an organization can pursue both
exploration and exploitation activities depend crucially on whether these two activities are
treated as competing or complementary aspects (2006, p 693)’. Based on these prior studies
and discussions Simsek et al. (2009) have synthesized the various insights in order to minimize
the confusion and create a more holistic understanding of the term organizational
ambidexterity. Thereby, they defined two distinct overarching dimensions of organizational
ambidexterity, a temporal dimension and a structural dimension, which results in four types of
organizational ambidexterity (see paragraph 2.2). Based on this further elaboration by Simsek
et al. (2009), organizational ambidexterity in this research is defined as:
‘The ability of an organization to pursue both exploitation and exploration activities
simultaneously or sequentially, within the same unit or across units’.
By discussing the various literature streams and perspectives a well-reasoned definition is
given of the term organizational ambidexterity. By doing so it is now possible to answer the
first theoretical sub-question: ‘what is an ambidextrous organization?’
The answer to this question is that the ambidextrous organization is an organization that is
able to manage the tension between exploitation and exploration activities by pursuing
these activities simultaneously or sequentially within the same unit or across units.
The next paragraph describes the four types of organizational ambidexterity - harmonic,
cyclical, partitional and reciprocal – as presented by Simsek et al. (2009). These four types
help to further unify the various conceptualizations of the term organizational ambidexterity
and make it possible to recognize the different pursuits of organizational ambidexterity in
practice.
2.3.2 Four types of organizational ambidexterity
As mentioned in the previous section this section further specify the four types of
organizational ambidexterity as presented by Simsek et al. (2009) and thereby answers the
second theoretical sub-question.
Harmonic ambidexterity
This type of organizational ambidexterity is in prior research described as contextual
ambidexterity (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004; Adler, 1999) and is achieved through concurrently
pursuing exploitation and exploration harmoniously within a single organizational unit.
Harmonic ambidexterity is based on organizational context and culture literature (Bartlett &
Ghoshal, 1989; Burgelman, 1991; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1994). Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004)
described organizational context as the surface level, ‘artifactual’ manifestation of culture
that define the systems, processes, and beliefs that
18
shape individual level behaviors. Furthermore they argue that due to the fact that
exploitation and exploration activities are competing for the same resources, organizations
are required to ‘build a set of processes or systems that enable and encourage individuals to
make their own judgments about how to divide their time between the conflicting
exploitation and exploration activities (2004, p. 210)’. In the absence of such a set of
processes or systems this type of
organizational ambidexterity will result in
conflicts, contradictions, and inconsistencies
(Adler et al., 1999; Corso & Pellegrini, 2007;
Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). In addition,
Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) argue that the
context that is created by processes or
systems should involve a joint emphasis on
performance (discipline and trust) and
social support (support and trust). This will
enhance the simultaneous pursuit of
exploitation and exploration activities by
encouraging individuals to make the right
decision how to divide their time between
the two competing activities. Besides creating
a supportive context Adler et al. (1999)
reasoned that there are also some practices and routines that support the simultaneous
pursuit of exploitation and exploration activities within the same unit. He mentioned the use of
meta-routines, job enrichment and task partitioning. Job enrichment programmes for
example can provide employees with training and experience in both exploitation and
exploration, enabling them to perform and contribute to both sets of activities, whereas
meta-routines enable the coordination, synchronization, and integration of exploitive and
exploratory activities. Routines that emphasize systematic reflection, conflict regulation, and
integration are also useful for harmonizing exploitation and exploration activities within a
single domain (Guttel & Konlechner, 2007). Moreover, certain organizational systems, such as
team-based structures, and human resource practices have been shown to support the
simultaneous pursuit of exploitation and exploration (Bierly & Daly, 2007).
Cyclical ambidexterity
Based on the punctuated ambidexterity theory (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000; Winter &
Szulanski, 2001) cyclical ambidexterity is a type of ambidexterity in which organizations
engage in long periods of exploitation, alternated with sporadic episodes of exploration. As
such, organizational ambidexterity is achieved by sequential pursuing exploitation or
exploration activities. Resources are not divided between the two activities. Instead, all
resources are focused on one activity, either
exploitation or exploration, at the time. As a
result, this type of ambidexterity involves a
system of temporal cycling, in which
organizations alternate between periods of
exploitation and periods of exploration
(Gupta et al., 2006). Previous research
suggests that cyclical ambidexterity primarily
occurs within highly technologically-oriented
organizations. Most of these organizations
follow the S-shaped curve, the beginning of
the curve reflects the significant early-stage
effort and investment required until a
dominant design is established (exploration)
(Chen, 2005). Subsequently, a dramatic increase
in production results as the innovation is
exploited. Eventually, at the top of the curve, the influence of exploitation becomes marginal
and this cycle repeats anew. Pursuing exploitation and exploration activities sequentially will
minimize the resource and administrative constraints of a simultaneous approach.
Furthermore a temporal separation may as well facilitate efficient specialization of
Figure 5: Cyclical ambidexterity.
Figure 4: Harmonic ambidexterity.
19
exploitation or exploration activities. However, the process of cycling between periods of
exploitation and exploration involves also changes in the formal structure and routines,
practices and procedures, styles and systems of reward and control, and resource allocation.
In addition, the cycling between the two periods can produce role and change conflicts at
the level of the group and individual. Nevertheless, human resource practices that emphasize
innovation, teamwork, and flexibility can be the underpinning for an adaptive organizational
culture that enables these sequential shifts.
Partitional ambidexterity
This type of organizational ambidexterity is achieved by creating separate units or divisions for
exploitation and exploration activities, with each unit embodying distinct strategic and
operating logics, cultures, and incentive systems. This type is based on prior research
concerning structural and network ambidexterity (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996, 1997; Lin et al.,
2007; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). While each unit operates independently, all units are
organizationally interdependent in order to achieve ambidexterity. However, each unit has its
own distinct management team, organization structure, culture, control systems, and
incentive structures (Benner & Tushman, 2003). In order to realize organizational ambidexterity
O’Reilly and Tushman (2007) argue that units
should be linked together through a shared
vision or management team integration
(Simsek et al., 2009). This integration of the two
separate units is a major challenge for
achieving this type of ambidexterity. After all,
separation of exploration and exploitation
activities across units can lead to isolation of
one of the activities. Prior studies have
indicated that many R&D and business-
development groups (exploration units) have
failed to get their ideas accepted because of
their lack of linkages to the core businesses
(Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Achieving
integration through a shared vision begins with
acknowledging the importance of both
exploitation and exploration, with neither one being perceived as more important (O’Reilly &
Tushman, 2007). Beyond this, the organization must be able to both embrace the paradoxes
associated with jointly pursuing exploitation and exploration activities (Smith & Tushman,
2005), as well as manage the information processing and coordination of demands (Lubatkin
et al., 2006).
Tushman et al. (2004) argued that companies, which aim to achieve partitional
ambidexterity, are successful in launching breakthrough products/services and in ensuring
the continuous high performance of existing products/services (Simsek et al., 2009). In
addition, recent research suggests that partitional ambidexterity can be pursued across, as
well as within, organizations (Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006; Lin et al., 2007; Tiwana, 2008). Pursuing
partitional ambidexterity across organizations can be achieved by using interorganizational
networks. In a study of almost 20,000 alliances over a period of ten years, Lavie and
Rosenkopf (2006) observed that exploitation and exploration can be pursued both within and
across three domains of strategic alliances including the value chain function of alliances,
the attributes of alliance partners, and the network position of alliance partners.
Reciprocal ambidexterity
This type of organizational ambidexterity occurs when the outputs of exploration from unit A
become the inputs for exploitation by unit B and the outputs of unit B cycle back to become
the inputs of unit A (Thompson, 1967). This type is based on prior research concerning
entrainment and social network theories, however up to now relatively few studies have
examined this type of ambidexterity. Unlike cyclical ambidexterity which involves a shift
between exploitation and exploration activities at a certain point in time, this type requires
relationships characterized by ongoing information exchange, collaborative problem solving,
joint decision making and resource flows between the different units responsible for
exploitation and exploration activities. Thereby reciprocal ambidexterity can be defined as
Figure 6: Partitional ambidexterity.
20
being a synergistic fusion of complementary streams of exploitation and exploration activities
that occur across time and units (Simsek et al., 2009, p. 887). In order to establish such a
‘synergistic fusion’ the organization must be capable of spreading information across as well
as within organizations, thereby facilitating the
reciprocal information flows between
exploitive and exploratory units (Mom et al.,
2007). In addition, Lavie and Rosenkopf (2006)
suggest that alliances and interfirm-networks
are important factors in achieving reciprocal
ambidexterity. Also, researchers working on
social network theories have emphasized the
role of interfirm-networks for achieving this
type of ambidexterity (Lin et al., 2007; Tiwana,
2008). From this perspective, reciprocal
ambidexterity is achieved through alliances
and inter-organizational networks as
mechanisms for combining exploitation and
exploration activities across time and units.
Similar to cyclical ambidexterity this type of
organizational ambidexterity primarily occurs within highly technologically-oriented
organizations, as described previous most of these organizations follow the S-shaped curve.
2.4 Leadership and leadership styles
Whether it is about maintaining tight links between separate units pursuing exploitation and
exploration activities, or managing the switch between periods of exploitation and
exploration, leadership always plays a vital role (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen et al.,
2009; Tushman & O’Reilly, 2011). Prior research on leadership styles proved that leadership
styles fulfill an important role in realizing an effective management in ambiguous situations
Edmondson et al., 2003; Eisenhardt et al., 1997). Researchers also argue that leadership styles
will positively or negatively influence the tension between exploitation and exploration
activities of an organization. Thereby, executive management may assign different senior
team members to exploitative or exploratory activities based on the available leadership
attributes (Smith & Tushman, 2005). In addition, Simsek et al. (2009) argue that the role of
leadership is very important in the attainment of the four types of organizational
ambidexterity.
However, the term leadership means different things to different people. Some researchers
argue that leadership is a subset of managerial activities, other see leading and managing as
overlapping roles, yet other describe them as different processes. Nevertheless, Kotter (1990)
argued that leaders and managers are not necessarily different persons, but rather different
roles. Furthermore, prior research on leadership has taken different perspectives, leader traits,
behaviors, and the influence of situational characteristics on leader effectiveness, for
example, have all been studied. Although no ultimate definition of leadership exists (Yukl,
2002), the majority of definitions of leadership reflect some basic elements, including ‘group’
‘influence’ and ‘goal’ (Bryman, 1992). In this research leadership is considered as the
behavioral process of influencing a group of people towards achieving harmonic, cyclical,
partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity. Also in this research, management and leadership
are considered as roles that are not mutually exclusive.
Following the suggestion of Simsek et al. (2009) to do further research on leadership style and
organizational ambidexterity, this research will investigate which leadership styles do best
support the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal - of ambidexterity. In doing
so, the organizational ambidexterity model of Simsek et al. (2009) will be extended with a third
leadership dimension that captures transformational and transactional leadership. Among
the various leadership theories, researchers particularly studied transformational and
transactional leadership with regard to organizational ambidexterity (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003;
Verra & Crossan, 2004; Berson et al., 2006; Nemanich & Vera, 2009; Jansen et al., 2008, 2009).
Therefore the ‘full-range leadership theory’ is used, as conceptualized by Bass (1985) and
developed by Avolio and Bass (1991). In this theory three major types of leadership behavior
are distinguished: laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership. These three
Figure 7: Reciprocal ambidexterity.
21
types of leadership behavior are the most prominent in the literature on leadership (Keegan &
Den Hartog, 2004). However, the laissez-faire leadership is also described as non-leadership.
This type of leadership is inactive and is often referred to as a lack of leadership (Avolio &
Bass, 1995). These leaders may assign tasks but provide no additional leadership such as
support or management oversight. Decisions are left to others in the organization and these
laissez-faire leaders often quickly lose power in the organization due to their lack of action. Of
these three leadership styles, laissez-faire leadership has been found to be the least effective
(Avolio & Bass, 1995). Therefore only transactional and transformational leadership is used in
this research. These leadership types are based on classic studies of leadership that found
two key dimensions of leadership behavior, person-focused leadership and task-focused
leadership (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). Besides, both types of leadership are found on prior
classifications, such as relations-oriented versus task-oriented (Fielder, 1967) and directive
versus participative leadership (Heller & Yukl, 1969).
2.4.1 Transactional and transformational leadership
Understanding the difference between transactional and transformational leadership is
crucial before adding the leadership dimension to the organizational ambidexterity model.
Therefore, this section further examines transactional and transformational leadership. In
doing so, it eventually become possible to determine which transformational and
transactional leadership styles do best support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal
ambidexterity.
Transactional leadership
This kind of leadership behavior occurs when there is an exchange relation between leaders
and followers, Bass (1990) states that transactional leadership is built on reciprocity. Yukl (1999)
noted that transactional leadership represents those exchanges in which both the leader and
the followers influence one another reciprocally so that each derives something of value.
Simply stated, transactional leaders give followers something they want in exchange for
something the leaders want. Thereby the relationship between leaders and their followers is
based on the concept that a leader has to give something to his followers in exchange for
the followers performing certain tasks. In this style, a leader may offer something valuable like
increased salary, incentives, and promotion to his followers, who in turn are expected to fulfil
their duties well. Otherwise, the leader provides his followers less future opportunity and
incentive or may use a demotion as a form of punishment for not projecting a good
performance (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1997). Summarized, transactional leadership can be defined
as setting goals, monitoring progress towards the goal achievement and rewarding people
according to their performance towards the goal achievement. In addition, Vera and
Crossan (2004, p. 230) argue that transactional leadership is aimed at incremental change,
efficiency, and continuity.
As described by the full-range leadership theory transactional leadership comprises three
sub-components. ‘First, contingent reward (i.e., constructive transactions) this refers to leader
behaviors focused on clarifying role and task requirements and providing followers with
material or psychological rewards contingent on the fulfillment of contractual obligations.
Second, management-by-exception active (i.e., active corrective transactions) refers to the
active attentiveness of a leader whose goal is to ensure that standards are met. Third,
management-by-exception passive (i.e., passive corrective transactions) occurs when the
leader waits to take action until mistakes are brought to his or her attention, the leader will
only intervene when problems become serious (Antonakis, Avolio et al., 2003: p. 265)’.
Transformational leadership
According to Bass (1985), transformational leadership originates in the personal values of
leaders, not in an exchange of ‘commodities’ between leaders and followers. By expressing
their values (e.g. justice, integrity), transformational leaders are able both to unite followers
and to change followers goals and beliefs. Transformational leadership behavior is
charismatic, inspirational, intellectually stimulating, and individually considerate (Avolio et al.,
1999). Transformational leaders help individuals to go beyond their self-interest for the sake of
the larger vision of the organization. These leaders inspire others with their vision, create
excitement through their enthusiasm and question the tried-and-true (Bass & Avolio, 1990).
Thus, transformational leadership can be defined as the ability to stimulate followers to go
22
beyond their self-interest and contribute to the achievement of organizational goals. Or as
Vigoda-Gadot (2006) states, the essence of transformational leadership is the ability of
leaders to motivate their followers to do more than what is initially expected of them.
Thereby, rather than analyzing and controlling specific transactions with the followers by using
rules, directions and incentives, transformational leadership focuses on intangible qualities
such as vision, shared values, and ideas in order to achieve the organizational goals.
Moreover, whereas transactional leadership is aimed at incremental change, efficiency, and
continuity, transformational leadership emphasizes experimentation, risk taking, punctuated
change, and multiple alternatives, (Vera & Crossan, 2004, p. 230).
As well as transactional leadership, transformational leadership also embodies sub-
components. Based on the full-range leadership theory the following four components can
be distinguished: idealized influence (attributed) idealized influence (behavior), inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. ‘Idealized influence
(attributed) refers to the socialized charisma of the leader, whether the leader is perceived as
being confident and powerful, and whether the leader is viewed as focusing on higher-order
ideals and ethics. Idealized influence (behavior) refers to charismatic actions of the leader
that are centered on values, beliefs, and a sense of mission that causes followers to identify
with the leader. Inspirational motivation refers to the ways leaders energize their followers by
viewing the future with optimism, stressing ambitious goals, projecting an idealized vision, and
communicating to followers that the vision is achievable. Intellectual stimulation refers to the
degree to which leaders stimulate their followers efforts to be innovative and creative by
questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways
(Antonakis, Avolio et al., 2003: p. 264-265)’. Individualized consideration captures the degree
to which leaders pay attention to each individuals need for achievement and growth by
acting as a coach or mentor (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass et al, 2003).
Table 2, lists the most prevalent characteristics of transactional and transformational
leadership.
Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership
Leaders are aware of the link between
the effort and reward.
Leaders arouse emotions in their followers
which motivates them to act beyond the
framework of what may be described as
exchange relations.
Leadership is responsive and its basic
orientation is dealing with present issues.
Leadership is proactive and forms new
expectations in followers.
Leaders rely on standard forms of
inducement, reward, punishment and
sanction to control followers.
Leaders are distinguished by their
capacity to inspire and provide
individualized consideration, intellectual
stimulation and idealized influence to
their followers.
Leaders motivate followers by setting
goals and promising rewards for desired
performance.
Leaders create opportunities for their
followers and stimulate followers to solve
problems.
Leadership depends on the leader’s
power to reinforce subordinates for their
successful completion of the bargain.
Leaders possess good visioning, rhetorical
and management skills, to develop
strong emotional bonds with followers.
Leaders motivate followers to work for
goals that go beyond self-interest.
Table 2: Characteristic of transactional leadership and transformational leadership (source: Bass, 1985).
Whereas Burns (1978) represents transformational leadership and transactional leadership as
opposite ends of a continuum. Bass (1985, 1998), on the contrary, views them as distinct
dimensions, which allows a leader to be transactional, transformational or both. Bass argued
that transformational leadership is complementary to transactional leadership, because
23
transactional leadership will be ineffective in total absence of a transactional relationship
between leaders and followers (Bass & Avolio, 1990). In addition, Bass noted that both types
are separate concepts and that good leaders demonstrate characteristics of both (Judge &
Piccolo, 2004, p. 755). Therefore in this research transactional leadership and transformational
leadership are considered as distinct dimensions instead of two opposite ends of a
continuum. However, various studies proved that leaders of exploitative units are expected to
behave transactional, while leaders of exploratory units are expected to behave
transformational (Vera & Crossan, 2004; Jansen et al., 2008, 2009). Accordingly, in this
research it is assumed that organizations usually may employ transactional leadership to
pursue exploitative activities and transformational leadership styles to pursue exploratory
activities.
2.4.2 Leadership styles
The previous section described transactional and transformational leadership in more detail
and revealed that the two types of leadership contain various sub-components in terms of
behavior. Thereby the third theoretical question is answered, ‘what is transformational and
transactional leadership?’ The next theoretical question - ‘which transformational and
transactional leadership styles can be distinguished?’ – will be answered in this section.
In this research transactional and transformational leadership are considered as overarching
types of leadership and not as specific leadership styles as such. Therefore further research is
carried out, to determine which leadership styles do best represent the behaviors of
transactional and transformational leadership as recount in table 3.
Sub-components per leadership type Description of leadership behavior
Transactional
Contingent reward Provides rewards for satisfactory performance by
followers.
Management by exception (active) Attends to followers mistakes and failures to meet
standards.
Management by exception (passive) Waits until problems become severe before
attending to them and intervening.
Transformational
Idealized influence (attribute) Demonstrates qualities that motivate respect and
pride from association with him or her.
Idealized influence (behavior) Communicates values, purpose, and importance
of organizations mission.
Inspirational motivation Exhibits optimism and excitement about goals
and future states.
Intellectual stimulation Examines new perspectives for solving problems
and completing tasks.
Individualized consideration Focuses on development and mentoring of
followers and attends to their individual needs.
Table 3: Sub-components & behaviours of transactional and transformational leadership (source: Eagly et al., 2003).
Based on the Competing Values Framework (CVF) developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh
(1983), Verra and Crossan (2004) argue that transformational leadership behaviors reflect the
leadership styles of the open system model and the human relation model, while
transactional leadership behaviors reflect the leadership styles of the internal process model
and the rational goal model. Moreover, this is also reasoned by Belasen et al. (1996, 2000)
and Egri & Herman (2002), they state that the upper part of Quinn’s and Rohrbaugh’s
framework (open systems & human relation) contains transformational behavior while the
lower part (internal processes & rational goal) includes transactional behavior. Although other
research also suggests roles and styles that represent transactional and transformational
leadership, the CVF model of Quinn and Rohrbaugh is the most complete and
24
comprehensive model concerning transactional and transformational leadership (Belasen &
Frank, 2007). In addition, Cameron and Quinn (2006) argue that the CVF model makes it
possible to understand an ambiguous environment in a consistent and effective manner and
helps leaders to interpret the various leadership styles.
The CVF model is based on various research studies to identify indicators of organizational
effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983, p. 363). These studies were an attempt to make
sense of effectiveness criteria. Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) discovered two dimensions that
express the tension that exists in organizations in relation to effectiveness. The first dimension
differentiates an organizational focus towards flexibility and dynamism from a focus towards
stability and control. The second dimension represents the contrast between an internal focus
and an external focus. The resulting CVF model is set out in the Figure 8 in a two-by-two
framework with four quadrants.
Each of these four quadrants represents an ‘ideal model’ of efficient organizations (Quinn, et
al., 2003). These four models are the open systems model, human relations model, internal
process model and rational goal model. Cameron and Quinn (2006) state that these four
models represent competing or paradoxical assumptions. ‘Each continuum highlights value
creation and key performance criteria that are opposite from the value creation and
performance criteria on the other end of the continuum, i.e., flexibility versus stability, internal
focus versus external focus. The dimensions, therefore, produce quadrants that are also
contradictory or competing on the diagonal (p. 10)’. The model indentifies organizations that
emphasize flexibility with a transformational focus and organizations that emphasize control
with a transactional focus. For example, some organizations are viewed as effective if they
are changing, adaptable and organic. Other organizations are viewed as effective if they
are stable, predictable and mechanistic (Cameron & Quinn, 2006, p. 8). Comparable, the
other dimension of the CVF model makes a distinction between an organization that is
internally focused and an organization that is externally focused. That is, some organizations
are focused on internal productivity and efficiency enhancement and the improvement of
human capital. Other organizations are focused on market development, takeovers,
outsourcing, innovative product-line extensions and radical breakthroughs (Cameron &
Quinn, 2006, p. 8, 36). However, Quinn argued, ‘the four quadrants of the CVF model do not
contain organizations, but organizations do more or less contain the four quadrants (Quinn,
1988, p 42.)’. Consequently it can be argued that the two dimensions and four quadrants
Figure 8: The Competing Values Framework.
25
enclose a similar sort of tension as described in the organizational ambidexterity model of
Simsek et al. (2009). This parallel manifests itself in the tension between exploration and
exploitation. As described in the previous paragraphs, exploitation activities are focused on
efficiency and stability, which corresponds with the internal and control axis of the CVF
model. Conversely, exploration activities correspond with the flexibility and external axis,
because exploration activities are aimed at innovations and radical breakthroughs.
Therefore in this research transactional and transformational leadership styles are
distinguished based on the CVF model of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983).
Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) conclude that each of the quadrants of the CVF model
represents basic assumptions, orientations, and values. They also distinguished per quadrant
two leadership roles in order to define the behavior that leaders in those quadrants might
exhibit. Although Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) initially used the term leadership ‘role’ they
also use the term leadership ‘style’ in later studies. Other researchers also use the terms
leadership role and leadership style interchangeably. In this research the term leadership style
is used instead of leadership role, in order to avoid confusion with respect to the various roles
of a manager as described in paragraph 2.4. By distinguishing two styles per quadrant Quinn
and Rohrbaugh disclosed eight leadership styles in total as depicted in figure 8: the mentor
style, facilitator style (human relations model), innovator style, broker style (open system
model), monitor style, coordinator style (internal process model) and the producer style,
director style (rational goal model).
1. The mentor style is supportive, empathic, approachable and fair. This leader is aware
of others and encourages the needs of individuals through training opportunities and
helps people to plan their self-development. Its influence is based on mutual respect
and trust. Morale, commitment and fairness are actively pursued (Yang & Shao, 1996:
p. 526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).
2. On the other hand, the facilitator style is people and process oriented. This leader
builds cohesion and teamwork. Its influence is based on getting people involved in
the decision-making and problem-solving process. Participation and openness are
actively pursued (Yang & Shao, 1996: p. 526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).
3. The innovator leadership style is smart and creative. This leadership style is expected to
be a person who can see the future and convince others that changes are
necessary. The influence of this leader is based on anticipation of a better future and
indentifying trends and new ideas. Innovation and adaptation are actively pursued
and implemented (Yang & Shao, 1996: p. 526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).
4. The broker style is persuasive, influential and future oriented. This leader focuses on
where the organization is going to and emphasises possibilities as well as probabilities.
Defining strategic direction, spanning boundaries, maintaining (external) legitimacy,
disseminating knowledge and obtaining (external) resources are hallmarks of this style,
as well as, the continuous improvement of current activities (Yang & Shao, 1996: p.
526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).
5. The monitor style is well informed and ensures that people follow the rules and
procedures. This leader keeps track of all details by carrying out inspections and tours
and the review of all relevant documents. The influence of this leader is based on
information control. Documentation and information management is actively pursued
and this leader is good in analyzing all the facts and details. Stability and control are
actively pursued and crisis’s are handled (Yang & Shao, 1996: p. 526; Cameron &
Quinn 1999: p.114).
6. The coordinator leadership style is dependable and reliable. This leader is expected to
maintain the structure and flow of the work. His or her influence is based on
coordinating staff efforts, managing schedules, giving assignments, providing physical
layout, reallocating resources and disseminate information by setting up
communication channels. (Yang & Shao, 1996: p. 526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).
7. The director style is focused on governance and process in the sense that this leader
defines shared goals and provides direction. This leader is expected to clarify
expectations through planning and goal setting. Furthermore this leader is supposed
to be a decisive initiator who defines and communicates problems and generate
solutions, as well as clarifying tasks and establishing rules and procedures. Compared
26
with the producer style this leadership style tends to be more internally than externally
oriented (Yang & Shao, 1996: p. 526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).
8. The producer leadership style is goal-oriented and focused on the work. This leader is
expected to increase production and facilitate goal accomplishment and is primarily
externally focused. Its influence is based on motivating people, rational arguments
around accomplishing things and being responsible. This leader is managing time and
stress and motivates people to complete the work as required by building
relationships through working hard and creating high performance expectation in
others (Yang & Shao, 1996: p. 526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).
Thus, by distinguishing four transactional and four transformational leadership styles Quinn’s
CVF model is used to answer the third theoretical sub-question: ‘which transformational and
transactional leadership styles can be distinguished?’ Based on the description of these
transactional and transformational leadership styles it is now possible to determine which
styles do best support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity.
2.5 Combinations of leadership styles and the four types of organizational
ambidexterity
The previous paragraph described the eight leadership styles of the CVF model from Quinn
and Rohrbaugh (1983). Four transformational leadership styles: mentor, facilitator, innovator
and broker style and four transactional leadership styles: monitor, coordinator, producer and
director style. By defining this four transactional and transformational leadership styles the last
theoretical question can now be answered in this paragraph: ‘which transformational and
transactional leadership styles do best support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal
ambidexterity?’ Before answering this question, section 2.5.1 briefly expound the significant
relation between transactional and transformational leadership behaviors and the
implications of this relation with respect to managing the four types of organizational
ambidexterity.
2.5.1 Behavioral complexity
Empirical studies concerning transformational and transactional leadership have indicated a
significant correlation between behaviors of transformational leadership and those of
transactional leadership (e.g., Avolio et al., 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993b), indicating that both
sets of behaviors are likely to exist in the same individuals in different amounts and intensities
(Bass,1998). This is also confirmed by other researchers, for example ‘Quinn’s concept of
master managers (leaders adept seemingly contradictory capabilities) is close to Bass’s
proposition, that the best leaders are those who display both transformational and
transactional leadership behaviors (Verra & Crossan, 2004, p. 224)’.
In addition, Belasen et al. (2007, p. 129) argues that ‘successful leaders know how to navigate
across the eight leadership roles of the CVF model in order to balance contradictory
demands’. Denison et al. (1995) state that effective leaders are perceived by others as
displaying combinations of the eight CVF styles more often than less effective leaders
(Belasen et al., 2007, p.129). Furthermore, Cameron et al. (2006) argues that high performing
leaders display ‘behavioral complexity’. That is, ‘the capacity of a leader to respond
appropriately to a wide range of situations that may in fact require seemingly contradictory
and opposing behaviors manifested in different leadership styles (Smart, 2003, p. 679)’.
Moreover Carmeli and Halevi (2009) claim that ‘the capacity of leaders to engage in a wide
repertoire of behaviors, and the ability to exhibit contrary or opposing behaviors are the key
enablers of organizational ambidexterity (p. 208)’.
Based on these previous studies, that indicate that a leader should be able to display several
behavioral repertoires (e.g. stability, control, risk-taking and creativity), more than one
leadership style is suggested per organizational ambidexterity type.
2.5.2 Leadership styles and the four types of organizational ambidexterity
In paragraph 2.4.2 it is argued that the two dimensions and four quadrants of the CVF model
enclose a similar sort of tension as described in the organizational ambidexterity model of
Simsek et al. (2009). As described, this parallel manifests itself in the tension between
27
exploration and exploitation. Whereas exploitation activities are focused on efficiency and
stability, which correspond with the internal and control axis of the CVF model. Conversely,
the exploration activities correspond with the flexibility and external axis, because exploration
activities are aimed at innovations and radical breakthroughs. Therefore, it is argued that the
most appropriate leadership styles to manage exploration activities can be found in the
upper-right quadrant of the CVF model, these are transformational styles. This quadrant
represents the open systems model and it stresses flexibility, new trends, innovation,
adaptation, change, boundary spanning and resource acquisition. These exploration
activities can be managed by employing an innovator or broker leadership style. On the
other hand it is argued that exploitation activities should be managed by employing
leadership styles that can be found in the lower left quadrant, the internal process model
which entail transactional leadership styles. This quadrant stresses stability, control, efficiency,
procedures, cost reduction and controlling schedules and targets. According to this
quadrant the exploitation activities should be managed by employing a monitor and
coordinator leadership style.
This reasoning is in line with prior research that proved that leaders of exploitative units are
required to behave transactional, while leaders of exploratory units are expected to behave
transformational (Vera & Crossan, 2004; Jansen et al., 2008, 2009). Therefore it is most likely
that periods of exploration require combinations of transformational leadership styles e.g. the
mentor, facilitator (human relation approach), innovator or broker style (open system
approach). While periods of exploitation require combinations of transactional leadership
styles e.g. monitor, coordinator (internal process approach), producer or director style
(rational goal model approach). However, as argued in the previous section, managing the
tension between exploitation and exploration requires various leadership behaviors.
Combining various leadership styles enables a manager to be more effective in a wide range
of situations and allow leaders to manage contrary forces (Verra & Crossan, 2004). Thus not
only the leadership styles of the internal process model and the open system model are
required to manage the tension between exploitation and exploration activities. The
leadership styles of the rational goal model (producer and director style), as well as the
human relations model (mentor and facilitator style) can also be necessary in order to foster
organizational ambidexterity. Which combination of leadership styles is needed depends on
various variables. For example, Birkinshaw and Gibson (2008) argue that the most appropriate
leadership style(s) depends on environmental and competitive dynamics, market orientation
and the scope of the specific organizational units (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2008). In addition,
prior research also indicates that the type of individual that needs to be managed influences
which leadership style(s) is required (Bass, 1993, 1998). For example, Weggeman (1997, 2000)
distinguish professionals that perform routine activities (R-professionals) and professionals that
perform improvising activities (I-professionals). Both require a different approach and
direction. Other research indicates that this ambiguity can also be found in relation to
production workers. Kuipers and Van Amelsvoort (1990) and de Sitter (1994) distinguish two
types of workers, the ‘tayloristic worker’ which is based on division of labor and hierarchy and
the ‘team worker’ which enclose autonomy, task integration, job responsibility and flexibility.
The latter one is a worker that is most suitable to perform exploration activities, whereas the
tayloristic worker will be involved in exploitation activities. Kuipers and Van Amelsvoort (1990)
describe that both type of workers require a different leadership style and approach in terms
of mission, strategy and goals, which becomes apparent in different structures (division of
labor), systems, procedures and culture.
The above mentioned variables determine which leadership style is needed next to the
leadership styles that are employed in pursuing either exploitation or exploration activities.
Finding the right combination of leadership styles is what Cameron et al. (2006) describes as
displaying ‘behavioral complexity’. The remainder of this section defines per type of
organizational ambidexterity which combination of leadership styles does best support
harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity.
Harmonic ambidexterity
As described in section 2.3.2 harmonic ambidexterity is based on contextual ambidexterity
(Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004) and is achieved through concurrently pursuing exploitation and
exploration activities within a single organizational unit. Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) describe
28
contextual as the surface level, ‘artifactual’ manifestation of culture that define the systems,
processes, and beliefs that shape individual level behaviors. Due to the fact that exploration
and exploitation activities ‘harmoniously’ competing for the same resources, this type
organizational ambidexterity requires organizations to define the right context in terms of
systems, processes and beliefs that enable individuals to balance their time between
exploration and exploitation activities. Or, as Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) argue, the context
that is created should involve a joint emphasis on performance (discipline and trust) and
social support (support and trust). Thus, it is not only providing social support towards
employees to enable them to make the right decisions. But it is also providing the right
structure, procedures, training and experience to enhance the individual’s pursuit of the
conflicting exploration and exploitation activities.
As described above, this type of organizational ambidexterity needs at least two different
leadership styles, in order to manage simultaneously exploration activities (I-proffesionals or
team workers) and exploitation activities (R-professional or Tayloristic). Appropriate leadership
styles to manage exploitation activities can found on the internal and control axis of the CVF
model. Conversely, leadership styles to
manage exploration activities can be
found on the flexibility and external axis.
Based on the nature of exploration
activities, as defined by the various
literature streams (paragraph 2.3.1), it is
suggested that the innovator style is the
most appropriate leadership style in
order to pursue exploration activities.
Since this leadership style involves a
strong focus on anticipating the future
and indentifying trends and new ideas,
it will therefore most likely enhance
exploration activities successfully.
Concerning exploitation activities it is
argued that the monitor style is the most
appropriate leadership style. As
described, the monitor style is oriented
on procedures, information and increasing stability and control. Thereby it offers the right
conditions for a focus on stability, efficiency and control during periods of exploitation.
Moreover, leaders who pursue harmonic ambidexterity should also be able to employ
leadership behavior that is aimed at developing human capacity in order to enable
individuals to balance the conflicts between exploration and exploitation activities. Based on
the CVF model the mentor style is most appropriate leadership style to realize this. This style is
required in order to provide social support to individuals through training and self-
development, thereby enabling people to manage the conflicts between exploration and
exploitation activities. This leadership style is preferred on top of the facilitator style, because
the latter one is more focused on participation, cohesion and teamwork in order to get
individuals involved in changing circumstances (Cameron & Quinn, 2006).
Employ and perform the right combination of the three leadership styles described above, is
one of the biggest leadership challenges for achieving harmonic ambidexterity. Hence,
leaders that pursue harmonic ambidexterity are typically leaders that need to display
‘behavioral complexity’ as described in paragraph 2.5.1. This is also suggested by Raisch and
Birkinshaw (2008), ‘contextual ambidexterity necessitates leaders with complex behavioral
repertoires, placing greater emphasis on the portfolio of leadership styles that a manager can
perform (Simsek et al., 2009, p. 881)’.
Cyclical ambidexterity
This type of organizational ambidexterity involves a system of temporal cycling between
periods of exploitation and periods of exploration (Gupta et al., 2006). Pursuing exploration
and exploitation sequentially will minimize the resource and administrative constraints of a
simultaneous approach. However, cycling in orientation between an exploration or
Figure 9: Harmonic ambidexterity leadership styles.
29
exploitation approach involves change and can thereby produce conflicts on group and
individual levels (Floyd & Lane, 2000). These conflicts can result as a consequence of
changing routines, practices and procedures, reward systems and resource allocation. Thus,
a leader who pursues cyclical ambidexterity should be able to manage the transition
between periods of exploitation and periods of exploration. In addition, this leader should
also be able to focus one-sided on efficiency and cost reduction during periods of
exploitation, or flexibility and innovativeness during periods of exploration. Based on the CVF
model it is argued, that the facilitator style is the most appropriate leadership style to manage
the transition between periods of exploration and exploitation. The facilitator style is focused
on participation, cohesion and teamwork and will thereby get individuals involved, which is
necessary in changing circumstances
(Cameron & Quinn, 2006). This reasoning
is in line with Simsek et al. (2009) as they
argue, ‘human resource practices that
emphasize teamwork and flexibility are
the underpinnings for an adaptive
organizational culture that enables
sequential shifts between periods of
exploration and exploitation’ (p. 883).
Now a well reasoned leadership style is
argued concerning the transition period.
Nevertheless, after a successful transition
other leadership styles are needed to
manage a period of exploitation or a
period of exploration. In line with
harmonic ambidexterity, the leadership
styles that are most appropriate during
these ‘after-transitions’ periods, are the innovator style during periods of exploration and the
monitor style during periods of exploitation. The innovator style is strongly focused on
anticipating the future and indentifying trends and new ideas, it will therefore most likely
enhance exploration activities successfully. On the other side the monitor style is oriented on
procedures, information and increasing stability and control. Thereby it offers the right
conditions for a focus on stability, efficiency and control during periods of exploitation.
Partitional ambidexterity
As previously described, this type of organizational ambidexterity is achieved by creating
separate units or divisions for exploitation and exploration activities, with each unit
embodying distinct strategic and operating logics, cultures, and reward systems. Yet, in order
to create organizational ambidexterity, the separate units should be linked together through
a shared vision (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2007). This is necessary in order to prevent a situation that
one of the activities gets isolated. Jansen et al. (2008) found that a shared vision ‘contributes
to a collective understanding of how senior team members might resolve contradictory
agendas of exploratory and exploitative units and engage in productive behaviours to
develop a collective response to multiple environmental demands’ (p. 6). Thus the leaders of
this type of organizational ambidexterity should have a vision that acknowledges the
importance of both exploitation and exploration activities, with neither one being perceived
as more important (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2007). This requires leaders that are able to manage
the information processing, knowledge dissemination and coordination between the two
separate units. Beyond this, these leaders should be well informed regarding the various
exploitation activities performed, as well as the exploration activities in order to sustain
linkages between the two separate structures. Furthermore leaders who pursue partitional
ambidexterity should be able to manage concurrently an exploitation and exploration unit.
This requires at least two opposite leadership styles in order to manage the two separate units,
while each having its own strategies, structures, cultures and reward systems. Additionally
Lavie and Rosenkopf (2006) found that partitional ambidexterity can be pursed both within,
as well as across organizations. The latter one demands a leader that it is spanning
boundaries and maintaining external legitimacy. Therefore it is argued, that partitional
ambidexterity can be best pursued by employing a coordinator, broker leadership and
Figure 10: Cyclical ambidexterity leadership styles.
30
director style. In order to manage the exploitation activities the coordinator style is needed.
This style is focused on control and stability and provides a clear flow of work, structures and
schedules which are necessary conditions for coordination and synchronization between the
separate units, thereby allowing leaders to create a shared vision and prevent a situation of
isolation. This style is preferred on top of the monitor style because the latter one is more
focused on ensuring that people follow the rules and procedures in order to be efficient and
stable. Whereas the coordinator style is providing communications channels, systems,
resource allocation and schedules
which are necessary to enable
coordination and synchronization and
preventing isolation. Next to the
coordinator style the broker style is
needed to pursue exploration
activities. This style focuses on where
the organization is going, by defining
strategic direction which can serve as
an underpinning for a shared vision
between separate units. In addition,
this style encompasses disseminating
knowledge, obtaining (external)
resources and maintaining (external)
legitimacy. The broker style is preferred
on top of the innovator style because
it is more focused on building
coalitions and networks (spanning
boundaries) instead of being primarily
focused on indentifying trends and innovations. Or as Yang and Shao (1996) argue, ‘the
innovative leader is expected to be a creative person who envisions innovations and new
trends, while the broker is expected to be a politically astute and influential person (p. 527)’. It
is argued that these capabilities of the broker style are needed to manage the exploration
activities successfully, while at the same time prevent a situation of isolation between the
separate units.
Moreover, leaders who pursue partitional ambidexterity should also be able to employ
leadership behavior to handle the separate nature of this type of organizational
ambidexterity. As described, each separate unit can embody distinct strategic and
operating logics, cultures, and reward systems. Consequently it is necessary to employ
leadership behavior that has an external orientation (towards the other unit) and a focus on
clear tasks, goals and direction by establishing rules and procedures. This external focus in
combination with clear rules and procedures will enable leaders to manage and attune
exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously across units, without isolating one of the
both activities. Based on the CVF model, it is argued that the director style is the most
appropriate leadership style to achieve this and to manage the process in such a way that
goals are clear, communicated, rules/policies are defined, applied, and expectations are
clarified across the units. This is also in line with Cameron and Quinn (2006) as they argue that
leadership styles in the rational goal quadrant create the most value when leaders have to
manage a portfolio of activities (p. 35), in this context the (competing) exploitation and
exploration activities across units.
Contrary to harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity, this type of ambidexterity requires a
leadership style that is more external oriented, as well as focused on control. The reason for
this can be found in the separate nature of this type of ambidexterity, as well as the
simultaneous pursuit of both activities. As described above, by pursuing partitional
ambidexterity it is not necessary to employ leadership behavior that is focused on enabling
individuals to balance exploration and exploitation activities or helping them to make the
transition between both activities. Foremost important while pursuing partitional
ambidexterity, besides managing exploration and exploitation, is leadership behavior that
links the separate units together through a shared vision in order to prevent a situation that
one of the activities gets isolated. Therefore, instead of leadership behavior that is focusing on
human relations, it is necessary to employ leadership behavior that has an external
Figure 11: Partitional ambidexterity leadership styles.
31
orientation (towards the other unit) by sharing goals and providing direction, supported by
clear rules and procedures.
Reciprocal ambidexterity
This type of organizational ambidexterity occurs when the outputs of exploration from unit A
become the inputs for exploitation by unit B and the outputs of unit B cycle back to become
the inputs of unit A (Thompson, 1967). In contrast with cyclical ambidexterity, which involves a
shift between exploitation and exploration activities at a certain point in time, this type of
organizational ambidexterity requires relationships characterized by ongoing information
exchange, collaborative problem solving, joint decision making and resource flows between
the different units responsible for exploitation and exploration activities. Thereby reciprocal
ambidexterity can be defined as being a synergistic fusion of complementary streams of
exploitation and exploration activities that occur across time and units (Simsek et al., 2009, p.
887). In order to establish such a ‘synergistic fusion’ the leaders of this type of organizational
ambidexterity must provide an environment, were ongoing information exchange and
collaborative problem solving is possible, as well as resource flows between the separate
units. In order to do so, these leaders need to have a clear understanding of the various
separated exploration and exploitation activities. That is, keep track of the activities (flow of
work) in order to facilitate the reciprocal information flows and reallocation of resources
between the separate units.
Based on the CVF model it is argued that the coordinator, broker and producer style are the
most appropriate leadership styles in order to manage exploitation and exploration activities
and the synergistic fusion of reciprocal ambidexterity. The coordinator style is needed to
manage the exploitation activities. This style is focused on control and stability and provides a
clear flow of work, structures, communication channels and schedules which are necessary
conditions for an ongoing information exchange, collaborative problem solving, joint decision
making and resource flows between the different units responsible for exploitation and
exploration activities. This style is preferred instead of the monitor style because the latter one
is more focused on ensuring that
people follow the rules and
procedures in order to be efficient
and stable. Whereas the coordinator
style is providing communications
channels, systems, resource allocation
and schedules which are necessary
conditions to enable reciprocal
information flows between the
separate units. Next to the coordinator
style the broker style is needed to
pursue exploration activities. A leader
with a broker style is a politically astute
and influential person who provides
strategic direction on where the
organization is going and is focused
on future possibilities, disseminating
knowledge, obtaining (external)
resources and maintaining (external)
legitimacy. The broker style is preferred on top of the innovator style because it is more
focused on building coalitions and networks which are needed in order to create reciprocal
relationships between the separate (internal or external) units.
Similar to partitional ambidexterity the separate nature of this type of ambidexterity requires,
besides managing exploration and exploitation, leadership behavior that induces a
connection between the separate units and thereby enables reciprocal information flows.
The producer style seems to be the most appropriate style to achieve this. This leadership style
has a strong external focus which is necessary in order to manage the so called ‘synergistic
fusion’, as well as having a clear understanding of the separated exploration and exploitation
activities. Furthermore, this leadership style is focused on managing time and stress and
motivating people to achieve their goals by building relationships. It is argued that these are
Figure 12: Reciprocal ambidexterity leadership styles.
32
important variables in order to create a collaborative and problem solving environment.
Which in turn is, according to Simsek et al. (2009), a necessary condition for managing
exploitation and exploration activities that occur across time and units. Contrary to partitional
ambidexterity this type of organizational ambidexterity requires a producer style instead of a
director style. The reason for this can be found in the sequential nature of this type of
organizational ambidexterity. As described above, this type of organizational ambidexterity
requires relationships characterized by ongoing information exchange, collaborative problem
solving and resource flows between the separate units. By being goal-oriented, primarily
external focused and aimed at motivating people by building relationships, the producer
style is preferred on top the director style. The latter one is more internal oriented and focused
on rules and procedures which are necessary when both activities are pursued
simultaneously. This reasoning is in line with previous research, which indicates that building a
relationship between separate units is of great importance in order to facilitate the reciprocal
information flows and reallocation of resources between the separate units across time
(Simsek et al., 2009).
2.6 Three dimensional model of organizational ambidexterity
Based on the previous paragraphs the following revised organizational ambidexterity model,
including the leadership dimension, is depicted.
Figure 13: Revised organizational ambidexterity model including a leadership dimension.
As described in the previous paragraph, it becomes apparent that there is no single
leadership style that does best support one of the four types of organizational ambidexterity.
Cameron et al. (2006) defines this phenomenon as ‘behavioral complexity’, which implies
that a leader should be able to employ various leadership styles in order to enable
organizational ambidexterity. Figure 13 depicts the combinations of leadership styles that do
best support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity.
Noteworthy on this revised organizational ambidexterity model is that, both harmonic and
cyclical ambidexterity require at least a leadership style of the human relations model (the
upper-left quadrant of the CVF model). Whereas partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity,
require both at least a leadership style of the rational goal model (lower right quadrant of the
CVF model). The reason for this can be found in the structural differences between the both
sets of organizational ambidexterity, as they are distinguished by the structural dimension.
33
Contrary to harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity, leaders who pursue partitional and
reciprocal ambidexterity doesn’t have to manage a ‘harmonic tension’ or transit between
periods of exploitation and exploration. Both competing activities involve different individuals
that work in separate units. However, this separate nature of partitional, as well as reciprocal
ambidexterity requires leaders that support a shared vision or reciprocal information flow
between the separate units, in order to prevent a situation that one of the activities gets
isolated. On the other side, harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity, which are pursued in one
unit, require leadership styles that enable individuals to balance their time between
exploration and exploitation activities. In case of harmonic ambidexterity this means that the
right leadership styles are needed to enable people to deal with the conflicts between
exploration and exploitation activities. When it comes to cyclical ambidexterity, the right
leadership styles are needed to manage the conflicts as a result of the transition between
periods of exploitation and periods of exploration.
Obviously, the four types of organizational ambidexterity and the eight leadership styles of
the CVF model are ideal types. This means that the combinations, depicted above, are
found on characteristics and elements of a given phenomena, in this case leadership and
organizational ambidexterity. Therefore, the combinations between types of organizational
ambidexterity and leadership styles do not correspond to all of the characteristics of any one
particular case. Thus, the combinations as described do not refer to a non-subjective, perfect
truth about leadership and organizational ambidexterity. Nonetheless, the combinations are
based on common or complementary elements of both ideal types and provide thereby a
well reasoned theoretic construction of leadership styles that do best support the four types of
organizational ambidexterity.
34
3. Research methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the methodology that is used in this research and explains why this
approach was chosen. First, an elaboration is given on the chosen research strategy. Next,
the selected cases are described. Thereafter, the data collection and data analyses are
explained and finally the validity and reliability of the research are taken into account.
3.2 Research strategy
The research strategy is the sum of all related decisions which are made in order to determine
how to carry out the research (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007). The point of departure for
defining the right research strategy is the research objective, as described in chapter one. In
order to realize the objective of this research there is chosen to perform an exploratory study
at two companies, engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics.
This research has an exploratory nature because the theory of organizational ambidexterity
and leadership styles are explored by a literature research in order to describe which
leadership styles do best support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity.
Subsequently, leaders and other employees of the above mentioned companies are
questioned which leadership styles are employed in order to pursue organizational
ambidexterity. Finally, based on the literature- and exploratory study, this research describes
which leadership styles do best support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal
ambidexterity and defines hypotheses for further research.
In the methodology literature there are roughly five distinguished research strategies: a
survey, an experiment, case study, grounded theory approach and a desk research. Based
on the research objective, the exploratory nature of this research and the characteristics of
the five research strategies, as described by Verschuren and Doorewaard (2007), the case
study is the most appropriate strategy for this research. According to Verschuren and
Doorewaard (2007) a case study research is a study in which one case (single-case study) or
a small number of cases (multiple-case study) are selected in order to gain in-depth
information on a particular (social) phenomenon. These cases are studied in their natural
environment (research on location) to cover the contextual conditions because they are
relevant to the (social) phenomenon. Furthermore, based on the small number of cases a
qualitative research is carried out, instead of a quantitative research. In addition, Yin (2003)
argues that a case study should be considered when the focus of the research is to answer
‘how’ and ‘why’ questions and when the boundaries are not clear between the
phenomenon and context.
3.2.1 Case study research
An important reason for choosing the case study strategy can be found in the need to
collect in-depth information regarding ‘how’ leadership styles (a social phenomenon) are
employed in the organizational ambidexterity context at two companies (natural
environment). Therefore a qualitative method, on location with a few cases is considered as
the most appropriate approach. But what kind of case study is this research exactly?
As described in the previous section, a case study can involve one case or a small number of
cases. As mentioned before, this research investigated more than one case in order to
achieve in-depth information on leadership styles and the four types of organizational
ambidexterity in different settings and to compare and contrast different cases (Yin, 2003).
Four cases are investigated at two companies, three cases at engineering and consultancy
company DHV and one case at Royal Philips Electronics. Thereby this research can be
defined as a multiple-case study. Furthermore, Verschuren and Doorewaard (2007) distinguish
two main types of research: practical-oriented and theory-oriented research. As described in
chapter one, this research intends to contribute to the organizational ambidexterity literature
by providing theoretical insights into which leadership styles do best support the four types of
ambidexterity. Thus, this research can be characterized as a theory-oriented research. In
35
addition, Verschuren and Doorewaard (2007) also distinguish two subtypes of theory-oriented
research: theory-developing research and theory-testing research. Due to the fact that this
research is aimed at developing a theory, instead of testing pre-defined hypotheses, this
research can be labeled as a theory-developing multiple-case study.
The revised organizational ambidexterity model, depicted in figure 13, served as an anchor
while performing the case study. This conceptual model combines the leadership styles of the
CVF model with the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal – of organizational
ambidexterity, as composed by Simsek et al. (2009).
Serving as an anchor means that this model forms the guiding framework concerning the
core expression of this research, the relationships between core expressions and the analyses
of the gathered information through unraveling the results per core expression (Boeije, 2005;
Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007). By using the revised organizational ambidexterity model as
the framework for data collection and data analyses this research follows a deductive
reasoning. This implies that the revised organizational ambidexterity model, which is deduced
from leadership theories and organizational ambidexterity theories, is compared with
empirical findings in order to further develop the theory on which leadership styles do best
support the four types of organizational ambidexterity. So deductive reasoning is studying a
particular phenomenon based on a theoretical framework, instead of using ‘sensitizing
concepts’ (inductive reasoning) which roughly guides the study and analyses (Verschuren &
Doorewaard, 2007).
3.2.2 Unit of analysis
According to Yin (2003), the unit of analysis is the basis for the case. It decides which
individual, organization, community, or department within the organization needs to be
studied in order to answer the empirical question. Therefore the unit of analysis should be
related to the empirical question or to the focus of the research proposal. The units of analysis
of this study are (business) units that pursue the four types of organizational ambidexterity as
defined by Simsek et al. (2009). Particularly, as described before, in this research these units
are investigated at two companies, three units at engineering and consultancy company
DHV and one unit at Royal Philips Electronics.
3.2.3 Case selection
In order to prevent the pitfall of attempting to answer a question that is too broad or a
topic that has too many objectives for one study it is useful to place boundaries on the cases
(Yin, 2003). Therefore the selection of the cases was not done randomly. Yin (2003) gives some
suggestions on how to bind a case, for example by place, activity, definition and context. In
this research the activities of the cases were principle for binding the cases. Based on the
empirical question and the revised organizational ambidexterity the selected cases had to
encompass the four types of organizational ambidexterity, which refers to how organizations
pursue exploration and exploitation activities.
After several initial discussions with Rudolf Mulder (senior manager, DHV) it became clear that
engineering and consultancy company DHV primarily pursues harmonic and cyclical
ambidexterity. Rudolf Mulder suggested three distinct units (cases), because all three were
pursuing exploitation and exploration activities in a different manner. Next to engineering and
consultancy company DHV, Royal Philips Electronics was involved in the case study because
the literature study indicated that cyclical, as well as reciprocal ambidexterity primarily
occurs within highly technologically-oriented organizations. Discussions with Warden Hoffman
(HR Manager, Philips) confirmed this literature suggestion, as Royal Philips Electronics primarily
pursues partitional- and reciprocal ambidexterity. Based on these initial discussions it was
decided to select three cases at engineering and consultancy company DHV and one at
Royal Philips Electronics. As described above, the reason for this selection can be found by
how these cases were pursuing exploitation and exploration activities (organizational
ambidexterity). The discussions with Rudolf Mulder let to the conclusion that the unit Asset and
Information Management pursues both harmonic and partitional ambidexterity, the unit
Urban development, Legal and Finance cyclical ambidexterity and the unit Real Estate
harmonic ambidexterity. The discussions with Warden Hoffman pointed out that Philips
Incubators pursues partitional, as well as reciprocal ambidexterity.
36
Since the types of organizational ambidexterity were the determining selecting criteria for the
cases, the markets, as well as the industry (place, context) of the cases were supposed to be
less important. However, the results showed that the market situation is of influence on the
(combination of) leadership styles employed and the types of organizational ambidexterity
that are pursued. Altogether, the above described case selection process lead to the
selection of the following four cases:
1. Unit Asset and Information Management (DHV)
2. Unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (DHV)
3. Unit Real Estate (DHV)
4. Philips Incubators
Below a short description per case is given of its activities, markets, structure and organization.
Unit Asset and Information Management (DHV)
The business unit Asset and Information Management (hereafter: AIM) offers consultancy and
asset management services to clients in the public and private domain. AIM generates,
maintains, secures and provides specific knowledge on maintenance themes, e.g. technical,
managerial, conceptual, and financial. AIM is providing their services mainly in the
transportation, water and spatial development markets, towards industrial clients, local
governments (municipalities, housing corporations) and central and regional governments
(RWS, provinces). The home market of AIM is the Netherlands. The focus areas are the north
(Eemshaven), the west (region Randstad) and the south.
AIM consists out of four departments: Asset management public, Industrial engineering,
Contract and information management and Asset management industry. Besides these
departments there is a business development team. Together AIM has a workforce of 120
employees.
Unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (DHV)
The business unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (hereafter: ULF) is providing a wide
range of (consultancy) services to clients in the public, as well as the private domain, e.g.
governments, municipalities, provinces, project developers, contractors, water boards, etc.
ULF principal markets are real estate, infrastructure, mobility, energy and water. Examples of
services are cost & risk management, urban development management, economic real
estate studies, economical development studies (company grounds, tourism, etc),
governance services and legal advice on urban development, tenders, public/private
cooperation’s (PPS), mobility and infrastructure. These services are clustered into three
departments – Urban development, Legal and Finance – and various sub-teams. ULF’s home
market is the Netherlands with a focus on urban areas, international ULF is primarily active on
the North-American and Asian market. The unit ULF has a workforce of 110 employees.
Unit Real Estate (DHV)
The unit Real Estate (hereafter: RE) is offering real estate solutions for primarily clients in the
public domain, principal markets are: governments, education, care and housing. RE is
providing services like maintenance and re-development of existing real estate (e.g. ‘krimp’
regions), sustainability advice on life cycle costing and area development, process
management on renovation and maintenance, CO2 reduction in buildings and build project
management. The home market of RE is the Netherlands. The unit RE employs 170 employees
across three departments: Build management, Real estate management north and Real
estate management south. In addition, every department contains various sub-teams based
on specific expertise.
Philips Incubators
Philips Incubators is grouped under ‘Corporate technologies’, which is an umbrella term for all
the units that support innovation and new business development at Philips. Corporate
technologies encompasses: corporate research, Philips Incubators, intellectual property and
standards (IP&S) and Philips innovation services. The main purpose of Corporate technologies
37
is creating new business options for the three Philips operating sectors: Healthcare, Consumer
lifestyle and Lighting, through new technologies, venturing and intellectual property
development, improving time-to-market efficiency and increasing innovation effectiveness.
Philips Incubators is the corporate venturing part of organization, per sector - Healthcare,
Consumer lifestyle and Lighting – an incubator has established. These incubators consist out
of various ventures that pursue exploration activities separate from the established business.
The main purpose of these ventures is to deliver prosperous, radical, new (product or market)
innovations. Examples of incubator ventures are: Shapeways, 3D solutions, CareServant,
Digital Pathology, Handheld Diagnostics, etc. The number of ventures is variable.
3.3 Data collection
There are many different ways of carrying out a qualitative case study, for example via focus
groups, interviewing experts, document research, observations, etc (Boeije, 2005). Combining
various data collection methods leads to data triangulation, which provides an important
way of ensuring the validity of case study research (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007). Data
triangulation in this research was achieved by performing interviews, document research and
observations. Each method used for deriving this type of data is described below. Before
these methods are further explained a brief description is given regarding the preparation of
data collection.
3.3.1 Preparation of data collection
Before starting with in-depth interviews, document research and observations, a round of pre-
interviews was held with three people from Royal Philips Electronics and two people from
engineering and consultancy company DHV. The goal of these pre-interviews was primarily to
determine which types of organizational ambidexterity are pursued in both companies.
Furthermore, these pre-interviews lead to the list of people that were interviewed during the
research. The data collection methods, as well as the decisions made regarding the cases
and interviewees were discussed with Hans Doorewaard (research supervisor), Rudolf Mulder
(senior manager, DHV) and Warden Hoffman (HR Manager, Philips).
3.3.2 Interviews
Preparation for an interview is vital. According to Boeije (2005) various types of interviews are
possible and can be distinguished by the extent of pre-structuring. Examples are unstructured,
semi-structured or structured interviews. In this research semi-structured interviews were used.
In a semi-structured interview it is determined up front which topics will be treated and in
which sequence. Nevertheless, during the interviews there was enough room for going in-
depth into specific items.
In total fourteen interviews were held, ten interviews at engineering and consultancy
company DHV and the other four at Royal Philips Electronics. From these fourteen persons, six
persons hold the position of unit (venture) manager, three persons the position of department
manager, two persons the position of senior manager, two persons the position of HR-
manager one person the role of business development manager. At engineering and
consultancy company DHV two persons per case were interviewed, first a unit manager and
then a department manager. Thereby it was able to verify per case the prior obtained
interview results. In addition, an interview was held with a business development manager in
order to gain information on how exploration activities are pursued across units. Also
interviews were held with senior managers and HR-managers, as these persons were able to
explain how the various units are dealing with exploitation and exploration activities, as well
as the policy behind these modes of operation. At Royal Philips Electronics two interviews
were held with venture managers in order to verify prior obtained interview results. One of two
interviewees is a venture portfolio manager and is thereby responsible for various ventures
and the transition of (new) activities to the established business. Furthermore an interview was
held with a senior manager and HR-manager responsible for managing the established
business and the ventures, as well as the policy behind ‘incubation’. Both, the position and
the experience of the interviewees, with leadership and the tension between exploitation
38
and exploration lead to the necessary results to answer the empirical questions. All the
interviewees and their positions can be found in appendix 1.
Right before the start of the interviews the interviewees received a short introduction into the
subject on paper. Each interview lasted approximately one and a half hour. During the
interview every aspect was discussed in order to answer the empirical questions. This was
done by discussing predefined topics, but the interviewees were also able to suggest and
bring in other relevant items or examples. The predefined topics were based on the literature
study as described in chapter two. The interviews started by first asking the interviewees if
they were familiar with the jargon of the subject. Thereafter the interviewees were asked if
they recognized the tension between exploration and exploitation activities. The second part
of the interview was focused on the type of organizational ambidexterity, in order to indentify
the type(s) of organizational ambidexterity that were pursued. The third part of the interview
involved questions regarding leadership, leadership styles and factors that influence the
relation between leadership (styles) and organizational ambidexterity. The interview guide
with the predefined topics that was used during the interviews can be found in appendix 2.
All the interviews have been recorded, with consent of the interviewees, to guarantee that all
(detail) information is stored. In addition, all these recordings were summarized and analyzed
per topic (see section 3.4). These summaries were sent back to the interviewees to make sure
that the summary represents their opinion on the various topics.
3.3.3 Document research
Various documents have been investigated. At engineering and consultancy company DHV
policy documents were investigated in order to determine how senior management is
dealing with the tension between exploration and exploitation. Furthermore, documents and
vision plans concerning leadership and culture have been examined. However, at
engineering and consultancy company DHV most documents were high-level documents,
which did not contain relevant content regarding the organization level (unit) were the
interviews were held. At Royal Philips Electronics there was more relevant documentation. A
policy paper concerning leadership, exploration and exploitation (the Bell-Mason method),
as well as a previous study on leadership and the use of incubators was examined and
discussed with Warden Hoffman (HR Manager, Philips) and Corina Kuiper (senior manager).
An overview of all investigated documents can be found in appendix 3.
3.3.4 Observations
Segers (2002) identifies several methods for observation. The first distinction is made between
participating and non-participating observation. This is the difference between observation
while interacting with participants and observation without interaction with participants. Both
types of observations are used in this research. Participating observation took place at
engineering and consultancy company DHV, since the researcher is an employee at this
company. Non-participating observation took place before, during and after the interviews
at Royal Philips Electronics. The second distinction is between a structured and a non-
structured observation. During the observation of the cases the interview topic list was used to
secure a structured observation of the leadership styles and organizational ambidexterity
types that were employed. However, not all observations were structured. Non-structured
observation also took place while being on location. The structured, as well as the non-
structured observations produced some useful notes while working out the results, gathered
through interviews and document research.
3.4 Data analyses
The data analysis in this research encompasses an analysis of the gathered empirical results,
obtained through interviews, document research and observations. The data analysis started
with analyzing the interview results that were derived. The interviews were summarized per
interview topic (see appendix 2 for the topics), through unraveling the results per core
expression. These predefined topics were based on the literature study, as described in
chapter two, regarding the four types of organizational ambidexterity (par. 2.3.2) and the
eight leadership styles of the CVF model (par. 2.4.2).
39
Thereafter a ‘similarities and differences analysis’ was performed among the various interview
results per topic. This analysis includes coding similar and different opinions on the same
subjects and highlighting unique and specific comments (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007).
An example of the raw data resulting from this analysis can be found in appendix 4. After the
similarities and differences analysis, the actual analysis took place in chapter 4. In this chapter
the results of the similarities and differences analysis were interpreted and combined with the
results of the observations and the studied documents. By combining these results it was
possible to determine whether the proposed combinations of leadership styles and types of
organizational ambidexterity, depicted in figure 13, were sufficient or not. A typical hallmark
of the qualitative research process is that it is possible to analyse data while still gathering
new data. This iterative data analyses process also took place during this research. Instead of
the linear process flow of a quantitative research, a qualitative research follows a cyclical or
iterative flow. This iterative flow allows the researcher to improve or adjust the research set-up
and questions while gathering the data (Boeije, 2005). However, a consequence of this
iterative process is that the researcher is constantly interpreting the data based on his choice
of paradigm assumptions, this is called multi-interpretability (Verschuren & Doorewaard,
2007). The next section explains how this multi-interpretability was avoided, as much as
possible, during this research.
3.5 Validity and reliability
Boeije (2005) argue that the quality of a research depends on the degree validity and
reliability. Particularly a qualitative research can have issues on validity and reliability due to
the open and less structured approach. For example, the use of more than one data
collection method improves the validity of the gathered data. Yet, at the same time this
open en less structured approach requires improvising and can thereby result in less reliability.
The next sections provide insights in how this research dealt with validity (‘measuring the right
things’) and reliability (‘measuring the things right’) issues.
3.5.1 Validity
Validity refers to the influence of systematic faults during a research. This encompasses the
degree to which a research is measuring what it was intent to measure and thereby how
truthful the results are (Boeije, 2005). Two types of validity can be distinguished, internal
validity and external validity. Internal validity refers to the extent to which it is possible to make
accurate inferences regarding the investigated relations of the conceptual model. External
validity refers to what extent the results can be generalized to other (similar) situations
(Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007).
Internal validity
By using a qualitative approach the internal validity of this research is high. Due to the less
standardized data collection methods of a qualitative approach and the alternation
between data collection and data analyses, it was possible to gather the most relevant in-
depth information regarding the empirical questions. The internal validity was also ensured by
using multiple data collection methods which lead to data triangulation, as described in
paragraph 3.3. Other things that contributed to a high level of internal validity are the
purposive case selection as described in section 3.2.3, sending a short introduction to the
interviewees prior to the interviews, the use of a predefined topic list during the interviews,
recording the interviews in order to secure all (detail) information, the verification of the
interpretations made by the researcher by submitting interview summaries to the interviewees
(‘member validation’) and the use of a systematic data analyses approach as described in
paragraph 3.4. Altogether it can be argued that the internal validity of this research was
secured by using various proven research methods and approaches. However, the internal
validity may have been negatively influenced by the researcher. This was specifically the
case during the investigation at engineering and consultancy company DHV. Due to the fact
that the researcher is an employee at engineering and consultancy company DHV, it was
inevitable that his interpretation and critical look was influenced and may have lead to
biased preconceived notions. In the literature this process is mentioned as ‘going native’,
which affects the interplay between the conceptual model, the data collection and data
40
analyses (Boeije, 2005). By being aware of this pitfall and by submitting interview summaries to
the interviewees it was tried to minimize this bias.
External validity
Due to the nature and ‘small’ numbers of cases it is a frequent criticism of case study
research that the results are not widely applicable. This criticism can be refuted by making a
distinction between analytic generalization, in case of a qualitative research and statistical
generalization in case of a quantitative research (Yin, 2003; Boeije, 2005). Yin defines
analytical generalization as: "in analytic generalization, a previously developed theory is used
as a template in order to compare empirical results obtained during a qualitative research"
(Yin, 2003). Based on the previous chapters and paragraphs it is apparent that analytical
generalization is applicable on this research. Yin (2003), as well as Boeije (2005) argued that,
based on the above described distinction, it is possible that the results of a case study can be
generalized. Boeije (2005) describes that insights in a particular theoretical phenomenon,
developed in a research, can be used in certain similar situations that were not investigated
(p. 155). The overarching dimensions of the organizational ambidexterity model are based on
various literature streams and prior studies and present thereby a theoretical construct that
describes a widely observed phenomenon. Thus, the results of this research provide insights in
a theoretical phenomenon, leadership styles and organizational ambidexterity, which can
be, according to Boeije (2005), used in certain similar situations that were not investigated.
Moreover, the literature study lead to a purposive case selection that matches the
conceptual model and the empirical questions, which is an important condition for external
validity.
The overarching dimensions of the revised organizational ambidexterity model, as well as the
purposive case selection ensured the external validity of this research. However, generalizing
the results of this research should always be done with great care, due to uniqueness of the
investigated cases in term of settings, interviewees, context, etc. Altogether, based on
analytical generalization, described by Yin (2003), it is argued that the external validity of this
research can be high for certain similar situations that were not investigated.
3.5.2 Reliability
Reliability refers to the degree to which the results of a research can be reproduced by using
a similar methodology (Boeije, 2005). In other words, when the methods used for data
collection are reliable, replication of the research will produce similar results. An important
challenge, while pursuing reliability in a qualitative case study research, has to do with
minimizing the multi-interpretability of the research, as described in paragraph 3.4
(Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007). Various steps were taken in order to minimize the multi-
interpretability and thereby ensuring the reliability of this research. First, collecting the data via
semi-structured interviews resulted to a certain degree of standardization (consistency) which
favors the reliability. The topics and the sequence they were discussed was determined up
front, which reduces the chance on ‘coincidental faults’ (Boeije, 2005). Second, recording
the interviews and submitting interview summaries to the interviewees lessened that chance
on wrong (positively or negatively) interpretations of the researcher. Third, data triangulation
(interviews, documents and observations) allowed the researcher to verify acquired
information and facts between multiple resources and thereby producing righteous results.
Fourth, by using a systematic data analyses method it is possible to retrace the results of the
research. Besides, by applying as systemic (consistent) data analyses the chance on
‘coincidental faults’ was also reduced.
Finally, the reliability of this research is demonstrated by having a small group of second
readers, from within the investigated organizations and outside these organizations, in order
to minimize threats like ‘holistic fallacy’, ‘elite bias’ and the process of ‘going native’ (Yin,
2003).
41
4. Case study results
4.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the results of the empirical research, as outlined in the previous
chapter. This research was performed by studying four cases at two companies.
The purpose of this research was to investigate which leadership styles are used in practice,
at engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics, to pursue
harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity. This is done under the guidance
of the empirical research questions as defined in paragraph 1.5. The main empirical question
(see below) is answered by describing, in paragraph 4.2 up to 4.5, per case the types of
organizational ambidexterity pursued and the leadership styles that were employed to pursue
these types of organizational ambidexterity.
The main and sub empirical questions that are answered in this chapter are:
Which leadership styles are used in practice by the cases at engineering and consultancy
company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics in order to carry out harmonic, cyclical,
partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?
• Which types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal – of organizational
ambidexterity are pursued by the cases at engineering and consultancy company
DHV?
• Which types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal – of organizational
ambidexterity are pursued by the case Philips incubators at Royal Philips Electronics?
• Which leadership styles are employed by the cases at engineering and consultancy
company DHV in order to pursue harmonic, cyclical, partitional or reciprocal
organizational ambidexterity?
• Which leadership styles are employed by the case Philips incubators at Royal Philips
Electronics in order to pursue harmonic, cyclical, partitional or reciprocal
organizational ambidexterity?
4.2 Case results: unit Asset and Information Management (DHV)
Based on the results obtained through interviews, observations and document research a
description is given of the type(s) of organizational ambidexterity that are pursued and the
leadership styles that are employed.
4.2.1 Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued by case
Unit manager Jelle Hannema confirms that the tension between exploration and exploitation
activities is something the unit Asset and Information Management (hereafter: AIM) is
struggling with, just like other units within engineering and consultancy company DHV. Jelle,
as well as Ron van Empel (department manager) indicate that the tension between realizing
budgets, being efficient and developing new services and markets frequently produces
contradictions and inconsistencies between both people and organization. Due to the
current crisis this tension has become more visible and has initiated last year a new way of
organizing exploration and exploitation activities. Next to the ‘old way’ of organizing both
activities, a new approach was introduced.
Harmonic ambidexterity
By having exploitation and exploration activities organized within one unit, it can be argued
that harmonic ambidexterity is pursued. As Jelle indicates: ‘the departments and teams
within the unit are responsible for running established business, as well as developing new
businesses, at the same time and with the same group of people’. Depending on their
function and role in the unit, 80% of their time people are involved in being ‘billable to the
client’ and 20% of their time they are involved in developing current services or new business
42
development. Thus, the people of the unit AIM have to balance constantly their time
between achieving billable hours and developing new services and markets. In addition,
Jelle and Ron argued that it is necessary to let people perform both exploration and
exploitation activities in order to prevent new services that does not fit the market. Besides,
Jelle argues: ‘letting people only develop new services or being billable to the client doesn’t
improve their job satisfaction’. This reasoning is also confirmed by senior manager Rudolf
Mulder as he argues: ‘in a consultancy and service company like DHV it is not possible to
completely split exploitation and exploration activities because it is a people-business’. With
‘people-business’ Rudolf is referring to the difference between a service and product
company and that it is more difficult to spilt both activities in service companies. Based on
the above described interview results it can be argued that, by organizing exploitation and
exploration activities in this way, the unit AIM is pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. As
described in chapter two, harmonic ambidexterity involves the simultaneous pursuit of both
exploitation and exploration activities within one unit and with the same group of people.
Partitional ambidexterity
However, the interviewees also describe that this model (achieving exploitation and
exploration activities at the same time with the same people) has some limitations. They
argue that the past learned that at the end of the day the focus will mainly be on achieving
budgets and sales targets, ‘short term results’. Jelle, as well as other interviewees argue that
the consequence is that there was insufficient attention for developing new services and
market and thereby the long term goals were in danger. Therefore, Jelle and his
management team has developed and introduced last year a new approach on managing
exploitation and exploration activities. In order to have a ‘healthy balance’ between both
activities, Jelle decided to form a separate business development team with a responsible
manager. This team does not have sales or budget targets comparable to the other
departments and teams in the unit. Their goal is to develop new business and services within,
as well as across units. Jelle said, ‘they don’t have to worry about ‘OG-tjes’ (billable hours)
and all the other procedures and structures focused on realizing an efficient organization,
they have the freedom to spread their wings in developing new services and markets and will
be assessed on the new number of services and markets’. Besides this new business
development team, there is also a team introduced that is pursuing exploitation activities
across units, this is called a ‘cross-functional team’. The interviewees explained that this team
exists out of people that 50% of their time are employed at the AIM unit and the other 50% for
another unit in accordance with their specific expertise. The interviewees argued that the
new business development team, as well as the cross-functional team is playing an important
role in fostering synchronization between DHV units. Thereby it becomes possible to prevent a
situation that everybody within DHV is inventing the same new services, markets or solutions
on its own.
This new way of managing exploitation and exploration activities can also be found in the
‘AIM business plan 2010-2015’ and is in line with the overall organization theme ‘Dear to
Share’ as described in the Corporate Policy Paper. The business plan states that: ‘working
across units is spreading the risks and benefits and improves current and new market
development by shifting employees and expertise’s throughout the company’.
Conclusion
By establishing a new business development team completely focused on exploration
activities and a cross-functional team completely focused on exploitation activities, the unit
AIM is pursuing partitional ambidexterity next to harmonic ambidexterity. Nevertheless,
comparing the approach of the unit AIM with the description of partitional ambidexterity, as
described in chapter two, it becomes apparent that they do not correspond on all
characteristics. In paragraph 2.3.2 partitional ambidexterity is defined as: pursuing
exploitation and exploration activities in separate units, with each unit embodying distinct
strategic and operating logics, cultures, and incentive systems. As described, AIM is pursuing
exploitation activities (by a cross-functional team) and exploration activities (by a new
business development team) across units. But these activities and teams are not separate
from the AIM unit and thereby they do not embody distinct strategic and operating logics,
cultures, incentive systems and do not have a distinct management team. Furthermore, as
becomes apparent in the AIM business plan not all exploitation and exploration activities are
43
pursued in separate units, primarily contract management and information management
services are pursued separately. Besides, in its pure form partitional ambidexterity involves at
least two separate units that only pursue, either exploitation or exploration activities across
units. AIM pursues both activities across units
and on top of that the main part of the unit
still pursues harmonic ambidexterity, as
described in the first part of this section.
Nevertheless, as described in the last part of
chapter two, the four types of
organizational ambidexterity are ideal
types. This means that the types of
organizational ambidexterity are found on
characteristics and elements of a given
phenomena (pursuing exploitation and
exploration activities). Thereby the types of
organizational ambidexterity do not
correspond to all of the characteristics of a
particular case. Based on this reasoning it is
argued that the unit AIM pursues harmonic
ambidexterity in its pure form and a ‘form’ of partitional ambidexterity, which reveals
considerable similarities with the description of this type in paragraph 2.3.2. Figure 14 depicts
both types of organizational ambidexterity, the colour of the partitional ambidexterity square
is adjusted according to its less obvious appearance in practice.
4.2.2 Leadership styles employed to pursue organizational ambidexterity
While discussing how the unit AIM deals with the tension between exploration and
exploitation activities it became apparent that leadership is of great importance. Jelle
started with arguing: ‘making the same person responsible for organizing efficiency (budgets,
sales, etc) and developing new services and markets is fiction’. Further on during the
interview he explained this statement by arguing that both activities require at least two
different sets of competences that are opposite ends of a continuum. Despite this statement
he argues that people need to be able to employ these two opposite behaviors depending
on their role. As a unit manger of various departments and sub teams you need to possess
both sets of competences. Being a manager of a specific department or sub team,
depending on its activities, can require either a leader that is good in managing budgets or a
leader that is good in fostering new business development. Nevertheless, expecting an
innovative focused leadership style in an exploitation oriented department or team is not
realistic, or as Jelle states: ‘is a fiction’. This was one of the principles that lead to introduction
of a separate business development team.
Leadership styles harmonic ambidexterity
On the questions what type of leadership style the interviewees employ to manage harmonic
ambidexterity, they answers that they have primarily a coaching and connecting role
between the various departments and sub teams. When there are problems this role can also
be a directive one, ‘you then have to make decisions’. In addition, the interviewees said that
they take care of the framework in terms of resources and tools and monitor and manage
this by being unambiguous and providing a clear vision and strategy. This role perception is
confirmed by other interviewees as they state that a unit manager needs to facilitate the
process, as well as making the final decisions and providing guidance. In addition, Jelle
argues that managing people in a unit that is pursuing both exploitation and exploration
activities at the same time requires a leadership style on the ‘background’, ‘give your people
space and guidance by a clear vision’. The interviewees also argued that you have to
enable people to develop themselves alongside achieving their billable hour targets. In the
unit AIM this is done by the ‘buddy method’, connecting a senior employee with a junior
employee and supporting people in following training course and external coaching. On the
other hand, the interviewees argued that as a leader you sometimes need to be very clear
about rules and procedures. They need to be followed, as these rules support an efficient
organization which is needed to realize budget targets. As an example of these rules the
interviewees described the process of handing in timesheets, this needs to be done before
Figure 14: Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued
by the unit Asset and Information Management.
44
Monday morning 12 a clock, in order to prepare the weekly invoices towards customers. This
process sometimes requires a directive approach by addressing people to follow the
structure, rules and procedures.
On the question if you need to be able to employ more than one leadership style, the
interviewees argued that managing a unit like AIM requires different leadership styles at
various moments, managing ‘production employees’ requires a leadership style that is
focused on efficiency and targets, on the other hand fostering new business development,
acquiring new customers and markets requires a flexible and supporting leadership style with
considerable knowledge of market. Being able to switch at various moments in time between
these leadership styles is important, if not to say ‘indispensable’. To endorse this statement
Jelle describes an example of switching between roles: ‘as a unit manager I sometimes have
to build on new customer relations, forms of cooperation and markets by visiting events,
social network parties and employing other new customers or market related activities. While
the next day I have to manage efficiency targets towards employees and border conflicts
between teams’. In addition, the interviewees indicate that the most important trigger to
switch between styles depends on ‘what’s needed on a particular moment and place.
Sometimes you have to focus more on sales and budgets and sometimes new business
development needs to have a ‘boost’.
Leadership styles partitional ambidexterity
On the question if there is a difference between leading people within or across units, the
interviewees argued that a different style is absolutely needed. Leading people across units
requires you to be flexible, as well as focused on working across unit borders. The interviewees
explained, as a manager you have to help and encourage people to work across unit
borders and show them the benefits of looking beyond your own unit. This is a difficult process
because people tend to focus on their own unit, which can be reinforced by border conflicts.
Besides, being flexible is needed in order to prevent border conflicts or to solve them, being
too rigid will result in problems while working across borders. In addition, the interviewees
argued that having a clear vision, ‘a dot on the horizon’, is one of the most important things
to connect people and to minimize the tension between exploration and exploitation
activities. Jelle said: ‘by having a clear vision and strategy everybody knows what to expect
from each other, there are no hidden agenda’s which results in a breathing unity (‘een
ademend geheel’). According to Jelle a clear vision and strategy is necessary to pursue
exploitation and exploration activities within, as well as across units. He argues that a vision
and strategy needs to be shared between units in order to enable exploitation and
exploration activities across units. Without a clear vision and strategy, border conflicts
regarding financial issues will result in ‘narrow-mindedness’ between units. And again Jelle
argues that not only putting a vision on the map is enough: ‘you have to manage your vision
and strategy by being clear about the framework, procedures, rules, progress and
expectations’.
Conclusion
Based on the leadership styles of the
CVF model, as described in paragraph
2.4.2, it is now possible to define the
leadership styles that are employed, in
order to pursue harmonic and
partitional ambidexterity, by the unit
AIM. By stating that exploitation and
exploration activities require different
sets of competences, the interviewees
pointed out that exploitation activities
require transactional leadership styles
and exploration activities require
transformational leadership styles. During
the interviews it became apparent that
partitional ambidexterity requires
different leadership styles than harmonic
ambidexterity.
Figure 15: Leadership styles employed by the unit Asset and
Information Management while pursuing harmonic
ambidexterity.
45
In order to pursue harmonic ambidexterity the interviewees argued that a coaching and
connecting leadership style is needed, which corresponds with the facilitator style of the CVF
model. In addition, the interviewees described that they provide the framework, resources
and tools and monitor and manage this by having a clear vision and strategy. This indicates
that they also employ a monitor style - ensuring that people follow the rules – and a broker
style – focusing on were the organization is going and providing strategic direction.
During the interviews the use of the broker style is also mentioned by stating that a clear vision
and strategy is necessary to pursue exploitation and exploration activities within and across
units. Without the external legitimacy of the broker, border conflicts and narrow-mindedness
can occur. The monitor style is also mentioned by the interviewees by stating that you have
to manage your vision and strategy by a clear framework, procedures, rules, progress and
expectations. In addition, Jelle describes that you also have to give people ‘space’ by
employing a leadership style on the ‘background’ and thereby enabling people to develop
themselves, alongside achieving their billable hour targets. This type of leadership behavior
matches the mentor style of the CVF
model, as this style is focused on
encouraging and helping individuals to
plan their self-development.
Pursuing partitional leadership requires a
leadership style that is primarily focused
on flexibility and working across unit
borders, the interviewees argued. In
addition, they argue that you have to
help and encourage people to look
beyond their own unit. And being too
‘rigid’ as a leader will result in problems
while working across borders. This
indicates that the broker style (external
focus on other units), as well as the
mentor style (helping and encouraging
people to look beyond their unit) are
employed to pursue partitional
ambidexterity. By defining ‘too rigid’ as
negative it can be argued that leadership
styles focused on control (transactional leadership styles) are not recommended to pursue
partitional ambidexterity. Recapitulating, the unit AIM employs a facilitator, monitor, broker
and mentor style in order to pursue harmonic ambidexterity. Besides, while pursuing
partitional ambidexterity the unit AIM employs a mentor style and broker style. The leadership
styles per type of organizational ambidexterity are depicted in figure 15 and 16.
4.2.3 Additional findings
While investigating the types of organizational ambidexterity and leadership styles employed,
some additional findings were obtained. Only the findings that possibly have a relation to the
research objective are described. The following additional findings were obtained by
investigating the unit AIM.
Market influence and organizational ambidexterity
The interviewees argued that there was a one-sided focus on exploitation activities in the
past due to the (economical) market crisis, which lead to an increasing focus on billable
work. This pattern is also confirmed by Rudolf as he argues: ‘the economical crisis produced a
more ‘result oriented’ focus in the organization’.
Type of activities
As described, the new business development team is organizationally-wise established within
the unit AIM. The reason for this can be found in preventing a situation that new services
development does not fit the market. The interviewees argued that people need to have a
connection with the market in order to do new product development.
Figure 16: Leadership styles employed by the unit Asset
and Information Management while pursuing partitional
ambidexterity.
46
Financial accountability structure
The interviewees described that working across units does not go that smoothly all the time.
Due to the current financial driven culture, some units tend to focus too much on their own
profit and loss which can cause border conflicts. Jelle explains that most of these issues are
about how to split investment cost in relation to revenue, or who is responsible for project
losses. In addition, Jelle argues that border conflicts can only occur when a manager allows it
and is not focused on cross unit work and new business development. Besides, having
regularly senior management meetings between the various unit managers also helps to
prevent these border conflicts, as these meeting are aimed at developing and maintaining a
shared approach of all units.
4.3 Case results: unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (DHV)
Based on the results obtained through interviews, observations and document research a
description is given of the type(s) of organizational ambidexterity that are pursued and the
leadership styles that are employed.
4.3.1 Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued by case
Kees-Jan Bandt (unit manager) argues that the tension between exploitation and exploration
activities is a continuous challenge between making billable hours and developing new
services. The unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (hereafter: ULF) is performing both
activities on a daily basis and is thereby subject to both forces. Johan Moolenaar
(department manager), as well as Bart Humblet (formerly unit manager) argued that this
tension also becomes apparent in having different kinds of people. Some people prefer to do
routine tasks which are aimed at doing the same thing over and over again, while other
people like to invent new services and find new markets.
Harmonic ambidexterity
Most people in the unit ULF perform both exploitation and exploration activities because the
work is about knowledge, ‘it is in de minds of people’. Kees-Jan argues that it is not possible to
completely separate exploitation and exploration activities from each other as companies
like Unilever or Philips do. This is confirmed by the other interviewees as the argued that
‘innovation takes place on the job’. In addition, Kees-Jan argues: ‘I deploy people based on
their qualities, for some this involves achieving high sales, for others this involves research
activities and developing markets and for some people a mixture of both’. Bottom line most
people in the unit ULF are ‘multi-taskers’, they have to be billable and are also expected to
think along with new things.
However, due to the bad economic circumstances of the last few years the focus was mainly
on exploitation activities. Achieving budgets and sales targets was one of the most important
things, Kees-Jan argues. Bart confirms this by stating: ‘the years before the crisis the sky was
the limit and the margins were very good, during the crisis it became worse and the only
solution seems to be production, production and production’. The result was that the unit ULF
was mainly exploiting and explorations were minimized till almost zero. As an example a failed
innovation project was described by one of the interviewees. Some people worked out a
very good concept regarding company grounds rating in terms of sustainability, accessibility,
etc. This tool could be used for investors and local authorities to benchmark company
grounds. However, it never became a new product because it was killed by the internal
focus on efficiency and control’.
Cyclical ambidexterity
Last year this one-sided focus on exploitation resulted in a large dismissal procedure, more
than 50 people were dismissed. At this moment the market is still tough, governments,
municipalities and private investors are all waiting with new investments. The interviewees
indicated that this pattern forced the unit ULF the last year in ‘a phase of re-inventing itself’,
at the moment they are primarily focused on innovations. Various teams within the unit are
completely focused on developing new services because their ‘old’ work has dropped to
zero. Kees-Jan argues: for a long time we aimed on the cash cows and now we have too
much dogs and almost no stars’. This is also confirmed by Johan as he argues: ‘after a long
47
period of exploiting we are now in a period of searching for new services and business
models to recapture our market share’. Therefore a large group of people in the ULF unit is
working on new (radical) explorations. These developments are also described in the ‘ULF
business plan 2010-2015’: ‘the market forces us to develop new and innovative business
models in order to recapture market share’, ‘the customer is changing which forces us to
rethink our market approach’ and ‘innovation is back on the agenda’. The interviewees
argued that competitors are also engaged in similar developments, ‘everybody is looking for
the right market approach in order to recapture a good share in the future market 2.0’.
In addition, the interviewees argued that the unit ULF has to learn from the past, periods of
only exploiting or exploring will at the end of the day lead to problems. Bart points out: ‘of
course cyclical market patterns are natural and you have to follow them, but at the same
time you have to prevent a situation of only exploiting or exploring, since you need both
activities to survive on the short and the long term’.
Conclusion
Based on the description of the fours types of organizational ambidexterity, as described in
paragraph 2.3.2, it is argued that the unit ULF pursues harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity.
By pursuing both exploitation and exploration activities, in one unit at the same time and with
the same group of people, the unit ULF is obviously pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. This is
also endorsed by Kees-Jan as he argues
that most people in his units are ‘multi-
taskers’, as they have to be billable and are
expected to think along with new things.
Besides, it also becomes apparent that the
unit pursues another type of organizational
ambidexterity next to harmonic
ambidexterity due to market circumstances
(crisis, etc). As described, the unit ULF was
for a long time primarily focused on
exploiting, ‘production, production and
production’. Thereby this can be defined as
a period of exploitation. Last year an
transition was forced by the market to a
period of exploration, ‘a phase of re-inventing
itself (unit ULF)’. This transition can be defined
as cycling between a period of exploitation
towards a period of exploration. In addition,
this process of cycling occurs within the same unit. Based on these findings it is argued that,
besides harmonic ambidexterity, cyclical ambidexterity is pursued as well. Yet, the mode in
which cyclical ambidexterity is pursued by the unit ULF does not completely corresponds with
the theoretical definition as described in paragraph 2.3.2. For example, when the unit shifted
from an exploitation period towards a period of exploration, procedures, reward and control
systems were not changed. Besides, pursuing cyclical ambidexterity was not an intentional
process, it was initiated by the market as the ‘workload dropped to zero’. Nevertheless, as
depicted in figure 17, it can be argued that both harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity is
pursued by the unit ULF.
4.3.2 Leadership styles employed to pursue organizational ambidexterity
Leadership is, according to Kees-Jan, putting the right people on the right place. As
mentioned before Kees-Jan said: ‘some people prefer to do routine tasks which are aimed at
doing the same thing over and over again. Other people like to invent new services and
develop new markets’. In addition he argues: ‘putting people on the right place in one thing,
next you also have to manage them according to their competences’. With, respect to
managing competences, Kees-Jan means that it is not wise to manage an ‘independent
professional’ like a ‘production employee’ and vice versa. This is also endorsed by Bart as he
argues: ‘telling somebody from salary scale 13 or higher how to do things will result in
resistance, instead you should support and challenge them’. An example of why it is
important to have the right people on the right place is the failed innovation project
regarding company ground ratings, as described in the previous section. This concept failed
Figure 17: Types of organizational ambidexterity
pursued by the unit Urban development, Legal and
Finance.
48
due to the fact that the people involved in this project were to much focused on ‘efficiency
and control’.
Leadership styles harmonic ambidexterity
On the question which leadership styles are employed to manage the tension between
exploration and exploitation activities the interviewees answered that different styles are used
in different situations. Kees-Jan argued: ‘managing good budgets, sales and innovations at
the same time with the same group of people requires a clear vision (‘lijn aanbrengen’)’. In
addition, Kees-Jan argues that managing this ‘paradox’ is something he supports by
recruiting the right managers and facilitate them as much as possible. In order to manage
this paradox the interviewees argued that they employ a directive leadership style towards
the production parts of the unit, ‘then a strong focus on procedures, rules and utilization rates
is needed’. Furthermore they indicate that a manager of exploitation activities is primarily
internally focused on budgets, schedules and the distribution of work. While on the other
hand a coaching and mentoring style towards new business development activities is
needed. The interviewees also pointed out that exploration activities requires leaders with an
external focus and leaders that support people to be creative and provide them with the
right resources. With resources they meant that a leader should facilitate the right systems,
knowledge and training and education in order to secure a good process. The interviewees
argued that bringing these two opposite types of leaders together in one management team
requires primarily a facilitating role and a clear future direction. Kees-Jan said: ‘I take care of
the process by providing the necessary resources and I intervene and make decisions when
the vision gets lost or when a conflict needs to be solved’. On the question what recourses
Kees-Jan is referring to, he points out resources like: ‘investment money, the right people,
network, teambuilding activities/‘heidesessies’ and training and education’. According to
Kees-Jan, he is regularly switching between his leadership styles, primarily between leadership
styles focused on efficiency and control and leadership styles focused on innovation and
flexibility. This distinction between different leadership styles, needed for different situations, is
also described by the other interviewees. On the question which leadership style is best, the
interviewees answered that there is no best leadership style, you need to be able to employ
various styles to a certain degree in order to manage people in a company like DHV,
because they perform both production and new business development activities.
Leadership styles cyclical ambidexterity
On the question whether the current leadership styles (exploration period) has changed,
compared to the leadership styles during the exploitation period (as described in the previous
section), Kees-Jan answered: ‘there are differences compared to the past, I now encourage
people to be more externally focused on innovations and new market opportunities and I
have to guide them in this process by providing direction’. In addition he also argues: ‘during
the period that many people were dismissed (last year, before the exploration period started)
my leadership style was primarily internally focused, trying to get the unit back on trail since
there was a lot of tension in the organization’. Regarding the current exploration period he
further explains: ‘as a leader I take the lead in the focus on exploration activities by visiting
customers and trying to convince them to get involved in our new services or concepts’. This
is not only an activity outside the company, as Kees-Jan points out that he is also pursuing
more cooperation internally between DHV units. He states: ‘knowledge is authority, but
combined knowledge is power’.
Conclusion
Based on the leadership styles of the CVF model, as described in paragraph 2.4.2, it is now
possible to define the leadership styles that are employed, in order to pursue harmonic and
cyclical ambidexterity, by the unit ULF. The interviewees indicate that various leadership styles
are necessary in order to manage the tension between exploration and exploitation. To be
more specific, the interviewees argued that a more directive leadership style (transactional) is
necessary while managing exploitation activities and a more coaching, mentoring and
visionary leadership style (transformational) while managing exploration activities. Thus, a
combination of transformational and transactional leadership styles is required in order to
manage the tension between exploration and exploitation activities.
49
As described in the previous section, the unit ULF pursues two types of organizational
ambidexterity, harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity. Regarding harmonic ambidexterity the
interviewees said that a facilitating and supporting leadership style, as well as a clear vision is
required. For example, Kees-Jan argues that bringing these two opposite types of leaders
(exploration vs. exploitation focused) together in one management team requires primarily a
facilitating role and a clear future direction. In addition, the interviewees argued that they
take care of the process by providing
the necessary resources and intervene
and make decisions when the vision gets
lost or when a conflict needs to be
solved. These descriptions of leadership
behaviour indicate that the interviewees
employ the facilitator style in order to
pursue harmonic ambidexterity. Next to
the facilitator style the interviewees also
describe a mentor style by arguing that
they employ a coaching and mentoring
style towards the new business
development parts of the unit. This
mentor style becomes apparent when
the interviewees mention that they
support their people with resources like:
teambuilding activities (‘heidesessies’),
training and education. The
interviewees also argued that a
manager needs to guide his people by
providing direction and a clear vision. For example, Bart states that leading exploration
activities requires a leader that is externally focused and is providing the necessary resources.
Thereby it is argued that the broker style is also employed in order to pursue harmonic
ambidexterity. Regarding the exploitation part of harmonic ambidexterity the interviewees
describe leadership behaviour that is focused on procedures, rules and efficiency. Moreover,
Bart said that a manager of exploitation activities is primarily internally focused on budgets,
schedules and the distribution of work. This type of leadership behaviour, described by the
interviewees, matches the monitor style, as this style is well informed and ensures that people
follow the rules and procedures.
Regarding cyclical ambidexterity the
interviewees argued that, similar to
harmonic ambidexterity, a monitor style
is needed during a period of
exploitation. On the other hand, periods
of exploration require a leadership style
that is externally focused and a style
that is providing guidance. Kees-Jan
said: ‘I now encourage people to be
more external focused on innovations
and new market opportunities and I
guide them in this process by providing
direction’. Besides, Kees-Jan said that
during an exploration period you have
to take the lead in visiting customers
and trying to convince them to get
involved in our new services or
concepts. Therefore it is argued that a
broker style is employed to pursue a
period of exploration, since this style
provides strategic direction and has a strong external focus. Regarding the transition
between a period of exploitation and exploration Kees-Jan said: ‘during the period that
many people were dismissed (last year, before the exploration period started) my leadership
style was more internally focused, trying to get the unit back on trail since there was a lot of
Figure 19: Leadership styles employed by the unit Urban
development, Legal and Finance while pursuing cyclical
ambidexterity.
Figure 18: Leadership styles employed by the unit Urban
development, Legal and Finance while pursuing harmonic
ambidexterity.
50
tension in the organization’. This leadership behaviour matches the facilitator style, as this style
involves building cohesion and teamwork and getting people involved.
Altogether, the unit ULF employs a facilitator, mentor, monitor and broker style in order to
pursue harmonic ambidexterity. Besides, while pursuing cyclical ambidexterity the unit ULF
employs a facilitator style during a transition period, a monitor style during a period of
exploitation and a broker style during a period of exploration. The leadership styles and types
of organizational ambidexterity are depicted in figure 18 and 19.
4.3.3 Additional findings
While investigating the types of organizational ambidexterity and leadership styles employed,
some additional findings were obtained. Only the findings that possibly have a relation to the
research objective are described. The following additional findings were obtained by
investigating the unit ULF.
Type of activities
The interviewees described that most people in the unit ULF perform both exploitation and
exploration activities because the work is about knowledge, ‘it is in de minds of people’.
Kees-Jan argues that it is not possible to completely separate exploitation and exploration
activities from each other as companies like Unilever or Philips do. This is also confirmed by the
other interviewees as they stated that ‘innovation takes place on the job’.
Financial accountability structure
The interviewees argued that the one-sided focus on exploitation activities in the past
resulted in a large dismissal procedure last year, more than 50 people were dismissed. At this
moment the market is still tough, governments, municipalities and private investors are all
waiting with new investments. Bart said that this pattern forced the unit ULF the last year in ‘a
phase of re-inventing itself’. According to Bart a sustainable solution for this problem can be
found in working across units, however Bart said that the current financial accountability
structure leads to an inward focus, ‘the focus is on your own unit profit and loss’.
4.4 Case results: unit Real Estate (DHV)
Based on the results obtained through interviews, observations and document research a
description is given of the type(s) of organizational ambidexterity that are pursued and the
leadership styles that are employed.
4.4.1 Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued by case
Marianne Vermijs (unit manager) confirms the tension between exploitation and exploration
activities by distinguishing two main types of activities performed by the unit Real Estate
(hereafter: RE). She argued: ‘we perform routine activities as well as innovative and new
business development activities, the difference between the two is a ‘grey area’. Both
activities require a different strategy Marianne argues. She further explains that both different
strategies require different types of people to perform these opposite activities, as well as
different leadership styles to lead these opposite activities. Furthermore, she argued that it is
good, if not to say necessary, to have a tension between exploration and exploitation
activities and the different people involved, ‘this tension keeps us sharp and focused’.
The other interviewees described that the tension between exploration and exploitation
activities becomes apparent in the continuous pressure between achieving sales targets and
developing new services and businesses.
Harmonic ambidexterity
The interviewees described that both production activities and new business development
activities are concurrently performed within the unit RE, by the same group of people. The
interviewees argued that exploration and exploitation activities cross each other all the time
between the various people in the unit. For example, Jan van Vliet (department manager)
argued: ‘everybody has an OG-target (billable hours), however this targets is different per
person’. Jan further explains that a low OG-target indicates that these people have more
time and freedom to focus on non-sales activities, for example new business development.
51
On the question why the same people in the unit RE have to perform both exploration
activities and exploitation activities, the interviewees argue that it is not possible to separate
the two. Everybody is performing exploitation and exploration activities, because separation
of these two activities will lead to
innovation that is not fuelled by the
market and thereby lead to a high
degree of failure. The interviewees further
pointed out that, due to the fact that
most people are requested by customers
based on their expertise, good name and
relation with the customer, it is not possible
to separate people in either a selling or
developing unit. On the question if
exploration and exploitation activities are
also pursued across the unit Marianne
states: ‘we are planning to do that but
these activities are in an early stage, until
now these activities take place on an ad-
hoc base’. In addition, the interviewees said
that the current accountability structure is
not yet ready for sharing exploration and
exploitation activities across units, as this structure is aimed on results per unit. This leads to a
short term focus on own unit results and is not working supportive in encouraging people to
invest resources across unit borders.
Conclusion
Based on the description of the fours types of organizational ambidexterity, as described in
paragraph 2.3.2, it is argued that the unit RE typically pursues harmonic ambidexterity. All the
interviewees described that both exploitation and exploration activities are pursued in one
unit at the same time and with the same group of people. This was most explicitly described
by Marianne as she said: ‘production activities and new business development activities are
concurrently performed within the unit RE, by the same group of people’. In addition, she said
that exploration and exploitation activities cross each other all the time between the various
people in the unit. Furthermore, it became apparent that the unit RE is not pursuing
exploitation or exploration activities across units, as Marianne said: ‘we are planning to do
that but these activities are in an early stage, until now these activities take place on an ad-
hoc base’. An interesting statement was made by Marianne as she, in of favour of harmonic
ambidexterity, argued: ‘it is good, if not to say necessary, to have a tension between
exploration and exploitation activities and the different people involved, ‘this tension keeps
us sharp and focused’. Altogether it can be argued that harmonic ambidexterity is pursued
by the unit RE, as depicted in figure 20.
4.4.2 Leadership styles employed to pursue organizational ambidexterity
The interviewees described that having the right leaders managing either exploration
activities or exploitation activities, determine if there is a balance between these opposite
activities. As described before, Marianne argued that having both exploitation activities and
exploration activities in one unit is a good thing, since it keeps people sharp and focused. In
addition, she also said: ‘when the styles of a leader do not match the type of activities that
he has to manage, problems are guaranteed’. In addition, Jan said: ‘sometimes I have to be
directive, but most of the time I have a facilitating role’. Based on these statements it can be
argued that more than one leadership style is needed. Sometimes transactional leadership
styles are needed and sometimes transformational leadership styles.
Leadership styles harmonic ambidexterity
In order to pursue both exploitation and exploration activities at the same time and in the
same unit, various leadership styles are employed. The interviewees pointed out that
entrepreneurship and having a unambiguous vision are typical characteristic that are
needed to foster new business development, while achieving budgets and sales requires a
strong focus on rules and procedures. In addition, they argued that managing exploitation
Figure 20: Type of organizational ambidexterity pursued by
the unit Real Estate.
52
activities requires a focus on internal activities like handing in timesheets, invoicing, allocating
the workload efficient as possible and controlling figures. This leadership style does not require
vision or sophisticated strategies, ‘it is all about providing a clear flow of work and monitoring
that flow of work based on the agreed targets’. Thereby this style tends to be focused on the
short term. However, this does not mean that managing exploitation activities is only about
production and efficiency, you also have to manage the ‘human facet’. The interviewees
described that this involves helping people with their career development and providing
them with the necessary education and training.
On the other hand, managing exploration activities requires that you employ leadership
behaviour focused on giving people freedom and facilitating them instead of ‘telling how to
do tings’. This is confirmed by Jan as he argues: ‘while fostering explorations you have to give
people trust, money and time to use their intellect and guide them with vision’. Furthermore,
the interviewees said that you have to encourage people, while pursuing innovations, by
coaching and supporting them with your own knowledge and expertise, ‘thereby you also
preserve legitimacy for your own leadership’. For example, Jan argued: ‘most of the time I
have a facilitating role on the background, I provide the framework, targets and direction,
within that people are almost completely free.
The interviewees also mentioned that a danger of a coaching and facilitating style is that
some people tend to display ‘hobbyisme’. In order to prevent that type of behaviour you
regularly have to point out that realising goals and serving the market demand is the ‘raison
d'être’. Jan also mentioned this ‘hobbyisme’ issue and said: ‘I prevent free-riding by being
regularly focused on production, the people need to understand that they have the freedom
to operate, but that they are also responsible to realize the agreed targets’. Recapitulating
Marianne said: ‘leading both exploitation and exploration is not a black or white thing, you
constantly have to balance between various leadership styles that are focused on control or
focused on flexibility’. Managing this balance in her unit is sometimes difficult, but the most
important thing is that you have respect for both types of activities and the involved persons
in these activities.
Conclusion
Based on the leadership styles of the CVF model, as described in paragraph 2.4.2, it is now
possible to define the leadership styles that are employed, in order to pursue harmonic
ambidexterity, by the unit RE. The interviewees indicate that various leadership styles are
needed to manage the tension between exploration and exploitation.
In order to manage exploitation
activities a focus on internal activities
like handing in timesheets, invoicing,
allocating the workload efficient as
possible and controlling figures is
needed. This leadership behaviour
matches the monitor style of the CVF
model, since this style involves a
leader that keeps track of all details
and ensures that people follow the
rules and procedures. In addition, the
interviewees argued that they
manage exploitation and exploration
activities by providing a framework,
clear flow of work, direction and
targets. This indicates that a
coordinator style is employed, as this
style is focused on maintaining and
structuring the flow of work by
defining borders, physical layout and
resources. Moreover, ‘providing direction’ indicates a broker style. This is endorsed by the
interviewees as they argued that typical characteristics to foster new business development
are entrepreneurship and having a unambiguous vision. These things are hallmarks of the
broker style, as this style involves a leader that is defining strategic direction, is external
focused and future oriented.
Figure 21: Leadership styles employed by the unit Real Estate
while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity.
53
Next to the monitor, coordinator and broker style various statements indicate that the
facilitator style and the mentor style are also employed while managing exploration and
exploitation activities on the unit RE. The mentor style becomes apparent by interviewees
arguing that managing exploitation activities is not only about production and efficiency, but
also about helping people with their career development and providing them with the
necessary education and training. Moreover, the interviewees argued that trust and respect
towards employees is a very important thing in fostering a good balance between
exploitation and exploration. This matches with the mentor style, as the influence of this
leadership style is based in mutual respect and trust. The facilitator style becomes apparent
by statements like: ‘giving people freedom and facilitating them instead of telling how to do
tings’ and ‘I have a facilitating role on the background, I provide the framework, targets and
direction, within that people are almost completely free’. These statements correspond with
the facilitator style, since this style is actively aimed at participation and openness in terms of
people and process. Jan also argued that facilitating and coaching only can lead to
‘hobbyisme’, in order to prevent that he described: ‘I prevent free-riding by being regularly
focused on production, the people need to understand that they have the freedom to
operate, but that they are also responsible to realize the agreed targets’. Marianne
described similar leadership behaviour by arguing: ‘in order to prevent that type of behaviour
you regularly have to point out that realising goals and serving the market demand is the
‘raison d'être’. This type of leadership behaviour matches with the producer style, as this style
is focused on the market and motivates people to complete their work as agreed.
Summarizing, the unit RE employs a facilitator, mentor, monitor, coordinator, broker style and
producer style in order to pursue harmonic ambidexterity. The leadership styles are depicted
in figure 21.
4.4.3 Additional findings
While investigating the types of organizational ambidexterity and leadership styles employed,
some additional findings were obtained. Only the findings that possibly have a relation to the
research objective are described. The following additional findings were obtained by
investigating the unit RE.
Type of activities
On the question why the same people in the unit RE have to perform both exploration
activities and exploitation activities, the interviewees argue that it is not possible to separate
the two. The interviewees argued that everybody is performing exploitation and exploration
activities, because separation of these two activities will lead to innovation that is not fuelled
by the market and thereby lead to a high degree of failure. Moreover, due to the fact that
most people are requested by customers based on their expertise, good name and relation
with the customer, it is not possible to separate people in either a selling or developing unit.
Jan argued: ‘in a production company that is different, it does not matter who is replacing
your tires, but in a knowledge company like DHV is does matter who is performing the
services’.
Financial accountability structure
On the question if exploration and exploitation activities are also pursued across the unit
Marianne states: ‘we are planning to do that but these activities are in an early stage, until
now these activities take place on an ad-hoc base’. However, the interviewees described
that the current accountability structure is not yet ready for sharing exploration and
exploitation activities across units, since this structure is aimed on results per unit. This leads to
a short term focus on own unit results and is not working supportive in encouraging people to
invest resources across unit borders.
Hierarchical position
The interviewees argued that the leadership styles of a leader are influenced by the
hierarchical position of the concerning leader in the organization. For example, Jan said:
‘one of my team leaders is very directive, focused on efficiency and results and that is a
good thing, because he is managing a group of people who are primarily pursuing
exploitation activities and expect this type of leadership behaviour’. However Jan argues:
‘when I would employ such a leadership style it will be come one big mess, because I also
54
have to manage people that require freedom and flexibility’. Thus, according to the
interviewees it can be argued that a different repertory of leadership styles is necessary on
the various management levels in an organization.
Changing working environment
The interviewees argued that due to changing working environments (‘thuiswerken’) a
coaching and facilitating leadership style is the most prevalent one in knowledge companies
like DHV, since controlling rules and procedures has become less possible and relevant.
4.5 Case results: Philips Incubators
Based on the results obtained through interviews, observations and document research a
description is given of the type(s) of organizational ambidexterity that are pursued and the
leadership styles that are employed.
4.5.1 Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued by case
The interview results, as well as the studied documents indicate that the tension between
exploitation and exploration activities is recognized within Philips by setting up Philips
Incubators. Warden Hoffman (HR-manager) argued: ‘due to the difference between the
established business and new business development Philips Incubators was introduced. The
goal of Philips Incubators is increasing the number of successful (radical) innovations’. In
addition, the interviewees described that people of the established business are primarily
focused on growth, efficiency and cost reduction. Opposite, people focused on new
business development are more ‘entrepreneurial’ and need to have autonomy, time and
budget while developing new products and markets. This difference in people and the
activities they are involved in, made that the past number of successful innovations was far
below target, ‘of 100 new innovations only 10 became a success’. The reason for this can be
found in the fact that the divisions - Healthcare, Consumer lifestyle and Lighting - are sales
driven and thereby tend to focus on predictable activities. This is endorsed by Alison
Moncrieff (venture manager) as she argued: ‘in the end of the day a manager of the
established business is measured and monitored by how much he can grow the next quarter.
So why draining budget and EBIT into new business development while having no clue if it will
actually pays you back’.
To put it briefly, the interviewees indicate that due to the sales driven focus of the divisions too
many innovations failed, this failure was recognized a lead twelve years ago to a separate
approach of managing the tension between exploitation and exploration. Per division -
Healthcare, Consumer lifestyle and Lighting - an incubator was established. The interviewees
explained that the purpose of these incubators is pursuing new products, technologies and
markets. Setting up a venture in these incubators is initiated by ideas or inventions of Philips
R&D, the divisions itself or external entrepreneurs and companies. Thereby external venturing,
as well as internal venturing is performed in order to pursue radical innovations and
incremental innovations.
Partitional ambidexterity
The interviewees described that pursuing exploitation and exploration activities across units is
done simultaneously and sequentially, depending on the market, type of product and the
type of innovation that is needed. As an example of partitional ambidexterity Warden
describes the incubator consumer lifestyle. Since the consumer lifestyle market has a very
short product lifecycle both exploration and exploitation activities are simultaneously
pursued. Warden further explained, inventing a new shaver is done within a venture
(exploration unit) and launched on the market by the division Consumer lifestyle (exploitation
unit). Shortly after the launching this new product, the division will ask the venture to come up
with a revised version of the shaver or with version 2, 3, etc. Thus, there is a constant
interaction between both separate units. Thereby exploitation and exploration activities are
pursued simultaneously and across units. In addition, the interviewees described that the
ventures of the three incubators have different management teams, structures, cultures,
procedures, rules and reward systems than the divisions. The structure, procedures, rules and
55
systems within the ventures are focused on trust and freedom. Contrary, the divisions are
completely focused on, achieving sales targets, efficiency and minimizing risks.
Furthermore, the interviewees described that depending on the type of product and market
a venture will come to an end at a certain moment (lifetime between 2-10 years) in time. At
this point the new products or markets will become part of one of the division or will be sold.
In order to guide this merger between the venture and the division a stage-gate framework
(combination of the S-curve and Bell Manson method) is used, as described in the Philips
corporate venturing policy paper and the Philips stage-gate model paper. Besides, every
division and venture combination has from its early start-up a ‘development or advisory
board’ which consists out of people from the venture and people from the division(s).
Thereby isolation between the exploration and exploitation activities is prevented by having
the specific division involved in the new product or market development activities.
Reciprocal ambidexterity
Next to pursuing exploration and exploitation activities simultaneously, both activities are also
pursued sequentially. As described in the previous section, pursuing exploitation and
exploration activities across units is done simultaneously and sequentially, depending on the
market, type of product and the type of innovation that is needed. The interviewees argued
that while partitional ambidexterity primarily occurs in the consumer lifestyle market,
reciprocal ambidexterity primarily takes place in the healthcare market. New healthcare
products or markets require most of the time very long (pre)research periods and many
stages of development and testing. This is endorsed by Steve Seuntjens (venture portfolio
manager) as he argued: ‘the development of a healthcare ‘seeds’ can take a few years’.
Warden further explains: ‘new healthcare products and markets have a long period of
exploration due to extensive research and testing activities’. After a long period of
exploration the new products will be exploited following the last stage of the stage-gate
framework, as described in the Philips corporate venturing policy paper and the Philips stage-
gate model paper. In addition, the interviewees described that most of the new products
and markets are radical inventions, thereby exploitation activities can only be pursued after a
long period of exploration. Moreover, when a new healthcare product is being exploited by
the division, customers will demand adjustments or revised versions. In this case the venture
will again start a (long) period of exploration – research, development and testing – and will
after this period deliver the new products to the specific division. The main difference
between partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity at Philips Incubators is determined by the
duration of the product lifecycle. Reciprocal ambidexterity is typical pursued with respect to
healthcare activities due to the long research, development and testing times required. The
Lighting incubator is, similar to the Consumer lifestyle incubator, primarily pursuing partitional
ambidexterity.
Conclusion
Based on the description of the fours types
of organizational ambidexterity, as
described in paragraph 2.3.2, it is argued
that Philips Incubators pursues partitional
and reciprocal ambidexterity. By carrying
out both exploitation and exploration
activities in separate units, simultaneously
and sequentially, it is obvious that partitional
and reciprocal ambidexterity is pursued. This
is endorsed by Alison as she argues: ‘Philips
recognized that separate units for
explorations where needed, away from the
whole over-processed and well-structured
established organization to leave them
alone in a bit of a ‘glass bubble’ to pursue
explorations on an entrepreneurial way’.
As described, there are three incubators, one
per division: Healthcare, Consumer lifestyle and Lighting. The purpose of these incubators is
pursuing new products, technologies and markets. The interviewees described that the
Figure 22: Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued
by Philips Incubators.
56
ventures of the three incubators have different management teams, structures, cultures,
procedures, rules and reward systems than the divisions. The structure, procedures, rules and
systems of the incubators are primarily focused on trust and freedom, instead of the division
structure, procedures, rules and reward systems that are focused on, achieving sales targets,
efficiency and minimizing risks. This difference in structure, procedures, rules and culture is a
typical hallmark of partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity, since these types of
organizational ambidexterity pursue exploration and exploitation activities separately. The
reason why Philips separated these activities has to do with the different types people
(exploration or exploitation focused) involved and the corresponding procedures, rules and
culture. This is most clearly described by Steve as he argues: ‘exploration activities require a
very different leadership style and type of people than exploitation activities due to the
different business model behind both activities’. Furthermore, by using a stage-gate method
and establishing development and advisory boards the connection between the separate
units is secured. This matches with the description by Simsek et al. (2009) of creating a ‘shared
vision’ between separate exploitation and exploration units. As described, the difference
between partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity at Philips Incubators is determined by the
duration of the product lifecycle, thus the market in combination with the type of product.
Reciprocal ambidexterity is typical pursued with respect to healthcare activities due to the
long research, development and testing times required. Whereas partitional ambidexterity is
primarily pursued with respect to consumer lifestyle activities, because most of these products
have a very short product lifecycle. As a consequence of the short product lifecycle, both
exploration and exploitation activities are pursued simultaneously. The Lighting incubator is,
similar to the Consumer lifestyle incubator, primarily pursuing partitional ambidexterity.
Altogether it can be argued that partitional ambidexterity and reciprocal ambidexterity are
both pursued by Philips Incubators, as depicted in figure 22.
4.5.2 Leadership styles employed to pursue organizational ambidexterity
The interviewees argued that employing the right combination of leadership styles is probably
the most important condition while managing the tension between exploration and
exploitation activities. This is confirmed by Warden as he argues: ‘managing exploitation and
exploration activities requires a continue change between leadership behaviour of the
involved managers’. In addition, Steve points out: ‘nowadays managers need to be multi-
disciplinary, by employing various leadership behaviours on different moments’.
Corina Kuiper (senior manager) for example argued: ‘the difference between exploitation
and exploration activities becomes apparent in different types of people and different styles
of leadership’. These statements point out that a combination of transactional and
transformational leadership styles is needed.
Leadership styles partitional ambidexterity
On the question which leadership styles are employed to manage the tension between
exploration and exploitation activities, the interviewees answered that different styles are
used in different situations. The interviewees explained that due to the different business
models behind exploitation and exploration activities you need to have different leadership
styles. Managing exploitation requires a focus on efficiency, cost cutting, security (legislation,
safe products) and minimizing risks. This is all worked out a long time ago and it works very well
in order to realize sales targets. On the other hand, while managing exploration activities, it
might be in the beginning not very obvious were the new product is going to land and how
the business model will be, etc. Therefore these leaders need to be flexible and give people
trust, commitment, openness even when things are very unpredictable and guidance by
having a vision’. In addition, Alison argued: ‘that’s why leaders of ventures never want to
work in the established organization, because their entrepreneurial flair will be squashed by
the risk advert people who will ask them: ‘how much are you going to make in 5 years time’,
‘what is your prediction for the sales volumes of next year’, ‘what are your key KPIs for going
to the market’, etc’. Thus, there is a big ‘mindset’ difference between leaders and leadership
styles needed to pursue either exploitation or exploration activities.
In addition, the interviewees also argue that a collaborative style is needed in order to
prevent isolation between exploitation and exploration activities. This is endorsed by Steve as
he argues: ‘managing both explorations and exploitation activities requires you to be the
‘king of stakeholder management’, this means securing a handshake between the
57
established business (exploitation) and the ventures (exploration) in order to make both
responsible for delivering up’. The interviewees further indicate that next to employing a
collaborative leadership, managers also need to be ‘rigorous’, since at the end of the day
you have to lead the group. This requires a leadership style that is focused on stability, an
efficient process and clear procedures and rules. In addition, Corina said: ‘managing your
key operational details is central because they make the difference when your actuals come
in at the end of the quarter’.
Leadership styles reciprocal ambidexterity
The difference between reciprocal and partitional ambidexterity lies in the duration of the
product lifecycles involved, as well as the type of innovation that is needed. As described
previous, the Consumer lifestyle incubator is primarily pursuing partitional ambidexterity due to
the short product lifecycles. While on the other hand the Healthcare incubator primarily
pursues reciprocal ambidexterity due to the long product lifecycles. In addition, the
interviewees described that, because of the long development and testing periods and the
type of market most new healthcare products are developed completely outside the
company. Therefore the focus of both exploitation and exploration units is mainly externally.
On the question whether partitional ambidexterity (simultaneous) and reciprocal
ambidexterity (sequential) require different leadership styles, the interviewees answered
affirmative. The interviewees described that the differences between the two lies in either a
more internally or externally focus of the involved leaders. Furthermore, they argued that
pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity requires, during periods of new product development
(exploration), a leadership style that is focused on innovation, creativity, flexibility and also
acquiring support, budget and people in order to develop the new products. During periods
of exploitation this leadership style is more externally focused through setting goals and
defining procedures and rules based on what is needed to achieve the targets in the
particular market and to realize joint learning between the separate units. Steve argued that
establishing ‘joint learning’ between separate units is very important, otherwise the aim of
separating activities gets lost. He further argued: ‘joint learning can be achieved by
employing ambiguous leadership, this is very difficult and not comfortable for a leader’.
The difference between more internally or externally focused leadership styles, depends on
whether external or internal venturing is pursued. As described previous, internal venturing is
employed in order to realize incremental innovations (initiated by Philips R&D or the division)
and external venturing (inventions from external entrepreneurs and companies) in order to
realize radical innovations.
Conclusion
Based on the leadership styles of the
CVF model, as described in paragraph
2.4.2, it is now possible to define the
leadership styles that are employed, in
order to pursue partitional and
reciprocal ambidexterity. The
interviewees indicate that various
leadership styles are necessary while
managing the tension between
exploration and exploitation. To be
more specific, the interviewees
described that managing exploration
activities requires a rigorous leadership
style that is focused on efficiency, cost
cutting, security and minimizing risks. In
addition, the interviewees described
that a focused on stability, an efficient
process and clear procedures and
rules are central things while
managing your key operational
details. On the other hand the interviewees described that pursuing exploration requires a
different approach. The interviewees indicated that flexibility, giving people trust,
Figure 23: Leadership styles employed by Philips incubators
while pursuing partitional ambidexterity.
58
commitment, openness, guidance and having a vision are very important while pursuing
exploration activities. However, as described in the previous section, Philips Incubators
pursues two types of organizational ambidexterity, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity.
The interviewees argued that the difference between the two can be found in the duration
of the product lifecycle and the type of innovation that is pursued. Partitional ambidexterity is
primarily pursued by performing internal venturing in order to realize incremental innovations.
Contrary, reciprocal ambidexterity is primarily pursued by external venturing and is initiated
by radical innovations from external entrepreneurs and companies. In this situation the focus
is primarily externally. The latter one occurs most of the time in the Healthcare incubator,
were innovations have long periods of exploration (research, development and testing) and
also long periods of exploitation.
Based on difference between a more
internal or external focus, it is now
possible to define which leadership
styles are needed to pursue both types
of organizational ambidexterity.
Regarding partitional ambidexterity it
is argued that a director style is
employed, since this style involves
achieving goals (‘sales targets’) by
defining tasks, procedures and rules in
order to realize efficiency and
minimization of risks. This is endorsed by
the interviewees as they argued that
managing exploitation requires a
focus on efficiency, cost cutting,
setting up product roadmaps,
planning and defining sales targets. In
addition, the interviewees described
that this is a leader who introduces clear tasks, rules and procedures in order to become ‘a
good sales machine’. Next to the director style, the mentor style is employed since this style is
based on mutual respect, trust, commitment and fairness. The interviewees argued that these
characteristics are very important while managing exploration and exploitation activities
simultaneously. Furthermore, the broker style is employed in order to pursue exploration
activities and prevent isolation between exploitation and exploration activities. This is most
explicitly endorsed by the interviewees as they argued that a manager who is leading
exploration activities needs to employ a collaborative style and needs to be the ‘king of
stakeholder management’.
Reciprocal ambidexterity requires almost the same leadership styles. However, the difference
comes in when this type of organizational ambidexterity is explicitly used to pursue radical
innovations. In this situation there is a strong external focus. The interviewees argued that in
this case, exploration activities need to be managed by a leadership style that is focused on
innovation, creativity, flexibility and also acquiring support, budget and people. This indicates
that an innovator and broker style is needed, since these styles are focused on creativity and
acquiring support and resources. Furthermore, during periods of exploitation the leadership
style is also more external focused, through setting goals and defining procedures and rules
based on what is needed to achieve the targets in a particular market and to realize ‘joint
learning’ between the separate units. This joint learning corresponds with the ‘reciprocal
information flows’ between explorative and exploitative units, as described in chapter two.
Based on this leadership behaviour it is argued that the producer style is employed instead of
the director style, because the latter one is more internally focused. The leadership styles and
types of organizational ambidexterity are depicted in figure 23 and 24.
Figure 24: Leadership styles employed by Philips incubators
while pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity.
59
4.5.3 Additional findings
While investigating the types of organizational ambidexterity and leadership styles employed,
some additional findings were obtained. Only the findings that possibly have a relation to the
research objective are described. The following additional findings were obtained by
investigating Philips Incubators.
Shareholders influence
The interviewees described that the pressure of the shareholders lead to a focus on short term
results. Thereby the principal concern of managers of the established organization (divisions)
is focused on ‘do we make the next quarter’ and not on new business development.
This is endorsed by Alison as she argued: ‘in the end of the day a manager of the established
business is measured and monitored by how much he can grow the next quarter. So why
draining budget and EBIT into new business development while having no clue if it will
actually pays you back. Besides, an established business manager is getting a bonus based
on whether he/she delivers the agreed profit and sales’.
Stage-gate model
The interviewees argued that employing the right combination of leadership styles is probably
the most important condition while managing the tension between exploration and
exploitation activities. Guiding the tension between
explorative and exploitative leadership is done by
using the stage-gate model. The stage-gate model
as depicted in figure 25, shows that three different
leadership styles are needed in order to manage
the tension between exploitation and exploration.
Warden explains, the first leadership style (A) is
primarily focused on innovation and creativity. The
second leadership style (B) is primarily focused on
establishing relations with the market, defining the
direction of the new developed product and is
more engaged in the human-side of the people
involved. The third leadership style (C) is focused on
setting up a product roadmap, planning and
defining sales targets. This is also the leader who
introduces clear tasks, rules and procedures in
order to become a good ‘sales machine’.
Figure 25: Philips stage-gate model (source: Philips
stage-gate model paper).
60
5. Analyses and hypotheses
5.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the differences and similarities between the results of the investigated
cases, as well as between the theory and practice combinations of leadership styles and
types of organizational ambidexterity. Furthermore, the contribution to the organizational
ambidexterity theory is described and hypotheses are defined for further research. This is
done under the guidance of the analytical research questions as defined in paragraph 1.5.
The main analytical question (see below) is answered in paragraph 5.5. Before answering this
main question, paragraph 5.2 up to 5.4 describes the differences and similarities between the
four cases, the theory and practice combinations of leadership styles and types of
organizational ambidexterity, as well as a conclusion on the additional findings.
The chapter concludes by describing the limitations of this research (5.6) and a reflection on
this research (5.7).
The main and sub analytical questions that are answered in this chapter are:
What are the most important differences and similarities between the theoretical
combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity and the
combinations used in practice at engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal
Philips Electronics, as well as the most important differences and similarities between the
results of the exploratory study at engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal
Philips Electronics?
• What are the most important differences and similarities between the results of the
four investigated cases at both engineering and consultancy company DHV and
Royal Philips Electronics?
• To which extent do the proposed theoretical combinations of leadership styles and
types of organizational ambidexterity correspond with the combinations in practice at
engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics?
• Which leadership styles do best support the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional,
reciprocal - of ambidexterity, based on the theoretical research and exploratory study
in practice engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics?
5.2 Differences and similarities between the four investigated cases
In this paragraph the differences and similarities are described between the four investigated
cases on the combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity.
Based on the results of the empirical research, as described in chapter four, the following
differences and similarities between the four cases are distinguished.
61
Case
Type of OA
Unit Asset and
Information
Management
Unit Urban
development,
Legal and
Finance
Unit Real Estate Philips
Incubators
Harmonic
ambidexterity
mentor,
facilitator,
monitor and
broker style
mentor,
facilitator,
monitor and
broker style
mentor,
facilitator,
monitor,
coordinator,
producer and
broker style
N/A**
Cyclical
ambidexterity N/A
facilitator,
monitor and
broker style
N/A N/A
Partitional
ambidexterity
mentor and
broker style N/A N/A
mentor, broker
and director
style
Reciprocal
ambidexterity N/A N/A N/A
innovator, broker
and producer
style
Table 4: Leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity per case (**N/A indicates: ‘Not Applicable’).
General differences and similarities
As depicted in the table above, some general differences and similarities can be
distinguished. First, it becomes apparent that all four cases employ more than one leadership
style while pursuing the four types of organizational ambidexterity. As can be seen in table 4,
at least a combination of two or more leadership styles is needed and one of the cases was
even employing a combination of six leadership styles. This indicates that a degree of
behavioural complexity (see also section 2.5.1) is needed in order to balance the tension
between exploitation and exploration activities. Second, the investigation in practice
revealed that every case, except one, is pursuing more than one type of organizational
ambidexterity. Thus, it is argued that units within organizations prevail to pursue a combination
of the four types of organizational ambidexterity and that you can thereby also speak of
‘hybrid types of organizational ambidexterity’, instead of four individual types of
organizational ambidexterity. Third, all three cases at engineering and consultancy company
DHV pursue harmonic ambidexterity, while the case at Royal Philips Electronics does not, due
to the separate approach of this case. This is in line with the theory of organizational
ambidexterity (see paragraph 2.3.2), that describes that primarily highly technologically-
oriented organizations pursue partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity. However, this was just
partly confirmed by the investigation in practice, because the unit Asset and Information
Management is next to Philips Incubators also pursuing partitional ambidexterity. Despite, it
can be argued that only one of the three non-technology oriented units is pursuing a type of
organizational ambidexterity that separates exploitation and exploration activities across
units. This demonstrates that in accordance with the theory, reciprocal and partitional
ambidexterity is primarily pursued by technologically-oriented units.
Differences and similarities per type of organizational ambidexterity
While comparing the four cases it becomes apparent that there are some significant
differences and similarities between the leadership styles employed in order to pursue
organizational ambidexterity. In this section these differences and similarities are described
per type of organizational ambidexterity.
1. Harmonic ambidexterity: table four illustrates that harmonic ambidexterity is only
pursued by the cases at engineering and consultancy company DHV. All three DHV
cases employ the mentor, facilitator, broker and monitor style while pursuing harmonic
ambidexterity. This indicates that these three leadership styles are prevailing in
practice while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. The biggest difference between the
three cases is that the unit Real Estate is employing a slightly different combination of
leadership styles. Next to the mentor, facilitator, monitor style and broker style they
62
also employ a coordinator and producer style. This indicates that the leaders of this
case have a stronger focus on external goal accomplishment (producer style) than
the other two cases. Furthermore, their influence as a leader is determined by
maintaining and structuring the flow of work, defining borders and physical layout and
reallocating resources (coordinator style). Moreover, two of the three cases that
pursue harmonic ambidexterity, also perform a second type of organizational
ambidexterity. It is remarkable that both types of organizational ambidexterity are
pursued by employing the same types of leadership styles, only the combination of
leadership styles is different. In other words, the results show that the type of
organizational ambidexterity that is pursued, next to harmonic ambidexterity, does
not require additional leadership styles. This might indicate that within a unit the same
combination of leadership styles is employed to pursue various types of organizational
ambidexterity, despite the structural or temporal differences.
2. Cyclical ambidexterity: the most appealing finding while comparing this type of
organizational ambidexterity is that, as described above, the case ‘unit Urban
development, Legal and Finance’ is not employing additional leadership styles, in
order to pursue cyclical ambidexterity next to harmonic ambidexterity.
3. Partitional ambidexterity: this type of organizational ambidexterity is pursued by two
cases, the unit Asset and Information Management (hereafter: AIM) and Philips
Incubators. Comparing the two cases, it shows that they both use the mentor and
broker style. Moreover, the leaders of both cases employ leadership behavior that is
focused on mutual respect, trust, commitment and encouraging people to develop
themselves by looking beyond borders (mentor style). Moreover, they employ a
leadership style that is focused on where the organization is going, as well as spanning
boundaries, maintaining external legitimacy and obtaining resources (broker style). It
can be argued that these two leadership styles are prevailing while pursuing separate
exploitation and exploration activities at the same time. The difference between the
two is that Philips Incubators is employing a director style next to the mentor and
broker style. This points out that the leaders of Philips Incubators manage the process
in such a way that goals are clear, communicated, rules/policies are defined,
applied, and expectations are clarified across units. Thus, compared to the unit AIM,
at Philips Incubators there is more attention towards controlling the process, as well as
a more external focus. In addition, similar to the case ‘unit Urban development, Legal
and Finance’ this type of organizational ambidexterity is also pursued with some of the
same types of leadership styles that were employed while pursuing harmonic
ambidexterity. Thus, no additional leadership styles were employed to perform two
different types of organizational ambidexterity. Which might indicate that within a unit
the same combination of leadership styles is employed to pursue various types of
organizational ambidexterity, despite the structural or temporal differences.
4. Reciprocal ambidexterity: only the case ‘Philips Incubators’ is pursuing this type of
organizational ambidexterity, therefore it is not possible to compare this type of
organizational ambidexterity with other cases. However, it is possible to compare this
type of organizational ambidexterity with the other type of organizational
ambidexterity that the case Philips Incubators pursues, partitional ambidexterity. The
results of the investigation in practice indicate that both types of organizational
ambidexterity require almost the same leadership styles. However, the difference
between the two is that reciprocal ambidexterity is explicitly used to pursue radical
innovations. In this situation there is a strong external focus, with emphasis on
innovation, creativity, flexibility and also acquiring support, budget and people. This
strong focus and emphasis explains the use of the innovator, broker and producer
style, instead of the leadership styles that are employed while pursuing partitional
ambidexterity, since these leadership styles have a strong external focus.
Differences and similarities leadership styles
This section describes the differences and similarities between the leadership styles that are
employed while pursuing the four types of organizational ambidexterity. Per leadership style a
short description is given of the differences and similarities between the four types of
organizational ambidexterity and the four cases.
63
1. Mentor style: all four cases employed this leadership style while pursuing
organizational ambidexterity. It is remarkable that this leadership style is only
employed while pursuing exploration and exploitation activities simultaneously. It is
argued that this indicates that the mentor style is a typical leadership style that is
needed while pursuing harmonic or partitional ambidexterity.
2. Facilitator style: this style is employed by all three cases at engineering and
consultancy company DHV, while pursuing exploration and exploitation activities
within one unit. So, this leadership style is not used in order to manage exploration and
exploitation activities across units. Therefore, based on the results, it is argued that the
facilitator style is required while pursuing harmonic or cyclical ambidexterity. Pursuing
both activities across units - partitional or reciprocal ambidexterity - does not
necessarily require a facilitator style.
3. Innovator style: this style is only employed by the case ‘Philips Incubators’ while
pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity. Due to the strong external focus and attention
towards innovation, creativity and flexibility the innovator leadership style is employed.
This style was not found by the other cases, most of the time the broker style was used
instead to pursue flexibility and an external focus.
4. Broker style: every case, irrespectively of the type of organizational ambidexterity, is
employing a broker style. This indicates that employing a broker style is a necessary
condition while managing the tension between exploitation and exploration activities.
Thereby it is argued that, either exploitation and exploration activities are managed
within or across units, simultaneously or sequentially a broker style is always required.
5. Monitor style: this leadership style is only employed by the three cases of engineering
and consultancy company DHV, while pursuing exploration and exploitation activities
within one unit. So, this leadership style is not used in order to manage exploration and
exploitation activities across units. Therefore, based on the results, it is argued that the
monitor style is required while pursuing harmonic or cyclical ambidexterity. Pursuing
both activities across units - partitional or reciprocal ambidexterity - does not
necessarily require a monitor style.
6. Coordinator style: the case ‘unit Real Estate’ employs this type of leadership style
while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. Since their managers are explicitly providing
frameworks, clear flows of work, direction and targets towards their employees. None
of the other cases employed this leadership style.
7. Producer style: this leadership style is employed by the case ‘unit Real Estate’ in order
to pursue harmonic ambidexterity and by the case ‘Philips Incubators’ while pursuing
reciprocal ambidexterity. This is remarkable since both types of organizational
ambidexterity are completely opposite types. However, the results indicate that a
producer style is required to manage these different types of organizational
ambidexterity. An explanation for this can probably be found in the fact that the
producer style is strongly external focused, as well as both cases.
8. Director style: this leadership style is only employed by the case ‘Philips Incubators’
while pursuing partitional ambidexterity. The other case -‘unit Asset and Information
Management’- that pursues partitional ambidexterity does not employ the director
style. An explanation for this can probably be found in the external focus of the case
‘Philips Incubators’, which matches the external focus of the director style. All the
other cases are more internally focused and employ a monitor or coordinator style
instead.
5.3 Differences and similarities between theoretical model and investigation in
practice
In this paragraph the differences and similarities are described between the proposed
theoretical combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity
(described in chapter two) and the combinations found in practice at engineering and
consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics.
Figure 26 depicts the differences (in red) and similarities (in black) between the theoretical
model and the model based on the investigations in practice. Leadership styles that were not
proposed in the theoretical model, but were found in practice are colored red. Leadership
64
Figure 26: Differences and similarities between theoretical model and the results of the investigation in practice.
styles that were proposed in the theoretical model but were not confirmed by the
investigation in practice are also colored red and crossed out.
General differences and similarities
Based on the results, depicted in the above figure, some general differences and similarities
can be distinguished. First, the investigation in practice confirmed most of the leadership
styles that were proposed in the theoretical model, eight of the twelve leadership styles were
confirmed. Second, as depicted in figure 26 with a red colour, the investigation revealed that
additional or different leadership styles were employed in practice to pursue the four types of
organizational ambidexterity. These are valuable findings since they can help to improve the
theoretical model. Third, the combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational
ambidexterity that were found in practice, confirmed the theoretical reasoning that various
leadership styles are needed while pursuing the four types of organizational ambidexterity.
Moreover, all types of organizational ambidexterity require roughly a combination of three
leadership styles, except harmonic ambidexterity. This type of organizational ambidexterity
requires a broad set of leadership styles. This points out that a high degree of behavioral
complexity is needed while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity.
Differences and similarities per type of organizational ambidexterity
While comparing the proposed theoretical combinations of leadership styles and types of
organizational ambidexterity and the combinations found in practice, it becomes apparent
that there are some significant differences and similarities. In this section these differences
and similarities are described per type of organizational ambidexterity.
1. Harmonic ambidexterity: both the monitor and mentor leadership styles were
suggested in the theoretical model and were also found in practice. Thereby it can
be argued that both styles are appropriate while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity.
Moreover, this reasoning is strengthened by the fact that all three cases that pursue
harmonic ambidexterity were employing these two leadership styles. The differences
between the theoretical combinations and the combinations found in practice,
become apparent by the fact that the cases do not employ an innovative leadership
style, instead they employ a broker style. Thus, a style that is less focused on
innovations and being creative and more focused on providing strategic direction on
where the organization is going and focused on future possibilities, disseminating
knowledge, obtaining resources and maintaining legitimacy. In addition, the results
also indicate that a facilitator, coordinator and producer style is employed in
practice. The facilitator style becomes apparent in supporting and involving people,
as well as building cohesion and teamwork. This takes place within the structure,
physical layout and framework determined by the involved leader(s). Moreover, a
focus on the market is important in order to increase production and realize goals, as
65
this is the ‘raison d'être’. Altogether, it can be argued that leaders in a harmonic
context need to display behavioural complexity (see also section 2.5.1), in order to
balance the tension between exploitation and exploration activities. The number of
leadership styles managers need to employ, in order to pursue harmonic
ambidexterity is more varied in practice, than was proposed in the theoretical model.
2. Cyclical ambidexterity: the investigation in practice confirmed the facilitator and
monitor leadership styles. The facilitator style was proposed in the theoretical model as
the most appropriate leadership style in order to manage the transition between
periods of exploitation and periods of exploration. In practice this leadership style is
also found in order to manage the transition between the two periods. The monitor
style is employed in practice during periods of exploitation, this was also proposed in
the theoretical model. Based on this similarity it can be argued that both styles are
prevailing while pursuing cyclical ambidexterity. The results of the investigation in
practice further indicate that the broker style is required during periods of exploration,
instead of an innovator style. Thus, in practice leaders are more focused on where the
organization is going, future possibilities, disseminating knowledge, obtaining resources
and maintaining legitimacy, instead of being creative, generating new inventions.
3. Partitional ambidexterity: the broker and the director leadership styles are both
employed in practice while pursuing partitional ambidexterity. This matches the
theory, since the broker style is employed in practice in order to manage exploration
activities and prevent isolation between exploitation and exploration activities.
Similarly, the director style is employed in practice to manage the exploitation
activities by defining clear goals, rules/policies and clarified expectations across units.
This corresponds with the suggestions in the theoretical model regarding exploitation
activities, while pursuing partitional ambidexterity. The results of the investigation in
practice further indicate, that partitional ambidexterity does not require a coordinator
style but a mentor style, next to a broker and director style. Hence, a transformational
leadership style, instead of a transactional leadership style. Maintaining and
structuring the flow of work, providing physical layout, as well as managing schedules
is less important. Instead, being empathic, trustable, approachable and supportive in
encouraging people to develop themselves is more important while pursuing
partitional ambidexterity.
4. Reciprocal ambidexterity: the investigation in practice confirmed the use of the
broker and producer leadership styles while pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity. As
proposed in the theoretical model the broker style is employed to manage
exploration activities and the producer style is employed to manage exploitation
activities and to enable a ‘reciprocal information flow’ between the separate units.
However, there are also some differences between the theoretical combinations and
the combinations found in practice. The investigation in practice indicates that
pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity requires an innovator style next to a broker style,
during periods of exploration. Thereby it can be argued that the results in practice
indicate that a strong external focus is needed in combination with an emphasis on
flexibility, innovation, creativity, and also acquiring support and resources. The
coordinator style was not found during the investigation in practice.
Differences and similarities leadership styles
This section describes the differences and similarities between the proposed theoretical
leadership styles per type of organizational ambidexterity and the leadership styles that were
found in practice. Per leadership style a short description is given of the differences and
similarities between the theoretical model and the results of the investigation in practice.
1. Mentor style: in the theoretical model this leadership style was only proposed as a
leadership style needed to pursue harmonic ambidexterity. However, the investigation
in practice revealed that two cases also employ this leadership style while pursuing
partitional ambidexterity. This indicates that the mentor style is a typical leadership
style that is needed while pursuing exploitation and exploration activities
simultaneously.
2. Facilitator style: this style was proposed in the theoretical model as the most
appropriate leadership style in order to manage the transition between periods of
exploitation and periods of exploration within one unit, cyclical ambidexterity. In
66
practice this leadership style is also found in order to manage the transition between
the two periods within one unit. Moreover, this style is also employed in practice while
pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. The latter was not proposed in the theoretical
model. These results indicate that the facilitator style is a prevailing style while
managing exploration and exploitation activities within one unit.
3. Innovator style: in the theoretical model this leadership style was proposed as a style
that needs to be employed in order to manage exploration activities, while pursuing
harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity. Both were not confirmed in practice, instead
the broker style was employed in order to purse exploration activities. The innovator
style is only employed in practice while pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity. These
results indicate that the innovator style is not specifically a leadership style that is
needed when exploration and exploitation activities are pursued in one unit.
4. Broker style: in the theoretical model this leadership style was proposed as a
leadership style that needs to be employed while pursuing partitional and reciprocal
ambidexterity. This was confirmed in practice. On top of that, this leadership style was
also employed while pursuing harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity. This indicates that
employing a broker style is a necessary condition while managing the tension
between exploitation and exploration activities.
5. Monitor style: this style was proposed as a leadership style that is required while
pursuing harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity. This was confirmed by the investigation
in practice. In particular this leadership style is employed while pursuing harmonic
ambidexterity, since three cases that pursue harmonic ambidexterity employed this
leadership style. This indicates that the monitor style is an appropriate leadership style
while pursuing exploitation and exploration activities within one unit.
6. Coordinator style: in the theoretical model this leadership style was proposed as the
most appropriate leadership style while pursuing partitional and reciprocal
ambidexterity. However, the use of this leadership style for both types of
organizational ambidexterity was not confirmed by the investigation in practice. The
coordinator style is just employed by one case while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity.
7. Producer style: this style was proposed as the most appropriate leadership style in
order to manage exploitation activities, while pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity. This is
confirmed by the investigation in practice. Moreover, this style is in practice also used
while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. The latter was not proposed in the theoretical
model.
8. Director style: this style was proposed as the most appropriate leadership style in order
to manage exploitation activities, while pursuing partitional ambidexterity. The
investigation in practice confirmed this partly, since only one of the two cases that are
pursuing partitional ambidexterity employs this leadership style.
5.4 Conclusion on the additional findings
This paragraph provides a conclusion on the additional findings, described per case in
chapter four, that were obtained while investigating the types of organizational
ambidexterity and leadership styles employed. Only the findings that possibly have a relation
to the research objective are described.
After comparing the four cases, the additional results can be categorized into seven factors
that might have an affect on the combinations of leadership styles and types of
organizational ambidexterity.
1. Market influence and organizational ambidexterity: various interviewees argued that
market circumstances heavily influence the leadership styles employed, as well as the
type of organizational ambidexterity that is pursued. For example, one of the
interviewees argued: ‘the last few years during the crisis every ‘stone has to be lifted’
which lead to a control-focused leadership style’.
2. Type of activities: interviewees of all three cases at engineering and consultancy
company DHV argued that it is not completely possible to separate exploitation and
exploration activities. According to the interviewees, the reason for this can be found
in the fact that DHV is a company that sells services instead of products. The work is
about knowledge. Most of the time exploration activities take place on the job, in
67
order to prevent developing new services that does not fit the market. Therefore, the
interviewees argued, that a knowledge company like DHV always need to employ
other leadership styles than a product company like Philips or Unilever. Moreover the
interviewees of the case Philips Incubators argued that different types of innovation
(activities) also require different leadership styles, as well as different structures. They
distinguished incremental and radical innovations.
3. Financial accountability structure: the interviewees of all three cases at engineering
and consultancy company DHV described that working across units does not go that
smoothly all the time, due to the current financial accountability structure. This
structure is stimulating an ‘inward focus’ on your own unit results and is thereby not
working supportively in encouraging people to invest resources across unit borders.
4. Hierarchical position: the interviewees argued that the leadership styles of a leader
are influenced by the hierarchical position of the concerning leader in the
organization. For example, a team leader of a production team needs to employ
primarily a leadership style that is focused on efficiency and results. While a
department or unit manager, who is managing various teams, needs to employ
leadership styles that are focused on efficiency and result, but also freedom, flexibility
and creativity. Thus, according to the interviewees, it can be argued that a different
repertory of leadership styles is necessary on the various management levels in an
organization.
5. Changing work environment: one of the interviewees described that due to the
changing working environment (‘thuiswerken’) a coaching and facilitating leadership
role is the most prevalent one in knowledge companies like DHV, since controlling
rules and procedures has become less possible and relevant.
6. Shareholders influence: the interviewees of the case Philips Incubators described that
the pressure of the shareholders lead to a focus on short term results. The principal
concern of managers of the established organization (divisions) is focused on ‘do we
make the next quarter’ and not on new business development. Thereby the
interviewees argued that a public listed company like Philips is in favor of external and
result oriented leadership styles (producer and director style) instead of other
leadership styles.
7. Stage-gate model: guiding the tension between explorative and exploitative
leadership at Philips Incubators is done by using a stage-gate model. The stage-gate
model as depicted in figure 25, shows that three different leadership styles are
needed in order to manage the tension between exploitation and exploration.
Based on the results it is argued that these additional findings can affect the leadership styles
that need to be employed in order to pursue the four types of organizational ambidexterity.
After comparing the seven above described factors it was found that they can be further
categorized. It is argued that market influence (1), changing work environment (3) and
shareholders influence (6) can be labelled as external influences on an organization,
organizations can only anticipate and react on these factors. Contrary, it is argued that the
other factors are influenced by how the organization is organized. The type of activities (2),
the financial accountability structure (3), the hierarchical positions (4) and the use of stage-
gate models (7) are factors that can be ‘tuned’ by organizations through changing,
organizing or applying them. Based on this difference between the various findings two main
types of factors can be distinguished: external factors and internal factors.
External factors Internal factors
Market influence Type of activities
Changing work environment Financial accountability structure
Shareholders influence Hierarchical position
Stage-gate models
Table 5: External and internal factors that might influence the combinations of leadership styles and types of
organizational ambidexterity.
Although this research is focused on investigating which leadership styles are needed in order
to pursue the four types of organizational ambidexterity, it is argued that the above
68
described external and internal factors offer the opportunity for other inquiries regarding
factors, that might influence the combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational
ambidexterity. Moreover, these additional findings are obtained by coincidence and were
not part of the research objective or the various research questions. Thus, further research is
needed towards the above described factors in relation to the combinations of leadership
styles and types of organizational ambidexterity, in order to determine whether these
additional findings are significant or were due to chance.
5.5 Contribution to the organizational ambidexterity theory
The previous paragraphs discussed the differences and similarities between the results of the
investigated cases, the theory and practice combinations of leadership styles and types of
organizational ambidexterity and the conclusions on the additional findings.
This paragraph describes the theoretical insights obtained by this research. The theoretical
insights are described by three subsections. The first section (5.5.1) describes the initial
theoretical model that was developed based on the theory. The following section (5.5.2)
describes the implications and conclusions based on the theoretical investigation and the
investigation in practice. The final section (5.5.3) concludes this paragraph by defining a new
theoretical model and hypotheses for further research, based on the initial theoretical model
and the results of the investigation in practice.
5.5.1 Theoretical model as point of departure
Previous research has shown that the role of leadership is of great importance in fostering
organizational ambidexterity. Whether it is about maintaining tight links between separate
units pursuing exploitation and exploration activities, or managing the switch between
periods of exploitation and exploration, leadership always plays a vital role (Gibson &
Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen et al., 2009; Tushman & O’Reilly, 2011).
However, the organizational ambidexterity theory indicated that there is still relatively little
known about what type of leadership is needed to realize organizational ambidexterity, most
of the previous research is focusing on structural antecedents. Following the suggestion of
Simsek et al., to do further research on leadership styles and organizational ambidexterity, a
theoretical investigation was performed in order to determine which leadership styles do best
support the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal - of ambidexterity. This was
done by combining the four types of organizational ambidexterity, as defined by Simsek et al.
(2009), with the eight leadership styles of the Competing Values Framework (CVF), developed
by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983). The result of this theoretical investigation was a ‘revised
organizational ambidexterity model’, as depicted in the graphic below.
Figure 27: Revised organizational ambidexterity model including a leadership dimension
69
The model proposed combinations of leadership styles which, based on the theory, do best
support the four types of organizational ambidexterity. While defining combinations of
leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity, it became apparent that there is
no single leadership style that does best support one of the four types of organizational
ambidexterity. Cameron et al. (2006) defines this phenomenon as ‘behavioral complexity’,
which implies that a leader should be able to employ various leadership styles in order to
enable organizational ambidexterity.
Furthermore, the revised organizational ambidexterity model indicated that, both harmonic
and cyclical ambidexterity require at least a leadership style of the human relations model
(the upper-left quadrant of the CVF model). Whereas partitional and reciprocal
ambidexterity, require both at least a leadership style of the rational goal model (lower right
quadrant of the CVF model). It was argued that the reason for this can be found in the
structural differences between both sets of organizational ambidexterity, as they are
distinguished by the structural dimension. Moreover, it was argued that, contrary to harmonic
and cyclical ambidexterity, the separate nature of partitional, as well as reciprocal
ambidexterity requires leaders that support a shared vision or reciprocal information flows
between the separate units, in order to prevent a situation that one of the activities gets
isolated. On the other side harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity, which are pursued in one
unit, require leadership styles that enable individuals to balance their time between
exploration and exploitation activities. In case of harmonic ambidexterity this means that the
right leadership styles are needed to enable people to deal with the conflicts between
exploration and exploitation activities. When it comes to cyclical ambidexterity the right
leadership styles are needed to manage the conflicts as a result of the transition between
periods of exploitation and periods of exploration.
Thereupon, the revised organizational ambidexterity model served as a conceptual model
while performing an investigation in practice, in order to investigate which leadership styles
are found in practice while pursuing organizational ambidexterity. Thus, the revised
organizational ambidexterity model was guiding while defining the core expression of this
research, the relationships between the core expressions and performing the data collection
and data analyses. The next section describes the conclusions that are derived by analyzing
the obtained results of the investigation in practice.
5.5.2 Implications and conclusions
In the previous paragraphs some important implications are described that influence the
proposed theoretical combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational
ambidexterity. Moreover, by composing the theoretical model and the obtained insights from
the investigation in practice, some interesting conclusions can be derived towards leadership
styles and the four types of organizational ambidexterity. Both implications and conclusions
are summed up in this section.
Implications of the investigation in practice to the theoretical model:
• The first implication is that the theoretical suggestion that ‘behavioral complexity’ is
needed while pursuing organizational ambidexterity is completely confirmed by the
investigation in practice. Every interviewee argued that managers need to be able to
employ various leadership styles in order to balance contradictory demands. Thus,
there is no single best leadership style while pursuing the four types of organizational
ambidexterity.
• Second, the investigation in practice revealed that all cases, except one, pursue a
combination of the four types of organizational ambidexterity. Therefore it is argued
that units tend to pursue ‘hybrid forms of organizational ambidexterity’ (hereafter
named: hybrid ambidexterity), instead of only one of the four individual types of
organizational ambidexterity. The consequence is that it is less relevant to determine
which leadership styles are most appropriate per type of organizational ambidexterity.
Instead, combinations of organizational ambidexterity (found in practice) should be
the starting point in order to determine the most appropriate leadership styles.
• Third, in line with the theoretical suggestion, both reciprocal and partitional
ambidexterity were pursued in a highly-technology oriented environment, the case
‘Philips Incubators’. However, also a non-technology case (unit Asset and Information
70
Management) is pursuing this type of organizational ambidexterity. This might indicate
that all four types of organizational ambidexterity can occur in both technology
oriented units, as well as non-technology oriented units. This is primarily relevant while
selecting cases for further research towards the four types of organizational
ambidexterity.
• Fourth, while investigating the types of organizational ambidexterity and leadership
styles employed, some additional findings were obtained. As described in paragraph
5.4, these findings are categorized in two groups of factors that might have an affect
on the combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity.
Thus, these additional findings indicate that there are internal and external factors
that can probably affect the theoretical model. However, these findings are obtained
by coincidence and were not part of the research objective or the various research
questions. Further research is needed in order to determine whether these additional
findings are significant or were due to chance and to examine if there are more
relevant factors that might have an influence on the combinations of leadership styles
and types of organizational ambidexterity.
Both the theoretical investigation and the investigation in practice revealed some interesting
insights into which leadership styles do best support the four types - harmonic, cyclical,
partitional, reciprocal - of ambidexterity. As described in paragraph 5.2 and 5.3, the
investigation in practice confirmed most of the leadership styles that were proposed in the
theoretical model, eight of the twelve leadership styles were confirmed. Moreover, the
investigation revealed that additional or different leadership styles were employed in
practice to pursue the four types of organizational ambidexterity.
Conclusions on combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity:
• First, the theoretical model (chapter two) assigned specific combinations of
leadership styles to the four types of organizational ambidexterity. In practice none of
these combinations is confirmed. However, certain leadership styles were just found
on one of the two ends of a dimension. For example, the mentor style is just found by
cases that pursue exploitation and exportation activities simultaneously, thus
harmonic and partitional ambidexterity. A similar pattern is found regarding the
facilitator style, since this style is only employed while pursuing exploitation and
exploration activities within one unit. Also the monitor style was just found on one of
the two ends of the structural dimension, this style seems to be required while pursuing
exploitation and exploration activities within one unit. Therefore it is argued that the
leadership styles that are required primarily depend on the two extremes per
dimension. In other words, further research should focus on combinations of types of
organizational ambidexterity, instead of only one of the four individual types of
organizational ambidexterity. This is in line with the implication, as described in the
previous section, that units tend to pursue ‘hybrid forms of organizational
ambidexterity’.
• Second, it can be concluded that units need to employ a broker leadership style
while pursuing organizational ambidexterity. Since every case, irrespective of the type
of organizational ambidexterity, is employing the broker style. This indicates that
employing a broker style is a necessary condition while managing the tension
between exploitation and exploration activities. Thereby it is argued that either
exploitation and exploration activities are managed within or across units,
simultaneously or sequentially a broker style is always required.
• Third, the results show that when more than one type of organizational ambidexterity
(hybrid ambidexterity) is pursued no additional leadership styles are employed. This
might indicate that within a unit the same combination of leadership styles is
employed to pursue various types of organizational ambidexterity. Thus, this confirms
that combinations of organizational ambidexterity (found in practice) should be the
starting point in order to determine the most appropriate leadership styles.
• Fourth, in the theoretical model the innovator style was proposed as the most
appropriate leadership style in order to manage explorations while pursuing harmonic
and cyclical ambidexterity. This was not confirmed in practice, instead the broker style
was employed in order to pursue exploration activities. The innovator style is only
71
employed in practice by the case ‘Philips Incubators’, while pursuing reciprocal
ambidexterity. These results indicate that the innovator leadership style is not a
common leadership style while managing the tension between exploration and
exploitation. An explanation for this can probably found in the fact that reciprocal
ambidexterity is explicitly used by Philips Incubators in order to pursue radical
innovations. In this situation there is a strong external focus, with an emphasis on
innovation, creativity and flexibility. This behaviour does best correspond with the
innovator style. Therefore it is argued that an innovator style is needed in situations
were innovativeness, creativity and flexibility are the most prevailing conditions while
managing exploration and exploitation activities. Further research should examine
whether this reasoning is also found by other cases in different situations.
• Fifth, the producer and director style (rational goal model styles) were both used in
order to manage exploitation activities within units with a strong external focus. This
matches the theory, since these styles are both focused on the external environment
and on control. Opposite, the other cases that were primarily internally focused,
employed a monitor and coordinator leadership style (internal process model styles).
Both styles are internally focused and aimed on control. It is argued that this pattern
reveals that units with an external focus tend to employ the director and producer
leadership styles, while managing exploitation activities. Contrary, units with an
internal focus tend to employ the monitor and coordinator leadership styles. This is
interesting because this contrast between the two groups of transactional leadership
styles, might indicate that managing exploitation activities across units requires a more
external focus than managing these activities within one unit.
• Sixth, all three cases that pursue harmonic ambidexterity are employing a mentor,
facilitator, monitor and broker style. This might indicate that employing these four
leadership styles together is a necessary condition while managing a harmonic
tension between exploitation and exploration activities. Only the mentor and monitor
styles were also proposed in the theoretical model. Further research should study and
validate whether these leadership styles (together) are required while pursuing
harmonic ambidexterity. Thereby, it is probably possible to determine a necessary set
of leadership styles while pursuing exploitation and exploration activities
simultaneously.
5.5.3 New theoretical model and hypotheses for further research
As described in section 5.5.1, this research started with a theoretical model that proposed
combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity (figure 27). This
model was found on the organizational ambidexterity model of Simsek et al. and
distinguished four different types of organizational ambidexterity. However, the investigation
in practice revealed that all cases, except one, pursue a combination of the four types of
organizational ambidexterity. Thus, units tend to pursue ‘hybrid forms of organizational
ambidexterity’, instead of only one of the four individual types of organizational
ambidexterity. Moreover, the results of the investigation in practice indicate that the
combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity are influenced by
various internal and external factors. Internal factors are the type of activities of a unit, the
financial accountability structure of a company, the hierarchical position of a leader and the
use of stage-gate models. External factors are the influence of the markets, changing work
environments and the influence of shareholders (see also paragraph 5.4).
The consequence of these findings is that the theoretical model that is described in chapter
two, with combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity, might
be too general and too static in order to determine which leadership styles are needed while
pursuing organizational ambidexterity. In other words, it is less relevant to determine which
leadership styles are most appropriate per type of organizational ambidexterity, because in
practice units tend to pursue hybrid forms of organizational ambidexterity. In addition, the
specific forms of hybrid ambidexterity and the required leadership styles are influenced by
various internal and external factors. Therefore, in this concluding section of the paragraph, a
new organizational ambidexterity model is outlined that provides more insights into the hybrid
use of the four types of organizational ambidexterity, as well as the most appropriate
leadership styles while pursuing these forms of hybrid ambidexterity.
72
New theoretical model
The organizational ambidexterity model of Simsek et al. (2009) encompasses two dimensions,
a temporal and structural dimension. By putting together the two dimensions, Simsek et al.
(2009) presented a two-by-two typology that delineates four types of organizational
ambidexterity: harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity. Thereby Simsek et
al. argued that organizations can manage the tension between exploitation and exploration
activities by performing one or more of these four types of organizational ambidexterity. They
also argued that each type of organizational ambidexterity requires a different mindset,
systems, structure, processes and practices. For example, harmonic ambidexterity is
achieved through concurrently pursuing exploitation and exploration harmoniously within a
single organizational unit. Opposite, reciprocal ambidexterity is achieved when the outputs of
exploration from unit A become the inputs for exploitation by unit B and the outputs of unit B
cycle back to become the inputs of unit A.
By explicitly distinguishing these four types of organizational ambidexterity, the model of
Simsek et al. (2009) is assuming that organizations, units or departments perform one or more
of these specific types of organizational ambidexterity. Thus, the model only recognizes four
generic ways of managing exploitation and exploration activities. The consequence is that
the model of Simsek et al. (2009) does not offer the opportunity to discern hybrid forms of the
four types of organizational ambidexterity. Thereby, it is only possible to position organizations,
units or departments in one of the specific types of organizational ambidexterity, a hybrid
form does not exist. However, it is very likely that organizations, units and departments in
practice pursue combinations of the four types of organizational ambidexterity, thus hybrid
forms of ambidexterity. For example, a unit that is performing exploitation and exploration
activities within one unit and at the same time is also working closely together with other units
on specific exploitation or exploration activities. This can be labeled as a unit that is pursuing
both a form of harmonic and partitional ambidexterity. It is also imaginable that a particular
group of people, within a unit, that is pursuing both exploitation and exploration activities
harmonically, is working on developing a new product (exploration) and after a certain
period of time is involved in selling this new product (exploitation). This would be a hybrid form
of harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity. In addition, it is reasonable that units, while pursuing
hybrid ambidexterity, have a strong focus on one of the two (or more) types of organizational
ambidexterity, or pursue both (or more) types of organizational ambidexterity equally.
Altogether, it can be argued that organizations, departments and units prevail to pursue
(over time) hybrid forms of ambidexterity and that this is a form of organizational
ambidexterity, that can be found on a continuum between two (extreme) types of
organizational ambidexterity. Therefore a new model of organizational ambidexterity is
developed: ‘The organizational ambidexterity continuum model’, outlined in the graphic
below.
In figure 28 it becomes visible that an organization, unit or department can be found
somewhere on the blue arrowed line between two types of organizational ambidexterity.
Thus, a unit that is pursuing two types of organizational ambidexterity equally, can be found in
the middle of the continuum and a unit that tends to focus on one type, will be positioned
more close to one of the two (extreme) types of the continuum.
Looking at organizational ambidexterity as a continuum makes it possible to profoundly
distinguish various types of organizational ambidexterity that might occur in practice. By
Figure 28: The organizational ambidexterity continuum model.
73
Figure 29: The continuum of hybrid forms of organizational ambidexterity.
doing so, it might be better possible for organizations, managers and researchers to
understand how exploitation and exploration activities are pursued, as well as which
leadership styles are most appropriate regarding a particular position on the continuum.
The position of organizations, units or departments on the organizational ambidexterity
continuum can be very different and can diverge over time. For example, a unit can pursue
80% of its exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously within one unit and at the
same time pursuing 20% of its activities in a separate unit. In this case the unit is performing
two different types of organizational ambidexterity, both harmonic and partitional
ambidexterity. On the continuum this unit will be positioned close to the harmonic type of
organizational ambidexterity, since this unit is pursuing 80% of its activities in a harmonic
manner. However, it can happen that the unit over time is changing the way it is managing
exploitation and exploration activities. For example, exploration activities will be more
grouped together in a R&D team and exploitation activities will be more grouped together in
a sales team. As a result the unit is shifting on the organizational ambidexterity continuum
from harmonic ambidexterity towards partitional ambidexterity. The results is a different hybrid
form of organizational ambidexterity, with a different balance that requires also a different
approach in terms of systems, structure, processes, practices and leadership styles. In figure 29
this shifting nature of organizational ambidexterity is illustrated.
The above continuum illustrates that the number of hybrid forms that can occur between the
two extremes is unrestrained, as it is in practice. Thereby the organizational ambidexterity
continuum provides a more detailed and dynamic approach while assessing ways of
managing exploitation and exploration activities. As depicted above, hybrid forms of
organizational ambidexterity can shift from the left side on the continuum to the right side on
the continuum and back. It is argued that organizations, units and departments will tend to
move gradually along the continuum between two different types of organizational
ambidexterity. Shifting from one type of hybrid ambidexterity to another one, takes place
gradually because most organizations, units and departments tend to change step by step.
For instance, developing new product ranges might lead to open up new markets and can
thereby result in different ways of managing exploitation and exploration activities. For
example, these new markets might require long periods of research and development before
an organization is able to sell a product. In this case an organization might shift from a
harmonic way of managing exploitation and exploration activities, towards a cyclical way of
managing both activities.
Nevertheless, it is also very likely that this transition between hybrid forms of organizational
ambidexterity on the continuum is taking place radical. For example, bad market
circumstances (e.g. recent financial crisis) might force a company to work across units
instead of only within units (within or outside an organization), in order to gain a better
position in changing or new markets. This will lead to a radical shift from managing
exploitation and exploration activities within one unit, towards managing both activities
across units. Thus, it can be argued that the specific position of an organization, unit or
74
department and the degree, to which it is changing, over time on the continuum, is
influenced by various factors.
Figure 30: The continuum of hybrid forms of organizational ambidexterity and affecting internal and external factors.
These factors can roughly be categorized into internal factors (e.g. developing new product
ranges) and external factors (e.g. bad market circumstances). Moreover, these factors can
be the outcome of an intended strategy or can occur unintentionally. Nevertheless,
intentionally or unintentionally, the position of organizations, units and departments on the
organizational ambidexterity continuum can be seen as a strategic reaction on internal and
external forces and events. Being aware of these internal and external affecting factors, it is
possible to revise the organizational ambidexterity continuum towards a continuum which
takes these factors into account, as depicted in figure 30.
Having explained the working of the organizational ambidexterity continuum, which
encompasses hybrid types of ambidexterity, that are influenced by internal and external
factors, it is now possible to define which leadership styles are most appropriate while
pursuing organizational ambidexterity. Based on the conclusion that organizational
ambidexterity can be found on a continuum, it becomes apparent that the required
leadership styles are not determined by the four different types of organizational
ambidexterity. Instead, the position of a specific organization, unit or department on the
organizational ambidexterity continuum determines which leadership styles are most
appropriate while managing exploitation and exploration activities. For instance, a unit that is
managing simultaneously exploitation and exploration activities within, as well as across units
will need a manager that is able to employ various leadership styles. Depending on how
much of the activities are managed within or across the unit, another emphasis on leadership
is needed. When the specific unit is primarily focused on managing exploitation and
exploration activities simultaneously within one unit (harmonic ambidexterity), it might be
necessary that the leadership styles are focused on social support to individuals (in terms of
systems, processes and beliefs), in order to enable people to manage the conflicts between
exploration and exploitation activities. Such a leadership style is needed because in a
situation like this exploration and exploitation activities are competing ‘harmoniously’ for the
same resources. Opposite, when the specific unit is primarily focused on managing
exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously across units, it might be necessary to
employ leadership styles that have a focus on information processing, knowledge
dissemination and coordination between separate units. Beyond, a leader in this situation
should be well informed regarding the various exploitation activities performed, as well as the
exploration activities in order to sustain linkages between the two separate structures.
Thus, depending on which type of organizational ambidexterity on the continuum is
prevailing, another combination (and emphasis) of leadership styles in needed. In the above
described example either, primarily leadership styles that focus on balancing exploitation and
75
exploration are needed, or primarily leadership styles that focus on managing concurrently
exploitation and exploration activities across units.
The above graphic illustrates that the number and combination of leadership styles depends
on the position of a specific organization, unit or department on the organizational
ambidexterity continuum. However, combinations of leadership styles are not only
determined by a specific position on the continuum, it is also argued that transitions on the
continuum requires different leadership styles. When a unit, for instance, is shifting from a
harmonic approach, of managing exploitation and exploration activities, towards a more
cyclical approach, this unit passes a period of change. Managing this change/transition
might require leadership styles that are focused on participation, cohesion and teamwork in
order to get individuals involved, which is an important condition in changing circumstances.
Thus, leadership styles that oriented on the human relation model are needed. Due to the
fact that these leadership styles emphasize teamwork and flexibility as important conditions
for an adaptive organizational culture, which enables shifts between hybrid types of
organizational ambidexterity on the continuum. Moreover, these leadership styles are also
most appropriate when an organization, unit or department wants to switch to another
continuum. For example, a unit that was pursuing a hybrid form of harmonic and cyclical
ambidexterity, is now pursuing a hybrid form of harmonic and partitional ambidexterity as a
results of internal or external affecting factors. In this case, that particular unit is facing quite
heavy changes in the way of working, both structural and temporal.
New theoretical model and the investigation in practice
While investigating combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational
ambidexterity in practice, it became apparent that all cases, except one, pursue hybrid
forms of organizational ambidexterity. Three of the four cases were pursuing a combination of
two different types of organizational ambidexterity (see table 4). Some of these combinations
have a strong focus on one of the two types of organizational ambidexterity, others tend to
pursue both types of organizational ambidexterity equally. For example, the cases ‘unit Asset
and Information Management’ and ‘unit Urban development, Legal and Finance’ are
primarily pursuing harmonic ambidexterity and next to that type they pursue respectively
partitional and cyclical ambidexterity. The investigation in practice showed that these hybrid
forms of organizational ambidexterity appear based on the two extremes per dimension of
the organizational ambidexterity model. The cases in practice display hybrid forms that
pursue exploitation and exploration activities within one unit, across units and simultaneously.
For example, the case ‘unit Asset and Information Management’ pursues a hybrid form of
harmonic and partitional ambidexterity (simultaneously), the case ‘unit Urban development,
Figure 31: The organizational ambidexterity continuum and leadership styles.
76
Legal and Finance’ pursues a hybrid form of harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity (within one
unit) and the case ‘Philips Incubators’ pursues both partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity
(across units). A hybrid form of cyclical and reciprocal ambidexterity (sequential) was not
found. Moreover, other hybrid forms were also not found during the investigation in practice.
Altogether it can be argued that the results of the investigation in practice revealed that units
tend to pursue hybrid ambidexterity and that this is a form of organizational ambidexterity
that can be found on a continuum between two (extreme) types of organizational
ambidexterity. However, there are also units that pursue only one type of organizational
ambidexterity, for example the case ‘unit Real Estate’.
The position of the investigated cases on the organizational ambidexterity continuum is
influenced by various factors. The case ‘unit Asset and Information Management’ (hereafter
AIM), as depicted in figure 32, is positioned very close to harmonic ambidexterity on the
organizational ambidexterity continuum, since the interviewees argued that the unit AIM is
pursuing 80% of its time harmonic ambidexterity.
Figure 32: Case unit Asset and Information Management depicted on the organizational ambidexterity continuum.
The reason for this position is a combination of the influence of the market, the type of
activities of the unit and the financial accountability structure. According to the interviewees,
the bad market circumstances (‘current crisis’) made the tension between exploitation and
exploration activities more visible and has initiated last year a new way of organizing
exploration and exploitation activities. Next to the ‘old way’ of organizing (harmonic
ambidexterity), a separate approach (partitional ambidexterity) was introduced in order to
manage both activities. However the unit is still primarily pursuing harmonic ambidexterity, the
interviewees argued that due to the type of activities (knowledge work) it is necessary that
people have a connection with the market (exploitation), in order to perform new product
development activities (exploration). Moreover, the interviewees argued that the current
financial accountability structure is stimulating an ‘inward focus’ on own unit results and is not
working supportive in encouraging people to work across units.
Having these internal and external factors causing the current position of the unit AIM on the
organizational ambidexterity continuum, it is reasonable to argue, that this position might
change in the future. For example, a different financial accountability structure might lead to
an increase in working across units, thus a more separate approach. The consequence is that
the unit will shift (slow or fast) to a position on the right side of the continuum, towards
partitional ambidexterity.
It can be seen in figure 32 that a mentor, facilitator, monitor and broker style is employed by
the unit AIM while pursuing this particular type of hybrid ambidexterity. These leadership styles
are reasonable since they are primarily transformational focused on supporting individuals, in
order to enable people to manage the conflicts between exploration and exploitation
activities.
77
The case ‘unit Urban development, Legal and Finance’ (hereafter ULF), as depicted in figure
33, is positioned close to cyclical ambidexterity on the organizational ambidexterity
continuum.
Figure 33: Case unit Urban development, Legal and Finance depicted on the organizational ambidexterity
continuum.
The interviewees argued that the unit ULF mainly was focused on exploitation activities the
last few years. The result was that the unit ULF was only exploiting and explorations were
minimized till almost zero. However, due to bad economic circumstances, they are now
forced by the markets to focus on explorations. Thereby, they pursue a hybrid form of
harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity, which is at the moment more cyclical than harmonic.
However, similar to the other DHV cases, the interviewees were arguing, that both the type of
activities and the financial accountability structure are encouraging a harmonic approach
of managing exploitation and exploration activities. Thus, the current position, primarily
cyclical ambidexterity, might change in the future towards harmonic ambidexterity due to for
example changing market circumstances. It is remarkable that the leadership styles that are
employed by the unit ULF, are similar to the leadership styles that are employed by the unit
AIM. This indicates that different positions on the organizational ambidexterity continuum can
require the same combination of leadership styles.
The only case that was not pursuing hybrid ambidexterity is the case ‘unit Real Estate’
(hereafter RE), this unit just pursues harmonic ambidexterity. According to the interviewees,
the reason for this can be found in the type of activities of the unit and the financial
accountability structure. They argued that both factors encourage a simultaneous approach
of managing exploitation and exploration activities within one unit.
Figure 34: Case unit Real Estate depicted on the organizational ambidexterity continuum.
78
Nevertheless, a different financial accountability structure might increase working across units
borders in the future. The leadership styles that are employed by the unit RE are in line with
the theoretical reasoning that managing exploitation and exploration harmonically requires
behavioural complexity. Despite, the unit RE is employing a slightly different combination of
leadership styles than the two other cases, that were also pursuing harmonic ambidexterity.
The difference can probably found in the fact that the unit RE is pursuing just one type of
organizational ambidexterity.
The case ‘Philips Incubators’ pursues a hybrid form of partitional and reciprocal
ambidexterity, since they are aiming to realize both incremental and radical innovations. The
interviewees argued that reciprocal ambidexterity is explicitly used to pursue radical
innovations. Opposite, partitional ambidexterity is primarily used to pursue incremental
innovations.
As depicted in figure 35, in practice incremental innovations are slightly more pursued than
radical innovations, thereby partitional ambidexterity is the prevailing type of organizational
ambidexterity.
Figure 35: Case unit Philips Incubators depicted on the organizational ambidexterity continuum.
Next to the type of innovations, another influencing factor are the shareholders of the
company. The interviewees of the case ‘Philips Incubators’ described that the pressure of the
shareholders most of the time leads to a focus on short term results. Thereby the principal
concern of managers of the organization is focused on ‘do we make the next quarter’ and
not on new business development. The result is a strong focus on exploitation activities.
Accordingly, pursuing incremental innovations will prevail on top of radical innovations, since
incremental innovations are in general less risky and more likely to contribute to growing sales
figures. Thus, both shareholders and the type of activities (radical or incremental innovations)
tend to incline the case ‘Philips Incubators’ more towards on partitional ambidexterity instead
of reciprocal ambidexterity, on the organizational ambidexterity continuum. However, the
difference between the two types of organizational ambidexterity is small and the balance
between the two types varies over time. The leadership styles that are employed in practice
by the case ‘Philips Incubators’ do support the current position on the continuum, due to the
primarily external orientation of these leadership styles. This is necessary since both partitional
and reciprocal ambidexterity demand an external orientation, while managing exploitation
and exploration activities across unit borders (within or outside the organization).
Being aware of the fact that the position of a particular case on the organizational
ambidexterity continuum - influenced by various factors - determines which leadership styles
are required, it is difficult to define a (fixed) combination of leadership styles that is needed in
order to pursue organizational ambidexterity. If units were only pursuing one particular type of
organizational ambidexterity it would probably be possible to define a set of required
leadership styles. However, the reality is more dynamic and surprising since various factors
seems to influence combinations of organizational ambidexterity and the accompanying
leadership styles. Moreover, during this research just three forms of hybrid ambidexterity were
79
found in practice. Further research might reveal that other hybrid forms are also pursued in
practice. Probably diagonal combinations of types of organizational ambidexterity will be
found (e.g. a hybrid form of harmonic and reciprocal ambidexterity), as well as hybrid forms
that covers three or all four types of organizational ambidexterity.
Nevertheless, the theoretical investigation, as well as the investigation in practice revealed
that certain leadership styles seems to be more appropriate than other while pursuing the
four types of organizational ambidexterity. First, all three cases that pursue harmonic
ambidexterity are employing a mentor, facilitator, monitor and broker style. This might
indicate that employing these four leadership styles together is a necessary condition while
managing a harmonic tension between exploitation and exploration activities.
Second, the producer and director style (rational goal model styles) were both used in order
to manage exploitation activities within units with a strong external focus. Opposite, the other
cases that were primarily internal focused, employed a monitor and coordinator leadership
style (internal process model styles). Both styles are internally focused and aimed on control.
Third, the innovator style was proposed as the most appropriate leadership style in order to
manage explorations while pursuing harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity. This was not
confirmed in practice, instead the broker style was employed in order to pursue exploration
activities. The innovator style is only employed in practice by the case ‘Philips Incubators’, in
order to pursue radical innovations. In addition, the broker style was used by all four cases in
order to pursues organizational ambidexterity. This might indicate that this style is a necessary
condition while managing the tension between exploitation and exploration activities. Thus, it
is argued that, either exploitation and exploration activities are managed within or across
units, simultaneously or sequentially a broker style is always required.
Hypotheses for further research
The previous section described that during the investigation in practice just three forms of
hybrid ambidexterity were found. The case ‘unit Asset and Information Management’ pursues
a hybrid form of harmonic and partitional ambidexterity (simultaneously), the case ‘unit
Urban development, Legal and Finance’ pursues a hybrid form of harmonic and cyclical
ambidexterity (within one unit) and the case ‘Philips Incubators’ pursues both partitional and
reciprocal ambidexterity (across units). Although these three forms of hybrid ambidexterity
were more or less found by coincidence, they lead to the notion that types of organizational
ambidexterity needs to be seen as hybrid forms that occur on a continuum with two
extremes. By elaborating these insights into a new organizational ambidexterity continuum
model, including influencing factors, it is now better possible to map hybrid forms of
organizational ambidexterity, as well as factors that influence these forms. Furthermore,
based on these forms in combination with internal and external influencing factors, it is
possible to indentify which leadership styles are most appropriate regarding a particular
position on the continuum.
By applying the organizational ambidexterity continuum model on the four types of
organizational ambidexterity as described by Simsek et al. (2009), it is possible to define some
‘ideal dimensions’ of hybrid ambidexterity. As described above, units tend to pursue a
combination of two types of organizational ambidexterity based on the two extremes per
dimension of the organizational ambidexterity model. As depicted in figure 36, it is thereby
possible to distinguish four different dimensions of hybrid ambidexterity: a hybrid form that
pursues exploitation and exploration activities within one unit (1), across units (2),
simultaneously (3) and sequential (4). By distinguishing these four ‘ideal dimensions’ of hybrid
ambidexterity, other dimensions like diagonal combinations of hybrid ambidexterity (e.g. a
hybrid form of harmonic and reciprocal ambidexterity) as well as dimensions that cover three
or all four types of organizational ambidexterity, are considered as unusual. The reason for this
can be found in the fact that these combinations would enclose very different (read:
opposite) approaches in how to manage the tension between exploitation and exploration
activities. This is also endorsed by the results of the investigation in practice, since none of the
cases pursued diagonal combinations of hybrid ambidexterity or a hybrid form with more
than two different types of organizational ambidexterity. Therefore it is argued that
organizations, units and departments tend to pursue hybrid types of organizational
80
ambidexterity based on the two extremes per dimension, which comes down on the four
above distinguished ‘ideal dimensions’ of hybrid ambidexterity.
The four ‘ideal dimensions’ of hybrid ambidexterity are depicted in figure 36. In the remainder
of this section a short description is given per ‘ideal dimension’ of hybrid ambidexterity, the
affecting factors per dimension and the most appropriate leadership styles per hybrid
ambidexterity dimension. In addition, hypotheses are defined per ‘ideal dimension’ of hybrid
ambidexterity.
Harmonic
ambidexterity
Cyclical
ambidexterity
Partitional
ambidexterity
Reciprocal
ambidexterity
Harmonic
ambidexterity
Partitional
ambidexterity
Cyclical
ambidexterity
Reciprocal
ambidexterity
1: pursuing exploitation and exploration activities within one unit
2: pursuing exploitation and exploration activities across units
3: pursuing exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously
4: pursuing exploitation and exploration activities sequential
Figure 36: The four ‘ideal dimensions’ of hybrid ambidexterity.
1. Pursuing exploitation and exploration activities within one unit
This hybrid dimension compromises harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity, thus exploitation
and exploration activities are pursued simultaneously and sequentially within the same unit.
The exact hybrid form on the continuum of this dimension can be influenced by various
factors. For instance, a financial accountability structure that is strongly focused on sales and
budget might stimulate to pursue primarily periods of exploitation, thus the position will tend
to incline towards cyclical ambidexterity. It is also possible that an organization, unit or
department is forced by bad market circumstances to reinvent itself (and its products) and
thereby is involved in a period of exploration next to its running business. The result might be
that the specific unit is more focused on cyclical ambidexterity instead of harmonic
ambidexterity. These factors are just examples, in practice, various factors might influence this
hybrid dimension of ambidexterity.
Hypotheses 1. The position of an organization, unit or department on the hybrid dimension of
ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and exploration activities within one unit, can be
81
influenced by various internal and external factors. For example market circumstances and
the applicable financial accountability structure.
Pursuing a hybrid form of organizational ambidexterity on this dimension requires that a
manager is able to balance the tension between managing exploitation and exploration
activities simultaneously (harmonic) and sequentially (cyclical). Both approaches demand
different leadership skills. In order to manage exploitation and exploration activities
simultaneously a manager needs to build a set of processes or systems, that enable and
encourage individuals to make their own judgments about how to divide their time between
the conflicting exploitation and exploration activities. On the other hand, this manager should
also be able to manage the transition between periods of exploitation and periods of
exploration. Moreover, this manager should be able to focus one-sided on efficiency and
cost reduction during periods of exploitation, or flexibility and innovativeness during periods of
exploration. Altogether, this dimension of hybrid ambidexterity requires a manager who is
able to employ the right leadership styles, at the right time, towards the right group of people.
Based on the initial theoretical model, the investigation in practice and the accompanying
implications and conclusions the following leadership styles are the most appropriate
leadership styles while pursuing this ‘ideal dimension’ of hybrid ambidexterity: a broker,
mentor, facilitator, monitor, coordinator and producer leadership style. The exact
combination of leadership styles depends on the specific position of an organization, unit or
department on the organizational ambidexterity continuum, which can be influenced by
various factors.
Hypotheses 2: The hybrid dimension of ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and
exploration activities within one unit, might require a combination of a broker, mentor,
facilitator, monitor, coordinator and producer leadership style.
2. Pursuing exploitation and exploration activities across units
This hybrid dimension compromises partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity, thus exploitation
and exploration activities are pursued simultaneously and sequentially across units. The exact
hybrid form on the continuum of this dimension can be influenced by various factors. For
instance, the type of activities pursued by a specific organization, unit or department. When
a unit produces activities that require long periods of research and testing, it is likely that they
pursue these activities in a sequential manner (reciprocal). Thus, they start with a period of
exploration (research and testing) and thereupon a period of exploitation takes place. Other
activities might require a simultaneous approach (partitional) because the exploitation and
exploration activities are strongly connected to each other (e.g. ‘innovation on the job’).
The position on the continuum of this dimension can also be determined by the use of
specific working methods or models, for example the use of stage-gate models. Such a
model might first focus on a period of innovation (reciprocal), then while still working on the
innovation, relations with the market are established (partitional) and finally a period of
exploitation takes place (reciprocal). These factors are just examples, in practice various
factors might influence this hybrid dimension of ambidexterity.
Hypotheses 3. The position of an organization, unit or department on the hybrid dimension of
ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and exploration activities across units, can be
influenced by various internal and external factors. For example the type of activities that are
pursued or the use of specific working methods or models (e.g. stage-gate models).
While managing a hybrid form of ambidexterity on this dimension, a manager needs to able
to manage the information processing, knowledge dissemination and coordination between
the separate units or teams. Furthermore, managers who pursue this form of hybrid
ambidexterity should be able to display a vision that acknowledges the importance of both
exploitation and exploration activities, with neither one being perceived as more important.
Next to these leadership skills, these managers should also be able to create relationships
between the various separate units characterized by ongoing information exchange,
collaborative problem solving, joint decision making and resource flows between the
different units responsible for exploitation and exploration activities. In order to do so these
managers need to have a clear understanding of the various separated exploration and
82
exploitation activities. That is, keep track of the activities (flow of work) in order to facilitate
‘reciprocal information flows’ and reallocation of resources between the separate units
(within or outside an organization). Based on the initial theoretical model, the investigation in
practice and the accompanying implications and conclusions the following leadership styles
are the most appropriate leadership styles while pursuing this ‘ideal dimension’ of hybrid
ambidexterity: a broker, mentor, producer, director and innovator leadership style. The exact
combination of leadership styles depends on the specific position of an organization, unit or
department on the organizational ambidexterity continuum, which can be influenced by
various factors.
Hypotheses 4: The hybrid dimension of ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and
exploration activities across units, might require a combination of a broker, mentor, producer,
director and innovator leadership style
3. Pursuing exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously
This hybrid dimension compromises harmonic and partitional ambidexterity, thus exploitation
and exploration activities are pursued simultaneously within and across units. The position of a
specific organization, unit or department on the continuum of this dimension can be
determined by various factors. For example, the market situation can force a unit to work
heavily across units in order to gain a better position on the market. Also the type of activities
of a specific unit is a factor that influences the position on the continuum. Some activities can
not be separated for example certain services, other activities need to be separated in order
to make progress and become efficient. Another factor that might influence the specific
hybrid form of this dimension, is the financial accountability structure. When this structure is
focused on budget and sales targets per unit, it is likely, that working across units will not be
pursued actively. These factors are just examples, in practice various factors might influence
this hybrid dimension of ambidexterity.
Hypotheses 5. The position of an organization, unit or department on the hybrid dimension of
ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously within and
across units can be influenced by various internal and external factors. For example market
circumstances, the type of activities and the financial accountability structure.
Managers that pursue hybrid ambidexterity on this dimension face the difficulty of having to
manage various units or teams with different goals, culture, control structures and incentive
systems. Thus, they have to build a set of processes or systems that enable and encourage
individuals to make their own judgments about how to divide their time between the
conflicting exploitation and exploration activities (harmonic ambidexterity). On the other
hand, this hybrid form of ambidexterity requires managers that are able to manage the
information processing, knowledge dissemination and coordination between the separate
units or teams. Beyond this, these managers should be well informed regarding the various
exploitation activities performed, as well as the exploration activities in order to sustain
linkages between the separate units or teams and the unit as a whole. Furthermore managers
who pursue this form of hybrid ambidexterity should be able to display a vision that
acknowledges the importance of both exploitation and exploration activities, with neither
one being perceived as more important. Based on the initial theoretical model, the
investigation in practice and the accompanying implications and conclusions the following
leadership styles are the most appropriate leadership styles while pursuing this ‘ideal
dimension’ of hybrid ambidexterity: a broker, mentor, facilitator, monitor, coordinator,
director and producer style. The exact combination of leadership styles depends on the
specific position of an organization, unit or department on the organizational ambidexterity
continuum, which can be influenced by various factors.
Hypotheses 6: The hybrid dimension of ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and
exploration activities simultaneously within and across units, might require a combination of a
broker, mentor, facilitator, monitor, coordinator, director and producer style.
83
4. Pursuing exploitation and exploration activities sequential
This hybrid dimension compromises cyclical and reciprocal ambidexterity, thus exploitation
and exploration activities are pursued sequential within and across units. The position of an
organization, unit or department on the continuum of this dimension can be determined by
various factors, for example, the type of activities produced by a specific unit. Some activities
can not be separated, for example certain services, other activities need to be separated in
order to make progress and become efficient. Thus, depending on the composition of the
activities of a specific organization, unit or department it will be positioned either, more
closely towards cyclical ambidexterity or reciprocal ambidexterity on the continuum. Another
factor that might influence the position of a unit on the organizational ambidexterity
continuum is the need of a unit to acquire ‘external’ knowledge or resources. Instead of only
pursuing exploitation and exploration within one unit with the same group of people
(cyclical), it might be necessary to work across unit or even organization borders in order to
achieve specific objective(s). For example, during a period of exploration certain knowledge
or resources might be necessary, that are only available outside the unit. If this is the case an
organization, unit or department will tend to incline more towards reciprocal than cyclical
ambidexterity. These factors are just examples, in practice various factors might influence this
hybrid dimension of ambidexterity.
Hypotheses 7. The position of an organization, unit or department on the hybrid dimension of
ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and exploration activities sequential within and across
units can be influenced by various internal and external factors. For example the type of
activities that are pursued or the need to achieve ‘external’ resources or knowledge.
Pursuing a hybrid form of organizational ambidexterity on this dimension requires managers
that are able to manage the transition between periods of exploitation and periods of
exploration. Furthermore, these managers should also be able to focus one-sided on
efficiency and cost reduction during periods of exploitation, or flexibility and innovativeness
during periods of exploration. Next to that, it is also important that these managers are able
to create relationships between the various separate units characterized by ongoing
information exchange, collaborative problem solving, joint decision making and resource
flows between the different units responsible for exploitation and exploration activities. In
order to do so these managers need to have a clear understanding of the various separated
exploration and exploitation activities. That is, keep track of the activities (flow of work) in
order to facilitate ‘reciprocal information flows’ and reallocation of resources between the
separate units (within or outside an organization). Based on the initial theoretical model, the
investigation in practice and the accompanying implications and conclusions the following
leadership styles are the most appropriate leadership styles while pursuing this ‘ideal
dimension’ of hybrid ambidexterity: a broker, facilitator, monitor, producer and innovator
leadership style. The exact combination of leadership styles depends on the specific position
of an organization, unit or department on the organizational ambidexterity continuum, which
can be influenced by various factors.
Hypotheses 8: The hybrid dimension of ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and
exploration activities sequential within and across units, might require a combination of a
broker, facilitator, monitor, producer and innovator leadership style.
5.6 Limitations
This paragraph describes the limitations of this research based on the obtained insights by the
theoretical study and investigation in practice, on the combinations of leadership styles and
types of organizational ambidexterity.
The limitations of this research consist of mainly the lack of a large number of cases and
interviewees. Due to the limited period of time for performing this research, just four cases
were investigated at two companies. Only partitional ambidexterity was found at two cases
at different companies, all the other types of organizational ambidexterity were just found
within one company. Fourteen interviewees at four different cases are too few to make a
truly solid, generalizable conclusion on the leadership styles that do best support (hybrid)
84
forms of organizational ambidexterity. Besides, primarily unit managers and department
managers were interviewed, which only provide their point of view on the leadership styles
that are needed to pursue the four types of organizational ambidexterity. Furthermore, the
investigation in practice was conducted at two companies who carry out different activities
(services versus products) in different markets and industries.
The results of this research would probably have been different when more cases were
involved and managers, as well as employees were interviewed. Moreover, an investigation
at various companies operating within the same market and industry with similar activities
would probably produce different results too.
5.7 Reflection
In the last paragraph of this research the research itself is discussed. A reflection is given on
the theories that were applied in this research, the empirical data gathering and the
obtained results.
5.7.1 Theory
The theoretical underpinning of this research consists out of two parts. First, the theory on
organizational ambidexterity was examined. A lot of relevant articles were found and
studied. Two meta-analyses articles offered very relevant information on the organizational
ambidexterity theory, the articles of Simsek et al. (2009) and Birkinshaw and Gibson (2008).
Both articles encompass an extensive review on various literature streams and developed a
comprehensive overview that covers (prior) research into the antecedents, moderators, and
outcomes of organizational ambidexterity. The organizational ambidexterity model,
developed by Simsek et al. (2009) as depicted in figure 3, was used as the base of this
research. Second, leadership theories were examined. To be more precisely, leadership
theories on transactional and transformational leadership styles were studied. Although other
research also suggests leadership styles that represent transactional and transformational
leadership, the CVF model of Quinn and Rohrbaugh is seen as the most complete and
comprehensive model concerning transactional and transformational leadership styles.
Both theoretical models - organizational ambidexterity model and CVF model - were linked to
each other after a thorough research into both underlying theoretical assumptions. This
resulted in a revised, organizational ambidexterity model as depicted in figure 13, which was
thereafter studied in practice by investigating four cases at two companies.
5.7.2 Research
Data triangulation in this research was achieved by performing interviews, document
research and observations. The latter one was sometimes difficult, due to the fact that the
researcher is an employee at engineering and consultancy company DHV and therefore it
was inevitable that his interpretation and critical look may have been influenced and may
have lead to biased preconceived notions. Next to the observations, the semi-structured
interviews, as well as the studied documents provided enough information to answer the
empirical questions. Initially nine interviews were conducted. Nevertheless, after several
discussions with research supervisor Hans Doorewaard, some additional interviews were
conducted in order to further endorse the results obtained prior. As described in the previous
paragraph under the section ‘limitations’, it would be better to involve more cases, as well as
more interviewees. However, due to a limited period of time it was not possible to investigate
more cases and conducting more interviews. The interviews were summarized per interview
topic through unraveling the results per core expression. These predefined topics were based
on the literature study, as described in chapter two. Thereafter a ‘similarities and differences
analysis’ was performed among the various interviews per topic. By doing so, it became
possible to determine whether the proposed combinations of leadership styles and types of
organizational ambidexterity were sufficient or not. Collecting the empirical results, as well as
analyzing them was completed within two months. This short period of time contributed to the
reduction of multi-interpretability of the empirical results, because the results were processed
and analyzed almost immediately after they were collected.
85
5.7.3 Results
The theoretical model (depicted in figure 13), as well as the results derived from the
investigation in practice provide some useful insights into the hybrid nature of organizational
ambidexterity, as well as the leadership styles that are needed while pursuing organizational
ambidexterity. Moreover, the additional findings that were obtained are also interesting while
further studying combinations of leadership styles and (hybrid) forms of organizational
ambidexterity. However, as described in the previous paragraph, ‘Limitations’, the number of
interviewees and cases, as well as the type of cases are too few to make a truly solid,
generalizable conclusion on the leadership styles that do best support (hybrid) forms of
organizational ambidexterity. Therefore eight hypotheses are recommended for further
research, in order to determine whether the obtained insights are statistically significant or
were due to chance. Based on the explorative nature, limited period of time and the
objective of this research, the obtained results and the hypotheses for further research, are
considered as good results and satisfy the expectations of the researcher for now.
86
References
• Abernathy, W. J. (1978). The productivity dilemma. J. Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
• Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J.M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review,
80, 40-47.
• Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction.
Research Policy, 14, 3-22.
• Andriopoulos, C. & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational
• Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science, 20 (4), 696–717.
• Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus Efficiency? A Case Study of
Model Changeovers in the Toyota Product System. Organization Science, 10, 43-68.
• Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1995). Construct validation and norms for the multifactor
leadership questionnaire (MLQ-Form 5X). Binghamton University, State University of New York:
Center for leadership studies,
• Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of leadership cases on
transactional and transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207-218.
• Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1991). The full range of leadership development: Basic and advance
manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio, & Associates.
• Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.
• Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual leader form, rater,
and scoring key for MLQ (Form5x-Short). Redwood City, CA: MindGarden.
• Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Baum, J. A. C., Li, S. X., & Usher, J. M. (2000). Making the Next Move: How Experiential and
Vicarious Learning Shape the Locations of Chains Acquisitions. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 45, 4.
• Belasen, A. T. (2007). The Theory and Practice of Corporate Communication: A Competing
Values Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the
productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238-56.
• Boeije, H. (2005). Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek: Denken en doen. Amsterdam: Boom
onderwijs.
• Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
• Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
87
• Bierly, P. E., & Daly, P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, an
organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
31, 493-516.
• Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). Building Ambidexterity into an Organization. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 45 (4), 47-55.
• Birkinshaw, J., Raisch, S., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity:
Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance. Organization Science, 20 (4),
685–695.
• Birkinshaw, J., & Raisch, S. (2008). Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and
Moderators. Journal of Management, 34 (3), 375-409.
• Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational
adaptation: theory and field research. Organization Science, 2, 239–262.
• Burgelman, R. (2002). Strategy as a vector and the inertia of co-evolutionary lock-in.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 325-357.
• Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and
behavioural complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of
contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (2), 207-221.
• Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based
on the competing values framework. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
• Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., & DeGraff, J. (2006). Competing Values Leadership: Creating Value
in Organizations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and
behavioural complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of
contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 207–218.
• Chen, E. L. (2005). Rival interpretations of balancing exploration and exploitation: simultaneous
or sequential. Honolulu, HI: paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management.
• Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In
Killman, R. H., Pondy, L. R. and Sleven, D. (Eds), The Management of Organization (pp. 167-188).
New York: North Holland.
• Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the
evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807-834.
• Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P.J. (2000). Strategizing Throughout the Organization: Managing Role
Conflict in Strategic Renewal, Academy of Management Review, 25, 154-177.
• Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The
dimensions of quality in management. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 91-112.
• Grant, R. M. (1996a). Prospering in Dynamically-competitive Environments: Organizational
capability as Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 7, 375-387.
• Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multi-Level Exploration of the
Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm, Academy of Management Review, 16 (1), 10-36.
• Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2002). Contextual determinants of organizational ambidexterity
(pp. 1-38). Southern California: Center for Effective Organizations.
88
• Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2), 209-226.
• Gupta, A. K., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation.
Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4), 693-706.
• Hill, S. A., & Birkinshaw, J. (2006). Ambidexterity in corporate venturing: simultaneously using
existing and building new capabilities. Atlanta, GA: paper presented at the Academy of
Management Meeting.
• He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration and exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity
hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481-94.
• Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2000). Product sequencing: co-evolution of knowledge,
capabilities, and products. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 961–80.
• Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing
product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,
9-30.
• Hull F., & Hage, J. (1982). Organizing for Innovation: Beyond Burns and Stalker’s Organic type.
Sociology, 16 (4), 564-577.
• Jansen, J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Exploratory innovation,
Exploitative innovation, and Ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organization
antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review. 57, 351-363.
• Jansen, J. P., George, G. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & 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. P., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and
exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 5–
18.
• Jansen, 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, 1-15.
• Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.
• Kotter, J. P. (1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New York,
NY: The Free Press.
• Kuipers, H., & Amelsvoort, P. (1990). Slagvaardig organiseren: Inleiding in de sociotechniek als
integrale ontwerpleer. Deventer: Kluwer Managementreeks.
• Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation.
Academy of Management Journal, 49, 797-818.
• Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G., (1993). The Myopia of Learning. Strategic Management Journal,
14, 95-112.
• Lin, Z., Yang, & H., Demirkan, I. (2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity in
strategic alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing.
Management Science, 53, 45–58.
• Lin, E. H., & McDonough, E. F. (2009). Investigating the Role of Leadership and Organizational
Culture in Fostering Innovation Ambidexterity (pp. 1-27). Northeastern University Boston:
International Business & Strategy Group College of Business Administration.
• 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.
89
• O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2007). Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the
Innovator’s Dilemma. Working Paper No. 07-088. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.
• Meyer, C. B., & Stensaker, I. G. (2006). Developing capacity for change. Journal of Change
Management, 6 (2), 217-231.
• Mahmoud-Jouini, S. B., Charue-Duboc, F., & Fourcade, F. (2007). Multilevel integration of
exploration units: Beyond the ambidextrous organization. Technology and Innovation
Management Philadelphia: best Paper Proceeding Academy of Management.
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization
Science, 2 (1), 71-87.
• Menguc, B., & Seigyoung, A. (2010). Development and return on execution of product
innovation capabilities: The role of organizational structure. Industrial Marketing Management,
39, 820–831.
• Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in Fives - Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ :
Prentice Hall Inc.
• Mom, T. J. M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in
managers’ ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and
personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 1-41.
• Quinn, R. B. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing
demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A Competing Values Approach to Organisational
Effectiveness. Public Productivity and Management Review, 5 (2), 122-141.
• Quinn, R.E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a
Competing Values Approach to Organisational Analysis. Management Sciences, 29 (3), 363-78.
• Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. (1994). Organizational Transformation as Punctuated Equilibrium:
An Empirical Test, Academy of Management Journal, 37 (5), 1141-1166.
• Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Understanding. Journal of
Management Studies, 46 (4), 596-624.
• Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A Typology for Aligning Organizational
Ambidexterity’s Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes. Journal of Management
Studies, 46 (5), 864-894.
• Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: a top management
model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522-36.
• Sorensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 81-112.
• Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological Discontinuities and Organizational
Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439-465.
• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Evolution and Revolution: Mastering the Dynamics of
Innovation and Change, California Management Review, 38, 8-30.
• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning Through Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2004). The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business
Review, 74-81.
• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2011). Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How Managers
Explore and Exploit. California Management Review, 53 (4), 5-22.
90
• Tushman, M. L., 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.
• Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of
Management Review, 29 (2), 222–240.
• Verschuren, P., & Doorewaard, H. (2007). Het ontwerpen van een onderzoek. Den Haag:
Uitgeverij Lemma.
• Volberda, H. W. (2004). De Flexibele Onderneming, strategieën voor succesvol concurreren.
Deventer: Kluwer.
• Volberda, H.W. (1998). Building the flexible firm: how to remain competitive. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
• Weggeman, M. (1997). Kennismanagement: inrichting en besturing van kennisintensieve
organisaties. Schiedam: Scriptum Management.
• Weggeman, M. (2000). Kennismanagement: de praktijk. Schiedam: Scriptum Management.
• Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12, 730-43.
• Yang, O., & Shao, Y. E., (1996). Shared leadership in self-managed teams: A competing values
approach. Total Quality Management, 7 (5), 521-534.
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, London, New
Delhi: Sage.
• Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285-305.
91
Appendix 1 – Interviewees
No. Interviewee Position Company
1 Bart Humblet Unit manager DHV
2 Jan van Vliet Department manager DHV
3 Jelle Hannema Unit manager DHV
4 Kees-Jan Bandt Unit manager DHV
5 Koos Gloudemans HR-manager DHV
6 Marianne Vermijs Unit manager DHV
7 Rinus Vader Business development manager DHV
8 Rudolf Mulder Senior manager DHV
9 Johan Moolenaar Department manager DHV
10 Ron van Empel Department manager DHV
11 Alison Moncrieff Venture manager Philips
12 Corina Kuiper Senior manager Philips
13 Steve Seuntjens Venture portfolio manager Philips
14 Warden Hoffman HR-manager Philips
92
Appendix 2 – Interview guide
A: Interview topics.
1. Familiarity with subject/terms.
2. Recognition exploration & exploitation activities.
3. Tension between exploration and exploitation activities.
4. The types of organizational ambidexterity pursued (harmonic, cyclical, partitional and
reciprocal).
5. Types of organizational ambidexterity fixed or different at various moments in time.
6. Kind of leader: relational oriented (transformational), task oriented (transactional) or
both.
7. Leadership style(s) employed in order to manage your unit/departments.
8. Leadership style(s) employed in order to manage (the tension between) exploration
and exploitation activities?
9. Switching between leadership styles (in time).
10. Cause/trigger switching between leadership styles.
B: Specific topics per type of organizational ambidexterity.
1. Harmonic ambidexterity
1.1 Coordination, synchronization and integration of exploitative and explorative activities in a single domain in order to prevent isolation of one of both activities.
2.1 Leadership style(s) employed in order manage exploitation and exploration activities
in one unit (help individuals in balance their time between the two activities).
2. Cyclical ambidexterity
2.1 Number of switches between periods of exploration and exploitation in time.
2.2 Switching (transition) and conflicts, as a result of changing routines, practices and procedures, reward systems and resource allocation.
2.3 Managing the transition, what is necessary in changing circumstances (e.g. via
participation, cohesion and teamwork -> get individuals involved).
2.4 Leadership style(s) employed during transition period(s).
2.5 Leadership style(s) employed after a transition in order to manage a period of
exploitation or a period of exploration (is there a dominant leadership style).
3. Partitional ambidexterity
3.1 Managing separate units or departments for exploitation and exploration activities
(dealing with distinct strategic and operating logics, cultures, and reward systems).
3.2 Leadership style(s) employed in order to coordinate and synchronize both separate
units simultaneous.
3.3 Preventing isolation of one of the both activities via a ‘shared vision’ between the leaders of the two separate units.
4. Reciprocal ambidexterity
4.1 Managing exploration and exploitation activities over time and across separate units.
4.2 Leadership style(s) employed in order to create reciprocal (two-sided) flows (ongoing
information exchange, collaborative problem solving, joint decision making, resource
flows) between the separate units.
93
Appendix 3 – Studied documents
DHV
• AIM business plan 2010-2015.
• ULF business plan 2010-2015.
• RE business plan 2010-2015.
• DHV Corporate Policy Paper 2010-2015.
• DHV Group strategy Paper: Step Change, Vision 2015.
• DHV job profile descriptions senior management.
Philips
• Philips corporate venturing policy paper.
• Philips stage-gate model paper.
• Blekman, T. (2011). Corporate Effectuation: What managers should learn from
entrepreneurs! The Hague: Sdu publishers bv.
• Robertson, P. P. (2005). Always change a winning team: Why reinvention and change
are prerequisites for business success. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Business.
94
Appendix 4 – Similarities and differences analysis
After summarizing the interviews per interview topic, see appendix 2 for the topics, a
‘similarities and differences analysis’ was performed among the various interviews per topic.
This analysis includes coding similar and different opinions on the same subjects and
highlighting unique and specific comments. Below, as an example the similarities and
differences analysis is worked out on the topic: ‘type of organizational ambidexterity’.
More specifically the type harmonic ambidexterity is worked out as a topic, per case.
The interviewees are numbered per case, only the interviewees that made relevant
statements on this topic are described. All the interviewees, in this example of the similarities
and differences analysis, are working at engineering and consultancy company DHV.
Concerning the aspects, each topic is per case provided a letter, which is displayed after the
related sentence(s) between brackets. The letters are allocated according to sequence of
appearance. The similarities and differences are marked with as color, as well as interesting
sentences that are not directly related to the topic:
Blue = similarities
Red = differences
Yellow = interesting sentences
Case: Unit Asset and Information Management (DHV)
1: the tension between exploitation and exploration activities (A) is a tough one, but also a
tension that you need to perform better and better (B). This is also the case in my unit
because both departments and teams within my unit are responsible for running established
business, as well as developing new businesses (C), at the same time and with the same
group of people. Depending on their function and role in the unit, 80% of their time people
are involved in being billable to the client and 20% of their time they are involved in
developing current services or new business development (D). If you ask me, it is necessary to
let people perform both exploration and exploitation activities in order to prevent new
services that doesn’t fit the market (E). Besides, let people only develop new services or being
billable to the client doesn’t improve their job satisfaction.
2: people in my department perform on a daily base both exploitation and exploration
activities (C) and that produces a constant tension. This tension between realizing budgets,
being efficient and developing new services and markets (A) frequently produces
contradictions and inconsistencies (B) between both the employees and the units as such.
Because they are assessed primarily on their billable targets but also their contribution in
developing new services (D). For example, I need people to think along with me about new
opportunities and markets, but I also have to stimulate them to achieve their budgets and
billable hour target. Also, the current crisis has made this tension become more visible. I
mean, the crisis has reinforced the pressure top-down in the organization on results and
efficiency and this is very difficult for the people.
3: you can manage both sales and new business development activities in different way.
However, in a consultancy and service company like DHV it is not possible to completely split
exploitation and exploration activities because it is a people-business (E). With this I mean
that there is a difference between a service and product company. For example, a
company like Philips can split the development of new products by creating separate units
working on specific technologies. Activities will become isolated if we will do the same in the
unit AIM with services that need to be delivered and developed by people. Thus, innovation
will be developed that are not needed by the market (E). As a result we constantly have to
balance the tension between exploration and exploitation activities (A).
Similarities
• Tension between exploration and exploitation activities.
• The same people perform both exploitation and exploration activities at the same time.
• People perform primarily exploitation activities (80%) and the rest of their time exploration
activities (20%).
95
• The same people need to perform both exploitation and exploration activities because of
the type of work (people-business), in order to prevent new services that doesn’t fit the
market.
Differences
• One interviewee argues that the tension between exploration and exploitation activities
leads to better performance and the other interviewee argues that this tension leads to
contradictions and inconsistencies.
Interesting
• Only performing exploitation activities has a negative effect on the job satisfaction of
people.
• Market circumstance influence whether the focus is on exploitation or exploration.
Section described in this research, based on above illustrated analyses:
By having exploitation and exploration activities organized within one unit, it can be argued
that harmonic ambidexterity is pursued. As Jelle indicates: ‘the departments and teams
within the unit are responsible for running established business, as well as developing new
businesses, at the same time and with the same group of people’. Depending on their
function and role in the unit, 80% of their time people are involved in being ‘billable to the
client’ and 20% of their time they are involved in developing current services or new business
development. So the people of the unit AIM have to balance constantly their time between
achieving billable hours and developing new services and markets. In addition, Jelle and Ron
argued that it is necessary to let people perform both exploration and exploitation activities
in order to prevent new services that doesn’t fit the market. Besides, Jelle argues: ‘let people
only develop new services or being billable to the client doesn’t improve their job
satisfaction’. This reasoning is also confirmed by senior manager Rudolf Mulder as he argues:
‘in a consultancy and service company like DHV it is not possible to completely split
exploitation and exploration activities because it is a people-business’. With ‘people-business’
Rudolf is referring to the difference between a service and product company, and thereby it
is more difficult to spilt both activities. Based on the above described interview results it can
be argued that, by organizing exploitation and exploration activities in this way, the unit AIM
is pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. As described in chapter two, harmonic ambidexterity
involves the simultaneous pursuit of both exploitation and exploration activities within one unit
with the same group of people.
Case: Unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (DHV)
3: most people in my unit perform both exploitation and exploration activities (A) because
the work is about knowledge, it is in de minds of people. I think it is not possible to completely
separate exploitation and exploration activities from each other as companies like Unilever or
Philips do (B). Bottom line, the most people in my unit are ‘multi-taskers’, they have to be
billable and are also expected to think along with new things (A). However, I deploy people
based on their qualities, for some this involves achieving high sales, for others this involves
research and developing markets and for some people a mixture of both (D). The
consequence of this is that we, as a service company like DHV, have to deal with a
continuous challenge between making billable hours and developing new services. In order
to manage this challenge you need to have a clear vision. This means that you have to
explain your people that achieving budgets and sales targets are important to survive on the
short term, but that surviving on the long term depends on the degree to which they are able
to develop new services and markets. Nowadays this is sometimes difficult due to the market
crises people tend to focus on achieving budget and sales (C).
4: the tension between exploitation and exploration activities in the same unit with the same
group of people (A) sometimes leads to failure. For example, some people in our unit worked
out a very good concept regarding company grounds rating in terms of sustainability,
accessibility, etc. This tool could be used for investors and local authorities to benchmark
company grounds. However, it never became a new product because it was killed by the
96
internal focus on efficiency and control. This internal focus on efficiency and control also
resulted in a large dismissal procedure last year, more than 50 people were dismissed. So, I
think it would be useful to separate exploitation and exploration activities to a certain degree
(B). Certainly the current market crisis has also a negative effect on balancing these to
opposite forces. The years before the crisis the sky was the limit and the margins were very
good, during the crisis it became worse and the only solution seems to be production,
production and production (C).
5: in my department I have to deal with both exploitation and exploration activities at the
same time. I realize this with the same group of people (A), we don’t have a separate team
that is only thinking about new products or business opportunities. This is not possible because
people in our business need to have a feeling with the market in order to come up with
relevant new businesses, innovation takes place on the job (B). Despite, some people do
prefer routine tasks which are aimed at doing the same thing over and over again. Other
people like to invent new services and find new markets (D). So, yes in practice you see that
people tend to prefer one of the two opposite activities.
Similarities
• The same people perform both exploitation and exploration activities at the same time.
• Two of the interviewees argue that is not possible to separate exploitation and exploration
activities.
• Market circumstance influence whether the focus is on exploitation or exploration.
• People perform both activities, but tend to prefer one of the two activities more than the
other.
Differences
• Two of the interviewees argue that is not possible to separate exploitation and exploration
activities. One interviewee thinks that it would be useful to separate both activities.
Interesting
• It is not possible to separate exploitation and exploration activities because the work is
about knowledge, it is in de minds of people.
• Pursuing exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously requires a manager to
explain why both activities are important, by having a clear vision.
• Innovations and new products can be killed by having a internal focus on efficiency and
control.
Section described in this research, based on above illustrated analyses:
Most people in the unit ULF perform both exploitation and exploration activities because the
work is about knowledge, ‘it is in de minds of people’. Kees-Jan argues that it is not possible to
completely separate exploitation and exploration activities from each other as companies
like Unilever or Philips do. This is confirmed by the other interviewees as the argued that
‘innovation takes place on the job’. In addition, Kees-Jan argues: ‘I deploy people based on
their qualities, for some this involves achieving high sales, for others this involves research and
developing markets and for some people a mixture of both’. Bottom line the most people in
the unit ULF are ‘multi-taskers’, they have to be billable and are also expected to think along
with new things.
However, due to the bad economic circumstances of the last few years the focus was mainly
on exploitation activities. Achieving budgets and sales targets was one of the most important
things, Kees-Jan argues. Bart confirms this by stating: ‘the years before the crisis the sky was
the limit and the margins were very good, during the crisis it became worse and the only
solution seems to be production, production and production’. The result was that the unit ULF
was mainly exploiting and explorations were minimized till almost zero. As an example a failed
innovation project was described by one of the interviewees. Some people worked out a
very good concept regarding company grounds rating in terms of sustainability, accessibility,
etc. This tool could be used for investors and local authorities to benchmark company
grounds. However it never became a new product because it was killed by the internal focus
on efficiency and control’.
97
Case: Unit Real Estate (DHV)
6: we perform routine activities as well as innovative and new business development activities
(A), the difference between the two is a grey area. Both activities require a different strategy.
The routine activities require a red ocean strategy as they are focused on exploiting the
existing demand. On the other hand innovative activities require a blue ocean strategy, as
they are focused on creating new business and demand (D). Both different strategies require
different types of people to perform these opposite activities, as well as different leadership
styles to lead these opposite activities. Both strategies are concurrently performed within our
unit, by the same group of people. So, both exploration and exploitation activities are
crossing each other all the time between the various people in my unit (A). And this is a good
thing because the tension (B) between the both activities keeps us sharp and focused (E).
Moreover, in my opinion people in our business need to do both sales and innovation,
because they need to have a connection with the customer while developing new services
and markets (C). However, due to the difficult market circumstances of the least few years
there is more cooperation needed on exploration and exploitation activities across units. This
can imply that we will separate both activities to a certain degree in the future. Now this is
difficult because the current accountability structure is not yet ready for sharing exploration
and exploitation activities across units, as this structure is aimed on results per unit.
7: the tension between exploration and exploitation (B) becomes apparent in the continuous
pressure between achieving sales targets and developing new services and businesses. This
tension can lead to conflicting issues between people and the goals we want to realize
together (E). Managing a good balance between these conflicting forces can lead to an
increase of our sustainable competitive advantage. This means that if we are better than our
competitors in balancing this tension we will have better results on the short and the long
term. This requires a unambiguous strategy and a clear dot on the horizon (D). Thus,
everybody in my department is performing exploitation and exploration activities (A).
Separating people in either a selling or developing unit is not possible because most people
are requested by customers based on their expertise, good name and relation with the
customer (C). In a production company that is different, it doesn’t matter who is replacing
your tires, but in a knowledge company like DHV is does matter who is performing the
services. However, this is not the case for all DHV units, as some units within DHV have a clear
distinction between product and innovation activities.
Similarities
• The same people perform both exploitation and exploration activities at the same time.
• Tension between exploration and exploitation activities.
• It is not possible to separate exploitation and exploration activities between people
different people and units.
Differences
• One interviewee argued that exploitation and exploration require two different strategies,
while the other interviewee argues that one strategy and a clear vision is needed.
• One interviewee argues that the tension between exploration and exploitation activities
has a positive effect by keeping them sharp and focused, while the other interviewee
argues that this tension leads to contradictions and inconsistencies.
Interesting
• In the future the want to separate exploitation and exploration activities across unit. This is
at the moment not possible because the accountability structure is not suitable.
• Some units at engineering and consultancy company DHV have a clear distinction
between exploration and exploitation activities. Thus, not only harmonic ambidexterity is
possible within a company like DHV.
98
Section described in this research, based on above illustrated analyses:
The interviewees described that both production activities and new business development
activities are concurrently performed within the unit RE, by the same group of people. The
interviewees argued that exploration and exploitation activities cross each other all the time
between the various people in the unit. For example Jan van Vliet (department manager)
argued: ‘everybody has an OG-target (billable hours), however this targets is different per
person’. Jan further explains that a low OG-target indicates that these people have more
time and freedom to focus on non-sales activities, for example new business development.
On the question why the same people in the unit RE have to perform both exploration
activities and exploitation activities, the interviewees argue that it is not possible to separate
the two. Everybody is performing exploitation and exploration activities, because separation
of these two activities will lead to innovation that is not fuelled by the market and thus a high
degree of failure. The interviewees further pointed out that, due to the fact that most people
are requested by customers based on their expertise, good name and relation with the
customer, it is not possible to separate people in either a selling or developing unit. On the
question if exploration and exploitation activities are also pursued across the unit Marianne
states: ‘we are planning to do that but these activities are in an early stage, until now these
activities take place on an ad-hoc base’. In addition, the interviewees said that the current
accountability structure is not yet ready for sharing exploration and exploitation activities
across units, as this structure is aimed on results per unit. This leads to a short term focus on
own unit results and is not working supportive in encouraging people to invest resources
across unit borders.
Recommended