Individual ambidexterity: the duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance

References

• Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, N. R., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173. doi:10.1002/job.236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, N. R., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297–1333. doi:10.1177/0149206314527128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696–717. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265–285. doi:10.1348/096317900167029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75–105. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01289.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1102–1119. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0470
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 189–206. doi:10.1348/096317909X402596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beal, D. J. (2015). ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 383–407. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111335
   Google Scholar
• Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 157–167. doi:10.1002/job.v37.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69, 229–283. doi:10.1111/peps.12103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., & Niessen, C. (2008). Age and creativity at work: The interplay between job resources, age and idea creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 438–457. doi:10.1108/02683940810869042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binnewies, C., & Wörnlein, S. C. (2011). What makes a creative day? A diary study on the interplay between affect, job stressors, and job control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 589–607. doi:10.1002/job.v32.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 287–298. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N. R., Erez, M., & Farr, J. L. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 305–337. doi:10.1111/iops.2009.2.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bledow, R., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. (2013). A dynamic perspective on affect and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 432–450. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonesso, S., Gerli, F., & Scapolan, A. (2014). The individual side of ambidexterity: Do individuals’ perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off? European Management Journal, 32, 392–405. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2013.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20, 781–796. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0426
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. S. (2006). Regression analysis by example (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Cortina, J. M. (1993). Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: Implications for multiple regression. Journal of Management, 19, 915–922. doi:10.1177/014920639301900411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51–100. doi:10.1006/obhd.1994.1029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 265–287. doi:10.1177/109442810143005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. In F. Drasgow & N. W. Schmitt (Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350–400). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802–827. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. The Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577–1613. doi:10.2307/256822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faisal Ahammad, M., Mook Lee, S., Malul, M., & Shoham, A. (2015). Behavioral ambidexterity: The impact of incentive schemes on productivity, motivation, and performance of employees in commercial banks. Human Resource Management, 54, s45–s62. doi:10.1002/hrm.2015.54.issue-S1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farr, J. L., Sin, H.-P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2003). Knowledge management processes and work group innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 574–586). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, C. D., & Noble, C. S. (2004). A within-person examination of correlates of performance and emotions while working. Human Performance, 17, 145–168. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1702_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21, 593–608. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0485
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226. doi:10.2307/20159573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Good, D., & Michel, E. J. (2013). Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. The Journal of Psychology, 147, 435–453. doi:10.1080/00223980.2012.710663
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasmand, C., Blazevic, V., & De Ruyter, K. (2012). Generating sales while providing service: A study of customer service representatives’ ambidextrous behavior. Journal of Marketing, 76, 20–37. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V. A. S., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299–312. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, S.-C., & Snell, S. A. (2009). Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: A framework for human resource management. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 65–92. doi:10.1111/joms.2008.46.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. The Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C.-W., & Tausch, A. (1996). Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Version der “Positive and Negative Affect Schedule” (PANAS) [Investigations with a German version of the PANAS]. Diagnostica, 42, 139–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurtzberg, T. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 51–65. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 202–220. doi:10.1177/1094428105284919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laureiro-Martínez, D., Brusoni, S., & Zollo, M. (2010). The neuroscientific foundations of the exploration−exploitation dilemma. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 3, 95–115. doi:10.1037/a0018495
   Google Scholar
• Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G., & Green, S. G. (2002). Product development tensions: Exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 546–564. doi:10.2307/3069380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646–672. doi:10.1177/0149206306290712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 221–240. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.31767217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., & Rodgers, B. (1999). A short form of the positive and negative affect schedule: Evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 405–416. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00251-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marquardt, D. W. (1970). Generalized inverses, ridge regression, biased linear estimation, and nonlinear estimation. Technometrics, 12, 591–612. doi:10.2307/1267205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 740–760. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.64870100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 229–240. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mom, T. J. M., Fourné, S. P. L., & Jansen, J. J. P. (2015). Managers’ work experience, ambidexterity, and performance: The contingency role of the work context. Human Resource Management. doi:10.1002/hrm.21663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mom, T. J. M., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 910–931. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00697.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mom, T. J. M., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 812–828. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide. Seventh edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C. A. I., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543–565. doi:10.1002/job.v31:4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C. A. I., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 324–338. doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1420–1442. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prieto, I. M., & Santana, M. P. P. (2012). Building ambidexterity: The role of human resource practices in the performance of firms from Spain. Human Resource Management, 51, 189–211. doi:10.1002/hrm.v51.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409. doi:10.1177/0149206308316058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rietzschel, E. F., Zacher, H., & Stroebe, W. (2016). A lifespan perspective on creativity and innovation at work. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2, 105–129. doi:10.1093/workar/waw005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. (2014). A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization Science, 25, 1860–1877. doi:10.1287/orsc.2014.0901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 956–974. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosing, K., Rosenbusch, N., & Frese, M. (2010). Ambidextrous leadership in the innovation process. In A. Gerybadze, U. Hommel, H. W. Reiners, & D. Thomaschewski (Eds.), Innovation and international corporate growth (pp. 191–204). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sackett, P. R., Lievens, F., Berry, C. M., & Landers, R. N. (2007). A cautionary note on the effects of range restriction on predictor intercorrelations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 538–544. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.538
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 347–367. doi:10.1177/1094428107308906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder, R. G., Van De Ven, A. H., Scudder, G. D., & Polley, D. (1989). The development of innovation ideas. In A. H. Van De Ven, H. L. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies (pp. 107–134). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607. doi:10.2307/256701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 215–223. doi:10.2307/1556378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 489–505. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.41330806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 543–554. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476. doi:10.1177/1094428109351241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.1.66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864–894. doi:10.1111/joms.2009.46.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. doi:10.1177/1094428105284955
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stine, R. A. (1995). Graphical interpretation of variance inflation factors. The American Statistician, 49, 53–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620. doi:10.1111/peps.1999.52.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Carter, A. (2005). Creative requirement: A neglected construct in the study of employee creativity? Group & Organization Management, 30, 541–560. doi:10.1177/1059601104267607
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van De Ven, A. H., Polley, D., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540–555. doi:10.2307/256941
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, M. A. (2002a). Ideas are ten a penny: It’s team implementation not idea generation that counts. Applied Psychology - An International Review, 51, 411–424. doi:10.1111/apps.2002.51.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, M. A. (2002b). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–387. doi:10.1111/apps.2002.51.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3–13). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Zacher, H., Robinson, A., & Rosing, K. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50, 24–46. doi:10.1002/jocb.66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36, 54–68. doi:10.1108/LODJ-11-2012-0141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacher, H., & Wilden, R. G. (2014). A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self‐reported employee innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 813–820. doi:10.1111/joop.2014.87.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar