Strategic Perspective of Organizational Ambidexterity: Assessing the influence of

contributing elements for accomplishing ambidexterity through digitization.

Overview

Organizational ambidexterity, the capacity of a company to engage in both exploratory and

exploitative activities, has been cited by academics as a key factor in maintaining a

competitive edge. According to the findings of the empirical research, organizational

ambidexterity may improve short-term performance while simultaneously increasing long-

term survival rates in dynamically competitive environments. This is because ambidextrous

organizations are faster to adapt to shifting market circumstances and cutting-edge

technological developments. However, due to the existence of fundamentally different

organizational skills, structures, and processes, paradoxical issues have arisen. Companies

such as Alibaba, Amazon, and Lego have seen significant performance increases after

focusing on and expanding their core industries. On the other hand, companies such as

General Electric, Kodak, and Nokia have struggled to realize lasting value by maintaining

competing lines of work. Alibaba, Amazon, and Lego have seen significant performance

increases. Unlike IBM, which was able to make the transition from hardware to software and

subsequently to services effectively, Xerox was unable to do so because it lacked the agility

to perceive emerging trends, seize opportunities, and restructure its company by those trends

(Nobakht, 2021).

In light of these contrasts, the majority of the research that has already been done on the

subject of organizational ambidexterity has been on advancing our understanding of how

organizations manage conflicting priorities. First, scholars have detailed the numerous

elements that contribute to an organization's ambidexterity, or its propensity to seek both

exploration and exploitation of a resource. Ambidexterity may be defined as an organization's

tendency to pursue both the exploration and exploitation of a resource. The qualities of the

senior leadership team, the design of the company itself, the external environment, and the

human resource infrastructure are all examples of these elements (Belhadi, 2021).
Second, research has suggested techniques for resolving conflicts between exploration and

exploitation at different levels of analysis by taking into account geographical, temporal, and

contextual aspects. It is possible to alleviate tensions within an organization in one of two

ways: either by establishing distinct divisions to handle exploration and exploitation, or by

forming joint ventures, alliances, or acquisitions to supplement the organization's internal

efforts, which are typically intended to be exploitative. In addition, companies have the

option of utilizing contextual methods to assist their employees in resolving the exploration-

exploitation paradox on a personal level. Alternatively, companies have the option of

switching back and forth between organizational solutions that promote exploration and

exploitation. In addition, recent research has revealed that these solutions are often deployed

in combination with one another or succession inside firms (Müller, 2019).

Finally, scholars have criticized the static nature of ambidexterity studies while

demonstrating the value of a process viewpoint. This viewpoint helps us understand how

organizations can achieve and maintain high performance by showing how exploration and

exploitation are complementary over time, outlining the multi-level process by which

organizations adopt an ambidextrous orientation, and showing how important it is to adapt

the balance between exploration and exploitation to changes in the environment.

Organizational ambidexterity has been studied for decades and found to be both possible and

desirable. However, little is known about how this ambidexterity may originate and grow

when members of an organization, both individually and collectively, implement paradoxical

demands by reducing inertial tensions and capitalizing on exploring and exploiting

opportunities. Organizational ambidexterity has been conceptualized by academics as a

multilevel phenomenon, but little is known about its microfoundations, or the underlying

individual and collective actions required to strike a balance between exploration and
exploitation while also adapting to shifting internal and external conditions (Magnusson,

2020).

Problem statement

Companies today must balance effectiveness in terms of adaptation and flexibility with

efficiency in terms of profitability and alignment. Specifically, in fast-moving markets,

companies should not only prioritize exploration, but also exploitation. If businesses are

unable to accomplish these two goals simultaneously, they risk compromising their long-term

success. Having achieved great size and success at one point in time is no guarantee of long-

term success. In my opinion, this presents a difficulty for businesses that intend to last for

many years. Out of 266 businesses examined, only a small percentage made it through the

years 1984-2004. A failure to respond effectively to shifts in the market was largely to blame

for this failure. For this reason, the "paradox of success" has been coined to describe the

difficulty of the situation. This means that organizations become more resistant to change as

they mature and grow larger because their internal structure and systems become more

intricate. To resolve this tension, businesses need to excel in both the traditional market and

open up to opportunities in emerging markets.

Aims and objectives

The main aim of the study is to examine the Strategic Perspective of Organizational

Ambidexterity: concerning assessing the influence of contributing elements for

accomplishing ambidexterity through digitization. In addition, the study also focuses on:

 To analyze how helping organizations do more than one thing by using projects and

programs together.

 To focus on how ambidexterity works in the real world and how projects and

programs can be used to put strategic change into action.

  To examine how to Set Up Digitization to Get Organizational Flexibility.

Research questions

1. How helping organizations do more than one thing by using projects and programs

together?

2. How ambidexterity works in the real world and how projects and programs can be

used to put strategic change into action?

3. How to Set Up Digitization to Get Organizational Flexibility?

Literature Review

A micro-foundational perspective of organizational ambidexterity

According to Åkesson, (2018) ambidexterity in organizations arises not only from the pursuit

of both exploratory and exploitative activities but also from the efficient mobilization and

integration of these activities or behaviours to create novel combinations. It has been

proposed by academics that new forms of organizational ambidexterity can only arise via the

development of collective patterns of interaction that foster the generation of novel ideas and

the establishment of novel links across different domains of knowledge. Scholars have

pointed out the need for multi-level studies because of the widespread belief that

ambidexterity occurs at several organizational levels. Individuals' patterns of behaviour,

values, and identities within ambidextrous firms may be influenced by the organizational

environment, structural solutions, planning and incentive systems, and decision-making

procedures. By breaking down the processes, practices, and routines that produce the capacity

to orchestrate and combine exploration and exploitation, a multilevel framework may provide

insight into the systematic development of ambidexterity as a dynamic capability at the

organizational level.
Chi, (2017) stated that micro-foundational thinking has traditionally focused on individual-

level actors, their capacities and behaviours, and their emergent collective interactions to

explain higher-level notions; this kind of thinking is gaining growing academic attention in

the field of strategy. In recent years, scholars have brought a micro-foundational viewpoint to

the study of organizational ambidexterity in addition to other phenomena like routines and

dynamic capacities.

Liang, (2019) examined that according to a micro-foundational view of organizational

ambidexterity, its creation is predicated on individuals' propensity to handle paradoxical

demands. Operational managers create organizational ambidexterity when they combine their

scouting and exploiting tendencies into the company's larger streams of innovation and

decision-making. In addition, research has revealed that senior executives' normative impact

and interactions across hierarchical levels collectively alter the perceptions and behaviors of

organizational members, indicating that these actors converge on a unified pattern of

balancing exploration and exploitation. Because of this, ambidexterity is shaped by the

opportunities employees are given to network with business leaders, combine their naturally

inquisitive and exploitative tendencies into organizational structures, and generalize their

expertise across products and geographic markets.

A research agenda on the micro-foundations of ambidexterity

According to Werder, (2019), the idea behind this special issue is that studying organizational

ambidexterity from a more microscopic level would yield fruitful results. Organizational

ambidexterity necessitates such an approach due to the need to orchestrate collective

processes across different levels of the organizational structure. This special issue seeks to

provide a more comprehensive understanding of ambidexterity that is fundamentally

multidimensional in character and thus recognizes the deep links between activities at the
micro (or individual), meso (or team), and macro (or organizational) levels of analysis, under

the premise that organizational ambidexterity originates from the actions and interactions of

managers and workers.

Micro-level drivers of organizational ambidexterity

Hölzl, (2022) analyzed that the initial line of inquiry into the nature of organizational

ambidexterity focuses on the individual's thoughts and actions. The debate's cognitive

undercurrent revolved first around the paradoxical mental models of political and business

leaders. This study builds on paradox theory to claim that ambidextrous leaders must be able

to juxtapose contradictions in their minds in a manner that allows them to accept and work

with them, rather than ignore or suppress them. The paradoxical cognitive frameworks of

Strategic Business Unit (SBU) managers encourage organizational ambidexterity, according

to research by Lin and McDonough (2014). Later research shifted its emphasis from just

cognitive to include incorporating emotional and behavioural considerations. It was shown

that organizational ambidexterity is influenced by the CEO's regulatory emphasis, which

relates to the CEO's deeply established motivating aims. 

Ochie, (2022) examined that leadership's ability to encourage others' exploration and

exploitation at the same time is the topic of study in the behavioural sub-stream. The topic of

transformative leadership and its impact on organizational duality first came up in the

conversation. There is empirical evidence from several research showing that these actions

foster ambidexterity. Furthermore, Jansen et al. (2009) demonstrate that ambidexterity is

enabled by both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors in various

circumstances. Recently, researchers have broadened the scope of this debate to examine the

day-to-day operations of top-level officials, providing a more dynamic view of the individual

roots of ambidexterity. Researchers have shown that leaders use a variety of leadership styles
to facilitate both discovery and development. According to research by Zimmermann et al.

(2018), first-line supervisors make use of configurational methods to help their staff deal with

exploration-exploitation conflicts in the workplace.

The role of social interaction in the emergence of organizational ambidexterity

According to Haffke, (2016) the second line of inquiry considers how communication and

cooperation between individuals and teams contribute to the development of organizational

duality. The importance of TMT behavioural integration in resolving competing demands has

been emphasized by academics. Based on the findings, theoretical frameworks are proposed

in which TMT behavioural integration is seen to foster TMT behavioural complexity, which

in turn promotes organizational ambidexterity. TMT behavioural integration promotes

organizational ambidexterity, as shown by empirical research by Halevi et al. (2015), and this

effect is accentuated in highly dynamic contexts. TMT behavioural integration is shown to

increase organizational ambidexterity, which in turn improves business performance, as

discovered by Venugopal et al. (2020).

The enabling role of organizational aspects for individual ambidexterity

Hariguna, (2022) stated that some have said that doing both exploration and exploitation in

the same business unit is not only possible but also necessary for above-average performance.

However, most academics agree that these two activities are incompatible and can only be

done successfully in different organizational contexts or at different times. The concept of

contextual ambidexterity or harmonic ambidexterity emphasizes the importance of

individuals' abilities to choose between exploratory and exploitative activities within an

organization and to integrate across these activities, given the complementary nature of these

two types of work.

Scholars have suggested that stretch and discipline, as well as support and trust, have a role in

the development of ambidexterity among employees inside firms. It is also crucial to have

enough resources to allow people the freedom and time to figure out where their focus is best

placed during the exploration and exploitation phases. Empowerment, or the shared

conviction that one's actions have consequences, has been identified as a key organizational

driver of individual-level ambidexterity in studies examining the contextual foundations of

ambidexterity. The inherent tensions between exploration and exploitation can be mitigated

on the front lines when employees are given sufficient autonomy in fulfilling their dual roles

through empowerment.

Micro-level drivers of individual ambidexterity

According to Piccinini, (2015) interest in ambidexterity in the field of strategic management

was initially sparked by the idea that ambidextrous people are required to run ambidextrous

businesses. These individuals handle exploration and exploitation in the real and virtual

worlds by performing related tasks. While studies of structural ambidexterity have focused on

the importance of ambidexterity at the top, Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) were among the

first to highlight the importance of the actions of people at lower hierarchical levels in

fostering organizational ambidexterity. These debates have prompted studies that look into

the origins of ambidexterity in the human brain. Much of this study, particularly from the

field of human resource management, focuses on how organizational structures, procedures,

and norms might foster ambidextrous behavior among its members. According to

Moschogianni, (2021) an essential idea is that an individual's ambidextrous conduct is

triggered by a hybrid environment consisting of both exploratory and exploitative

antecedents. There is consensus among the earliest studies of psychological factors that

ambidexterity is linked to a balance of inquisitive and practical traits like divergent thinking
and focused attention, a locomotion orientation and an assessment orientation, or an openness

to experience and a conscientious work ethic.

Jöhnk, (2022) examined that conceptualizations of individual ambidexterity have changed

their focus from a person engaging in exploration and exploitation activities to how this

person mixes these two spheres of activity. For instance, research illustrates how people

handle the conflicting demands of exploration and exploitation, seek for opportunities to mix

the two, or fluidly shift between the two as circumstances demand. Corresponding sorts of

other psychological or organizational antecedents, such as an individual's learning

orientation, role-breadth self-efficacy, role-transition skills, attention management, and

paradoxical practices, have also been investigated as a result of this study.

Significance of the study

Academics have questioned whether or not there is a lack of granular, multi-layered

knowledge of the processes and skills associated with organizational ambidexterity. Existing

research on ambidexterity has examined the topic from both a micro (psychological) and a

macro (organizational) perspective; however, very few studies have combined these two

points of view. There may be a need for integrative theories such as these to bridge the gap

between research on ambidexterity in individuals and research on ambidexterity in

organizations. This themed issue was created to motivate researchers of varying academic

levels and working in a variety of disciplines to investigate the microscopic foundations of

ambidexterity. In-depth research on ambidexterity has been conducted in several different

areas, including strategic alliances and mergers and acquisitions. In the context of strategic

alliances, mergers, acquisitions, or new product development teams, there has not been a lot

of research done on the micro-foundations of organizational ambidexterity up until this point.

To get a better grasp on how ambidexterity emerges within new businesses, additional
research is required. This is because the results of such young and small organizations may be

heavily intertwined with how individual entrepreneurs or founding teams operate.

The adoption of a microfoundational approach, which is made possible by globalization, may

make it possible for more transdisciplinary, multi-stage, and cross-cultural models of

ambidexterity to be developed in developing as well as industrialized nations. In addition, the

conclusion of this introductory article included a call for additional research that would build

upon the models and empirical evidence presented in the work included in this special issue

to acquire a deeper comprehension of the micro-foundations of organizational ambidexterity.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research approach

Research approach is refers as a fundamental part of the research methodology which

are based on certain belief and assumptions. The current research is based on quantitative in

nature so that positivism research paradigm will be used in order to make a complete study

on Strategic Perspective of Organizational Ambidexterity by Assessing the influence of

contributing elements for accomplishing ambidexterity through digitization.. In addition to

this, deductive research approach is to be used in order to examine those facts and figures

which are numerically expressed in a data collection process.

Research Design

Research design is refers to a complete structure of the study which also known as a

blueprint of the research that are based on certain philosophies of the research. In order to

examine the Strategic Perspective of Organizational Ambidexterity by Assessing the

influence of contributing elements for accomplishing ambidexterity through digitization,

descriptive research design will be used (Lee, Ardakani, Yang & Bagheri, 2015). The reason
for choosing the descriptive research design because it helps in furnishing a detailed data

collection procedure and plan. The distinct characters and practices that are revealed through

research examinations are portrayed effectively through the descriptive research. As a

quantitative research deals with testing of hypothesis with the association between the pre-

defined theoretical concepts and so a descriptive design will suit the process better

Data collection

Data collection method is defined by the procedure adopted to collect data which can

be either quantitative data or qualitative data collection. In the current research study,

quantitative data collect ion method will be used in which survey method is a popular

technique for primary data collection through survey instruments such as questionnaires and

through personal interviews and focus group discussions (Kavanagh & Johnson, 2017). The

close-ended surveys are the one that have their individual predestined answer set. The main

advantage of using close ended questionnaires is that, it enables the participants to express

their views precisely and even within a single shot. The implementation of 5- point likert’s

scale which enables the easy assessment of collected data with the aid of pragmatic tools.

Data analysis

In order to presents the collected data in an effective manner, thematic presentation

will be used by the researcher will the help of pie charts, bar diagrams, charts etc. It helps to

presents the facts and informations in a simple manner so that it will be easily understandable

by the viewers. Statistical analysis is very much essential for the test of hypothesis too in an

empirical deductive research approach which includes SPSS, Chi-Square test and descriptive

analysis of the variable in order to get the final result (Erevelles, Fukawa & Swayne, 2016).
Sample Design

Sampling technique can be classified into non-probability and probability designs

respectively. Probability sampling techniques suit the best when a positivist research

paradigm is adapted and a quantitative research methodology is employed. The author

involves simple random sampling for the selection of participants. Simple random sampling

is a method that is utilized for selecting participants from a naturally-occurring group of

people and each participant has an equal chance of being elected for the study. Survey will be

conducted among 250 individuals.

References

Åkesson, M., Sørensen, C., & Eriksson, C. I. (2018). Ambidexterity under digitalization: A

tale of two decades of new media at a Swedish newspaper. Scandinavian Journal of

Management, 34(3), 276-288.

Belhadi, A., Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A., & Mani, V. (2021). Analyzing the mediating role

of organizational ambidexterity and digital business transformation on industry 4.0

capabilities and sustainable supply chain performance. Supply Chain Management:

An International Journal.

Chi, M., Zhao, J., George, J. F., Li, Y., & Zhai, S. (2017). The influence of inter-firm IT

governance strategies on relational performance: The moderation effect of

information technology ambidexterity. International Journal of Information

Management, 37(2), 43-53.

Haffke, I., Kalgovas, B. J., & Benlian, A. (2016). The Role of the CIO and the CDO in an

Organization’s Digital Transformation.

Hariguna, T., & Rahardja, U. (2022, September). The Role of E-Government Ambidexterity

as the Impact of Current Technology and Public Value: An Empirical Study.

In Informatics (Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 67). MDPI.

Hölzl, L. (2022). Organizational Ambidexterity and Long-term Success: Multiperspective

Studies on Culture, HRM, and Leadership (Doctoral dissertation, Universität St.

Gallen).

Jöhnk, J., Ollig, P., Rövekamp, P., & Oesterle, S. (2022). Managing the complexity of digital

transformation—How multiple concurrent initiatives foster hybrid

ambidexterity. Electronic Markets, 1-23.

Liang, Y., Qi, G., Zhang, X., & Li, G. (2019). The effects of e-Government cloud

assimilation on public value creation: An empirical study of China. Government

Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101397.

Magnusson, J., Koutsikouri, D., & Päivärinta, T. (2020). Efficiency creep and shadow

innovation: enacting ambidextrous IT Governance in the public sector. European

Journal of Information Systems, 29(4), 329-349.

Moschogianni, G. (2021). Combined effects of self tuning model and innovation Capability

on digital innovation: A study of German pharmaceutical firm. Journal of

Digitovation and information system, 1(1), 15-27.

Müller, S. D., Påske, N., & Rodil, L. (2019). Managing ambidexterity in startups pursuing

digital innovation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 44(1),

18.

Nobakht, M., Hejazi, S. R., Akbari, M., & Sakhdari, K. (2021). Exploring the relationship

between open innovation and organisational ambidexterity: the moderating effect of

entrepreneurial orientation. Innovation, 23(1), 71-92.

Ochie, C., Nyuur, R. B., Ludwig, G., & Cunningham, J. A. (2022). Dynamic capabilities and

organizational ambidexterity: New strategies from emerging market multinational

enterprises in Nigeria. Thunderbird International Business Review.

Piccinini, E., Hanelt, A., Gregory, R., & Kolbe, L. (2015). Transforming industrial business:

the impact of digital transformation on automotive organizations.

Werder, K., & Heckmann, C. S. (2019). Ambidexterity in Information systems research:

overview of conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Information

Technology Theory and Application, 20(1).