5.1 Major findings
Hypothesis 1 (strategic intent is positively related to managerial ambidexterity) is confirmed by the correlation and regression analysis. Furthermore, it is proved that knowledge inflows do moderate the relationship between strategic intent and ambidexterity. Other effects of the stated hypotheses vary and are not fully proved to be significant. It is hoped that the present study contributes to the current knowledge about managerial ambidexterity and has provided more clarity and urgency for firms to formulate a strong strategic intent and invest in intra-organization communication interfaces to connect managers both horizontally as vertically, to further broaden their knowledge. Although not all questions yielded the expected positive results, the majority of them did, proving the correlation in the bigger picture.
5.2 Theoretical implications
The results following the empirical research on the various hypotheses strongly correlate with what has already been shown in the theoretical review. With regard to hypothesis 1, as Andriopoulos & Lewis (2009) have shown, firms are required to push their boundaries when new opportunities arise in order to increase their chances to become a global leader. This requires a high level of inventiveness and therefore a high level of strategic intent, as firms must consciously think about what their next steps should be in order to come out on top. For that to be possible, a high level of managerial ambidexterity is required in order to deal with organizational changes and seizing opportunities. The results of this study further confirm the relation between strategic intent and managerial ambidexterity, as the scores to this regard has been positively significant as well.
Secondly, with regard to both hypotheses 2a and 2b, the empirical results fail to outline a relation to strategic intent and managerial ambidexterity when decision-making authority is high, as the results fail
to prove any significant outcome. The same relation has been hypothesized when the levels of formalization are low, although the results fail to outline any relation either. Supporting this research, the theoretical analysis also fails to indicate a clear relation. While high levels of formalization strongly decrease a manager’s ability to defer from the existing rules and regulations, the research has shown both positive and negative effects. When formalization levels are high, managers don’t get much opportunities to follow their own paths and structure, strongly limiting strategic possibilities to seize opportunities and quickly deal with organizational changes. However, the codification of job descriptions does provide a better start and a more well-defined way of working. When decision-making authority is high however, managers feel the responsibility to perform well and discover the boundaries in which their firm operates in order to become a global leader, leading them to take chances and improve their firms’ position. That being said, the empirical results failed to provide any results to support this theory.
With regard to cross-functional interfaces and their effect on the relation between strategic intent and managerial ambidexterity following hypotheses 3a and 3b, previous studies show that trust between managers, as well as their lateral communications, improve managerial ambidexterity (Jansen et al.
2005). Reasons for this are, for example, that managers are challenged to renew and review their own knowledge by participating in such cross-functional interfaces, as they are continuously challenged to improve their knowledge and skills through sharing it with managers with a different expertise.
Furthermore, it goes beyond the boundaries of functional lines, thereby directly increasing the levels of collaboration between different units, subunits and managers. The little amount of research done on this topic however therefore struggles to empirically prove how this moderates the levels of strategic intent, a point that this study also confirms. This proves that a gap in research with regard to these hypotheses arises and therefore should be explored further in future research. Especially given the correlation between knowledge sharing in a more formal way, which is explored in the next hypotheses, to the more informal way of knowledge sharing made possible by cross-functional interfaces, the results should have been more decidedly clear.
Lastly, with regard to hypotheses 4a, b and c, the literature states that all forms of knowledge inflows, whether they are top-down, horizontal or bottom-up, increase the relationship between strategic intent and managerial ambidexterity. As managers become more acquainted with a firms capabilities and resources, decisions can be made more decisively related to acquisition and assimilation of information.
Furthermore, given the broader amount of knowledge present in the organization (Mom et al., 2007) the strategic intent of the firm will be propagated throughout the firm, at different (managerial) levels. For a manager to be able to lead with strategic intent, different directions in knowledge flows can result in weighed strategic decisions. The research done by this study supports that, as all empirical results related to knowledge inflows have been decidedly positive.
As has been illustrated by all of the above, the empirical research of the study closely follows the theoretical analysis. The theoretical implications in this study therefore are twofold, as they on one hand confirm the already existing research, but also show gaps in this same research, as will be illustrated in the next paragraph.
5.3 Contributions to the field
From a managerial perspective, this study provides important implications. Next to daily managerial issues, firms should also be explicitly aware of the elements of their adopted strategy. If it implies a strong strategic intent, it may be reflected by an increase in managerial ambidexterity. Simply put, the more aggressive a firm’s strategy is, the more visible its positive results may be. Moreover, these results indicate that a strong level of strategic intent is moderated by the level of managers’ acquiring top-down, horizontal and bottom-up knowledge inflows. The firm can opt to do further research into the effectiveness of current and future channels in which knowledge inflows take place.
5.4 Future Research Suggestions
There is room for further research in the field of knowledge exchange and managerial ambidexterity.
such as transmission channels, motivational disposition and absorptive capacity between organizational knowledge and managerial ambidexterity. As mentioned in the introduction, there is still little research available on the subject. As managerial styles are rapidly changing, research tends to be soon outdated, pointing to the need for a continuous interest in the subject. Still, the topic of knowledge exchange has gained a lot of ground in the past few years, reflecting views vastly different from those as recent as the early 2010’s.
5.5 Conclusions
Managerial ambidexterity and strategic intent are irrevocably linked, as both the research and the theoretical background decidedly prove. For a manager to succeed in their given field, they need to be able to handle any and all given situations strategically and maneuver themselves in the modern corporate world. Through knowledge sharing and knowledge inflows, they are able to increase this ambidexterity and ascend their firm into the global playing field. As they broaden their knowledge, any manager can become a more capable manager. However, a serious lack in research with regard to this field persists, making it more difficult for innovative managers to grow or enter into new ways of working backed by theoretical views.