The ambidextrous organization - Leadership and the administration paradox of modern organizations.

The ambidextrous organization Leadership and the administration paradox of modern

organizations.

2

Student : C.L. (Cornelis) de Kloet

Student number : 4100417

Master : Business Administration

Specialization : Innovation & Strategy

University : Radboud University Nijmegen

Faculty : Nijmegen School of Management

Supervisor : prof. dr. J.A.C.M. (Hans) Doorewaard

Second readers : dr. J.M.I.M. (Jan) Achterbergh

: drs. C.J. (Kees) Beuving

: ir. R.P. (Rudolf) Mulder

Title : The ambidextrous organization: Leadership and the administration

: paradox of modern organizations.

Version : Final - 17.0

Date : 29th of March 2012

3

Management Summary This summary provides a brief overview on the research presented in this thesis.

Background and objective

More than forty years ago Thompson (1967) already emphasized the tension and

incompatibility between the exploitation and exploration activities of an organization.

Thompson described this tension as the ‘paradox of administration’. This paradox manifests

itself by organizations having to manage exploitative activities that are focused on increasing

efficiency and stability of the current activities, while also pursuing explorative activities that

are focused on realizing innovations and flexibility. Thompson and many other researchers

argued that both activities are necessary for an organization in order to survive on the short

and long term. Duncan (1976) introduced the term ‘ambidextrous organization’ as a solution

for the paradox between exploitation and exploration activities. Nowadays researchers and

practitioners are using the notion of ambidexterity to describe firms that are able to exploit

and explore. Thereby the concept of ambidextrous organization is referred to as the

organizations ability to master two contrary things - exploitation and exploration activities - in

order to succeed on the short and long term.

Despite an increasing interest in organizational ambidexterity, an examination of the literature

reveals that some important research issues remain unexplored, indefinite or conceptually

vague. Previous research has shown that the role of leadership is of great importance in

fostering organizational ambidexterity. However, there is still relatively little known about what

type of leadership is needed in order to realize organizational ambidexterity, since most of

the previous research is focusing on structural antecedents. Following the suggestion of

Simsek et al. (2009) to do further research on leadership styles and organizational

ambidexterity, the following research objective was defined:

The objective of this research is to provide theoretically insights into which leadership styles do

best support the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal – of organizational

ambidexterity, defined by Simsek et al. (2009).

Theoretical framework

The organizational ambidexterity model developed by Simsek et al. (2009), depicted in figure

3 on page 12, was used as the base of this research. By distinguishing a structural and

temporal dimension this model delineates four types of organizational ambidexterity –

harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal - that comprehend all prior research on

organizational ambidexterity into one construct. In order to determine which leadership styles

do best support these four types of organizational ambidexterity, a third leadership dimension

was added to the organizational ambidexterity model of Simsek et al. (2009), by using the

eight leadership styles of the Competing Values Framework (CVF), developed by Quinn and

Rohrbaugh (1983), depicted in figure 8 on page 24. This framework encompasses four

transactional and four transformational leadership styles, based on four quadrants that

represent ‘ideal models’ of efficient organizations. Both theoretical models were linked to

each other after a thorough research into both underlying theoretical assumptions. This

resulted in a revised organizational ambidexterity model, depicted in figure 13 on page 32,

which was thereafter studied in practice by investigating four cases at two different

companies.

Research methodology

Based on the research objective and the exploratory nature of this research, a case study

was performed at two companies. An important reason for choosing the case study strategy

can be found in the need to collect in-depth information regarding ‘how’ leadership styles (a

social phenomenon) are employed in the organizational ambidexterity context at two

companies (natural environment). Four cases are investigated, three cases at engineering

and consultancy company DHV and one case at Royal Philips Electronics. These four cases

were selected because together they covered all four types of organizational ambidexterity.

By investigating four cases this research can be defined as a multiple-case study.

Furthermore, this research can be characterized as a theory-oriented research. Since this

research intends to contribute to the organizational ambidexterity literature by providing

4

theoretical insights into which leadership styles do best support the four types of

organizational ambidexterity. In addition, due to the fact that this research is aimed at

developing a theory, instead of testing pre-defined hypotheses, this research can be labeled

as a theory-developing multiple-case study.

The empirical data was primarily gathered by conducting semi-structured interviews among

employees of the four cases. In total fourteen interviews were held, ten interviews at

engineering and consultancy company DHV and the other four at Royal Philips Electronics.

Next to the interviews observations took place, as well as document research on (policy)

documents and vision plans regarding leadership and exploitation and exploration activities.

By combining interviews, document research and observations data triangulation was

achieved. Thereby the researcher was able to verify acquired information and facts between

multiple resources, which contributed to the internal validity of this research.

Results

The results of the investigation in practice revealed some very interesting findings regarding

(theoretically proposed) combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational

ambidexterity.

The most significant findings are:

• First, the investigation in practice revealed that all cases, except one, pursue a

combination of the four types of organizational ambidexterity. Therefore it is argued

that units tend to pursue ‘hybrid forms of organizational ambidexterity’ (hereafter

named: hybrid ambidexterity), instead of only one of the four individual types of

organizational ambidexterity.

• Second, the theoretical suggestion that ‘behavioral complexity’ is needed while

pursuing organizational ambidexterity is completely confirmed by the investigation in

practice. Every interviewee argued that managers need to be able to employ various

leadership styles in order to balance contradictory demands. Thus, there is no single

best leadership style while pursuing the four types of organizational ambidexterity.

• Third, while investigating the types of organizational ambidexterity and leadership

styles employed, some additional findings were obtained that can affect the

leadership styles that are necessary while pursuing the four types of organizational

ambidexterity. These findings are categorized into internal and external factors.

Internal factors are the type of activities of a unit, the financial accountability

structure of a company, the hierarchical position of a leader and the use of stage-

gate models. External factors are the influence of the markets, changing work

environments and the influence of shareholders.

The organizational ambidexterity continuum model

The consequence of these findings is that the theoretical model with combinations of

leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity, might be too general and too

static in order to determine which leadership styles are needed while pursuing organizational

ambidexterity. In other words, it is less relevant to determine which leadership styles are most

appropriate per type of organizational ambidexterity, because in practice units tend to

pursue hybrid forms of organizational ambidexterity. In addition, the specific forms of hybrid

ambidexterity and the required leadership styles are influenced by various internal and

external factors.

Based on these obtained insights it is argued that organizations, departments and units

prevail to pursue (over time) hybrid forms of ambidexterity and that this is a form of

organizational ambidexterity that can be found on a continuum between two (extreme)

types of organizational ambidexterity. Therefore a new model of organizational ambidexterity

is developed: ‘The organizational ambidexterity continuum model’, depicted in figure 28 on

page 72. By using this model it is better possible to map (hybrid) forms of organizational

ambidexterity and the required leadership styles, as well as factors that influence these forms

and leadership styles. Finally, based on this new organizational ambidexterity continuum

model, four ‘ideal dimensions’ of organizational ambidexterity were defined, together with

eight hypotheses for further research on leadership styles and (hybrid) forms of organizational

ambidexterity.

5

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................7

1.1 The challenge of balancing exploration and exploitation...................................................................7

1.2 Four types of organizational ambidexterity and the leadership antecedent ...........................7

1.3 Research objective ......................................................................................................................................................8

1.4 Research model.............................................................................................................................................................9

1.5 Research questions ...................................................................................................................................................10

1.6 Outline research..........................................................................................................................................................11

2. Types of organizational ambidexterity and the third leadership dimension ................................. 12

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................12

2.2 Organizational ambidexterity model .............................................................................................................12

2.3 Organizational ambidexterity and the four types ...................................................................................13

2.3.1 Organizational ambidexterity....................................................................................................................14

2.3.2 Four types of organizational ambidexterity .......................................................................................17

2.4 Leadership and leadership styles ......................................................................................................................20

2.4.1 Transactional and transformational leadership ..............................................................................21

2.4.2 Leadership styles................................................................................................................................................23

2.5 Combinations of leadership styles and the four types of organizational ambidexterity ..26

2.5.1 Behavioral complexity ...................................................................................................................................26

2.5.2 Leadership styles and the four types of organizational ambidexterity ..............................26

2.6 Three dimensional model of organizational ambidexterity ...............................................................32

3. Research methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 34

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................34

3.2 Research strategy ......................................................................................................................................................34

3.2.1 Case study research .......................................................................................................................................34

3.2.2 Unit of analysis.....................................................................................................................................................35

3.2.3 Case selection ....................................................................................................................................................35

3.3 Data collection............................................................................................................................................................37

3.3.1 Preparation of data collection .................................................................................................................37

3.3.2 Interviews ...............................................................................................................................................................37

3.3.3 Document research ........................................................................................................................................38

3.3.4 Observations ........................................................................................................................................................38

3.4 Data analyses...............................................................................................................................................................38

3.5 Validity and reliability ...............................................................................................................................................39

3.5.1 Validity.....................................................................................................................................................................39

3.5.2 Reliability ................................................................................................................................................................40

4. Case study results...................................................................................................................................................... 41

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................41

4.2 Case results: unit Asset and Information Management (DHV) ........................................................41

4.2.1 Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued by case ...........................................................41

4.2.2 Leadership styles employed to pursue organizational ambidexterity................................43

4.2.3 Additional findings............................................................................................................................................45

4.3 Case results: unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (DHV)................................................46




6

4.4 Case results: unit Real Estate (DHV) .................................................................................................................50




4.5 Case results: Philips Incubators ...........................................................................................................................54




5. Analyses and hypotheses ..................................................................................................................................... 60

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................60

5.2 Differences and similarities between the four investigated cases ................................................60

5.3 Differences and similarities between theoretical model and investigation in practice ...63

5.4 Conclusion on the additional findings ...........................................................................................................66

5.5 Contribution to the organizational ambidexterity theory ...................................................................68

5.5.1 Theoretical model as point of departure............................................................................................68

5.5.2 Implications and conclusions.....................................................................................................................69

5.5.3 New theoretical model and hypotheses for further research ................................................71

5.6 Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................................83

5.7 Reflection ........................................................................................................................................................................84

5.7.1 Theory ......................................................................................................................................................................84

5.7.2 Research ................................................................................................................................................................84

5.7.3 Results ......................................................................................................................................................................85

References......................................................................................................................................................................... 86

Appendix 1 – Interviewees......................................................................................................................................... 91

Appendix 2 – Interview guide................................................................................................................................... 92

Appendix 3 – Studied documents .......................................................................................................................... 93

Appendix 4 – Similarities and differences analysis......................................................................................... 94

7

1. Introduction

1.1 The challenge of balancing exploration and exploitation

In industrial company’s as well as in professional service companies managers struggle with

the question how they can manage today’s business in an efficient way, while also being

adaptable to changes in the environment so that they are still around tomorrow (Duncan,

1976; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Due to increasing competition within national and

international markets, changing legislation, rapid technological change and shortening of

product lifecycles this question has become more and more prevalent for organizations

(Floyd & Lane, 2000; Grant, 1996a). After all not only the number of changes, but also the

intensity of market development, confront organizations with a tension between efficiency

and cost reduction on the one hand and flexibility and innovativeness on the other hand

(Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991).

More than forty years ago Thompson (1967) already emphasized the tension and

incompatibility between the exploitation and exploration activities of an organization.

Thompson described this tension as the ‘paradox of administration’ (p. 15). This paradox

manifests itself by organizations having to manage exploitative activities that are focused on

increasing efficiency and stability of the current activities, while also pursuing explorative

activities that are focused on realizing innovations and flexibility. Duncan (1976) and also

Abernathy (1978) noted that both activities are necessary for an organization in order to

survive on the short and long term. Duncan introduced the term ‘ambidextrous organization’

as a solution for the paradox between exploitation and exploration activities. The word

ambidexterity is derived from the Latin ambos, ‘both’ and dexter, ‘right’ (as opposed to left).

Ambidexterity can have three meanings: using both hands with equal ease, being

characterized by duplicity or double-dealing, or being unusually skillful or versatile (Merriam-

Webster, 2009; Simsek, Heavey, Veiga & Souder, 2009). Increasingly, researchers and

practitioners are using the notion of ambidexterity to describe firms that are able to exploit

and explore. Thereby the concept of ambidextrous organization is referred to as the

organizations ability to master two contrary things - exploitation and exploration activities - in

order to succeed on the short and long term (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004). Previous research

found empirical evidence that organizations that are able to manage exploitation and

exploration activities – ambidextrous organizations – perform better than organizations that

focus on only one of both activities. Too much focus on exploitation may enhance short-term

performance, but it can result in a competence trap (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008: p. 392) since firms may not able to respond adequately to environmental changes (Henderson & Clark,

1990; Jansen, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2005; Sorenson & Stuart, 2000; Tushman & Anderson, 1986). On the other hand excessive exploration may enhance a firm’s ability to

continually renew their knowledge, but can trap organizations in an endless cycle of search and failure and unrewarding change (Birkinshaw & Raisch, 2008: p. 377). Despite an increasing interest in organizational ambidexterity, an examination of the literature

reveals that some important research issues remain unexplored, indefinite or conceptually

vague. Although near consensus exist on the need to manage the tension between

exploitation and exploration activities, there is still relatively little known on how to do this.

1.2 Four types of organizational ambidexterity and the leadership antecedent

The last decade a lot of research has been done on the concept of organizational

ambidexterity and investigated the antecedents and moderators that influence the tension

between exploitation and exploration activities. According to Birkinshaw et al. (2009), ‘the

number of studies in leading management journals that explicitly refer to organizational

ambidexterity increased from less than 10 in 2004 to more than 80 today (p. 685)’. In addition,

as Birkinshaw and Raisch (2008) describe, ‘researchers of various literature streams have

contributed to the discussion on organizational ambidexterity. The contradictions between

exploitation and exploration, as well as the need to reconcile the two different activities,

have been discussed in contexts such as organizational learning, technological innovation,

organizational adaption, strategic management and organizational design (p. 377)’. In all this

research organizational ambidexterity has been extensively used to broadly refer to an

8

organization’s ability to perform differing and often competing acts, simultaneously or

sequentially (Simsek et al., 2009).

Based on various literature streams and previous studies two distinct overarching dimensions

of organizational ambidexterity can be distinguished. The first dimension is the ‘temporal

dimension’ and it captures the extent to which organizational ambidexterity is pursued

simultaneously or sequentially over time. The second dimension is based on Thompson’s

(1967) distinction on structure. This dimension captures whether or not organizational

ambidexterity is realized within an independent organizational unit (e.g. a business unit) or

within interdependent units (e.g. divisions of a multidivisional corporation or firms engaged in

a strategic alliance). By putting together the two dimensions, Simsek et al. (2009) presented a

two-by-two typology that delineates four types described as harmonic, cyclical, partitional

and reciprocal ambidexterity. Simsek et al. based these four types on previous research.

Harmonic ambidexterity is described in prior research as contextual ambidexterity (Birkinshaw

& Gibson, 2004; Adler et al., 1999) and is achieved through concurrently pursuing exploitation

and exploration harmoniously within a single organizational unit. Cyclical ambidexterity is

based on the punctuated ambidexterity theory (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000; Winter &

Szulanski, 2001). Cyclical ambidexterity is a type of ambidexterity in which organizations

engage in long periods of exploitation, interspersed by sporadic episodes of exploration

(Simsek et al., 2009). Partitional ambidexterity is achieved by creating separate units or

divisions for exploitation and exploration activities with each unit embodying distinct strategic

and operating logics, cultures, and incentive systems. This type is based on prior research

concerning structural and network ambidexterity (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996, 1997; Lin et al.,

2007). Reciprocal ambidexterity occurs when the outputs of exploitation from an

organizational unit become the inputs for exploration by a second unit and the outputs of

second unit cycle back to become the inputs of the first unit.

Previous research has shown that the role of leadership is of great importance in fostering

organizational ambidexterity. Whether it is about maintaining tight links between separate

units pursuing exploitation and exploration activities, or managing the switch between

periods of exploitation and exploration, leadership always plays a vital role (Gibson &

Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen et al., 2009; Tushman & O’Reilly, 2011). However, there is still relatively

little known about what type of leadership is needed in order to realize organizational

ambidexterity, since most of the previous research is focusing on structural antecedents.

Consequently, various researches have indicated that further research is needed regarding

leadership and organizational ambidexterity. Following the suggestion of Simsek et al. to do

further research on leadership styles and organizational ambidexterity, this research

investigates which leadership styles do best support the four types - harmonic, cyclical,

partitional, reciprocal - of ambidexterity. In doing so, this research builds upon on the model

of organizational ambidexterity from Simsek et al. (2009), as described above. This model

elaborates four types of organizational ambidexterity that comprehend all prior research on

organizational ambidexterity into one construct.

1.3 Research objective

The preceding paragraphs provide some insights that substantiate further investigation. In

addition, some gaps in prior research are indentified in brief. Given these relevant insights and

observed gaps, this research intends to contribute to the organizational ambidexterity

literature in the following way.

The objective of this research is to provide theoretically insights into which leadership styles do

best support the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal - of ambidexterity.

These insights will be obtained by adding a third - transformational and transactional -

leadership dimension to the organizational ambidexterity model of Simsek et al. (2009). This

‘revised’ model will make it possible to determine which leadership styles do best support

harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity. Subsequently this revised model

will be investigated in practice via case studies at two companies, engineering and

consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics. These case studies will be carried

out through interviews with unit managers and other relevant persons, document research

and observations.

9

1.4 Research model

Theory on organizational ambidexterity and leadership styles will be assessed in order to

determine an organizational ambidexterity model with three dimensions (A). This model is

based on the organizational ambidexterity model from Simsek et al. (2009). In addition to the

temporal and structural dimension, a third - transformational and transactional - leadership

dimension will be added to the organizational ambidexterity model of Simsek et al. (2009). By

doing so, a three dimensional model is constructed instead of two dimensional model. This

revised model will be the point of departure to describe which leadership styles do best

support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity. Subsequently this three

dimensional model will be investigated in practice by four cases, three cases at engineering

and consultancy company DHV and one case at Royal Philips Electronics (B). To examine

the differences and similarities between the four cases, the results of the cases will be

compared to each other (C). Based on the case studies and the comparison of the results,

hypotheses will be defined on which leadership styles do best support harmonic, cyclical,

partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity (D).

Below, in Figure 1, a graphic presentation of the research model is depicted.

Figure 1: Graphic presentation of the research model.

Theory

Leadership styles

Three dimensional-

model Organizational

ambidexterity

Hypotheses

Theory

Organizational

ambidexterity

Unit Asset and

Information

Management (DHV)

Analyses results

(D) (A) (B) (C)

Philips Incubators

Unit Real Estate (DHV)

Unit Urban

development, Legal

and Finance (DHV)

Analyses results

Analyses results

Analyses results

10

1.5 Research questions

To adequately fulfill the research objective, as described in paragraph 1.3, various research

questions have been formulated. This section will set out the theoretical, empirical and

analytical core research questions and sub-questions. By the answering of these questions,

enough information will be derived as to ultimately reach the research objective and define

hypotheses on organizational ambidexterity and leadership styles.

Theoretical questions

Which transformational and transactional leadership styles, based on prior research, do best

support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?

• What is transformational and transactional leadership?

• Which transformational and transactional leadership styles can be distinguished?

• What is an ambidextrous organization?

• What is harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?

• Which transformational and transactional leadership styles do best support

harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?

Empirical questions

Which leadership styles are used in practice by the cases at engineering and consultancy

company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics in order to carry out harmonic, cyclical,

partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?

• Which types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal – of organizational

ambidexterity are pursued by the cases at engineering and consultancy company

DHV?


ambidexterity are pursued by the case Philips incubators at Royal Philips Electronics?

• Which leadership styles are employed by the cases at engineering and consultancy

company DHV in order to pursue harmonic, cyclical, partitional or reciprocal

organizational ambidexterity?

• Which leadership styles are employed by the case Philips incubators at Royal Philips

Electronics in order to pursue harmonic, cyclical, partitional or reciprocal


Analytical questions

What are the most important differences and similarities between the theoretical

combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity and the

combinations used in practice at engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal

Philips Electronics, as well as the most important differences and similarities between the

results of the exploratory study at engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal

Philips Electronics?

• What are the most important differences and similarities between the results of the

four investigated cases at both engineering and consultancy company DHV and

Royal Philips Electronics?

• To which extent do the proposed theoretical combinations of leadership styles and

types of organizational ambidexterity correspond with the combinations in practice at

engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics?

• Which leadership styles do best support the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional,

reciprocal - of ambidexterity, based on the theoretical research and exploratory study

in practice engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics?

11

1.6 Outline research

The structure of this research is outlined in the following graphic figure.

Theoretical framework

Empirical framework

Synthesis

Figure 2: Graphic presentation of the research structure.

After the introduction this research continues with the second chapter, which is completely

dedicated to the theoretical exploration of the topics of this research. In this chapter the

theoretical questions, as described in paragraph 1.5, are answered by providing a thorough

literature overview. Chapter three includes an explanation of the methods used for this

research. The results of this research can be found in chapter four, these results provide an

answer on the empirical questions as described in paragraph 1.5. Chapter five contains an

elaboration on the analytical questions of paragraph 1.5. By answering these questions,

conclusions are drawn and hypotheses for further research are defined. This last chapter

concludes by reflecting on the applied theories, the empirical data gathering and the

obtained results.

Ch 1: Introduction

Ch 2: Types of organizational ambidexterity and the

third leadership dimension

Ch 5: Analyses and hypotheses

Ch 3: Research methodology Ch 4: Case study results

12

2. Types of organizational ambidexterity and the third leadership dimension

2.1 Introduction

The previous chapter outlined the context of this research and based on this context the

theoretical research framework is elaborated in this chapter. This chapter explores the current

literature on leadership styles and the four types of organizational ambidexterity. This was

done under the guidance of the theoretical research questions as defined in paragraph 1.5.

The main question (see below) is answered in paragraph 2.5. Before answering this main

question logically the sub-questions need to be dealt with; these questions are answered in

paragraph 2.3 and 2.4. Moreover, complementary to these questions the organizational

ambidexterity model from Simsek et al. (2009) is presented in paragraph 2.2. In paragraph 2.5

combinations of leadership styles that do best support the four types of organizational

ambidexterity are proposed, based on the literature discussed in previous paragraphs.

Ultimately this results in a revised organizational ambidexterity model, portrayed in paragraph

2.6.

The main and sub theoretical questions that are answered in this chapter are:

Which transformational and transactional leadership styles, based on prior research, do best

support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?

• What is an ambidextrous organization?

• What is harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?

• What is transformational and transactional leadership?

• Which transformational and transactional leadership styles can be distinguished?

• Which transformational and transactional leadership styles do best support

harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?

2.2 Organizational ambidexterity model

Based on the various literature streams and studies two distinct overarching dimensions of

organizational ambidexterity can be distinguished. The first dimension is the ‘temporal

dimension’ and it captures the extent to which organizational ambidexterity is pursued

simultaneously or sequentially over time. The simultaneously pursuit of organizational

ambidexterity is based on

organizational context and culture

literature (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989;

Burgelman, 1991). In this case the

organization needs to support the

simultaneous pursuit of exploitation

and exploration activities. The

sequentially pursuit of organizational

ambidexterity is based on the

punctuated equilibrium theory from

Gersick (1991, p. 14). As such,

organizational ambidexterity is

attained via a system of temporal

cycling in which the organization

alternate between long periods of

exploitation (equilibrium) and short

bursts of exploration (punctuated)

(Gupta et al., 2006).The second

dimension is based on Thompson’s (1967) distinction on structure. This dimension captures

whether or not organizational ambidexterity is realized within an independent organizational

unit (e.g. a business unit) or within interdependent units (e.g. divisions of a multidivisional

corporation or firms engaged in a strategic alliance). Put differently, when both exploitation

Figure 3: Four types of organizational ambidexterity.

13

and exploration activities are pursued by the same unit, the pursuit of ambidexterity is viewed

as structurally independent. Conversely when these pursuits involve two or more separate

units, for example an R&D unit for exploration activities and a Sales unit for exploitation

activities, ambidexterity is viewed as structurally interdependent. If the latter one is the case,

although each unit may operate independently of the other, they are purposefully

interdependent in their pursuit of organizational ambidexterity (Simsek et al., 2009). Birkinshaw

& Gibson (2004, 2008) make a similar distinction, they use the terms ‘structural ambidexterity’

(across various units) and ‘contextual ambidexterity’ (within one unit).

By putting together the two dimensions, Simsek et al. (2009), a two-by-two typology is

presented that delineates four types described as harmonic, cyclical, partitional and

reciprocal ambidexterity (figure 3). Simsek et al. based these four types on previous research.

Harmonic ambidexterity is described in prior research as contextual ambidexterity (Birkinshaw

& Gibson, 2004; Adler, 1999) and is achieved through concurrently pursuing exploitation and

exploration harmoniously within a single organizational unit. Cyclical ambidexterity is based

on the punctuated ambidexterity theory (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000; Winter & Szulanski,

2001). Cyclical ambidexterity is a type of ambidexterity in which organizations engage in long

periods of exploitation (or relative stability), interspersed by sporadic episodes of exploration

(or change). Partitional ambidexterity is achieved by creating separate units or divisions for

exploitation and exploration activities, with each unit embodying distinct strategic and

operating logics, cultures, and incentive systems. This type is based on prior research


2007). Reciprocal ambidexterity occurs when the outputs of exploitation from an

organizational unit become the inputs for exploration by a second unit and the outputs of

second unit cycle back to become the inputs of the first unit.

Both Birkinshaw and Gibson (2008) and Simsek et al. (2009) did an extensive review on the

various literature streams and developed a comprehensive overview that covers research

into the antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of organizational ambidexterity. According

to Birkinshaw & Gibson (2008) and Simsek et al. (2009) organizational structures, behavioral

contexts, and leadership processes are the main promoters (antecedents) of organizational

ambidexterity. However, both meta-analyses indicate that most of the reviewed studies focus

on structural antecedents and that more research is needed concerning organizational

ambidexterity and context and leadership antecedents. Following the suggestion of Simsek

et al. (2009) to do further research on leadership style and organizational ambidexterity, this

research will investigate which leadership styles do best support the four types - harmonic,

cyclical, partitional, reciprocal - of ambidexterity. In doing so, this research will build upon on

the model of organizational ambidexterity from by Simsek et al. (2009) as described and

depicted above.

After some further investigation in the literature on leadership theories, the theory regarding

transformational and transactional leadership of Bass and Avolio’s (1991, 1994, 1998, 1999,

2002) will be used to add the third dimension to the model of Simsek et al. (2009). The choice

for the distinction between transformational and transactional leadership is based on earlier

research from Jansen et al. (2009). This research proved a significant relation between

transformational leadership and exploration activities and transactional leadership and

exploitation activities. A more specific justification for this choice is given in paragraph 2.4. In

this same paragraph it is described which transformational and transactional leadership styles

can be distinguished. Preceding these paragraphs, the next paragraph describes the four

types of organizational ambidexterity in detail.

2.3 Organizational ambidexterity and the four types

This paragraph answers the first two theoretical sub-question as presented in paragraph 2.1.

The first question is: ‘what is an ambidextrous organization’? The second is: ‘what is harmonic,

cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity’?

In the next section general principles related to organizational ambidexterity are assessed, as

well as the four types of organizational ambidexterity and the determinants of these types.

14

2.3.1 Organizational ambidexterity

According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word ambidexterity is derived from the Latin

ambos, ‘both’ and dexter, ‘right’ (as opposed to left). Ambidexterity can have three

meanings: using both hands with equal ease, being characterized by duplicity or double-

dealing, or being unusually skillful or versatile (Merriam-Webster, 2009). The most common

used explanation is ambidextrous as the ability to be equally skilled with each hand rather

than being either ‘right-handed’ or ‘left handed’. Organization theorists have adopted this

characteristic as a metaphor to describe a type of organization. In 1976 Duncan was the first

who used the word ambidexterity to work out the term ‘organizational ambidexterity’, which

Duncan defined as the firm’s ability to design dual structures (i.e. mechanic versus organic)

that facilitates the initiating and implementation stages of innovation. Duncan argued that

the use of dual structures allows organizations to manage the tension between exploitation

activities and exploration activities. Long before Duncan introduced the term ‘organizational

ambidexterity’ researchers like Schumpeter (1934), Cyert and March (1963), Winter (1971),

Holland (1975), Hedberg, Nystrom and Starbuck (1976) and Weick (1976) where already

working on the tension between exploitation and exploration activities of organizations. From

this early research up to now, a growing body of research studies how organizations can

manage both exploitation and exploration - ambidextrous organizations – in a successful

manner. The contradictions between exploitation and exploration, as well as the need to

reconcile the two different activities, have been discussed in various literature streams such as

organizational learning, technological innovation, organizational adaption, strategic

management and organizational design (Birkinshaw & Raisch, 2008: p. 377).

In order to get a clear understanding of the term organizational ambidexterity, the next

section describes the different use of the concept of organizational ambidexterity in the

various literature streams.

• Organizational learning. ‘In the learning literature there is some discussion about

whether exploitation and exploration activities should both be associated with

learning activities. One group of researchers defined exploitation as the reuse of

existing knowledge and thus assigned all instances of learning to exploration (Argyris &

Schon, 1978; March, 1991; Levinthal & March, 1993; Baum, Li & Usher, 2000; He& Wong,

2004; Gupta et al., 2006). Another group of researchers differentiated between

exploitation and exploration by focusing on the type or degree of learning rather than

the presence or absence of learning. For instance Baum, Li, and Usher (2000, p. 768)

suggest that ‘exploitation refers to learning gained via local search, experiential

refinement, and selection and reuse of existing routines. Exploration refers to learning

gained through processes of concerted variation, planned experimentation, and

play’. However, despite the differences between the two views, researchers have

agreed that a well-balanced combination of two types of learning is essential for

long-term organizational success (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008: p. 377)’. Cegarra-Navarro

and Dewhurst (2007) define organizational ambidexterity as an organizations ability to

achieve alignment and adaptability simultaneously within the organization learning

processes. March (1991) also noted organizational ambidexterity as the simultaneous

pursuit of exploitation of existing competencies and exploration of new

competencies. Thereby in context of the learning literature organizational

ambidexterity can be defined as achieving a well-balanced combination of two

fundamentally different learning activities.

• Technological innovation. This literature stream defines the tension between

exploitation and exploration activities by the distinction between incremental and

radical innovation (Abernathy & Clark, 1985; Dewar & Dutton, 1986; Dougherty, 1992;

Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Acona et al, 2001; Holmqvist, 2004; Smith & Tushman, 2005).

‘Incremental innovations are relatively minor adaptations of existing products and

business concepts. In contrast, radical innovations refer to fundamental changes

leading to a switch from existing products or concepts to completely new ones

(Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008: p. 378)’. Smith and Tushman (2005) describe incremental

innovations as exploitative activities and radical innovations as explorative activities.

Tushman and O’Reilly define organizational ambidexterity as ‘the ability to

simultaneously pursue both incremental and discontinuous innovation’ (1996, p. 24).

Other definitions of organizational ambidexterity within this literature stream are: ‘the

15

ability to maintain superior performance in established business, while managing

innovation in targeted areas (Nadler & Tushman, 1999)’ and ‘organizations achieving

both high levels of exploratory and exploitative innovations simultaneously (Gibson &

Birkinshaw, 2004)’.

• Organizational adaption. Raisch and Birkinshaw (2008) described, ‘that researchers of

this literature stream have suggested that long-term success requires an

organizational balance between continuity and change (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985;

Volberba, 1996; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Leana & Barry, 2000; Probst & Raisch; Meyer

& Stensaker, 2006). ‘The need for balance between continuity and change is also

reflected by related constructs for example organizational identity (Dutton &

Dukerich, 1991; Schultz, & Corley, 2000), absorptive capacity (Jansen, Van den Bosch,

& Volberda, 2005b; Zahra & George, 2002) and organizational routines (Feldman &

Pentland, 2003) (p. 379)’. He and Wong (2004) defined organizational ambidexterity

as being aligned and efficient in managing today’s demands, while also being

adaptable to changes in the environment. In the context of these theories

organizational ambidexterity can be defined as the ability of organizations to

balance the need to implement changes and the need to maintain daily operations

(Meyer & Stensaker, 2006).

• Strategic management. Various researchers on this literature stream have described

the concept of organizational ambidexterity. ‘Foremost Burgelman (1991, 2002), he

makes a distinction between induced strategic processes and autonomous strategic

processes. The induced processes concerns initiatives that are within the scope of the

organizations current strategy and build on existing knowledge, whereas the

autonomous processes concerns initiatives that emerge outside the current strategies

scope and involve the creation of new competencies. Burgelman explicitly relates

induced strategic processes to exploitation activities and autonomous strategy

processes to exploration activities Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008: p. 379)’. Burgelman also

suggested that a combination of the two strategic processes may be the most

beneficial: ‘organizations may have to keep both processes in play at all times, even

though this means that the organization never completely maximizes its efforts in the

current domain’ (p. 256). Other researches within this literature stream make a similar

distinction between strategic processes. As described by Raisch and Birkinshaw

(2008), ‘Ricart i Costa (1993) makes an distinction between static efficiency and

dynamic efficiency, with the former concerned about the refinement of existing

products, processes, and capabilities and the latter concerned about the

development of new ones (p. 380)’. From this strategic management perspective

organizational ambidexterity can be described as the ability of an organization to

keep both induced strategic processes and autonomous strategy processes in play at

all times (Burgelman, 1991, 2002; Hamel & Prahald, 1993; Volberba et al, 2001;).

• Organizational design. Researchers on this literature stream define the tension

between exploitation and exploration activities by the distinction between efficiency

and flexibility (Thompson 1967; Duncan, 1976; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Adler et al,

1999; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen et al, 2005; Hill & Birkinshaw; O’Reilly &

Tushman, 2007; Jansen et al, 2008). Burns and Stalker (1961) and later on Duncan

(1976) argued that organizations require two types of structures in order to manage

both efficiency and flexibility. ‘The organic structure to create innovations and

mechanistic structure to implement and deploy innovations’. Several researchers

argue that mechanistic and organic features are difficult to reconcile within a single

business unit (Birkinshaw & Raisch, 2008: p. 380)’. On the other hand researches also

claim that firms can resolve the tension between efficiency and flexibility by

combining mechanistic and organic features within one unit (Adler et al., 1999;

Jansen et al., 2005; Sheremata, 2000) or developing a collective organizational

context (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). In an attempt to describe the differences

between the two views Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) distinguished structural

ambidexterity as creating different units for exploitation and exploration activities and

contextual ambidexterity as the concept of combining exploration and exploitation

activities within one unit. Besides, the different perspective on structure there is also a

discussion between researchers of this literature stream (and other streams) on

whether organizational ambidexterity is pursued simultaneously or sequentially.

16

‘Several researchers have suggested that firms should temporarily cycle through

periods of exploitation and exploration (e.g., Brown and Eisenhardt 1998, Nickerson &

Zenger 2002, Siggelkow & Levinthal 2003) (Birkinshaw & Raisch, 2008: p. 389)’. This

perspective is based on the punctuated equilibrium theory from Gersick (1991, p. 14)

and is in the context of organizational ambidexterity further elaborated as the

punctuated ambidexterity theory (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000; Winter & Szulanski,

2001). From this perspective, organizational ambidexterity is achieved by alternating

between long periods of exploitation (equilibrium) and short bursts of exploration

(punctuated). Conversely, researchers define organizational ambidexterity as the

simultaneous pursuit of exploitation and exploration (Gupta et al., 2006; Birkinshaw &

Raisch, 2008). From this perspective an organization is pursuing exploitation and

exploration activities at the same time, within or across units. Despite the different

perspectives practically all researchers agree that an organization should pursue both

exploitation and exploration activities in order to ensure future viability.

Table 1 recites the most prevalent definitions of organizational ambidexterity used in the

various literature streams as described above.

Literature stream Definition organizational ambidexterity

Organizational learning ‘The ability to achieve alignment and adaptability

simultaneously within the organization learning processes

(Cegarra-Navarro & Dewhurst, 2007).’

‘Organizational ambidexterity is the simultaneous pursuit of

exploitation of existing competencies and exploration of new

competencies (March, 1991).’

Technological innovation ‘The ability to simultaneously pursue both incremental

innovations and discontinuous innovations’ (Tushman & O’Reilly,

1996).’

‘The ability to maintain superior performance in established

business, while managing innovation in targeted areas (Nadler

& Tushman, 1999)’.

‘Organizations achieving both high levels of exploratory and

exploitative innovations simultaneously (Gibson & Birkinshaw,

2004).’

Organizational adaption ‘Organizational ambidexterity is being aligned and efficient in

managing today’s demands, while also being adaptable to

changes in the environment (He & Wong, 2004).’

‘The ability of organizations to balance the need to implement

changes and the need to maintain daily operations (Meyer &

Stensaker, 2006).’

Strategic management ‘The ability of an organization to keep both induced strategic

processes and autonomous strategy processes in play at all

times’ (Burgelman, 1991)’.

Organizational design ‘The simultaneous pursuit of exploitation and exploration

(Gupta et al., 2006; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008)’.

‘The ability to alternate between periods of exploitation

(equilibrium) and short bursts of exploration (punctuated)

(Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998)’.

‘The firm’s ability to design dual structures (i.e. mechanic versus

organic) that facilitates the initiating and implementation

stages of innovation (Duncan, 1976; Burns & Stalker, 1961)’

Table 1: Definitions of organizational ambidexterity.

17

As described above, it becomes clear that researchers have diversely defined organizational

ambidexterity based on their perspective and theoretical background. In these studies,

organizational ambidexterity was related as the organizations ability to pursue induced and

autonomous strategic processes, stability and transformation in organizational adaptation,

induced and autonomous strategic processes, incremental and radical innovation and

efficiency and flexibility in organizational design. However, while these studies have focused

on different elements of organizational ambidexterity they refer to the same underlying

construct. In all this research the term organizational ambidexterity has been used to broadly

refer to an organizations ability to perform differing and often competing activities,

simultaneously or sequentially. Although there is a wide consensus on this description of

organizational ambidexterity it is still very general. Moreover it is not specific enough

concerning the ongoing discussion on whether organizational ambidexterity is the concept of

pursuing exploration and exploitation activities simultaneously or sequentially. Some

researchers define the difference between simultaneously or sequentially as two completely

different mechanisms. They describe the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation

activities as ‘organizational ambidexterity’ and the sequential pursuit as ‘punctuated

equilibrium’ (Levinthal & March, 1993; Vermeulen & Barkema, 2001). Additionally, as Gupta et

al. argued, ‘theories about the ease or difficulty with which an organization can pursue both

exploration and exploitation activities depend crucially on whether these two activities are

treated as competing or complementary aspects (2006, p 693)’. Based on these prior studies

and discussions Simsek et al. (2009) have synthesized the various insights in order to minimize

the confusion and create a more holistic understanding of the term organizational

ambidexterity. Thereby, they defined two distinct overarching dimensions of organizational

ambidexterity, a temporal dimension and a structural dimension, which results in four types of

organizational ambidexterity (see paragraph 2.2). Based on this further elaboration by Simsek

et al. (2009), organizational ambidexterity in this research is defined as:

‘The ability of an organization to pursue both exploitation and exploration activities

simultaneously or sequentially, within the same unit or across units’.

By discussing the various literature streams and perspectives a well-reasoned definition is

given of the term organizational ambidexterity. By doing so it is now possible to answer the

first theoretical sub-question: ‘what is an ambidextrous organization?’

The answer to this question is that the ambidextrous organization is an organization that is

able to manage the tension between exploitation and exploration activities by pursuing

these activities simultaneously or sequentially within the same unit or across units.

The next paragraph describes the four types of organizational ambidexterity - harmonic,

cyclical, partitional and reciprocal – as presented by Simsek et al. (2009). These four types

help to further unify the various conceptualizations of the term organizational ambidexterity

and make it possible to recognize the different pursuits of organizational ambidexterity in

practice.

2.3.2 Four types of organizational ambidexterity

As mentioned in the previous section this section further specify the four types of

organizational ambidexterity as presented by Simsek et al. (2009) and thereby answers the

second theoretical sub-question.

Harmonic ambidexterity

This type of organizational ambidexterity is in prior research described as contextual

ambidexterity (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004; Adler, 1999) and is achieved through concurrently

pursuing exploitation and exploration harmoniously within a single organizational unit.

Harmonic ambidexterity is based on organizational context and culture literature (Bartlett &

Ghoshal, 1989; Burgelman, 1991; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1994). Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004)

described organizational context as the surface level, ‘artifactual’ manifestation of culture

that define the systems, processes, and beliefs that

18

shape individual level behaviors. Furthermore they argue that due to the fact that

exploitation and exploration activities are competing for the same resources, organizations

are required to ‘build a set of processes or systems that enable and encourage individuals to

make their own judgments about how to divide their time between the conflicting

exploitation and exploration activities (2004, p. 210)’. In the absence of such a set of

processes or systems this type of

organizational ambidexterity will result in

conflicts, contradictions, and inconsistencies

(Adler et al., 1999; Corso & Pellegrini, 2007;

Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). In addition,

Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) argue that the

context that is created by processes or

systems should involve a joint emphasis on

performance (discipline and trust) and

social support (support and trust). This will

enhance the simultaneous pursuit of

exploitation and exploration activities by

encouraging individuals to make the right

decision how to divide their time between

the two competing activities. Besides creating

a supportive context Adler et al. (1999)

reasoned that there are also some practices and routines that support the simultaneous

pursuit of exploitation and exploration activities within the same unit. He mentioned the use of

meta-routines, job enrichment and task partitioning. Job enrichment programmes for

example can provide employees with training and experience in both exploitation and

exploration, enabling them to perform and contribute to both sets of activities, whereas

meta-routines enable the coordination, synchronization, and integration of exploitive and

exploratory activities. Routines that emphasize systematic reflection, conflict regulation, and

integration are also useful for harmonizing exploitation and exploration activities within a

single domain (Guttel & Konlechner, 2007). Moreover, certain organizational systems, such as

team-based structures, and human resource practices have been shown to support the

simultaneous pursuit of exploitation and exploration (Bierly & Daly, 2007).

Cyclical ambidexterity

Based on the punctuated ambidexterity theory (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000; Winter &

Szulanski, 2001) cyclical ambidexterity is a type of ambidexterity in which organizations

engage in long periods of exploitation, alternated with sporadic episodes of exploration. As

such, organizational ambidexterity is achieved by sequential pursuing exploitation or

exploration activities. Resources are not divided between the two activities. Instead, all

resources are focused on one activity, either

exploitation or exploration, at the time. As a

result, this type of ambidexterity involves a

system of temporal cycling, in which

organizations alternate between periods of

exploitation and periods of exploration

(Gupta et al., 2006). Previous research

suggests that cyclical ambidexterity primarily

occurs within highly technologically-oriented

organizations. Most of these organizations

follow the S-shaped curve, the beginning of

the curve reflects the significant early-stage

effort and investment required until a

dominant design is established (exploration)

(Chen, 2005). Subsequently, a dramatic increase

in production results as the innovation is

exploited. Eventually, at the top of the curve, the influence of exploitation becomes marginal

and this cycle repeats anew. Pursuing exploitation and exploration activities sequentially will

minimize the resource and administrative constraints of a simultaneous approach.

Furthermore a temporal separation may as well facilitate efficient specialization of

Figure 5: Cyclical ambidexterity.

Figure 4: Harmonic ambidexterity.

19

exploitation or exploration activities. However, the process of cycling between periods of

exploitation and exploration involves also changes in the formal structure and routines,

practices and procedures, styles and systems of reward and control, and resource allocation.

In addition, the cycling between the two periods can produce role and change conflicts at

the level of the group and individual. Nevertheless, human resource practices that emphasize

innovation, teamwork, and flexibility can be the underpinning for an adaptive organizational

culture that enables these sequential shifts.

Partitional ambidexterity

This type of organizational ambidexterity is achieved by creating separate units or divisions for

exploitation and exploration activities, with each unit embodying distinct strategic and

operating logics, cultures, and incentive systems. This type is based on prior research


2007; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). While each unit operates independently, all units are

organizationally interdependent in order to achieve ambidexterity. However, each unit has its

own distinct management team, organization structure, culture, control systems, and

incentive structures (Benner & Tushman, 2003). In order to realize organizational ambidexterity

O’Reilly and Tushman (2007) argue that units

should be linked together through a shared

vision or management team integration

(Simsek et al., 2009). This integration of the two

separate units is a major challenge for

achieving this type of ambidexterity. After all,

separation of exploration and exploitation

activities across units can lead to isolation of

one of the activities. Prior studies have

indicated that many R&D and business-

development groups (exploration units) have

failed to get their ideas accepted because of

their lack of linkages to the core businesses

(Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Achieving

integration through a shared vision begins with

acknowledging the importance of both

exploitation and exploration, with neither one being perceived as more important (O’Reilly &

Tushman, 2007). Beyond this, the organization must be able to both embrace the paradoxes

associated with jointly pursuing exploitation and exploration activities (Smith & Tushman,

2005), as well as manage the information processing and coordination of demands (Lubatkin

et al., 2006).

Tushman et al. (2004) argued that companies, which aim to achieve partitional

ambidexterity, are successful in launching breakthrough products/services and in ensuring

the continuous high performance of existing products/services (Simsek et al., 2009). In

addition, recent research suggests that partitional ambidexterity can be pursued across, as

well as within, organizations (Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006; Lin et al., 2007; Tiwana, 2008). Pursuing

partitional ambidexterity across organizations can be achieved by using interorganizational

networks. In a study of almost 20,000 alliances over a period of ten years, Lavie and

Rosenkopf (2006) observed that exploitation and exploration can be pursued both within and

across three domains of strategic alliances including the value chain function of alliances,

the attributes of alliance partners, and the network position of alliance partners.

Reciprocal ambidexterity

This type of organizational ambidexterity occurs when the outputs of exploration from unit A

become the inputs for exploitation by unit B and the outputs of unit B cycle back to become

the inputs of unit A (Thompson, 1967). This type is based on prior research concerning

entrainment and social network theories, however up to now relatively few studies have

examined this type of ambidexterity. Unlike cyclical ambidexterity which involves a shift

between exploitation and exploration activities at a certain point in time, this type requires

relationships characterized by ongoing information exchange, collaborative problem solving,

joint decision making and resource flows between the different units responsible for

exploitation and exploration activities. Thereby reciprocal ambidexterity can be defined as

Figure 6: Partitional ambidexterity.

20

being a synergistic fusion of complementary streams of exploitation and exploration activities

that occur across time and units (Simsek et al., 2009, p. 887). In order to establish such a

‘synergistic fusion’ the organization must be capable of spreading information across as well

as within organizations, thereby facilitating the

reciprocal information flows between

exploitive and exploratory units (Mom et al.,

2007). In addition, Lavie and Rosenkopf (2006)

suggest that alliances and interfirm-networks

are important factors in achieving reciprocal

ambidexterity. Also, researchers working on

social network theories have emphasized the

role of interfirm-networks for achieving this

type of ambidexterity (Lin et al., 2007; Tiwana,

2008). From this perspective, reciprocal

ambidexterity is achieved through alliances

and inter-organizational networks as

mechanisms for combining exploitation and

exploration activities across time and units.

Similar to cyclical ambidexterity this type of

organizational ambidexterity primarily occurs within highly technologically-oriented

organizations, as described previous most of these organizations follow the S-shaped curve.

2.4 Leadership and leadership styles

Whether it is about maintaining tight links between separate units pursuing exploitation and

exploration activities, or managing the switch between periods of exploitation and

exploration, leadership always plays a vital role (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen et al.,

2009; Tushman & O’Reilly, 2011). Prior research on leadership styles proved that leadership

styles fulfill an important role in realizing an effective management in ambiguous situations

Edmondson et al., 2003; Eisenhardt et al., 1997). Researchers also argue that leadership styles

will positively or negatively influence the tension between exploitation and exploration

activities of an organization. Thereby, executive management may assign different senior

team members to exploitative or exploratory activities based on the available leadership

attributes (Smith & Tushman, 2005). In addition, Simsek et al. (2009) argue that the role of

leadership is very important in the attainment of the four types of organizational

ambidexterity.

However, the term leadership means different things to different people. Some researchers

argue that leadership is a subset of managerial activities, other see leading and managing as

overlapping roles, yet other describe them as different processes. Nevertheless, Kotter (1990)

argued that leaders and managers are not necessarily different persons, but rather different

roles. Furthermore, prior research on leadership has taken different perspectives, leader traits,

behaviors, and the influence of situational characteristics on leader effectiveness, for

example, have all been studied. Although no ultimate definition of leadership exists (Yukl,

2002), the majority of definitions of leadership reflect some basic elements, including ‘group’

‘influence’ and ‘goal’ (Bryman, 1992). In this research leadership is considered as the

behavioral process of influencing a group of people towards achieving harmonic, cyclical,

partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity. Also in this research, management and leadership

are considered as roles that are not mutually exclusive.

Following the suggestion of Simsek et al. (2009) to do further research on leadership style and

organizational ambidexterity, this research will investigate which leadership styles do best

support the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal - of ambidexterity. In doing

so, the organizational ambidexterity model of Simsek et al. (2009) will be extended with a third

leadership dimension that captures transformational and transactional leadership. Among

the various leadership theories, researchers particularly studied transformational and

transactional leadership with regard to organizational ambidexterity (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003;

Verra & Crossan, 2004; Berson et al., 2006; Nemanich & Vera, 2009; Jansen et al., 2008, 2009).

Therefore the ‘full-range leadership theory’ is used, as conceptualized by Bass (1985) and

developed by Avolio and Bass (1991). In this theory three major types of leadership behavior

are distinguished: laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership. These three

Figure 7: Reciprocal ambidexterity.

21

types of leadership behavior are the most prominent in the literature on leadership (Keegan &

Den Hartog, 2004). However, the laissez-faire leadership is also described as non-leadership.

This type of leadership is inactive and is often referred to as a lack of leadership (Avolio &

Bass, 1995). These leaders may assign tasks but provide no additional leadership such as

support or management oversight. Decisions are left to others in the organization and these

laissez-faire leaders often quickly lose power in the organization due to their lack of action. Of

these three leadership styles, laissez-faire leadership has been found to be the least effective

(Avolio & Bass, 1995). Therefore only transactional and transformational leadership is used in

this research. These leadership types are based on classic studies of leadership that found

two key dimensions of leadership behavior, person-focused leadership and task-focused

leadership (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). Besides, both types of leadership are found on prior

classifications, such as relations-oriented versus task-oriented (Fielder, 1967) and directive

versus participative leadership (Heller & Yukl, 1969).

2.4.1 Transactional and transformational leadership

Understanding the difference between transactional and transformational leadership is

crucial before adding the leadership dimension to the organizational ambidexterity model.

Therefore, this section further examines transactional and transformational leadership. In

doing so, it eventually become possible to determine which transformational and

transactional leadership styles do best support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal

ambidexterity.

Transactional leadership

This kind of leadership behavior occurs when there is an exchange relation between leaders

and followers, Bass (1990) states that transactional leadership is built on reciprocity. Yukl (1999)

noted that transactional leadership represents those exchanges in which both the leader and

the followers influence one another reciprocally so that each derives something of value.

Simply stated, transactional leaders give followers something they want in exchange for

something the leaders want. Thereby the relationship between leaders and their followers is

based on the concept that a leader has to give something to his followers in exchange for

the followers performing certain tasks. In this style, a leader may offer something valuable like

increased salary, incentives, and promotion to his followers, who in turn are expected to fulfil

their duties well. Otherwise, the leader provides his followers less future opportunity and

incentive or may use a demotion as a form of punishment for not projecting a good

performance (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1997). Summarized, transactional leadership can be defined

as setting goals, monitoring progress towards the goal achievement and rewarding people

according to their performance towards the goal achievement. In addition, Vera and

Crossan (2004, p. 230) argue that transactional leadership is aimed at incremental change,

efficiency, and continuity.

As described by the full-range leadership theory transactional leadership comprises three

sub-components. ‘First, contingent reward (i.e., constructive transactions) this refers to leader

behaviors focused on clarifying role and task requirements and providing followers with

material or psychological rewards contingent on the fulfillment of contractual obligations.

Second, management-by-exception active (i.e., active corrective transactions) refers to the

active attentiveness of a leader whose goal is to ensure that standards are met. Third,

management-by-exception passive (i.e., passive corrective transactions) occurs when the

leader waits to take action until mistakes are brought to his or her attention, the leader will

only intervene when problems become serious (Antonakis, Avolio et al., 2003: p. 265)’.

Transformational leadership

According to Bass (1985), transformational leadership originates in the personal values of

leaders, not in an exchange of ‘commodities’ between leaders and followers. By expressing

their values (e.g. justice, integrity), transformational leaders are able both to unite followers

and to change followers goals and beliefs. Transformational leadership behavior is

charismatic, inspirational, intellectually stimulating, and individually considerate (Avolio et al.,

1999). Transformational leaders help individuals to go beyond their self-interest for the sake of

the larger vision of the organization. These leaders inspire others with their vision, create

excitement through their enthusiasm and question the tried-and-true (Bass & Avolio, 1990).

Thus, transformational leadership can be defined as the ability to stimulate followers to go

22

beyond their self-interest and contribute to the achievement of organizational goals. Or as

Vigoda-Gadot (2006) states, the essence of transformational leadership is the ability of

leaders to motivate their followers to do more than what is initially expected of them.

Thereby, rather than analyzing and controlling specific transactions with the followers by using

rules, directions and incentives, transformational leadership focuses on intangible qualities

such as vision, shared values, and ideas in order to achieve the organizational goals.

Moreover, whereas transactional leadership is aimed at incremental change, efficiency, and

continuity, transformational leadership emphasizes experimentation, risk taking, punctuated

change, and multiple alternatives, (Vera & Crossan, 2004, p. 230).

As well as transactional leadership, transformational leadership also embodies sub-

components. Based on the full-range leadership theory the following four components can

be distinguished: idealized influence (attributed) idealized influence (behavior), inspirational

motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. ‘Idealized influence

(attributed) refers to the socialized charisma of the leader, whether the leader is perceived as

being confident and powerful, and whether the leader is viewed as focusing on higher-order

ideals and ethics. Idealized influence (behavior) refers to charismatic actions of the leader

that are centered on values, beliefs, and a sense of mission that causes followers to identify

with the leader. Inspirational motivation refers to the ways leaders energize their followers by

viewing the future with optimism, stressing ambitious goals, projecting an idealized vision, and

communicating to followers that the vision is achievable. Intellectual stimulation refers to the

degree to which leaders stimulate their followers efforts to be innovative and creative by

questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways

(Antonakis, Avolio et al., 2003: p. 264-265)’. Individualized consideration captures the degree

to which leaders pay attention to each individuals need for achievement and growth by

acting as a coach or mentor (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass et al, 2003).

Table 2, lists the most prevalent characteristics of transactional and transformational

leadership.

Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership

Leaders are aware of the link between

the effort and reward.

Leaders arouse emotions in their followers

which motivates them to act beyond the

framework of what may be described as

exchange relations.

Leadership is responsive and its basic

orientation is dealing with present issues.

Leadership is proactive and forms new

expectations in followers.

Leaders rely on standard forms of

inducement, reward, punishment and

sanction to control followers.

Leaders are distinguished by their

capacity to inspire and provide

individualized consideration, intellectual

stimulation and idealized influence to

their followers.

Leaders motivate followers by setting

goals and promising rewards for desired

performance.

Leaders create opportunities for their

followers and stimulate followers to solve

problems.

Leadership depends on the leader’s

power to reinforce subordinates for their

successful completion of the bargain.

Leaders possess good visioning, rhetorical

and management skills, to develop

strong emotional bonds with followers.

Leaders motivate followers to work for

goals that go beyond self-interest.

Table 2: Characteristic of transactional leadership and transformational leadership (source: Bass, 1985).

Whereas Burns (1978) represents transformational leadership and transactional leadership as

opposite ends of a continuum. Bass (1985, 1998), on the contrary, views them as distinct

dimensions, which allows a leader to be transactional, transformational or both. Bass argued

that transformational leadership is complementary to transactional leadership, because

23

transactional leadership will be ineffective in total absence of a transactional relationship

between leaders and followers (Bass & Avolio, 1990). In addition, Bass noted that both types

are separate concepts and that good leaders demonstrate characteristics of both (Judge &

Piccolo, 2004, p. 755). Therefore in this research transactional leadership and transformational

leadership are considered as distinct dimensions instead of two opposite ends of a

continuum. However, various studies proved that leaders of exploitative units are expected to

behave transactional, while leaders of exploratory units are expected to behave

transformational (Vera & Crossan, 2004; Jansen et al., 2008, 2009). Accordingly, in this

research it is assumed that organizations usually may employ transactional leadership to

pursue exploitative activities and transformational leadership styles to pursue exploratory

activities.

2.4.2 Leadership styles

The previous section described transactional and transformational leadership in more detail

and revealed that the two types of leadership contain various sub-components in terms of

behavior. Thereby the third theoretical question is answered, ‘what is transformational and

transactional leadership?’ The next theoretical question - ‘which transformational and

transactional leadership styles can be distinguished?’ – will be answered in this section.

In this research transactional and transformational leadership are considered as overarching

types of leadership and not as specific leadership styles as such. Therefore further research is

carried out, to determine which leadership styles do best represent the behaviors of

transactional and transformational leadership as recount in table 3.

Sub-components per leadership type Description of leadership behavior

Transactional

Contingent reward Provides rewards for satisfactory performance by

followers.

Management by exception (active) Attends to followers mistakes and failures to meet

standards.

Management by exception (passive) Waits until problems become severe before

attending to them and intervening.

Transformational

Idealized influence (attribute) Demonstrates qualities that motivate respect and

pride from association with him or her.

Idealized influence (behavior) Communicates values, purpose, and importance

of organizations mission.

Inspirational motivation Exhibits optimism and excitement about goals

and future states.

Intellectual stimulation Examines new perspectives for solving problems

and completing tasks.

Individualized consideration Focuses on development and mentoring of

followers and attends to their individual needs.

Table 3: Sub-components & behaviours of transactional and transformational leadership (source: Eagly et al., 2003).

Based on the Competing Values Framework (CVF) developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh

(1983), Verra and Crossan (2004) argue that transformational leadership behaviors reflect the

leadership styles of the open system model and the human relation model, while

transactional leadership behaviors reflect the leadership styles of the internal process model

and the rational goal model. Moreover, this is also reasoned by Belasen et al. (1996, 2000)

and Egri & Herman (2002), they state that the upper part of Quinn’s and Rohrbaugh’s

framework (open systems & human relation) contains transformational behavior while the

lower part (internal processes & rational goal) includes transactional behavior. Although other

research also suggests roles and styles that represent transactional and transformational

leadership, the CVF model of Quinn and Rohrbaugh is the most complete and

24

comprehensive model concerning transactional and transformational leadership (Belasen &

Frank, 2007). In addition, Cameron and Quinn (2006) argue that the CVF model makes it

possible to understand an ambiguous environment in a consistent and effective manner and

helps leaders to interpret the various leadership styles.

The CVF model is based on various research studies to identify indicators of organizational

effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983, p. 363). These studies were an attempt to make

sense of effectiveness criteria. Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) discovered two dimensions that

express the tension that exists in organizations in relation to effectiveness. The first dimension

differentiates an organizational focus towards flexibility and dynamism from a focus towards

stability and control. The second dimension represents the contrast between an internal focus

and an external focus. The resulting CVF model is set out in the Figure 8 in a two-by-two

framework with four quadrants.

Each of these four quadrants represents an ‘ideal model’ of efficient organizations (Quinn, et

al., 2003). These four models are the open systems model, human relations model, internal

process model and rational goal model. Cameron and Quinn (2006) state that these four

models represent competing or paradoxical assumptions. ‘Each continuum highlights value

creation and key performance criteria that are opposite from the value creation and

performance criteria on the other end of the continuum, i.e., flexibility versus stability, internal

focus versus external focus. The dimensions, therefore, produce quadrants that are also

contradictory or competing on the diagonal (p. 10)’. The model indentifies organizations that

emphasize flexibility with a transformational focus and organizations that emphasize control

with a transactional focus. For example, some organizations are viewed as effective if they

are changing, adaptable and organic. Other organizations are viewed as effective if they

are stable, predictable and mechanistic (Cameron & Quinn, 2006, p. 8). Comparable, the

other dimension of the CVF model makes a distinction between an organization that is

internally focused and an organization that is externally focused. That is, some organizations

are focused on internal productivity and efficiency enhancement and the improvement of

human capital. Other organizations are focused on market development, takeovers,

outsourcing, innovative product-line extensions and radical breakthroughs (Cameron &

Quinn, 2006, p. 8, 36). However, Quinn argued, ‘the four quadrants of the CVF model do not

contain organizations, but organizations do more or less contain the four quadrants (Quinn,

1988, p 42.)’. Consequently it can be argued that the two dimensions and four quadrants

Figure 8: The Competing Values Framework.

25

enclose a similar sort of tension as described in the organizational ambidexterity model of

Simsek et al. (2009). This parallel manifests itself in the tension between exploration and

exploitation. As described in the previous paragraphs, exploitation activities are focused on

efficiency and stability, which corresponds with the internal and control axis of the CVF

model. Conversely, exploration activities correspond with the flexibility and external axis,

because exploration activities are aimed at innovations and radical breakthroughs.

Therefore in this research transactional and transformational leadership styles are

distinguished based on the CVF model of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983).

Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) conclude that each of the quadrants of the CVF model

represents basic assumptions, orientations, and values. They also distinguished per quadrant

two leadership roles in order to define the behavior that leaders in those quadrants might

exhibit. Although Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) initially used the term leadership ‘role’ they

also use the term leadership ‘style’ in later studies. Other researchers also use the terms

leadership role and leadership style interchangeably. In this research the term leadership style

is used instead of leadership role, in order to avoid confusion with respect to the various roles

of a manager as described in paragraph 2.4. By distinguishing two styles per quadrant Quinn

and Rohrbaugh disclosed eight leadership styles in total as depicted in figure 8: the mentor

style, facilitator style (human relations model), innovator style, broker style (open system

model), monitor style, coordinator style (internal process model) and the producer style,

director style (rational goal model).

1. The mentor style is supportive, empathic, approachable and fair. This leader is aware

of others and encourages the needs of individuals through training opportunities and

helps people to plan their self-development. Its influence is based on mutual respect

and trust. Morale, commitment and fairness are actively pursued (Yang & Shao, 1996:

p. 526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).

2. On the other hand, the facilitator style is people and process oriented. This leader

builds cohesion and teamwork. Its influence is based on getting people involved in

the decision-making and problem-solving process. Participation and openness are

actively pursued (Yang & Shao, 1996: p. 526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).

3. The innovator leadership style is smart and creative. This leadership style is expected to

be a person who can see the future and convince others that changes are

necessary. The influence of this leader is based on anticipation of a better future and

indentifying trends and new ideas. Innovation and adaptation are actively pursued

and implemented (Yang & Shao, 1996: p. 526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).

4. The broker style is persuasive, influential and future oriented. This leader focuses on

where the organization is going to and emphasises possibilities as well as probabilities.

Defining strategic direction, spanning boundaries, maintaining (external) legitimacy,

disseminating knowledge and obtaining (external) resources are hallmarks of this style,

as well as, the continuous improvement of current activities (Yang & Shao, 1996: p.

526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).

5. The monitor style is well informed and ensures that people follow the rules and

procedures. This leader keeps track of all details by carrying out inspections and tours

and the review of all relevant documents. The influence of this leader is based on

information control. Documentation and information management is actively pursued

and this leader is good in analyzing all the facts and details. Stability and control are

actively pursued and crisis’s are handled (Yang & Shao, 1996: p. 526; Cameron &

Quinn 1999: p.114).

6. The coordinator leadership style is dependable and reliable. This leader is expected to

maintain the structure and flow of the work. His or her influence is based on

coordinating staff efforts, managing schedules, giving assignments, providing physical

layout, reallocating resources and disseminate information by setting up

communication channels. (Yang & Shao, 1996: p. 526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).

7. The director style is focused on governance and process in the sense that this leader

defines shared goals and provides direction. This leader is expected to clarify

expectations through planning and goal setting. Furthermore this leader is supposed

to be a decisive initiator who defines and communicates problems and generate

solutions, as well as clarifying tasks and establishing rules and procedures. Compared

26

with the producer style this leadership style tends to be more internally than externally

oriented (Yang & Shao, 1996: p. 526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).

8. The producer leadership style is goal-oriented and focused on the work. This leader is

expected to increase production and facilitate goal accomplishment and is primarily

externally focused. Its influence is based on motivating people, rational arguments

around accomplishing things and being responsible. This leader is managing time and

stress and motivates people to complete the work as required by building

relationships through working hard and creating high performance expectation in

others (Yang & Shao, 1996: p. 526; Cameron & Quinn 1999: p.114).

Thus, by distinguishing four transactional and four transformational leadership styles Quinn’s

CVF model is used to answer the third theoretical sub-question: ‘which transformational and

transactional leadership styles can be distinguished?’ Based on the description of these

transactional and transformational leadership styles it is now possible to determine which

styles do best support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity.

2.5 Combinations of leadership styles and the four types of organizational

ambidexterity

The previous paragraph described the eight leadership styles of the CVF model from Quinn

and Rohrbaugh (1983). Four transformational leadership styles: mentor, facilitator, innovator

and broker style and four transactional leadership styles: monitor, coordinator, producer and

director style. By defining this four transactional and transformational leadership styles the last

theoretical question can now be answered in this paragraph: ‘which transformational and

transactional leadership styles do best support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal

ambidexterity?’ Before answering this question, section 2.5.1 briefly expound the significant

relation between transactional and transformational leadership behaviors and the

implications of this relation with respect to managing the four types of organizational

ambidexterity.

2.5.1 Behavioral complexity

Empirical studies concerning transformational and transactional leadership have indicated a

significant correlation between behaviors of transformational leadership and those of

transactional leadership (e.g., Avolio et al., 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993b), indicating that both

sets of behaviors are likely to exist in the same individuals in different amounts and intensities

(Bass,1998). This is also confirmed by other researchers, for example ‘Quinn’s concept of

master managers (leaders adept seemingly contradictory capabilities) is close to Bass’s

proposition, that the best leaders are those who display both transformational and

transactional leadership behaviors (Verra & Crossan, 2004, p. 224)’.

In addition, Belasen et al. (2007, p. 129) argues that ‘successful leaders know how to navigate

across the eight leadership roles of the CVF model in order to balance contradictory

demands’. Denison et al. (1995) state that effective leaders are perceived by others as

displaying combinations of the eight CVF styles more often than less effective leaders

(Belasen et al., 2007, p.129). Furthermore, Cameron et al. (2006) argues that high performing

leaders display ‘behavioral complexity’. That is, ‘the capacity of a leader to respond

appropriately to a wide range of situations that may in fact require seemingly contradictory

and opposing behaviors manifested in different leadership styles (Smart, 2003, p. 679)’.

Moreover Carmeli and Halevi (2009) claim that ‘the capacity of leaders to engage in a wide

repertoire of behaviors, and the ability to exhibit contrary or opposing behaviors are the key

enablers of organizational ambidexterity (p. 208)’.

Based on these previous studies, that indicate that a leader should be able to display several

behavioral repertoires (e.g. stability, control, risk-taking and creativity), more than one

leadership style is suggested per organizational ambidexterity type.

2.5.2 Leadership styles and the four types of organizational ambidexterity

In paragraph 2.4.2 it is argued that the two dimensions and four quadrants of the CVF model

enclose a similar sort of tension as described in the organizational ambidexterity model of

Simsek et al. (2009). As described, this parallel manifests itself in the tension between

27

exploration and exploitation. Whereas exploitation activities are focused on efficiency and

stability, which correspond with the internal and control axis of the CVF model. Conversely,

the exploration activities correspond with the flexibility and external axis, because exploration

activities are aimed at innovations and radical breakthroughs. Therefore, it is argued that the

most appropriate leadership styles to manage exploration activities can be found in the

upper-right quadrant of the CVF model, these are transformational styles. This quadrant

represents the open systems model and it stresses flexibility, new trends, innovation,

adaptation, change, boundary spanning and resource acquisition. These exploration

activities can be managed by employing an innovator or broker leadership style. On the

other hand it is argued that exploitation activities should be managed by employing

leadership styles that can be found in the lower left quadrant, the internal process model

which entail transactional leadership styles. This quadrant stresses stability, control, efficiency,

procedures, cost reduction and controlling schedules and targets. According to this

quadrant the exploitation activities should be managed by employing a monitor and

coordinator leadership style.

This reasoning is in line with prior research that proved that leaders of exploitative units are

required to behave transactional, while leaders of exploratory units are expected to behave

transformational (Vera & Crossan, 2004; Jansen et al., 2008, 2009). Therefore it is most likely

that periods of exploration require combinations of transformational leadership styles e.g. the

mentor, facilitator (human relation approach), innovator or broker style (open system

approach). While periods of exploitation require combinations of transactional leadership

styles e.g. monitor, coordinator (internal process approach), producer or director style

(rational goal model approach). However, as argued in the previous section, managing the

tension between exploitation and exploration requires various leadership behaviors.

Combining various leadership styles enables a manager to be more effective in a wide range

of situations and allow leaders to manage contrary forces (Verra & Crossan, 2004). Thus not

only the leadership styles of the internal process model and the open system model are

required to manage the tension between exploitation and exploration activities. The

leadership styles of the rational goal model (producer and director style), as well as the

human relations model (mentor and facilitator style) can also be necessary in order to foster

organizational ambidexterity. Which combination of leadership styles is needed depends on

various variables. For example, Birkinshaw and Gibson (2008) argue that the most appropriate

leadership style(s) depends on environmental and competitive dynamics, market orientation

and the scope of the specific organizational units (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2008). In addition,

prior research also indicates that the type of individual that needs to be managed influences

which leadership style(s) is required (Bass, 1993, 1998). For example, Weggeman (1997, 2000)

distinguish professionals that perform routine activities (R-professionals) and professionals that

perform improvising activities (I-professionals). Both require a different approach and

direction. Other research indicates that this ambiguity can also be found in relation to

production workers. Kuipers and Van Amelsvoort (1990) and de Sitter (1994) distinguish two

types of workers, the ‘tayloristic worker’ which is based on division of labor and hierarchy and

the ‘team worker’ which enclose autonomy, task integration, job responsibility and flexibility.

The latter one is a worker that is most suitable to perform exploration activities, whereas the

tayloristic worker will be involved in exploitation activities. Kuipers and Van Amelsvoort (1990)

describe that both type of workers require a different leadership style and approach in terms

of mission, strategy and goals, which becomes apparent in different structures (division of

labor), systems, procedures and culture.

The above mentioned variables determine which leadership style is needed next to the

leadership styles that are employed in pursuing either exploitation or exploration activities.

Finding the right combination of leadership styles is what Cameron et al. (2006) describes as

displaying ‘behavioral complexity’. The remainder of this section defines per type of

organizational ambidexterity which combination of leadership styles does best support

harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity.


As described in section 2.3.2 harmonic ambidexterity is based on contextual ambidexterity

(Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004) and is achieved through concurrently pursuing exploitation and

exploration activities within a single organizational unit. Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) describe

28

contextual as the surface level, ‘artifactual’ manifestation of culture that define the systems,

processes, and beliefs that shape individual level behaviors. Due to the fact that exploration

and exploitation activities ‘harmoniously’ competing for the same resources, this type

organizational ambidexterity requires organizations to define the right context in terms of

systems, processes and beliefs that enable individuals to balance their time between

exploration and exploitation activities. Or, as Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) argue, the context

that is created should involve a joint emphasis on performance (discipline and trust) and

social support (support and trust). Thus, it is not only providing social support towards

employees to enable them to make the right decisions. But it is also providing the right

structure, procedures, training and experience to enhance the individual’s pursuit of the

conflicting exploration and exploitation activities.

As described above, this type of organizational ambidexterity needs at least two different

leadership styles, in order to manage simultaneously exploration activities (I-proffesionals or

team workers) and exploitation activities (R-professional or Tayloristic). Appropriate leadership

styles to manage exploitation activities can found on the internal and control axis of the CVF

model. Conversely, leadership styles to

manage exploration activities can be

found on the flexibility and external axis.

Based on the nature of exploration

activities, as defined by the various

literature streams (paragraph 2.3.1), it is

suggested that the innovator style is the

most appropriate leadership style in

order to pursue exploration activities.

Since this leadership style involves a

strong focus on anticipating the future

and indentifying trends and new ideas,

it will therefore most likely enhance

exploration activities successfully.

Concerning exploitation activities it is

argued that the monitor style is the most

appropriate leadership style. As

described, the monitor style is oriented

on procedures, information and increasing stability and control. Thereby it offers the right

conditions for a focus on stability, efficiency and control during periods of exploitation.

Moreover, leaders who pursue harmonic ambidexterity should also be able to employ

leadership behavior that is aimed at developing human capacity in order to enable

individuals to balance the conflicts between exploration and exploitation activities. Based on

the CVF model the mentor style is most appropriate leadership style to realize this. This style is

required in order to provide social support to individuals through training and self-

development, thereby enabling people to manage the conflicts between exploration and

exploitation activities. This leadership style is preferred on top of the facilitator style, because

the latter one is more focused on participation, cohesion and teamwork in order to get

individuals involved in changing circumstances (Cameron & Quinn, 2006).

Employ and perform the right combination of the three leadership styles described above, is

one of the biggest leadership challenges for achieving harmonic ambidexterity. Hence,

leaders that pursue harmonic ambidexterity are typically leaders that need to display

‘behavioral complexity’ as described in paragraph 2.5.1. This is also suggested by Raisch and

Birkinshaw (2008), ‘contextual ambidexterity necessitates leaders with complex behavioral

repertoires, placing greater emphasis on the portfolio of leadership styles that a manager can

perform (Simsek et al., 2009, p. 881)’.


This type of organizational ambidexterity involves a system of temporal cycling between

periods of exploitation and periods of exploration (Gupta et al., 2006). Pursuing exploration

and exploitation sequentially will minimize the resource and administrative constraints of a

simultaneous approach. However, cycling in orientation between an exploration or

Figure 9: Harmonic ambidexterity leadership styles.

29

exploitation approach involves change and can thereby produce conflicts on group and

individual levels (Floyd & Lane, 2000). These conflicts can result as a consequence of

changing routines, practices and procedures, reward systems and resource allocation. Thus,

a leader who pursues cyclical ambidexterity should be able to manage the transition

between periods of exploitation and periods of exploration. In addition, this leader should

also be able to focus one-sided on efficiency and cost reduction during periods of

exploitation, or flexibility and innovativeness during periods of exploration. Based on the CVF

model it is argued, that the facilitator style is the most appropriate leadership style to manage

the transition between periods of exploration and exploitation. The facilitator style is focused

on participation, cohesion and teamwork and will thereby get individuals involved, which is

necessary in changing circumstances

(Cameron & Quinn, 2006). This reasoning

is in line with Simsek et al. (2009) as they

argue, ‘human resource practices that

emphasize teamwork and flexibility are

the underpinnings for an adaptive

organizational culture that enables

sequential shifts between periods of

exploration and exploitation’ (p. 883).

Now a well reasoned leadership style is

argued concerning the transition period.

Nevertheless, after a successful transition

other leadership styles are needed to

manage a period of exploitation or a

period of exploration. In line with

harmonic ambidexterity, the leadership

styles that are most appropriate during

these ‘after-transitions’ periods, are the innovator style during periods of exploration and the

monitor style during periods of exploitation. The innovator style is strongly focused on

anticipating the future and indentifying trends and new ideas, it will therefore most likely

enhance exploration activities successfully. On the other side the monitor style is oriented on

procedures, information and increasing stability and control. Thereby it offers the right

conditions for a focus on stability, efficiency and control during periods of exploitation.


As previously described, this type of organizational ambidexterity is achieved by creating

separate units or divisions for exploitation and exploration activities, with each unit

embodying distinct strategic and operating logics, cultures, and reward systems. Yet, in order

to create organizational ambidexterity, the separate units should be linked together through

a shared vision (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2007). This is necessary in order to prevent a situation that

one of the activities gets isolated. Jansen et al. (2008) found that a shared vision ‘contributes

to a collective understanding of how senior team members might resolve contradictory

agendas of exploratory and exploitative units and engage in productive behaviours to

develop a collective response to multiple environmental demands’ (p. 6). Thus the leaders of

this type of organizational ambidexterity should have a vision that acknowledges the

importance of both exploitation and exploration activities, with neither one being perceived

as more important (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2007). This requires leaders that are able to manage

the information processing, knowledge dissemination and coordination between the two

separate units. Beyond this, these leaders should be well informed regarding the various

exploitation activities performed, as well as the exploration activities in order to sustain

linkages between the two separate structures. Furthermore leaders who pursue partitional

ambidexterity should be able to manage concurrently an exploitation and exploration unit.

This requires at least two opposite leadership styles in order to manage the two separate units,

while each having its own strategies, structures, cultures and reward systems. Additionally

Lavie and Rosenkopf (2006) found that partitional ambidexterity can be pursed both within,

as well as across organizations. The latter one demands a leader that it is spanning

boundaries and maintaining external legitimacy. Therefore it is argued, that partitional

ambidexterity can be best pursued by employing a coordinator, broker leadership and

Figure 10: Cyclical ambidexterity leadership styles.

30

director style. In order to manage the exploitation activities the coordinator style is needed.

This style is focused on control and stability and provides a clear flow of work, structures and

schedules which are necessary conditions for coordination and synchronization between the

separate units, thereby allowing leaders to create a shared vision and prevent a situation of

isolation. This style is preferred on top of the monitor style because the latter one is more

focused on ensuring that people follow the rules and procedures in order to be efficient and

stable. Whereas the coordinator style is providing communications channels, systems,

resource allocation and schedules

which are necessary to enable

coordination and synchronization and

preventing isolation. Next to the

coordinator style the broker style is

needed to pursue exploration

activities. This style focuses on where

the organization is going, by defining

strategic direction which can serve as

an underpinning for a shared vision

between separate units. In addition,

this style encompasses disseminating

knowledge, obtaining (external)

resources and maintaining (external)

legitimacy. The broker style is preferred

on top of the innovator style because

it is more focused on building

coalitions and networks (spanning

boundaries) instead of being primarily

focused on indentifying trends and innovations. Or as Yang and Shao (1996) argue, ‘the

innovative leader is expected to be a creative person who envisions innovations and new

trends, while the broker is expected to be a politically astute and influential person (p. 527)’. It

is argued that these capabilities of the broker style are needed to manage the exploration

activities successfully, while at the same time prevent a situation of isolation between the

separate units.

Moreover, leaders who pursue partitional ambidexterity should also be able to employ

leadership behavior to handle the separate nature of this type of organizational

ambidexterity. As described, each separate unit can embody distinct strategic and

operating logics, cultures, and reward systems. Consequently it is necessary to employ

leadership behavior that has an external orientation (towards the other unit) and a focus on

clear tasks, goals and direction by establishing rules and procedures. This external focus in

combination with clear rules and procedures will enable leaders to manage and attune

exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously across units, without isolating one of the

both activities. Based on the CVF model, it is argued that the director style is the most

appropriate leadership style to achieve this and to manage the process in such a way that

goals are clear, communicated, rules/policies are defined, applied, and expectations are

clarified across the units. This is also in line with Cameron and Quinn (2006) as they argue that

leadership styles in the rational goal quadrant create the most value when leaders have to

manage a portfolio of activities (p. 35), in this context the (competing) exploitation and

exploration activities across units.

Contrary to harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity, this type of ambidexterity requires a

leadership style that is more external oriented, as well as focused on control. The reason for

this can be found in the separate nature of this type of ambidexterity, as well as the

simultaneous pursuit of both activities. As described above, by pursuing partitional

ambidexterity it is not necessary to employ leadership behavior that is focused on enabling

individuals to balance exploration and exploitation activities or helping them to make the

transition between both activities. Foremost important while pursuing partitional

ambidexterity, besides managing exploration and exploitation, is leadership behavior that

links the separate units together through a shared vision in order to prevent a situation that

one of the activities gets isolated. Therefore, instead of leadership behavior that is focusing on

human relations, it is necessary to employ leadership behavior that has an external

Figure 11: Partitional ambidexterity leadership styles.

31

orientation (towards the other unit) by sharing goals and providing direction, supported by

clear rules and procedures.


This type of organizational ambidexterity occurs when the outputs of exploration from unit A

become the inputs for exploitation by unit B and the outputs of unit B cycle back to become

the inputs of unit A (Thompson, 1967). In contrast with cyclical ambidexterity, which involves a

shift between exploitation and exploration activities at a certain point in time, this type of

organizational ambidexterity requires relationships characterized by ongoing information

exchange, collaborative problem solving, joint decision making and resource flows between

the different units responsible for exploitation and exploration activities. Thereby reciprocal

ambidexterity can be defined as being a synergistic fusion of complementary streams of

exploitation and exploration activities that occur across time and units (Simsek et al., 2009, p.

887). In order to establish such a ‘synergistic fusion’ the leaders of this type of organizational

ambidexterity must provide an environment, were ongoing information exchange and

collaborative problem solving is possible, as well as resource flows between the separate

units. In order to do so, these leaders need to have a clear understanding of the various

separated exploration and exploitation activities. That is, keep track of the activities (flow of

work) in order to facilitate the reciprocal information flows and reallocation of resources

between the separate units.

Based on the CVF model it is argued that the coordinator, broker and producer style are the

most appropriate leadership styles in order to manage exploitation and exploration activities

and the synergistic fusion of reciprocal ambidexterity. The coordinator style is needed to

manage the exploitation activities. This style is focused on control and stability and provides a

clear flow of work, structures, communication channels and schedules which are necessary

conditions for an ongoing information exchange, collaborative problem solving, joint decision

making and resource flows between the different units responsible for exploitation and

exploration activities. This style is preferred instead of the monitor style because the latter one

is more focused on ensuring that

people follow the rules and

procedures in order to be efficient

and stable. Whereas the coordinator

style is providing communications

channels, systems, resource allocation

and schedules which are necessary

conditions to enable reciprocal

information flows between the

separate units. Next to the coordinator

style the broker style is needed to

pursue exploration activities. A leader

with a broker style is a politically astute

and influential person who provides

strategic direction on where the

organization is going and is focused

on future possibilities, disseminating

knowledge, obtaining (external)

resources and maintaining (external)

legitimacy. The broker style is preferred on top of the innovator style because it is more

focused on building coalitions and networks which are needed in order to create reciprocal

relationships between the separate (internal or external) units.

Similar to partitional ambidexterity the separate nature of this type of ambidexterity requires,

besides managing exploration and exploitation, leadership behavior that induces a

connection between the separate units and thereby enables reciprocal information flows.

The producer style seems to be the most appropriate style to achieve this. This leadership style

has a strong external focus which is necessary in order to manage the so called ‘synergistic

fusion’, as well as having a clear understanding of the separated exploration and exploitation

activities. Furthermore, this leadership style is focused on managing time and stress and

motivating people to achieve their goals by building relationships. It is argued that these are

Figure 12: Reciprocal ambidexterity leadership styles.

32

important variables in order to create a collaborative and problem solving environment.

Which in turn is, according to Simsek et al. (2009), a necessary condition for managing

exploitation and exploration activities that occur across time and units. Contrary to partitional

ambidexterity this type of organizational ambidexterity requires a producer style instead of a

director style. The reason for this can be found in the sequential nature of this type of

organizational ambidexterity. As described above, this type of organizational ambidexterity

requires relationships characterized by ongoing information exchange, collaborative problem

solving and resource flows between the separate units. By being goal-oriented, primarily

external focused and aimed at motivating people by building relationships, the producer

style is preferred on top the director style. The latter one is more internal oriented and focused

on rules and procedures which are necessary when both activities are pursued

simultaneously. This reasoning is in line with previous research, which indicates that building a

relationship between separate units is of great importance in order to facilitate the reciprocal

information flows and reallocation of resources between the separate units across time

(Simsek et al., 2009).

2.6 Three dimensional model of organizational ambidexterity

Based on the previous paragraphs the following revised organizational ambidexterity model,

including the leadership dimension, is depicted.

Figure 13: Revised organizational ambidexterity model including a leadership dimension.

As described in the previous paragraph, it becomes apparent that there is no single

leadership style that does best support one of the four types of organizational ambidexterity.

Cameron et al. (2006) defines this phenomenon as ‘behavioral complexity’, which implies

that a leader should be able to employ various leadership styles in order to enable

organizational ambidexterity. Figure 13 depicts the combinations of leadership styles that do

best support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity.

Noteworthy on this revised organizational ambidexterity model is that, both harmonic and

cyclical ambidexterity require at least a leadership style of the human relations model (the

upper-left quadrant of the CVF model). Whereas partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity,

require both at least a leadership style of the rational goal model (lower right quadrant of the

CVF model). The reason for this can be found in the structural differences between the both

sets of organizational ambidexterity, as they are distinguished by the structural dimension.

33

Contrary to harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity, leaders who pursue partitional and

reciprocal ambidexterity doesn’t have to manage a ‘harmonic tension’ or transit between

periods of exploitation and exploration. Both competing activities involve different individuals

that work in separate units. However, this separate nature of partitional, as well as reciprocal

ambidexterity requires leaders that support a shared vision or reciprocal information flow

between the separate units, in order to prevent a situation that one of the activities gets

isolated. On the other side, harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity, which are pursued in one

unit, require leadership styles that enable individuals to balance their time between

exploration and exploitation activities. In case of harmonic ambidexterity this means that the

right leadership styles are needed to enable people to deal with the conflicts between

exploration and exploitation activities. When it comes to cyclical ambidexterity, the right

leadership styles are needed to manage the conflicts as a result of the transition between

periods of exploitation and periods of exploration.

Obviously, the four types of organizational ambidexterity and the eight leadership styles of

the CVF model are ideal types. This means that the combinations, depicted above, are

found on characteristics and elements of a given phenomena, in this case leadership and

organizational ambidexterity. Therefore, the combinations between types of organizational

ambidexterity and leadership styles do not correspond to all of the characteristics of any one

particular case. Thus, the combinations as described do not refer to a non-subjective, perfect

truth about leadership and organizational ambidexterity. Nonetheless, the combinations are

based on common or complementary elements of both ideal types and provide thereby a

well reasoned theoretic construction of leadership styles that do best support the four types of


34

3. Research methodology

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the methodology that is used in this research and explains why this

approach was chosen. First, an elaboration is given on the chosen research strategy. Next,

the selected cases are described. Thereafter, the data collection and data analyses are

explained and finally the validity and reliability of the research are taken into account.

3.2 Research strategy

The research strategy is the sum of all related decisions which are made in order to determine

how to carry out the research (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007). The point of departure for

defining the right research strategy is the research objective, as described in chapter one. In

order to realize the objective of this research there is chosen to perform an exploratory study

at two companies, engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics.

This research has an exploratory nature because the theory of organizational ambidexterity

and leadership styles are explored by a literature research in order to describe which

leadership styles do best support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity.

Subsequently, leaders and other employees of the above mentioned companies are

questioned which leadership styles are employed in order to pursue organizational

ambidexterity. Finally, based on the literature- and exploratory study, this research describes

which leadership styles do best support harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal

ambidexterity and defines hypotheses for further research.

In the methodology literature there are roughly five distinguished research strategies: a

survey, an experiment, case study, grounded theory approach and a desk research. Based

on the research objective, the exploratory nature of this research and the characteristics of

the five research strategies, as described by Verschuren and Doorewaard (2007), the case

study is the most appropriate strategy for this research. According to Verschuren and

Doorewaard (2007) a case study research is a study in which one case (single-case study) or

a small number of cases (multiple-case study) are selected in order to gain in-depth

information on a particular (social) phenomenon. These cases are studied in their natural

environment (research on location) to cover the contextual conditions because they are

relevant to the (social) phenomenon. Furthermore, based on the small number of cases a

qualitative research is carried out, instead of a quantitative research. In addition, Yin (2003)

argues that a case study should be considered when the focus of the research is to answer

‘how’ and ‘why’ questions and when the boundaries are not clear between the

phenomenon and context.

3.2.1 Case study research

An important reason for choosing the case study strategy can be found in the need to

collect in-depth information regarding ‘how’ leadership styles (a social phenomenon) are

employed in the organizational ambidexterity context at two companies (natural

environment). Therefore a qualitative method, on location with a few cases is considered as

the most appropriate approach. But what kind of case study is this research exactly?

As described in the previous section, a case study can involve one case or a small number of

cases. As mentioned before, this research investigated more than one case in order to

achieve in-depth information on leadership styles and the four types of organizational

ambidexterity in different settings and to compare and contrast different cases (Yin, 2003).

Four cases are investigated at two companies, three cases at engineering and consultancy

company DHV and one case at Royal Philips Electronics. Thereby this research can be

defined as a multiple-case study. Furthermore, Verschuren and Doorewaard (2007) distinguish

two main types of research: practical-oriented and theory-oriented research. As described in

chapter one, this research intends to contribute to the organizational ambidexterity literature

by providing theoretical insights into which leadership styles do best support the four types of

ambidexterity. Thus, this research can be characterized as a theory-oriented research. In

35

addition, Verschuren and Doorewaard (2007) also distinguish two subtypes of theory-oriented

research: theory-developing research and theory-testing research. Due to the fact that this

research is aimed at developing a theory, instead of testing pre-defined hypotheses, this

research can be labeled as a theory-developing multiple-case study.

The revised organizational ambidexterity model, depicted in figure 13, served as an anchor

while performing the case study. This conceptual model combines the leadership styles of the

CVF model with the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal – of organizational

ambidexterity, as composed by Simsek et al. (2009).

Serving as an anchor means that this model forms the guiding framework concerning the

core expression of this research, the relationships between core expressions and the analyses

of the gathered information through unraveling the results per core expression (Boeije, 2005;

Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007). By using the revised organizational ambidexterity model as

the framework for data collection and data analyses this research follows a deductive

reasoning. This implies that the revised organizational ambidexterity model, which is deduced

from leadership theories and organizational ambidexterity theories, is compared with

empirical findings in order to further develop the theory on which leadership styles do best

support the four types of organizational ambidexterity. So deductive reasoning is studying a

particular phenomenon based on a theoretical framework, instead of using ‘sensitizing

concepts’ (inductive reasoning) which roughly guides the study and analyses (Verschuren &

Doorewaard, 2007).

3.2.2 Unit of analysis

According to Yin (2003), the unit of analysis is the basis for the case. It decides which

individual, organization, community, or department within the organization needs to be

studied in order to answer the empirical question. Therefore the unit of analysis should be

related to the empirical question or to the focus of the research proposal. The units of analysis

of this study are (business) units that pursue the four types of organizational ambidexterity as

defined by Simsek et al. (2009). Particularly, as described before, in this research these units

are investigated at two companies, three units at engineering and consultancy company

DHV and one unit at Royal Philips Electronics.

3.2.3 Case selection

In order to prevent the pitfall of attempting to answer a question that is too broad or a

topic that has too many objectives for one study it is useful to place boundaries on the cases

(Yin, 2003). Therefore the selection of the cases was not done randomly. Yin (2003) gives some

suggestions on how to bind a case, for example by place, activity, definition and context. In

this research the activities of the cases were principle for binding the cases. Based on the

empirical question and the revised organizational ambidexterity the selected cases had to

encompass the four types of organizational ambidexterity, which refers to how organizations

pursue exploration and exploitation activities.

After several initial discussions with Rudolf Mulder (senior manager, DHV) it became clear that

engineering and consultancy company DHV primarily pursues harmonic and cyclical

ambidexterity. Rudolf Mulder suggested three distinct units (cases), because all three were

pursuing exploitation and exploration activities in a different manner. Next to engineering and

consultancy company DHV, Royal Philips Electronics was involved in the case study because

the literature study indicated that cyclical, as well as reciprocal ambidexterity primarily

occurs within highly technologically-oriented organizations. Discussions with Warden Hoffman

(HR Manager, Philips) confirmed this literature suggestion, as Royal Philips Electronics primarily

pursues partitional- and reciprocal ambidexterity. Based on these initial discussions it was

decided to select three cases at engineering and consultancy company DHV and one at

Royal Philips Electronics. As described above, the reason for this selection can be found by

how these cases were pursuing exploitation and exploration activities (organizational

ambidexterity). The discussions with Rudolf Mulder let to the conclusion that the unit Asset and

Information Management pursues both harmonic and partitional ambidexterity, the unit

Urban development, Legal and Finance cyclical ambidexterity and the unit Real Estate

harmonic ambidexterity. The discussions with Warden Hoffman pointed out that Philips

Incubators pursues partitional, as well as reciprocal ambidexterity.

36

Since the types of organizational ambidexterity were the determining selecting criteria for the

cases, the markets, as well as the industry (place, context) of the cases were supposed to be

less important. However, the results showed that the market situation is of influence on the

(combination of) leadership styles employed and the types of organizational ambidexterity

that are pursued. Altogether, the above described case selection process lead to the

selection of the following four cases:

1. Unit Asset and Information Management (DHV)

2. Unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (DHV)

3. Unit Real Estate (DHV)

4. Philips Incubators

Below a short description per case is given of its activities, markets, structure and organization.

Unit Asset and Information Management (DHV)

The business unit Asset and Information Management (hereafter: AIM) offers consultancy and

asset management services to clients in the public and private domain. AIM generates,

maintains, secures and provides specific knowledge on maintenance themes, e.g. technical,

managerial, conceptual, and financial. AIM is providing their services mainly in the

transportation, water and spatial development markets, towards industrial clients, local

governments (municipalities, housing corporations) and central and regional governments

(RWS, provinces). The home market of AIM is the Netherlands. The focus areas are the north

(Eemshaven), the west (region Randstad) and the south.

AIM consists out of four departments: Asset management public, Industrial engineering,

Contract and information management and Asset management industry. Besides these

departments there is a business development team. Together AIM has a workforce of 120

employees.

Unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (DHV)

The business unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (hereafter: ULF) is providing a wide

range of (consultancy) services to clients in the public, as well as the private domain, e.g.

governments, municipalities, provinces, project developers, contractors, water boards, etc.

ULF principal markets are real estate, infrastructure, mobility, energy and water. Examples of

services are cost & risk management, urban development management, economic real

estate studies, economical development studies (company grounds, tourism, etc),

governance services and legal advice on urban development, tenders, public/private

cooperation’s (PPS), mobility and infrastructure. These services are clustered into three

departments – Urban development, Legal and Finance – and various sub-teams. ULF’s home

market is the Netherlands with a focus on urban areas, international ULF is primarily active on

the North-American and Asian market. The unit ULF has a workforce of 110 employees.

Unit Real Estate (DHV)

The unit Real Estate (hereafter: RE) is offering real estate solutions for primarily clients in the

public domain, principal markets are: governments, education, care and housing. RE is

providing services like maintenance and re-development of existing real estate (e.g. ‘krimp’

regions), sustainability advice on life cycle costing and area development, process

management on renovation and maintenance, CO2 reduction in buildings and build project

management. The home market of RE is the Netherlands. The unit RE employs 170 employees

across three departments: Build management, Real estate management north and Real

estate management south. In addition, every department contains various sub-teams based

on specific expertise.

Philips Incubators

Philips Incubators is grouped under ‘Corporate technologies’, which is an umbrella term for all

the units that support innovation and new business development at Philips. Corporate

technologies encompasses: corporate research, Philips Incubators, intellectual property and

standards (IP&S) and Philips innovation services. The main purpose of Corporate technologies

37

is creating new business options for the three Philips operating sectors: Healthcare, Consumer

lifestyle and Lighting, through new technologies, venturing and intellectual property

development, improving time-to-market efficiency and increasing innovation effectiveness.

Philips Incubators is the corporate venturing part of organization, per sector - Healthcare,

Consumer lifestyle and Lighting – an incubator has established. These incubators consist out

of various ventures that pursue exploration activities separate from the established business.

The main purpose of these ventures is to deliver prosperous, radical, new (product or market)

innovations. Examples of incubator ventures are: Shapeways, 3D solutions, CareServant,

Digital Pathology, Handheld Diagnostics, etc. The number of ventures is variable.

3.3 Data collection

There are many different ways of carrying out a qualitative case study, for example via focus

groups, interviewing experts, document research, observations, etc (Boeije, 2005). Combining

various data collection methods leads to data triangulation, which provides an important

way of ensuring the validity of case study research (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007). Data

triangulation in this research was achieved by performing interviews, document research and

observations. Each method used for deriving this type of data is described below. Before

these methods are further explained a brief description is given regarding the preparation of

data collection.

3.3.1 Preparation of data collection

Before starting with in-depth interviews, document research and observations, a round of pre-

interviews was held with three people from Royal Philips Electronics and two people from

engineering and consultancy company DHV. The goal of these pre-interviews was primarily to

determine which types of organizational ambidexterity are pursued in both companies.

Furthermore, these pre-interviews lead to the list of people that were interviewed during the

research. The data collection methods, as well as the decisions made regarding the cases

and interviewees were discussed with Hans Doorewaard (research supervisor), Rudolf Mulder

(senior manager, DHV) and Warden Hoffman (HR Manager, Philips).

3.3.2 Interviews

Preparation for an interview is vital. According to Boeije (2005) various types of interviews are

possible and can be distinguished by the extent of pre-structuring. Examples are unstructured,

semi-structured or structured interviews. In this research semi-structured interviews were used.

In a semi-structured interview it is determined up front which topics will be treated and in

which sequence. Nevertheless, during the interviews there was enough room for going in-

depth into specific items.

In total fourteen interviews were held, ten interviews at engineering and consultancy

company DHV and the other four at Royal Philips Electronics. From these fourteen persons, six

persons hold the position of unit (venture) manager, three persons the position of department

manager, two persons the position of senior manager, two persons the position of HR-

manager one person the role of business development manager. At engineering and

consultancy company DHV two persons per case were interviewed, first a unit manager and

then a department manager. Thereby it was able to verify per case the prior obtained

interview results. In addition, an interview was held with a business development manager in

order to gain information on how exploration activities are pursued across units. Also

interviews were held with senior managers and HR-managers, as these persons were able to

explain how the various units are dealing with exploitation and exploration activities, as well

as the policy behind these modes of operation. At Royal Philips Electronics two interviews

were held with venture managers in order to verify prior obtained interview results. One of two

interviewees is a venture portfolio manager and is thereby responsible for various ventures

and the transition of (new) activities to the established business. Furthermore an interview was

held with a senior manager and HR-manager responsible for managing the established

business and the ventures, as well as the policy behind ‘incubation’. Both, the position and

the experience of the interviewees, with leadership and the tension between exploitation

38

and exploration lead to the necessary results to answer the empirical questions. All the

interviewees and their positions can be found in appendix 1.

Right before the start of the interviews the interviewees received a short introduction into the

subject on paper. Each interview lasted approximately one and a half hour. During the

interview every aspect was discussed in order to answer the empirical questions. This was

done by discussing predefined topics, but the interviewees were also able to suggest and

bring in other relevant items or examples. The predefined topics were based on the literature

study as described in chapter two. The interviews started by first asking the interviewees if

they were familiar with the jargon of the subject. Thereafter the interviewees were asked if

they recognized the tension between exploration and exploitation activities. The second part

of the interview was focused on the type of organizational ambidexterity, in order to indentify

the type(s) of organizational ambidexterity that were pursued. The third part of the interview

involved questions regarding leadership, leadership styles and factors that influence the

relation between leadership (styles) and organizational ambidexterity. The interview guide

with the predefined topics that was used during the interviews can be found in appendix 2.

All the interviews have been recorded, with consent of the interviewees, to guarantee that all

(detail) information is stored. In addition, all these recordings were summarized and analyzed

per topic (see section 3.4). These summaries were sent back to the interviewees to make sure

that the summary represents their opinion on the various topics.

3.3.3 Document research

Various documents have been investigated. At engineering and consultancy company DHV

policy documents were investigated in order to determine how senior management is

dealing with the tension between exploration and exploitation. Furthermore, documents and

vision plans concerning leadership and culture have been examined. However, at

engineering and consultancy company DHV most documents were high-level documents,

which did not contain relevant content regarding the organization level (unit) were the

interviews were held. At Royal Philips Electronics there was more relevant documentation. A

policy paper concerning leadership, exploration and exploitation (the Bell-Mason method),

as well as a previous study on leadership and the use of incubators was examined and

discussed with Warden Hoffman (HR Manager, Philips) and Corina Kuiper (senior manager).

An overview of all investigated documents can be found in appendix 3.

3.3.4 Observations

Segers (2002) identifies several methods for observation. The first distinction is made between

participating and non-participating observation. This is the difference between observation

while interacting with participants and observation without interaction with participants. Both

types of observations are used in this research. Participating observation took place at

engineering and consultancy company DHV, since the researcher is an employee at this

company. Non-participating observation took place before, during and after the interviews

at Royal Philips Electronics. The second distinction is between a structured and a non-

structured observation. During the observation of the cases the interview topic list was used to

secure a structured observation of the leadership styles and organizational ambidexterity

types that were employed. However, not all observations were structured. Non-structured

observation also took place while being on location. The structured, as well as the non-

structured observations produced some useful notes while working out the results, gathered

through interviews and document research.

3.4 Data analyses

The data analysis in this research encompasses an analysis of the gathered empirical results,

obtained through interviews, document research and observations. The data analysis started

with analyzing the interview results that were derived. The interviews were summarized per

interview topic (see appendix 2 for the topics), through unraveling the results per core

expression. These predefined topics were based on the literature study, as described in

chapter two, regarding the four types of organizational ambidexterity (par. 2.3.2) and the

eight leadership styles of the CVF model (par. 2.4.2).

39

Thereafter a ‘similarities and differences analysis’ was performed among the various interview

results per topic. This analysis includes coding similar and different opinions on the same

subjects and highlighting unique and specific comments (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007).

An example of the raw data resulting from this analysis can be found in appendix 4. After the

similarities and differences analysis, the actual analysis took place in chapter 4. In this chapter

the results of the similarities and differences analysis were interpreted and combined with the

results of the observations and the studied documents. By combining these results it was

possible to determine whether the proposed combinations of leadership styles and types of

organizational ambidexterity, depicted in figure 13, were sufficient or not. A typical hallmark

of the qualitative research process is that it is possible to analyse data while still gathering

new data. This iterative data analyses process also took place during this research. Instead of

the linear process flow of a quantitative research, a qualitative research follows a cyclical or

iterative flow. This iterative flow allows the researcher to improve or adjust the research set-up

and questions while gathering the data (Boeije, 2005). However, a consequence of this

iterative process is that the researcher is constantly interpreting the data based on his choice

of paradigm assumptions, this is called multi-interpretability (Verschuren & Doorewaard,

2007). The next section explains how this multi-interpretability was avoided, as much as

possible, during this research.

3.5 Validity and reliability

Boeije (2005) argue that the quality of a research depends on the degree validity and

reliability. Particularly a qualitative research can have issues on validity and reliability due to

the open and less structured approach. For example, the use of more than one data

collection method improves the validity of the gathered data. Yet, at the same time this

open en less structured approach requires improvising and can thereby result in less reliability.

The next sections provide insights in how this research dealt with validity (‘measuring the right

things’) and reliability (‘measuring the things right’) issues.

3.5.1 Validity

Validity refers to the influence of systematic faults during a research. This encompasses the

degree to which a research is measuring what it was intent to measure and thereby how

truthful the results are (Boeije, 2005). Two types of validity can be distinguished, internal

validity and external validity. Internal validity refers to the extent to which it is possible to make

accurate inferences regarding the investigated relations of the conceptual model. External

validity refers to what extent the results can be generalized to other (similar) situations

(Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007).

Internal validity

By using a qualitative approach the internal validity of this research is high. Due to the less

standardized data collection methods of a qualitative approach and the alternation

between data collection and data analyses, it was possible to gather the most relevant in-

depth information regarding the empirical questions. The internal validity was also ensured by

using multiple data collection methods which lead to data triangulation, as described in

paragraph 3.3. Other things that contributed to a high level of internal validity are the

purposive case selection as described in section 3.2.3, sending a short introduction to the

interviewees prior to the interviews, the use of a predefined topic list during the interviews,

recording the interviews in order to secure all (detail) information, the verification of the

interpretations made by the researcher by submitting interview summaries to the interviewees

(‘member validation’) and the use of a systematic data analyses approach as described in

paragraph 3.4. Altogether it can be argued that the internal validity of this research was

secured by using various proven research methods and approaches. However, the internal

validity may have been negatively influenced by the researcher. This was specifically the

case during the investigation at engineering and consultancy company DHV. Due to the fact

that the researcher is an employee at engineering and consultancy company DHV, it was

inevitable that his interpretation and critical look was influenced and may have lead to

biased preconceived notions. In the literature this process is mentioned as ‘going native’,

which affects the interplay between the conceptual model, the data collection and data

40

analyses (Boeije, 2005). By being aware of this pitfall and by submitting interview summaries to

the interviewees it was tried to minimize this bias.

External validity

Due to the nature and ‘small’ numbers of cases it is a frequent criticism of case study

research that the results are not widely applicable. This criticism can be refuted by making a

distinction between analytic generalization, in case of a qualitative research and statistical

generalization in case of a quantitative research (Yin, 2003; Boeije, 2005). Yin defines

analytical generalization as: "in analytic generalization, a previously developed theory is used

as a template in order to compare empirical results obtained during a qualitative research"

(Yin, 2003). Based on the previous chapters and paragraphs it is apparent that analytical

generalization is applicable on this research. Yin (2003), as well as Boeije (2005) argued that,

based on the above described distinction, it is possible that the results of a case study can be

generalized. Boeije (2005) describes that insights in a particular theoretical phenomenon,

developed in a research, can be used in certain similar situations that were not investigated

(p. 155). The overarching dimensions of the organizational ambidexterity model are based on

various literature streams and prior studies and present thereby a theoretical construct that

describes a widely observed phenomenon. Thus, the results of this research provide insights in

a theoretical phenomenon, leadership styles and organizational ambidexterity, which can

be, according to Boeije (2005), used in certain similar situations that were not investigated.

Moreover, the literature study lead to a purposive case selection that matches the

conceptual model and the empirical questions, which is an important condition for external

validity.

The overarching dimensions of the revised organizational ambidexterity model, as well as the

purposive case selection ensured the external validity of this research. However, generalizing

the results of this research should always be done with great care, due to uniqueness of the

investigated cases in term of settings, interviewees, context, etc. Altogether, based on

analytical generalization, described by Yin (2003), it is argued that the external validity of this

research can be high for certain similar situations that were not investigated.

3.5.2 Reliability

Reliability refers to the degree to which the results of a research can be reproduced by using

a similar methodology (Boeije, 2005). In other words, when the methods used for data

collection are reliable, replication of the research will produce similar results. An important

challenge, while pursuing reliability in a qualitative case study research, has to do with

minimizing the multi-interpretability of the research, as described in paragraph 3.4

(Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007). Various steps were taken in order to minimize the multi-

interpretability and thereby ensuring the reliability of this research. First, collecting the data via

semi-structured interviews resulted to a certain degree of standardization (consistency) which

favors the reliability. The topics and the sequence they were discussed was determined up

front, which reduces the chance on ‘coincidental faults’ (Boeije, 2005). Second, recording

the interviews and submitting interview summaries to the interviewees lessened that chance

on wrong (positively or negatively) interpretations of the researcher. Third, data triangulation

(interviews, documents and observations) allowed the researcher to verify acquired

information and facts between multiple resources and thereby producing righteous results.

Fourth, by using a systematic data analyses method it is possible to retrace the results of the

research. Besides, by applying as systemic (consistent) data analyses the chance on

‘coincidental faults’ was also reduced.

Finally, the reliability of this research is demonstrated by having a small group of second

readers, from within the investigated organizations and outside these organizations, in order

to minimize threats like ‘holistic fallacy’, ‘elite bias’ and the process of ‘going native’ (Yin,

2003).

41

4. Case study results

4.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the results of the empirical research, as outlined in the previous

chapter. This research was performed by studying four cases at two companies.

The purpose of this research was to investigate which leadership styles are used in practice,

at engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics, to pursue

harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity. This is done under the guidance

of the empirical research questions as defined in paragraph 1.5. The main empirical question

(see below) is answered by describing, in paragraph 4.2 up to 4.5, per case the types of

organizational ambidexterity pursued and the leadership styles that were employed to pursue

these types of organizational ambidexterity.

The main and sub empirical questions that are answered in this chapter are:

Which leadership styles are used in practice by the cases at engineering and consultancy

company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics in order to carry out harmonic, cyclical,

partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity?


ambidexterity are pursued by the cases at engineering and consultancy company

DHV?


ambidexterity are pursued by the case Philips incubators at Royal Philips Electronics?

• Which leadership styles are employed by the cases at engineering and consultancy

company DHV in order to pursue harmonic, cyclical, partitional or reciprocal


• Which leadership styles are employed by the case Philips incubators at Royal Philips

Electronics in order to pursue harmonic, cyclical, partitional or reciprocal


4.2 Case results: unit Asset and Information Management (DHV)

Based on the results obtained through interviews, observations and document research a

description is given of the type(s) of organizational ambidexterity that are pursued and the

leadership styles that are employed.

4.2.1 Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued by case

Unit manager Jelle Hannema confirms that the tension between exploration and exploitation

activities is something the unit Asset and Information Management (hereafter: AIM) is

struggling with, just like other units within engineering and consultancy company DHV. Jelle,

as well as Ron van Empel (department manager) indicate that the tension between realizing

budgets, being efficient and developing new services and markets frequently produces

contradictions and inconsistencies between both people and organization. Due to the

current crisis this tension has become more visible and has initiated last year a new way of

organizing exploration and exploitation activities. Next to the ‘old way’ of organizing both

activities, a new approach was introduced.


By having exploitation and exploration activities organized within one unit, it can be argued

that harmonic ambidexterity is pursued. As Jelle indicates: ‘the departments and teams

within the unit are responsible for running established business, as well as developing new

businesses, at the same time and with the same group of people’. Depending on their

function and role in the unit, 80% of their time people are involved in being ‘billable to the

client’ and 20% of their time they are involved in developing current services or new business

42

development. Thus, the people of the unit AIM have to balance constantly their time

between achieving billable hours and developing new services and markets. In addition,

Jelle and Ron argued that it is necessary to let people perform both exploration and

exploitation activities in order to prevent new services that does not fit the market. Besides,

Jelle argues: ‘letting people only develop new services or being billable to the client doesn’t

improve their job satisfaction’. This reasoning is also confirmed by senior manager Rudolf

Mulder as he argues: ‘in a consultancy and service company like DHV it is not possible to

completely split exploitation and exploration activities because it is a people-business’. With

‘people-business’ Rudolf is referring to the difference between a service and product

company and that it is more difficult to spilt both activities in service companies. Based on

the above described interview results it can be argued that, by organizing exploitation and

exploration activities in this way, the unit AIM is pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. As

described in chapter two, harmonic ambidexterity involves the simultaneous pursuit of both

exploitation and exploration activities within one unit and with the same group of people.


However, the interviewees also describe that this model (achieving exploitation and

exploration activities at the same time with the same people) has some limitations. They

argue that the past learned that at the end of the day the focus will mainly be on achieving

budgets and sales targets, ‘short term results’. Jelle, as well as other interviewees argue that

the consequence is that there was insufficient attention for developing new services and

market and thereby the long term goals were in danger. Therefore, Jelle and his

management team has developed and introduced last year a new approach on managing

exploitation and exploration activities. In order to have a ‘healthy balance’ between both

activities, Jelle decided to form a separate business development team with a responsible

manager. This team does not have sales or budget targets comparable to the other

departments and teams in the unit. Their goal is to develop new business and services within,

as well as across units. Jelle said, ‘they don’t have to worry about ‘OG-tjes’ (billable hours)

and all the other procedures and structures focused on realizing an efficient organization,

they have the freedom to spread their wings in developing new services and markets and will

be assessed on the new number of services and markets’. Besides this new business

development team, there is also a team introduced that is pursuing exploitation activities

across units, this is called a ‘cross-functional team’. The interviewees explained that this team

exists out of people that 50% of their time are employed at the AIM unit and the other 50% for

another unit in accordance with their specific expertise. The interviewees argued that the

new business development team, as well as the cross-functional team is playing an important

role in fostering synchronization between DHV units. Thereby it becomes possible to prevent a

situation that everybody within DHV is inventing the same new services, markets or solutions

on its own.

This new way of managing exploitation and exploration activities can also be found in the

‘AIM business plan 2010-2015’ and is in line with the overall organization theme ‘Dear to

Share’ as described in the Corporate Policy Paper. The business plan states that: ‘working

across units is spreading the risks and benefits and improves current and new market

development by shifting employees and expertise’s throughout the company’.

Conclusion

By establishing a new business development team completely focused on exploration

activities and a cross-functional team completely focused on exploitation activities, the unit

AIM is pursuing partitional ambidexterity next to harmonic ambidexterity. Nevertheless,

comparing the approach of the unit AIM with the description of partitional ambidexterity, as

described in chapter two, it becomes apparent that they do not correspond on all

characteristics. In paragraph 2.3.2 partitional ambidexterity is defined as: pursuing

exploitation and exploration activities in separate units, with each unit embodying distinct

strategic and operating logics, cultures, and incentive systems. As described, AIM is pursuing

exploitation activities (by a cross-functional team) and exploration activities (by a new

business development team) across units. But these activities and teams are not separate

from the AIM unit and thereby they do not embody distinct strategic and operating logics,

cultures, incentive systems and do not have a distinct management team. Furthermore, as

becomes apparent in the AIM business plan not all exploitation and exploration activities are

43

pursued in separate units, primarily contract management and information management

services are pursued separately. Besides, in its pure form partitional ambidexterity involves at

least two separate units that only pursue, either exploitation or exploration activities across

units. AIM pursues both activities across units

and on top of that the main part of the unit

still pursues harmonic ambidexterity, as

described in the first part of this section.

Nevertheless, as described in the last part of

chapter two, the four types of

organizational ambidexterity are ideal

types. This means that the types of

organizational ambidexterity are found on

characteristics and elements of a given

phenomena (pursuing exploitation and

exploration activities). Thereby the types of

organizational ambidexterity do not

correspond to all of the characteristics of a

particular case. Based on this reasoning it is

argued that the unit AIM pursues harmonic

ambidexterity in its pure form and a ‘form’ of partitional ambidexterity, which reveals

considerable similarities with the description of this type in paragraph 2.3.2. Figure 14 depicts

both types of organizational ambidexterity, the colour of the partitional ambidexterity square

is adjusted according to its less obvious appearance in practice.

4.2.2 Leadership styles employed to pursue organizational ambidexterity

While discussing how the unit AIM deals with the tension between exploration and

exploitation activities it became apparent that leadership is of great importance. Jelle

started with arguing: ‘making the same person responsible for organizing efficiency (budgets,

sales, etc) and developing new services and markets is fiction’. Further on during the

interview he explained this statement by arguing that both activities require at least two

different sets of competences that are opposite ends of a continuum. Despite this statement

he argues that people need to be able to employ these two opposite behaviors depending

on their role. As a unit manger of various departments and sub teams you need to possess

both sets of competences. Being a manager of a specific department or sub team,

depending on its activities, can require either a leader that is good in managing budgets or a

leader that is good in fostering new business development. Nevertheless, expecting an

innovative focused leadership style in an exploitation oriented department or team is not

realistic, or as Jelle states: ‘is a fiction’. This was one of the principles that lead to introduction

of a separate business development team.

Leadership styles harmonic ambidexterity

On the questions what type of leadership style the interviewees employ to manage harmonic

ambidexterity, they answers that they have primarily a coaching and connecting role

between the various departments and sub teams. When there are problems this role can also

be a directive one, ‘you then have to make decisions’. In addition, the interviewees said that

they take care of the framework in terms of resources and tools and monitor and manage

this by being unambiguous and providing a clear vision and strategy. This role perception is

confirmed by other interviewees as they state that a unit manager needs to facilitate the

process, as well as making the final decisions and providing guidance. In addition, Jelle

argues that managing people in a unit that is pursuing both exploitation and exploration

activities at the same time requires a leadership style on the ‘background’, ‘give your people

space and guidance by a clear vision’. The interviewees also argued that you have to

enable people to develop themselves alongside achieving their billable hour targets. In the

unit AIM this is done by the ‘buddy method’, connecting a senior employee with a junior

employee and supporting people in following training course and external coaching. On the

other hand, the interviewees argued that as a leader you sometimes need to be very clear

about rules and procedures. They need to be followed, as these rules support an efficient

organization which is needed to realize budget targets. As an example of these rules the

interviewees described the process of handing in timesheets, this needs to be done before

Figure 14: Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued

by the unit Asset and Information Management.

44

Monday morning 12 a clock, in order to prepare the weekly invoices towards customers. This

process sometimes requires a directive approach by addressing people to follow the

structure, rules and procedures.

On the question if you need to be able to employ more than one leadership style, the

interviewees argued that managing a unit like AIM requires different leadership styles at

various moments, managing ‘production employees’ requires a leadership style that is

focused on efficiency and targets, on the other hand fostering new business development,

acquiring new customers and markets requires a flexible and supporting leadership style with

considerable knowledge of market. Being able to switch at various moments in time between

these leadership styles is important, if not to say ‘indispensable’. To endorse this statement

Jelle describes an example of switching between roles: ‘as a unit manager I sometimes have

to build on new customer relations, forms of cooperation and markets by visiting events,

social network parties and employing other new customers or market related activities. While

the next day I have to manage efficiency targets towards employees and border conflicts

between teams’. In addition, the interviewees indicate that the most important trigger to

switch between styles depends on ‘what’s needed on a particular moment and place.

Sometimes you have to focus more on sales and budgets and sometimes new business

development needs to have a ‘boost’.

Leadership styles partitional ambidexterity

On the question if there is a difference between leading people within or across units, the

interviewees argued that a different style is absolutely needed. Leading people across units

requires you to be flexible, as well as focused on working across unit borders. The interviewees

explained, as a manager you have to help and encourage people to work across unit

borders and show them the benefits of looking beyond your own unit. This is a difficult process

because people tend to focus on their own unit, which can be reinforced by border conflicts.

Besides, being flexible is needed in order to prevent border conflicts or to solve them, being

too rigid will result in problems while working across borders. In addition, the interviewees

argued that having a clear vision, ‘a dot on the horizon’, is one of the most important things

to connect people and to minimize the tension between exploration and exploitation

activities. Jelle said: ‘by having a clear vision and strategy everybody knows what to expect

from each other, there are no hidden agenda’s which results in a breathing unity (‘een

ademend geheel’). According to Jelle a clear vision and strategy is necessary to pursue

exploitation and exploration activities within, as well as across units. He argues that a vision

and strategy needs to be shared between units in order to enable exploitation and

exploration activities across units. Without a clear vision and strategy, border conflicts

regarding financial issues will result in ‘narrow-mindedness’ between units. And again Jelle

argues that not only putting a vision on the map is enough: ‘you have to manage your vision

and strategy by being clear about the framework, procedures, rules, progress and

expectations’.

Conclusion

Based on the leadership styles of the

CVF model, as described in paragraph

2.4.2, it is now possible to define the

leadership styles that are employed, in

order to pursue harmonic and

partitional ambidexterity, by the unit

AIM. By stating that exploitation and

exploration activities require different

sets of competences, the interviewees

pointed out that exploitation activities

require transactional leadership styles

and exploration activities require

transformational leadership styles. During

the interviews it became apparent that

partitional ambidexterity requires

different leadership styles than harmonic

ambidexterity.

Figure 15: Leadership styles employed by the unit Asset and

Information Management while pursuing harmonic

ambidexterity.

45

In order to pursue harmonic ambidexterity the interviewees argued that a coaching and

connecting leadership style is needed, which corresponds with the facilitator style of the CVF

model. In addition, the interviewees described that they provide the framework, resources

and tools and monitor and manage this by having a clear vision and strategy. This indicates

that they also employ a monitor style - ensuring that people follow the rules – and a broker

style – focusing on were the organization is going and providing strategic direction.

During the interviews the use of the broker style is also mentioned by stating that a clear vision

and strategy is necessary to pursue exploitation and exploration activities within and across

units. Without the external legitimacy of the broker, border conflicts and narrow-mindedness

can occur. The monitor style is also mentioned by the interviewees by stating that you have

to manage your vision and strategy by a clear framework, procedures, rules, progress and

expectations. In addition, Jelle describes that you also have to give people ‘space’ by

employing a leadership style on the ‘background’ and thereby enabling people to develop

themselves, alongside achieving their billable hour targets. This type of leadership behavior

matches the mentor style of the CVF

model, as this style is focused on

encouraging and helping individuals to

plan their self-development.

Pursuing partitional leadership requires a

leadership style that is primarily focused

on flexibility and working across unit

borders, the interviewees argued. In

addition, they argue that you have to

help and encourage people to look

beyond their own unit. And being too

‘rigid’ as a leader will result in problems

while working across borders. This

indicates that the broker style (external

focus on other units), as well as the

mentor style (helping and encouraging

people to look beyond their unit) are

employed to pursue partitional

ambidexterity. By defining ‘too rigid’ as

negative it can be argued that leadership

styles focused on control (transactional leadership styles) are not recommended to pursue

partitional ambidexterity. Recapitulating, the unit AIM employs a facilitator, monitor, broker

and mentor style in order to pursue harmonic ambidexterity. Besides, while pursuing

partitional ambidexterity the unit AIM employs a mentor style and broker style. The leadership

styles per type of organizational ambidexterity are depicted in figure 15 and 16.

4.2.3 Additional findings

While investigating the types of organizational ambidexterity and leadership styles employed,

some additional findings were obtained. Only the findings that possibly have a relation to the

research objective are described. The following additional findings were obtained by

investigating the unit AIM.

Market influence and organizational ambidexterity

The interviewees argued that there was a one-sided focus on exploitation activities in the

past due to the (economical) market crisis, which lead to an increasing focus on billable

work. This pattern is also confirmed by Rudolf as he argues: ‘the economical crisis produced a

more ‘result oriented’ focus in the organization’.

Type of activities

As described, the new business development team is organizationally-wise established within

the unit AIM. The reason for this can be found in preventing a situation that new services

development does not fit the market. The interviewees argued that people need to have a

connection with the market in order to do new product development.

Figure 16: Leadership styles employed by the unit Asset

and Information Management while pursuing partitional

ambidexterity.

46

Financial accountability structure

The interviewees described that working across units does not go that smoothly all the time.

Due to the current financial driven culture, some units tend to focus too much on their own

profit and loss which can cause border conflicts. Jelle explains that most of these issues are

about how to split investment cost in relation to revenue, or who is responsible for project

losses. In addition, Jelle argues that border conflicts can only occur when a manager allows it

and is not focused on cross unit work and new business development. Besides, having

regularly senior management meetings between the various unit managers also helps to

prevent these border conflicts, as these meeting are aimed at developing and maintaining a

shared approach of all units.

4.3 Case results: unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (DHV)





Kees-Jan Bandt (unit manager) argues that the tension between exploitation and exploration

activities is a continuous challenge between making billable hours and developing new

services. The unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (hereafter: ULF) is performing both

activities on a daily basis and is thereby subject to both forces. Johan Moolenaar

(department manager), as well as Bart Humblet (formerly unit manager) argued that this

tension also becomes apparent in having different kinds of people. Some people prefer to do

routine tasks which are aimed at doing the same thing over and over again, while other

people like to invent new services and find new markets.


Most people in the unit ULF perform both exploitation and exploration activities because the

work is about knowledge, ‘it is in de minds of people’. Kees-Jan argues that it is not possible to

completely separate exploitation and exploration activities from each other as companies

like Unilever or Philips do. This is confirmed by the other interviewees as the argued that

‘innovation takes place on the job’. In addition, Kees-Jan argues: ‘I deploy people based on

their qualities, for some this involves achieving high sales, for others this involves research

activities and developing markets and for some people a mixture of both’. Bottom line most

people in the unit ULF are ‘multi-taskers’, they have to be billable and are also expected to

think along with new things.

However, due to the bad economic circumstances of the last few years the focus was mainly

on exploitation activities. Achieving budgets and sales targets was one of the most important

things, Kees-Jan argues. Bart confirms this by stating: ‘the years before the crisis the sky was

the limit and the margins were very good, during the crisis it became worse and the only

solution seems to be production, production and production’. The result was that the unit ULF

was mainly exploiting and explorations were minimized till almost zero. As an example a failed

innovation project was described by one of the interviewees. Some people worked out a

very good concept regarding company grounds rating in terms of sustainability, accessibility,

etc. This tool could be used for investors and local authorities to benchmark company

grounds. However, it never became a new product because it was killed by the internal

focus on efficiency and control’.


Last year this one-sided focus on exploitation resulted in a large dismissal procedure, more

than 50 people were dismissed. At this moment the market is still tough, governments,

municipalities and private investors are all waiting with new investments. The interviewees

indicated that this pattern forced the unit ULF the last year in ‘a phase of re-inventing itself’,

at the moment they are primarily focused on innovations. Various teams within the unit are

completely focused on developing new services because their ‘old’ work has dropped to

zero. Kees-Jan argues: for a long time we aimed on the cash cows and now we have too

much dogs and almost no stars’. This is also confirmed by Johan as he argues: ‘after a long

47

period of exploiting we are now in a period of searching for new services and business

models to recapture our market share’. Therefore a large group of people in the ULF unit is

working on new (radical) explorations. These developments are also described in the ‘ULF

business plan 2010-2015’: ‘the market forces us to develop new and innovative business

models in order to recapture market share’, ‘the customer is changing which forces us to

rethink our market approach’ and ‘innovation is back on the agenda’. The interviewees

argued that competitors are also engaged in similar developments, ‘everybody is looking for

the right market approach in order to recapture a good share in the future market 2.0’.

In addition, the interviewees argued that the unit ULF has to learn from the past, periods of

only exploiting or exploring will at the end of the day lead to problems. Bart points out: ‘of

course cyclical market patterns are natural and you have to follow them, but at the same

time you have to prevent a situation of only exploiting or exploring, since you need both

activities to survive on the short and the long term’.

Conclusion

Based on the description of the fours types of organizational ambidexterity, as described in

paragraph 2.3.2, it is argued that the unit ULF pursues harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity.

By pursuing both exploitation and exploration activities, in one unit at the same time and with

the same group of people, the unit ULF is obviously pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. This is

also endorsed by Kees-Jan as he argues

that most people in his units are ‘multi-

taskers’, as they have to be billable and are

expected to think along with new things.

Besides, it also becomes apparent that the

unit pursues another type of organizational

ambidexterity next to harmonic

ambidexterity due to market circumstances

(crisis, etc). As described, the unit ULF was

for a long time primarily focused on

exploiting, ‘production, production and

production’. Thereby this can be defined as

a period of exploitation. Last year an

transition was forced by the market to a

period of exploration, ‘a phase of re-inventing

itself (unit ULF)’. This transition can be defined

as cycling between a period of exploitation

towards a period of exploration. In addition,

this process of cycling occurs within the same unit. Based on these findings it is argued that,

besides harmonic ambidexterity, cyclical ambidexterity is pursued as well. Yet, the mode in

which cyclical ambidexterity is pursued by the unit ULF does not completely corresponds with

the theoretical definition as described in paragraph 2.3.2. For example, when the unit shifted

from an exploitation period towards a period of exploration, procedures, reward and control

systems were not changed. Besides, pursuing cyclical ambidexterity was not an intentional

process, it was initiated by the market as the ‘workload dropped to zero’. Nevertheless, as

depicted in figure 17, it can be argued that both harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity is

pursued by the unit ULF.


Leadership is, according to Kees-Jan, putting the right people on the right place. As

mentioned before Kees-Jan said: ‘some people prefer to do routine tasks which are aimed at

doing the same thing over and over again. Other people like to invent new services and

develop new markets’. In addition he argues: ‘putting people on the right place in one thing,

next you also have to manage them according to their competences’. With, respect to

managing competences, Kees-Jan means that it is not wise to manage an ‘independent

professional’ like a ‘production employee’ and vice versa. This is also endorsed by Bart as he

argues: ‘telling somebody from salary scale 13 or higher how to do things will result in

resistance, instead you should support and challenge them’. An example of why it is

important to have the right people on the right place is the failed innovation project

regarding company ground ratings, as described in the previous section. This concept failed

Figure 17: Types of organizational ambidexterity

pursued by the unit Urban development, Legal and

Finance.

48

due to the fact that the people involved in this project were to much focused on ‘efficiency

and control’.


On the question which leadership styles are employed to manage the tension between

exploration and exploitation activities the interviewees answered that different styles are used

in different situations. Kees-Jan argued: ‘managing good budgets, sales and innovations at

the same time with the same group of people requires a clear vision (‘lijn aanbrengen’)’. In

addition, Kees-Jan argues that managing this ‘paradox’ is something he supports by

recruiting the right managers and facilitate them as much as possible. In order to manage

this paradox the interviewees argued that they employ a directive leadership style towards

the production parts of the unit, ‘then a strong focus on procedures, rules and utilization rates

is needed’. Furthermore they indicate that a manager of exploitation activities is primarily

internally focused on budgets, schedules and the distribution of work. While on the other

hand a coaching and mentoring style towards new business development activities is

needed. The interviewees also pointed out that exploration activities requires leaders with an

external focus and leaders that support people to be creative and provide them with the

right resources. With resources they meant that a leader should facilitate the right systems,

knowledge and training and education in order to secure a good process. The interviewees

argued that bringing these two opposite types of leaders together in one management team

requires primarily a facilitating role and a clear future direction. Kees-Jan said: ‘I take care of

the process by providing the necessary resources and I intervene and make decisions when

the vision gets lost or when a conflict needs to be solved’. On the question what recourses

Kees-Jan is referring to, he points out resources like: ‘investment money, the right people,

network, teambuilding activities/‘heidesessies’ and training and education’. According to

Kees-Jan, he is regularly switching between his leadership styles, primarily between leadership

styles focused on efficiency and control and leadership styles focused on innovation and

flexibility. This distinction between different leadership styles, needed for different situations, is

also described by the other interviewees. On the question which leadership style is best, the

interviewees answered that there is no best leadership style, you need to be able to employ

various styles to a certain degree in order to manage people in a company like DHV,

because they perform both production and new business development activities.

Leadership styles cyclical ambidexterity

On the question whether the current leadership styles (exploration period) has changed,

compared to the leadership styles during the exploitation period (as described in the previous

section), Kees-Jan answered: ‘there are differences compared to the past, I now encourage

people to be more externally focused on innovations and new market opportunities and I

have to guide them in this process by providing direction’. In addition he also argues: ‘during

the period that many people were dismissed (last year, before the exploration period started)

my leadership style was primarily internally focused, trying to get the unit back on trail since

there was a lot of tension in the organization’. Regarding the current exploration period he

further explains: ‘as a leader I take the lead in the focus on exploration activities by visiting

customers and trying to convince them to get involved in our new services or concepts’. This

is not only an activity outside the company, as Kees-Jan points out that he is also pursuing

more cooperation internally between DHV units. He states: ‘knowledge is authority, but

combined knowledge is power’.

Conclusion

Based on the leadership styles of the CVF model, as described in paragraph 2.4.2, it is now

possible to define the leadership styles that are employed, in order to pursue harmonic and

cyclical ambidexterity, by the unit ULF. The interviewees indicate that various leadership styles

are necessary in order to manage the tension between exploration and exploitation. To be

more specific, the interviewees argued that a more directive leadership style (transactional) is

necessary while managing exploitation activities and a more coaching, mentoring and

visionary leadership style (transformational) while managing exploration activities. Thus, a

combination of transformational and transactional leadership styles is required in order to

manage the tension between exploration and exploitation activities.

49

As described in the previous section, the unit ULF pursues two types of organizational

ambidexterity, harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity. Regarding harmonic ambidexterity the

interviewees said that a facilitating and supporting leadership style, as well as a clear vision is

required. For example, Kees-Jan argues that bringing these two opposite types of leaders

(exploration vs. exploitation focused) together in one management team requires primarily a

facilitating role and a clear future direction. In addition, the interviewees argued that they

take care of the process by providing

the necessary resources and intervene

and make decisions when the vision gets

lost or when a conflict needs to be

solved. These descriptions of leadership

behaviour indicate that the interviewees

employ the facilitator style in order to

pursue harmonic ambidexterity. Next to

the facilitator style the interviewees also

describe a mentor style by arguing that

they employ a coaching and mentoring

style towards the new business

development parts of the unit. This

mentor style becomes apparent when

the interviewees mention that they

support their people with resources like:

teambuilding activities (‘heidesessies’),

training and education. The

interviewees also argued that a

manager needs to guide his people by

providing direction and a clear vision. For example, Bart states that leading exploration

activities requires a leader that is externally focused and is providing the necessary resources.

Thereby it is argued that the broker style is also employed in order to pursue harmonic

ambidexterity. Regarding the exploitation part of harmonic ambidexterity the interviewees

describe leadership behaviour that is focused on procedures, rules and efficiency. Moreover,

Bart said that a manager of exploitation activities is primarily internally focused on budgets,

schedules and the distribution of work. This type of leadership behaviour, described by the

interviewees, matches the monitor style, as this style is well informed and ensures that people

follow the rules and procedures.

Regarding cyclical ambidexterity the

interviewees argued that, similar to

harmonic ambidexterity, a monitor style

is needed during a period of

exploitation. On the other hand, periods

of exploration require a leadership style

that is externally focused and a style

that is providing guidance. Kees-Jan

said: ‘I now encourage people to be

more external focused on innovations

and new market opportunities and I

guide them in this process by providing

direction’. Besides, Kees-Jan said that

during an exploration period you have

to take the lead in visiting customers

and trying to convince them to get

involved in our new services or

concepts. Therefore it is argued that a

broker style is employed to pursue a

period of exploration, since this style

provides strategic direction and has a strong external focus. Regarding the transition

between a period of exploitation and exploration Kees-Jan said: ‘during the period that

many people were dismissed (last year, before the exploration period started) my leadership

style was more internally focused, trying to get the unit back on trail since there was a lot of

Figure 19: Leadership styles employed by the unit Urban

development, Legal and Finance while pursuing cyclical

ambidexterity.

Figure 18: Leadership styles employed by the unit Urban

development, Legal and Finance while pursuing harmonic

ambidexterity.

50

tension in the organization’. This leadership behaviour matches the facilitator style, as this style

involves building cohesion and teamwork and getting people involved.

Altogether, the unit ULF employs a facilitator, mentor, monitor and broker style in order to

pursue harmonic ambidexterity. Besides, while pursuing cyclical ambidexterity the unit ULF

employs a facilitator style during a transition period, a monitor style during a period of

exploitation and a broker style during a period of exploration. The leadership styles and types

of organizational ambidexterity are depicted in figure 18 and 19.





investigating the unit ULF.

Type of activities

The interviewees described that most people in the unit ULF perform both exploitation and

exploration activities because the work is about knowledge, ‘it is in de minds of people’.

Kees-Jan argues that it is not possible to completely separate exploitation and exploration

activities from each other as companies like Unilever or Philips do. This is also confirmed by the

other interviewees as they stated that ‘innovation takes place on the job’.


The interviewees argued that the one-sided focus on exploitation activities in the past

resulted in a large dismissal procedure last year, more than 50 people were dismissed. At this

moment the market is still tough, governments, municipalities and private investors are all

waiting with new investments. Bart said that this pattern forced the unit ULF the last year in ‘a

phase of re-inventing itself’. According to Bart a sustainable solution for this problem can be

found in working across units, however Bart said that the current financial accountability

structure leads to an inward focus, ‘the focus is on your own unit profit and loss’.

4.4 Case results: unit Real Estate (DHV)





Marianne Vermijs (unit manager) confirms the tension between exploitation and exploration

activities by distinguishing two main types of activities performed by the unit Real Estate

(hereafter: RE). She argued: ‘we perform routine activities as well as innovative and new

business development activities, the difference between the two is a ‘grey area’. Both

activities require a different strategy Marianne argues. She further explains that both different

strategies require different types of people to perform these opposite activities, as well as

different leadership styles to lead these opposite activities. Furthermore, she argued that it is

good, if not to say necessary, to have a tension between exploration and exploitation

activities and the different people involved, ‘this tension keeps us sharp and focused’.

The other interviewees described that the tension between exploration and exploitation

activities becomes apparent in the continuous pressure between achieving sales targets and

developing new services and businesses.


The interviewees described that both production activities and new business development

activities are concurrently performed within the unit RE, by the same group of people. The

interviewees argued that exploration and exploitation activities cross each other all the time

between the various people in the unit. For example, Jan van Vliet (department manager)

argued: ‘everybody has an OG-target (billable hours), however this targets is different per

person’. Jan further explains that a low OG-target indicates that these people have more

time and freedom to focus on non-sales activities, for example new business development.

51

On the question why the same people in the unit RE have to perform both exploration

activities and exploitation activities, the interviewees argue that it is not possible to separate

the two. Everybody is performing exploitation and exploration activities, because separation

of these two activities will lead to

innovation that is not fuelled by the

market and thereby lead to a high

degree of failure. The interviewees further

pointed out that, due to the fact that

most people are requested by customers

based on their expertise, good name and

relation with the customer, it is not possible

to separate people in either a selling or

developing unit. On the question if

exploration and exploitation activities are

also pursued across the unit Marianne

states: ‘we are planning to do that but

these activities are in an early stage, until

now these activities take place on an ad-

hoc base’. In addition, the interviewees said

that the current accountability structure is

not yet ready for sharing exploration and

exploitation activities across units, as this structure is aimed on results per unit. This leads to a

short term focus on own unit results and is not working supportive in encouraging people to

invest resources across unit borders.

Conclusion

Based on the description of the fours types of organizational ambidexterity, as described in

paragraph 2.3.2, it is argued that the unit RE typically pursues harmonic ambidexterity. All the

interviewees described that both exploitation and exploration activities are pursued in one

unit at the same time and with the same group of people. This was most explicitly described

by Marianne as she said: ‘production activities and new business development activities are

concurrently performed within the unit RE, by the same group of people’. In addition, she said

that exploration and exploitation activities cross each other all the time between the various

people in the unit. Furthermore, it became apparent that the unit RE is not pursuing

exploitation or exploration activities across units, as Marianne said: ‘we are planning to do

that but these activities are in an early stage, until now these activities take place on an ad-

hoc base’. An interesting statement was made by Marianne as she, in of favour of harmonic

ambidexterity, argued: ‘it is good, if not to say necessary, to have a tension between

exploration and exploitation activities and the different people involved, ‘this tension keeps

us sharp and focused’. Altogether it can be argued that harmonic ambidexterity is pursued

by the unit RE, as depicted in figure 20.


The interviewees described that having the right leaders managing either exploration

activities or exploitation activities, determine if there is a balance between these opposite

activities. As described before, Marianne argued that having both exploitation activities and

exploration activities in one unit is a good thing, since it keeps people sharp and focused. In

addition, she also said: ‘when the styles of a leader do not match the type of activities that

he has to manage, problems are guaranteed’. In addition, Jan said: ‘sometimes I have to be

directive, but most of the time I have a facilitating role’. Based on these statements it can be

argued that more than one leadership style is needed. Sometimes transactional leadership

styles are needed and sometimes transformational leadership styles.


In order to pursue both exploitation and exploration activities at the same time and in the

same unit, various leadership styles are employed. The interviewees pointed out that

entrepreneurship and having a unambiguous vision are typical characteristic that are

needed to foster new business development, while achieving budgets and sales requires a

strong focus on rules and procedures. In addition, they argued that managing exploitation

Figure 20: Type of organizational ambidexterity pursued by

the unit Real Estate.

52

activities requires a focus on internal activities like handing in timesheets, invoicing, allocating

the workload efficient as possible and controlling figures. This leadership style does not require

vision or sophisticated strategies, ‘it is all about providing a clear flow of work and monitoring

that flow of work based on the agreed targets’. Thereby this style tends to be focused on the

short term. However, this does not mean that managing exploitation activities is only about

production and efficiency, you also have to manage the ‘human facet’. The interviewees

described that this involves helping people with their career development and providing

them with the necessary education and training.

On the other hand, managing exploration activities requires that you employ leadership

behaviour focused on giving people freedom and facilitating them instead of ‘telling how to

do tings’. This is confirmed by Jan as he argues: ‘while fostering explorations you have to give

people trust, money and time to use their intellect and guide them with vision’. Furthermore,

the interviewees said that you have to encourage people, while pursuing innovations, by

coaching and supporting them with your own knowledge and expertise, ‘thereby you also

preserve legitimacy for your own leadership’. For example, Jan argued: ‘most of the time I

have a facilitating role on the background, I provide the framework, targets and direction,

within that people are almost completely free.

The interviewees also mentioned that a danger of a coaching and facilitating style is that

some people tend to display ‘hobbyisme’. In order to prevent that type of behaviour you

regularly have to point out that realising goals and serving the market demand is the ‘raison

d'être’. Jan also mentioned this ‘hobbyisme’ issue and said: ‘I prevent free-riding by being

regularly focused on production, the people need to understand that they have the freedom

to operate, but that they are also responsible to realize the agreed targets’. Recapitulating

Marianne said: ‘leading both exploitation and exploration is not a black or white thing, you

constantly have to balance between various leadership styles that are focused on control or

focused on flexibility’. Managing this balance in her unit is sometimes difficult, but the most

important thing is that you have respect for both types of activities and the involved persons

in these activities.

Conclusion

Based on the leadership styles of the CVF model, as described in paragraph 2.4.2, it is now

possible to define the leadership styles that are employed, in order to pursue harmonic

ambidexterity, by the unit RE. The interviewees indicate that various leadership styles are

needed to manage the tension between exploration and exploitation.

In order to manage exploitation

activities a focus on internal activities

like handing in timesheets, invoicing,

allocating the workload efficient as

possible and controlling figures is

needed. This leadership behaviour

matches the monitor style of the CVF

model, since this style involves a

leader that keeps track of all details

and ensures that people follow the

rules and procedures. In addition, the

interviewees argued that they

manage exploitation and exploration

activities by providing a framework,

clear flow of work, direction and

targets. This indicates that a

coordinator style is employed, as this

style is focused on maintaining and

structuring the flow of work by

defining borders, physical layout and

resources. Moreover, ‘providing direction’ indicates a broker style. This is endorsed by the

interviewees as they argued that typical characteristics to foster new business development

are entrepreneurship and having a unambiguous vision. These things are hallmarks of the

broker style, as this style involves a leader that is defining strategic direction, is external

focused and future oriented.

Figure 21: Leadership styles employed by the unit Real Estate

while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity.

53

Next to the monitor, coordinator and broker style various statements indicate that the

facilitator style and the mentor style are also employed while managing exploration and

exploitation activities on the unit RE. The mentor style becomes apparent by interviewees

arguing that managing exploitation activities is not only about production and efficiency, but

also about helping people with their career development and providing them with the

necessary education and training. Moreover, the interviewees argued that trust and respect

towards employees is a very important thing in fostering a good balance between

exploitation and exploration. This matches with the mentor style, as the influence of this

leadership style is based in mutual respect and trust. The facilitator style becomes apparent

by statements like: ‘giving people freedom and facilitating them instead of telling how to do

tings’ and ‘I have a facilitating role on the background, I provide the framework, targets and

direction, within that people are almost completely free’. These statements correspond with

the facilitator style, since this style is actively aimed at participation and openness in terms of

people and process. Jan also argued that facilitating and coaching only can lead to

‘hobbyisme’, in order to prevent that he described: ‘I prevent free-riding by being regularly

focused on production, the people need to understand that they have the freedom to

operate, but that they are also responsible to realize the agreed targets’. Marianne

described similar leadership behaviour by arguing: ‘in order to prevent that type of behaviour

you regularly have to point out that realising goals and serving the market demand is the

‘raison d'être’. This type of leadership behaviour matches with the producer style, as this style

is focused on the market and motivates people to complete their work as agreed.

Summarizing, the unit RE employs a facilitator, mentor, monitor, coordinator, broker style and

producer style in order to pursue harmonic ambidexterity. The leadership styles are depicted

in figure 21.





investigating the unit RE.

Type of activities



the two. The interviewees argued that everybody is performing exploitation and exploration

activities, because separation of these two activities will lead to innovation that is not fuelled

by the market and thereby lead to a high degree of failure. Moreover, due to the fact that

most people are requested by customers based on their expertise, good name and relation

with the customer, it is not possible to separate people in either a selling or developing unit.

Jan argued: ‘in a production company that is different, it does not matter who is replacing

your tires, but in a knowledge company like DHV is does matter who is performing the

services’.


On the question if exploration and exploitation activities are also pursued across the unit

Marianne states: ‘we are planning to do that but these activities are in an early stage, until

now these activities take place on an ad-hoc base’. However, the interviewees described

that the current accountability structure is not yet ready for sharing exploration and

exploitation activities across units, since this structure is aimed on results per unit. This leads to

a short term focus on own unit results and is not working supportive in encouraging people to

invest resources across unit borders.

Hierarchical position

The interviewees argued that the leadership styles of a leader are influenced by the

hierarchical position of the concerning leader in the organization. For example, Jan said:

‘one of my team leaders is very directive, focused on efficiency and results and that is a

good thing, because he is managing a group of people who are primarily pursuing

exploitation activities and expect this type of leadership behaviour’. However Jan argues:

‘when I would employ such a leadership style it will be come one big mess, because I also

54

have to manage people that require freedom and flexibility’. Thus, according to the

interviewees it can be argued that a different repertory of leadership styles is necessary on

the various management levels in an organization.

Changing working environment

The interviewees argued that due to changing working environments (‘thuiswerken’) a

coaching and facilitating leadership style is the most prevalent one in knowledge companies

like DHV, since controlling rules and procedures has become less possible and relevant.

4.5 Case results: Philips Incubators





The interview results, as well as the studied documents indicate that the tension between

exploitation and exploration activities is recognized within Philips by setting up Philips

Incubators. Warden Hoffman (HR-manager) argued: ‘due to the difference between the

established business and new business development Philips Incubators was introduced. The

goal of Philips Incubators is increasing the number of successful (radical) innovations’. In

addition, the interviewees described that people of the established business are primarily

focused on growth, efficiency and cost reduction. Opposite, people focused on new

business development are more ‘entrepreneurial’ and need to have autonomy, time and

budget while developing new products and markets. This difference in people and the

activities they are involved in, made that the past number of successful innovations was far

below target, ‘of 100 new innovations only 10 became a success’. The reason for this can be

found in the fact that the divisions - Healthcare, Consumer lifestyle and Lighting - are sales

driven and thereby tend to focus on predictable activities. This is endorsed by Alison

Moncrieff (venture manager) as she argued: ‘in the end of the day a manager of the

established business is measured and monitored by how much he can grow the next quarter.

So why draining budget and EBIT into new business development while having no clue if it will

actually pays you back’.

To put it briefly, the interviewees indicate that due to the sales driven focus of the divisions too

many innovations failed, this failure was recognized a lead twelve years ago to a separate

approach of managing the tension between exploitation and exploration. Per division -

Healthcare, Consumer lifestyle and Lighting - an incubator was established. The interviewees

explained that the purpose of these incubators is pursuing new products, technologies and

markets. Setting up a venture in these incubators is initiated by ideas or inventions of Philips

R&D, the divisions itself or external entrepreneurs and companies. Thereby external venturing,

as well as internal venturing is performed in order to pursue radical innovations and

incremental innovations.


The interviewees described that pursuing exploitation and exploration activities across units is

done simultaneously and sequentially, depending on the market, type of product and the

type of innovation that is needed. As an example of partitional ambidexterity Warden

describes the incubator consumer lifestyle. Since the consumer lifestyle market has a very

short product lifecycle both exploration and exploitation activities are simultaneously

pursued. Warden further explained, inventing a new shaver is done within a venture

(exploration unit) and launched on the market by the division Consumer lifestyle (exploitation

unit). Shortly after the launching this new product, the division will ask the venture to come up

with a revised version of the shaver or with version 2, 3, etc. Thus, there is a constant

interaction between both separate units. Thereby exploitation and exploration activities are

pursued simultaneously and across units. In addition, the interviewees described that the

ventures of the three incubators have different management teams, structures, cultures,

procedures, rules and reward systems than the divisions. The structure, procedures, rules and

55

systems within the ventures are focused on trust and freedom. Contrary, the divisions are

completely focused on, achieving sales targets, efficiency and minimizing risks.

Furthermore, the interviewees described that depending on the type of product and market

a venture will come to an end at a certain moment (lifetime between 2-10 years) in time. At

this point the new products or markets will become part of one of the division or will be sold.

In order to guide this merger between the venture and the division a stage-gate framework

(combination of the S-curve and Bell Manson method) is used, as described in the Philips

corporate venturing policy paper and the Philips stage-gate model paper. Besides, every

division and venture combination has from its early start-up a ‘development or advisory

board’ which consists out of people from the venture and people from the division(s).

Thereby isolation between the exploration and exploitation activities is prevented by having

the specific division involved in the new product or market development activities.


Next to pursuing exploration and exploitation activities simultaneously, both activities are also

pursued sequentially. As described in the previous section, pursuing exploitation and

exploration activities across units is done simultaneously and sequentially, depending on the

market, type of product and the type of innovation that is needed. The interviewees argued

that while partitional ambidexterity primarily occurs in the consumer lifestyle market,

reciprocal ambidexterity primarily takes place in the healthcare market. New healthcare

products or markets require most of the time very long (pre)research periods and many

stages of development and testing. This is endorsed by Steve Seuntjens (venture portfolio

manager) as he argued: ‘the development of a healthcare ‘seeds’ can take a few years’.

Warden further explains: ‘new healthcare products and markets have a long period of

exploration due to extensive research and testing activities’. After a long period of

exploration the new products will be exploited following the last stage of the stage-gate

framework, as described in the Philips corporate venturing policy paper and the Philips stage-

gate model paper. In addition, the interviewees described that most of the new products

and markets are radical inventions, thereby exploitation activities can only be pursued after a

long period of exploration. Moreover, when a new healthcare product is being exploited by

the division, customers will demand adjustments or revised versions. In this case the venture

will again start a (long) period of exploration – research, development and testing – and will

after this period deliver the new products to the specific division. The main difference

between partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity at Philips Incubators is determined by the

duration of the product lifecycle. Reciprocal ambidexterity is typical pursued with respect to

healthcare activities due to the long research, development and testing times required. The

Lighting incubator is, similar to the Consumer lifestyle incubator, primarily pursuing partitional

ambidexterity.

Conclusion

Based on the description of the fours types

of organizational ambidexterity, as

described in paragraph 2.3.2, it is argued

that Philips Incubators pursues partitional

and reciprocal ambidexterity. By carrying

out both exploitation and exploration

activities in separate units, simultaneously

and sequentially, it is obvious that partitional

and reciprocal ambidexterity is pursued. This

is endorsed by Alison as she argues: ‘Philips

recognized that separate units for

explorations where needed, away from the

whole over-processed and well-structured

established organization to leave them

alone in a bit of a ‘glass bubble’ to pursue

explorations on an entrepreneurial way’.

As described, there are three incubators, one

per division: Healthcare, Consumer lifestyle and Lighting. The purpose of these incubators is

pursuing new products, technologies and markets. The interviewees described that the

Figure 22: Types of organizational ambidexterity pursued

by Philips Incubators.

56

ventures of the three incubators have different management teams, structures, cultures,

procedures, rules and reward systems than the divisions. The structure, procedures, rules and

systems of the incubators are primarily focused on trust and freedom, instead of the division

structure, procedures, rules and reward systems that are focused on, achieving sales targets,

efficiency and minimizing risks. This difference in structure, procedures, rules and culture is a

typical hallmark of partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity, since these types of

organizational ambidexterity pursue exploration and exploitation activities separately. The

reason why Philips separated these activities has to do with the different types people

(exploration or exploitation focused) involved and the corresponding procedures, rules and

culture. This is most clearly described by Steve as he argues: ‘exploration activities require a

very different leadership style and type of people than exploitation activities due to the

different business model behind both activities’. Furthermore, by using a stage-gate method

and establishing development and advisory boards the connection between the separate

units is secured. This matches with the description by Simsek et al. (2009) of creating a ‘shared

vision’ between separate exploitation and exploration units. As described, the difference

between partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity at Philips Incubators is determined by the

duration of the product lifecycle, thus the market in combination with the type of product.

Reciprocal ambidexterity is typical pursued with respect to healthcare activities due to the

long research, development and testing times required. Whereas partitional ambidexterity is

primarily pursued with respect to consumer lifestyle activities, because most of these products

have a very short product lifecycle. As a consequence of the short product lifecycle, both

exploration and exploitation activities are pursued simultaneously. The Lighting incubator is,

similar to the Consumer lifestyle incubator, primarily pursuing partitional ambidexterity.

Altogether it can be argued that partitional ambidexterity and reciprocal ambidexterity are

both pursued by Philips Incubators, as depicted in figure 22.


The interviewees argued that employing the right combination of leadership styles is probably

the most important condition while managing the tension between exploration and

exploitation activities. This is confirmed by Warden as he argues: ‘managing exploitation and

exploration activities requires a continue change between leadership behaviour of the

involved managers’. In addition, Steve points out: ‘nowadays managers need to be multi-

disciplinary, by employing various leadership behaviours on different moments’.

Corina Kuiper (senior manager) for example argued: ‘the difference between exploitation

and exploration activities becomes apparent in different types of people and different styles

of leadership’. These statements point out that a combination of transactional and

transformational leadership styles is needed.

Leadership styles partitional ambidexterity

On the question which leadership styles are employed to manage the tension between

exploration and exploitation activities, the interviewees answered that different styles are

used in different situations. The interviewees explained that due to the different business

models behind exploitation and exploration activities you need to have different leadership

styles. Managing exploitation requires a focus on efficiency, cost cutting, security (legislation,

safe products) and minimizing risks. This is all worked out a long time ago and it works very well

in order to realize sales targets. On the other hand, while managing exploration activities, it

might be in the beginning not very obvious were the new product is going to land and how

the business model will be, etc. Therefore these leaders need to be flexible and give people

trust, commitment, openness even when things are very unpredictable and guidance by

having a vision’. In addition, Alison argued: ‘that’s why leaders of ventures never want to

work in the established organization, because their entrepreneurial flair will be squashed by

the risk advert people who will ask them: ‘how much are you going to make in 5 years time’,

‘what is your prediction for the sales volumes of next year’, ‘what are your key KPIs for going

to the market’, etc’. Thus, there is a big ‘mindset’ difference between leaders and leadership

styles needed to pursue either exploitation or exploration activities.

In addition, the interviewees also argue that a collaborative style is needed in order to

prevent isolation between exploitation and exploration activities. This is endorsed by Steve as

he argues: ‘managing both explorations and exploitation activities requires you to be the

‘king of stakeholder management’, this means securing a handshake between the

57

established business (exploitation) and the ventures (exploration) in order to make both

responsible for delivering up’. The interviewees further indicate that next to employing a

collaborative leadership, managers also need to be ‘rigorous’, since at the end of the day

you have to lead the group. This requires a leadership style that is focused on stability, an

efficient process and clear procedures and rules. In addition, Corina said: ‘managing your

key operational details is central because they make the difference when your actuals come

in at the end of the quarter’.

Leadership styles reciprocal ambidexterity

The difference between reciprocal and partitional ambidexterity lies in the duration of the

product lifecycles involved, as well as the type of innovation that is needed. As described

previous, the Consumer lifestyle incubator is primarily pursuing partitional ambidexterity due to

the short product lifecycles. While on the other hand the Healthcare incubator primarily

pursues reciprocal ambidexterity due to the long product lifecycles. In addition, the

interviewees described that, because of the long development and testing periods and the

type of market most new healthcare products are developed completely outside the

company. Therefore the focus of both exploitation and exploration units is mainly externally.

On the question whether partitional ambidexterity (simultaneous) and reciprocal

ambidexterity (sequential) require different leadership styles, the interviewees answered

affirmative. The interviewees described that the differences between the two lies in either a

more internally or externally focus of the involved leaders. Furthermore, they argued that

pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity requires, during periods of new product development

(exploration), a leadership style that is focused on innovation, creativity, flexibility and also

acquiring support, budget and people in order to develop the new products. During periods

of exploitation this leadership style is more externally focused through setting goals and

defining procedures and rules based on what is needed to achieve the targets in the

particular market and to realize joint learning between the separate units. Steve argued that

establishing ‘joint learning’ between separate units is very important, otherwise the aim of

separating activities gets lost. He further argued: ‘joint learning can be achieved by

employing ambiguous leadership, this is very difficult and not comfortable for a leader’.

The difference between more internally or externally focused leadership styles, depends on

whether external or internal venturing is pursued. As described previous, internal venturing is

employed in order to realize incremental innovations (initiated by Philips R&D or the division)

and external venturing (inventions from external entrepreneurs and companies) in order to

realize radical innovations.

Conclusion

Based on the leadership styles of the

CVF model, as described in paragraph

2.4.2, it is now possible to define the

leadership styles that are employed, in

order to pursue partitional and

reciprocal ambidexterity. The

interviewees indicate that various

leadership styles are necessary while

managing the tension between

exploration and exploitation. To be

more specific, the interviewees

described that managing exploration

activities requires a rigorous leadership

style that is focused on efficiency, cost

cutting, security and minimizing risks. In

addition, the interviewees described

that a focused on stability, an efficient

process and clear procedures and

rules are central things while

managing your key operational

details. On the other hand the interviewees described that pursuing exploration requires a

different approach. The interviewees indicated that flexibility, giving people trust,

Figure 23: Leadership styles employed by Philips incubators

while pursuing partitional ambidexterity.

58

commitment, openness, guidance and having a vision are very important while pursuing

exploration activities. However, as described in the previous section, Philips Incubators

pursues two types of organizational ambidexterity, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity.

The interviewees argued that the difference between the two can be found in the duration

of the product lifecycle and the type of innovation that is pursued. Partitional ambidexterity is

primarily pursued by performing internal venturing in order to realize incremental innovations.

Contrary, reciprocal ambidexterity is primarily pursued by external venturing and is initiated

by radical innovations from external entrepreneurs and companies. In this situation the focus

is primarily externally. The latter one occurs most of the time in the Healthcare incubator,

were innovations have long periods of exploration (research, development and testing) and

also long periods of exploitation.

Based on difference between a more

internal or external focus, it is now

possible to define which leadership

styles are needed to pursue both types

of organizational ambidexterity.

Regarding partitional ambidexterity it

is argued that a director style is

employed, since this style involves

achieving goals (‘sales targets’) by

defining tasks, procedures and rules in

order to realize efficiency and

minimization of risks. This is endorsed by

the interviewees as they argued that

managing exploitation requires a

focus on efficiency, cost cutting,

setting up product roadmaps,

planning and defining sales targets. In

addition, the interviewees described

that this is a leader who introduces clear tasks, rules and procedures in order to become ‘a

good sales machine’. Next to the director style, the mentor style is employed since this style is

based on mutual respect, trust, commitment and fairness. The interviewees argued that these

characteristics are very important while managing exploration and exploitation activities

simultaneously. Furthermore, the broker style is employed in order to pursue exploration

activities and prevent isolation between exploitation and exploration activities. This is most

explicitly endorsed by the interviewees as they argued that a manager who is leading

exploration activities needs to employ a collaborative style and needs to be the ‘king of

stakeholder management’.

Reciprocal ambidexterity requires almost the same leadership styles. However, the difference

comes in when this type of organizational ambidexterity is explicitly used to pursue radical

innovations. In this situation there is a strong external focus. The interviewees argued that in

this case, exploration activities need to be managed by a leadership style that is focused on

innovation, creativity, flexibility and also acquiring support, budget and people. This indicates

that an innovator and broker style is needed, since these styles are focused on creativity and

acquiring support and resources. Furthermore, during periods of exploitation the leadership

style is also more external focused, through setting goals and defining procedures and rules

based on what is needed to achieve the targets in a particular market and to realize ‘joint

learning’ between the separate units. This joint learning corresponds with the ‘reciprocal

information flows’ between explorative and exploitative units, as described in chapter two.

Based on this leadership behaviour it is argued that the producer style is employed instead of

the director style, because the latter one is more internally focused. The leadership styles and

types of organizational ambidexterity are depicted in figure 23 and 24.

Figure 24: Leadership styles employed by Philips incubators

while pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity.

59





investigating Philips Incubators.

Shareholders influence

The interviewees described that the pressure of the shareholders lead to a focus on short term

results. Thereby the principal concern of managers of the established organization (divisions)

is focused on ‘do we make the next quarter’ and not on new business development.

This is endorsed by Alison as she argued: ‘in the end of the day a manager of the established

business is measured and monitored by how much he can grow the next quarter. So why

draining budget and EBIT into new business development while having no clue if it will

actually pays you back. Besides, an established business manager is getting a bonus based

on whether he/she delivers the agreed profit and sales’.

Stage-gate model

The interviewees argued that employing the right combination of leadership styles is probably

the most important condition while managing the tension between exploration and

exploitation activities. Guiding the tension between

explorative and exploitative leadership is done by

using the stage-gate model. The stage-gate model

as depicted in figure 25, shows that three different

leadership styles are needed in order to manage

the tension between exploitation and exploration.

Warden explains, the first leadership style (A) is

primarily focused on innovation and creativity. The

second leadership style (B) is primarily focused on

establishing relations with the market, defining the

direction of the new developed product and is

more engaged in the human-side of the people

involved. The third leadership style (C) is focused on

setting up a product roadmap, planning and

defining sales targets. This is also the leader who

introduces clear tasks, rules and procedures in

order to become a good ‘sales machine’.

Figure 25: Philips stage-gate model (source: Philips

stage-gate model paper).

60

5. Analyses and hypotheses

5.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the differences and similarities between the results of the investigated

cases, as well as between the theory and practice combinations of leadership styles and

types of organizational ambidexterity. Furthermore, the contribution to the organizational

ambidexterity theory is described and hypotheses are defined for further research. This is

done under the guidance of the analytical research questions as defined in paragraph 1.5.

The main analytical question (see below) is answered in paragraph 5.5. Before answering this

main question, paragraph 5.2 up to 5.4 describes the differences and similarities between the

four cases, the theory and practice combinations of leadership styles and types of

organizational ambidexterity, as well as a conclusion on the additional findings.

The chapter concludes by describing the limitations of this research (5.6) and a reflection on

this research (5.7).

The main and sub analytical questions that are answered in this chapter are:

What are the most important differences and similarities between the theoretical

combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity and the

combinations used in practice at engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal

Philips Electronics, as well as the most important differences and similarities between the

results of the exploratory study at engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal

Philips Electronics?

• What are the most important differences and similarities between the results of the

four investigated cases at both engineering and consultancy company DHV and

Royal Philips Electronics?

• To which extent do the proposed theoretical combinations of leadership styles and

types of organizational ambidexterity correspond with the combinations in practice at

engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics?

• Which leadership styles do best support the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional,

reciprocal - of ambidexterity, based on the theoretical research and exploratory study

in practice engineering and consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics?

5.2 Differences and similarities between the four investigated cases

In this paragraph the differences and similarities are described between the four investigated

cases on the combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity.

Based on the results of the empirical research, as described in chapter four, the following

differences and similarities between the four cases are distinguished.

61

Case

Type of OA

Unit Asset and

Information

Management

Unit Urban

development,

Legal and

Finance

Unit Real Estate Philips

Incubators

Harmonic

ambidexterity

mentor,

facilitator,

monitor and

broker style

mentor,

facilitator,

monitor and

broker style

mentor,

facilitator,

monitor,

coordinator,

producer and

broker style

N/A**

Cyclical

ambidexterity N/A

facilitator,

monitor and

broker style

N/A N/A

Partitional

ambidexterity

mentor and

broker style N/A N/A

mentor, broker

and director

style

Reciprocal

ambidexterity N/A N/A N/A

innovator, broker

and producer

style

Table 4: Leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity per case (**N/A indicates: ‘Not Applicable’).

General differences and similarities

As depicted in the table above, some general differences and similarities can be

distinguished. First, it becomes apparent that all four cases employ more than one leadership

style while pursuing the four types of organizational ambidexterity. As can be seen in table 4,

at least a combination of two or more leadership styles is needed and one of the cases was

even employing a combination of six leadership styles. This indicates that a degree of

behavioural complexity (see also section 2.5.1) is needed in order to balance the tension

between exploitation and exploration activities. Second, the investigation in practice

revealed that every case, except one, is pursuing more than one type of organizational

ambidexterity. Thus, it is argued that units within organizations prevail to pursue a combination

of the four types of organizational ambidexterity and that you can thereby also speak of

‘hybrid types of organizational ambidexterity’, instead of four individual types of

organizational ambidexterity. Third, all three cases at engineering and consultancy company

DHV pursue harmonic ambidexterity, while the case at Royal Philips Electronics does not, due

to the separate approach of this case. This is in line with the theory of organizational

ambidexterity (see paragraph 2.3.2), that describes that primarily highly technologically-

oriented organizations pursue partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity. However, this was just

partly confirmed by the investigation in practice, because the unit Asset and Information

Management is next to Philips Incubators also pursuing partitional ambidexterity. Despite, it

can be argued that only one of the three non-technology oriented units is pursuing a type of

organizational ambidexterity that separates exploitation and exploration activities across

units. This demonstrates that in accordance with the theory, reciprocal and partitional

ambidexterity is primarily pursued by technologically-oriented units.

Differences and similarities per type of organizational ambidexterity

While comparing the four cases it becomes apparent that there are some significant

differences and similarities between the leadership styles employed in order to pursue

organizational ambidexterity. In this section these differences and similarities are described

per type of organizational ambidexterity.

1. Harmonic ambidexterity: table four illustrates that harmonic ambidexterity is only

pursued by the cases at engineering and consultancy company DHV. All three DHV

cases employ the mentor, facilitator, broker and monitor style while pursuing harmonic

ambidexterity. This indicates that these three leadership styles are prevailing in

practice while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. The biggest difference between the

three cases is that the unit Real Estate is employing a slightly different combination of

leadership styles. Next to the mentor, facilitator, monitor style and broker style they

62

also employ a coordinator and producer style. This indicates that the leaders of this

case have a stronger focus on external goal accomplishment (producer style) than

the other two cases. Furthermore, their influence as a leader is determined by

maintaining and structuring the flow of work, defining borders and physical layout and

reallocating resources (coordinator style). Moreover, two of the three cases that

pursue harmonic ambidexterity, also perform a second type of organizational

ambidexterity. It is remarkable that both types of organizational ambidexterity are

pursued by employing the same types of leadership styles, only the combination of

leadership styles is different. In other words, the results show that the type of

organizational ambidexterity that is pursued, next to harmonic ambidexterity, does

not require additional leadership styles. This might indicate that within a unit the same

combination of leadership styles is employed to pursue various types of organizational

ambidexterity, despite the structural or temporal differences.

2. Cyclical ambidexterity: the most appealing finding while comparing this type of

organizational ambidexterity is that, as described above, the case ‘unit Urban

development, Legal and Finance’ is not employing additional leadership styles, in

order to pursue cyclical ambidexterity next to harmonic ambidexterity.

3. Partitional ambidexterity: this type of organizational ambidexterity is pursued by two

cases, the unit Asset and Information Management (hereafter: AIM) and Philips

Incubators. Comparing the two cases, it shows that they both use the mentor and

broker style. Moreover, the leaders of both cases employ leadership behavior that is

focused on mutual respect, trust, commitment and encouraging people to develop

themselves by looking beyond borders (mentor style). Moreover, they employ a

leadership style that is focused on where the organization is going, as well as spanning

boundaries, maintaining external legitimacy and obtaining resources (broker style). It

can be argued that these two leadership styles are prevailing while pursuing separate

exploitation and exploration activities at the same time. The difference between the

two is that Philips Incubators is employing a director style next to the mentor and

broker style. This points out that the leaders of Philips Incubators manage the process

in such a way that goals are clear, communicated, rules/policies are defined,

applied, and expectations are clarified across units. Thus, compared to the unit AIM,

at Philips Incubators there is more attention towards controlling the process, as well as

a more external focus. In addition, similar to the case ‘unit Urban development, Legal

and Finance’ this type of organizational ambidexterity is also pursued with some of the

same types of leadership styles that were employed while pursuing harmonic

ambidexterity. Thus, no additional leadership styles were employed to perform two

different types of organizational ambidexterity. Which might indicate that within a unit

the same combination of leadership styles is employed to pursue various types of

organizational ambidexterity, despite the structural or temporal differences.

4. Reciprocal ambidexterity: only the case ‘Philips Incubators’ is pursuing this type of

organizational ambidexterity, therefore it is not possible to compare this type of

organizational ambidexterity with other cases. However, it is possible to compare this

type of organizational ambidexterity with the other type of organizational

ambidexterity that the case Philips Incubators pursues, partitional ambidexterity. The

results of the investigation in practice indicate that both types of organizational

ambidexterity require almost the same leadership styles. However, the difference

between the two is that reciprocal ambidexterity is explicitly used to pursue radical

innovations. In this situation there is a strong external focus, with emphasis on

innovation, creativity, flexibility and also acquiring support, budget and people. This

strong focus and emphasis explains the use of the innovator, broker and producer

style, instead of the leadership styles that are employed while pursuing partitional

ambidexterity, since these leadership styles have a strong external focus.

Differences and similarities leadership styles

This section describes the differences and similarities between the leadership styles that are

employed while pursuing the four types of organizational ambidexterity. Per leadership style a

short description is given of the differences and similarities between the four types of

organizational ambidexterity and the four cases.

63

1. Mentor style: all four cases employed this leadership style while pursuing

organizational ambidexterity. It is remarkable that this leadership style is only

employed while pursuing exploration and exploitation activities simultaneously. It is

argued that this indicates that the mentor style is a typical leadership style that is

needed while pursuing harmonic or partitional ambidexterity.

2. Facilitator style: this style is employed by all three cases at engineering and

consultancy company DHV, while pursuing exploration and exploitation activities

within one unit. So, this leadership style is not used in order to manage exploration and

exploitation activities across units. Therefore, based on the results, it is argued that the

facilitator style is required while pursuing harmonic or cyclical ambidexterity. Pursuing

both activities across units - partitional or reciprocal ambidexterity - does not

necessarily require a facilitator style.

3. Innovator style: this style is only employed by the case ‘Philips Incubators’ while

pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity. Due to the strong external focus and attention

towards innovation, creativity and flexibility the innovator leadership style is employed.

This style was not found by the other cases, most of the time the broker style was used

instead to pursue flexibility and an external focus.

4. Broker style: every case, irrespectively of the type of organizational ambidexterity, is

employing a broker style. This indicates that employing a broker style is a necessary

condition while managing the tension between exploitation and exploration activities.

Thereby it is argued that, either exploitation and exploration activities are managed

within or across units, simultaneously or sequentially a broker style is always required.

5. Monitor style: this leadership style is only employed by the three cases of engineering

and consultancy company DHV, while pursuing exploration and exploitation activities

within one unit. So, this leadership style is not used in order to manage exploration and

exploitation activities across units. Therefore, based on the results, it is argued that the

monitor style is required while pursuing harmonic or cyclical ambidexterity. Pursuing

both activities across units - partitional or reciprocal ambidexterity - does not

necessarily require a monitor style.

6. Coordinator style: the case ‘unit Real Estate’ employs this type of leadership style

while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. Since their managers are explicitly providing

frameworks, clear flows of work, direction and targets towards their employees. None

of the other cases employed this leadership style.

7. Producer style: this leadership style is employed by the case ‘unit Real Estate’ in order

to pursue harmonic ambidexterity and by the case ‘Philips Incubators’ while pursuing

reciprocal ambidexterity. This is remarkable since both types of organizational

ambidexterity are completely opposite types. However, the results indicate that a

producer style is required to manage these different types of organizational

ambidexterity. An explanation for this can probably be found in the fact that the

producer style is strongly external focused, as well as both cases.

8. Director style: this leadership style is only employed by the case ‘Philips Incubators’

while pursuing partitional ambidexterity. The other case -‘unit Asset and Information

Management’- that pursues partitional ambidexterity does not employ the director

style. An explanation for this can probably be found in the external focus of the case

‘Philips Incubators’, which matches the external focus of the director style. All the

other cases are more internally focused and employ a monitor or coordinator style

instead.

5.3 Differences and similarities between theoretical model and investigation in

practice

In this paragraph the differences and similarities are described between the proposed

theoretical combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity

(described in chapter two) and the combinations found in practice at engineering and

consultancy company DHV and Royal Philips Electronics.

Figure 26 depicts the differences (in red) and similarities (in black) between the theoretical

model and the model based on the investigations in practice. Leadership styles that were not

proposed in the theoretical model, but were found in practice are colored red. Leadership

64

Figure 26: Differences and similarities between theoretical model and the results of the investigation in practice.

styles that were proposed in the theoretical model but were not confirmed by the

investigation in practice are also colored red and crossed out.

General differences and similarities

Based on the results, depicted in the above figure, some general differences and similarities

can be distinguished. First, the investigation in practice confirmed most of the leadership

styles that were proposed in the theoretical model, eight of the twelve leadership styles were

confirmed. Second, as depicted in figure 26 with a red colour, the investigation revealed that

additional or different leadership styles were employed in practice to pursue the four types of

organizational ambidexterity. These are valuable findings since they can help to improve the

theoretical model. Third, the combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational

ambidexterity that were found in practice, confirmed the theoretical reasoning that various

leadership styles are needed while pursuing the four types of organizational ambidexterity.

Moreover, all types of organizational ambidexterity require roughly a combination of three

leadership styles, except harmonic ambidexterity. This type of organizational ambidexterity

requires a broad set of leadership styles. This points out that a high degree of behavioral

complexity is needed while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity.

Differences and similarities per type of organizational ambidexterity

While comparing the proposed theoretical combinations of leadership styles and types of

organizational ambidexterity and the combinations found in practice, it becomes apparent

that there are some significant differences and similarities. In this section these differences

and similarities are described per type of organizational ambidexterity.

1. Harmonic ambidexterity: both the monitor and mentor leadership styles were

suggested in the theoretical model and were also found in practice. Thereby it can

be argued that both styles are appropriate while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity.

Moreover, this reasoning is strengthened by the fact that all three cases that pursue

harmonic ambidexterity were employing these two leadership styles. The differences

between the theoretical combinations and the combinations found in practice,

become apparent by the fact that the cases do not employ an innovative leadership

style, instead they employ a broker style. Thus, a style that is less focused on

innovations and being creative and more focused on providing strategic direction on

where the organization is going and focused on future possibilities, disseminating

knowledge, obtaining resources and maintaining legitimacy. In addition, the results

also indicate that a facilitator, coordinator and producer style is employed in

practice. The facilitator style becomes apparent in supporting and involving people,

as well as building cohesion and teamwork. This takes place within the structure,

physical layout and framework determined by the involved leader(s). Moreover, a

focus on the market is important in order to increase production and realize goals, as

65

this is the ‘raison d'être’. Altogether, it can be argued that leaders in a harmonic

context need to display behavioural complexity (see also section 2.5.1), in order to

balance the tension between exploitation and exploration activities. The number of

leadership styles managers need to employ, in order to pursue harmonic

ambidexterity is more varied in practice, than was proposed in the theoretical model.

2. Cyclical ambidexterity: the investigation in practice confirmed the facilitator and

monitor leadership styles. The facilitator style was proposed in the theoretical model as

the most appropriate leadership style in order to manage the transition between

periods of exploitation and periods of exploration. In practice this leadership style is

also found in order to manage the transition between the two periods. The monitor

style is employed in practice during periods of exploitation, this was also proposed in

the theoretical model. Based on this similarity it can be argued that both styles are

prevailing while pursuing cyclical ambidexterity. The results of the investigation in

practice further indicate that the broker style is required during periods of exploration,

instead of an innovator style. Thus, in practice leaders are more focused on where the

organization is going, future possibilities, disseminating knowledge, obtaining resources

and maintaining legitimacy, instead of being creative, generating new inventions.

3. Partitional ambidexterity: the broker and the director leadership styles are both

employed in practice while pursuing partitional ambidexterity. This matches the

theory, since the broker style is employed in practice in order to manage exploration

activities and prevent isolation between exploitation and exploration activities.

Similarly, the director style is employed in practice to manage the exploitation

activities by defining clear goals, rules/policies and clarified expectations across units.

This corresponds with the suggestions in the theoretical model regarding exploitation

activities, while pursuing partitional ambidexterity. The results of the investigation in

practice further indicate, that partitional ambidexterity does not require a coordinator

style but a mentor style, next to a broker and director style. Hence, a transformational

leadership style, instead of a transactional leadership style. Maintaining and

structuring the flow of work, providing physical layout, as well as managing schedules

is less important. Instead, being empathic, trustable, approachable and supportive in

encouraging people to develop themselves is more important while pursuing

partitional ambidexterity.

4. Reciprocal ambidexterity: the investigation in practice confirmed the use of the

broker and producer leadership styles while pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity. As

proposed in the theoretical model the broker style is employed to manage

exploration activities and the producer style is employed to manage exploitation

activities and to enable a ‘reciprocal information flow’ between the separate units.

However, there are also some differences between the theoretical combinations and

the combinations found in practice. The investigation in practice indicates that

pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity requires an innovator style next to a broker style,

during periods of exploration. Thereby it can be argued that the results in practice

indicate that a strong external focus is needed in combination with an emphasis on

flexibility, innovation, creativity, and also acquiring support and resources. The

coordinator style was not found during the investigation in practice.

Differences and similarities leadership styles

This section describes the differences and similarities between the proposed theoretical

leadership styles per type of organizational ambidexterity and the leadership styles that were

found in practice. Per leadership style a short description is given of the differences and

similarities between the theoretical model and the results of the investigation in practice.

1. Mentor style: in the theoretical model this leadership style was only proposed as a

leadership style needed to pursue harmonic ambidexterity. However, the investigation

in practice revealed that two cases also employ this leadership style while pursuing

partitional ambidexterity. This indicates that the mentor style is a typical leadership

style that is needed while pursuing exploitation and exploration activities

simultaneously.

2. Facilitator style: this style was proposed in the theoretical model as the most

appropriate leadership style in order to manage the transition between periods of

exploitation and periods of exploration within one unit, cyclical ambidexterity. In

66

practice this leadership style is also found in order to manage the transition between

the two periods within one unit. Moreover, this style is also employed in practice while

pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. The latter was not proposed in the theoretical

model. These results indicate that the facilitator style is a prevailing style while

managing exploration and exploitation activities within one unit.

3. Innovator style: in the theoretical model this leadership style was proposed as a style

that needs to be employed in order to manage exploration activities, while pursuing

harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity. Both were not confirmed in practice, instead

the broker style was employed in order to purse exploration activities. The innovator

style is only employed in practice while pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity. These

results indicate that the innovator style is not specifically a leadership style that is

needed when exploration and exploitation activities are pursued in one unit.

4. Broker style: in the theoretical model this leadership style was proposed as a

leadership style that needs to be employed while pursuing partitional and reciprocal

ambidexterity. This was confirmed in practice. On top of that, this leadership style was

also employed while pursuing harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity. This indicates that

employing a broker style is a necessary condition while managing the tension

between exploitation and exploration activities.

5. Monitor style: this style was proposed as a leadership style that is required while

pursuing harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity. This was confirmed by the investigation

in practice. In particular this leadership style is employed while pursuing harmonic

ambidexterity, since three cases that pursue harmonic ambidexterity employed this

leadership style. This indicates that the monitor style is an appropriate leadership style

while pursuing exploitation and exploration activities within one unit.

6. Coordinator style: in the theoretical model this leadership style was proposed as the

most appropriate leadership style while pursuing partitional and reciprocal

ambidexterity. However, the use of this leadership style for both types of

organizational ambidexterity was not confirmed by the investigation in practice. The

coordinator style is just employed by one case while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity.

7. Producer style: this style was proposed as the most appropriate leadership style in

order to manage exploitation activities, while pursuing reciprocal ambidexterity. This is

confirmed by the investigation in practice. Moreover, this style is in practice also used

while pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. The latter was not proposed in the theoretical

model.

8. Director style: this style was proposed as the most appropriate leadership style in order

to manage exploitation activities, while pursuing partitional ambidexterity. The

investigation in practice confirmed this partly, since only one of the two cases that are

pursuing partitional ambidexterity employs this leadership style.

5.4 Conclusion on the additional findings

This paragraph provides a conclusion on the additional findings, described per case in

chapter four, that were obtained while investigating the types of organizational

ambidexterity and leadership styles employed. Only the findings that possibly have a relation

to the research objective are described.

After comparing the four cases, the additional results can be categorized into seven factors

that might have an affect on the combinations of leadership styles and types of


1. Market influence and organizational ambidexterity: various interviewees argued that

market circumstances heavily influence the leadership styles employed, as well as the

type of organizational ambidexterity that is pursued. For example, one of the

interviewees argued: ‘the last few years during the crisis every ‘stone has to be lifted’

which lead to a control-focused leadership style’.

2. Type of activities: interviewees of all three cases at engineering and consultancy

company DHV argued that it is not completely possible to separate exploitation and

exploration activities. According to the interviewees, the reason for this can be found

in the fact that DHV is a company that sells services instead of products. The work is

about knowledge. Most of the time exploration activities take place on the job, in

67

order to prevent developing new services that does not fit the market. Therefore, the

interviewees argued, that a knowledge company like DHV always need to employ

other leadership styles than a product company like Philips or Unilever. Moreover the

interviewees of the case Philips Incubators argued that different types of innovation

(activities) also require different leadership styles, as well as different structures. They

distinguished incremental and radical innovations.

3. Financial accountability structure: the interviewees of all three cases at engineering

and consultancy company DHV described that working across units does not go that

smoothly all the time, due to the current financial accountability structure. This

structure is stimulating an ‘inward focus’ on your own unit results and is thereby not

working supportively in encouraging people to invest resources across unit borders.

4. Hierarchical position: the interviewees argued that the leadership styles of a leader

are influenced by the hierarchical position of the concerning leader in the

organization. For example, a team leader of a production team needs to employ

primarily a leadership style that is focused on efficiency and results. While a

department or unit manager, who is managing various teams, needs to employ

leadership styles that are focused on efficiency and result, but also freedom, flexibility

and creativity. Thus, according to the interviewees, it can be argued that a different

repertory of leadership styles is necessary on the various management levels in an

organization.

5. Changing work environment: one of the interviewees described that due to the

changing working environment (‘thuiswerken’) a coaching and facilitating leadership

role is the most prevalent one in knowledge companies like DHV, since controlling

rules and procedures has become less possible and relevant.

6. Shareholders influence: the interviewees of the case Philips Incubators described that

the pressure of the shareholders lead to a focus on short term results. The principal

concern of managers of the established organization (divisions) is focused on ‘do we

make the next quarter’ and not on new business development. Thereby the

interviewees argued that a public listed company like Philips is in favor of external and

result oriented leadership styles (producer and director style) instead of other

leadership styles.

7. Stage-gate model: guiding the tension between explorative and exploitative

leadership at Philips Incubators is done by using a stage-gate model. The stage-gate

model as depicted in figure 25, shows that three different leadership styles are

needed in order to manage the tension between exploitation and exploration.

Based on the results it is argued that these additional findings can affect the leadership styles

that need to be employed in order to pursue the four types of organizational ambidexterity.

After comparing the seven above described factors it was found that they can be further

categorized. It is argued that market influence (1), changing work environment (3) and

shareholders influence (6) can be labelled as external influences on an organization,

organizations can only anticipate and react on these factors. Contrary, it is argued that the

other factors are influenced by how the organization is organized. The type of activities (2),

the financial accountability structure (3), the hierarchical positions (4) and the use of stage-

gate models (7) are factors that can be ‘tuned’ by organizations through changing,

organizing or applying them. Based on this difference between the various findings two main

types of factors can be distinguished: external factors and internal factors.

External factors Internal factors

Market influence Type of activities

Changing work environment Financial accountability structure

Shareholders influence Hierarchical position

Stage-gate models

Table 5: External and internal factors that might influence the combinations of leadership styles and types of


Although this research is focused on investigating which leadership styles are needed in order

to pursue the four types of organizational ambidexterity, it is argued that the above

68

described external and internal factors offer the opportunity for other inquiries regarding

factors, that might influence the combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational

ambidexterity. Moreover, these additional findings are obtained by coincidence and were

not part of the research objective or the various research questions. Thus, further research is

needed towards the above described factors in relation to the combinations of leadership

styles and types of organizational ambidexterity, in order to determine whether these

additional findings are significant or were due to chance.

5.5 Contribution to the organizational ambidexterity theory

The previous paragraphs discussed the differences and similarities between the results of the

investigated cases, the theory and practice combinations of leadership styles and types of

organizational ambidexterity and the conclusions on the additional findings.

This paragraph describes the theoretical insights obtained by this research. The theoretical

insights are described by three subsections. The first section (5.5.1) describes the initial

theoretical model that was developed based on the theory. The following section (5.5.2)

describes the implications and conclusions based on the theoretical investigation and the

investigation in practice. The final section (5.5.3) concludes this paragraph by defining a new

theoretical model and hypotheses for further research, based on the initial theoretical model

and the results of the investigation in practice.

5.5.1 Theoretical model as point of departure

Previous research has shown that the role of leadership is of great importance in fostering

organizational ambidexterity. Whether it is about maintaining tight links between separate

units pursuing exploitation and exploration activities, or managing the switch between

periods of exploitation and exploration, leadership always plays a vital role (Gibson &

Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen et al., 2009; Tushman & O’Reilly, 2011).

However, the organizational ambidexterity theory indicated that there is still relatively little

known about what type of leadership is needed to realize organizational ambidexterity, most

of the previous research is focusing on structural antecedents. Following the suggestion of

Simsek et al., to do further research on leadership styles and organizational ambidexterity, a

theoretical investigation was performed in order to determine which leadership styles do best

support the four types - harmonic, cyclical, partitional, reciprocal - of ambidexterity. This was

done by combining the four types of organizational ambidexterity, as defined by Simsek et al.

(2009), with the eight leadership styles of the Competing Values Framework (CVF), developed

by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983). The result of this theoretical investigation was a ‘revised

organizational ambidexterity model’, as depicted in the graphic below.

Figure 27: Revised organizational ambidexterity model including a leadership dimension

69

The model proposed combinations of leadership styles which, based on the theory, do best

support the four types of organizational ambidexterity. While defining combinations of

leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity, it became apparent that there is

no single leadership style that does best support one of the four types of organizational

ambidexterity. Cameron et al. (2006) defines this phenomenon as ‘behavioral complexity’,

which implies that a leader should be able to employ various leadership styles in order to

enable organizational ambidexterity.

Furthermore, the revised organizational ambidexterity model indicated that, both harmonic

and cyclical ambidexterity require at least a leadership style of the human relations model

(the upper-left quadrant of the CVF model). Whereas partitional and reciprocal

ambidexterity, require both at least a leadership style of the rational goal model (lower right

quadrant of the CVF model). It was argued that the reason for this can be found in the

structural differences between both sets of organizational ambidexterity, as they are

distinguished by the structural dimension. Moreover, it was argued that, contrary to harmonic

and cyclical ambidexterity, the separate nature of partitional, as well as reciprocal

ambidexterity requires leaders that support a shared vision or reciprocal information flows

between the separate units, in order to prevent a situation that one of the activities gets

isolated. On the other side harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity, which are pursued in one

unit, require leadership styles that enable individuals to balance their time between

exploration and exploitation activities. In case of harmonic ambidexterity this means that the

right leadership styles are needed to enable people to deal with the conflicts between

exploration and exploitation activities. When it comes to cyclical ambidexterity the right

leadership styles are needed to manage the conflicts as a result of the transition between

periods of exploitation and periods of exploration.

Thereupon, the revised organizational ambidexterity model served as a conceptual model

while performing an investigation in practice, in order to investigate which leadership styles

are found in practice while pursuing organizational ambidexterity. Thus, the revised

organizational ambidexterity model was guiding while defining the core expression of this

research, the relationships between the core expressions and performing the data collection

and data analyses. The next section describes the conclusions that are derived by analyzing

the obtained results of the investigation in practice.

5.5.2 Implications and conclusions

In the previous paragraphs some important implications are described that influence the

proposed theoretical combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational

ambidexterity. Moreover, by composing the theoretical model and the obtained insights from

the investigation in practice, some interesting conclusions can be derived towards leadership

styles and the four types of organizational ambidexterity. Both implications and conclusions

are summed up in this section.

Implications of the investigation in practice to the theoretical model:

• The first implication is that the theoretical suggestion that ‘behavioral complexity’ is

needed while pursuing organizational ambidexterity is completely confirmed by the

investigation in practice. Every interviewee argued that managers need to be able to

employ various leadership styles in order to balance contradictory demands. Thus,

there is no single best leadership style while pursuing the four types of organizational

ambidexterity.

• Second, the investigation in practice revealed that all cases, except one, pursue a

combination of the four types of organizational ambidexterity. Therefore it is argued

that units tend to pursue ‘hybrid forms of organizational ambidexterity’ (hereafter

named: hybrid ambidexterity), instead of only one of the four individual types of

organizational ambidexterity. The consequence is that it is less relevant to determine

which leadership styles are most appropriate per type of organizational ambidexterity.

Instead, combinations of organizational ambidexterity (found in practice) should be

the starting point in order to determine the most appropriate leadership styles.

• Third, in line with the theoretical suggestion, both reciprocal and partitional

ambidexterity were pursued in a highly-technology oriented environment, the case

‘Philips Incubators’. However, also a non-technology case (unit Asset and Information

70

Management) is pursuing this type of organizational ambidexterity. This might indicate

that all four types of organizational ambidexterity can occur in both technology

oriented units, as well as non-technology oriented units. This is primarily relevant while

selecting cases for further research towards the four types of organizational

ambidexterity.

• Fourth, while investigating the types of organizational ambidexterity and leadership

styles employed, some additional findings were obtained. As described in paragraph

5.4, these findings are categorized in two groups of factors that might have an affect

on the combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity.

Thus, these additional findings indicate that there are internal and external factors

that can probably affect the theoretical model. However, these findings are obtained

by coincidence and were not part of the research objective or the various research

questions. Further research is needed in order to determine whether these additional

findings are significant or were due to chance and to examine if there are more

relevant factors that might have an influence on the combinations of leadership styles

and types of organizational ambidexterity.

Both the theoretical investigation and the investigation in practice revealed some interesting

insights into which leadership styles do best support the four types - harmonic, cyclical,

partitional, reciprocal - of ambidexterity. As described in paragraph 5.2 and 5.3, the

investigation in practice confirmed most of the leadership styles that were proposed in the

theoretical model, eight of the twelve leadership styles were confirmed. Moreover, the

investigation revealed that additional or different leadership styles were employed in

practice to pursue the four types of organizational ambidexterity.

Conclusions on combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity:

• First, the theoretical model (chapter two) assigned specific combinations of

leadership styles to the four types of organizational ambidexterity. In practice none of

these combinations is confirmed. However, certain leadership styles were just found

on one of the two ends of a dimension. For example, the mentor style is just found by

cases that pursue exploitation and exportation activities simultaneously, thus

harmonic and partitional ambidexterity. A similar pattern is found regarding the

facilitator style, since this style is only employed while pursuing exploitation and

exploration activities within one unit. Also the monitor style was just found on one of

the two ends of the structural dimension, this style seems to be required while pursuing

exploitation and exploration activities within one unit. Therefore it is argued that the

leadership styles that are required primarily depend on the two extremes per

dimension. In other words, further research should focus on combinations of types of

organizational ambidexterity, instead of only one of the four individual types of

organizational ambidexterity. This is in line with the implication, as described in the

previous section, that units tend to pursue ‘hybrid forms of organizational

ambidexterity’.

• Second, it can be concluded that units need to employ a broker leadership style

while pursuing organizational ambidexterity. Since every case, irrespective of the type

of organizational ambidexterity, is employing the broker style. This indicates that

employing a broker style is a necessary condition while managing the tension

between exploitation and exploration activities. Thereby it is argued that either

exploitation and exploration activities are managed within or across units,

simultaneously or sequentially a broker style is always required.

• Third, the results show that when more than one type of organizational ambidexterity

(hybrid ambidexterity) is pursued no additional leadership styles are employed. This

might indicate that within a unit the same combination of leadership styles is

employed to pursue various types of organizational ambidexterity. Thus, this confirms

that combinations of organizational ambidexterity (found in practice) should be the

starting point in order to determine the most appropriate leadership styles.

• Fourth, in the theoretical model the innovator style was proposed as the most

appropriate leadership style in order to manage explorations while pursuing harmonic

and cyclical ambidexterity. This was not confirmed in practice, instead the broker style

was employed in order to pursue exploration activities. The innovator style is only

71

employed in practice by the case ‘Philips Incubators’, while pursuing reciprocal

ambidexterity. These results indicate that the innovator leadership style is not a

common leadership style while managing the tension between exploration and

exploitation. An explanation for this can probably found in the fact that reciprocal

ambidexterity is explicitly used by Philips Incubators in order to pursue radical

innovations. In this situation there is a strong external focus, with an emphasis on

innovation, creativity and flexibility. This behaviour does best correspond with the

innovator style. Therefore it is argued that an innovator style is needed in situations

were innovativeness, creativity and flexibility are the most prevailing conditions while

managing exploration and exploitation activities. Further research should examine

whether this reasoning is also found by other cases in different situations.

• Fifth, the producer and director style (rational goal model styles) were both used in

order to manage exploitation activities within units with a strong external focus. This

matches the theory, since these styles are both focused on the external environment

and on control. Opposite, the other cases that were primarily internally focused,

employed a monitor and coordinator leadership style (internal process model styles).

Both styles are internally focused and aimed on control. It is argued that this pattern

reveals that units with an external focus tend to employ the director and producer

leadership styles, while managing exploitation activities. Contrary, units with an

internal focus tend to employ the monitor and coordinator leadership styles. This is

interesting because this contrast between the two groups of transactional leadership

styles, might indicate that managing exploitation activities across units requires a more

external focus than managing these activities within one unit.

• Sixth, all three cases that pursue harmonic ambidexterity are employing a mentor,

facilitator, monitor and broker style. This might indicate that employing these four

leadership styles together is a necessary condition while managing a harmonic

tension between exploitation and exploration activities. Only the mentor and monitor

styles were also proposed in the theoretical model. Further research should study and

validate whether these leadership styles (together) are required while pursuing

harmonic ambidexterity. Thereby, it is probably possible to determine a necessary set

of leadership styles while pursuing exploitation and exploration activities

simultaneously.

5.5.3 New theoretical model and hypotheses for further research

As described in section 5.5.1, this research started with a theoretical model that proposed

combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity (figure 27). This

model was found on the organizational ambidexterity model of Simsek et al. and

distinguished four different types of organizational ambidexterity. However, the investigation

in practice revealed that all cases, except one, pursue a combination of the four types of

organizational ambidexterity. Thus, units tend to pursue ‘hybrid forms of organizational

ambidexterity’, instead of only one of the four individual types of organizational

ambidexterity. Moreover, the results of the investigation in practice indicate that the

combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity are influenced by

various internal and external factors. Internal factors are the type of activities of a unit, the

financial accountability structure of a company, the hierarchical position of a leader and the

use of stage-gate models. External factors are the influence of the markets, changing work

environments and the influence of shareholders (see also paragraph 5.4).

The consequence of these findings is that the theoretical model that is described in chapter

two, with combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational ambidexterity, might

be too general and too static in order to determine which leadership styles are needed while

pursuing organizational ambidexterity. In other words, it is less relevant to determine which

leadership styles are most appropriate per type of organizational ambidexterity, because in

practice units tend to pursue hybrid forms of organizational ambidexterity. In addition, the

specific forms of hybrid ambidexterity and the required leadership styles are influenced by

various internal and external factors. Therefore, in this concluding section of the paragraph, a

new organizational ambidexterity model is outlined that provides more insights into the hybrid

use of the four types of organizational ambidexterity, as well as the most appropriate

leadership styles while pursuing these forms of hybrid ambidexterity.

72

New theoretical model

The organizational ambidexterity model of Simsek et al. (2009) encompasses two dimensions,

a temporal and structural dimension. By putting together the two dimensions, Simsek et al.

(2009) presented a two-by-two typology that delineates four types of organizational

ambidexterity: harmonic, cyclical, partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity. Thereby Simsek et

al. argued that organizations can manage the tension between exploitation and exploration

activities by performing one or more of these four types of organizational ambidexterity. They

also argued that each type of organizational ambidexterity requires a different mindset,

systems, structure, processes and practices. For example, harmonic ambidexterity is

achieved through concurrently pursuing exploitation and exploration harmoniously within a

single organizational unit. Opposite, reciprocal ambidexterity is achieved when the outputs of

exploration from unit A become the inputs for exploitation by unit B and the outputs of unit B

cycle back to become the inputs of unit A.

By explicitly distinguishing these four types of organizational ambidexterity, the model of

Simsek et al. (2009) is assuming that organizations, units or departments perform one or more

of these specific types of organizational ambidexterity. Thus, the model only recognizes four

generic ways of managing exploitation and exploration activities. The consequence is that

the model of Simsek et al. (2009) does not offer the opportunity to discern hybrid forms of the

four types of organizational ambidexterity. Thereby, it is only possible to position organizations,

units or departments in one of the specific types of organizational ambidexterity, a hybrid

form does not exist. However, it is very likely that organizations, units and departments in

practice pursue combinations of the four types of organizational ambidexterity, thus hybrid

forms of ambidexterity. For example, a unit that is performing exploitation and exploration

activities within one unit and at the same time is also working closely together with other units

on specific exploitation or exploration activities. This can be labeled as a unit that is pursuing

both a form of harmonic and partitional ambidexterity. It is also imaginable that a particular

group of people, within a unit, that is pursuing both exploitation and exploration activities

harmonically, is working on developing a new product (exploration) and after a certain

period of time is involved in selling this new product (exploitation). This would be a hybrid form

of harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity. In addition, it is reasonable that units, while pursuing

hybrid ambidexterity, have a strong focus on one of the two (or more) types of organizational

ambidexterity, or pursue both (or more) types of organizational ambidexterity equally.

Altogether, it can be argued that organizations, departments and units prevail to pursue

(over time) hybrid forms of ambidexterity and that this is a form of organizational

ambidexterity, that can be found on a continuum between two (extreme) types of

organizational ambidexterity. Therefore a new model of organizational ambidexterity is

developed: ‘The organizational ambidexterity continuum model’, outlined in the graphic

below.

In figure 28 it becomes visible that an organization, unit or department can be found

somewhere on the blue arrowed line between two types of organizational ambidexterity.

Thus, a unit that is pursuing two types of organizational ambidexterity equally, can be found in

the middle of the continuum and a unit that tends to focus on one type, will be positioned

more close to one of the two (extreme) types of the continuum.

Looking at organizational ambidexterity as a continuum makes it possible to profoundly

distinguish various types of organizational ambidexterity that might occur in practice. By

Figure 28: The organizational ambidexterity continuum model.

73

Figure 29: The continuum of hybrid forms of organizational ambidexterity.

doing so, it might be better possible for organizations, managers and researchers to

understand how exploitation and exploration activities are pursued, as well as which

leadership styles are most appropriate regarding a particular position on the continuum.

The position of organizations, units or departments on the organizational ambidexterity

continuum can be very different and can diverge over time. For example, a unit can pursue

80% of its exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously within one unit and at the

same time pursuing 20% of its activities in a separate unit. In this case the unit is performing

two different types of organizational ambidexterity, both harmonic and partitional

ambidexterity. On the continuum this unit will be positioned close to the harmonic type of

organizational ambidexterity, since this unit is pursuing 80% of its activities in a harmonic

manner. However, it can happen that the unit over time is changing the way it is managing

exploitation and exploration activities. For example, exploration activities will be more

grouped together in a R&D team and exploitation activities will be more grouped together in

a sales team. As a result the unit is shifting on the organizational ambidexterity continuum

from harmonic ambidexterity towards partitional ambidexterity. The results is a different hybrid

form of organizational ambidexterity, with a different balance that requires also a different

approach in terms of systems, structure, processes, practices and leadership styles. In figure 29

this shifting nature of organizational ambidexterity is illustrated.

The above continuum illustrates that the number of hybrid forms that can occur between the

two extremes is unrestrained, as it is in practice. Thereby the organizational ambidexterity

continuum provides a more detailed and dynamic approach while assessing ways of

managing exploitation and exploration activities. As depicted above, hybrid forms of

organizational ambidexterity can shift from the left side on the continuum to the right side on

the continuum and back. It is argued that organizations, units and departments will tend to

move gradually along the continuum between two different types of organizational

ambidexterity. Shifting from one type of hybrid ambidexterity to another one, takes place

gradually because most organizations, units and departments tend to change step by step.

For instance, developing new product ranges might lead to open up new markets and can

thereby result in different ways of managing exploitation and exploration activities. For

example, these new markets might require long periods of research and development before

an organization is able to sell a product. In this case an organization might shift from a

harmonic way of managing exploitation and exploration activities, towards a cyclical way of

managing both activities.

Nevertheless, it is also very likely that this transition between hybrid forms of organizational

ambidexterity on the continuum is taking place radical. For example, bad market

circumstances (e.g. recent financial crisis) might force a company to work across units

instead of only within units (within or outside an organization), in order to gain a better

position in changing or new markets. This will lead to a radical shift from managing

exploitation and exploration activities within one unit, towards managing both activities

across units. Thus, it can be argued that the specific position of an organization, unit or

74

department and the degree, to which it is changing, over time on the continuum, is

influenced by various factors.

Figure 30: The continuum of hybrid forms of organizational ambidexterity and affecting internal and external factors.

These factors can roughly be categorized into internal factors (e.g. developing new product

ranges) and external factors (e.g. bad market circumstances). Moreover, these factors can

be the outcome of an intended strategy or can occur unintentionally. Nevertheless,

intentionally or unintentionally, the position of organizations, units and departments on the

organizational ambidexterity continuum can be seen as a strategic reaction on internal and

external forces and events. Being aware of these internal and external affecting factors, it is

possible to revise the organizational ambidexterity continuum towards a continuum which

takes these factors into account, as depicted in figure 30.

Having explained the working of the organizational ambidexterity continuum, which

encompasses hybrid types of ambidexterity, that are influenced by internal and external

factors, it is now possible to define which leadership styles are most appropriate while

pursuing organizational ambidexterity. Based on the conclusion that organizational

ambidexterity can be found on a continuum, it becomes apparent that the required

leadership styles are not determined by the four different types of organizational

ambidexterity. Instead, the position of a specific organization, unit or department on the

organizational ambidexterity continuum determines which leadership styles are most

appropriate while managing exploitation and exploration activities. For instance, a unit that is

managing simultaneously exploitation and exploration activities within, as well as across units

will need a manager that is able to employ various leadership styles. Depending on how

much of the activities are managed within or across the unit, another emphasis on leadership

is needed. When the specific unit is primarily focused on managing exploitation and

exploration activities simultaneously within one unit (harmonic ambidexterity), it might be

necessary that the leadership styles are focused on social support to individuals (in terms of

systems, processes and beliefs), in order to enable people to manage the conflicts between

exploration and exploitation activities. Such a leadership style is needed because in a

situation like this exploration and exploitation activities are competing ‘harmoniously’ for the

same resources. Opposite, when the specific unit is primarily focused on managing

exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously across units, it might be necessary to

employ leadership styles that have a focus on information processing, knowledge

dissemination and coordination between separate units. Beyond, a leader in this situation

should be well informed regarding the various exploitation activities performed, as well as the

exploration activities in order to sustain linkages between the two separate structures.

Thus, depending on which type of organizational ambidexterity on the continuum is

prevailing, another combination (and emphasis) of leadership styles in needed. In the above

described example either, primarily leadership styles that focus on balancing exploitation and

75

exploration are needed, or primarily leadership styles that focus on managing concurrently

exploitation and exploration activities across units.

The above graphic illustrates that the number and combination of leadership styles depends

on the position of a specific organization, unit or department on the organizational

ambidexterity continuum. However, combinations of leadership styles are not only

determined by a specific position on the continuum, it is also argued that transitions on the

continuum requires different leadership styles. When a unit, for instance, is shifting from a

harmonic approach, of managing exploitation and exploration activities, towards a more

cyclical approach, this unit passes a period of change. Managing this change/transition

might require leadership styles that are focused on participation, cohesion and teamwork in

order to get individuals involved, which is an important condition in changing circumstances.

Thus, leadership styles that oriented on the human relation model are needed. Due to the

fact that these leadership styles emphasize teamwork and flexibility as important conditions

for an adaptive organizational culture, which enables shifts between hybrid types of

organizational ambidexterity on the continuum. Moreover, these leadership styles are also

most appropriate when an organization, unit or department wants to switch to another

continuum. For example, a unit that was pursuing a hybrid form of harmonic and cyclical

ambidexterity, is now pursuing a hybrid form of harmonic and partitional ambidexterity as a

results of internal or external affecting factors. In this case, that particular unit is facing quite

heavy changes in the way of working, both structural and temporal.

New theoretical model and the investigation in practice

While investigating combinations of leadership styles and types of organizational

ambidexterity in practice, it became apparent that all cases, except one, pursue hybrid

forms of organizational ambidexterity. Three of the four cases were pursuing a combination of

two different types of organizational ambidexterity (see table 4). Some of these combinations

have a strong focus on one of the two types of organizational ambidexterity, others tend to

pursue both types of organizational ambidexterity equally. For example, the cases ‘unit Asset

and Information Management’ and ‘unit Urban development, Legal and Finance’ are

primarily pursuing harmonic ambidexterity and next to that type they pursue respectively

partitional and cyclical ambidexterity. The investigation in practice showed that these hybrid

forms of organizational ambidexterity appear based on the two extremes per dimension of

the organizational ambidexterity model. The cases in practice display hybrid forms that

pursue exploitation and exploration activities within one unit, across units and simultaneously.

For example, the case ‘unit Asset and Information Management’ pursues a hybrid form of

harmonic and partitional ambidexterity (simultaneously), the case ‘unit Urban development,

Figure 31: The organizational ambidexterity continuum and leadership styles.

76

Legal and Finance’ pursues a hybrid form of harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity (within one

unit) and the case ‘Philips Incubators’ pursues both partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity

(across units). A hybrid form of cyclical and reciprocal ambidexterity (sequential) was not

found. Moreover, other hybrid forms were also not found during the investigation in practice.

Altogether it can be argued that the results of the investigation in practice revealed that units

tend to pursue hybrid ambidexterity and that this is a form of organizational ambidexterity

that can be found on a continuum between two (extreme) types of organizational

ambidexterity. However, there are also units that pursue only one type of organizational

ambidexterity, for example the case ‘unit Real Estate’.

The position of the investigated cases on the organizational ambidexterity continuum is

influenced by various factors. The case ‘unit Asset and Information Management’ (hereafter

AIM), as depicted in figure 32, is positioned very close to harmonic ambidexterity on the

organizational ambidexterity continuum, since the interviewees argued that the unit AIM is

pursuing 80% of its time harmonic ambidexterity.

Figure 32: Case unit Asset and Information Management depicted on the organizational ambidexterity continuum.

The reason for this position is a combination of the influence of the market, the type of

activities of the unit and the financial accountability structure. According to the interviewees,

the bad market circumstances (‘current crisis’) made the tension between exploitation and

exploration activities more visible and has initiated last year a new way of organizing

exploration and exploitation activities. Next to the ‘old way’ of organizing (harmonic

ambidexterity), a separate approach (partitional ambidexterity) was introduced in order to

manage both activities. However the unit is still primarily pursuing harmonic ambidexterity, the

interviewees argued that due to the type of activities (knowledge work) it is necessary that

people have a connection with the market (exploitation), in order to perform new product

development activities (exploration). Moreover, the interviewees argued that the current

financial accountability structure is stimulating an ‘inward focus’ on own unit results and is not

working supportive in encouraging people to work across units.

Having these internal and external factors causing the current position of the unit AIM on the

organizational ambidexterity continuum, it is reasonable to argue, that this position might

change in the future. For example, a different financial accountability structure might lead to

an increase in working across units, thus a more separate approach. The consequence is that

the unit will shift (slow or fast) to a position on the right side of the continuum, towards

partitional ambidexterity.

It can be seen in figure 32 that a mentor, facilitator, monitor and broker style is employed by

the unit AIM while pursuing this particular type of hybrid ambidexterity. These leadership styles

are reasonable since they are primarily transformational focused on supporting individuals, in

order to enable people to manage the conflicts between exploration and exploitation

activities.

77

The case ‘unit Urban development, Legal and Finance’ (hereafter ULF), as depicted in figure

33, is positioned close to cyclical ambidexterity on the organizational ambidexterity

continuum.

Figure 33: Case unit Urban development, Legal and Finance depicted on the organizational ambidexterity

continuum.

The interviewees argued that the unit ULF mainly was focused on exploitation activities the

last few years. The result was that the unit ULF was only exploiting and explorations were

minimized till almost zero. However, due to bad economic circumstances, they are now

forced by the markets to focus on explorations. Thereby, they pursue a hybrid form of

harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity, which is at the moment more cyclical than harmonic.

However, similar to the other DHV cases, the interviewees were arguing, that both the type of

activities and the financial accountability structure are encouraging a harmonic approach

of managing exploitation and exploration activities. Thus, the current position, primarily

cyclical ambidexterity, might change in the future towards harmonic ambidexterity due to for

example changing market circumstances. It is remarkable that the leadership styles that are

employed by the unit ULF, are similar to the leadership styles that are employed by the unit

AIM. This indicates that different positions on the organizational ambidexterity continuum can

require the same combination of leadership styles.

The only case that was not pursuing hybrid ambidexterity is the case ‘unit Real Estate’

(hereafter RE), this unit just pursues harmonic ambidexterity. According to the interviewees,

the reason for this can be found in the type of activities of the unit and the financial

accountability structure. They argued that both factors encourage a simultaneous approach

of managing exploitation and exploration activities within one unit.

Figure 34: Case unit Real Estate depicted on the organizational ambidexterity continuum.

78

Nevertheless, a different financial accountability structure might increase working across units

borders in the future. The leadership styles that are employed by the unit RE are in line with

the theoretical reasoning that managing exploitation and exploration harmonically requires

behavioural complexity. Despite, the unit RE is employing a slightly different combination of

leadership styles than the two other cases, that were also pursuing harmonic ambidexterity.

The difference can probably found in the fact that the unit RE is pursuing just one type of


The case ‘Philips Incubators’ pursues a hybrid form of partitional and reciprocal

ambidexterity, since they are aiming to realize both incremental and radical innovations. The

interviewees argued that reciprocal ambidexterity is explicitly used to pursue radical

innovations. Opposite, partitional ambidexterity is primarily used to pursue incremental

innovations.

As depicted in figure 35, in practice incremental innovations are slightly more pursued than

radical innovations, thereby partitional ambidexterity is the prevailing type of organizational

ambidexterity.

Figure 35: Case unit Philips Incubators depicted on the organizational ambidexterity continuum.

Next to the type of innovations, another influencing factor are the shareholders of the

company. The interviewees of the case ‘Philips Incubators’ described that the pressure of the

shareholders most of the time leads to a focus on short term results. Thereby the principal

concern of managers of the organization is focused on ‘do we make the next quarter’ and

not on new business development. The result is a strong focus on exploitation activities.

Accordingly, pursuing incremental innovations will prevail on top of radical innovations, since

incremental innovations are in general less risky and more likely to contribute to growing sales

figures. Thus, both shareholders and the type of activities (radical or incremental innovations)

tend to incline the case ‘Philips Incubators’ more towards on partitional ambidexterity instead

of reciprocal ambidexterity, on the organizational ambidexterity continuum. However, the

difference between the two types of organizational ambidexterity is small and the balance

between the two types varies over time. The leadership styles that are employed in practice

by the case ‘Philips Incubators’ do support the current position on the continuum, due to the

primarily external orientation of these leadership styles. This is necessary since both partitional

and reciprocal ambidexterity demand an external orientation, while managing exploitation

and exploration activities across unit borders (within or outside the organization).

Being aware of the fact that the position of a particular case on the organizational

ambidexterity continuum - influenced by various factors - determines which leadership styles

are required, it is difficult to define a (fixed) combination of leadership styles that is needed in

order to pursue organizational ambidexterity. If units were only pursuing one particular type of

organizational ambidexterity it would probably be possible to define a set of required

leadership styles. However, the reality is more dynamic and surprising since various factors

seems to influence combinations of organizational ambidexterity and the accompanying

leadership styles. Moreover, during this research just three forms of hybrid ambidexterity were

79

found in practice. Further research might reveal that other hybrid forms are also pursued in

practice. Probably diagonal combinations of types of organizational ambidexterity will be

found (e.g. a hybrid form of harmonic and reciprocal ambidexterity), as well as hybrid forms

that covers three or all four types of organizational ambidexterity.

Nevertheless, the theoretical investigation, as well as the investigation in practice revealed

that certain leadership styles seems to be more appropriate than other while pursuing the

four types of organizational ambidexterity. First, all three cases that pursue harmonic

ambidexterity are employing a mentor, facilitator, monitor and broker style. This might

indicate that employing these four leadership styles together is a necessary condition while

managing a harmonic tension between exploitation and exploration activities.

Second, the producer and director style (rational goal model styles) were both used in order

to manage exploitation activities within units with a strong external focus. Opposite, the other

cases that were primarily internal focused, employed a monitor and coordinator leadership

style (internal process model styles). Both styles are internally focused and aimed on control.

Third, the innovator style was proposed as the most appropriate leadership style in order to

manage explorations while pursuing harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity. This was not

confirmed in practice, instead the broker style was employed in order to pursue exploration

activities. The innovator style is only employed in practice by the case ‘Philips Incubators’, in

order to pursue radical innovations. In addition, the broker style was used by all four cases in

order to pursues organizational ambidexterity. This might indicate that this style is a necessary

condition while managing the tension between exploitation and exploration activities. Thus, it

is argued that, either exploitation and exploration activities are managed within or across

units, simultaneously or sequentially a broker style is always required.

Hypotheses for further research

The previous section described that during the investigation in practice just three forms of

hybrid ambidexterity were found. The case ‘unit Asset and Information Management’ pursues

a hybrid form of harmonic and partitional ambidexterity (simultaneously), the case ‘unit

Urban development, Legal and Finance’ pursues a hybrid form of harmonic and cyclical

ambidexterity (within one unit) and the case ‘Philips Incubators’ pursues both partitional and

reciprocal ambidexterity (across units). Although these three forms of hybrid ambidexterity

were more or less found by coincidence, they lead to the notion that types of organizational

ambidexterity needs to be seen as hybrid forms that occur on a continuum with two

extremes. By elaborating these insights into a new organizational ambidexterity continuum

model, including influencing factors, it is now better possible to map hybrid forms of

organizational ambidexterity, as well as factors that influence these forms. Furthermore,

based on these forms in combination with internal and external influencing factors, it is

possible to indentify which leadership styles are most appropriate regarding a particular

position on the continuum.

By applying the organizational ambidexterity continuum model on the four types of

organizational ambidexterity as described by Simsek et al. (2009), it is possible to define some

‘ideal dimensions’ of hybrid ambidexterity. As described above, units tend to pursue a

combination of two types of organizational ambidexterity based on the two extremes per

dimension of the organizational ambidexterity model. As depicted in figure 36, it is thereby

possible to distinguish four different dimensions of hybrid ambidexterity: a hybrid form that

pursues exploitation and exploration activities within one unit (1), across units (2),

simultaneously (3) and sequential (4). By distinguishing these four ‘ideal dimensions’ of hybrid

ambidexterity, other dimensions like diagonal combinations of hybrid ambidexterity (e.g. a

hybrid form of harmonic and reciprocal ambidexterity) as well as dimensions that cover three

or all four types of organizational ambidexterity, are considered as unusual. The reason for this

can be found in the fact that these combinations would enclose very different (read:

opposite) approaches in how to manage the tension between exploitation and exploration

activities. This is also endorsed by the results of the investigation in practice, since none of the

cases pursued diagonal combinations of hybrid ambidexterity or a hybrid form with more

than two different types of organizational ambidexterity. Therefore it is argued that

organizations, units and departments tend to pursue hybrid types of organizational

80

ambidexterity based on the two extremes per dimension, which comes down on the four

above distinguished ‘ideal dimensions’ of hybrid ambidexterity.

The four ‘ideal dimensions’ of hybrid ambidexterity are depicted in figure 36. In the remainder

of this section a short description is given per ‘ideal dimension’ of hybrid ambidexterity, the

affecting factors per dimension and the most appropriate leadership styles per hybrid

ambidexterity dimension. In addition, hypotheses are defined per ‘ideal dimension’ of hybrid

ambidexterity.

Harmonic

ambidexterity

Cyclical

ambidexterity

Partitional

ambidexterity

Reciprocal

ambidexterity

Harmonic

ambidexterity

Partitional

ambidexterity

Cyclical

ambidexterity

Reciprocal

ambidexterity

1: pursuing exploitation and exploration activities within one unit

2: pursuing exploitation and exploration activities across units

3: pursuing exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously

4: pursuing exploitation and exploration activities sequential

Figure 36: The four ‘ideal dimensions’ of hybrid ambidexterity.

1. Pursuing exploitation and exploration activities within one unit

This hybrid dimension compromises harmonic and cyclical ambidexterity, thus exploitation

and exploration activities are pursued simultaneously and sequentially within the same unit.

The exact hybrid form on the continuum of this dimension can be influenced by various

factors. For instance, a financial accountability structure that is strongly focused on sales and

budget might stimulate to pursue primarily periods of exploitation, thus the position will tend

to incline towards cyclical ambidexterity. It is also possible that an organization, unit or

department is forced by bad market circumstances to reinvent itself (and its products) and

thereby is involved in a period of exploration next to its running business. The result might be

that the specific unit is more focused on cyclical ambidexterity instead of harmonic

ambidexterity. These factors are just examples, in practice, various factors might influence this

hybrid dimension of ambidexterity.

Hypotheses 1. The position of an organization, unit or department on the hybrid dimension of

ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and exploration activities within one unit, can be

81

influenced by various internal and external factors. For example market circumstances and

the applicable financial accountability structure.

Pursuing a hybrid form of organizational ambidexterity on this dimension requires that a

manager is able to balance the tension between managing exploitation and exploration

activities simultaneously (harmonic) and sequentially (cyclical). Both approaches demand

different leadership skills. In order to manage exploitation and exploration activities

simultaneously a manager needs to build a set of processes or systems, that enable and

encourage individuals to make their own judgments about how to divide their time between

the conflicting exploitation and exploration activities. On the other hand, this manager should

also be able to manage the transition between periods of exploitation and periods of

exploration. Moreover, this manager should be able to focus one-sided on efficiency and

cost reduction during periods of exploitation, or flexibility and innovativeness during periods of

exploration. Altogether, this dimension of hybrid ambidexterity requires a manager who is

able to employ the right leadership styles, at the right time, towards the right group of people.

Based on the initial theoretical model, the investigation in practice and the accompanying

implications and conclusions the following leadership styles are the most appropriate

leadership styles while pursuing this ‘ideal dimension’ of hybrid ambidexterity: a broker,

mentor, facilitator, monitor, coordinator and producer leadership style. The exact

combination of leadership styles depends on the specific position of an organization, unit or

department on the organizational ambidexterity continuum, which can be influenced by

various factors.

Hypotheses 2: The hybrid dimension of ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and

exploration activities within one unit, might require a combination of a broker, mentor,

facilitator, monitor, coordinator and producer leadership style.

2. Pursuing exploitation and exploration activities across units

This hybrid dimension compromises partitional and reciprocal ambidexterity, thus exploitation

and exploration activities are pursued simultaneously and sequentially across units. The exact

hybrid form on the continuum of this dimension can be influenced by various factors. For

instance, the type of activities pursued by a specific organization, unit or department. When

a unit produces activities that require long periods of research and testing, it is likely that they

pursue these activities in a sequential manner (reciprocal). Thus, they start with a period of

exploration (research and testing) and thereupon a period of exploitation takes place. Other

activities might require a simultaneous approach (partitional) because the exploitation and

exploration activities are strongly connected to each other (e.g. ‘innovation on the job’).

The position on the continuum of this dimension can also be determined by the use of

specific working methods or models, for example the use of stage-gate models. Such a

model might first focus on a period of innovation (reciprocal), then while still working on the

innovation, relations with the market are established (partitional) and finally a period of

exploitation takes place (reciprocal). These factors are just examples, in practice various

factors might influence this hybrid dimension of ambidexterity.


ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and exploration activities across units, can be

influenced by various internal and external factors. For example the type of activities that are

pursued or the use of specific working methods or models (e.g. stage-gate models).

While managing a hybrid form of ambidexterity on this dimension, a manager needs to able

to manage the information processing, knowledge dissemination and coordination between

the separate units or teams. Furthermore, managers who pursue this form of hybrid

ambidexterity should be able to display a vision that acknowledges the importance of both

exploitation and exploration activities, with neither one being perceived as more important.

Next to these leadership skills, these managers should also be able to create relationships

between the various separate units characterized by ongoing information exchange,

collaborative problem solving, joint decision making and resource flows between the

different units responsible for exploitation and exploration activities. In order to do so these

managers need to have a clear understanding of the various separated exploration and

82

exploitation activities. That is, keep track of the activities (flow of work) in order to facilitate

‘reciprocal information flows’ and reallocation of resources between the separate units

(within or outside an organization). Based on the initial theoretical model, the investigation in

practice and the accompanying implications and conclusions the following leadership styles

are the most appropriate leadership styles while pursuing this ‘ideal dimension’ of hybrid

ambidexterity: a broker, mentor, producer, director and innovator leadership style. The exact

combination of leadership styles depends on the specific position of an organization, unit or

department on the organizational ambidexterity continuum, which can be influenced by

various factors.


exploration activities across units, might require a combination of a broker, mentor, producer,

director and innovator leadership style

3. Pursuing exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously

This hybrid dimension compromises harmonic and partitional ambidexterity, thus exploitation

and exploration activities are pursued simultaneously within and across units. The position of a

specific organization, unit or department on the continuum of this dimension can be

determined by various factors. For example, the market situation can force a unit to work

heavily across units in order to gain a better position on the market. Also the type of activities

of a specific unit is a factor that influences the position on the continuum. Some activities can

not be separated for example certain services, other activities need to be separated in order

to make progress and become efficient. Another factor that might influence the specific

hybrid form of this dimension, is the financial accountability structure. When this structure is

focused on budget and sales targets per unit, it is likely, that working across units will not be

pursued actively. These factors are just examples, in practice various factors might influence

this hybrid dimension of ambidexterity.


ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously within and

across units can be influenced by various internal and external factors. For example market

circumstances, the type of activities and the financial accountability structure.

Managers that pursue hybrid ambidexterity on this dimension face the difficulty of having to

manage various units or teams with different goals, culture, control structures and incentive

systems. Thus, they have to build a set of processes or systems that enable and encourage

individuals to make their own judgments about how to divide their time between the

conflicting exploitation and exploration activities (harmonic ambidexterity). On the other

hand, this hybrid form of ambidexterity requires managers that are able to manage the

information processing, knowledge dissemination and coordination between the separate

units or teams. Beyond this, these managers should be well informed regarding the various

exploitation activities performed, as well as the exploration activities in order to sustain

linkages between the separate units or teams and the unit as a whole. Furthermore managers

who pursue this form of hybrid ambidexterity should be able to display a vision that

acknowledges the importance of both exploitation and exploration activities, with neither

one being perceived as more important. Based on the initial theoretical model, the

investigation in practice and the accompanying implications and conclusions the following

leadership styles are the most appropriate leadership styles while pursuing this ‘ideal

dimension’ of hybrid ambidexterity: a broker, mentor, facilitator, monitor, coordinator,

director and producer style. The exact combination of leadership styles depends on the

specific position of an organization, unit or department on the organizational ambidexterity

continuum, which can be influenced by various factors.


exploration activities simultaneously within and across units, might require a combination of a

broker, mentor, facilitator, monitor, coordinator, director and producer style.

83

4. Pursuing exploitation and exploration activities sequential

This hybrid dimension compromises cyclical and reciprocal ambidexterity, thus exploitation

and exploration activities are pursued sequential within and across units. The position of an

organization, unit or department on the continuum of this dimension can be determined by

various factors, for example, the type of activities produced by a specific unit. Some activities

can not be separated, for example certain services, other activities need to be separated in

order to make progress and become efficient. Thus, depending on the composition of the

activities of a specific organization, unit or department it will be positioned either, more

closely towards cyclical ambidexterity or reciprocal ambidexterity on the continuum. Another

factor that might influence the position of a unit on the organizational ambidexterity

continuum is the need of a unit to acquire ‘external’ knowledge or resources. Instead of only

pursuing exploitation and exploration within one unit with the same group of people

(cyclical), it might be necessary to work across unit or even organization borders in order to

achieve specific objective(s). For example, during a period of exploration certain knowledge

or resources might be necessary, that are only available outside the unit. If this is the case an

organization, unit or department will tend to incline more towards reciprocal than cyclical

ambidexterity. These factors are just examples, in practice various factors might influence this

hybrid dimension of ambidexterity.


ambidexterity that pursues exploitation and exploration activities sequential within and across

units can be influenced by various internal and external factors. For example the type of

activities that are pursued or the need to achieve ‘external’ resources or knowledge.

Pursuing a hybrid form of organizational ambidexterity on this dimension requires managers

that are able to manage the transition between periods of exploitation and periods of

exploration. Furthermore, these managers should also be able to focus one-sided on

efficiency and cost reduction during periods of exploitation, or flexibility and innovativeness

during periods of exploration. Next to that, it is also important that these managers are able

to create relationships between the various separate units characterized by ongoing

information exchange, collaborative problem solving, joint decision making and resource

flows between the different units responsible for exploitation and exploration activities. In

order to do so these managers need to have a clear understanding of the various separated

exploration and exploitation activities. That is, keep track of the activities (flow of work) in

order to facilitate ‘reciprocal information flows’ and reallocation of resources between the

separate units (within or outside an organization). Based on the initial theoretical model, the

investigation in practice and the accompanying implications and conclusions the following

leadership styles are the most appropriate leadership styles while pursuing this ‘ideal

dimension’ of hybrid ambidexterity: a broker, facilitator, monitor, producer and innovator

leadership style. The exact combination of leadership styles depends on the specific position

of an organization, unit or department on the organizational ambidexterity continuum, which

can be influenced by various factors.


exploration activities sequential within and across units, might require a combination of a

broker, facilitator, monitor, producer and innovator leadership style.

5.6 Limitations

This paragraph describes the limitations of this research based on the obtained insights by the

theoretical study and investigation in practice, on the combinations of leadership styles and

types of organizational ambidexterity.

The limitations of this research consist of mainly the lack of a large number of cases and

interviewees. Due to the limited period of time for performing this research, just four cases

were investigated at two companies. Only partitional ambidexterity was found at two cases

at different companies, all the other types of organizational ambidexterity were just found

within one company. Fourteen interviewees at four different cases are too few to make a

truly solid, generalizable conclusion on the leadership styles that do best support (hybrid)

84

forms of organizational ambidexterity. Besides, primarily unit managers and department

managers were interviewed, which only provide their point of view on the leadership styles

that are needed to pursue the four types of organizational ambidexterity. Furthermore, the

investigation in practice was conducted at two companies who carry out different activities

(services versus products) in different markets and industries.

The results of this research would probably have been different when more cases were

involved and managers, as well as employees were interviewed. Moreover, an investigation

at various companies operating within the same market and industry with similar activities

would probably produce different results too.

5.7 Reflection

In the last paragraph of this research the research itself is discussed. A reflection is given on

the theories that were applied in this research, the empirical data gathering and the

obtained results.

5.7.1 Theory

The theoretical underpinning of this research consists out of two parts. First, the theory on

organizational ambidexterity was examined. A lot of relevant articles were found and

studied. Two meta-analyses articles offered very relevant information on the organizational

ambidexterity theory, the articles of Simsek et al. (2009) and Birkinshaw and Gibson (2008).

Both articles encompass an extensive review on various literature streams and developed a

comprehensive overview that covers (prior) research into the antecedents, moderators, and

outcomes of organizational ambidexterity. The organizational ambidexterity model,

developed by Simsek et al. (2009) as depicted in figure 3, was used as the base of this

research. Second, leadership theories were examined. To be more precisely, leadership

theories on transactional and transformational leadership styles were studied. Although other

research also suggests leadership styles that represent transactional and transformational

leadership, the CVF model of Quinn and Rohrbaugh is seen as the most complete and

comprehensive model concerning transactional and transformational leadership styles.

Both theoretical models - organizational ambidexterity model and CVF model - were linked to

each other after a thorough research into both underlying theoretical assumptions. This

resulted in a revised, organizational ambidexterity model as depicted in figure 13, which was

thereafter studied in practice by investigating four cases at two companies.

5.7.2 Research

Data triangulation in this research was achieved by performing interviews, document

research and observations. The latter one was sometimes difficult, due to the fact that the

researcher is an employee at engineering and consultancy company DHV and therefore it

was inevitable that his interpretation and critical look may have been influenced and may

have lead to biased preconceived notions. Next to the observations, the semi-structured

interviews, as well as the studied documents provided enough information to answer the

empirical questions. Initially nine interviews were conducted. Nevertheless, after several

discussions with research supervisor Hans Doorewaard, some additional interviews were

conducted in order to further endorse the results obtained prior. As described in the previous

paragraph under the section ‘limitations’, it would be better to involve more cases, as well as

more interviewees. However, due to a limited period of time it was not possible to investigate

more cases and conducting more interviews. The interviews were summarized per interview

topic through unraveling the results per core expression. These predefined topics were based

on the literature study, as described in chapter two. Thereafter a ‘similarities and differences

analysis’ was performed among the various interviews per topic. By doing so, it became

possible to determine whether the proposed combinations of leadership styles and types of

organizational ambidexterity were sufficient or not. Collecting the empirical results, as well as

analyzing them was completed within two months. This short period of time contributed to the

reduction of multi-interpretability of the empirical results, because the results were processed

and analyzed almost immediately after they were collected.

85

5.7.3 Results

The theoretical model (depicted in figure 13), as well as the results derived from the

investigation in practice provide some useful insights into the hybrid nature of organizational

ambidexterity, as well as the leadership styles that are needed while pursuing organizational

ambidexterity. Moreover, the additional findings that were obtained are also interesting while

further studying combinations of leadership styles and (hybrid) forms of organizational

ambidexterity. However, as described in the previous paragraph, ‘Limitations’, the number of

interviewees and cases, as well as the type of cases are too few to make a truly solid,

generalizable conclusion on the leadership styles that do best support (hybrid) forms of

organizational ambidexterity. Therefore eight hypotheses are recommended for further

research, in order to determine whether the obtained insights are statistically significant or

were due to chance. Based on the explorative nature, limited period of time and the

objective of this research, the obtained results and the hypotheses for further research, are

considered as good results and satisfy the expectations of the researcher for now.

86

References

• Abernathy, W. J. (1978). The productivity dilemma. J. Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

• Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J.M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review,

80, 40-47.

• Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction.

Research Policy, 14, 3-22.

• Andriopoulos, C. & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational

• Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science, 20 (4), 696–717.

• Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus Efficiency? A Case Study of

Model Changeovers in the Toyota Product System. Organization Science, 10, 43-68.

• Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1995). Construct validation and norms for the multifactor

leadership questionnaire (MLQ-Form 5X). Binghamton University, State University of New York:

Center for leadership studies,

• Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of leadership cases on

transactional and transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207-218.

• Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1991). The full range of leadership development: Basic and advance

manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio, & Associates.

• Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational

leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

• Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military and educational impact.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

• Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.

• Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual leader form, rater,

and scoring key for MLQ (Form5x-Short). Redwood City, CA: MindGarden.

• Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

• Baum, J. A. C., Li, S. X., & Usher, J. M. (2000). Making the Next Move: How Experiential and

Vicarious Learning Shape the Locations of Chains Acquisitions. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 45, 4.

• Belasen, A. T. (2007). The Theory and Practice of Corporate Communication: A Competing

Values Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

• Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the

productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238-56.

• Boeije, H. (2005). Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek: Denken en doen. Amsterdam: Boom

onderwijs.

• Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.

• Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

87

• Bierly, P. E., & Daly, P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, an

organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

31, 493-516.

• Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). Building Ambidexterity into an Organization. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 45 (4), 47-55.

• Birkinshaw, J., Raisch, S., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity:

Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance. Organization Science, 20 (4),

685–695.

• Birkinshaw, J., & Raisch, S. (2008). Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and

Moderators. Journal of Management, 34 (3), 375-409.

• Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

• Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational

adaptation: theory and field research. Organization Science, 2, 239–262.

• Burgelman, R. (2002). Strategy as a vector and the inertia of co-evolutionary lock-in.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 325-357.

• Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and

behavioural complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of

contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (2), 207-221.

• Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based

on the competing values framework. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

• Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., & DeGraff, J. (2006). Competing Values Leadership: Creating Value

in Organizations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

• Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and

behavioural complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of

contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 207–218.

• Chen, E. L. (2005). Rival interpretations of balancing exploration and exploitation: simultaneous

or sequential. Honolulu, HI: paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of

Management.

• Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In

Killman, R. H., Pondy, L. R. and Sleven, D. (Eds), The Management of Organization (pp. 167-188).

New York: North Holland.

• Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the

evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807-834.

• Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.

• Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P.J. (2000). Strategizing Throughout the Organization: Managing Role

Conflict in Strategic Renewal, Academy of Management Review, 25, 154-177.

• Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The

dimensions of quality in management. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 91-112.

• Grant, R. M. (1996a). Prospering in Dynamically-competitive Environments: Organizational

capability as Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 7, 375-387.

• Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multi-Level Exploration of the

Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm, Academy of Management Review, 16 (1), 10-36.

• Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2002). Contextual determinants of organizational ambidexterity

(pp. 1-38). Southern California: Center for Effective Organizations.

88

• Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of

organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2), 209-226.

• Gupta, A. K., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation.

Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4), 693-706.

• Hill, S. A., & Birkinshaw, J. (2006). Ambidexterity in corporate venturing: simultaneously using

existing and building new capabilities. Atlanta, GA: paper presented at the Academy of

Management Meeting.

• He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration and exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity

hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481-94.

• Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2000). Product sequencing: co-evolution of knowledge,

capabilities, and products. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 961–80.

• Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing

product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,

9-30.

• Hull F., & Hage, J. (1982). Organizing for Innovation: Beyond Burns and Stalker’s Organic type.

Sociology, 16 (4), 564-577.

• Jansen, J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Exploratory innovation,

Exploitative innovation, and Ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organization

antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review. 57, 351-363.

• Jansen, J. P., George, G. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior Team

Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Transformational

Leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (5), 982-1007.

• Jansen, J. P., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and

exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 5–

18.

• Jansen, J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural

Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms. Organization

Science, 1-15.

• Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-

analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.

• Kotter, J. P. (1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New York,

NY: The Free Press.

• Kuipers, H., & Amelsvoort, P. (1990). Slagvaardig organiseren: Inleiding in de sociotechniek als

integrale ontwerpleer. Deventer: Kluwer Managementreeks.

• Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation.

Academy of Management Journal, 49, 797-818.

• Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G., (1993). The Myopia of Learning. Strategic Management Journal,

14, 95-112.

• Lin, Z., Yang, & H., Demirkan, I. (2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity in

strategic alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing.

Management Science, 53, 45–58.

• Lin, E. H., & McDonough, E. F. (2009). Investigating the Role of Leadership and Organizational

Culture in Fostering Innovation Ambidexterity (pp. 1-27). Northeastern University Boston:

International Business & Strategy Group College of Business Administration.

• 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.

89

• O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2007). Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the

Innovator’s Dilemma. Working Paper No. 07-088. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.

• Meyer, C. B., & Stensaker, I. G. (2006). Developing capacity for change. Journal of Change

Management, 6 (2), 217-231.

• Mahmoud-Jouini, S. B., Charue-Duboc, F., & Fourcade, F. (2007). Multilevel integration of

exploration units: Beyond the ambidextrous organization. Technology and Innovation

Management Philadelphia: best Paper Proceeding Academy of Management.

• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization

Science, 2 (1), 71-87.

• Menguc, B., & Seigyoung, A. (2010). Development and return on execution of product

innovation capabilities: The role of organizational structure. Industrial Marketing Management,

39, 820–831.

• Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in Fives - Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ :

Prentice Hall Inc.

• Mom, T. J. M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in

managers’ ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and

personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 1-41.

• Quinn, R. B. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing

demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A Competing Values Approach to Organisational

Effectiveness. Public Productivity and Management Review, 5 (2), 122-141.

• Quinn, R.E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a

Competing Values Approach to Organisational Analysis. Management Sciences, 29 (3), 363-78.

• Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. (1994). Organizational Transformation as Punctuated Equilibrium:

An Empirical Test, Academy of Management Journal, 37 (5), 1141-1166.

• Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Understanding. Journal of

Management Studies, 46 (4), 596-624.

• Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A Typology for Aligning Organizational

Ambidexterity’s Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes. Journal of Management

Studies, 46 (5), 864-894.

• Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: a top management

model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522-36.

• Sorensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 81-112.

• Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

• Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological Discontinuities and Organizational

Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439-465.

• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Evolution and Revolution: Mastering the Dynamics of

Innovation and Change, California Management Review, 38, 8-30.

• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning Through Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2004). The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business

Review, 74-81.

• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2011). Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How Managers

Explore and Exploit. California Management Review, 53 (4), 5-22.

90

• Tushman, M. L., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G., & O’Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational

designs and innovation streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19 (5), 1331–1366.

• Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of

Management Review, 29 (2), 222–240.

• Verschuren, P., & Doorewaard, H. (2007). Het ontwerpen van een onderzoek. Den Haag:

Uitgeverij Lemma.

• Volberda, H. W. (2004). De Flexibele Onderneming, strategieën voor succesvol concurreren.

Deventer: Kluwer.

• Volberda, H.W. (1998). Building the flexible firm: how to remain competitive. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

• Weggeman, M. (1997). Kennismanagement: inrichting en besturing van kennisintensieve

organisaties. Schiedam: Scriptum Management.

• Weggeman, M. (2000). Kennismanagement: de praktijk. Schiedam: Scriptum Management.

• Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12, 730-43.

• Yang, O., & Shao, Y. E., (1996). Shared leadership in self-managed teams: A competing values

approach. Total Quality Management, 7 (5), 521-534.

• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, London, New

Delhi: Sage.

• Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285-305.

91

Appendix 1 – Interviewees

No. Interviewee Position Company

1 Bart Humblet Unit manager DHV

2 Jan van Vliet Department manager DHV

3 Jelle Hannema Unit manager DHV

4 Kees-Jan Bandt Unit manager DHV

5 Koos Gloudemans HR-manager DHV

6 Marianne Vermijs Unit manager DHV

7 Rinus Vader Business development manager DHV

8 Rudolf Mulder Senior manager DHV

9 Johan Moolenaar Department manager DHV

10 Ron van Empel Department manager DHV

11 Alison Moncrieff Venture manager Philips

12 Corina Kuiper Senior manager Philips

13 Steve Seuntjens Venture portfolio manager Philips

14 Warden Hoffman HR-manager Philips

92

Appendix 2 – Interview guide

A: Interview topics.

1. Familiarity with subject/terms.

2. Recognition exploration & exploitation activities.

3. Tension between exploration and exploitation activities.

4. The types of organizational ambidexterity pursued (harmonic, cyclical, partitional and

reciprocal).

5. Types of organizational ambidexterity fixed or different at various moments in time.

6. Kind of leader: relational oriented (transformational), task oriented (transactional) or

both.

7. Leadership style(s) employed in order to manage your unit/departments.

8. Leadership style(s) employed in order to manage (the tension between) exploration

and exploitation activities?

9. Switching between leadership styles (in time).

10. Cause/trigger switching between leadership styles.

B: Specific topics per type of organizational ambidexterity.

1. Harmonic ambidexterity

1.1 Coordination, synchronization and integration of exploitative and explorative activities in a single domain in order to prevent isolation of one of both activities.

2.1 Leadership style(s) employed in order manage exploitation and exploration activities

in one unit (help individuals in balance their time between the two activities).

2. Cyclical ambidexterity

2.1 Number of switches between periods of exploration and exploitation in time.

2.2 Switching (transition) and conflicts, as a result of changing routines, practices and procedures, reward systems and resource allocation.

2.3 Managing the transition, what is necessary in changing circumstances (e.g. via

participation, cohesion and teamwork -> get individuals involved).

2.4 Leadership style(s) employed during transition period(s).

2.5 Leadership style(s) employed after a transition in order to manage a period of

exploitation or a period of exploration (is there a dominant leadership style).

3. Partitional ambidexterity

3.1 Managing separate units or departments for exploitation and exploration activities

(dealing with distinct strategic and operating logics, cultures, and reward systems).

3.2 Leadership style(s) employed in order to coordinate and synchronize both separate

units simultaneous.

3.3 Preventing isolation of one of the both activities via a ‘shared vision’ between the leaders of the two separate units.

4. Reciprocal ambidexterity

4.1 Managing exploration and exploitation activities over time and across separate units.

4.2 Leadership style(s) employed in order to create reciprocal (two-sided) flows (ongoing

information exchange, collaborative problem solving, joint decision making, resource

flows) between the separate units.

93

Appendix 3 – Studied documents

DHV

• AIM business plan 2010-2015.

• ULF business plan 2010-2015.

• RE business plan 2010-2015.

• DHV Corporate Policy Paper 2010-2015.

• DHV Group strategy Paper: Step Change, Vision 2015.

• DHV job profile descriptions senior management.

Philips

• Philips corporate venturing policy paper.

• Philips stage-gate model paper.

• Blekman, T. (2011). Corporate Effectuation: What managers should learn from

entrepreneurs! The Hague: Sdu publishers bv.

• Robertson, P. P. (2005). Always change a winning team: Why reinvention and change

are prerequisites for business success. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Business.

94

Appendix 4 – Similarities and differences analysis

After summarizing the interviews per interview topic, see appendix 2 for the topics, a

‘similarities and differences analysis’ was performed among the various interviews per topic.

This analysis includes coding similar and different opinions on the same subjects and

highlighting unique and specific comments. Below, as an example the similarities and

differences analysis is worked out on the topic: ‘type of organizational ambidexterity’.

More specifically the type harmonic ambidexterity is worked out as a topic, per case.

The interviewees are numbered per case, only the interviewees that made relevant

statements on this topic are described. All the interviewees, in this example of the similarities

and differences analysis, are working at engineering and consultancy company DHV.

Concerning the aspects, each topic is per case provided a letter, which is displayed after the

related sentence(s) between brackets. The letters are allocated according to sequence of

appearance. The similarities and differences are marked with as color, as well as interesting

sentences that are not directly related to the topic:

Blue = similarities

Red = differences

Yellow = interesting sentences

Case: Unit Asset and Information Management (DHV)

1: the tension between exploitation and exploration activities (A) is a tough one, but also a

tension that you need to perform better and better (B). This is also the case in my unit

because both departments and teams within my unit are responsible for running established

business, as well as developing new businesses (C), at the same time and with the same

group of people. Depending on their function and role in the unit, 80% of their time people

are involved in being billable to the client and 20% of their time they are involved in

developing current services or new business development (D). If you ask me, it is necessary to

let people perform both exploration and exploitation activities in order to prevent new

services that doesn’t fit the market (E). Besides, let people only develop new services or being

billable to the client doesn’t improve their job satisfaction.

2: people in my department perform on a daily base both exploitation and exploration

activities (C) and that produces a constant tension. This tension between realizing budgets,

being efficient and developing new services and markets (A) frequently produces

contradictions and inconsistencies (B) between both the employees and the units as such.

Because they are assessed primarily on their billable targets but also their contribution in

developing new services (D). For example, I need people to think along with me about new

opportunities and markets, but I also have to stimulate them to achieve their budgets and

billable hour target. Also, the current crisis has made this tension become more visible. I

mean, the crisis has reinforced the pressure top-down in the organization on results and

efficiency and this is very difficult for the people.

3: you can manage both sales and new business development activities in different way.

However, in a consultancy and service company like DHV it is not possible to completely split

exploitation and exploration activities because it is a people-business (E). With this I mean

that there is a difference between a service and product company. For example, a

company like Philips can split the development of new products by creating separate units

working on specific technologies. Activities will become isolated if we will do the same in the

unit AIM with services that need to be delivered and developed by people. Thus, innovation

will be developed that are not needed by the market (E). As a result we constantly have to

balance the tension between exploration and exploitation activities (A).

Similarities

• Tension between exploration and exploitation activities.

• The same people perform both exploitation and exploration activities at the same time.

• People perform primarily exploitation activities (80%) and the rest of their time exploration

activities (20%).

95

• The same people need to perform both exploitation and exploration activities because of

the type of work (people-business), in order to prevent new services that doesn’t fit the

market.

Differences

• One interviewee argues that the tension between exploration and exploitation activities

leads to better performance and the other interviewee argues that this tension leads to

contradictions and inconsistencies.

Interesting

• Only performing exploitation activities has a negative effect on the job satisfaction of

people.

• Market circumstance influence whether the focus is on exploitation or exploration.

Section described in this research, based on above illustrated analyses:

By having exploitation and exploration activities organized within one unit, it can be argued

that harmonic ambidexterity is pursued. As Jelle indicates: ‘the departments and teams

within the unit are responsible for running established business, as well as developing new

businesses, at the same time and with the same group of people’. Depending on their

function and role in the unit, 80% of their time people are involved in being ‘billable to the

client’ and 20% of their time they are involved in developing current services or new business

development. So the people of the unit AIM have to balance constantly their time between

achieving billable hours and developing new services and markets. In addition, Jelle and Ron

argued that it is necessary to let people perform both exploration and exploitation activities

in order to prevent new services that doesn’t fit the market. Besides, Jelle argues: ‘let people

only develop new services or being billable to the client doesn’t improve their job

satisfaction’. This reasoning is also confirmed by senior manager Rudolf Mulder as he argues:

‘in a consultancy and service company like DHV it is not possible to completely split

exploitation and exploration activities because it is a people-business’. With ‘people-business’

Rudolf is referring to the difference between a service and product company, and thereby it

is more difficult to spilt both activities. Based on the above described interview results it can

be argued that, by organizing exploitation and exploration activities in this way, the unit AIM

is pursuing harmonic ambidexterity. As described in chapter two, harmonic ambidexterity

involves the simultaneous pursuit of both exploitation and exploration activities within one unit

with the same group of people.

Case: Unit Urban development, Legal and Finance (DHV)

3: most people in my unit perform both exploitation and exploration activities (A) because

the work is about knowledge, it is in de minds of people. I think it is not possible to completely

separate exploitation and exploration activities from each other as companies like Unilever or

Philips do (B). Bottom line, the most people in my unit are ‘multi-taskers’, they have to be

billable and are also expected to think along with new things (A). However, I deploy people

based on their qualities, for some this involves achieving high sales, for others this involves

research and developing markets and for some people a mixture of both (D). The

consequence of this is that we, as a service company like DHV, have to deal with a

continuous challenge between making billable hours and developing new services. In order

to manage this challenge you need to have a clear vision. This means that you have to

explain your people that achieving budgets and sales targets are important to survive on the

short term, but that surviving on the long term depends on the degree to which they are able

to develop new services and markets. Nowadays this is sometimes difficult due to the market

crises people tend to focus on achieving budget and sales (C).

4: the tension between exploitation and exploration activities in the same unit with the same

group of people (A) sometimes leads to failure. For example, some people in our unit worked

out a very good concept regarding company grounds rating in terms of sustainability,

accessibility, etc. This tool could be used for investors and local authorities to benchmark

company grounds. However, it never became a new product because it was killed by the

96

internal focus on efficiency and control. This internal focus on efficiency and control also

resulted in a large dismissal procedure last year, more than 50 people were dismissed. So, I

think it would be useful to separate exploitation and exploration activities to a certain degree

(B). Certainly the current market crisis has also a negative effect on balancing these to

opposite forces. The years before the crisis the sky was the limit and the margins were very

good, during the crisis it became worse and the only solution seems to be production,

production and production (C).

5: in my department I have to deal with both exploitation and exploration activities at the

same time. I realize this with the same group of people (A), we don’t have a separate team

that is only thinking about new products or business opportunities. This is not possible because

people in our business need to have a feeling with the market in order to come up with

relevant new businesses, innovation takes place on the job (B). Despite, some people do

prefer routine tasks which are aimed at doing the same thing over and over again. Other

people like to invent new services and find new markets (D). So, yes in practice you see that

people tend to prefer one of the two opposite activities.

Similarities


• Two of the interviewees argue that is not possible to separate exploitation and exploration

activities.

• Market circumstance influence whether the focus is on exploitation or exploration.

• People perform both activities, but tend to prefer one of the two activities more than the

other.

Differences

• Two of the interviewees argue that is not possible to separate exploitation and exploration

activities. One interviewee thinks that it would be useful to separate both activities.

Interesting

• It is not possible to separate exploitation and exploration activities because the work is

about knowledge, it is in de minds of people.

• Pursuing exploitation and exploration activities simultaneously requires a manager to

explain why both activities are important, by having a clear vision.

• Innovations and new products can be killed by having a internal focus on efficiency and

control.


Most people in the unit ULF perform both exploitation and exploration activities because the

work is about knowledge, ‘it is in de minds of people’. Kees-Jan argues that it is not possible to

completely separate exploitation and exploration activities from each other as companies

like Unilever or Philips do. This is confirmed by the other interviewees as the argued that

‘innovation takes place on the job’. In addition, Kees-Jan argues: ‘I deploy people based on

their qualities, for some this involves achieving high sales, for others this involves research and

developing markets and for some people a mixture of both’. Bottom line the most people in

the unit ULF are ‘multi-taskers’, they have to be billable and are also expected to think along

with new things.

However, due to the bad economic circumstances of the last few years the focus was mainly

on exploitation activities. Achieving budgets and sales targets was one of the most important

things, Kees-Jan argues. Bart confirms this by stating: ‘the years before the crisis the sky was

the limit and the margins were very good, during the crisis it became worse and the only

solution seems to be production, production and production’. The result was that the unit ULF

was mainly exploiting and explorations were minimized till almost zero. As an example a failed

innovation project was described by one of the interviewees. Some people worked out a

very good concept regarding company grounds rating in terms of sustainability, accessibility,

etc. This tool could be used for investors and local authorities to benchmark company

grounds. However it never became a new product because it was killed by the internal focus

on efficiency and control’.

97

Case: Unit Real Estate (DHV)

6: we perform routine activities as well as innovative and new business development activities

(A), the difference between the two is a grey area. Both activities require a different strategy.

The routine activities require a red ocean strategy as they are focused on exploiting the

existing demand. On the other hand innovative activities require a blue ocean strategy, as

they are focused on creating new business and demand (D). Both different strategies require

different types of people to perform these opposite activities, as well as different leadership

styles to lead these opposite activities. Both strategies are concurrently performed within our

unit, by the same group of people. So, both exploration and exploitation activities are

crossing each other all the time between the various people in my unit (A). And this is a good

thing because the tension (B) between the both activities keeps us sharp and focused (E).

Moreover, in my opinion people in our business need to do both sales and innovation,

because they need to have a connection with the customer while developing new services

and markets (C). However, due to the difficult market circumstances of the least few years

there is more cooperation needed on exploration and exploitation activities across units. This

can imply that we will separate both activities to a certain degree in the future. Now this is

difficult because the current accountability structure is not yet ready for sharing exploration

and exploitation activities across units, as this structure is aimed on results per unit.

7: the tension between exploration and exploitation (B) becomes apparent in the continuous

pressure between achieving sales targets and developing new services and businesses. This

tension can lead to conflicting issues between people and the goals we want to realize

together (E). Managing a good balance between these conflicting forces can lead to an

increase of our sustainable competitive advantage. This means that if we are better than our

competitors in balancing this tension we will have better results on the short and the long

term. This requires a unambiguous strategy and a clear dot on the horizon (D). Thus,

everybody in my department is performing exploitation and exploration activities (A).

Separating people in either a selling or developing unit is not possible because most people

are requested by customers based on their expertise, good name and relation with the

customer (C). In a production company that is different, it doesn’t matter who is replacing

your tires, but in a knowledge company like DHV is does matter who is performing the

services. However, this is not the case for all DHV units, as some units within DHV have a clear

distinction between product and innovation activities.

Similarities


• Tension between exploration and exploitation activities.

• It is not possible to separate exploitation and exploration activities between people

different people and units.

Differences

• One interviewee argued that exploitation and exploration require two different strategies,

while the other interviewee argues that one strategy and a clear vision is needed.

• One interviewee argues that the tension between exploration and exploitation activities

has a positive effect by keeping them sharp and focused, while the other interviewee

argues that this tension leads to contradictions and inconsistencies.

Interesting

• In the future the want to separate exploitation and exploration activities across unit. This is

at the moment not possible because the accountability structure is not suitable.

• Some units at engineering and consultancy company DHV have a clear distinction

between exploration and exploitation activities. Thus, not only harmonic ambidexterity is

possible within a company like DHV.

98


The interviewees described that both production activities and new business development

activities are concurrently performed within the unit RE, by the same group of people. The

interviewees argued that exploration and exploitation activities cross each other all the time

between the various people in the unit. For example Jan van Vliet (department manager)

argued: ‘everybody has an OG-target (billable hours), however this targets is different per

person’. Jan further explains that a low OG-target indicates that these people have more

time and freedom to focus on non-sales activities, for example new business development.



the two. Everybody is performing exploitation and exploration activities, because separation

of these two activities will lead to innovation that is not fuelled by the market and thus a high

degree of failure. The interviewees further pointed out that, due to the fact that most people

are requested by customers based on their expertise, good name and relation with the

customer, it is not possible to separate people in either a selling or developing unit. On the

question if exploration and exploitation activities are also pursued across the unit Marianne

states: ‘we are planning to do that but these activities are in an early stage, until now these

activities take place on an ad-hoc base’. In addition, the interviewees said that the current

accountability structure is not yet ready for sharing exploration and exploitation activities

across units, as this structure is aimed on results per unit. This leads to a short term focus on

own unit results and is not working supportive in encouraging people to invest resources

across unit borders.

The ambidextrous organization - Leadership and the administration paradox of modern organizations.

Business

Transcript of The ambidextrous organization - Leadership and the administration paradox of modern organizations.