ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY AND RESILIENCE: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM UNCERTAIN TRANSITION ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Abstract

Purpose - Despite extensive interests in the effect of organizational ambidexterity on firm performance, there has been limited research on how ambidexterity may promote organizational resilience. Thus, grounded on the dynamic capabilities theory, this paper investigates the influence of ambidexterity on organizational resilience. Methodology - This study follows a quantitative method. Using a multi-item survey instrument, a total of 323 questionnaires were distributed among 80 different organizations in Kazakhstan. The collected data were analysed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, in order to determine the relationship existing between the variables. Findings- The proposed link between organizational ambidexterity and resilience was found. There was a moderate, positive monotonic correlation between ambidexterity and resilience. Conclusion – Organizations operating in a turbulent and dynamic than ever before environment should adopt exploitative and explorative strategies in order to remain resilient.

Keywords

• Organizational ambidexterity
• organizational resilience
• exploration
• transition economy

References

1. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
2. Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-29. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F41165852
3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206306290712
4. Fu, N., Flood, P. C., & Morris, T. (2016). Organizational ambidexterity and professional firm performance: The moderating role of organizational capital. Journal of Professions and Organization, 3(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jov010
5. Hughes, M. (2018). Organisational ambidexterity and firm performance: burning research questions for marketing scholars. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(1-2), 178-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1441175
6. Zhou Y., Yang D. (2019). Managerial cognition, organizational ambidexterity and firm performance, 8 (29).
7. Stokes, P., Smith, S., Wall, T., Moore, N., Rowland, C., Ward, T., & Cronshaw, S. (2019). Resilience and the (micro-) dynamics of organizational ambidexterity: implications for strategic HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(8), 1287-1322. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1474939
8. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206308316058

9. O'Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
10. Mathe, L. S. (2018). Business transformation through organisational ambidexterity and organisational agility (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria).
11. Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The management of organization, 1(1), 167-188.
12. O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
13. Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0426
14. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28(2), 238-256. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.9416096
15. Wang, H., & Li, J. (2008). Untangling the effects of overexploration and overexploitation on organizational performance: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Journal of Management, 34(5), 925-951. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206308321547
16. Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287-298. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0167
17. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of management journal, 49(4), 693-706. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026
18. Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global environmental change, 18(4), 598-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013
19. Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(4), 628–652. DOI: 10.2307/2393339
20. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Beck, T. E. (2003). Beyond bouncing back: The concept of organizational resilience. In National Academy of Management meetings, Seattle, WA.
21. Manyena, B., O'Brien, G., O'Keefe, P., & Rose, J. (2011). Disaster resilience: a bounce back or bounce forward ability?. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 16(5), 417-424. ISSN 1354-9839
22. Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline, 94, 110.
23. Kantur, D., & Iseri-Say, A. (2012). Organizational resilience: A conceptual integrative framework. Journal of management and organization, 18(6), 762. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2012.18.6.762
24. Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of management review, 25(1), 154-177. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791608
25. He Z. L., Wong P. K. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis //Organization science. (2004). – Vol. 15, №. 4, P. 481-494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
26. Edwards, J. R. 1993. Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research. Personnel Psychology, 46: 641-665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00889.x
27. Edwards, J. R. , & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to differences scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1577-1613. https://doi.org/10.5465/256822
28. Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58: 51-100. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1029
29. Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn, A. M., ... & Von Winterfeldt, D. (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake spectra, 19(4), 733-752.