Interest is growing in understanding the antecedents of reconciling exploration and exploitation, or ambidexterity. Research on the antecedents of ambidexterity has focused on formal organizational design (i.e. temporal cycles or structural means) or individual abilities (e.g. cognitive flexibility). However, research has overlooked the fact that individual abilities do not operate in a vacuum; how individuals perceive a situation can activate the abilities needed for ambidexterity. Thus, we bring a novel situational perspective to the study of ambidexterity. We examine how a manager’s situational perception of their capacity to influence others and control outcomes (i.e. sense of power) affects their ambidexterity. Across three studies with middle managers, we show that a higher sense of power increases ambidextrous behavior; cognitive flexibility emerges as a key mechanism explaining this relationship. We highlight the crucial role of situational perception in ambidexterity and open up opportunities for better understanding situational antecedents of important organizational behaviors.
AndersonCBerdahlJL (2002) The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology83(6): 1362–1377.
2.
AndersonCGalinskyAD (2006) Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology36(4): 511–536.
3.
AndersonCJohnOPKeltnerD (2012) The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality80(2): 313–344.
4.
AndriopoulosCLewisMW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science20(4): 696–717.
5.
AndriopoulosCLewisMW (2010) Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning43(1): 104–122.
6.
AnicichEMHirshJB (2017) The psychology of middle power: Vertical code-switching, role conflict, and behavioral inhibition. Academy of Management Review42(4): 659–682.
7.
BaerMBrownG (2012) Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes118(1): 60–71.
8.
BalboniBBortoluzziGPuglieseR, et al. (2019) Business model evolution, contextual ambidexterity and the growth performance of high-tech start-ups. Journal of Business Research99: 115–124.
9.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1173–1182.
BironMBambergerP (2010) The impact of structural empowerment on individual well-being and performance: Taking agent preferences, self-efficacy and operational constraints into account. Human Relations63(2): 163–191.
12.
BrusoniSLaureiro-MartínezDCanessaN, et al. (2020) Exploring exploration: The role of affective states as forces that hinder change. Industrial and Corporate Change29(1): 207–223.
ClarkLBecharaADamasioH, et al. (2008) Differential effects of insular and ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions on risky decision-making. Brain131(5): 1311–1322.
15.
CohenJDMcClureSMYuAJ (2007) Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences362(1481): 933–942.
16.
CongerJAKanungoRN (1988) The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review13(3): 471–482.
17.
DawNDO’DohertyJPDayanP, et al. (2006) Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans. Nature441(7095): 876–879.
18.
DennisJPVander WalJS (2010) The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research34: 241–253.
19.
DenrellJMarchJG (2001) Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science12(5): 523–538.
20.
DopsonSRiskAStewartR (1992) The changing role of the middle manager in the United Kingdom. International Studies of Management & Organization22(1): 40–53.
21.
EisenhardtKM (2013) Top management teams and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Small Business Economics40(4): 805–816.
22.
EisenhardtKMFurrNRBinghamCB (2010) Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science21(6): 1263–1273.
23.
FastNJGruenfeldDHSivanathanN, et al. (2009) Illusory control: A generative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psychological Science20(4): 502–508.
24.
FastNJSivanathanNMayerND, et al. (2012) Power and overconfident decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes117(2): 249–260.
25.
FerecatuADe BruynA (2022) Understanding managers’ trade-offs between exploration and exploitation. Marketing Science41(1): 139–165.
26.
FloydSWWooldridgeB (1997) Middle management’s strategic influence and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies34(3): 465–485.
27.
FoulkTALanajKTuM-H, et al. (2018) Heavy is the head that wears the crown: An actor-centric approach to daily psychological power, abusive leader behavior, and perceived incivility. Academy of Management Journal61(2): 661–684.
28.
GalinskyADGruenfeldDHMageeJC (2003) From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology85(3): 453–466.
29.
GalinskyADRuckerDDMageeJC (2015) Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. In: MikulincerMShaverPRSimpsonJA, et al. (eds) APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal Relations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 421–460.
30.
GibsonCBBirkinshawJ (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal47(2): 209–226.
31.
GoodDMichelEJ (2013) Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. The Journal of Psychology147(5): 435–453.
32.
GoslingSDRentfrowPJSwannWB (2003) A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality37(6): 504–528.
33.
GrevenAKruseSVosA, et al. (2023) Achieving product ambidexterity in new product development: The role of middle managers’ dynamic managerial capabilities. Journal of Management Studies60(7): 1786–1818.
34.
GuinoteA (2007a) Behaviour variability and the situated focus theory of power. European Review of Social Psychology18(1): 256–295.
35.
GuinoteA (2007b) Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology43(5): 685–697.
36.
GuinoteA (2017) How power affects people: Activating, wanting, and goal seeking. Annual Review of Psychology68: 353–381.
37.
GuptaAKSmithKGShalleyCE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal49(4): 693–706.
38.
HarperDA (2008) Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams. Journal of Business Venturing23(6): 613–626.
39.
HildrethJADAndersonC (2016) Failure at the top: How power undermines collaborative performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology110(2): 261–286.
40.
InesiME (2010) Power and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes112(1): 58–69.
41.
JansenJJPTempelaarMPVan Den BoschFAJ, et al. (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science20(4): 797–811.
42.
JohnsG (2006) The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review31(2): 386–408.
43.
JordanAHAudiaPG (2012) Self-enhancement and learning from performance feedback. Academy of Management Review37(2): 211–231.
44.
JoshiPDFastNJ (2013) Power and reduced temporal discounting. Psychological Science24(4): 432–438.
45.
KauppilaO-PTempelaarMP (2016) The social-cognitive underpinnings of employees’ ambidextrous behaviour and the supportive role of group managers’ leadership. Journal of Management Studies53(6): 1019–1044.
46.
KeltnerDGruenfeldDHAndersonC (2003) Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review110(2): 265–284.
47.
Keng-HighbergerFFengZYamKC, et al. (2024) Middle power plays: How and when mach middle managers use downward abuse and upward guanxi to gain and maintain power. Journal of Organizational Behavior45(7): 1088–1116.
48.
KilduffGJGalinskyAD (2013) From the ephemeral to the enduring: How approach-oriented mindsets lead to greater status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology105(5): 816–831.
49.
KoganNWallachMA (1967) Effects of physical separation of group members upon group risk-taking. Human Relations20(1): 41–48.
50.
Laureiro-MartinezD (2014) Cognitive control capabilities, routinization propensity, and decision-making performance. Organization Science25(4): 1111–1133.
51.
Laureiro-MartínezDBrusoniS (2018) Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision-making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers. Strategic Management Journal39(4): 1031–1058.
52.
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.
53.
LevinthalDAMarchJG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal14(Suppl. 2): 95–112.
54.
LewellynKBMuller-KahleMI (2012) CEO power and risk taking: Evidence from the subprime lending industry. Corporate Governance: An International Review20(3): 289–307.
55.
LubatkinMHSimsekZLingY, et al. (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized Firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management32(5): 646–672.
56.
MageeJCGalinskyAD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals2(1): 351–398.
57.
MageeJCSmithPK (2013) The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review17(2): 158–186.
58.
MarchJG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science2(1): 71–87.
59.
MarchJG (2008) Explorations in Organizations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
60.
MartinMMRubinRB (1995) A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports76(2): 623–626.
61.
MeyerRDDalalRSHermidaR (2010) A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management36(1): 121–140.
62.
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.
63.
MomTJMChangY-YCholakovaM, et al. (2019) A multilevel integrated framework of firm HR practices, individual ambidexterity, and organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management45(7): 3009–3034.
64.
MomTJMFournéSPLJansenJJP (2015) Managers’ work experience, ambidexterity, and performance: The contingency role of the work context. Human Resource Management54(Suppl. 1): S133–S153.
65.
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.
66.
NicholsonNSoaneEFenton-O’CreevyM, et al. (2005) Personality and domain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research8(2): 157–176.
67.
O’ReillyCATushmanML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives27(4): 324–338.
68.
OstermanP (2008) The Truth about Middle Managers: Who They Are, How They Work, Why They Matter. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Press.
69.
OverbeckJRParkB (2001) When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology81(4): 549–565.
70.
Pertusa-OrtegaEMMolina-AzorínJFTaríJJ, et al. (2021) The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework. BRQ Business Research Quarterly24(4): 355–371.
71.
PosenHELevinthalDA (2012) Chasing a moving target: Exploitation and exploration in dynamic environments. Management Science58(3): 587–601.
72.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers36(4): 717–731.
RaischSBirkinshawJProbstG, et al. (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science20(4): 685–695.
75.
RauthmannJFGallardo-PujolDGuillaumeEM, et al. (2014) The situational eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology107(4): 677–718.
76.
RichnerJZagorac-UremovićZLaureiro-MartínezD (2023) Individual and context–evoked antecedents of exploration-exploitation performance. Frontiers in Psychology14: 1–20.
77.
RivkinJWSiggelkowN (2003) Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science49(3): 290–311.
78.
RuckerDDDuboisDGalinskyAD (2011) Generous paupers and stingy princes: Power drives consumer spending on self versus others. Journal of Consumer Research37(6): 1015–1029.
79.
RyanRMDeciEL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist55(1): 68–78.
80.
SanfeyAGRillingJKAronsonJA, et al. (2003) The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science300(5626): 1755–1758.
81.
SchmidPC (2018) Less power, greater conflict: Low power increases the experience of conflict in multiple goal settings. Social Psychology49(1): 47–62.
82.
SchmidPCKleimanTAmodioDM (2015) Power effects on cognitive control: Turning conflict into action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General144(3): 655–663.
83.
SchnellbächerBHeidenreichSWaldA (2019) Antecedents and effects of individual ambidexterity—A cross-level investigation of exploration and exploitation activities at the employee level. European Management Journal37(4): 442–454.
84.
SchwarzerRJerusalemM (1995) Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In: WeinmanJWrightSJohnstonM (eds) Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs. Windsor: NFER-NELSON, pp. 35–37.
85.
ShermanGDLeeJJCuddyAJ, et al. (2012) Leadership is associated with lower levels of stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109(44): 17903–17907.
86.
SitkinSBPabloAL (1992) Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. The Academy of Management Review17(1): 9–38.
87.
SlabuLGuinoteA (2010) Getting what you want: Power increases the accessibility of active goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology46(2): 344–349.
88.
SmircichLStubbartC (1985) Strategic management in an enacted world. The Academy of Management Review10(4): 724–736.
89.
SmithPKHofmannW (2016) Power in everyday life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113(36): 10043–10048.
90.
SmithPKTropeY (2006) You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology90(4): 578–596.
91.
SpreitzerGM (1995) Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. The Academy of Management Journal38(5): 1442–1465.
92.
TarakciMAteşNYFloydSW, et al. (2018) Performance feedback and middle managers’ divergent strategic behavior: The roles of social comparisons and organizational identification. Strategic Management Journal39(4): 1139–1162.
93.
TaylorAHelfatCE (2009) Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science20(4): 718–739.
94.
ThomasKWVelthouseBA (1990) Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. The Academy of Management Review15(4): 666–681.
95.
TostLP (2015) When, why, and how do powerholders “feel the power”? Examining the links between structural and psychological power and reviving the connection between power and responsibility. Research in Organizational Behavior35: 29–56.
96.
TripsasMGavettiG (2000) Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal21(10–11): 1147–1161.
97.
TropeYLibermanN (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review117(2): 440–463.
98.
TushmanMLO’ReillyCA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review38(4): 8–29.
99.
WestGP (2007) Collective cognition: When entrepreneurial teams, not individuals, make decisions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice31(1): 77–102.
100.
WooldridgeBSchmidTFloydSW (2008) The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management34(6): 1190–1221.
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.
