Master Thesis
The organizational context and individual performance:
The mediating effect of individual ambidexterity
Student: Mara Joy Sarti - Student ID: 11146117
Executive Programme Business Studies - Strategy track Amsterdam Business School - University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Dhr. prof. dr. E. Peelen
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Mara Joy Sarti 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.
Abstract
This study contributes to the current literature by investigating ambidexterity and
performance on the individual level of analysis among a sample of 152 individuals within the Facility Services industry. This paper examines four coordination mechanisms (i.e. decision-making authority, formalization of tasks, connectedness and transformational leadership) that have an effect on individual in-role and innovative job performance and ambidextrous
behavior. Further, the mediating effect of individual ambidexterity regarding the relationship between the organizational context and performance is examined.
This study reveals that organizations that want to stimulate in-role and innovative
performance should carefully design their firm and integrate specific types of coordination mechanisms. Findings show that connectedness among individuals yields multiple benefits. It positively influences both in-role and innovative performance, has a positive effect on
ambidextrous behavior and ambidexterity explains this relationship. Even though the operational environment of the Facility Services industry is dynamic, this does not always seem to have great influence on innovative job performance. Surprisingly, the focus of individuals in this industry seems to, mostly, lie on in-role performance. Which is an interesting finding since the operational level is confronted with dynamic forces. Of course, innovative performance and thinking occur, however this could possibly be more related to optimizing and fine-tuning existing processes, operational flexibility and enhancing customer service. In other words, balancing structured and small innovative tasks in the daily work routine.
Keywords: formal coordination mechanisms, relational coordination mechanisms, individual ambidexterity, exploitative behavior, explorative behavior, individual in-role job
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 5
1.1 Organizational Ambidexterity ... 7
1.2 Individual Ambidexterity ... 8
1.3 Environmental Dynamism and the Facility Services Industry ... 8
2. Individual Job Performance ... 9
2.1 Individual In-role and Innovative Job Performance ... 10
3. Direct impact of Organizational Coordination Mechanisms on Individual Performance .... 11
3.1 Formal Coordination Mechanism; Decision-Making Authority ... 12
3.2 Formal Coordination Mechanism; Formalization of Tasks ... 13
3.3 Relational Coordination Mechanism; Connectedness ... 14
3.4 Relational Coordination Mechanism; Transformational Leadership ... 15
4. Direct Impact of Organizational Coordination Mechanisms on Individual Ambidexterity . 16 5. The Mediation Role of Individual Ambidexterity ... 19
6. Conceptual Model ... 20
7. Research Design ... 21
7.1 Sample and Data Collection ... 21
7.2 Measures ... 22
8. Analysis and Results ... 25
8.1 Tests of the Hypothesized Model ... 27
8.2 Tests of the Direct Effects ... 27
8.3 Tests of the Organizational Context on Ambidexterity... 29
8.4 Tests of the Mediating Effect of Individual Ambidexterity ... 30
8.5 Findings Outside the Scope of this Study ... 31
9. Discussion and Conclusion ... 34
10. Limitations and Future Research Suggestions ... 39
Appendix 1. Original Survey Questions, Adjustments in Questions, Back-translation, Cover Letter and Final Survey Questions ... 47
1. Introduction
The literal meaning of ambidexterity is for an individual to have the ability to use both the left and the right hand at the same time. Imagine how efficient we could be in our day to day work and activities if we would all possess this special capability. Unfortunately, there are only a very few people on this globe who truly are ambidextrous. Nevertheless, this phenomenon gets increasingly more applied within companies who battle with managing the tension between the contradicting situation of aligning their daily business versus adapting to the environment, or, exploiting versus exploring.
Earlier studies refer to organizational ambidexterity as the capacity of the organization to be aligned and effective in managing the daily business demands while at the same time reacting flexible to adjustments in the environment (Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008). Derived from the organizational ambidexterity literature Mom et al. (2009) states that manager’s ambidexterity can be defined as a manager’s behavioral attitude toward integrating
exploitative and explorative behavior within a determined timeframe. Certainly, this applies to the individual employee level as well. Building on individual ambidexterity, prior research indicates that individual ambidexterity is a key driver for long-term performance (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004).
In the current literature, there is a wealth of knowledge available about organizational ambidexterity and the positive influence on performance (e.g. Jaworski and Kohli 1993, O’Reilly and Tushman 2011). On the contrary, not much is known about how organizations can be ambidextrous. In other words, how this concept applies to the individual level. This makes individual ambidexterity an interesting research direction. Accordingly, I answer the call of different scholars to increase our understanding about individual ambidexterity. “Studies that examine exploration and exploitation at a micro level are relatively scarce.”.
explore and exploit (…) there is a complete lack of research into ambidexterity at the individual level of analysis.”. (Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008). To understand how to build ambidexterity in a firm, Mom et al. (2009) suggest that it is necessary to examine the relationship between a managers’ ambidextrous behavior and the firm’s or business unit’s level of performance. I take this request one step further down the ‘hierarchical ladder’ to the individual level of analysis. The sample of this paper consists of individuals who work in the Facility Services industry. Firms within this industry have to deal with forces of operational flexibility, rapidly changing customer demands and the development of new, or improved, products and services. This study investigates the direct effect of the organizational context (i.e. decision-making authority, formalization of tasks, connectedness and transformational leadership) on an individual’s job performance and on their ambidextrous behavior. Further, I examine if the relationship between the organizational context and individual job performance can be explained by the mediating effect of individual ambidexterity. This is captured in the following research question:
What is the effect of the organizational context on an individual’s performance, and is this mediated by ambidexterity?
1.1 Organizational Ambidexterity
To understand individual ambidexterity, we first need to outline where this concept comes from. We therefore start by looking at organizational ambidexterity and the importance for firms of being ambidextrous. Organizational ambidexterity is a highly researched subject in the organizational literature. Firms that want to survive and succeed in our changing and dynamic environment need to be ambidextrous. Organizations try to simultaneously pursue exploitation of their existing business and exploration of new opportunities to create long-term competitiveness. The value of ambidexterity is that the demands on an organization in its environment are always to some degree in conflict (for example, investing in new projects versus current projects), hence organizations are often forced to make offs. These trade-offs can never completely be excluded, but organizations who can balance them enhance their long-term competitive advantage (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004). To manage these trade-off scholars used to look at the two processes separately by putting in place “dual structures” so that certain groups could focus on alignment while others focused on adaption (Duncan 1976, as cited by Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004). Increasingly, this view has shifted toward a
paradoxical view where scholars emphasize on simultaneously pursuing exploration and exploitation in one group (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004, Jansen et al. 2006). Various recent literature streams have contributed to our understanding of the importance for firms to establish or maintain ambidexterity. “Organizational ambidexterity has been identified as an important antecedent of technological progress” (Gibson & Birkinshaw 2004; He & Wong, 2004; Junni, Sarala, Taras, & Tarba, 2013; Raisch & Birkinshaw 2008. As cited by Caniëls and Veld 2016). O’Reilly and Tushman (2011) provide us with evidence that the survival of organizations depends on the ability of firms to exploit their current business and explore new areas and developing new capabilities.
1.2 Individual Ambidexterity
In contrast to our understanding about organizational ambidexterity, there is far less known about how organizations achieve organizational ambidexterity. Therefore, as mentioned in the introduction, a limitation of current research regarding ambidexterity is that this mainly focused on organizational ambidexterity instead of the individual level of analysis.
Where structural ambidexterity suggests that activities concerning exploitation or exploration should be undertaken separately, individual, or contextual, ambidexterity emphasizes the importance of doing them simultaneously. Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004) define contextual ambidexterity as “the behavioral capacity to simultaneously demonstrate alignment and adaptability across an entire business unit”. Both activities are expected to reinforce each other and should be balanced. The higher the level of exploitation and exploration, the more ambidextrous the behavior of an employee, the better the performance of the firm will be (Caniëls et al. 2016). Not only do organizations find themselves in paradoxical situations in balancing ambidexterity, but individuals do too. Focusing on only one will not guarantee long-term success (Tushman and O’reilly 1996). On a daily basis, there needs to be room for adaptability and creativity while maintaining alignment and adapting to the environment. Thus, not only should individuals be able to recognize new opportunities and changing demands, they should also be able to act upon them while managing their current business.
1.3 Environmental Dynamism and the Facility Services Industry
The effect of environmental dynamism on innovation and performance has been widely researched and acknowledged (Miller et al. 1983). Lewin et al. (1999), for instance, argue that exploitative and explorative innovations and their impact on performance are influenced by the environment. Only in dynamic industries individual ambidexterity occurs (Jansen et al.
2006, Mom et al. 2009). In line with these arguments, the Facility Services industry is the selected research area for this study.
Environmental dynamism relates to the rate of change, the absence of pattern and unpredictability of the environment and is related to the amount of change and the unpredictability of change (Dess & Beard 1984). Environmental dynamism can be
characterized by changes in customer preferences, variations in technologies and fluctuations in product demand (Jansen et al. 2006). Hence, in dynamic environments, current products and services can be quickly outdated and there is pressure on developing new ones. To seize important opportunities, organizations need to pursue exploratory innovations that are different from the existing products and services (Jansen et al. 2006).
Facility Services industry refers to an industry that encompasses multiple disciplines to ensure functionality of the built environment by integrating people, place, process and technology (Roper et al. 2014). The Facility Services industry, like many industries, has to deal with the changing demands of the environment, while on the operational level with working in structured processes. New technologies, changing customer demands and cutting costs are tensions that are very common in this industry.
2. Individual Job Performance
Individual job performance is defined as observable things people do (i.e. behaviors) that are relevant to the goals of the organization. The behaviors that constitute performance can be scaled in terms of the level of performance they represent. Further, individual performance behavior is not related to one outcome, but to a multidimensional activity (Campbell 1990). Judge and Bono (2011) claim that conscientiousness is the primary predictor of job
not enough freedom to make decisions) this can negatively relate to their performance since it goes against what they feel is ‘right’. This idea is supported by Walumbwa et al. (2008) who propose that the key feature of the ‘social exchange theory’ is that the type of relationship individuals have with each other or the organization is the most direct cause of the behavior. For instance, employees who perceive a high level of support from the organization are more likely to feel obligated to ‘give back’ to the organization in terms of positive work-related behavior. When there are such positive relations, individuals are expected to have higher job performance (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden 1996. As cited by Walumbwa et al. 2008).
2.1 Individual In-role and Innovative Job Performance
To achieve great individual performance, firms need to balance between making performance more certain by using structured processes and rules and giving individuals the opportunity to adapt to unexpected situations and opportunities that arise (Katz 1964, Janssen et al. 2004). In this vein, we can relate to different studies who argue that pursuing new and existing
knowledge is crucial for sustainable long-term performance. Focusing on one dimension could intensify pressure from the other, which can result in frustration among individuals. Thus, it is important to balance these aspects, which in turn would be a primary factor of survival and benefit for the organization (March 1991, Lewis 2000, Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004). This study, therefore, distinguishes between in-role job performance and innovative job performance.
In-role job performance refers to the tasks that need to be carried out by an individual and are specified in an individual’s job description. These actions are mandatory, evaluated and appraised by the organization. In-role performance makes the behavior of an individual more predictable and makes sure that fundamental work tasks are regulated and supervised to achieve the goals of the organization (Janssen et al. 2004).
Innovative job performance can be characterized as deliberately creating, supporting and giving individuals the freedom for realizing new content and ideas within an individual’s daily work tasks, project group, or for the organization. This, therefore, will be beneficial and profit an individual’s performance, project group or the organization (Janssen et al. 2004).
3. Direct impact of Organizational Coordination Mechanisms on Individual Performance
Coordination mechanisms underlay what firms can do. Prior research indicates the importance of formal and relational coordination mechanisms by defining them as key elements within the organizational context that influence an individual’s behavior by shaping the actions, interactions and relations with other organizational members (Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008). Firms need to make a choice between the way formal and relational coordination mechanisms are managed and take place in the day to day work situation of every individual within the organization. Therefore, the way the organizational context is structured within a firm should have an important effect on individual performance.
In this study, I investigate two formal coordination mechanisms; decision-making authority and formalization of an individual’s task. In other words, the degree of which an individual has standardized tasks and the extent of which they can deviate from those tasks. With these assumptions, I follow other studies: i.e.: Jansen et al. (2006) and Mom et al. (2009). Second, I analyze two relational coordination mechanisms; connectedness and transformational leadership. Relational contacts between individuals and other members of the organization are of great importance for feeling connected with the organization and this can therefore influence an individual’s performance. This is also the case for the behavior a
(2009). Where these previous studies investigated the effect of the organizational context on the ambidextrous behavior of senior management, middle managers or business units’ performance this study will investigate the effect of the organizational context on the individual employee level of performance and ambidextrous behavior.
3.1 Formal Coordination Mechanism; Decision-Making Authority
Decision-making authority refers to the degree to which an individual has the authorization and freedom in deciding what specific tasks, and in which way, they can perform and their capacity to work out setbacks and to determine objectives (Mom et al. 2009). Little
participation in decision-making has a negative influence on the level of commitment among organizational members, for instance in following new policies (Hage and Aiken 1967). For this reason, employees should be ‘empowered’ in their decision-making which will raise the urge to seek for new innovative solutions, outside the existing framework of the
organization’s strategy and culture (Jaworski and Kohli 1993, Sheremata 2000, Mom et al. 2009). Individuals who have freedom in decision-making are therefore more likely to recognize opportunities because they get more challenged to do so (Tushman and O’reilly 1996). In this sense, increased decision-making authority of individuals increases their responsibility for their own work, which positively influences their innovative performance. Conversely, previous research suggests that lower decision-making authority is beneficial for improving structured tasks (Sheremata 2000). In-role performance is by definition more limited in newness and generates less uncertainty for units or individuals. Increased decision-making authority could make this process more complicated than necessary, thus more inefficient. Taking this into consideration, effective decision-making regarding structured tasks is more likely to happen when individuals have less authority to do so and this function is more centralized. In this sense, higher decision- making has a negative effect on performing
structured tasks which influences an individual’s behavior and performance (Cardinal 2001, Jansen et al. 2006).
Hypothesis 1. The degree of decision-making authority will be (a) negatively related to in-role job performance and (b) positively to innovative job performance.
3.2 Formal Coordination Mechanism; Formalization of Tasks
Formalization refers to the extent that various regulations, guidelines, information and work processes are described and formalized (Khandwalla 1977, Jansen et al. 2006). The
capabilities of an organization lie primarily in the organizing principles by which individual and functional expertise are structured, coordinated, and communicated (Zander and Kogut 1995). Earlier studies indicate that following rules and procedures restrict impromptu problem-solving efforts and reduce autonomous behavior amongst individuals (Jansen et al. 2006). In other words, high formalization directs the focus from ‘variation seeking’ behavior and builds processes around established success. Increasing formalization in an individual’s task increases the possibility that these individuals are less open to making their own
decisions and it decreases the willingness of individuals to pursue opportunities (Cyert and March 1963. As cited by Mom et al. 2009, Hage 1965). Therefore, highly formalized jobs hinder innovative behavior and performance. At the same time, formalization can cause incremental improvements in existing routines. Once adapted, the enhanced routines become part of the daily tasks, which should benefit the employee and customer (Benner and
Tushman 2003). Further, formalization facilitates the opportunity for departments and individuals to improve their best practices (Zander and Kogut 1995) In this sense,
Hypothesis 2. The degree of formalization will be (a) positively related to in-role job performance and (b) negatively to innovative job performance.
3.3 Relational Coordination Mechanism; Connectedness
Connectedness among individuals within the organization facilitates interaction and exchange of information, as well as the actual utilization of the information (Jaworski and Kohli 1993). Firms are social communities which use their relational structure and shared processes to enhance the transfer and communication of new skills and capabilities (Zander and Kogut 1995). Previous research of Jaworski and Kohli (1993) has indicated that interdepartmental dynamics play an important role in determining the level of exploration and exploitation orientation within firms. The interaction between individuals who know each other is more successful and is crucial for the exchange of existing knowledge, new knowledge and learning from each other. It reduces the likelihood of conflict regarding goals and targets amongst employees and enhances a collaborative goal (Hanses 2002, Jansen et al. 2009, Jaworski and Kohli 1993). In this regard, connectedness enhances the ability to understand and act upon the existing identified needs and the new opportunities within organizations (Mom et al. 2009). This is in line with the concept that the sort relationship individuals have directly influence their behavior and performance (Walumbwa et al. 2008). In this sense, connectedness will have a positive effect on both in-role and innovative individual performance, because it increases their knowledge which will benefit both dimensions of their performance.
Hypothesis 3. The degree of connectedness will be (a) positively related to in-role job performance and (b) positively to innovative job performance.
3.4 Relational Coordination Mechanism; Transformational Leadership
In the rapidly changing work environment that organizations face there is a call for adaptive and flexible leadership (Bass et al. 2003). This type of adaptive leadership is called
transformational leadership. Transformational leaders are charismatic, inspirational, intellectually stimulating, and individually considerate (Bass and Avolio 1993, Lowe et al. 1996). They can integrate creative insight, persistence and energy, intuition and are sensitive to needs of others. Transformational leaders build on assumptions that people are trustworthy and purposeful. Everyone in the organization has their own contribution to make (Bass and Avolio 1993). Rosing et al. (2011) state it is not necessarily the ‘leadership style’ one manager possesses, rather their behavior within their style. Managers can lead ‘by example’ to stimulate their employees in showing certain types of behavior. Of course, this has a substantial influence on the output a team or individual delivers. Accordingly, the role
modeling function transformational leaders have, infiltrate across different hierarchal levels in the organization. This behavior can inspire other members from lower levels of the
organization to show approved behavior and search for opportunities to achieve innovative behavior (Jansen et al. 2008). Previous research indicates that transformational leadership is associated with generating and promoting new ideas, rather than executing basic tasks (Lowe et al. 1996, Bass et al. 2003). It describes that transformational and charismatic leadership affects individuals in their innovative performance by influencing their self-construal (e.g. self-confidence) on multiple levels (Nemanich et al. 2009). This increases the willingness of individuals to experiment and be creative. Consistently, this raises the expectation that
transformational leadership behavior should be positively related to an individual’s innovative performance and more negatively to their in-role job performance.
Hypothesis 4. The degree of charismatic leadership behavior will be (a) negatively related to in-role job performance and (b) positively to innovative job performance.
Hypothesis 5. The degree of inspirational motivation will be (a) negatively related to in-role job performance and (b) positively to innovative job performance.
Hypothesis 6. The degree of intellectual stimulation will be (a) negatively related to in-role job performance and (b) positively to innovative job performance.
Hypothesis 7. The degree of individual consideration will be (a) negatively related to in-role job performance and (b) positively to innovative job performance.
4. Direct Impact of Organizational Coordination Mechanisms on Individual Ambidexterity
Organizations need to make a choice between the way coordination mechanisms are
integrated, managed and take place in the day to day work situation of every individual within the organization. They determine the degree of which individuals have the opportunity to use resources and interdependent functions needed for exploration and exploitation (Tusman and O’reilly 1996, Jansen et al. 2006). However, they may differently influence an individual’s ability to pursue ambidextrous behavior. This will be discussed in the following section.
Decision-making authority. As Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) claim the organizational context should stimulate individuals to make their own decisions as how to split their time between aligning and adapting to different tasks. For ambidextrous behavior, there needs to be a situation of trust, support and less standardization. Explorative behavior requires non-routine problem solving and deviation from existing knowledge (Jansen et al. 2006). It
requires an aspiration and the authority for improvement as an activation trigger (Nemanich et al. 2009). In this sense, explorative behavior is positively associated with more autonomous
making authority. Conversely, previous research has suggested that higher decision-making authority is negatively related to exploitative behavior, since it hinders effective decision-making regarding the improvement of structured tasks and routines (e.g. Sheremata 2000, Cardinal 2001, Jansen et al. 2006). In this line of reasoning, exploitative behavior is negatively associated with high decision-making authority.
Hypothesis 8. The higher the level of an individual’s decision-making authority, (a) the higher the level of explorative behavior, and (b) the lower the level of exploitative behavior.
Formalization of tasks. Formalization of an individual’s task can be crucial for the coordination of activities (Mom et al. 2009). Ambidextrous individuals need to be able to pursue a different range of often conflicting and demanding goals (Tushman and O’reilly 1996). Tasks that are highly formalized focus on working according to pre-determined routines and rules. It reduces an individuals’ ability to think outside of the existing framework. Accordingly, it hinders the explorative behavior an individual can display. Conversely, higher formalization enables an individual to improve existing routines and best practices and is therefore positively related to exploitation. It can correct itself sooner and yields more positive returns in the near term (Levinthal and March 1993, Zander and Kogut 1995, Jansen et al. 2006).
Hypothesis 9. The higher the formalization of an individual’s tasks, (a) the lower the level of explorative behavior, and (b) the higher the level of exploitative behavior.
Connectedness. Frequent interactions and close ties between groups foster conflict resolving and prevent disturbed relations, like holding grudges. Low conflict organizations are
associated with strong connections between individuals (Nelson 1989). Connectedness builds explorative capacity within an individual, department or business unit because it helps to combine or develop new knowledge. Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) argue that social relations enable exploration. It gives individuals the opportunity to further improve new products and processes due to sharing of experiences (Jansen et al. 2006). In this line of reasoning, connectedness is more associated with explorative behavior rather than exploitative behavior.
Hypothesis 10. The higher the connectedness of an individual to other organizational members, (a) the higher the level of explorative behavior, and (b) the lower the level of exploitative behavior.
Transformational leadership. A managers’ behavior is of great influence on the behavior of employees and the organizational outcomes. Managers who want to pursue exploratory activities are concerned with some sort of risk-taking. In the absence of willingness to take calculated risks, research has indicated that employees in lower levels of the organizational hierarchy are unlikely to want to respond to new developments of products, services and programs (Jaworski and Kohli 1993). Conversely, certain leadership styles can facilitate and promote development among employees (Vera and Crossan 2004). Prior research has shown that there is a positive effect between transformational leadership and exploration (Nemanich et al. 2009). As the term suggests, transformational leadership best suits situations involving change and innovation therefore it is more linked with stimulation of explorative behavior (Vera and Crossan 2004).
Hypothesis 11. The higher the level of charismatic leadership behavior of an individual’s manager, (a) the higher the level of explorative behavior, and (b) the lower the level of exploitative behavior.
Hypothesis 12. The higher the level of inspirational motivation of an individual’s manager, (a) the higher the level of explorative behavior, and (b) the lower the level of exploitative behavior.
Hypothesis 13. The higher the level of intellectual stimulation of an individual’s manager, (a) the higher the level of explorative behavior, and (b) the lower the level of exploitative
behavior.
Hypothesis 14. The higher the level of individual stimulation of an individual’s manager, (a) the higher the level of explorative behavior, and (b) the lower the level of exploitative
behavior.
5. The Mediation Role of Individual Ambidexterity
Finally, I expect that the organizational context influences performance through
ambidexterity. The suggestion cannot be made that when a firm has formal and relational coordination mechanisms in place this will automatically lead to the best performance possible. Instead, the coordination mechanisms structure the way individuals work. Through the integration of the mechanisms, the behavior of individuals in the organization is formed. Successively, this can shape the competency for individual ambidexterity and this, together, can lead to great performance (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004). Therefore, individual
ambidexterity will have a positive indirect effect and should explain the relationship between the organizational context and in-role and innovative performance.
Hypothesis 15. Individual ambidexterity mediates the relationship between the organizational context and individual performance. Specifically, higher ambidexterity will relate to higher exploitative (a) and explorative (b) behavior which will indirectly lead to better individual performance.
6. Conceptual Model
The previously outlined variables, and therefore the design of this study, is captured by the conceptual model (figure 1). This paper aims to demonstrate that the organizational context (formal and relational coordination mechanisms) has a significant effect on an individual’s job performance (in-role and innovative performance). Further, I examine if the
organizational context has a significant effect on ambidextrous behavior and I look for support concerning the mediating effect ambidextrous behavior may have on the relationship between the organizational context and an individual’s performance.
We can see that the degree of formal coordination mechanisms; decision-making authority and formalization of tasks (IV) may have a direct effect on innovative and in-role job performance (DV). The level of relational coordination mechanisms; connectedness and transformational leadership (IV) may also have a direct effect on innovative and in-role job performance (DV). Additionally, the direct effect of the formal and relational coordination mechanisms (IV) on explorative behavior and exploitative behavior is investigated.
Furthermore, the mediating effect of ambidexterity between the organizational context and performance will be examined. To cover all the aspects of the conceptual model the following research question has been formulated:
What is the effect of the organizational context on an individual’s performance, and is this mediated by ambidexterity?
7. Research Design
7.1 Sample and Data Collection
To investigate performance and ambidexterity on the individual level, a sample was composed of individuals who work in an industry that is confronted with exploitative and explorative pressures. To find empirical support for the hypotheses cross-sectional
quantitative data was obtained through the conduction of an online survey via Qualtrics. The survey was distributed among individuals who, as briefly mentioned before, work in the Facility Services industry. The choice for this industry is a result of several considerations. The Facility Services sector is an interesting direction for innovation research because it is confronted with constant pressures of change within organizations and its environment. It covers a wide range of (in)tangible services and management (e.g. sustainability, IT services,
et al. 1995, Hertog 2000, Barrett et al. 2009). Today, customer demand is about meeting and exceeding the expectation. Changing trends in customer demand have therefore triggered this industry to pursue exploratory and exploitative innovations on the operational level such as, improving and renewing products, delivering new product concepts technological innovation, professionalization, delivering the best quality and being cost efficient.
The targets were selected via non-probability convenience sampling. Distribution went through my own network, the network from my colleagues and business partners in the
Facility Services industry (e.g. the snowball technique). To increase the willingness to fill in the survey, a cover letter was included explaining the purpose of the study and the duration to fill in the questionnaire. To ensure confidentiality, complete anonymity was guaranteed. A total of 190 responses was recorded of whom 152 respondents completed the survey, corresponding to a completion rate of 80%. The respondents work for a variety of firms within the Facility Services industry. The results of this study, therefore, present the Facility Services industry, not a specific type of firm (e.g. vending or catering company). The sample consisted out 58% male and 42% female, the average age of the individuals is 41 years, 38% has a job tenure of 11-20 years and 31% of 21-30 years.
7.2 Measures
This study’s measures are all based on existing scales. To increase the response rate some questions within the existing scales were deleted to ensure that the duration of the survey was under ten minutes. Appendix 1 provides an overview of the constructs and the cover letter.
Dependent variable: Individual job performance. To measure in-role and innovative job performance two scales of Janssen et al. (2004) were used. A five-item scale to measure in role job performance was used. This scale measures mandated, appraised and rewarded
example of this scale; ‘I often fail to perform essential duties.’. A nine-item scale for innovative job performance was used. This assesses the extent to integrate new ideas to benefit performance (e.g. ‘I create new ideas for improvement.’). From the nine-item innovative scale, four questions were deleted (e.g. ‘Generating original solutions to problems’).
Independent variables: Decision-making authority. To measure the extent of an individual’s decision-making authority, a four-item scale of Dewar et al. (1980) was used. This scale determines the degree to which an individual has authority in decision-making regarding the performance of their own tasks and in their ability to set different, or, their own goals (Mom et al. 2009). An example of this scale is; ‘I can undertake little action until my supervisor approves a decision.’
Formalization of tasks. To measure the degree of formalization of an individual’s task, a four-item scale of Desphande and Zaltman (1982) was used. This measures the tasks of an individual and how these tasks are defined by rules, processes and regulations (Mom et al. 2009) (e.g. ‘I have to follow strict operational procedures at all times.’).
Connectedness. To assess the connectedness of an individual to other organizational members a four-item scale of Jaworski and Kohli (1993) was used which determines the degree to which an individual is connected to, and has personal contact with, other
organizational members throughout different levels of the organization (e.g. ‘I very frequently have contact with people, regardless of rank or position.’).
Transformational leadership. To measure transformational leadership a twelve-item scale of Vera and Crossan (2004) was used. Which is based on Bass’s Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and represents four major traits of different transformational leadership styles. Therefore, the twelve-item scale is subdivided into four scales. In every scale, three items are
stimulation and individual consideration. An example of this scale is; ‘I have complete faith in him/her.’
Mediating variable: Individual ambidexterity. To measure the extent of the mediating effect of individual ambidexterity a twelve-item scale of both Jansen et al. (2006) and Patel et al. (2013) was used. These scales measure exploratory and exploitative innovation, each measured by six items. To ensure the highest respondent rate possible and exclude any form of bias the questions in the survey had to be as simplistic and relatable as possible. Therefore, the two scales where recombined and adjusted. For example; Jansen et al. (2006) ask in their scale about creating new products and services, or new ideas. This is formulated in an unrelatable manner and can make it more difficult for an individual to answer (i.e.; ‘Our unit accepts demands that go beyond existing products and services.’). Patel et al. (2013) provide a more understandable description (i.e.; ‘Looks for novel technological idea by thinking
“outside the box”.’). Therefore, the two scales were combined and the most suited questions were picked that together cover the topic. Furthermore, the original questions were formulated on a firm’s level. This was adapted to the individual level to ask the respondents about their ambidextrous behavior (e.g. ‘We invent new products and services.’ was adapted into; ‘I invent new products and services’). Of each scale, two questions were deleted. For example; ‘We commercialize products and services that are completely new to our organization.’. After the adjustments, a four-item scale was used to measure exploratory and exploitative behavior. Control variables. To control for spurious relationships, gender (1, ‘female’ 2, ‘male’), age (in years) and education were entered as control variables. An individual’s experience may influence their in-role and innovative job performance (Mom et al. 2009), hence tenure was also included. Environmental dynamism may also influence the degree individuals engage in ambidextrous behavior (Lewin et al. 1999, Jansen et al. 2006, Mom et al. 2009).
Therefore, a three-item scale was included of Dill (1958) and Volberda and Van Bruggen (1997). An example item is; ‘Our clients regularly ask for new products and services.’.
8. Analysis and Results
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, correlations and Cronbach’s alpha for the study variables. As a preliminary step, Skewness and Kurtosis were analyzed, which revealed that some variables showed some deviation. These variables were closely examined in histograms, which learned that a few answers of each of these variables were tailed to the left. For most of these variables, Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities were α.>.7, revealing strong reliability of the measures. Two items within the in-role job performance scale (question 2: ‘I fulfil all responsibilities required by my job’ and question 3: ‘I never neglect aspects of the job that I am obligated to perform’) reported below the threshold of α.<.7. After careful consideration, the decision was made to only adapt the deviating variables (question 2 and 3 of the in-role job performance scale) into new variables to ensure normal distribution. After these
adjustments and deletion of question 5 (‘I often fail to perform essential duties’) the Cronbach’s alpha reported .586. The construct is still 59% reliable, it was, therefore,
important to keep in mind that there may be some inaccuracy in this scale when analyzing the results. Furthermore, exploratory factor analysis was conducted of the 9 items pertaining in-role and innovative job performance. A two-factor result came up accounting for 59,1% of the variance. Each item loaded on the intended factor with significant loadings above .57 and cross-loadings below .30. As final preliminary step, new variables as a function of existing variables were created for hypothesis testing.
Table 1: mean, standard deviation, correlation and Cronbach’s alpha 1 Variabelen Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. Age Groups 3. 06 0.84 2. Gender 1.58 0.49 .29** 3. Tenure 2.30 0.91 .84** .27**
4. Highest level education 4.11 0.63 -.21** -0.10 -.28** 5. New products and services 4.98 1.37 0.08 0.07 0.01 -0.03 6. Intensity business changes 5.49 1.22 0.04 0.00 -0.01 0.09 .41** 7. Degree changes local market 5.42 1.18 0.13 0.00 0.05 -0.07 .48** .54**
8. Exploitation 5.32 5.32 0.08 0.04 -0.01 .16* .33** .19* .27** (.79) 9. Exploration 5.00 1.10 -0.03 0.10 -0.09 0.04 .52** .26** .35** .53** (.81) 10. Decision making authority 2.52 1.24 0.04 -0.02 0.00 -0.08 -0.08 -0.02 -0.03 -0.12 -0.12 (.88) 11. Formalization tasks 4.12 1.34 0.05 -0.03 0.06 -.17* 0.07 0.10 .17* 0.00 -0.02 .35** (.80) 12. Connectedness 6.08 0.73 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.09 .19* 0.08 .30** .23** .21** -0.14 .17* (.78) 13. Charismatic Leadership 5.20 1.31 -0.13 -0.11 -0.08 -0.01 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.01 -0.03 -.34** 0.13 .29** (.90) 14. Inspirational motivation 5.06 1.31 -0.09 -0.08 -0.09 -0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.10 -0.02 -0.05 -.33** 0.11 .30** .87** (.90) 15. Intellectual stimulation 4.40 1.31 -0.07 -0.14 -0.07 0.08 0.06 0.05 .22** .16* -0.05 -.31** 0.08 .25** .67** .69** (.87) 16. Individualized consideration 4.78 1.33 -0.10 -0.05 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.09 0.09 -0.01 -0.03 -.32** 0.05 .19* .78** .72** .61** (.86) 17. In-role job performance 5.66 0.71 -0.06 -.27** -0.09 -0.08 0.12 .16* .18* 0.00 0.06 0.03 .32** .22** .25** .23** .26** .17* (.59) 18. Innovative job performance 5.54 0.79 0.03 0.10 -0.03 0.15 .31** .16* .23** .43** .55** -.21** -0.11 .36** .16* .19* 0.10 0.09 0.09 (.86) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
8.1 Tests of the Hypothesized Model
To test Hypothesis 1-15 PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) model 4 was used. PROCESS provides regression path analysis, thereby testing direct and indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Appendix 2 provides a complete overview of the PROCESS output.
8.2 Tests of the Direct Effects
Model 1 shows the main effect of the organizational context on individual job performance, referring to Hypothesis 1-7.
Regarding decision-making authority, model 1 shows that there is no significant relationship between an individual’s decision-making authority and their in-role job performance (β=.03, ns), hence Hypothesis 1a is not supported. Regarding the degree of decision-making authority, a positive relationship was predicted with this individual’s innovative performance. As model 1 shows, there is a statistically significant negative relationship between decision-making authority and innovative performance recording the following; β =-.09, t(150)=-2.08, p<0.05. If an individual’s decision-making authority
increases for one, her/ his innovative job performance will decrease for 0.09. Accordingly, the relationship between an individual’s decision-making authority and their innovative job performance is negative rather than positive, thereby not supporting Hypothesis 1b.
Formalization of tasks has a significant positive effect on in-role job performance, recording the following; β =.17, t(150)=4.22, p<0.001, thereby supporting Hypothesis 2a. If an individual’s formalized task increases for one unit, her/ his in-role job performance will increase for 0.17. Regarding the degree of formalization and the negative relationship with innovative job performance, Hypothesis 2b. was not supported, there was no statistically significant relationship found (β=-.06, ns).
Concerning connectedness of an individual to other organizational members and their in-role performance, model 1 shows that a statistically significant positive relationship between connectedness and in-role job performance was found, with a recording of; β =.21, t(150)=2.6, p<0.05, thereby supporting Hypothesis 3a. If an individual’s connectedness increases by one, her/his in-role job performance increases by 0.2. Hypothesis 3b is also supported, connectedness has a significant positive relationship with innovative job performance, recording; β =.24, t(150)=3.2, p<0.05. If an individual’s connectedness increases for one, her/ his innovative job performance increases for 0.24.
With regard to the dimension charismatic leadership of transformational leadership model 1 shows there is a significant positive direct effect between charismatic leadership and in-role job performance. With a recording of; in-role performance β=.14, t(150)=3.2 p<0.01. A negative relationship was predicted, therefore not supporting Hypothesis 4a. There is also a significant and positive relationship found between charismatic leadership and innovative performance, results present; β=.1, t(150)=2.5, p<0.05, supporting Hypothesis 4b.
Concerning the relationship between the inspirational motivation of a manager towards an individual’s performance, a significant positive effect between inspirational motivation and both; in-role and innovative job performance was found. With a recording of; in-role
performance: β=.12 t(150)= 2.8, p<0.01. A negative relationship between inspirational motivation and in-role performance was predicted, hence Hypothesis 5a is not supported. Hypothesis 5b is supported, results show the following; innovative performance: β=.12, t(150)=2.9, p<0.01. Concerning the degree of intellectual stimulation of an individual’s manager, model 1 shows a significant positive relationship between intellectual stimulation and in-role performance was found, with a recording of; β=.15, t(150) 3.46, p<0.001. Since a negative relationship was predicted, Hypothesis 6a is not supported. There was no statistically significant relationship found between intellectual stimulation and innovative job performance
(β=.05, ns), hence not supporting Hypothesis 6b. Regarding individual consideration, there is a significant positive relationship between individual consideration and in-role performance, results show; β: .09, t(150)=2.1, p<0.05, thereby not supporting Hypothesis 7a. There was no statistically significant relationship found between individual consideration and innovative job performance (β=.06, ns), hence Hypothesis 7b is not supported.
8.3 Tests of the Organizational Context on Ambidexterity
Model 1 presents the results of Hypothesis 8-14. Specifically, the antecedents of the organizational context on exploitative and explorative behavior.
Addressing decision-making authority on an individual’s explorative (β=-0.09, ns) and exploitative (β=-0.08, ns) behavior, model 1 shows that there is no significant relationship, therefore rejecting Hypothesis 8a and 8b.
Concerning the effects of formalization of tasks on explorative (β=-0.01, ns) and exploitative behavior (β=0.01, ns), model 1 shows that no significant relationship was found, both Hypothesis 9a and 9b are therefore rejected.
In regard to connectedness and explorative and exploitative behavior, a significant positive relationship was found between connectedness and both explorative and exploitative behavior. The overall model of explorative behavior is positive and significant, with a
recording of; F(1,152)=8.2, p<0.05, r2.05. with a β=0.34, t(152)=2.87, p<0.05, therefore, Hypothesis 10a is supported. Regarding exploitative behavior, the relationship is also positive and significant, results show; F(1,152)=10.38, p<0.05, r2=.06. With a β =.35, t(152)=3.2, p<0.05. A negative relationship between connectedness and exploitative behavior was predicted, thereby not supporting Hypothesis 10b.
Concerning transformational leadership and the four dimensions, there was no statistically significant relationship found between charismatic leadership and
explorative (β=-0.02, ns) and exploitative (β=0.03, ns) behavior, thereby rejecting Hypothesis 11a and 11b. There was also no significant relationship found between inspirational
motivation and explorative (β=-0.02, ns) and exploitative (β=0.01, ns) behavior, therefore not supporting Hypothesis 12a and 12b. Regarding intellectual stimulation, there was no
significant relationship found between intellectual stimulation and explorative behavior (β=-0.04, ns), thus not supporting Hypothesis 13a. Intellectual stimulation and exploitative behavior have a significant positive relationship, with a recording of; F(1,152)=4.1, p<0.05, R2.03 with a β=.12, t(152)=2.02, p<0.05. When an individual’s intellectual stimulation will increase with one unit, his/her exploitative behavior will go up with 0.12. A negative relationship was predicted, Hypothesis 13b is therefore not supported. There was also no significant relationship found between individual consideration and explorative (β=-0.03, ns) and exploitative (β=-0.01, ns) behavior, therefore not supporting Hypothesis 14a and 14b.
8.4 Tests of the Mediating Effect of Individual Ambidexterity
Model 1-2 shows the output regarding the mediating effect of individual ambidexterity between the organizational context and individual job performance.
The relationship that is mediated by ambidexterity is connectedness and innovative job performance. The overall model is significant, recording; F(152,1)=21.36, p<0.001, R2.12 with β=.39, t(152)=4.62, p<0.001, thereby partially supporting Hypothesis 15. As outlined before there is a significant relationship between connectedness and exploitative and explorative behavior. Subsequently, a positive relationship between both exploitative (β= 0.122, p<0.05) and explorative behavior (β=0.306, p<0.001) and innovative job performance was found. The indirect effect of exploitation 0.042 and exploration 0.105 together means that
two individuals who differ by one unit in their reported connectedness are estimated to differ by, exploitative behavior 0.042 and explorative behavior 0.105 units, in their reported
innovative performance as a result of the tendency for those who perceive that they have connectedness in their organization show more ambidextrous behavior, which in turn translates into more innovative job performance. The total effect of connectedness on innovative job performance= .39, meaning that two individuals who differ by one unit in connectedness are estimated to differ by 0.39 units in their reported innovative job behavior. The positive significance means that the individual perceiving greater connectedness reports higher intensions to show this behavior.
For the other three antecedents (decision-making authority, formalization of tasks, transformational leadership) and connectedness and in-role job performance, there was no mediating relationship found.
8.5 Findings Outside the Scope of this Study
Additionally, some interesting relationships were found between the antecedents of the organizational context. The results indicate that the effectiveness of all the transformational leadership antecedents; charismatic leadership (β=-0.34, p<0.001), inspirational motivation (β=-0.33, p<0.001), intellectual stimulation (β=-0.31, p<0.001) and individualized
consideration (β=-0.32, p<0.001) have a significant negative effect on decision-making authority. On the other hand, the effectiveness of transformational leadership on
connectedness is for all antecedents significant and positive; charismatic leadership (β=0.29, p<0.001), inspirational motivation (β=0.30, p<0.001), intellectual stimulation (β=0.35,
p<0.01) and individualized consideration (β=.19, p<0.01). Further, formalization of tasks has a significant positive effect on connectedness (β=0.17, p<0.05).
Model 1 Results of PROCESS model 4: Effects of the organizational context on Exploitative behavior, Explorative behavior, Innovative job performance and In-role job performance
Antecedents R2 In-role job performance Innovative job performance Explorative behavior Exploitative behavior
Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff.
Formal coordination mechanisms
Decision-making authority 0.03 - 0.09* - 0.09 - 0.08
R2 0.01 0.35 0.01 0.01
Formalization tasks 0.17*** - 0.06 - 0.01 0.01
R2 0.11 0.34 0.00 0.00
Relational coordination mechanisms
Connectedness 0.21* 0.24** 0.34** 0.35** R2 0.48 0.37 0.05 0.64 Charismatic leadership 0.14** 0.10* - 0.02 0.03 R2 0.07 0.36 0.00 0.00 Inspirational motivation 0.12** 0.12** - 0.02 0.01 R2 0.05 0.37 0.00 0.00 Intellectual stimulation 0.15*** 0.05 - 0.04 0.12* R2 0.08 0.34 0.00 0.03 Individual consideration 0.09* 0.06 - 0.03 - 0.01 R2 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.00
Antecedent Effect Innovative job performance In-role job performance
Coeff. Coeff.
Formal coordination mechanisms Decision-making authority Direct effect - 0.09* 0.03 Total effect - 0.13* 0.03 Formalization tasks Direct effect - 0.06 0.17*** Total effect - 0.06 0.17***
Relational coordination mechanisms Connectedness Direct effect 0.24** 0.21* Total effect 0.39*** 0.20* Charismatic leadership Direct effect 0.10* 0.14** Total effect 0.10* 0.14** Inspirational motivation Direct effect 0.12** 0.12** Total effect 0.11* 0.12** Intellectual stimulation Direct effect 0.05 0.15*** Total effect 0.05 0.14** Individual consideration Direct effect 0.06 0.09*
9. Discussion and Conclusion
The current literature focuses on firm and management level of ambidexterity and
performance. Even though scholars have indicated that more knowledge on the micro level of analysis regarding ambidexterity is needed (Gupta et al. 2006, Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008, Mom et al. 2009), validated understanding about individual ambidexterity and the effect of organizational coordination mechanisms on individual performance is still underdeveloped. This study’s contributions raise several important issues for theory and practice and increases our understanding on these issues in several manners. First, by integrating prior research and proposing four coordination mechanisms that have an effect on individual in-role and
innovative job performance and on explorative and exploitative behavior. Second, by developing a model and associated hypothesis on the direct effects of the mentioned
mechanisms on performance and the mediating effect of individual ambidexterity. Third, by testing these hypotheses on a sample of 152 individuals who work in the Facility Services industry.
Regarding individual job performance, the hypotheses demonstrate that both mechanisms are relevant for job performance. However, the findings of the direct effects reveal that not all the mechanisms have the effect as predicted.
Although prior research suggests that decision-making authority should have a negative effect on in-role performance, no significant relationship was found. A positive relationship between the degree of decision-making and innovative job performance was predicted. Interestingly though, a negative relationship was found. A possible explanation for these results may be that even though firms within the Facility Services industry feel the pressure of environmental changes and the need for innovation, this perhaps cannot occur at
regardless of the power individuals have to make important decisions, there is no room or time to develop new ideas, products or services. Operational daily demands may have a stronger focus on KPI’s than innovation. Hence, further research may investigate whether there should be a difference in the decision-making authority variables between short-term and long-term decision-making.
The effect of formalization of an individual’s tasks on performance is partially
confirmed. The findings confirm the positive effect of working with rules and processes on in-role performance. This is consistent with our understanding that following rules and
procedures diverges the focus from ‘variation seeking’ behavior and makes it possible to perform basic tasks. With regard to innovative performance, the results did not provide
support for the predicted negative relationship. Along these lines, this study draws comparison with recent studies which suggest that not all types of formalization are as negatively
associated with innovation as believed. We can expect that the focus on formalization with knowledge and skills can increase (i.e. innovative work behavior) best practices within
existing processes or units. (Zander and Kogut 1995, Adler and Borys 1996). For example, by enhancing the quality of customer service.
This study reveals that the effect of connectedness on in-role and innovative performance is supported. An interesting finding, also for managerial practice, is that the perception of being connected to other organizational members is vital for the in-role and innovative performance of an employee within the organization. This highlights that social relations matter for creation, retention and transfer of knowledge and provides important benefits (Argote et al. 2003). Leaders and managers should therefore stimulate this within their department and organization.
charismatic leadership, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration have a significant positive effect on in-role performance. This is in line with Vera and Crossan (2004) who argue that transformational leadership is not simply matched with innovation, rather it depends on the conditions. Charismatic leadership and inspirational motivation have, as hypothesized, a significant positive effect on innovative performance. In this way, the leadership hypotheses regarding performance partially concur with insights that suggest that transformational team leaders need to motivate employees to exploit their best practices and processes and explore new sources of value (Nemanich et al. 2009). The results indicate that individuals are overall more inspired by their leader to work on their in-role and structured tasks, rather than their innovative related tasks. A possible explanation could be that within the daily hectic operational environment, individuals are more focused on ‘getting the job done’ instead of ‘thinking outside the box’. One could reason that individuals are more prone to work on their operational flexibility.
For intellectual stimulation and individual consideration, no relationship was found. In this vein, De Jong & Den Hartog (2007) show that leadership antecedents might be related to in-role or innovative performance, but can also just inspire idea generation and not application.
Regarding the relationship between decision-making authority and explorative and exploitative behavior, there was no significant relationship found. This was also the case for formalization of tasks and explorative and exploitative behavior. As Gupta et al. (2006) argue, ambidexterity may be easier to be found and analyzed at an organizational level than at the individual level. An earlier study of Zahra and Bogner (1999) underlines that the nature of the external environment plays an important part in the effectiveness of different types of
exploration. To entirely understand these relationships, future research can examine if formal coordination mechanisms within different industries have contrasting effects on
ambidexterity. Perhaps the Facility Services industry reacts differently to their dynamic environment and showing ambidextrous behavior, this effect may vary across industries.
Furthermore, the results showed that connectedness and explorative and exploitative behavior were both positive and significant, contrary to the predicted negative relationship with exploitative behavior. In this way, it concurs with recent studies who argue that close social relations enable firms to develop incremental and radical innovation (e.g. Subramaniam and Youndt 2005). It is also in line with this study’s results, that connectedness is positively related to the two dimensions of performance.
Concerning intellectual stimulation results show that this has a positive relationship with exploitation, although a negative relationship was predicted. This finding challenges conventional thinking regarding transformational leadership and their influence on behavior and performance. It shows that transformational leadership styles can match exploitation as well. (Nemanich et al. 2009, Vera and Crossan 2004). Interestingly, this study fails to support the hypothesis regarding the other transformational leadership antecedents and individual ambidexterity, while prior studies suggest that transformational leadership has a positive effect on exploration (Bass and Avolio 1993, Rosing et al. 2011). Perhaps a possible explanation, again, is that this industry reacts differently on the opportunities to show ambidextrous behavior.
Finally, the results lead us to suggest that the already asserted effect of connectedness on innovative performance is indirect, operating through both exploitative and explorative behavior. In this sense, this study provides new insights about which specific organizational coordination mechanism and which types of behavior organizations should stimulate to encourage innovative performance of individuals within the organization.
these relationships is mediated by ambidextrous behavior. This study reveals that organizations within the Facility Services industry who want to stimulate in-role and innovative performance should carefully design their organizations and integrate specific types of organizational coordination mechanisms. Findings show that connectedness amongst individuals yields multiple benefits. It positively influences both in-role and innovative performance, has a positive effect on ambidextrous behavior and ambidexterity explains the direct relationship. Even though the operational environment of the Facility Services industry is dynamic, this does not always seem to have great influence on innovative job performance. The focus of individuals in this industry seems to, mostly, lie on in-role performance. Which is an interesting finding since the operational level is confronted with dynamic pressures as rapidly changing customer demands and the development of new, or improved, products and services. We may have learned that this industry differs from, for example, the environment of a Research and Design department of a corporation regarding the innovative performance and behavior of individuals. Although innovative performance and thinking occur, this could possibly be more related to optimizing and fine-tuning existing processes, operational flexibility and enhancing customer service. In this sense, firms should perhaps ‘protect’ the operational level of their organization against too much ‘variation seeking’ and leave that tasks to the leaders. In their turn, individuals may concentrate on working together, learning from each other, and focus on gaining short-term ‘wins’, and less on long-term innovation. They should get the opportunity to balance their structured and small innovative tasks in their daily work routine. Through its data collection, analysis and assessment, this study leads to a better understanding of how organizations may effectively pursue in-role and innovative individual job performance.
10. Limitations and Future Research Suggestions
There are limitations to this study. This study involves cross-sectional data, a particular situation at a particular time is researched. A limitation associated with the timeframe of collecting the data is that respondents reflect their current situation. Therefore, a longitudinal study, for example, a study reflecting over several years, would extend this research by providing insights based on change and development regarding individual job performance and ambidexterity. Another limitation is individual respondent bias. Respondents needed to reflect on their own behavior and performance. To limit individual respondents bias the respondents were asked to answer the questions honestly. To ensure that the answers will not be compromised due to giving socially desirable answers complete confidentiality was guaranteed; respondents would stay anonymous. (Saunders et al. 2012).
This study presents a step toward understanding the effect the organizational context can have on in-role and innovative performance and the mediating function of individual ambidexterity within the Facility Services industry. Future research could evaluate the possible generalization of the outcome of this study, perhaps a wider variety of firms in this industry or in other countries could be investigated. Although this study provides insights regarding the organizational context and performance, it does not focus on how, and if, individuals can be moved to change their performance. An in-depth study may demonstrate this. Another interesting direction for research could be to examine in what degree
operationally oriented industries deal with small and radical innovation. In this vein, it would be interesting to investigate if there is a difference in decision-making authority regarding short-term or long-term decision-making and the influence on performance. Additionally, to entirely understand why there was no significant relationship found between the formal coordination mechanisms and ambidextrous behavior, future research can examine if these
ambidexterity. Finally, future research may further uncover some interesting relationships that were found but were outside the scope of this study. It may capture a more in-depth picture of the negative effect of transformational leadership on decision-making authority. It could also further investigate the positive effect of transformational leadership on connectedness and the positive relationship between formalization of tasks and connectedness.
11. References
Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative science quarterly, 41, 61-89.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management science, 49(4), 571-582.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 199-218.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public administration quarterly, 17(1), 112-121.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 207.
Barrett, P., & Baldry, D. (2009). Facilities management: Towards best practice. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing company.
Benner, M. J., M. L. Tushman. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Management Rev., 28(1), 238–256.
Bernardi, R. A. (1994). Validating research results when Cronbach's alpha is below. 70: A methodological procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 766-775.
Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43(2), 313-575.
Cardinal, L. B. (2001). Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organization science, 12(1), 19-36.
De Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees' innovative behaviour. European Journal of innovation management, 10(1), 41-64.
Dewar, R. D., Whetten, D. A., & Boje, D. (1980). An examination of the reliability and validity of the Aiken and Hage scales of centralization, formalization, and task routineness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 120-128.
Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1982). Factors affecting the use of market research information: A path analysis. Journal of marketing research, 19(1), 14-31.
Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative science quarterly, 29(1), 52-73.
Dill, W. R. (1958). Environments as an influence on managerial autonomy. Administrative science quarterly, 2(4), 409–443.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications Ltd.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of management journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Hage, J. (1965). An axiomatic theory of organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 10(3) 289-320.
