The Importance of Proactive Coping and Individual Ambidexterity Relationship: A Study on Managers

Abstract

In this study, the relationship between managers' perceptions of proactive coping and individual ambidexterity is examined. In this context, the relationship between proactive coping and individual ambidexterity was analyzed with the PLS-SEM analysis method. The survey method was used in obtaining the data within the scope of the research, and for this purpose, a sample of 266 participants consisting of the managers in the enterprises located in the Marmara region was reached. The findings obtained as a result of the analysis show that proactive coping in managers directly affects individual ambidexterity in a significant and positive way. The findings also reveal that the relationship between the variables does not differ according to the demographic characteristics of managers such as age, experience, education, and company variables such as firm size.

Keywords

• Proactive coping
• individual ambidexterity
• management
• organizational behavior
• partial least square structural equation analysis.

Proaktif Başa Çıkma ve Bireysel Çift Yönlülük İlişkisinin Önemi: Yöneticiler Üzerinde Bir Araştırma

Abstract

Bu çalışmada yöneticilerin proaktif başa çıkma davranışı ve bireysel çift yönlülük algıları arasındaki ilişki incelenmektedir. Bu çerçevede yöneticilerin proaktif başa çıkma davranışı ve bireysel çift yönlülüğü arasındaki ilişki kısmi en küçük kareli yapısal eşitlik analizi yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında verilerin elde edilmesinde anket yönteminden yararlanılmış bu amaçla Marmara bölgesinde yer alan işletmelerdeki yöneticilerden oluşan 266 katılımcılı örnekleme ulaşılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda elde edilen bulgular yöneticilerde proaktif başa çıkma davranışının bireysel çift yönlülüğü doğrudan anlamlı ve pozitif yönde etkilediğini göstermektedir. Bulgular ayrıca değişkenler arasındaki ilişkinin yöneticilerin yaş, tecrübe, eğitim gibi demografik özellikleri ve firma büyüklüğü gibi şirket değişkenlerine göre farklılık göstermediğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Proaktif başa çıkma
• bireysel çift yönlülük
• yönetim
• örgütsel davranış
• kısmi en küçük kareli yapısal eşitlik analizi.
• Proactive coping
• individual ambidexterity
• management
• organizational behavior
• partial least square structural equation analysis.

References

1. Ahmetoğulları, K. & Yücel, R. (2021). Rekabet Yoğunluğu Ve Teknoloji Yönetiminin Muhasebe Bilgi Sistemi Ve Firma Performansı İlişkisine Etkileri. Pearson Journal of Social Sciences - Humanities, 16, p. 15-35.
2. Benner, M. J. & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040711
3. Birkinshaw, J & C Gibson (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47–55.
4. Bledow, R. F., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305-337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17549434.2009.01154.x
5. Chang, Y., Chien, C., & Shen, L.-F. (2021). Telecommuting during the coronavirus pandemic: Future time orientation as a mediator between proactive coping and perceived work productivity in two cultural samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 171, 110508. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110508
6. Chiang, C.-F., & Hsieh, T.-S. (2012). The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on job performance: The mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 180–190.
7. Eren, M. Ş., Yücel, R. & Eren, S. S. (2010). Firma Performansına Etkileri Kapsamında Çevresel Olumsuzluk Pazar Dinamizmi Müşteri Odaklılık ve Yenilikçilik Arasındaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesi. Journal of Yasar University, 5(18), 3102–3116.
8. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

9. Gibson, C. B. & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159573
10. Greenglass, E., Schwarzer, R., & Taubert, S. (1999). The Proactive Coping Inventory (PCI): A Multidimensional Research Instrument. 20th International Conference of the Stress and Anxiety Research Society (STAR), Cracow, Poland, July 12-14 1999.
11. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M. & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). (Second Edition) Thousand Oaks: Sage.
12. Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Uppsala, Sweden: Scientific Software International.
13. Junni, P., Sarala, R.M., Taras, V. & Tarba, S.Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: a meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 299-312.
14. Kang, S.-C. & Snell, S.A. (2009), Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A Framework for Human Resource Management. Journal of Management Studies, 46: 65-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00776.x
15. Klonek, F. E., Volery, T. & Parker, S. K. (2021). Managing the paradox: Individual ambidexterity, paradoxical leadership and multitasking in entrepreneurs across firm life cycle stages. International Small Business Journal, 39(1), 40–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620943371
16. March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
17. Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229-240
18. Mom TJ, Van Den Bosch FA & Volberda HW (2009) Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organisation Science 20: 812–828.
19. Mu, T., van Riel, A. & Schouteten, R. (2020). Individual ambidexterity in SMEs: Towards a typology aligning the concept, antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Small Business Management, 60:2, 347-378, DOI: 10.1080/00472778.2019.1709642
20. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural equation modeling, 9(4), 599-620.
21. Papachroni, A. & Heracleous, L. (2020). Ambidexterity as Practice: Individual Ambidexterity Through Paradoxical Practices. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(2), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320913048
22. Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: The duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 694–709.
23. Ślebarska, K. & Soucek, R. (2020). Change of organizational newcomers’ unmet expectations: Does proactive coping matter? PLoS ONE 15(12):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243234
24. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
25. Tanaka, J. S. (1987). How big is big enough?": Sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation models with latent variables.Child development, 134-146.
26. Uskul AK, Greenglass ER. Psychological well-being in a Turkish-Canadian sample. Anxiety, Stress, andCoping 2005;18:269–278.
27. Van der Heijden, B. and Spurk, D. (2019), "Moderating role of LMX and proactive coping in the relationship between learning value of the job and employability enhancement among academic staff employees", Career Development International, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 163-186.
28. Yücel, D. (2021). Endüstrı̇ 4.0 ve İnovasyon Paradı̇gması: Fırsatlar Ve Zorluklar. İçinde Yönetim – Strateji – Organizasyon: Teoride ve Uygulamada (Cilt 1), 257 -276, Editör:Karabulut Şahin, Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
29. Yücel, D. & Yücel, R. (2021). The Impact Of Open Innovation On R&D Costs. Presented At The 13th International Conference Of Strategic Research On Scientific Studies And Education, Proceeding Books Vol.2, 427-435, 26-29.05.2021, Antalya/Türkiye.
30. Yücel, D. & Yücel, R. (2022). Yenilik Stratejisinin Uygulanmasında Rekabet Yoğunluğu Ve Teknolojik İşbirliğinin Etkileri. III. International Academician Studies Congress 2022 Change & Adaptation, Full Text Book, 539-549, (13-16.05.2022), Osmaniye/Türkiye.
31. Zhang, Y. I., Wei, F., & Van Horne, C. (2019). Individual Ambidexterity And Antecedents In A Changing Context. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(03), 1950021. https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961950021X