Examining the micro-level of managers’ ambidexterity : therRole of tenure, learning goal orientation, and proactive personality

(1)

Examining the Micro-Level of Managers’ Ambidexterity:

The Role of Tenure, Learning Goal Orientation, and

Proactive Personality.

Nina Rijks

10003525

Amsterdam, June 26, 2014

Master Thesis Science – Business Studies – Strategy Faculty Economics and Business

Supervisor: B. Lima

Academic year: 2013 – 2014 Semester 2, Block 2

(2)

Abstract

Previous research on ambidexterity, the ability to combine exploration and exploitation activities which is needed to survive in the current dynamic market, mainly focuses on the macro level of the organization. This paper’s objective is to respond to the paucity regarding conceptual and empirically validated understanding about the issue at the individual level of analysis. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to delve into the dimension of personal ambidexterity, and aims to uncover some underlying mechanisms through which organizational tenure affects managers’ ambidexterity.

Utilizing data from 101 middle-line managers employed at ABN AMRO TOPS division, collected by means of an online survey, it was investigated how managers’ connectedness inside the firm, and their attitude toward organizational change mediate the influence of their tenure. Simultaneously, the moderating effect of learning goal orientation and proactive personality were taken into account. Results indicate that both managers’ connectedness to other organizational members, and a positive attitude toward change lead to higher levels of ambidexterity. Also, having a learning goal orientation and a proactive personality are positively related with ambidexterity. Furthermore, as tenure increases, managers with a learning goal orientation and a proactive personality exhibit higher levels of ambidexterity as a consequence of their enhanced connectedness throughout the firm. Practical and theoretical implications of the results add to the ambidexterity literature by suggesting how managers could be employed with regard to their tenure and personality. The theoretical and empirical findings of this study furthermore increase our understanding of personal ambidexterity, which is of utmost importance to achieve organizational ambidexterity in the first place.

(3)

List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 1 Descriptives Continuous Variables p. 34

Table 2 Frequencies Categorical Variables p. 35

Table 3 Reliability Statistics p. 37

Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations (1-tailed) p. 41 Table 5 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations (2-tailed) p. 42 Table 6 Conditional Indirect Effects of Tenure on Ambidexterity p. 51

Table 7 Regression Model Summaries p. 53

Table 8 Results of the Regression Analysis p. 53 Table 9 Model Coefficients of the Conditional Process Model p. 56

Table 10 Normality Analysis – Descriptives p. 83

Table 11 Normality Analysis – Kolmogorov-Smirnov Statistics p. 87

Figures

Figure 1 Conceptual Model of the Proposed Hypotheses p. 28 Figure 2 Statistical Diagram of the Conditional Process Model p. 47 Figure 3 Items for measuring Managers’ Ambidexterity p. 81 Figure 4 Items for measuring Managers’ Connectedness p. 81 Figure 5 Items for measuring Attitude toward Organizational Change p. 81 Figure 6 Items for measuring managers’ Learning Goal Orientation p. 82 Figure 7 Items for measuring Proactive Personality p. 82 Figure 8 Control items of Environmental Nature p. 82 Figure 9 Model used for Regression Analysis p. 98

Graphs

Graph 1 Histogram for Tenure inside the Firm p. 87 Graph 2 Histogram for Managers’ Connectedness p. 88 Graph 3 Histogram for Attitude toward Organizational Change p. 88 Graph 4 Histogram for Learning Goal Orientation p. 89 Graph 5 Histogram for Proactive Personality p. 89 Graph 6 Histogram for Managers’ Ambidexterity p. 90

(5)

Graph 8 Normal Probability Plot for Managers’ Connectedness p. 91 Graph 9 Normal Probability Plot for Attitude toward Change p. 91 Graph 10 Normal Probability Plot for Learning Goal Orientation p. 92 Graph 11 Normal Probability Plot for Proactive Personality p. 92 Graph 12 Normal Probability Plot for Managers’ Ambidexterity p. 93 Graph 13 Boxplot for Tenure inside the Firm p. 93 Graph 14 Boxplot for Managers’ Connectedness p. 94 Graph 15 Boxplot for Attitude toward Organizational Change p. 94 Graph 16 Boxplot for Learning Goal Orientation p. 95

Graph 17 Boxplot for Proactive Personality p. 95

Graph 18 Boxplot for Managers’ Ambidexterity p. 96 Graph 19 Normal P-P Plot of Distributed Residuals p. 96

(6)

Introduction | 1 “The original meaning of ambidexterity

was an individual's capacity to be equally skillful with both hands.’’

(Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013, p. 1) 1. INTRODUCTION

One of the key strategic challenges in strategy is managing change. This often requires managers to balance when and what to change for building future revenues, while simultaneously preserving current revenues (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). Frequently, this induces a dilemma of how to realize adaptive innovation through exploring new opportunities, alongside of consistent execution in order to exploit old certainties. Extant research from a variety of organizational literatures has studied the issue of balancing the ability to be aligned and efficient in managing today’s demands, with the ability to stay adaptive to changes in the

environment (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). To survive over the long run, a firm needs to become ambidextrous by mastering both adaptability (exploration) and alignment (exploitation), thus implementing both incremental and revolutionary change (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996).

Although most research has taken a macro perspective in studying organizational ambidexterity, further investigation on the micro level of personal ambidexterity will also contribute to our understanding of this phenomenon (Raisch et al., 2009). Recent calls have been made to span multiple levels of analysis, stressing the need to uncover the individual side of the decision makers alongside of the macro level (Gupta et al., 2006; Mom et al., 2009; Nosella et al., 2012; Raisch et al., 2009; Simsek, 2009; Laureiro-Martínez et al., 2010). By solely adopting an organizational level of analysis, individual homogeneity is in effect assumed, even though the key characteristics of exploration and exploitation are said to originate at the individual level (Keller & Weibler, 2014). Moreover, people are the key linkages in organizations, who should promote ambidexterity across various levels throughout the

(7)

Introduction | 2 organization (Taylor & Helfat, 2009; Probst et al., 2011). In fact, heterogeneity in human capital is a requirement for achieving exploration (March, 1991). Therefore, this interpersonal variation is important to understand, since it affects decisional outcomes and higher level performance as well (Laureiro-Martínez et al., 2010). Raisch et al., (2009) for instance argue that individual ambidexterity of organizational members cumulatively influence a firm’s ambidexterity.

Behavioral theories of the firm (e.g. Cyert & March, 1963) furthermore show that the personal characteristics of managers are important antecedents for achieving organizational ambidexterity (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Probst et al., 2011; Taylor & Helfat, 2009). These individual characteristics point out individual heterogeneity, and explain someone’s preference for either exploration or exploitation activities, and effectiveness in undertaking ambidextrous roles (Bonesso et al., 2013). By focusing solely on structural antecedents and the external or macro factors, important determinants for ambidexterity embedded the individual level remain undersearched, as well as its interactions with other levels (Laureiro-Martínez et al., 2010).

Studies on the micro-level show that personal characteristics are antecedents in developing the firm’s capabilities, and even propose how individual traits underpin the development of capabilities related to balancing exploration and exploitation (Felin et al., 2012; Laureiro-Martínez et al., 2010), but there is a paucity regarding inquiry on this topic. Prior researchers furthermore highlight the need for ambidextrous managers in achieving superior performance, since they are important actors behind organizational ambidexterity (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Cantarello et al., 2012; Carmeli & Halevi, 2009). However, there seems to be a dearth of research investigating managers’ ambidexterity, empirical insights are scarce (Laureiro-Martínez et al., 2010; Keller & Weibler, 2014), and much more remains to be understood (Good & Michel, 2013; Mom et al., 2007; 2009). Moreover, researchers tend to neglect or control for factors that might have an important role in how individual ambidexterity comes about, such as individual characteristics, managers’

(8)

Introduction | 3 background, tenure, or personality. This is surprising given the importance of managers’ role as organizational connectors in hosting both exploration and exploitation. Actually examining the effect of managers’ personality, or tenure, could have significant importance for HR practices, for example in selecting the right persons for jobs that require ambidextrous behavior. This study will therefore focus on the somewhat unaddressed, yet important micro level of manager’s ambidexterity. Since our knowledge about the effects of managers’ tenure and

personality is still deficient, findings of this study will contribute to the ambidexterity literature by examining new possible antecedents.

The focus on tenure is of great importance, since it is proposed to influence managers’ ambidexterity. Extant research however shows contradictory findings regarding its effects, which inhibits practical recommendations about e.g. employing managers based on their tenure (Damanpour & Schneider, 2009; Dokko et al., 2009; Birkinshaw & Gibson). Prior studies tried to uncover the effect of tenure on ambidexterity in order to clarify how and when it yields beneficial effects on optimizing both exploration and exploitation activities. If this relationship is further elucidated, organizations would be better able to govern ambidexterity inside the firm, for example by positioning the right managers, or rotating long tenured managers between jobs to foster their ambidextrous inclinations. However, since it is not yet clear whether and how tenure exerts a positive or negative effect, probably because it is a very encompassing construct which could have many effects under different circumstances, this study will focus on two possible effects that longer tenure might induce. In an attempt to disentangle the effect, it will be proposed that long tenured managers might suffer from rigidity, inertia, and a decreased tendency to sense a need for change caused by increasing commitment to the existing organizational routines and status quo, which will negatively affect their ambidexterity through their attitude toward organizational changes (Hambrick & Fukutomi, 1991; Dokko et al., 2009; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990; Damanpour & Schneider, 2009). On the other hand, this paper

(9)

Introduction | 4 investigates how tenure could positively influence managers’ ambidexterity, through a networking effect established by managers’ higher connectedness to other organizational members (Mom et al, 2009). As organizational tenure increases, managers become more embedded into the organization, gain familiarity of the organizational language which facilitates communication, and acquire more relationships that provide access to a broad knowledge base for improved decision making (Dokko et al., 2009; Hambrick & Mason, 1994; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989; Jansen, 2006; Cao et al., 2006). By delving into the micro level of possible underlying factors of influence that are involved with increasing tenure, attempts are made to explore the deeper effects of this construct.

Also, the moderating effect of managers’ learning goal orientation and proactive personality will be studied, since these dispositions could determine if a manager is negatively or positively influenced by longer tenure. For example, a managers with a proactive personality and learning orientation, which are expected to counter the negative effect of tenure through a desire to seek challenges, keep improving, and actively make changes, will become more ambidextrous over time than someone who doesn’t possess these traits (Pintrich, 2000; Grant & Dweck, 2003). By identifying these characteristics as possible benefactors for ambidexterity, actionable suggestions for recruiting the right managers could be made, alongside of stimulating related behaviors. Managers’ proactive personality and learning orientation could for example stimulate the effort and initiative managers put into networking and building ties with other organizational members as to enlarge their connectedness and access to information over time due to their longer tenure (Thompson, 2005; Crant, 2000). These moderators are not only important in relation to managers’ ambidexterity, but are also of practical value since they are measurable constructs that are easy to use in selection processes. The variables used in this study are furthermore chosen based on the following criteria: (1) theoretical relationships seem

(10)

Introduction | 5 to appear; (2) well-validated and reliable measures of the traits have already been developed; and (3) their construct validity has been proven in previous research.

To address the gap in the literature, this paper’s objective is to further open the black

box of personal ambidexterity by incorporating the effects of personal characteristics and managers’ backgrounds, in order to broaden our understanding of variation in managerial

ambidexterity. It will uncover some prominent variables of influence, by proposing and clarifying the underlying effects of managers’ tenure, goal orientation and proactive personality

trait, on which the following chapters will further elaborate. An internet-mediated survey will be conducted among middle line managers in the Netherlands, before empirically testing the relationships between the variables of interest. This research will contribute to the literature and practice in the following ways: First, a thorough literature review will be presented, illuminating the current state of research. Second, some personal characteristics that may underlie or affect managers’ ambidexterity will be identified and investigated, by integrating previous insights

and developing and testing hypotheses. Third, by furthering our understanding of the micro-level of ambidexterity, practical and theoretical implications will be discussed, in addition to proffering new avenues for future research. For example, results could be used by HR departments to enhance the selection and promotion of potentially ambidextrous managers. Together, the empirically tested results of this study will have a great impact on our understanding of managers’ ambidexterity, and the antecedents that drive their variation. To reach these objectives, this paper will attempt to answer the following research questions:

- How does managers’ organizational tenure influence their level of ambidexterity? - To what extent do managers’ attitude toward organizational change and connectedness

inside the organization mediate the relationship between managers’ tenure and ambidexterity?

(11)

Literature Review | 6 This research will be structured as follows: first, it will provide a theoretical framework elaborating on the concepts of exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity. Second, a section will be dedicated to establish what has been done on the individual level of ambidexterity. Third, this study will build and test hypotheses regarding the effects of tenure on managers’ ambidexterity through managers’ connectedness inside the firm and their attitude toward

change. This section also includes the hypothesized moderating effects of learning goal orientation and proactive personality. Finally, after discussing the results of analyzing data acquired through an internet-mediated survey from 101 middle-line managers, avenues for future research will be provided.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Exploitation & Exploration

In order to sustain competitive advantage in the current dynamic and competitive environment, organizational learning has become crucial. The concept of organizational learning has received much attention from a broad range of various disciplines (Dodgson, 1993). Organizations have different mechanism in order to learn from experiences (Huber, 1991; Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011, Zollo & Winter, 2002), and their behavior is often shaped by their routines, history, and target orientation (Levitt & March, 1988). The learning occurs through a process of acquiring, sharing, and integrating (new) knowledge, from the inside as well as from the outside of the firm (Crossan et al., 1999).

Since March (1991) introduced his essential framework on exploration and exploitation, much debate arose concerning the definitions, measurement, antecedents, and consequences of these learning orientations. March’s (1991) framework focuses on a narrow aspect of new knowledge development versus the refinement of existing knowledge. But over the years this knowledge-based application has been extended and applied more broadly to various phenomena and multiple manifestations (Levinthal & March, 1993). It has been studied in a

(12)

Literature Review | 7 wide variety of literatures, employed in diverse contexts, and investigated at various levels of analysis (Lavie et al., 2010). Literature streams such as organizational learning, innovation, strategic management, and organization design have studied these concepts using different research approaches (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). For parsimony, the following sections therefore describe the two gestalts of organizational and individual behavior by defining the concepts of exploration, exploitation and ambidexterity, to also set the boundaries of this study.

O’Reilly & Tushman (2004), amongst others, elaborate on the two key learning

processes of exploration and exploitation and examine their influences on organizations’ success. Pursuing only one of the activities could lead to a one-sided, myopic focus (Levinthal & March, 1993). This could cause a firm to miss out on the complementary benefits of existing and new knowledge embedded in their employees. However, engaging in both fundamentally different activities often leads to tensions, requiring an organization to make trade-offs (Raisch et al., 2009; He & Wong, 2004; March, 1991). In accordance with March’s (1991) original

work, this research assumes that exploration and exploitation are not mutually exclusive or orthogonal, but rather move along a continuum (Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006; Gupta et al., 2006; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Mom et al., 2007). Furthermore, given the multidimensionality of knowledge usage inside organizations, and this study’s focus on the micro level of managers’ ambidexterity, both activities are assumed to entail at least some learning, be it incremental or discontinuous (Gupta et al., 2006).

Exploration, in this sense, is foremost associated with engaging in search, experimentation, discovery, and variation to create diversity and discontinuous innovations (March, 1991; Simsek et al., 2009). These attempts to adapt through focusing on new knowledge, often entail uncertainty and risk. Exploitation, on the other hand, is pursued to enhance productivity and efficiency through reducing risk and variance by focusing on old, existing knowledge or ways of doing things. Related to exploitation are key words such as

(13)

Literature Review | 8 refinement, selection, implementation, focus, alignment and experience. Combining exploration and exploitation activities engenders various contrasting logics, such as flexibility versus efficiency (Adler et al., 1999), incremental versus discontinuous innovations (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Smith & Tushman, 2005), search scope & depth in local or distant search (Katila & Ahuja, 2002), generalists versus specialists skills (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004), and different types of knowledge sharing and learning (Im & Rai, 2008; Kang & Snell, 2009). Furthermore, the two types of learning processes require different structures, architectures, competencies and cognitive orientations, while both compete for scarce resources (Jansen et al., 2008; Kang & Snell, 2009; March, 1991). This generally causes them to drive each other out. Where exploration is said to benefit from decentralization, loose and open cultures, and less formalized processes, exploitation should be accompanied by increasing control and formalization (Jansen et al., 2012).

Firms engaging mostly in exploitation, deepen their existing knowledge stocks in order to cultivate existing market opportunities and gain returns on current capabilities (Benner & Tushman, 2003). This focus could however lead to inertia, rigidness, or competency traps by focusing solely on the near term success and immediate positive feedback that exploitation has to offer (March, 1991; Simsek et al., 2009). Therefore, enacting in exploitation only ultimately bears the risk of becoming obsolete, due to failure in renewing crucial capabilities (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). On the other hand, over-reliance on exploration in search of new knowledge might cause the firm to operate with less efficiency, making itself unable to gain the returns of the discovery. Since both phenomena emerge from different and contradictory knowledge inputs and information, which could lead to managerial myopia, ambidexterity should be enabled to host both exploratory and exploitative activities (Lubatkin et al., 2006). The next section will further explain the concept of ambidexterity.

(14)

Literature Review | 9 2.2 Ambidexterity

To prosper, firms need to maintain an appropriate balance between exploration and exploitation (March, 1991), and research has provided increased evidence for the profitable outcomes of pursuing both activities (He & Wong, 2004; Gibson & Birkinshaw; 2004). Despite the aforementioned paradoxical challenges and conflicting goals and demands, consensus in the literature has grown that the solution for this ‘productivity dilemma’ lies in ambidexterity (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996), broadly referred to as an organization’s or individual’s ability to perform fundamentally different (and often competing) activities simultaneously (Simsek et al., 2009; Mom et al., 2009). Many researchers agree that firms should maximize the attainment of both activities to sustain competitive advantage (O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2008; Simsek et al., 2009), but discussion remains on how to achieve

this optimal combination.

Duncan (1976), the first one to use the term organizational ambidexterity, already argued for dual structures to manage the inherent trade-offs involved by the conflicting demands of enacting in both exploration and exploitation, on which some researchers have built. This stream of inquiry resulted in a comprehensive collection of various categorizations of different modes to effectuate organizational ambidexterity (e.g. Simsek et al., 2009; Volberda; 1998; Lavie et al., 2010). Other studies show that organizational antecedents besides structure, such as context, culture, size, and leadership styles influence performance outcomes through organizational ambidexterity, moderated by environmental and competitive dynamism, market orientation, resource endowment, and the scope of the firm (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Lavie et al., 2010).

Birkinshaw & Gibson (2004) furthermore compare the traditional view of organizational ambidexterity, revolving around structural separation of both activities, with contextual ambidexterity, which manifests itself also on an individual level. They moreover

(15)

Literature Review | 10 argue for the complementarity of both processes. They define a high-performance organizational context, in which employees are more likely to behave ambidextrous. This is achieved through different stimuli and pressures evolving from high social support and high performance management by combining stretch, discipline, support, and trust (similar to Ghoshal & Bartlett's (1994) dimensions of quality management). Furthermore, they describe that ambidextrous individuals take initiative, are cooperative, and engage in multi-tasking. Their study however does not entail the exact mechanisms through which managers become more ambidextrous. Since the focus lies more on the organizational design context, the neglected role of the individual’s ambidexterity provides a fruitful avenue for future research (Good & Michel, 2013).

Raisch et al., (2009) also provide an overview of various views in exploring other tensions involved with achieving organizational ambidexterity, such as the choice whether or not a firm should differentiate or rather integrate exploration or exploitation. However, contrary to other authors (e.g. Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004), they question whether ambidexterity manifests itself at the individual level as well. Contrasting to the suggestion that ambidexterity can exist within a single domain, Gupta et al., (2006) also propose that the co-existence of exploitation and exploration is not possible at the individual level, but only inside a team or firm. This contradiction further raises the importance to gain more clarity by studying the micro-level of ambidextrous behavior.

Extant research thus shows that much has been done to enhance our understanding on the antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of organizational ambidexterity, though inconsistencies exist and areas for further investigation remain. Although some studies also addressed other important levels, such as the top management team level, or the CEO level (Cao et al., 2010), there still seems to be a lack of research regarding the individual level of ambidexterity. Future research calls for investigation on the drivers of managerial

(16)

Literature Review | 11 ambidexterity, the cognitive processes that shape individual’s ambidexterity, and the type of intellectual capital that enables the pursuit of becoming ambidextrous (Raisch, 2008; Raisch et al., 2009; Simsek, 2009; Mom et al., 200; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013). Since managers have an important role in achieving ambidexterity through managing tensions, and integrating exploration and exploitation (Jansen et al., 2009; Smith & Tushman, 2005), this paper tries to broaden our understanding of managers’ ambidexterity by uncovering several factors of

influence. Despite various attempts to uncover the individual level of ambidexterity, studies fail to explain why managers could act ambidextrous, which requires investigating their personal characteristics as well. The next section first elaborates more on the current state of knowledge concerning the individual level of analysis, followed by this paper’s main objectives and hypotheses.

2.3 Individual Level of Analysis: Managers’ Ambidexterity

The integration and coordination of exploitation and exploration activities are frequently delegated to middle-line managers, who therefore need to be ambidextrous themselves in order to bring forth organizational ambidexterity (Keller & Weibler, 2014). Moreover, middle-line managers are confronted with the tensions that arise in optimizing both exploration and exploitation (McConville, 2006). They often play a coordinating role, in the middle of the organizational hierarchy, and are by nature the agents of change processes (McConville, 2006). However, they are also the focus of change, which frequently creates an ambiguous role for these managers. Therefore, it is the middle-line manager that will be the subject of interest in this study.

Since the middle-managers’ cognitive and behavioral inclinations may influence the organization’s tendency toward either exploration or exploration, it is important to understand

the antecedents of their individual ambidexterity. Because more clarity is needed concerning the level on which the tension of becoming ambidextrous is located, more research on the

(17)

Literature Review | 12 individual level is necessary (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). Human capital, defined as the knowledge, skills, and abilities rooted inside individuals, is the primary building block for organizational learning (Kang & Snell, 2009). Variation in the individual characteristics of members in the organization, could therefore influence how capabilities arise within the firm which in turn affects organization level outcomes. Micro-level phenomena, such as individuals, play a key role in informing organizational and competitive advantage, since they underlie a firm’s routines and capabilities (Felin et al., 2012). Conducting a micro-level analysis of manager’s ambidexterity is therefore of justified importance because ambidexterity is partially

achieved through managerial capabilities (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013). Following prior studies, this paper defines manager’s individual ambidexterity as ‘a manager’s behavioral orientation

toward combining exploration and exploitation related activities within a certain period of time’ (Mom et al., 2009: p. 812). The concept will be studied within an organizational context to further develop insights into the microfoundations of individual managerial behavior which underlies an organization’s ability to combine exploration and exploitation and maximize both activities (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). This definition is in accordance with various conceptualizations that result in the operationalization of the ambidexterity construct as the sum or combination of exploration and exploitation activities (Cao et al., 2009; Keller & Weibler, 2014).

Managerial characteristics, such as their attitude toward risk, are found to influence their natural preference for either exploration or exploitation. Since the benefits of exploitation are more immediate and certain (March, 1991), risk-averse individuals are more biased towards deploying existing competencies at the expense of exploration (Lavie et al., 2010). Other characteristics, such as having both short- and long-term orientation, might indicate ambidexterity (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004; Probst & Raisch, 2005). Furthermore, various

(18)

Literature Review | 13 investigated with respect to the managers’ ambidexterity (Simsek et al., 2009; Jansen et al., 2012; Cao et al., 2010; Smith & Tushman, 2005). Ambidextrous managers are furthermore found to have the ability to engage in paradoxical thinking (Smith & Tushman, 2005).

However, it remains unclear why these managers are able to do so on an individual level. Various calls have been made for further research to examine individual attributes affecting a manager’s ambidexterity (Jansen et al., 2008; Gupta et al., 2006; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Raisch et al., 2009; Junni et al., 2013). Mom et al., (2007) began the challenging study of managers’ ambidexterity and partially addressed this gap by examining several factors of

influence. The way in which managers acquire knowledge (top-down or bottom-up), is said to influence their ambidexterity. Mom et al., (2009) later on propose three related characteristics of ambidextrous managers (ability to host contradictions and deal with conflict, ability to multitask and being more a generalist, and the ability to both refine and renew their knowledge, skills and expertise). They however still call for more investigation on the individual characteristics that affect ambidexterity, and propose further inquiry on the effect of tenure since they controlled for this variable as a proxy for experience or specialization which could affect ambidexterity. Indeed, when managers’ ambidexterity is being investigated, outcomes are often controlled for experience, age, or tenure (within the firm and same function as well as for different functions), because these factors could be associated with important constructs related to ambidexterity. Extant research for example finds that longer tenure leads to strategic persistence and conformity, which could point to more exploitation (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990). Simsek (2007) on the other hand, shows that long tenure induces more risk-taking propensity, suggesting more exploration.

Recent work of Bonesso et al., (2013) also attempts to uncover the individual side of ambidexterity (personal ambidexterity), and reviewed studies that show how personal characteristics might influence individual ambidexterity. They propose that broad prior work

(19)

Literature Review | 14 experience, learning orientation, and competency profile influence an individuals’ ambidexterity, by drawing on an inductive multiple case study on managers. In their study, it is suggested that HR departments should promote personal ambidexterity by recruiting managers on the basis of broad prior work experience and emotional or social competencies (e.g. achievement- or learning orientation) that enable them to pursue ambidexterity. However, they did not consider different types of experience, or how and why it influences ambidextrous abilities. They also suggest directions for further research on the relationships between work experience and competencies, and how these variables interact in affecting personal ambidexterity.

Extant research thus calls for further investigation on managers’ personal characteristics which could drive their ambidexterity. Although prior studies suggest some answers, the underlying mechanisms and personality traits remain under researched (Raisch et al., 2009). Some studies do describe an organization’s ability to become ambidextrous through managers’ decision making processes (Rivkin & Siggelkow, 2003), or to the extent in which they engage in routine or non-routine activities (Adler et al., 1999). Cohen & Levinthal (1990) furthermore argue that individuals however need prior knowledge to engage in further learning, pointing to the possible link between the breadth and depth of their prior knowledge gained through tenure and their behavior orientation toward combining both exploratory and exploratory activities. To gain more insight into the choices managers make, it is needed to broaden our understanding of their values, experiences, and their (functional) background (Finkelstein & Hambrick 1990).

Given these various findings, this paper continues by delving further into the investigation of these variables, to uncover the underlying mechanisms that explain why managers become ambidextrous. Managers that need to balance contrasting pressures in acting ambidextrous, are under significant job demands, and while making complex decisions, executives will often reflect their (functional) backgrounds, experiences, personal

(20)

Literature Review | 15 characteristics and demographics (Hambrick et al., 2005; Hambrick & Mason 1984, Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990). Mom et al., (2009) suggest that future research should therefore delve into the role and impact of control variables such as the demographic factors and age, tenure in the firm, or current function on managers’ ambidexterity. It is furthermore suggested that tenure

within the organization is qualified as having the most significant theoretical footing of all relevant demographic variables (Pfeffer, 1983 in Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990). However, discussion remains concerning the effects of organizational tenure on outcomes such as performance, which will now further be discussed.

As mentioned, prior research often uses tenure as a proxy for knowledge, experience, job-related knowledge or organizational socialization (Quiñones et al., 1995; Sturman, 2003; Ng & Feldman, 2010), and shows contradictory findings related to the effects of tenure (Dokko et al., 2009; Ng & Feldman, 2010). It has been proposed that longer tenure augments a manager’s entrepreneurial activities (Simsek, 2007). It could furthermore lead to positive

outcomes due to increased knowledge, experience, and commitment. Prior work experience has been studied since it is believed to contribute useful skills and knowledge that are transferable to the manager’s current work context (Schmidt et al., 1988; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). This

brings forth the extent to which individuals carry their prior acquired knowledge or skills into their current function (Dokko et al., 2009). Managers’ years of experience influence their tactics for managing work and change, where diverse experience induces better adaptability (Beyer & Hannah, 2002). A broad accumulation of work experience eases strategic thinking and problem solving competency due to the creation of mental frameworks (Dragoni et al., 2011; Connely et al., 2000). However, besides the possible positive effect of using already acquired knowledge and abilities, negative effects might also originate out of long tenure.

Evident negative effects could be possible because of misapplication of prior knowledge, which decreases performance. Other explanations are rigidness and restricted

(21)

Literature Review | 16 information processing resulting from habit and routines (Katz, 1982, in Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990; Smith & Tushman, 2005). Some studies find that long tenure inside an organization leads to inertia and more exploitation, strengthened by socialization to the firm’s routines. Newcomers, on the other hand, are less susceptible to internal constituencies, have fresh insights and new ideas, which increases exploration (Damanpour, 1991). With long organizational tenure, employees will give meaning to experience by placing them within their cognitive framework (Weick, 1995). In the case of long tenure within one firm, work experience might be less diverse. This reduces an individual’s ability to cope with changes in work situation, due to a lack of acquired necessary skills (Beyer & Hannah, 2002). In a similar vein, long tenure inside one firm or function indicates narrow work experience and specialized knowledge, which is negatively related to ambidexterity (Bonesso, 2013; Kang & Snell, 2000).

One reason for these inconsistent findings might be that these studies make different distinctions between tenure, experience, knowledge or skills. We thus need to resolve this discrepancy by investigating the underlying impact of managers’ tenure to understand how managers’ ambidexterity comes about. Also, most research on personality characteristics, and the effects of someone’s background, has been conducted at the TMT or CEO level, leaving a

gap for investigating the middle-line manager. Although much has been done in trying to uncover the effects of tenure on different outcomes at different levels (e.g. O’Reilly et al., 1989), Hambrick (2007) still calls for research on investigating the exact reason why longer tenured executives cease to make adaptive changes. This research will therefore focus on one of the possible explanations, namely through managers’ rigidity. Because managers become

more committed to existing routines over time, it is important to find out if this has negative effects on their ambidexterity. This paper will propose that managers become more resistant to change as tenure increases, thereby investigating their attitude toward organizational change as one of the possible underlying mechanisms of the tenure effect. This research will also

(22)

Literature Review | 17 investigate a possible positive tenure effect due to organizational socialization which increases managers’ connectedness to other members. These effects will be further discussed in the

following sections. On one hand, the results will provide answers to overcome problems of managers becoming less ambidextrous because of staying in the same firm or position for too long. On the other hand, suggestions could be made to stimulate the positive effects of long tenure in order to foster managers’ ambidexterity.

In sum, this paper fills an important gap in the literature by investigating antecedents of managerial ambidexterity. It will address multiple research objectives: First, it will uncover one of the underlying mechanisms which could drive the proposed tenure effect on managers’ ambidexterity, namely their attitude toward organizational change. This construct is of great importance since individuals generate solutions based on their knowledge acquired by past experience (Sternberg, 1985 in Liao et al., 2008). Because tendency to change lessens as tenure increases (Boeker, 1997; Finkelstein & Hambrick 1996), this could be a driving force in affecting managers’ decision making and level of ambidexterity. Second, links will be made

that connect long tenure with increased connectedness to other organizational members throughout the firm, which will broaden a managers’ information base that in turn facilitates more ambidextrous behavior. Third, this study will explore the moderating role of learning goal orientation, since this is associated with acquiring new knowledge, learning strategies, skill development, and preference for demanding and challenging tasks, which is especially relevant regarding activities that require ambidexterity (Hirst et al., 2009). Fourth, the moderating effect of the personality characteristic of proactiveness, defined as “someone who is relatively unconstrained by situational forces and who effects environmental change” (Bateman & Crant

(23)

Theoretical Framework & Hypotheses | 18 1993, 5), will be tested. Chapter 3 will further elaborate on these concepts of interest and their definitions, and develop hypotheses related to the discussed ideas.

Since no prior work on ambidexterity has yet addressed these relationships and resulting issues, this paper furthers our understanding of managerial ambidexterity by offering a new perspective through also investigating possible moderators. To maintain appropriate boundaries, this study focuses solely on the moderating role of managers’ learning-goal orientation, and the personality trait of proactiveness. The next section proceeds with building hypotheses to address research questions, of which the answers will contribute to our knowledge of managers’ ambidexterity by uncovering a new antecedent and examining

possible moderators which could have implications for the way in which managers are selected for complex jobs. This paper continues by building hypothesis that attempt to disentangle the effect of managers’ organizational tenure on their ambidexterity, by distinguishing two possible mediating effects.

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & HYPOTHESES 3.1 Positive Tenure Effect: Connectedness of Managers

Building on the literature review, this section will elaborate further on the positive effect of tenure on managers’ ambidexterity, mediated by their increased connectedness throughout the

organization. As managers gain tenure inside one particular firm, they will increase their understanding of its policies, procedures, and routines and become more embedded in the organization (Hambrick & Mason, 1994; Dokko et al., 2009; Ng & Feldman, 2010). In this sense, tenure functions as an indicator of familiarity with the shared common organizational language, which facilitates communication among organizational members (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Organizational tenure could also increase the person-organization fit of the employee, which raises performance through increased

(24)

Theoretical Framework & Hypotheses | 19 motivation (Ng & Feldman, 2010). Furthermore, managers with longer organizational tenure will be more susceptible to the shared cognitive frame, or organizational cognition. Organizational cognition reflects the history of an organization, its routines, relationships, and knowledge base, and consists of shared assumptions, values, norms of behavior, culture and understanding (Taylor & Helfat, 2009). It is said that this organizational cognition influences managers’ choices and actions, by guiding their focus of attention. Long tenured managers, who have gained more familiarity with this organizational cognition, benefit from the established common grounds, which facilitates information sharing, and improves coordination between members.

In the same reasoning, longer tenured employees are more likely to engage in knowledge sharing (Appleyard, 1996). In turn, the likelihood of ambidextrous behavior increases through the possibility of acquiring information and gaining understanding. Watson & Hewett (2006) use social exchange theory and expectancy theory to confirm that that communication and knowledge sharing increases with tenure through built-up trust and commitment. Also, individuals form relationships over time, such as advice seeking-relations that contribute to their knowledge base for better informed decision making in exploration and exploitation activities (Hansen et al., 2005). Social relations that link people together inside an organization partly determine the achievement of exploitative and exploratory innovation (Jansen et al., 2006), and therefore possibly enhance personal ambidexterity.

Organizational tenure thus facilitates a manager’s acquisition of social connections and relationships with other members of the organizations (Cao, 2006). This will contribute to a managers’ network, social capital, and sources of information. Social capital enables new knowledge creation through communication with others, of which the value enhances as friendship, trust and reciprocity accrues (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Clark & Smith, 2003; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). These networks contribute to managers’ access of valuable and

(25)

Theoretical Framework & Hypotheses | 20 diverse information (Cao et al., 2010), which provides them the needed knowledge inputs that ambidexterity demands. A greater network range furthermore increases an individual’s ability to transmit complex ideas across several bodies of knowledge, through the exposure of different perspectives (Reagans & McEvily, 2003). In turn, these networks of interactions may favor exploration by providing new knowledge, and stimulate exploitation as well through the sharing of experiences for improving implementation (Mom et al., 2009). Managers thus benefit from their connections inside the organizational because they can use them to accumulate their knowledge in order to, for instance, refine or develop competences, pursue innovations, or find new solutions. Since ambidextrous individuals act as knowledge brokers, and look for opportunities to cooperate (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004), it could be proposed that managers with large networks and multiple ties inside an organization behave ambidextrous more easily because of their enlarged amount of sources with which they can communicate and collaborate.

Moreover, Mom et al., (2009) find that managers’ connectedness to other members of the organization positively relate to their ambidexterity. They define managers’ connectedness as ‘the extent to which the manager is networked to other organization members across hierarchical levels and organizational units in terms of direct personal contacts’ (p. 815). It has been related to increased opportunities for accessing sources of knowledge, through e.g. hall talk (Jansen et al., 2006). In order to optimize both exploration and exploitation activities, thus becoming more ambidextrous, managers simply need an extensive knowledge base, which could be enlarged through their connectedness. Furthermore, to appropriately manage role conflict, which is evidently induced by combining exploration with exploitation, managers benefit from the acquisition of different kinds of information (Floyd & Lane, 2000), in which connections throughout the whole organization can be highly beneficial. Besides broadening someone’s information-base, high connectedness inside an organizational develops trust and

(26)

Theoretical Framework & Hypotheses | 21 contributing to contextual ambidexterity as well (Jansen et al., 2006). In sum, a higher degree of connectedness due to a greater network, which is built over time as organizational tenure increases, may provide managers with more opportunities to gain knowledge for both exploration and exploitation purposes. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Managers’ connectedness positively mediates the relationship between managers’ organizational tenure and managers’ ambidexterity.

3.2 Negative Tenure Effect: Attitude toward Organizational Change

Based on the reviewed and integrated insights from extant research in the literature review, this section will further elaborate on the proposed negative effect of tenure. Since the positive effects of prior experience on work-related skills and knowledge diminishes as organizational tenure increases (Dokko et al, 2009), reasons for negative effects should also be discussed. Longer tenure inside an organization may induce cognitive frames or schemas, commitment to established practices, and rigidness (Boeker, 1997; Dokko et al., 2009). Managers are more socialized due to their organizational tenure, and thus have built a certain repertoire of responses to stimuli in accordance with their assumptions (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990; Dokko et al., 2009). As a consequence of following these established routines with reduced variance, and repertoires for dealing with certain issues, managers’ ability to process information becomes restricted (Miller & Friesen, 1984, in Boeker 1997; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996). This could bound their cognitive base, causing them to direct their attention to limited areas only, which hinders ambidextrous behavior (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). In turn, this often induces a preference for consistency and conservatism, making the managers more likely to act against changes in policy (Wiersema & Bantel, 1992; Smith & Tushman, 2005; Musteen et al., 2006).

Miller (1991) more importantly shows that long-tenured CEO’s are less likely to implement strategies that are appropriate to the requirements of the environment, since it becomes more difficult to break with cognitive and behavioral patterns over time. Hambrick &

(27)

Theoretical Framework & Hypotheses | 22 Fukutomi (1991) additionally find that longer tenure increases commitment to existing paradigms, causing managers to exhibit inertia, and consequently ignore the need for changes. Newcomers, on the other hand, are more willing to experiment while pursuing innovations. Katz (1982) further shows that when tenure increases, conformity also grows. This leads individuals to commit to established organizational practices and policies, reducing the adoption of novel strategies. Similarly, Finkelstein & Hambrick (1990) find a negative relationship between the organizational tenure of top management teams, and their tendency to change their strategy. Managerial tenure inside the organization leads to strategic persistence, rigidity, and decreased change, which drives out exploration. Other research investigating top management teams, shows that tenure is also positively related with social cohesion, which decreases the likelihood of challenging the status quo (Michel & Hambrick, 1992).

Experience with the organizations thus causes reductions in initiating change by exhibiting more commitment to the status quo (Hambrick et al., 1993; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992). These findings are like Bantel & Jackson’s (1989) showings that longer organizational tenure causes a greater commitment to the norms and culture of the organization. As time passes, managers become more conservative in association with their attitude toward change (Musteen et al., 2006). They could become overcommitted to exploitation at the expense of exploration, which hampers ambidexterity through rigidities and path dependence (Keller & Weibler, 2014). As employees work inside the same organization for a long time, they gain a better understanding of the organizational procedures and policies, which unfortunately sometimes leads to a reluctance or even resistance to change existing ways of operating (Hambrick & Mason, 1994; Iverson, 1996). Ambidexterity, conversely, requires managers to remain flexible in order to optimize both exploration and exploitation (Rosing et al., 2011). It requires rethinking and even replacing current activities, which implies change (Benner & Tushman, 2003). Furthermore, a positive attitude toward organizational change is related with

(28)

Theoretical Framework & Hypotheses | 23 more openness to experience and better problem solving (Vakola et al., 2004), which are also determinants of ambidexterity. Iverson (1996) shows that tenure is negatively related with attitudes toward organizational change, which further strengthens how previously mentioned rigidities in behavior due to organizational tenure causes adherence and conformity to the status quo. It diminishes responsiveness to new situations, because of managers’ reduced inclination, or even resistance to change. Also, longer organizational tenure implies less diversity in managers’ career experience. However, this diversity is needed to increase tolerance for change,

enhance adaptability, broaden perspectives, and develop skills (Musteen et al., 2006). These assumptions lead to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Managers’ attitude toward organizational change will negatively mediate the relationship between managers’ organizational tenure and managers’ ambidexterity

3.3 Learning Goal Orientation

The concept of learning goal orientation has been studied by various researchers (Hirst et al., 2009; Brett & VandeWalle, 1999; Ford et al., 1998; Phillips & Gully 1997; Pintrich, 2000; Vandewalle, 1997). It originated in the educational literature, and distinguishes two individual goal orientations towards approaching tasks: a learning orientation, and a performance orientation (Dweck, 1986). A performance orientation is often described as reflecting an individual’s desire to demonstrate one’s competence in order to be positively judged and to avoid negative evaluations of their capacities (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). People with a performance orientation furthermore regard their abilities as fixed and uncontrollable, and thus only perform tasks with the intention of showing their competence for gaining favorable appraisals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).

A learning (or mastery- (Nicholls, 1984)) goal orientation, on the other hand, places more importance on actually increasing an individual’s competence. Individuals who possess this orientation assume their skills as being rather malleable, and thus believe in the ability to

(29)

Theoretical Framework & Hypotheses | 24

improve themselves by acquiring new knowledge (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Therefore, they are more concerned with continuously developing their abilities, enhancing their competence, and really trying to understand something new (Pintrich, 2000; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Button et al., 1996). This is in accordance with Mom et al.,’s (2009) statement that ambidextrous managers refine and renew their skills, knowledge and expertise. Furthermore, individuals with a learning goal orientation are more likely to engage in challenging tasks, and seek opportunities to learn. It could therefore be argued that managers with a learning goal orientation will develop more ambidexterity as their tenure increases, providing they have actively learned more, and improved themselves throughout the years while trying to enhance their competences.

Pintrich (2000) adds to the literature and investigated several other outcomes of this orientation. He showed for example that it leads to higher interest, and better performance. It has also been found to increase a person’s openness to new experiences, effort put into the task, intrinsic motivation, effective performance, creativity, and innovative behavior (Brett & VandeWalle, 1999; Jansen et al., 2012; Hirst et al., 2009; Janssen & Yperen, 2004). This orientation thus might contribute to a managers’ connectedness, and might induce a more positive attitude toward change. The importance of the learning goal orientation for this study furthermore follows from its characteristic that it also affects how individuals’ mental frameworks are developed (Dweck, 1986). This cognitive framework determines how people will react to, and interpret different situations (Dweck, 2000). It further influences how individuals judge the complexity of tasks, and their own ability and effort. Due to a learning orientation, people will perform better, because it drives them to engage in deeper and more self-regulated learning. This positive effect is especially distinct in challenging tasks (Grant & Dweck 2003). The learning goal orientation induces cognitive and affective processes towards adaptive challenge seeking, and promotes persistence and ongoing performance when faced with difficulty (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Since activities that require managerial ambidexterity

(30)

are perceived as rather complex and difficult because of the conflicting demands and changing activities (Bledow et al., 2009), it is interesting to investigate the possible moderating effect of a managers’ learning goal orientation on the relationship between their attitude toward change and managers connectedness. Furthermore, this factor has useful practical implications since it is possible to establish someone’s goal orientation in selection situations and assessments.

Because ambidexterity involves different kinds of cognitive orientations that induce paradoxical challenges, managers with a learning goal orientation might be better able to cope with the accompanying tensions. Bonesso et al., (2012) even provide evidence for a positive relationship between a learning goal orientation (in their study: achievement orientation) and personal ambidexterity. Furthermore, because a learning goal orientation is expected to increase skill and knowledge acquisition, individuals with this type of orientation will gain more from their past learning or work experience accumulated through tenure. In turn, this might also counter the rigidity effect, and shape a more positive attitude toward change since changes will offer new opportunities to learn (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Ford et al., 1998). These arguments altogether suggest that managers who possess a learning goal orientation will have obtained more useful skills and knowledge, and have improved themselves more over time in comparison with managers that lack this trait. They will therefore achieve higher levels of ambidexterity, despite the negative tenure effect. With a learning orientation, greater outcomes will be gained from prior experiences. Managers will exhibit greater openness to experience and therefore have a more positive attitude toward change. In a similar vein, managers who score high on the learning orientation, are more inclined to take on an active attitude throughout the years. They are therefore expected to connect more with other organizational members than managers who lack a learning orientation and would rather linger in the same state. The following hypotheses then follow from the above mentioned arguments:

(31)

Hypothesis 3a: Managers’ learning goal orientation positively moderates the relationship between managers’ organizational tenure and managers’ connectedness, in a way that it increases the positive effect of tenure.

Hypothesis 3b: Managers’ learning goal orientation positively moderates the relationship between managers’ organizational tenure and managers’ attitude toward change, in a way that it reduces the negative effect of tenure.

3.4 Proactive Personality

Proactiveness has gained inquiry from different areas, and has been approached across various literatures. Proactive behavior, defined by Crant (2000, p. 2) as “taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones”, has also gained importance for job performance. A synthesis of prior research by Bateman & Crant (1993) investigated this personal disposition towards proactive behavior, and described it as a stable tendency to affect environmental changes. They conceive a proactive person as someone who is not constrained by situational forces, but rather looks for opportunities, shows initiative, and takes action to implement changes. Proactive behavior includes taking initiative with the intention to improve circumstances (Crant, 2000). These findings thus point to a possible link to a positive attitude toward change. A literature review of 107 studies by Fuller & Marler (2009) furthermore shows that a proactive personality is positively related to job performance, learning, extraversion, creativity, and openness to experience, which are also concepts positively related to individual ambidexterity (Good & Michel, 2013), and could contribute to more extensive connectedness. Contrasting, people who are not proactive, are passive, reactive, adaptive, and tend to conform to the status quo.

Nowadays, managers are more and more expected to behave more proactively, since it is found to increase job performance by taking initiatives (Crant, 2000, Seibert et al., 2001). People can behave proactive inside the confines of their job requirements, but also as part of

(32)

Theoretical Framework & Hypotheses | 27 their extra-role behavior, thereby expanding their activities. This relates to Birkinshaw & Gibson’s (2004) characteristics of ambidextrous individuals, who take initiative and are

furthermore motivated to act spontaneously upon opportunities beyond their basic requirements. It also entails searching for information and feedback in order to improve situations (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Jobs that require ambidexterity might induce potential role tensions (i.e. ambiguity and conflict), in which a proactive personality could be helpful in managing a balance by stimulating the search of clarifying information.

Evidence also shows that proactive individuals have a higher tolerance for stress in demanding jobs (Parker & Sprigg, 1999), which is especially the case in ambidextrous activities. Proactiveness is furthermore positively associated with higher expertise and problem-solving skills (Campbell, 2000). Moreover, it increases the degree to which people apply their previously acquired skills and knowledge to current activities (Gerhardt et al., 2009). Above all, proactive individuals tend to engage in active networking, in order to develop beneficial relationships that assist in their work activities (Thompson, 2005). These individuals are actively seeking out opportunities to cooperate with others, and look for linkages for combined effort (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004), suggesting a networking effect caused by their proactive personality. Thus, a proactive personality positively influences the extent to which managers connects with other organizational members as to increase their network during their tenure. In light of the previously discussed factors related to proactiveness, it seems likely that a proactive individual is more likely to build networks and connections with other members in the organization, which increases their access to diverse knowledge, information and perspectives. Since proactive people tend to take actions to implement changes to improve their situation, they will be less affected by the negative influence of tenure, but rather remain a positive attitude toward change. In light of the arguments in the above section, the following hypotheses are presented:

(33)

Research Design & Methods | 28 Hypothesis 4a: Managers’ proactive personality positively moderates the relationship between managers’ organizational tenure and managers’ connectedness, in a way that it increases the positive effect of tenure.

Hypothesis 4b: Managers’ proactive personality positively moderates the relationship between managers’ organizational tenure and managers’ attitude toward change, in a way that it decreases the negative effect of tenure.

The above discussed hypotheses collectively lead to the constructed conceptual model as presented in Figure 1 below.

4. RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS 4.1 Data Collection & Sample

This empirical quantitative research was conducted through an internet-mediated survey administered to middle-line managers working in various departments at ABN AMRO in the Netherlands. The complete survey and invitation e-mail (in Dutch) can be found in Appendix

(34)

Research Design & Methods | 29 D. The survey, designed using Qualtrics, was administered on May 5th, and closed on May 28th, with two reminders sent in between. All contact with the respondents went via the HR Manager of the target firm, to increase the managers’ motivation to actually participate. In order

to perform statistical analyses, the Statistical software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. For all the scales and measurements, a translation and back-translation process was conducted with third parties to ensure appropriate translation intro Dutch. In order to ensure confidentiality and anonymity, respondents could participate through an anonymous link which was sent by the HR manager via e-mail to all middle-line managers.

Regarding the selection of the firm and functional divisions the managers are working for, this study targeted a certain industry in accordance with prior research. To investigate managers’ ambidextrous behavior some studies argue for the need to differentiate markets that

induce the performance of both exploration and exploitation activities (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Mom et al., 2009). They call for examining particular industries that require ambidexterity, therefore this research chose to approach ABN AMRO’s TOPS business unit which is the ‘back bone’ of the bank. It facilitates all operational processes, and consists of several departments such as COO, IT, Operations, and Facility Management. The COO sections exercise a control function, and coordinate the demand of products and services form all business lines of ABN AMRO with the supply from the TOPS organization. All functions inside the specific TOPS business line require a future-oriented, outward focus, and are confronted by a relatively high degree of environmental dynamism and competitiveness. The departments strive to be proactive innovators, whilst optimizing business processes and services to meet the needs and expectations of existing clients. The various activities performed inside the TOPS departments thus seem to confront managers with pressures to both explore and exploit. Mom et al., (2009), amongst others (e.g. Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), indicate that this choice is validated since the financial service industry is forced to both adapt due to changes in

Examining the micro-level of managers’ ambidexterity : therRole of tenure, learning goal orientation, and proactive personality