Driving individual
ambidexterity through
combined integration
mechanisms
MSc. Business Administration – Strategy Track
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam
Student:
Sven van Dijk 10447709
svenvandijk87@gmail.com
Supervisor:
Dr. Dipl.-Wirt.-Ing. S. Kortmann
Assistent Professor Strategy and Innovation s.kortmann@uva.nl
Final Version Thesis 21 August 2015
1
Abstract
Prior research has emphasized the multi-level nature of ambidexterity, yet how organizational levels interact with one another to facilitate this, remains ambiguous. Moreover, literature on ambidexterity has long neglected the impact of lower-order ambidexterity. By combining these elements, the present study elucidates the impact of organizational context on individual ambidexterity. Through a hybrid perspective, containing both formal and informal integration mechanisms, new perspectives on how to facilitate ambidextrous behavior are suggested. This survey study used a sample of 110 cross-industry professionals in Europe to test the suggested hypotheses. Results from hierarchical regression analyses reveal that a combination of formal and informal integration mechanisms can foster individual ambidexterity. In particular, social integration fosters individual ambidexterity, whereas structural differentiation constrains individuals to operate ambidextrous. Furthermore, findings suggest that a combined approach to integrate both formal and informal mechanisms simultaneously can yield improved ambidexterity. However, it should be carefully considered what mechanisms are combined as different combinations produce diverging results.
2
Statement of originality
This document is written by Sven van Dijk, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ____________________________________________________________________ 5 2. Literature Review and Hypotheses _________________________________________________ 8 2.1 The Roots of Ambidexterity ___________________________________________________ 8 2.2 Why Becoming Ambidextrous? _______________________________________________ 10 2.3 Types of Ambidexterity _____________________________________________________ 12 2.4 Organizational Levels of Ambidexterity ________________________________________ 14 2.5 Individual Ambidexterity ____________________________________________________ 15 2.6 Integration Mechanisms _____________________________________________________ 16 2.7 Social integration __________________________________________________________ 17 2.8 Cross functional interfaces ___________________________________________________ 19 2.9 Structural differentiation ____________________________________________________ 21 2.10 Conceptual model __________________________________________________________ 24 3 Methodology __________________________________________________________________ 25 3.1 Survey Design _____________________________________________________________ 25 3.2 Common Method Bias ______________________________________________________ 26 3.3 Sampling Frame and Data Collection __________________________________________ 26 3.4 Non-Response Bias _________________________________________________________ 27 3.5 Measurements and Validation of Constructs ____________________________________ 28
3.5.1 Independent and Dependent Variables _______________________________________ 28
3.5.2 Control Variables _______________________________________________________ 31 3.5.3 Reliability Tests _________________________________________________________ 32 4 Results _______________________________________________________________________ 33 4.1 General Data _________________________________________________________________ 33 4.1.1 Sample Statistics ________________________________________________________ 33 4.1.2 Descriptive Statistics _____________________________________________________ 34 4.2 Data Analysis ______________________________________________________________ 35 4.2.1 Correlations ___________________________________________________________ 35
4.2.2 Multiple Regression Analyses ______________________________________________ 37
4.2.3 Post Hoc Analysis _______________________________________________________ 44 5 Discussion_____________________________________________________________________ 46 6 Theoretical and Practical Implications _____________________________________________ 53
4 6.1 Theoretical Implications _____________________________________________________ 53 6.2 Practical Implications _______________________________________________________ 54 7 Limitations and Future Research Opportunities _____________________________________ 55 8 Conclusion ____________________________________________________________________ 57 9 References ____________________________________________________________________ 58 Appendices ________________________________________________________________________ 65 Appendix A: Descriptive Statistics __________________________________________________ 65 Appendix B: SPSS Output Hierarchical Regression Analyses ____________________________ 67
5
1. Introduction
“You can’t grow long-term if you can’t eat short-term. Anybody can manage short. Anybody can manage long. Balancing those two things is what management is.” - Jack Welch, former CEO General Electric.
In today’s dynamic and globally competitive landscape a firm’s ability to adapt to the unforeseen has become increasingly important. The interconnectedness of people, firms, and countries worldwide demands an increased capability to instantly adapt and alter one’s strategy and quickly move toward new opportunities when necessary (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004).
And while adaptability is an important capability, it is not enough. Today’s successful companies
are not only agile, innovative, and proactive; they are also skilled in extracting value from their
assets and optimizing existing operations. In other words, they are able to align their business
model, sense how value can be created in the short term and how activities should be organized
to deliver that value (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). Recent organizational learning literatures
(Adler et al., 2009; He and Wong, 2004; Jansen, Tempelaar, Van Den Bosch, and Alberda, 2009)
have labeled this adaptability-alignment paradox as organizational ambidexterity; the need to
simultaneously engage in activities to acquire new knowledge, technologies, markets, or
relations (exploration), and activities to further refine existing technologies, competences and
activities (exploitation). Earlier studies often regarded the trade-offs between these activities as
insoluble due to their presumed competition for similar and scarce resources (Raisch and
Birkinshaw, 2008), but more recent research describes ambidextrous organizations that are
capable of simultaneously integrating exploration and exploitation activities (Raisch,
6
efficient and aligned in facing today’s challenges, while also being able to adapt to future changes in the environment (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen, 2005).
Although mostly consensus exists about the potential positive impact of ambidexterity on
performance (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Auh and Menac, 2005; Chang and Hughes, 2012),
as well as the need to balance both explorative and exploitative activities (Gupta, Smith, and
Shalley, 2006), it remains ambiguous how organizational antecedents can stimulate
ambidexterity competency. Moreover, the multilevel nature of research on ambidexterity yields
great variety in the interpretation of its antecedents and outcomes (Li, Vanhaverbeke, and
Schonemakers, 2008). Organizations and business units have been widely accepted and adopted
as units of analysis (He and Wong, 2004; Cho and Pucik, 2005). However, an issue arising from
these studies is the implicitly assumed homogeneity at the individual level, thus neglecting how
individual organizational members can influence the firm’s ability to pursue a balance between
exploration and exploitation (Bonesso, Gerli, and Scapolan, 2014).
Recent literature (Raisch et al., 2009) emphasizes the importance of understanding these
micro-foundations of ambidexterity, and recent streams of research have begun exploring the
individual-level antecedents that are potentially anterior to achieving ambidexterity at the
organizational level (Eisenhardt, Furr, and Bingham, 2010). Similar to these studies, a call for
combined levels of analysis has emerged (Simsek, 2009; Rogan and Mors, 2014), where
organizational-level integration mechanisms (e.g. the degree of formalization) are combined with
activities at the micro-level. Ergo, ambidexterity at the individual level may be a crucial element
to develop ambidexterity within higher levels of the organization (Raisch et al., 2009). Yet,
despite multiple calls (Mom, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda, 2009; Simsek, 2009) to further
7
mechanisms, studies addressing these linkages have been scarce. This study aims to address this
call and delve into this gap by linking organizational-level integration mechanisms to
ambidexterity at the individual level. Consequently, the research question of this study is: “How
does the interaction of integration mechanisms influence individual ambidexterity?” By further
investigating the interplay between these mechanisms and ambidexterity at the individual level,
this study attempts to contribute to the existing literature in several ways. First, this study
expands the body of literature on ambidexterity at the individual level. Research to date mostly
exists in a format where integration mechanisms are still linked to ambidexterity as an
organization- or unit-level construct. Second, the multi-level approach of this study increases our
understanding of how combinations of integration mechanisms can influence and stimulate
individual ambidexterity. Third, implications from this research can be drawn for managers and
researchers alike.
Research Structure
The remainder of this study continues with chapter two in which a theoretical background is
analyzed and hypotheses are developed. Chapter three presents the details of the methodology,
the operationalization of the variables, and the empirical instruments used for testing the
hypotheses. Chapter four consists of the results of the quantitative data analyses. In turn, chapter
five includes a discussion of the findings. Chapter six stresses both the practical and academic
implications of this research. Then, chapter seven contains the limitations of this study, as well
8
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
This chapter takes a closer look at the roots of ambidexterity in organizational literature, the
complications in becoming ambidextrous, the different types of ambidexterity, and ultimately the
different organizational levels of ambidexterity. Subsequently, different integration mechanisms
are explicated and hypotheses will be formulated.
2.1 The Roots of Ambidexterity
In recent years, the concept of ambidexterity has gained increased attention in organizational
research. Originally used to explain the ability of humans to use both hands with equal skill,
researchers are using it as a metaphor for organizations that are equally dexterous at activities
related to exploiting, as well as those related to exploring (Simsek, 2009). The origins of the word “ambidexterity” reside in the Latin words ambos, “both”, and dexter, “right” (meant here as opposed to left). Hence, ambidexterity literally means “right on both sides” (Simsek, 2009).
Although Duncan (1976) was the first to coin the term organizational ambidexterity, it was
not until a study by March (1991) that the subject became more extensively studied. March
(1991) regarded exploitation and exploration as two incompatible and distinct learning and
knowledge processes, competing for the scarce resources and attention of a firm. Exploitation in this sense is associated with activities such as “refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution” (March, 1991, p. 71), whereas exploration is associated with activities such as “search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility,
discovery, innovation” (March, 1991, p.71). Also, exploring is more time consuming, entails
9
competencies (March, 1991). Ambidextrous firms are skilled to combine these distinct modes
and maintain an equilibrium between both activities.
The concepts of exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity have been increasingly
examined across multiple areas of organizational research. However, although this expansion of
the literature has greatly contributed to our understanding of organizational learning,
technological innovation, and strategic renewal, it has also led to an increasingly inconsistent use
of interchangeable definitions, constructs, and findings (Li et al., 2008). This makes it difficult to
compare research findings and can cause ambiguity in the interpretation of them. To clarify our
understanding of the multitude of terminologies used in defining activities, structures, or
processes related to exploration and exploitation, table 1 provides a structured overview of some
of the more frequently used jargons across different fields of research.
Table 1: Interpretations of Exploration and Exploitation
Research Field Exploration Exploitation Key Authors
Innovation Management Radical innovations designed to create new markets to meet the needs of emerging customers
Incremental improvements of established products, designs, and skills intended to serve the needs of existing customers and markets
Benner and Tushman (2003) He and Wong (2004) Jansen, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda (2006)
Organizational Behavior Adaptability: the capacity to reconfigure activities quickly to meet changing demands in the task environment
Alignment: the coherence among all the patterns of activities within a business unit
Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) Simsek (2009)
Organizational Design Organic structures with high levels of autonomy, improvisation, path-breaking and flexibility
Mechanistic structures relying on tightly coupled systems, bureaucracy, centralization, standardization, and hierarchy
Carmeli and Halevi (2009) O’Reilly and Tushman (2007) Duncan (1976)
Organizational Change Periods of major discontinuous changes occur, during which organizations need to adapt and reorient
Periods of convergence, organizations aim at
establishing alignment between internal activities and
conditions of the external environment
Tushman and Romanelli (1985)
Levinthal and March, (1993)
Strategic Management Dynamic efficiency:
perpetually reassessing initial conditions in search of new processes, capabilities, and products
Static efficiency: continuously search for improvements of existing competencies within a fixed set of initial conditions
Ghemawat and Ricart I. Costa (1993)
Burgelman (1991) Hamel and Prahalad (1993)
10
As table 1 demonstrates, exploration and exploitation are mostly treated as opposites from
one another. In order to speak of organizational ambidexterity, a form of balance between
exploitation and exploration is required. An excessive focus on either of the two can inhibit
potential dangers. For example, Smith and Tushman (2005) demonstrate that firms have a
tendency toward homogeneity, where they develop routines and mindsets supporting one specific
preferred mode of innovation while neglecting the other. This self-reinforcing nature of
organizational learning makes it attractive for a firm to maintain the status quo and stick to its
current capabilities, even if the environment has changed (He and Wong, 2004). However, this
overly focus on exploitation can lead to competency traps (Gupta et al., 2006) as current
capabilities may be leveraged and enable immediate profits, but also foster stagnation. This
limits firms in their ability to adapt to potential market and technological changes
(Atuahene-Gima, 2005). Likewise, an overly focus on exploration can lead to failure traps (Gupta et al.,
2006). By seeking exploration firms take escalating risks oriented towards the future while
ignoring core competencies (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009) and allocating insufficient
resources to exploit them (He and Wong, 2004) This harms and reduces the speed at which
existing competencies are improved and refined (He and Wong, 2004; March 1991). Thus,
achieving ambidexterity confronts firms with paradoxical trade-offs (Jansen, 2009).
2.2 Why Becoming Ambidextrous?
The difficulty of balancing exploration and exploitation resides in the fact that exploration and
exploitation are mostly regarded as fundamentally different concepts competing for firms’ scarce
resources (He and Wong, 2004). Without proper management of the trade-offs between the two,
11
such, some researchers are pessimistic that firms are actually able to successfully explore and
exploit simultaneously. For example, Christensen (1997) argues that firms must spin-out the
exploratory business to succeed. Also, the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation can result in firms being “stuck in the middle” or mediocre at both competencies (Ghemawat and Costa, 1993). Ebben and Johnson (2005) found that firms pursuing a single, focused strategy
outperform those attempting to pursue both exploration and exploitation. This raises the question
why firms actually aim to achieve a balance between the two dexterities, given the difficulty of
achieving it.
Definitive all compassing answers to this question are still missing, but empirical research
has found support for the potential positive effect of balancing exploration and exploitation, both on innovation output and on firm performance (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996; Govindarajan and Trimble, 2005; Markides and Charitou, 2004; Bonesso et al., 2014). Exemplary are the studies
by He and Wong (2004) and Venkatraman et al. (2006) wherein they found that firms pursuing
both exploration and exploitation simultaneously achieve higher performances in sales.
Likewise, Katila and Ahuja (2002) discovered that the interaction between exploration and
exploitation activities can positively impact product development. Other studies have suggested
that ambidextrous organizations are associated with longer survival (Cottrell and Nault, 2004),
and improved learning and innovation (Adler, Goldoftas, and Levine, 1999; Rothaermel and
Deeds, 2004). Accordingly, although difficulties exist in balancing exploration and exploitation,
when executed in the appropriate contexts it offers the potential of sustained competitive
advantage (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2007). Indeed, a near consensus exists nowadays on the
necessity for balancing the seemingly contradictory constructs, rather than a more traditional “either/or” approach (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Raisch et al. 2009).
12
While prior research elucidates the potentially positive impact of ambidexterity and the
challenges to balance seemingly paradoxical consequences that come with it, ambiguity exists on
how and when it can be achieved.
2.3 Types of Ambidexterity
Explanations on how organizations manage the exploration-exploitation paradox can be broadly
categorized into two streams: ambidexterity and punctuated equilibrium (Gupta et al., 2006).
Punctuated equilibrium argues that organizations deal with these tensions through temporal
separation between both activities (Adler et al. 2009). Here, phases of exploration are followed
by phased of exploitation and vice versa. Nevertheless, as Simsek (2009) posits, these
organizations cannot be labeled ambidextrous since acts of exploration and exploitation are
implemented sequentially. In contrast, organizational ambidexterity is defined as the ability to
simultaneously pursue both incremental and discontinuous innovation and change via
exploration and exploitation (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996).
In order to attain ambidexterity two conceptualizations stand out. Initially, studies on
ambidexterity advocated a structural approach to become ambidextrous, through spatial
separation of subunits focused on exploration and exploitation (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996).
As such, each unit can contain its own capabilities, systems, incentives, processes, and cultures
(Benner and Tushman, 2003). Multiple literatures (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2004; Lubatkin et al.,
2006; Carmeli and Halevi, 2009) emphasize the importance of the top management team in coordinating and integrating these “monodextrous” units. Organizations can foster structural ambidexterity via multiple approaches. First, firms can spatially separate units, wherein each unit
13
be held together by a common strategy, overarching values, and effective linking mechanisms to
ensure the autonomous efforts translate into synergistic results (Simsek, 2009). Second,
structural ambidexterity can be accomplished by means of parallel structures. Here, primary
structures are used to carry out routine work and secondary structures – e.g. projects or
networks- exist for non-routine work (Renzl, Rost, and Kaschube, 2013). Parallel structures
differ from spatial separation in the sense that with the former, ambidexterity can be achieved
within a single business-unit, whereas the latter excludes this opportunity. A second path to
achieve ambidexterity, contextual ambidexterity, refers to the behavioral capacity to
simultaneously demonstrate alignment and adaptability across business units (Gibson and
Birkinshaw, 2004). In this approach, firms rely more heavily on the cognitive capabilities of
individual employees to allocate their time between activities of exploration and exploitation
(Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). For organizations to effectively integrate this form of
ambidexterity, they should balance the mutually reinforcing informal and formal elements of
social support, trust, discipline, and performance management. Managers fulfill a key role in this
form, as they are expected to stimulate this enabling context and encourage staff members to act
ambidextrous (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004).
In addition to structural and contextual ambidexterity, sub-streams of ambidexterity have
emerged. Dubbed the realized view by Simsek (2009), innovative ambidexterity has an implicit
focus on the actual exploration and exploitation performance of organizations. It is regarded
more of an outcome of ambidexterity, since it describes a state in which organizations already
achieved high levels of exploration and exploitation (Simsek, 2009). It captures the simultaneous
pursuit of discontinuous innovations aiming to enter new product-market domains, and
14
that innovative ambidexterity can be realized at multiple levels in the organization, where
different units or individuals focus on either type of activity (Mom et al., 2009). Since individual
employees are the main focus of the present study, the more behavioral-oriented concept of
contextual ambidexterity will mostly be referred to.
2.4 Organizational Levels of Ambidexterity
Distinctly from the multitude of routes to become ambidextrous, the organizational level at
which ambidexterity is pursued or achieved can vary as well. Studies at different levels of
analysis focus on different social actors. Here, the variety stems from who explores or exploits,
and not so much how (Li et al., 2008). Primarily, literatures on ambidexterity have adopted a
macro-level of analysis (Benner and Tushman, 2002; He and Wong, 2004; Gupta et al., 2006) by
identifying higher order structural solutions to balance paradoxical learning, behaviors, and
actions (Nosella, Cantarello, and Filippini, 2012). From this perspective, the rigidities caused by
the ambidexterity-paradox are resolved at the next organizational level down (Raisch and
Birkinshaw, 2008). These literatures mostly adopt the concept of ambidexterity at the level of the
firm or unit (Bonesso, et al., 2014), where structural ambidexterity differentiates units or teams
based on the nature of their activities. Subsequently, dependent upon the nature of their team,
individuals are considered specialists focused on either exploration or exploitation (Raisch et al.,
2009). As such, by conceptualizing individual actors as specialized indivisible units,
ambidexterity at the individual level has rarely been entertained an option as the de facto driving
force behind ambidextrous organizations (Rogan and Mors, 2014). It also prohibits further
15
physically and synchronously present at multiple locations. Indeed, Gupta et al. (2006) argue that
ambidexterity at the individual level may not be possible.
Nevertheless, others -from a more contextual and behavioral perspective- regard this view as
unjustifiably limiting. Good and Michel (2013) posit that it neglects the fact that regardless of
function, individual employees operate within increasingly dynamic contexts that necessitate
ambidextrous behaviors. Some studies actually indicate that ambidexterity is rooted in an
individual’s ability to explore and exploit, and not so much in the organization’s ability to do so
(Raisch et al., 2009). Probst and Raisch (2005) state that ambidextrous managers are adept to
focus on both the short-term and the long-term. Similarly, Rogan and Mors (2014) consider the
fact that one of the primary tasks of a manager is the allocation of resources between new and
existing businesses of a firm (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996), as well as the selective cross-fertilization of knowledge between them (O’Reilly and Tushman 2004; Taylor and Helfat, 2009). Since both tasks contain activities related to exploration and exploitation, managers are by
definition required to have the ability to combine them (Rogan and Mors, 2014). Also, O’Reilly
and Tushman (2004) point out that variation of personal characteristics may explain why specific
persons are effective to ambidextrously complete specific tasks. Although these studies observe
that some managers demonstrate the skill to operate ambidextrous, they fail to explain why these
particular managers are able to do so (Raisch et al., 2009).
2.5 Individual Ambidexterity
One of the main challenges in becoming ambidextrous is the ability to balance the contradicting
nature of exploration and exploitation activities (Smith and Tushman, 2005). This challenge can
16
factors. Individual factors can be attributed to both personal characteristics and previously
assimilated experiences. Cohen and Levinthal (1990) reason that individuals need prior
knowledge in order to obtain new knowledge. Ergo, individuals with extensive and broad
knowledge may be better equipped to operate ambidextrous. Another individual factor is
suggested by Smith and Tushman (2005), who emphasize the importance of the ability to engage
in paradoxical thinking. This opinion is shared by Good and Michel (2013), who connect
paradoxical thinking as an antecedent to individual ambidexterity. Individual ambidexterity
represents an integrative ability to flexibly explore and exploit (Good and Michel, 2013), and
consists of four cognitive pillars; paradoxical thinking, general intelligence, focused attention,
and cognitive flexibility. However, personal characteristics and individual factors are only part of
the puzzle. In order to facilitate individual ambidexterity, organizations also have to create the
right context, which is the focal point of this study. One generally acknowledged method to
create this is via integration mechanisms.
2.6 Integration Mechanisms
Whereas some studies argue in favor of formal integration mechanisms to facilitate knowledge
exchange and to combine differentiated units and individuals (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998), others
illustrate the importance of more informal relationships and mechanisms among organization
members (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). For example, Jansen et al. (2008) mention senior-team
contingency rewards as important mechanisms, whereas Ghoshal and Bartlett (1997) describe
team-building practices to support individuals to think and act ambidextrously. All these studies
provide a strong indication that organizational integration mechanisms have to be considered
17
2009). Yet, how the two different types of integration mechanisms interact to facilitate
ambidextrous behaviors remains mostly ambiguous (Jansen et al., 2006). Jansen et al. (2009)
suggest several mechanisms and interactions to enhance ambidexterity, but merely measure
ambidexterity at the level of units and teams. As a consequence, they implicitly neglect the
opportunity that unit level or team level ambidexterity is driven by lower-level non-managerial
individuals. Similarly, Mom et al. (2009) focused on contextual factors shaping the ambidextrous
behavior of managers. Ergo, the role of and the effect on the non-managerial employee are
largely neglected, and yet these may have a cumulative effect on the organization’s
ambidexterity (Raisch et al., 2009). In addition, Good and Michel (2013) note that individuals –
not only managers- can play a significant role in better understanding how to proceed on
strategic initiatives in dynamic environments.
In sum, it is yet to be explored what integration mechanisms may contribute to individual
ambidexterity, and how these mechanisms interact with one another (Good and Michel, 2013).
The next paragraphs shed some light on both formal and informal organizational integration
mechanisms potentially encouraging individual ambidexterity.
2.7 Social integration
Social integration can be defined as the “attraction to the group, satisfaction with other members
of the group, and social interaction among the group members” (O’Reilly, Caldwell, and
Barnett, 1989, p.22). Cross, Rice and Parker (2001) found evidence that people typically obtain and build knowledge through social contact. These interactions enhance one’s understanding of a domain, resulting in improved knowledge of facts, conditions, and disputes surrounding a given
18
technical expertise and experience required to create feasible solutions to regular problems (Jen,
2014). Similarly, Perry-Smith (2006) demonstrated that social integration can also be positively
connected to creativity-relevant cognitive processes; an individual’s problem-solving approach
to enable imagination of alternative solutions to a problem (Jen, 2014).
In this sense, it can influence an individual’s competence to carry out exploration, as well as
exploitation activities. This is confirmed by Jansen et al. (2009), arguing that individuals from
socially integrated teams are expected to leverage operational capabilities across differentiated
exploratory and exploitative units, as well as working harder to recognize and seize
opportunities. Nevertheless, Jansen et al. (2009) claim that this only works at higher hierarchical
levels in organizations where frequent adjustments are required and interdependencies are
omnipresent. In line with earlier research (Floyd and Lane, 2000) they hypothesize that more
formal integration devices are required at lower hierarchical levels. Yet, these assumptions
should be treated with caution; Jansen et al. (2009) measured ambidexterity at the higher order
levels of the team and unit, not at the individual level. Moreover, Barkema and Shvyrkov (2007)
demonstrated that socially integrated individuals are associated with an improved ability to
negotiate, compromise, and collaborate. Furthermore, a study by De Cremer et al. (2008)
revealed that social integration increases the collaborative problem solving skills, while
Eisenhardt et al. (1997) add that it enables individuals to build accurate understandings of key
preferences and conflicting roles within teams. Jen (2014) further elaborates on this, arguing that
social integration is regarded as a valuable resource for individuals to foster problem solving
(especially in knowledge-intensive industries) and idea generation. Similarly, increased levels of
social integration improve trust and cooperation and lessen the likelihood of goal conflicts within
19
Put differently, increased social integration of an individual to other organization or team
members enhances this individual’s ability to understand and act upon the diverse needs and
opportunities identified within an organization (Mom et al., 2009). Thus, it fosters critical debate
that allows individuals to evaluate and redesign potential combinations of knowledge sources at
differentiated tasks. In this process of knowledge transformation it is essential that individuals
are able to explicate their tacit knowledge (Hafkesbrink and Scholl, 2014). This often involves
face-to-face communication as well as a preparedness to transfer knowledge, both enhanced
when social integration is present (Nonaka and Takeushi, 1995). It positively influences how
individuals can behave ambidextrous as social integration triggers alternative ways to integrate
conflicting goals and to create portfolios of knowledge resources underlying new activities.
Thus:
H1: Social integration is positively related to individual ambidexterity
2.8 Cross-functional interfaces
In order to enable knowledge exchange across exploratory and exploitative units and individuals,
organizations may use cross-functional interfaces (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000). By
combining and integrating differentiated skills and experiences, ambidextrous organizations are
able to synchronize, maintain and further develop both exploratory and exploitative innovations
simultaneously (Benner and Tushman, 2003). Moreover, it provides opportunities to leverage
common resources and obtain synergies (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2007). These interfaces are
constructed from teams or task forces comprising of employees from differing units, functions,
and hierarchical levels. Via involvement in cross-functional interfaces, individuals renew their
20
(Ghoshal and Bartlett 1988). Besides bringing in their own expertise and the interest of their
team, individuals participating in cross-functional teams have to think and act outside the
boundaries of their own job and position (Mom et al., 2009), and understand the interests,
perspectives, beliefs, and values of other individuals (Floyd and Lane, 2000). Hence, previously
existing boundaries between fundamentally different units, individuals or learning modes are
eliminated. Research by Mom et al. (2009) already demonstrated the existence of a positive
direct relationship between participation in cross-functional interfaces and individual
ambidexterity. Nevertheless, in line with Jansen et al. (2009), this study argues that the impact of
cross-functional interfaces is more extensive, as it allows individuals from distinct organizational
units to reach a common frame of reference to overcome differences, interpret issues, and build
an understanding about paradoxical cognitive frames. Moreover, they pull managers out of their
isolation and increase their motivation to combine efforts with others (Mom et al., 2009).
Likewise, Sheremata (2000) found cross-functional interfaces to positively influence the
willingness to solve problems jointly, whereas Bahrami and Evans (1987) argue that they foster
the generation of mutual commitment to make and realize decisions.
Essentially, it stimulates confidence and trust between individuals (Adler et al., 1999), which
by themselves are critical components of social integration. This mechanism is flexible in nature,
as the teams can be easily abolished after their specific task or objectives have been completed.
Cross-functional interfaces provide platforms that keep multiple individuals and their abilities
connected through reconciliation of opposing perspectives (Miller, 1987). Similarly, Martinez
and Jarillo (1989) revealed these mechanisms to enable the establishing of social interactions and
building relationships across internal vertical, horizontal, and lateral organizational boundaries.
21 H2: Cross-functional interfaces positively moderate the relationship between social integration and individual ambidexterity
2.9 Structural differentiation
By spatially separating individuals focused on flexible exploration from individuals focused on
efficient exploitation, leaders can address the conflicting demands of efficiency and flexibility
(Eisenhardt et al., 2010). It allows the coexistence of inconsistent and paradoxical efforts at
different locations where activities can be constructed entirely around either emergent or
mainstream business opportunities (Gilbert, 2005). Consequently, individuals remain relatively
isolated from activities, cultures, and cognitive frames outside their own business unit or team
(Gilbert, 2006). While this offers potential for individuals to specialize in specific skills and
capabilities, it also narrows their potential to obtain new knowledge outside their own area of
expertise. With greater subdivision of task and domains across units or individuals, it is likely
that their respective self-interests lead them to not share information that could benefit others
(Jansen, Simsek, and Cao, 2012).
In fact, Good and Michel (2013) argue that structural differentiation weakens individual
differences and avoids the reality, that is that regardless of job function, individuals work within
increasingly dynamic environments that require ambidextrous behaviors. This is in line with
findings of Eisenhardt et al. (2010) that in order to balance exploitation and exploration one
needs to unbalance its structure in favor of flexibility. Put differently, as organizations grow they
tend to drift toward more structural differentiation and efficiency, thus creating rigid working
22
experiences (Sorensen and Stuart, 2000). This may increase individual conflicts, due to increased
competition for attention and resources, and further contribute to the isolation of one another
(Jansen et al., 2012). In sum, while structural differentiation allows for a particular focus on
either exploration or exploitation activities, it hinders the opportunity for individuals to engage in
both. Accordingly:
H3: Structural differentiation is negatively related to individual ambidexterity
Besides the aforementioned direct effect of structural differentiation, studies on
organizational ambidexterity (e.g. Floyd and Lane, 2000) suggest that an indirect influence, too,
is present via formal and informal integration mechanisms. However, most of these studies
reason from the perspective of ambidexterity measured at the unit level, as well as putting
forward either formal (Benner and Tushman, 2003) or informal mechanisms (Birkinshaw and
Gibson, 2004).
More recently, a dialogue emerged at which hierarchical level a combination of
integration mechanisms should be implemented. For example, Gilbert (2006) proposed to
incorporate integration mechanisms at lower levels of an organization or unit. Opposed to this
view, Jansen et al. (2009) consider informal social mechanisms to be potentially harmful within
lower levels of an organization. In line with prior studies (Egelhoff, 1991; Floyd and Lane,
2000), they posit that formal integration mechanisms are required to manage contradictory
processes and deepen knowledge flows at lower hierarchical levels. Conversely, due to the
frequency of adjustments required, informal integration mechanisms are encouraged at the
23
different personal integration mechanisms actually have a larger positive effect in comparison to
formal mechanisms. Similarly, Faraj and Xiao (2006) point to the importance of informal and
personal types of integration for shaping knowledge and learning-related processes of
individuals. Interestingly, Mom et al. (2009) demonstrated that a simultaneous implementation of
formal and informal integration mechanisms can lead to positive interaction effects. In their
study, the effect of a combination of encouraged decision-making authority and formalization
was more powerful than the sum of their independent effects. Equally, Raisch et al. (2009) argue
that a combination of integration mechanisms is likely to result in more than the mere sum of the
individual mechanisms. These results appear to support hybrid mechanisms that combine the
formal structural mechanisms with informal components, such as strong internal networks (Mom
et al., 2009). Thus, the complementing effect of formal structural components and informal
personal mechanisms can reinforce one another, as well as their subsequent influence on
individual ambidexterity. Accordingly:
H4: Structural differentiation positively moderates the relationship between social integration and individual ambidexterity
Cross functional interfaces can foster social integration by pulling individuals out of their
isolation (Mom et al., 2009), and creating a context for managers with different backgrounds to
learn from each other (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). In contrast, structural differentiation
stimulates individuals to increasingly develop expertise within the specialized area of their
24
Applying the same logic from the preceding hypothesis, a hybrid mechanism combining
formal and informal components is in place. Effective participation in cross-functional interfaces
both requires and enables individuals to understand, enter into discussion, and interact with
individuals from different specialized areas of expertise and with different knowledge. Structural
differentiation can stimulate the effectiveness and outcomes of these interfaces, as it increases
both job and task specialization among units or employees. Thus, it boosts the probability that
participants’ acquire relevant new knowledge and perspectives from individuals with radically
different capabilities (Jansen et al. 2005). Therefore:
H5: Structural differentiation positively moderates the effect of cross-functional interfaces on the relationship between social integration and individual ambidexterity
2.10 Conceptual model
The developed hypotheses can be delineated and summarized via the following model:
Individual Ambidexterity Structural Differentiation Cross-Functional Interfaces Social Integration H1+ H3-- H1+ H2+ H4+ H5+
25
3 Methodology
3.1 Survey Design
This research aims to reach a generalizable conclusion. In line order to do so, a self-administered
and structured web-based survey with closed questions was constructed via Qualtrics Survey
Software. Advantages of this research method include the opportunity to compare data due to the
standardized nature of questions, the reasonably fast approach to gather all the required data, and
the absence of financial or other costs. Potential limitations include common method bias, the
restriction in potential answers, as well as the lack of clarity regarding the formulation of the
questions and/or constructs. In order to ensure respondents correctly understand the latter, this
survey was validated by means of extensive pretesting. The former will be discussed more
thoroughly in a different section (3.2, p. 26).
First, peer students and employees reviewed the survey in its initial form, where scales and
questions were adopted and adapted from prior validated research. Second, construct definitions
and words were replaced in accordance with the feedback and suggestions of the students and
employees. Third, a small sample (N=20) participated in a pilot survey to control for dropout
rates, the time required to fill out the survey, and assess the internal consistency of the measures.
Analysis of all the measures produced gratifying results, meaning no ambiguity exists and good
internal consistency of the constructs. Results from the pilot survey were not included in the final
26
3.2 Common Method Bias
According to Blumberg et al. (2011) self-administered surveys can be prone to common method
bias when including both endogenous and exogenous variables. In line with Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, and Lee (2003), the possibility of this bias was reduced by measuring the variables
alternately in different parts of the survey. This makes it harder for respondents to detect the
internal logic of the survey. Another potential cause of common method variance is the social
desirability of respondents towards particular constructs (Kortmann, 2014).
To tackle this, two precautionary measures have been implemented. First, respondents were
guaranteed full anonymity and confidentiality of their answers. Second, respondents were
assured that there are no right or wrong answers, as well as explicitly being asked to answer the
questions from the perspective of their personal work environments and backgrounds. These methods should reduce respondents’ evaluation anxiety and make them less likely to edit their responses to be more socially desirable and consistent with how they think the researcher wants
them to answer (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
3.3 Sampling Frame and Data Collection
The sample for this research was selected through both formal and informal network relations, in
order to increase the scope of the respondents. Ideally, these contacts further distribute the survey
within their respective teams, organizations, and networks. This research method is also known
as snowball sampling. Although this method can decrease the generalizability of the results, the
impact in this particular study is expected to be limited. Since this research employs no particular
emphasis on a specific industry or group –e.g. top executives within manufacturing firms- but
27
useful. By choosing this method, this research accepts the following two limitations. First, the sample is not a random selection of the population. Second, due to the use of the researcher’s formal and informal networks to achieve a snowballing effect, respondents are more likely to
form a more homogeneous sample. The online survey was distributed early July 2015 and
perceived respondents received an invitation to participate via email, social networks, and
internal communication networks. Data was collected during the remainder of July 2015. To
increase the response rate, reminders were sent after one and two weeks respectively. Overall,
127 respondents started the survey, of which a total of 110 completed it. Analysis of the
incomplete results showed no dropout pattern related to specific questions. Consequently,
incomplete results were discarded using list wise deletion, resulting in a final sample size of N =
110.
3.4 Non-Response Bias
Non-response bias arises when significant differences exist between the results of people who
responded to a survey and sampled individuals who failed to respond (Li and Calantone, 1998).
To ensure this study is not prone to this type of bias, the differences between early –the first 75
per cent- and late –the last 25 per cent- responses on the dependent and independent variables
were analyzed and compared. The results did not indicate any significant differences (p < .05),
28
3.5 Measurements and Validation of Constructs
3.5.1 Independent and Dependent Variables
Independent Variable: Social Integration. To reflect social integration, or “the degree to which an individual is psychologically linked to others in a group” (O’Reilly et al., 1989; p.22) a
six-item measure has been adapted from O’Reilly et al. (1989) and Smith et al. (1994). Within a team, the personal satisfaction of individuals with other team members and motivation to
actively sustain those relationships are important indications of integration (O, Reilly et al.,
1989). The extent to which a team spirit prevails within a particular group, expressed by a feeling
of worthwhile contribution and a sense of belongingness, further extends this construct (Jaworski
and Kohli, 1993). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in earlier studies were 0.94 (Smith et al., 1994) and 0.85 (O’Reilly et al., 1989) respectively.
Social Integration (Please indicate to what extent each statement is applicable to your own work situation) SOCIN1 I get along with colleagues within my department very well.
SOCIN2 I very frequently have contact with people, regardless of rank or position
SOCIN3 There is a lot of internal competition among my colleagues*
SOCIN4 The successes of my colleagues help me achieve my own objectives
SOCIN5 Team spirit trumps ranks and hierarchy within my team
SOCIN6 Working in my team feels like being part of a big family *Item is reverse-coded
Dependent Variable: Individual Ambidexterity. Ambidexterity refers to the ability to
simultaneously engage in incremental and discontinuous innovation (Tushman and O’Reilly,
1996). More specific, to define individual ambidextrous behavior this study adopts the definition
as proposed by Good and Michel (2013) as “the individual-level cognitive ability to flexibly
29
(p. 437). In order to measure ambidexterity at the individual level, constructs have been adopted
from Mom et al. (2009). Two seven-item scales were used, one related to exploration and one
related to exploitation. The scales capture the extent to which individuals engaged in either
activity during the past year. As recommended by Lubatkin et al. (2006) and Jansen et al. (2009),
ambidexterity is computed and measured via the additive model, thus by adding the separate
scores for exploration and exploitation and creating a single variable. In the study by Mom et al.
(2009) the ambidexterity scale has good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
of 0.90 for exploratory activities and 0.87 for exploitative activities.
Individual Ambidexterity( exploratory and exploitative activities): To what extent did you, last year, engage in work related activities that can be characterized as follows:
EXPLOR1 Searching for new possibilities with respect to products/services, processes, or markets
EXPLOR2 Evaluating diverse options with respect to products/services, processes, or markets
EXPLOR3 Focusing on strong renewal of products/services or processes
EXPLOR4 Activities of which the associated yields or costs are currently unclear
EXPLOR5 Activities requiring quite some adaptability of you
EXPLOR6 Activities requiring you to learn new skills or knowledge
EXPLOR7 Activities that are not (yet) clearly existing company policy
EXPLOI1 Activities of which a lot of experience has been accumulated by yourself
EXPLOI2 Activities which you carry out as if it were routine
EXPLOI3 Activities which serve existing (internal) customers with existing services/products
EXPLOI4 Activities of which it is clear to you how to conduct them
EXPLOI5 Activities primarily focused on achieving short-term goals
EXPLOI6 Activities which you can properly conduct by using your present knowledge
EXPLOI7 Activities which clearly fit into existing company policy
Moderating Variables: Cross-Functional Interfaces. Regarding cross-functional interfaces, this
30
(2009), this construct is measured through a five-item scale. It measures the extent to which an
individual is involved with boundary-spanning integration mechanisms such as temporary
workgroups, information-sharing, and cross-hierarchical activities. Jansen et al. (2009) reported a
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.72, thus providing stable internal consistency.
Cross-Functional Interfaces (Please indicate to what extent each statement is applicable to your own work situation) CRFI1 I regularly rotate between jobs and departments in my organization
CRFI2 I work in temporary task forces for collaboration between units
CRFI3 I work in permanent teams*
CRFI4 I regularly talk about possibilities for collaboration between different units
CRFI5 I coordinate work across internal organizational boundaries *Item is reverse-coded
Structural Differentiation. This study operationalizes structural differentiation in accordance
with Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), as the segmentation of an organizational system into
subsystems while establishing unit-specific differences. Based on a study by Jansen et al. (2009),
a six-item scale has been adopted and adapted, capturing differences across units in terms of
functions, products, markets, and mindsets. Jansen et al. (2009) reported a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of 0.78, thus providing good internal consistency.
Structural Differentiation (Please indicate to what extent each statement is applicable to your own work situation) STRUC1 Innovation and production activities are structurally separated within my organization
STRUC2 I specialize in specific functions and/or markets
STRUC3 Line and staff functions are clearly separated within my organization and team
STRUC4 We have separate units to enhance innovation and flexibility
STRUC5 My organization consists of teams and individuals that are either focused on the short term or the long term
31
3.5.2 Control Variables
This empirical study controls for potential other factors influencing individual ambidexterity by
the inclusion of two control variables.
Firm Size. Schumpeter (1942) advocated that larger organizations are relatively more innovative
than smaller ones due to their excessive availability of resources. This allows them to allocate
their resources in such a manner that it enables the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and
exploitation activities (Jansen et al., 2009). Yet, others (e.g. Benner and Tushman, 2002) suggest
that their size makes them more rigid and constrained in adapting to changing circumstances. In
addition, Gilbert (2005) notes that incumbent firms have a natural inclination toward exploitative
activities. Equally, younger firms have a tendency to focus on exploratory activities, thereby
often overlooking the importance of ongoing exploitative activities. To consider this potential
influence, firm size in terms of the number of fulltime employees (FTEs) within an organization
is used as a control variable. The construct is measured on a six point scale from values 1 to 6.
The corresponding numbers can be seen in Table 1 on the subsequent page.
Tenure within the firm.
The experience an individual has aggregated within a firm can influence its capacity to operate
ambidextrous. Experienced individuals are associated with an improved ability to interpret and
deal with ambiguous situations (Mom et al., 2009). Therefore, in line with Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) the present study expects tenure within the firm to be positively related to individual experience, where a longer tenure at a firm leads to higher individual ambidexterity.
32
3.5.3 Reliability Tests
Although the measurements of the variables have been adopted and adapted from previous
research, the reliability of the constructs in the present study was assessed before proceeding with any additional analyses. In general, a Cronbach’s Alpha-coefficient with a value exceeding 0.7 is considered reliable. All variables passed this threshold, with exploration and exploitation
registering the highest scores. Further decomposing the variables by removing specific questions
did not lead to a significant increase in the coefficient. Therefore, all the suggested variables and
their underlying questions are included in the analyses.
Table 2: Reliability Tests
Variable Cronbach’s Alpha
Social Integration 0.782
Exploration 0.827
Exploitation 0.825
Cross-Functional Interfaces 0.753
33
4 Results
This section presents an overview of the results of the data analysis. The analysis has been
conducted via SPSS, and is presented in threefold to give a clear overview. First, an overview of
the acquired descriptive statistics is provided. Second, a correlation matrix is stated. The final
section describes the testing of the hypotheses.
4.1 General Data
4.1.1 Sample Statistics
Overall, 68 males participated in the survey, comprising of 61.8 per cent. Respondents were
asked about their age through a drop-down menu with clusters, so that they could select the
appropriate range. An overview of the demographic characteristics of the sample can be seen in
Appendix A. In total, 55.9 per cent of the sample size was younger than 35 years old. In addition,
73 per cent of the respondents minimally holds a Master Degree. Firm size has also been
analyzed by means of clusters. The clusters and distributions of firm size can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3: Firm Size
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Number of Employees 1-10 13 11,8 11,8 11,8 11-50 10 9,1 9,1 20,9 51-250 22 20,0 20,0 40,9 251-1000 25 22,7 22,7 63,6 1001-50 000 25 22,7 22,7 86,4 > 50 000 15 13,6 13,6 100,0 Total 110 100,0 100,0
34
Moreover, respondents were asked how long they currently are tenured at their respective
employers. The clusters and corresponding distributions are shown in Table 4, with 58.2 per cent
of the respondents serving their firms for more than four years.
4.1.2 Descriptive Statistics
Table 5 shows the minimum, maximum, and mean scores as well as the standard deviations of all
the control, dependent, and independent variables. Before calculating the scores for the variables,
any reverse-coded questions were inverted. All the independent variables are measured on a
7-point Likert Scale. The dependent variable individual ambidexterity has been measured as the
mean of the summed scores on exploration and exploitation. The control variables are measured
on different scales. For firm size a scale ranging from 1 (1 to 10 employees) to 6 (more than 50
000 employees) has been used, for tenure at the firm a scale ranging from 1 (0 to 2 years) to 5
(more than 8 years) has been used. Overall, the results indicate that respondents score high on all
independent variables with all mean scores surpassing (M)>4. Social integration (M=5.230) in
particular has been rated favorably. The scores on exploration (M=4.927) and exploitation
(M=4.816) show that on average, respondents are engaged in both exploration and exploitation
activities, thus implying a score on individual ambidexterity (M=4.871) that is closely related to
both variables. It is interesting to investigate the potential mechanisms underlying these scores,
as cross-functional interfaces (M=4.460) has a higher mean score than structural differentiation
Table 4: Tenure at Current Employer
Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Years < 2 21 19,1 19,1 2-4 25 22,7 41,8 4-6 31 28,2 70,0 6-8 24 21,8 91,8 > 8 9 8,2 100,0 Total 110 100,0
35
(M=4.191). The values for skewness and kurtosis indicate that although most of the variables are
negatively skewed, they are relatively normally distributed. This has been further evaluated and
confirmed through visual assessment of several plots.
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Firm Size 110 1 6 3,760 1,538 -.318 -.839 Tenure at Firm 110 1 5 2,770 1,224 .080 -.959 Social Integration 110 2,14 6,71 5,230 ,941 -.995 .717 Cross Functional Interfaces 110 1 7 4,460 1,368 -.265 -.531 Structural Differentiation 110 1 6,33 4,191 1,214 -.407 -.600 Exploration 110 1,43 7 4,927 1,018 -.769 .992 Exploitation 110 1,86 6,86 4,816 1,001 -.508 .040 Individual Ambidexterity 110 2,36 6,36 4,871 ,707 -.577 1.329
Valid N (list wise) 110
4.2 Data Analysis
4.2.1 Correlations
In order to check for significant correlations between variables, a correlation matrix has been constructed based on Pierson’s r methodology. Pierson’s r provides a good overview about the strength and the direction of the linear relationship between variables. Values can range from -1
to 1, with -1 and 1 indicating strong positive and negative correlations respectively, and a value
of 0 indicating no correlations at all. Table 6 provides an overview of all the correlations. The
values for exploration and exploitation related to individual ambidexterity (respectively r = .706,
p < .01 and r = .695, p < .01) indicate a strong positive relationship between both variables and
36
types of activity. Moreover, social integration is also highly positively related to individual
ambidexterity (r = .445, p < .01), and in a lesser extent to cross-functional interfaces (r = .238, p
< .05). This implicates that higher socially integrated individuals are also associated with higher
involvements in cross-functional interfaces, as well as higher levels of individual ambidexterity.
Furthermore, structural differentiation is negatively correlated to several variables, including
social integration (r = -.235, p < .05), exploitation (r = -.259, p < .01), and individual
ambidexterity (r = -.238, p < .05), whereas it is positively related to firm size (r = .375, p < .01).
Also, worthwhile mentioning is that cross-functional interfaces is positively correlated to both
exploration (r = .378, p < .01) and firm size (r = .211, p < .05), while it is negatively correlated to
exploitation (r = -.251, p < .01) and not correlated to individual ambidexterity (r = .094, p > .01).
As for tenure at firm, it is positively correlated to exploration (r = .213, p < .05), exploitation (r =
.225, p < .05), and individual ambidexterity (r = .313, p < .01). Overall, the bivariate correlations
indicate several significant relationships between the variables. Hence, the relationships
proposed in the conceptual model are worth analyzing.
Table 6: Correlation Matrix (based on Pierson’s r)
Social Integration Cross Function al Interfaces Structural Differentiation Exploration Activities Exploitation Activities Individual Ambidexterity Firm Size Social Integration 1 Cross Functional Interfaces ,238* 1 Structural Differentiation -,235* -,063 1 Exploration Activities ,393** ,378** -,075 1 Exploitation Activities ,230* -,251** -,259** -,019 1 Individual Ambidexterity ,445** ,094 -,238* ,706** ,695** 1 Firm Size -,091 ,211* ,375** ,068 -,145 -,053 1 Tenure at Firm ,041 -,108 ,029 ,213* ,225* ,313** ,122
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
