In this study, we advance the literature on ambidexterity by investigating how employees interpret and react to a multinational organization’s overarching strategic mandate to become ambidextrous. Our grounded model, based on qualitative data collected from 78 employees and managers in a multinational corporation, reveals that individuals vary in their experience of the innovation–efficiency tension as either a dilemma marked by cognitive dissonance and charged with negative emotions or as a paradox lived as a stimulating challenge rife with positive emotions. Our findings further reveal a multiplicity of proactive responses, such as innovation via integration and segmentation, and conservative responses, including trivializing, rationalizing, and resisting innovation. We detail how this variation in experiences and responses is dependent on individuals’ understanding of the complexity of the global environment, and their relationships in the proximal context supportive of innovation. Our model extends our understanding of ambidexterity in multinational enterprises by bridging the macro–micro divide between the organizational strategic mandate and individuals’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses, consequently revealing how ambidexterity unfolds across levels in a global organization.
AdlerPSGoldoftasBLevineDI (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science10(1): 43–68.
2.
AndriopoulosCLewisMW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science20(4): 696–717.
3.
AshforthBEKreinerGEClarkMA, et al (2007) Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics for countering occupational taint. Academy of Management Journal50(1): 149–174.
4.
BartlettCAGhoshalS (1989) Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
5.
BeechNBurnsHDe CaesteckerL, et al (2004) Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations57(10): 1313–1332.
6.
BidmonCMBoe-LillegravenS (2020) Now, switch! Individuals’ responses to imposed switches between exploration and exploitation. Long Range Planning53(6): 101928.
7.
BirkinshawJGibsonCB (2004) Building an ambidextrous organization. MIT Sloan Management Review45(4): 47–55.
8.
BirkinshawJZimmermannARaischS (2016) How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California Management Review58(4): 36–58.
9.
BonessoSGerliFScapolanA (2014) The individual side of ambidexterity: Do individuals’ perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off?European Management Journal32(3): 392–405.
10.
Bonniot-CabanacMCCabanacMFontanariJF, et al (2012) Instrumentalizing cognitive dissonance emotions. Psychology3(12): 1018–1026.
11.
CaniëlsMCJNeghinaCSchaetsaertN (2017) Ambidexterity of employees: The role of empowerment and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management21: 1098–1119.
12.
ChristofiMVrontisDCadoganJW (2021) Micro-foundational ambidexterity and multinational enterprises: A systematic review and a conceptual framework. International Business Review30(1): 101625.
13.
CohenJ (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement20(1): 37–46.
14.
CooperJHoggMA (2007) Feeling the anguish of others: A theory of vicarious dissonance. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology39: 359–403.
15.
DevinePGTauerJMBarronKE, et al (1999) Moving beyond attitude change in the study of dissonance-related processes. In: Harmon-JonesEMillsJ (eds) Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA), pp. 297–323.
16.
DuncanR (1976) The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In: KilmanRPondyL (eds) The Management of Organizational Design. New York: North-Holland,pp. 167–188.
17.
EdmondsonA (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly44(2): 350–383.
18.
EisenhardtKMFurrNRBinghamCB (2010) CROSSROADS—Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science21(6): 1263–1273.
19.
FelinTFossNJPloyhartRE (2015) The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals9(1): 575–632.
20.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson & Company.
21.
FolgerNBrosiPStumpf-WollersheimJ (2022) Perceived technological turbulence and individual ambidexterity—The moderating role of formalization. European Management Journal40(5): 718–728.
22.
FournéSPLRosenbuschNHeydenMLM, et al (2019) Structural and contextual approaches to ambidexterity: A meta-analysis of organizational and environmental contingencies. European Management Journal37(5): 564–576.
23.
FuNMaQBosakJ, et al (2016) Intellectual capital and organizational ambidexterity in Chinese and Irish professional service firms. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance3: 94–114.
24.
GibsonCBBirkinshawJ (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal47(2): 209–226.
25.
GioiaDACorleyKGHamiltonAL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods16(1): 15–31.
26.
HavermansLADen HartogDNKeeganA, et al (2015) Exploring the role of leadership in enabling contextual ambidexterity. Human Resource Management54(S1): s179–s200.
27.
HealeyMPVuoriTHodgkinsonGP (2015) When teams agree while disagreeing: Reflexion and reflection in shared cognition. Academy of Management Review40(3): 399–422.
28.
HinojosaASGardnerWLWalkerHJ, et al (2017) A review of cognitive dissonance theory in management research: Opportunities for further development. Journal of Management43(1): 170–199.
29.
JansenJJPSimsekZCaoQ (2012) Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal33(11): 1286–1303.
30.
JansenJJPTempelaarMPVan den BoschFAJ, et al (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science20(4): 797–811.
31.
JansenJJPVan den BoschFAJVolberdaHW (2005) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review57: 351–363.
32.
JansenJJPVan den BoschFAJVolberdaHW (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science52(11): 1661–1674.
33.
JosserandESchmittABorzilloS (2017) Balancing present needs and future options: How employees leverage social networks with clients. Journal of Business Strategy38: 14–21.
34.
KauppilaOPTempelaarMP (2016) The social-cognitive underpinnings of employees’ ambidextrous behaviour and the supportive role of group managers’ leadership. Journal of Management Studies53(6): 1019–1044.
35.
KostovaTZaheerS (1999) Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review24(1): 64–81.
36.
LangleyARavasiD (2019) Visual artifacts as tools for analysis and theorizing. In: ZilberTBAmisJMMairJ (eds) The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited,pp. 173–199.
37.
Laureiro-MartínezDBrusoniSCanessaN, et al (2015) Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strategic Management Journal36(3): 319–338.
38.
LeonardiKLPM (2010) Information, technology, and knowledge sharing in global organizations: Cultural differences in perceptions of where knowledge lies. In: CanaryHEMcPheeRD (eds) Communication and Organizational Knowledge. New York: Routledge,pp. 111–134.
39.
LevinthalDAMarchJG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal14(S2): 95–112.
40.
LewisMW (2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review25(4): 760–776.
41.
LuoYRuiH (2009) An ambidexterity perspective toward multinational enterprises from emerging economies. Academy of Management Perspectives23(4): 49–70.
42.
LuoYTanJJ (1998) A comparison of multinational and domestic firms in an emerging market: A strategic choice perspective. Journal of International Management4(1): 21–40.
43.
McGrathA (2017) Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass11(12): e12362.
44.
MarchJG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science2(1): 71–87.
45.
MartinAKellerAFortwengelJ (2019) Introducing conflict as the microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity. Strategic Organization17(1): 38–61.
46.
MattarelliEBertolottiFPrencipeA, et al (2022) The effect of role-based product representations on individual and team coordination practices: A field study of a globally distributed new product development team. Organization Science33(4): 1423–1451.
47.
Miron-SpektorEErezM (2017) Looking at creativity through a paradox lens: Deeper understanding and new insights. In: SmithWKLewisMWJarzabkowskiP, et al (eds) Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press,pp. 434–451.
48.
Miron-SpektorEIngramAKellerJ, et al (2018) Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal61(1): 26–45.
49.
MomTJMChangYYCholakovaM, et al (2019) A multilevel integrated framework of firm HR practices, individual ambidexterity, and organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management45(7): 3009–3034.
50.
MomTJMVan den BoschFAJVolberdaHW (2009) Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science20(4): 812–828.
51.
NosellaACantarelloSFilippiniR (2012) The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization10(4): 450–465.
52.
O’ReillyCATushmanML (2004) The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review82(4): 74–83.
53.
O’ReillyCATushmanML (2011) Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review53(4): 5–22.
54.
O’ReillyCATushmanML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives27(4): 324–338.
55.
PapachroniAHeracleousL (2020) Ambidexterity as practice: Individual ambidexterity through paradoxical practices. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science56(2): 143–165.
56.
PapachroniAHeracleousLParoutisS (2015) Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Building a novel research agenda. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science51(1): 71–93.
57.
PapachroniAHeracleousLParoutisS (2016) In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial reactions to innovation–efficiency tensions. Human Relations69(9): 1791–1822.
58.
PaulAAntonsD (2020) Achieving personal ambidexterity in practice. Academy of Management Proceedings2020(1): 1–6.
59.
Pertusa-OrtegaEMMolina-AzorínJF (2018) A joint analysis of determinants and performance consequences of ambidexterity. Business Research Quarterly21(2): 84–98.
60.
Pertusa-OrtegaEMMolina-AzorínJFTaríJJ, et al (2020) The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework. Business Research Quarterly24: 355–371.
61.
PrahaladCKDozYL (1987) The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global Vision. New York: Simon & Schuster.
62.
RaischSBirkinshawJ (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management34(3): 375–409.
63.
RaischSZimmermannA (2017) A process perspective on the exploration–exploitation paradox. In: SmithWKLewisMWJarzabkowskiP, et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press,pp. 315–332.
64.
RaischSBirkinshawJProbstG, et al (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science20(4): 685–695.
65.
ReytJNWiesenfeldBM (2015) Seeing the forest for the trees: Exploratory learning, mobile technology, and knowledge workers’ role integration behaviors. Academy of Management Journal58(3): 739–762.
66.
Sanna-RandaccioFVeugelersR (2003) Global innovation strategies of MNEs: Implications for host economies. In: CantwellJMoleroJ (eds) Multinational Enterprises, Innovative Strategies and Systems of Innovation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar,pp. 14–46.
67.
SchadJLewisMWRaischS, et al (2016) Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals10(1): 5–64.
68.
SheepMLFairhurstGTKhazanchiS (2017) Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies38(3–4): 463–488.
69.
SmithWK (2014) Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal57(6): 1592–1623.
70.
SmithWKLewisMW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review36(2): 381–403.
71.
SmithWKTushmanML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science16(5): 522–536.
72.
SmithWKErezMJarvenpaaS, et al (2017) Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organization studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organization Studies38(3–4): 303–317.
73.
SpradleyJP (1979) The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
74.
StraussACorbinJ (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
75.
SwidlerA (1986) Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review51(2): 273–286.
76.
TarbaSYJansenJJPMomTJ, et al (2020) A microfoundational perspective of organizational ambidexterity: Critical review and research directions. Long Range Planning53(6): 102048.
77.
TempelaarMPRosenkranzNA (2019) Switching hats: The effect of role transition on individual ambidexterity. Journal of Management45(4): 1517–1539.
78.
TropeYLibermanN (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review117(2): 440–463.
79.
TushmanMLO’ReillyCAIII (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review38(4): 8–29.
80.
Van NeerijnenPTempelaarMPVan de VrandeV (2022) Embracing paradox: TMT paradoxical processes as a steppingstone between TMT reflexivity and organizational ambidexterity. Organization Studies43(11): 1793–1814.
81.
VolberdaHWLewinAY (2003) Co-evolutionary dynamics within and between firms: From evolution to co-evolution. Journal of Management Studies40(8): 2111–2136.
82.
XuDShenkarO (2002) Note: Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review27(4): 608–618.
83.
ZimmermannARaischSBirkinshawJ (2015) How is ambidexterity initiated? The emergent charter definition process. Organization Science26(4): 1119–1139.
84.
ZimmermannARaischSCardinalLB (2018) Managing persistent tensions on the frontline: A configurational perspective on ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies55: 739–769.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
