Ambidexterity : how external learning and reflexivity affect the simultaneous exploration and exploitation of NPD teams

Ambidexterity:

How external learning and reflexivity affect the

simultaneous exploration and exploitation of NPD teams.

MSc Business Administration

Master’s Thesis

2014 - 2015

Student: Sara Piets

Student number: 10389466

Supervisor: Pepijn van Neerijnen

Table of contents

1 | Introduction

p. 04

2 | Review of the literature

p. 08

2.1 | Organizational and team ambidexterity p. 08

2.2 | Team reflexivity p. 10

2.3 | External learning p. 12

2.4 | Empowering leadership p. 14

2.5 | Conceptual model p. 16

3 | Methodology and data

p. 17

3.1 | Data and sample p. 17

3.1.1 | Sample p. 17

3.2 | Level of analysis p. 18

3.3 | Measurement and validation of constructs p. 18

3.3.1 | Independent variable: Team ambidexterity p. 18 3.3.2 | Dependent variable: External learning p. 19 3.3.3 | Mediating variable: Team reflexivity p. 19 3.3.4 | Moderating variable: Empowering leadership p. 19

3.3.5 | Control variables p. 20

3.4 | Validity p. 20

4 | Data analysis and results

p. 23

4.1 | Descriptive statistics p. 23

5 | Discussion and conclusion

p. 27

5.1 | Theoretical implications p. 27

5.2 | Managerial implications p. 29

5.3 | Limitations and avenues for future research p. 30

5.3.1 | Theoretical limitations and future avenues p. 31 5.3.2 | Methodological limitations and future avenues p. 32 5.3.3 | Empirical limitations and future avenues p. 32

5.4 | Conclusion p. 33

List of references

p. 34

Appendix A | Survey questionnaires

p. 38

A.1 | Team leader survey p. 38

1 | Introduction

The way of doing business has changed in the past decades. To set up a business and exploit it, or ‘stick to the knitting’ (Goold & Luchs, 1993), has proven not to be profitable in the long run and is in no way a pathway to long-term survival (March, 1991; Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004; Cao, Gedajlovic & Zhang, 2009). Markets have become more dynamic, and the presence of political turmoil and economic uncertainty has pressured companies to be more innovative. Companies therefore have two main goals in order to ensure their existence: to exploit the current business, with all of the resources and capabilities present, and to explore new knowledge and opportunities in order to be innovative and create future avenues for its business. To exploit means being more effective and efficient, like cutting costs, and to look for ways to create more value on an ongoing basis (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004). Exploration however points to acting on new opportunities and improving the current business and processes in innovative ways (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004). These two processes require different structures, strategies, identities and cognitive logics, but need to be pursued simultaneously in order to be successful. This simultaneous pursuit is referred to as being ambidextrous (Jansen, van den Bosch & Volberda, 2006; Raisch, 2008; Mom, van den Bosch & Volberda, 2009; Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst & Tushman, 2009). Ambidexterity is important to companies, since it creates an ideal situation in which they are enabled to flourish and to discover and explore opportunities for innovation, while at the same time exploiting and profiting from their current business.

Studies on ambidexterity have been conducted at multiple levels in the organization. Haas (2010) however has stressed that ambidexterity is becoming more and more important on lower levels of the organization. He states that working in industries of new product development and technological innovation requires teams to simultaneously exploit and explore, for current capabilities have to be exploited while new approaches and opportunities need to be explored. Haas (2010) also argues that both autonomy and external knowledge are conditions that facilitate the ambidexterity of teams. In order to use current knowledge to be able to recognize and explore opportunities that can benefit the company in the future, new product development (NPD) teams need to be innovative.

They take on a special role in enabling exploration and exploitation and their combination. They need to pursue both activities simultaneously to be able to profit from upcoming opportunities in this dynamic world, for losing focus shortly might cause them to miss out and leap behind. These teams are the nexus of reconfiguration within an organization, for they gather knowledge from within and from outside the organization to develop something that is new. Ambidexterity therefor is crucial to these teams.

But how do teams become capable of handling exploitation and exploration at the same time? These teams need to reflect consciously on their strategies and objectives, in a way that good ideas are separated from the bad ones, and solutions, new ideas and products can be implemented (De Dreu, 2002). The teams need to be able to simultaneously create, accumulate, and use knowledge in order to not only keep their current business running, but to also be able to identify and act upon arising opportunities. They need to therefor have a dual focus, which focuses on the present and on the future at the same time. This however has proven to be difficult, since resource constraints are present (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Carmali & Halevi, 2009), there is a natural tendency for exploitation instead of exploration (Levinthal & March, 1993; Benner & Tushman, 2003), and when learning experiences are not varied enough, there is a chance of technological isolation. Furthermore, the processes of exploitation and exploration combined create the exploitation-exploration paradox (Andriopoulus & Lewis, 2009), in which the two opposed processes become complementary when combined, but also creates tensions for companies. This creates a hurdle that has to be overcome. By reframing the coexistence of both processes by sensemaking, the exploration-exploitation paradox can be overcome and teams can come to ambidextrous solutions (Lewis, 2000). The contradictions from the paradox can be transcended by being involved in a sensemaking process (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Learning activities, such as observing competing teams in similar situations and companies, can enhance the reflection on the team’s own work, processes, and procedures. By engaging in discussion and by calling on expertise from outside the team, these experiences can be processed better which allows the team to rethink and reframe their current rules and procedures. This might enhance their ability to be ambidextrous.

Reflexivity seems a solid predictor for ambidexterity, for it has been associated with an increase in information sharing, learning, and team effectiveness (De Dreu, 2007). It is defined as ‘the extent to which team members overtly reflect upon the group’s objectives, strategies, and processes and adapt them to current or anticipated endogenous or environmental circumstances’ (West, 1996; p.559). It is regarded as a capability for the processing of information (De Dreu, 2007; Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2015), and this processing is crucial to explorative activities. Reflexive team members will thus be better able to process information, to rethink past choices and experiences, which results in a better framing of present and future situations and chances (Van Neerijnen, 2014). However, information and learning experiences have to be available in order to process and reflect upon them, which is why reflexivity is seen as a mediator of the relationship between external learning and team ambidexterity.

This study empirically investigated to what extent organizational learning activities, in specific the ability of a team to learn from sources outside the team (Haas, 2010), affect the ability of these teams to be reflective on their work activities, processes and procedures. In addition, the accumulation of this knowledge might enhance the processing of these experience and may fire up discussion and open communication within the team. This could lead to finding ways for the team to be ambidextrous. This study focused on the effect of external learning on team reflexivity, and the relationship between team reflexivity and team ambidexterity. Furthermore, team reflexivity is seen as a mediator in the relationship between external learning and team ambidexterity. This has led to the following research question:

‘Does external learning influence team ambidexterity, and to what extent does team reflexivity mediate this relationship?’

By providing an answer to this question, this study contributes to the theoretical understanding of both the role of outside sources for learning of NPD teams on team reflexivity, and the role of team reflexivity on team ambidexterity. In particular, the proposed mediating role of team reflexivity is

further explored, since the relationship between external learning and team ambidexterity has already been established (Haas, 2010). The aim of this study is to provide clarity regarding the predicting role of external learning on team ambidexterity in the new product development industry. Since these teams are surrounded by uncertainty, the need for constant change, and the pressure to be innovative – let alone the risk related economic uncertainty – predictors of team ambidexterity and team reflexivity need to be explored and defined. Innovativeness and survival can be enhanced by focusing on these predictors. The relationships between the various constructs are depicted in figure 1, the conceptual model.

This paper is structured as follows. Chapter two provides a review of the literature as it is

currently available. Chapter three describes the used methodology and provides a description of the used constructs along with the respective hypotheses. Chapter four proceeds to provide descriptive statistics, the analyses that are performed to test the hypotheses, and presents the results after which these are discussed and conclusions are drawn in chapter five. This study ends with implications and limitations of this research, and shares some views on suggestions for future research.

Figure 1: Conceptual model

Team ambidexterity

2 | Review of the literature

2.1 | Organizational and team ambidexterity

Literature on organizational learning has looked extensively at the concepts of both exploitation and exploration. Exploitation involves exploiting ‘old certainties’, which are the aspects of business the company is already familiar with. It includes refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation and execution (March, 1991). Exploration is quite the opposite, for it concerns the search for new opportunities and the exploration of future avenues for the business. It includes search, variation, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, and innovation (March, 1991). In a world where change is the talk of the day, companies need to focus on the future and thus need to adapt. To be able to obtain and maintain a place in the market, organizations should move towards new opportunities and should adjust to these volatile and dynamic markets, while having a clear sense of how value is created in the short term, and how activities should be managed to deliver this value.

For a long time, scholars did not agree on the possibility of simultaneously executing the processes of exploitation and exploration, also known as ambidexterity. To be able to be ambidextrous is important to companies, since it enables them to constantly adapt to a changing environment and to align internal activities. Several authors have shown achieving organizational ambidexterity can be problematic. Levitt and March (1988) noted the exploration of new alternatives of doing business would slow down the improvement of existing skills, and improvements in competence at existing procedures would lessen the attractiveness of experimentation with alternatives. Thus, companies could never have equal attention for both processes at the same time. On a similar tone, companies engaging only in exploration will never gain returns of its knowledge, but those who engage exclusively in exploitation will suffer from obsolescence (Levinthal & March, 1993). These trade-offs occur because both processes require different organizational structures (Smith & Tushman, 2005), and compete for scarce resources (March, 1991). Solutions for the exploitation-exploration dilemma have been found to be structural separation, temporal separation, and parallel separation of business

units (Raisch, 2008). However, less research has been done in trying to solve this dilemma on the team level. Team are nowadays seen as building blocks of the organization, and they need to be able to use the knowledge they have accumulated in exploitation of their current business, to recognize and act upon future opportunities. It is thus very important that companies not only strive for organizational ambidexterity, but focus on ambidexterity of their teams as well (Haas, 2010).

Individuals are naturally biased in favor of exploitation because there is a greater chance on success on the short-term, while exploration is considered to be inefficient and which could bring about some really bad ideas (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). It is expected that people exploit more than they would explore. The statement that individuals tend to be risk-averse and do not want to experiment, has been repeated by many others (Levinthal & March, 1993; Benner & Tushman, 2003). However, for teams to develop new products or services, they need to consider their environment and need to source knowledge from multiple sources. Many multi-level factors affect the process of ambidexterity, as Groysberg and Lee (2009) have shown that the lack of success of individuals in a company is often due to the inability of the company to either explore or exploit. So, whenever the company is incapable, this affects individuals and causes them to lose out. It is also mentioned that team managers are affected by organizational mechanisms, the context, and the environment, which might cause them to act ambidextrously (Mom, et al., 2009).

Working in teams gives capacity to empower people and to utilize their abilities, which influences the motivation and group cohesiveness of the team. In addition, teamwork allows managers to focus their attention on specific issues rather than having to deal with and having to supervise each individual (Entrekin & Court, 2001). Working in teams can thus increase productivity for the organization. Teams working on the development of new products are set up based on various types of expertise, and to achieve innovativeness for the company by the constant development of new products. These teams are in an ongoing search for innovation, are constantly exploring, while in general the rest of the company is exploiting their current business. NPD teams allow cross-functional collaboration, the sharing of scarce resources to achieve synergy, and to satisfy increased pressures to bring products to market faster (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006). Thus, these types of teams form the

nexus of reconfiguration within a company, and need to be able to gather knowledge from elsewhere in and outside of the company, to be able to explore future avenues which leads to the development of something new. The context of NPD is well suited to study innovation challenges and their management, and the situation concerning the development of new products demands companies to excel at both exploration and exploitation (Andriopoulus & Lewis, 2009). Ambidexterity is vital to the success and ongoing process of new product development (Sheremata, 2000), which is why NPD teams can profit from being ambidextrous. They have to simultaneously exploit the current knowledge and capabilities, and use that knowledge to be able to be innovative and thus explore the various arising opportunities.

2.2 | Team reflexivity

When looking at the process of exploration in ambidexterity, it is clear that being innovative is extremely important in order to maintain or enhance effectiveness. Team reflexivity, which is a ‘conscious reflection on team functioning’ (Carter & West, 1998; Schippers, West & Dawson, 2010; p.2) is seen to enhance innovativeness of a team, and the development and implementation of more effective processes or procedures. This is done through a better processing of all information and knowledge by the team. Reflexivity thus leads to a better adaptability to the environment (Carter & West, 1998, Schippers, West & Dawson, 2010), and thus to more exploration of the environment. In addition, reflexivity has a ‘dual focus, namely, reflecting on and interpreting accomplishments so far and preparing for the future’ (LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu & Saul, 2009; p.275), which shows similarities with the concept of ambidexterity. This dual focus is crucial for NPD teams, since past experiences have to be taken into account in order to deliver something new. This focus is, however, hard to maintain, since it causes both learning experiences, but also new impressions and information to be processed. Not only do current procedures have to be evaluated constantly, but future opportunities need to be identified and probably acted upon as well. It thus seems that the ability to be

reflexive enhances ambidexterity, since reflexivity balances out two processes that are related to those of ambidexterity.

To elaborate on this, Widmer, Schippers and West (2009) argued in their review of reflexivity research, that reflexivity consists of three components: reflection, planning, and action/adaptation (West, 2000). Whereas reflection is crucial for learning from past experiences, enhancing business operations and bringing awareness, action is focused on implementing these planned changes to be able to adapt to changes in the environment. Planning has a bridging function between these two processes, in which a plan of action is constructed. However, practice does not always follow theory and teams often move back and forth in the process of reflexivity (Widmer, Schippers & West, 2009). This is why, in line with most recent research (Schippers, Den Hartog & Koopman, 2007), this study focuses solely on the reflection and adaptation parts of reflexivity. The effects of team reflexivity lead to ‘more innovation, high team performance and fosters team processes’ (Widmer, Schippers & West, 2009; p.8). Team reflexivity is thus known to enhance not only team effectiveness, but it also increases adaptability to the environment by innovating.

Reflexivity has also been seen as an important instrument to recognize if the current ways of doing business can be obsolete or not (Tjosvold, Tang & West, 2004), which refers back to the process of ambidexterity. In case current ways are working fine, nothing needs to be changed. If they are not, opportunities will be identified and acted upon, in order to improve the current business. This is done through team discussion (Barge, 2005), which is dependent on others in the team and entails ‘making sense of situations together in a continually changing environment’ and ‘communicating views and ideas within a team’ (Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman & van Knippenburg, 2008; p.1595). NPD teams need to be reflexive, in order to break through routines and habits, and to look for alternatives to solve current issues and to develop new products.

In short, ambidexterity is the simultaneous pursuit of processes of exploration and exploitation. To enhance exploitative activities, team members need to be reflective, so they are better able to increase the sharing and processing of information, which they can do through engaging in

team discussion. This leads to an enhancement of the development and implementation of more effective processes and procedures. This also includes the evaluation of current routines and the introduction and implementation of possible solutions for arising issues. Reflexivity of the team also leads to an enhancement of explorative activities, for the team’s findings need to be discussed in order to determine what path the development of new products will take and how these developments might impact the rest of the company. This is dependent on the exploitative activities as well, since the current business needs to be strictly routinized. However, reflexivity also leads to new insights and new points of view, which are needed to be able to identify new opportunities and to discover alternative ways of working. Exploitative activities are therefore needed, in combination with the explorative activities – which is known as ambidexterity – so information is processed in a productive way and ways of working are constantly reflected upon. Chandrasekaran and Mishra (2012) have stated that this processing of information and constant reflection is specifically crucial in the case of NPD teams, since they need to be able to maximize exploitation and to use this to explore further. This study thus hypothesized that team reflexivity affects team ambidexterity in a positive manner, for team reflexivity enhances the ability to simultaneously explore and exploit.

Hypothesis 1: Team reflexivity is positively related to team ambidexterity.

2.3 | External learning

Organizational learning is learning by individuals, taking place in a social context (Holmqvist, 2003), and it can be described as ‘the way firms build, supplement and organize knowledge and routines around their activities and within their cultures, and adapt and develop organizational efficiency by improving the use of the broad skills of their workforce’ (Dodgson, 1993; p.377). This works for a company as a whole, but individually for teams as well. In order for new knowledge to become available to these teams, they need to incorporate activities that encourage an outward focus (Burgoyne, Pedler & Boydell, 1999). This new knowledge is needed to become and stay innovative. In addition to this new knowledge that NPD teams need in order to develop new products and implement new ideas, insights gained by this outward focus can lead to more focus on the own procedures and

routines of the team (West, Hirst, Richter & Shipton, 2004). In this study, this outward focus is conceptualized as being able to learn from external sources, and to observe competing teams in similar companies.

Teams are able to learn from sources that can be found outside of the team, and these perspectives and experiences can lead to a recollection of the own procedures and routines. This review of the activities pursued by the team, may it be in the past or in the present, means that the team members are using their knowledge explicitly and question their current way of working. Team reflexivity is seen as an entire set of behaviors including questioning, exploratory learning, using knowledge explicitly, learning on a meta-level, and reviewing past events with self-awareness (West, 2000). External learning activities create new insights, new ideas, and new knowledge, but reflection is crucial in order to be able to learn from these new experiences (Widmer & Schippers, 2009). This reflexivity is needed by teams to recognize how current ways of working or operating can be obsolete (Tjosvold, 1991) and to see how future operations can thus be improved. Reflexivity therefore is needed to evaluate the current procedures and routines of the team, and to see whether these will stay in place or be replaced in the (near) future. The ability to use and learn from sources outside of the team will lead to more communication and discussion of these experiences in the team, and thus makes the team members more reflexive.

Hypothesis 2: External learning is positively related to team reflexivity.

The external learning process is initiated by the identification of a new idea or process by an outside source. This outside source can either be feedback from customers and lead users of the product, competitors, or even sources outside the industry (Kessler, Bierly & Gopalakrishnan, 2000). This knowledge then has to be transferred throughout the organization, but in order to benefit from this new idea or process, the absorptive capacity in the company must already be at a nominal level (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). It is therefore important that knowledge as owned by the NPD team members is at the same level as the knowledge of the sources they are observing. When this is the

case, they can use these observations for their own research and development, and spread these throughout the company. To prevent technological isolation, NPD teams should use these outside sources of learning to constantly gain more knowledge and information.

Teams need to learn from their experiences, in which external learning activities are used to develop a broader knowledge base and to be able to adapt to changes (Grant, 1996). By using outside sources, they can create a variety in their learning experiences (Holmqvist, 2004). The broadening of the knowledge base enhances exploration, for NPD teams have more knowledge and information at their disposal which enables them to recognize and act on arising opportunities faster and in a better way. Furthermore, knowledge from these sources can only be used when the absorptive capacity in the company is at a nominal level (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990), which means that teams first need to exploit their current work processes in order to benefit from new experiences. External learning has been proven to positively affect team ambidexterity (Haas, 2010), however, team reflexivity is needed to process the new information, to make the learning experiences explicit, and to evaluate current procedures and routines. The impact of external learning activities on the required dual focus that the teams need to become ambidextrous, is thus dependent on the reflexive capabilities of the team. The processing of the information gained from outside sources leads to the team members being better able to use this knowledge to explore, and to exploit, at the same time.

Hypothesis 3: Team reflexivity positively mediates the relationship between external learning and team ambidexterity.

2.4 | Empowering leadership

Designing and building an organizational system that is capable of managing the fragile balance between exploration and exploitation is complex, as is mentioned before, since the processes contradict each other and there is thus an exploitation-exploration paradox. NPD teams need to pursue these processes simultaneously, in order to base new ideas and innovative processes on earlier accumulated knowledge. Carmeli and Halevi (2009) stated characteristics needed to handle the

process of ambidexterity are to ‘engage in wide repertoire of behaviors, and display contrary or opposing behaviors’ (p.214), which means team members have to be able to have a dual focus. Nowadays, the role of manager and team leader is seen as that of a coach or facilitator. This role requires social and political skills, and is conceptualized in this study as empowering leadership. It has been proven to be effective in promoting team outcomes (Ahearn, Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas & Ammeter, 2004), which especially is crucial to NPD teams since they have to focus on innovation while constantly searching for ways to match and integrate these innovations to the current business of the company.

Social skills are mostly about being credible, and a relationship was found between the success of a team and the projection of an image of honesty (Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams & Thatcher, 2007). Sub dimensions of empowering leadership were mentioned by Srivastava, Bartol and Locke (2006), who explored the options of giving more autonomy and responsibility to team members, and the notion of the focus on responding to this empowerment and the motivation of team members. They have therefore defined empowering leadership as ‘behaviors whereby power is shared with subordinates and that raise their level of intrinsic motivation’ (p.1240). Team members are increasingly affected by empowerment given by a team leader, which leads the members to identify more opportunities to share their knowledge in order to solve their problems and come to decision making (Srivastava, Bartol & Locke, 2006). With a team leader exerting this type of empowerment, teams are more willing to engage in team discussion and to explicate their tacit knowledge. This means that the presence of empowering leadership increases processing of information and engaging in team discussion, and thus increases the amount of reflexivity exerted by the team. The more confident team members are about their work and the more responsibility they are given by the team leader, the more knowledge is transferred and shared not only throughout the team, but also throughout the organization. However, this research has not focused on NPD teams, and it might be interesting to see whether this is the case with teams working on the development of new products as well.

+ (H2) + (H4)

+ (H1) + (H3)

In short, empowering leadership has proven to be effective in promoting team outcomes (Ahearn et al., 2004), in letting team members share their knowledge and making it more explicit, and it raises the level of intrinsic motivation of team members (Srivastava, Bartol & Locke, 2006). Empowering leadership is proposed to enhance the effect of external learning activities on team reflexivity, and makes team members process their accumulated knowledge better.

Hypothesis 4: Empowering leadership positively moderates the relationship between external learning and team reflexivity.

2.5 | Conceptual model

The literature review as depicted in this chapter, along with the described hypotheses, have led to an update of the conceptual model that was presented in chapter 1. The relationships between the various constructs are visualized. The updated conceptual model is shown in figure 2:

External learning

Empowering leadership

Team reflexivity Team ambidexterity

3 | Methodology and Data

This chapter describes the method of data collection, as well as the level of analysis and the presentation of the measurement and validation of the various constructs. These are be used to test the hypotheses, and to give an answer to the research question.

3.1 | Data and sample

This study aims to explain and explore relationships between the ability and possibilities to learn, reflexivity within and between teams, and the ability to be ambidextrous within an organization. A database is used which is gathered for an ongoing research at ERIM (Erasmus Research Institute of Management) and the ABS (Amsterdam Business School) which investigates how various organizations can compete on knowledge, with a focus on innovational excellence. To assemble this database, two questionnaires have been presented to different teams within two organizations, one for each team member and one for the team leader of each team. Respondents were asked to answer questions and to rate statements on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘fully disagree’ to ‘fully agree’. Several open questions have been used to determine heterogeneity of the respondents, such as “How long have you worked in this industry?” Both questionnaires can be found in Appendix A.

3.1.1 | Sample

To investigate the model of this study, two survey questionnaires were conducted amongst team leaders and team members of NPD teams of two companies which are founded and located in the Netherlands (see Appendix A). These two companies are considered to be market leaders, each in their own segment. They work in different industries, and cannot be seen as direct competitors. The facilities for research, assembly, and integration and testing are owned by these Dutch companies, and they have national and international partnerships with several other companies. The research and development activities are performed in the Netherlands, where the corporate headquarters is located as well. Due to the intensity of knowledge and the amount of research and development that is

employed in these companies on a day-to-day basis, these companies have become the focus of this study. A total of 265 usable questionnaires were retained out of the original 269, for 4 respondents did not give a response to any of the statements.

3.2 | Level of analysis

The population of this study are teams who are involved in new product development, or NPD teams. These teams vary in size and each has a leader who is in control and who provides guidance to enable the team to achieve its goal. These teams are chosen for their constant lookout for innovative ways to enhance processes within the organization and to develop new products. They need current knowledge to be able to develop new products, and therefore constantly need to strive for ambidexterity.

3.3 | Measurement and validation of constructs

This section describes the various constructs in operational terms enabling testing and measurement.

3.3.1 | Independent variables

Team ambidexterity was assessed by using measures of both exploration and exploitation. The four items used to measure exploration (α = .62) included items as ‘The project opens up new markets’ and ‘With this project we enter new technological fields’. The four items measuring exploitation (α = .71) focused on statements such as ‘This project refines an existing product range’ and ‘This project introduces an improved, but existing project to an existing market’. The average levels of team exploration and exploitation differed (4.36 and 4.49, respectively), but not significantly (p > .05), which means exploitation did not drive out exploration in this sample. Thus, these two constructs are orthogonal. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a direct oblimin yielded a two-factor structure with factor loadings above .5 and cross-loadings below .3, thus confirming the two different

constructs. Ambidexterity is operationalized as the sum between exploration and exploitation, following the Edwards test (1993; 1994). Respondents were asked to rate the items on a seven-point scale (1 = ‘fully disagree’, 7 = ‘fully agree’).

3.3.2 | Dependent variable

External learning consisted out of 5 items, which measured the ability to integrate external learning experiences in the activities of the own team. Examples of items are ‘The team observes the work of others outside the team to extract lessons to be applied to the task’ and ‘The team often reflects on what has worked in the past together with outsiders with similar experience’. Respondents were asked to rate the items on a seven-point scale (1 = ‘fully disagree’, 7 = ‘fully agree’, α = .87).

3.3.3 | Mediating variable

Reflexivity consisted out of 6 items, which measured the communication within the ream regarding reflection, team discussion, and working methods. Examples of items are ‘We talk about different ways in which we can reach our objectives’ and ‘In this team we modify our objectives in light of changing circumstances’. Respondents were asked to rate the items on a seven-point scale (1 = ‘fully disagree’, 7 = ‘fully agree’, α = .79).

3.3.4 | Moderating variable

Empowering leadership consisted out of 12 items, spread over 4 sub dimensions: meaningfulness of work, participation in decision making, expressing confidence, and providing autonomy. These measured the extent to which empowerment affects decisions made by the team members. Examples of items are ‘My manager makes many decisions together with me’ and ‘My manager helps me understand how my objectives and goals relate to that of the company’. Every dimension had a reliability of ranging from .67 to .89, and EFA extracted one component for each dimension. Taking the mean of the 4 sub dimensions, EFA extracted one component with

communalities above .60. Respondents were asked to rate the items on a seven-point scale (1 = ‘fully disagree’, 7 = ‘fully agree’, α = .79).

3.3.5 | Control variables

Team age measured the time since the team was started (in months) for increased cumulative experience enhances innovation (Jansen et al., 2006). It may therefore be that the older the team is, and so the longer the team members are working together, the more they are able to be innovative and come up with new ideas and new ways of working. The natural logarithm of age was used.

Team size measured the amount of team members in each team. The quality of team discussion depends on the size of the team, so results are controlled for influence of team size.

Team interdependence consisted out of 2 items, which measured the goal interdependence within the team. The items are ‘Success for one team member implied success for others’ and ‘Benefits for one team member involved benefits for others’. Respondents were asked to rate the items on a seven point scale (1 = ‘fully disagree’, 7 = ‘fully agree’, α = .83)

3.4 | Validity

Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were used to assess whether the items measured the various constructs as intended. Exploitation and exploration have been operationalized as additive, to form the construct team ambidexterity, but these values show loadings for the separate constructs. For empowering leadership, the loadings on the separate underlying constructs are shown. Table 1 (p. 21) has provided relevant statistics for each of the constructs, such as the internal consistencies as

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations & Reliability

Type Variable Underlying variables Items N

_x

σ α

Dependent Ambidexterity 8 221 8.85 .12 n.a.

Exploration 4 221 4.36 .08 .62

Exploitation 4 221 4.49 .08 .71

Independent External learning 5 210 4.43 .08 .87

Mediator Reflexivity 6 210 4.58 .06 .79

Moderator Empowering leadership 12 211 4.84 .06 .79

Control Team age (Log) 1 208 2.54 .23 n.a.

Team size 1 256 11.19 .64 n.a.

indicated by Cronbach’s α. In Table 2, the individual factor loadings per item of each construct and other descriptive statistics are shown. By conducting an EFA and loading all items of all constructs at the same time, both discriminant validity and construct validity were indicated.

Empowering leadership is a multi-factor construct, so in order to determine discriminant validity even more, a factor correlation matrix was computed to show possible cross-loadings between the various underlying constructs. Correlations between factors should not exceed 0.7 The cross-loadings of the items of ‘expressing confidence in high performance’ exceed this limit, which means

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics & Factor loadings

Factor Load

_x

σ

Exploitation

The project extends a product range. .80 4.80 1.58

The project opens up new markets. .79 5.08 1.57

With this project we enter new technological fields. .76 4.49 1.78

This project can be regarded as an experiment in our local market. .58 3.61 1.72

Exploration

This project refines an existing product range. .76 4.85 1.60

This project improves existing product quality. .75 4.14 1.69

This project introduces an improved, but existing project to an existing market. .68 4.54 1.71

This project reduces production costs. .56 3.89 1.81

Reflexivity

We talk about different ways in which we can reach our objectives. .79 5.25 1.31

We regularly discuss whether the team is working effectively. .79 4.27 1.52

The methods used by the team to get the job done are often discussed. .79 4.30 1.31

We regularly reflect on the way in which we communicate. .62 3.64 1.41

In this team we modify our objectives in light of changing circumstances. .61 5.03 1.16

The team often reviews whether it’s getting the job done. .53 5.01 1.29

External Learning

The team gathers information regarding who to contact for advice about how to complete the task. .88 5.13 1.11

The team observes the work of others outside the team to extract lessons to be applied to the task. .86 4.51 1.28

The team invites people from outside the team to discuss how to avoid repeating past mistakes. .82 4.30 1.51

The team often talks to outsiders about past failures to determine ways to improve the work process. .81 4.05 1.41

The team often reflects on what has worked in the past together with outsiders with similar experience. .72 4.15 1.36

Empowering Leadership

Enhancing the meaningfulness of work

My manager helps me understand how my objectives and goals relate to that of the company. .94 4.66 1.39

My manager helps me understand how my job fits into the bigger picture. .93 4.59 1.42

My manager helps me understand the importance of my work in relation to overall firm effectiveness. .85 4.49 1.37

Fostering participation in decision making

My manager makes many decisions together with me. .87 4.36 1.51

My manager often consults me on strategic decisions. .86 3.84 1.51

My manager solicits my opinion on decisions that may affect me. .84 4.70 1.43

Expressing confidence in high performance

My manager believes that I can handle demanding tasks. .91 5.52 1.06

My manager believes in my ability to improve even when I make mistakes. .91 5.44 1.04

My manager expresses confidence in my ability to perform at a high level. .90 5.43 1.17

Providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints

My manager allows me to do my job my way. .80 5.48 1.13

My manager makes it more efficient for me to do my job by keeping the rules and regulations simple. .80 4.66 1.34

there is a majority of shared variance. However, this scale does not cross-load significantly with the other scales, so these high correlations are neglected.

Enhancing meaningfulness of work Fostering participation in decision making Expressing confidence in high performance Providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Enhancing meaningfulness of work 1 - 2 .67 - 3 .65 .87 - Fostering participation in decision making 4 .44 .54 .51 - 5 .36 .40 .41 .64 - 6 .51 .53 .48 .56 .60 - Expressing confidence in high performance 7 .34 .38 .37 .30 .29 .43 - 8 .39 .37 .38 .30 .32 .48 .74 - 9 .39 .36 .32 .25 .27 .49 .72 .74 - Providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints 10 .22 .31 .25 .31 .33 .45 .43 .44 .31 - 11 .29 .34 .31 .37 .32 .44 .35 .35 .28 .46 - 12 .35 .32 .24 .26 .35 .38 .35 .32 .33 .41 .41 -

4 | Data analysis and results

This chapter shows the analyses of the data and the results of this study. First, the descriptive statistics are given, after which the results from various regression analyses are explained. Correlations between all constructs in this study are shown in table 2 (p.21). Furthermore, the variance inflation factors (VIF’s) and tolerance were calculated to check for possible multicollinearity. Scores for tolerance were well above .73 and the maximum score for VIF was 1.38. Both of these values indicate there is no multicollinearity present (O’Brien, 2007).

4.1 | Descriptive statistics

For this study, data from 265 respondents has been used, respectively 92 from Tech Inc. and 173 from Laser.org. These respondents made up a total of 47 teams, of which the team size varied from 1 to 75 members, with an average of 11.19 team members (σ = .641) and a median of 8 team members. Of the 47 team leaders, one (2.1%) indicated to have a vocational background, eleven (23.4%) finished a bachelor’s degree, 28 (59.6%) have obtained a master’s degree and 6 (12.8%) received a PhD. One respondent (2.1%) had chosen to not disclose his or her educational background. These team leaders have been working in the industry for over 15 years (

x

= 15.436, σ = 9.5795), of

which 13.9 years in the current organizations (σ = 9.7571) and they are leading their team for little over two years (

x

= 2.1135, σ = 2.7534). Of the 218 team members, 25 (11.5%) indicated to have a vocational background, 67 (30.7%) finished a bachelor’s degree, 87 (39.9%) obtained a master’s degree and 32 (14.7%) received a PhD. 7 respondents (3.3%) have chosen to not disclose their educational background. These team members have been working in this industry for over eleven years (

x

= 11.427, σ = 10.470), of which nearly 9 years (

x

= 8.841, σ = 9.5051) in the current organization. They have been part of their current team for 2.539 years (σ = 3.246).

The high standard deviations of the tenure in the teams indicate that these teams do not exist for a long time, 75.5% of all teams has an existence of less than two years.

4.2 | Hypotheses testing

In chapter 2, the hypothesized relationships between the various constructs, to support the research question, have been described and visualized. In this paragraph, these hypotheses will be tested. The relationships were tested through a series of regression analyses, and are described below. All analyses were run with team age, team size, and team interdependence as control variables.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that team reflexivity was positively related to team ambidexterity. A regression analysis (see figure 3, model 4; p.28) showed a significant negative effect (β = -.15, p < .01) of team age, which means that the longer the team exists, the less able it is to be ambidextrous. The effect of team reflexivity on team ambidexterity is insignificant (p > .05), which means the ability of team members to reflect on their team and work activities, and to process learning experiences and other information by engaging in team discussion, does not affect their ability to be ambidextrous. This is in contrast with the literature on reflexivity, which pointed out that reflexivity creates a dual focus and is crucial in order to be ambidextrous (Schippers, West & Dawson, 2010; Carter & West, 1998). Hypothesis 1 was thus not supported by empirical evidence.

Hypothesis 2 proposed a positive effect of external learning on team reflexivity. A regression analysis (see figure 3, model 1; p.26) showed team reflexivity is significantly positively affected by external learning (β = .26, p < .01), which means that the ability of the team to learn from outside sources has an impact on the team’s ability to be reflective, and thus to explicate these learning experiences. Furthermore, the team members are better able to operationalize the found solutions within the team, by engaging in team discussion. Hypothesis 2 was thus supported by empirical evidence.

Tabel 3: Inter-construct correlations

# Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Team ambidexterity -

2 External learning .21** -

3 Team reflexivity .06 .38** -

4 Empowering leadership .02 .40** .35** -

5 Team age (Log) -.27** -.29** -.07 -.10 -

6 Team size -.09 .02 -.07 .00 -.02 -

7 Team interdependence -.05 .18** .12 .22** -.01 -.08 -

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Hypothesis 4 proposed a positive moderating effect of empowering leadership on the relationship between external learning and team reflexivity. A multiple regressions analysis (see figure 4, model 2; p.28) showed a significant positive direct effect of empowering leadership on team reflexivity (β = .19, p < .05). The empowerment given by the team leader enhances the reflexivity of the team. External learning has a significant positive impact on team reflexivity (β = .23, p < .01), however, this effect is stronger without the presence of empowering leadership (∆β = -.06, when compared to model 1; p.28). In addition, the moderating effect of empowering leadership on the relationship between external learning and team reflexivity has proven to be insignificant (p > .05), which means team members are disabled to engage in team discussion and to process the knowledge and information they have sourced from outside sources with the presence of empowerment exerted by the team leader. An empowering team leader disables team members to actively and openly discuss learning activities. Hypothesis 4 was therefore not supported.

Hypothesis 3 proposed a positive mediating effect of team reflexivity on the relationship between external learning and team ambidexterity. Hypothesis 2 showed a significant positive effect of external learning on team reflexivity (see figure 3, model 2; p.28), and a significant positive direct effect of external learning on team ambidexterity (β = .27, p < .05: see figure 3, model 3; p.28). This latter relationship means that using outsiders as sources for information enhances the ability of the team to be ambidextrous. Teams gathering information and observing others directly contributes to their own ability to be ambidextrous. This is in line with Haas (2010). To test the indirect effect of these learning activities on team ambidexterity, in which the effect is mediated by team reflexivity, a PROCESS analysis was run (Hayes & Preacher, 2013). No mediating effect of team reflexivity was found (p > .05: see figure 3, model 6; p.28). This indicates that team reflexivity is not a crucial condition in order for the effect of external learning on team ambidexterity to occur. Processing results of learning experiences and activities gained by external sources actually dismisses the earlier found significant positive effect of external learning on team ambidexterity. However, these insignificant effects may be due to the fact that no significant relationship was found between team reflexivity and team ambidexterity. Hypothesis 3 was not supported by empirical evidence.

Comment [Pv1]: Contrasteer dit anders

met mijn studie die TMT reflex koppelt aan org ambidex. Hier is die wel significant. Kan leuk zijn voor discussie. -Kan komen omdat de dynamiek van ambidex/aard van ambidex verschilt tussen niveaus? Dus ontologische verschillen -Kan komen door unieke context van ASML?

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Predictor Team reflexivity Team reflexivity Team ambidexterity Team ambidexterity Team ambidexterity Team ambidexterity

B SE p B SE p B SE p B SE p B SE p B SE p

Control variable

Team age (Log) .01 .02 .70 .01 .02 .67 -.12 .04 .00** -.15 .04 .00** -.12 .04 .00** -.12 .04 .00**

Team size -.01 .01 .21 -.01 .01 .19 -.01 .01 .61 -.01 .01 .69 -.01 .01 .61 -.01 .01 .61 Team interdependence .07 .06 .30 .04 .06 .57 -.15 .13 .23 -.10 .13 .43 -.15 .13 .23 -.15 .13 .23 Independent variable External learning .29 .06 .00** .23 .06 .00** .27 .12 .03* .27 .13 .04* .22 .06 .00** Mediator variable Team reflexivity .09 .15 .54 -.01 .14 .95 -.01 .15 .95 Moderating variable Empowering leadership .19 .08 .01** Interaction External learning x Empowering leadership -.05 .06 .41 -.05 .06 .41 R2 .15 .17 .10 .08 .31 .10 F-value 7.74 6.46 5.00 3.778 5.00 3.98 p .00** .00** .00** .01** .00** .00**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

5 | Discussion and conclusion

The main research question leading this study is ‘Does external learning influence team ambidexterity, and to what extent does team reflexivity mediate this relationship?’ By means of defining and setting up several hypotheses, this study has attempted to answer this question. The studied hypotheses and their outcomes can be found in table 4, which shows most hypothesized relationships cannot be confirmed by the empirical evidence found in this study.

This paper contributes to literature on team reflexivity and team ambidexterity by focusing on the relationship between these two processes. This study has argued that external learning is predictive for the reflexivity of a team, and has tested the assumption that team reflexivity leads to team ambidexterity (Carter & West, 1998; Schippers, West & Dawson, 2010). This has led to the proposed mediating effect of team reflexivity on the relationship between external learning and team ambidexterity. Results show support for part of the hypotheses, and have created fruitful avenues for future research. The implications of these findings are divided into two sections. The first section will cover the theoretical implications, or in other words, where this study contributes to the existing knowledge base on these topics. The second section will cover the managerial implications, and will point out the practical use of this study.

5.1 | Theoretical implications

NPD teams need to be able to be ambidextrous and have a dual focus (LePine et al., 2008), since past experiences and current procedures need to be processed and used to identify future opportunities in order to deliver something new. However, the results of this study indicated that there is no significant effect of team reflexivity on team ambidexterity, which means the dual focus that can

Table 4: Overview of hypotheses and outcomes

Hypotheses Outcome

1 Team reflexivity is positively related to team ambidexterity Not supported

2 External learning is positively related to team reflexivity Supported

3 Team reflexivity positively mediates the relationship between external learning and team ambidexterity Not supported

be achieved through reflexivity, did not affect the crucial dual focus needed for ambidexterity. When reconsidering the operationalization of underlying constructs of team ambidexterity, for an additive measure of exploration and exploitation was used (Edwards, 1993; 1994), the results for the effects of team reflexivity on both exploration and exploitation separately are not significant (p > .05). This shows that team reflexivity, in this study, does not affect these processes at all. However, van Neerijnen (2014) has found that reflexivity on top management level is a key antecedent for organizational ambidexterity, which proves reflexivity and ambidexterity are related. The insignificant relationship found in this study indicates that the relationship between reflexivity and ambidexterity might differ on various levels in companies, or this might be due to the unique contexts of the companies used in this study. More research on team ambidexterity is needed to explore these possibilities.

The use of sources outside the team as learning environments do affect the reflexivity of the teams in a positive way. NPD teams who have experience using these sources, are able to broaden their knowledge base and their perspective, and are therefore more capable of using this knowledge to evaluate current procedures and to determine how they can change the business for the better. This means that building procedures on the basis of a new idea that is sourced from outside, and the attraction of external expertise, influences the way in which team members think about their work activities and how they process this information before taking the next step. The organizations used in this study have proven to have sufficient technical expertise which enables them to learn from activities outside the team (Kessler, Bierly & Gopalakrishnan, 2000). The presence of an empowering team leader leads to more team reflexivity, however, the earlier found impact of the learning experiences gained by outside sources is weakened by the presence of this type of leader. Even more so, team members are less able to use and operationalize their externally gained knowledge to reflect on their work processes. This is important, since observing the external environment and discovering new trends in the market is crucial to NPD teams, in order to develop new products. Hence, habits will not be broken and business will continue, but the teams will ultimately lag behind and will not survive the changing environment, when guided by an empowering team leader.

Team reflexivity has been known to be important in order to be able to learn from experiences, but this study has shown that the extent to which team members learn is a predictor for team reflexivity as well. Argyris and Schön (1996) provided evidence that reflexivity is a strong predictor for learning, so there might be a double loop here in which learning enhances reflexivity, which in turn enhances learning.

The proposed mediating effect of team reflexivity on the relationship between external learning activities and team reflexivity, as Haas (2010) provided evidence for, was not found. Even so, the direct effect of external learning on team ambidexterity was mitigated when the team’s reflexivity was brought into play. This means that experiences and perspectives gained by observing outside sources, do directly influence the team’s ability to keep a dual focus, but after processing this information and using the knowledge to evaluate current business procedures and routines, this knowledge does not contribute to the team’s ambidexterity. This might be due to the fact that no significant effect of team reflexivity on team ambidexterity was found, but the mitigated effect that arose when team reflexivity was brought in as a mediator, raises some questions. More research on the interplay between these three constructs is needed to determine what the main cause of this is.

5.2 | Managerial implications

Even though the majority of hypothesized relationships in this study was not supported by empirical evidence, it may be clear that using outside sources as learning environments enhances the dual focus NPD teams need. New perspectives and experiences can be gained through looking beyond the own team, and these enhance the processing of these experiences and the evaluation of current work processes and procedures. Old habits can be broken and new routines can be implemented, which enhances the ways of working. The presence of a strong and empowering leader mitigates the usage of outside experiences for reflection on the team’s own activities, and it is therefore important that leaders who guide teams that are involved in the development of new products, lead these teams in an appropriate manner. Without proper guidance, to which empowerment apparently does not contribute, the NPD teams are not able to put their gained knowledge and experiences to good use, and

they will be isolated by their own habits and ways of working. In addition, the NPD teams tend to evaluate and reflect more, when they are inspired by the amount of autonomy and responsibilities as they are given by the team leader, due to the direct effect of empowering leadership on team reflexivity. It is therefore important that team leaders exert the right kind of leadership, in order to support their teams in achieving the dual focus that they need.

The finding that team reflexivity does not affect team ambidexterity, or exploration and exploitation separately, is in contract with previous studies that stated the ability to be reflexive leads to more innovation and contributes to enhance the current ways of working (Carter & West, 1998; Schippers, West & Dawson, 2010). However, this study did find that the outside sources used by NPD teams to gather information from, have a direct positive effect on team ambidexterity. So in order for NPD teams to be more successful in becoming ambidextrous, these teams should focus on these learning environments. This can be stimulated by team leads that provide opportunities for team members to engage in conversation with other teams and experts in the field so knowledge can be shared and transferred throughout the organization.

This study has provided proof that team leaders should enable team members to focus outside sources, and from the environment in which the team works, in order to be able to achieve and maintain a dual focus to be reflexive. NPD teams need continuous renewal of the available knowledge in the organization, since they aim for the development of new product and are thus in a constant hunt for new information. To be able to put this knowledge to good use, current procedures need to be evaluated, for which a nominal level of expertise is needed. Team leaders need to guide their teams, but should focus on autonomy of the team members and the level of confidence they provide, instead of being extremely empowering, since this has proven to weaken the effect of outside sources on team reflexivity.

5.3 | Limitations and avenues for future research

This study has provided a better understanding of the relationship between external learning, team reflexivity and team ambidexterity, and the role of the empowering team leader. Other studies have proven reflexivity is a predictor for ambidexterity on the organizational level, but on team level

this turned out not to be true. Team reflexivity does not lead to exploitation or exploration by NPD teams in general, nor does it lead to the simultaneous pursuit of the two processes. Even though this study has provided some fruitful results, some limitations were present that could not be overcome. These limitations will be presented in this section, divided into theoretical, methodological and empirical limitations, and the future avenues that can be explored.

5.3.1 | Theoretical limitations and future avenues

In this study, solely NPD teams who were working in knowledge-intensive companies were used, which are specialized in a specific technical area that focuses on the development of new products. The results gained from this study cannot be generalized to other types of teams of organizations, as results would probably differ. It is advised to repeat this study using a different level of a analysis, to see whether these results could be generalized to a bigger population.

Organizational literature has shown a wide array of different forms of leadership, while this study has solely focused on empowering leadership. Other types of leadership, such as transformational and classical transactional leadership, might have differing effects on the relationship between external learning and team reflexivity. Future research could focus on these types of leadership, to see if this affects the aforementioned relationship in a different manner.

The ability of the teams to learn from outside sources might also depend on various team characteristics, which have not been taken into account in this study. Research on team context and organizational context might explain why some team members or teams are able to learn from certain experiences and activities, while some others do not.

A final theoretical limitation is the operationalization of the core variable ambidexterity. Edwards (1994) has advised calculations to find the combination of exploration and exploitation, since researchers do not agree on the measurement of this construct. O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) however have argued that both processes should be measured as two separate constructs. It is advised that future research digs deeper into the concept of ambidexterity and its additional ways of measurement,

for results might differ. It would be interesting to see what exactly drives exploration and exploitation, and what drives the combined power of ambidexterity, other than the proposed team reflexivity.

5.3.2 | Methodological limitations and future avenues

The data used to conduct this study, was collected at two different moments in time, from two different companies. It therefor does not represent a consistent moment in time, and is in no way representative of the organizations or the organizational environment at all. For both companies, this means the data is a single shot case study, for which the data is collected by means of a quantitative approach. A limitation to this way of conducting research is that it is not a longitudinal study, so comparisons in the development of teams in time cannot be made. The possible double loop, as was mentioned in the relationship between external learning and team reflexivity, can be tested through longitudinal research and by modelling this relationship dynamically.

In addition, the data can be enhanced by using a mixed method approach, and by combining qualitative data with the quantitative data as it was gathered. This might reveal additional information about respondents, and enables a better understanding of some of the choices they have made. Another way of gaining more insight into these respondents is by adding more open-ended questions to the questionnaires, which personalizes the data and allows for a better interpretation.

5.3.3 | Empirical limitations and future avenues

The amount of respondents that were used in this study was limited to 265, which may have affected the relationships that have and have not been found. A larger amount of respondents might lead to more significant effects. Two companies have participated in this study, so it would be interesting to see comparisons on all areas, or even between a larger amount of organizations. Comparisons between each individual team in the companies could be made, to see whether the teams differ or not, per company. It would be fruitful for future research to see differences between the various NPD teams.

5.4 | Conclusion

Exploration and exploitation remain the two main goals companies need to pursue in order to ensure their existence, which is especially important for those who work on the development of new products. NPD teams who are able to achieve the simultaneous and combined pursuit of these processes, known as ambidexterity, will be better prepared to act on opportunities when these arise, by profiting from accumulated knowledge and learning experiences.

The main research question of this study is ‘Does external learning influence team ambidexterity, and to what extent does team reflexivity mediate this relationship?’. NPD teams should be able to look at outside sources like competitors in similar companies, and experts in the field, in order to use these observations and accumulated knowledge to engage in discussion which causes a better processing of this information. This type of reflection lets the teams evaluate their current procedures and routines, and improve them when necessary and when able to. Team leaders who exert empowerment towards their teams, do directly contribute to the team’s reflexivity, but due to this type of leadership the team members are less able to process the information that they have gained from the external sources. The reflexivity of the team however does not affect the team’s ambidexterity, which means evaluation of the current ways of working and the business, and the identification of new opportunities based on information from these external sources, do not contribute to the dual focus that the teams need to become ambidextrous. This dual focus is only triggered directly by the external learning activities, for these bring new perspectives and a broader knowledge base to the table which are needed for the successful combinative pursuit of explorative and exploitative processes.

To conclude, it is clear that the teams in this study tended to be more ambidextrous when they used external sources for information, but by reflecting upon these experiences, this effect was mitigated. The presence of an empowering team leader did stimulate the team’s reflexivity, but it weakened the effect of external experiences on reflexivity. Furthermore, no concrete drivers of exploitation nor exploration were found. Managers should be able to engage their teams into activities of both exploration and exploitation, so upcoming opportunities can be identified and can be acted upon, with the help of the nominal level of expertise within the organization.

List of references

Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., & Ammeter, A. P. (2004). Leader political skill and team performance. Journal of Management, 30(3), 309-327.

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717. Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1996. Organizational learning II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Barge, K.J. Reflexivity and managerial practice. Communication Monographs, 2004, 71, 70–96. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The

productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28(2), 238-256.

Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45, 47-55.

Burgoyne, J., Pedler, M., & Boydell, T. (1999). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development. New York: Maidenhead.

Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.

Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 207-218.

Carter, S. M., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small group research, 29(5), 583-601.

Chandrasekaran, A., & Mishra, A. (2012). Task design, team context, and psychological safety: An empirical analysis of R&D projects in high technology organizations. Production and Operations Management, 21(6), 977-996.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35(1).

De Dreu, C. K. D. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(3), 285-298.

De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: a motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 628.

Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: a review of some literatures. Organization studies, 14(3), 375-394.

Edwards, J. R. 1993. Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research. Personnel Psychology, 46: 641-665.

Formatted: English (U.S.)