The ability to innovate determines our destiny.
Like a ship navigating stormy and unpredictable waters, companies today face an environment that is constantly changing and difficult to forecast. How can organizations prepare well for the future, avoid falling behind, or prevent unforeseen events from throwing them off course economically? And how can they best manage the ever-present digital transformation?
Having answers to these questions is essential for any company that wants to remain competitive in the long term.
The constant demand for innovation seems to have become the new normal that organizations must adapt to. The transformation processes required go beyond structural change alone. The key question is: how can companies continue to run their core business successfully while also developing entirely new markets or products?
Ambidextrous Leadership is a concept currently discussed as a possible response to these challenges. “Ambidexterity” literally means being able to use both hands and, in this context, refers to leaders using complementary behavioral strategies to positively influence employees’ innovative performance—and therefore the company’s innovation capability. Although the concept is relatively new, it has already attracted significant public attention. Numerous websites present the benefits of ambidextrous leadership, with headlines ranging from „How to become an Ambidextrous Leader“ (all accessed on February 28, 2019) over „Ambidextrous Leadership zur Bewältigung des digitalen Wandels“ (all accessed on February 28, 2019) to „Ambidextrous Leadership – Keystone of the undisruptable CEO“ (all accessed on February 28, 2019).
There are also providers offering ambidextrous leadership implementation as a service, or online or online tools to assess an organization’s ambidextrous leadership profile (accessed on February 28, 2019) to determine whether a company is “innovative and future-ready.” Clearly, the topic has struck a nerve and addresses a challenge that is currently top of mind for many leaders and organizations.
But to what extent is this positive public perception supported by scientific evidence? This article aims to contribute to clarifying that question. With their work, Rosing, Frese, and Bausch provided ambidextrous leadership with a theoretical framework (see Rosing, K. et al., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2011, pp. 956–974). This laid the foundation for further empirical research and new insights in the field. This article first gives a short overview of the history of the term “ambidexterity” in business research and outlines selected findings—starting with organizational ambidexterity and leading to ambidextrous leadership. It then presents the Theory of Ambidextrous Leadership for Innovation by Rosing et al. in detail and explains the key elements of the concept. Next, it summarizes results from current research on ambidextrous leadership. A concluding synthesis of the findings and an outlook on future research questions complete the article.
Ambidextrous Leadership
Scientific background
In business research, the concept of ambidexterity at the organizational level has been present for more than 40 years. Duncan first introduced the term “ambidextrous organization” in 1976, describing a company that can adapt to environmental change while also managing day-to-day operations efficiently (see Duncan, R.B., Ambidextrous Organisation, 1979, pp. 167–188).
Wider recognition and a stronger theoretical foundation emerged through March’s exploration–exploitation framework (see March, J.G., Organizational Learning, 1991, pp. 71–87), originally rooted in organizational learning research. March argues that organizations should pursue two strategies to shape learning processes effectively: • Exploitation: focusing on existing capabilities and potential within the company • Exploration: actively searching for new opportunities and potential
Exploitation emphasizes efficient operation of the core business, while exploration enables greater flexibility to adapt to changing environments. According to March, the balance between both strategies is critical for business success (see March, 1991, pp. 85–86).
Building on this, Tushman and O’Reilly described an ambidextrous organization as a company that is able to succeed simultaneously in exploration and exploitation (see Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996, pp. 24–25). Over time, multiple studies found positive effects of organizational ambidexterity on business unit performance, revenue, and innovativeness (see Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; He & Wong, 2004; Lubatkin et al., 2006; Smith & Tushman, 2005).
While much of the literature focused on organizational ambidexterity, there were fewer empirical studies addressing ambidexterity on the individual level (see Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008, pp. 380–381). Research into how ambidexterity can be implemented successfully and what its antecedents are brought increased attention to the topic (see Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008, pp. 396–400). In this context, O’Reilly and Tushman stated that „one of the most important lessons is that ambidextrous organizations need ambidextrous senior teams and managers“ (accessed February 28, 2019; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004). Such managers are described as having a strong sense for very different business requirements and the ability to make difficult trade-offs—combining, for example, cost sensitivity with risk-taking (see HBR article https://hbr.org/2004/04/the-ambidextrous-organization, accessed February 28, 2019; O´Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M.L., Ambidextrous Organization, 2004, o. S.).
Mom, van den Bosch, and Volberda found that structural coordination mechanisms (e.g., working across different functional areas) combined with individual mechanisms (e.g., personal relationships and networks) have a stronger impact on a manager’s ambidexterity than any factor alone (see Mom et al., 2009, p. 824). They also found a relationship between managerial ambidexterity and decision latitude: top-level managers engaged more strongly in both exploratory and exploitative activities than managers at lower levels (see Mom et al., 2009, pp. 821–822).
The Theory of Ambidextrous Leadership for Innovation by Rosing et al. (2011, pp. 956–974), described in detail below, transfers the concept of organizational ambidexterity to the individual level and into the domain of leadership.
The Theory of Ambidextrous Leadership for Innovation
Rosing et al. emphasize the complexity of the innovation process, which can present very different management challenges over time. According to the authors, traditional leadership styles are not flexible enough to capture this dynamic because they are too broad and lack the required adaptability (see Rosing et al., 2011, p. 957). They describe the effects of traditional leadership styles on innovation as often heterogeneous: depending on the situation, they can support innovation—but they can also hinder it.
For example, a vision communicated within transformational leadership can inspire employees and encourage new approaches, but highly convincing visions can also limit free thinking and make it harder to recognize alternative solutions (see Rosing et al., 2011, p. 965). Rosing et al. demonstrated such heterogeneous relationships in a meta-analysis on transformational leadership, initiating structure, and supervisor support. They argue that no single leadership style is sufficient to manage the complex, complementary challenges within an innovation process. Rosing et al. state that the requirements for successful innovation can be described through the dimensions of exploration and exploitation—and that ambidexterity is a necessary condition for effective innovative activity within companies (see Rosing et al., 2011, pp. 965–966).
They define ambidextrous leadership as a manager’s ability to foster both exploratory and exploitative behavior in employees (see Rosing et al., 2011, p. 957). A core element of the concept is the flexible and dynamic switching between both behavioral strategies. Managers can influence the variance in employee behavior through specific actions. The authors refer to opening behavior and closing behavior, and highlight the importance of regular and direct interaction between the manager and the team (see Rosing et al., 2011, pp. 966–967).
The following sections describe the elements of the theory in more detail.
Exploration
Exploratory activities are associated with creativity and search-oriented behavior in generating new ideas. They involve increased variance in behavior (see Gupta, A.K. et al., Exploration, 2006, p. 693-700). Examples include investing in discovering new knowledge fields to open new markets, as well as adopting and exploring new technologies (see Lavie, D. et al., Exploration, 2010, p. 109-111 ; Rosing, K. et al., Innovation, 2010, pp. 191-194 ; Holmqvist, M., Exploration, 2004, p. 70-72).
Opening Behaviour
When employees face challenges in solving tasks during the innovation process, Rosing et al. argue that managers should support exploration through opening behavior. Examples include promoting a positive view of mistakes, motivating employees to pursue their own ideas, and encouraging experimentation with different approaches (see Rosing, K. et al., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2011, p. 967).
Exploitation
Exploitative activities are associated with reduced variance in behavior. They are often structured and focused on existing knowledge, emphasizing the refinement and use of previously acquired skills or capabilities (see March, 1991, pp. 71–73). Examples include established processes, technologies, or routine tasks (Holmqvist, 2004, pp. 70–72).
Closing Behaviour
In the innovation context, exploitative behavior becomes especially relevant during implementation. It is also important for incremental improvement of processes or products. Rosing et al. argue that such behavior should be supported through closing behavior, such as strengthening routines, making corrective interventions, monitoring performance targets, and ensuring adherence to rules and plans (see Rosing, K. et al., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2011, p. 967).
Temporal flexibility
To address the dynamic—and sometimes paradoxical—challenges of innovation, Rosing et al. argue that it is not sufficient to influence teams only through opening or only through closing behavior. What matters is the flexible, immediate switching between both strategies. According to the authors, there is no fixed model predicting when to explore and when to exploit: “There is no systematic process model that predicts when it is useful to explore and when it is useful to exploit” (Rosing, K. et al., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2011, p. 967). Managers therefore need strong situational awareness to judge which behavior is appropriate and when a switch is required.
Role and characteristics of an ambidextrous leader
According to the authors, an ambidextrous leader’s involvement in innovation tasks can vary: from initiating exploratory and exploitative behaviors to actively participating in the process. Temporal flexibility remains highly important, as the appropriate level of managerial influence depends on the situation. Individual factors also play a role: depending on the manager, the team, and individual team members, needs for involvement may differ (see Rosing, K. et al., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2011, p. 968).
Rosing et al. propose that temporal flexibility and switching between strategies require cognitive complexity and high behavioral variance on the manager’s side. They identify several personal competencies as potential antecedents of ambidextrous leadership, including integrative thinking, emotional intelligence, and proactive planning (see Rosing, K. et al., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2011, pp. 968-969).
Selected findings from current research
The Theory of Ambidextrous Leadership for Innovation, originally presented by Rosing et al. as a purely theoretical concept, has since been tested empirically in multiple studies. For example, Zacher and Wilden (2014) showed a positive relationship between employees’ self-reported innovation performance and the extent of opening and closing behavior demonstrated by managers in a diary study (see Zacher, H., Wilden, R.G., Innovation, 2014, pp. 816-819). Innovation performance was highest when managers showed both behaviors strongly. The authors conclude this supports the idea that managers should dynamically shift between behaviors to strengthen team innovation (see Zacher, H., Wilden, R.G., Innovation, 2014, p. 818-819). Ein solcher Zusammenhang zeigte sich ebenso in einer Studie von Zacher und Rosing (vgl. Zacher, H., Rosing, K., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2015, S. 59-63). Auch hier war die innovative Leistung eines Teams am größten, wenn sowohl Opening als auch Closing Behaviour in hohem Maß präsent waren.
Ruhnke and Mulder (2016) examined the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and innovative work behavior (IWB) (see Runkhe, M., Mulder, R.H., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2016). Building on de Jong, IWB is defined as “the intentional behavior of an individual to introduce and/or apply new ideas, products, processes, and procedures to his or her work role, unit, or organization” (De Jong, J.P.J., Den Hartog, D.N., Work Behaviour, 2007, p. 8). Their findings provide preliminary support for Rosing et al.’s theory, indicating that only managers who show both opening and closing behavior foster IWB in teams.
A study by Alghamdi (2018) in Saudi Arabia suggests the theory may also be transferable across cultures beyond Western contexts: again, employee innovation performance related to managers’ opening and closing behavior (see Alghamdi, F., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2018, pp. 8-9).
Research in a consulting context further supports the relevance of both behaviors, and additionally suggests that an integrated, balanced use of opening and closing behavior—rather than frequent switching—may be beneficial. In that case, a manager would present both behaviors at the same time, but in different degrees, resulting in a more consistent leadership style (see HBR article https://essay.utwente.nl/66924/1/Schindler_MA_MB.pdf, accessed February 28, 2019; Schindler, A., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2015).
Studies also show a relationship between leadership responsibility and ambidexterity: top management tends to engage more equally in exploratory and exploitative activities than managers at lower levels or employees without leadership responsibility(see Mom, T.J.M. et al., Ambidexterity, 2009, pp. 821-822., Weibler, J., Keller, T., Ambidextrie, 2011, pp. 161-163). Studies also show a relationship between leadership responsibility and ambidexterity: top management tends to engage more equally in exploratory and exploitative activities than managers at lower levels or employees without leadership responsibility
Beyond the relationship between ambidexterity and innovation, research also points to moderators influencing innovation outcomes. Positive relationships with innovation performance were found for intrinsic motivation (see Runkhe, M., Mulder, R.H., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2016, w/o. p.), transformational leadership (see Rosing, K. et al., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2011, pp. 958-962) , an initiative-friendly culture, and a climate of psychological safety (see Baer, M., Frese, M., Psychological Safety, 2003, pp. 56-62).
Mueller et al. (2018) published a meta-review on ambidextrous leadership and examined the concept through a multi-level perspective. (vgl. Mueller, J. et al., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2018, w/o. p.). They distinguish between micro-level (individuals and groups within the organization) and macro-level (the organization as a whole). At the micro-level, ambidextrous leadership is represented by a manager’s ability to initiate and foster ambidextrous employee behavior. At the macro-level, it ensures that individuals contribute to organizational ambidexterity. The authors argue ambidextrous leadership can serve as a linking element between levels and support organizational ambidexterity, while also noting that conceptual boundaries between related terms remain unclear and require further research (see Mueller, J. et al., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2018, w/o. p.).
Outlook and conclusion
Overall, the studies presented indicate that the ambidextrous leadership concept proposed by Rosing et al. can support both individual innovation performance (see Zacher, H., Wilden, R.G., Innovation, 2014, pp. 818-819), and team innovation (see Zacher, H., Rosing, K., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2015, pp. 59-63). In particular, positive effects are reported for the combination—and, in some cases, the switching—between opening and closing behavior. Early evidence for cultural transferability supports the relevance of the concept beyond Western settings (see Alghamdi, F., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2018, pp. 8-9).
At the same time, the research suggests that the Theory of Ambidextrous Leadership for Innovation would benefit from further theoretical refinement. The relationship between ambidextrous leadership and additional moderators influencing innovation performance is not yet sufficiently clear. More research could help distinguish ambidextrous leadership from other leadership concepts (such as transformational leadership or supervisor support) and explore potential synergy effects.
Rosing et al. propose certain personal traits and competencies of effective ambidextrous leaders (see Rosing, K. et al., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2011, pp. 968-969), but this area is not yet well represented in empirical research. Further studies could contribute to the development of leadership training programs. In addition, evidence suggesting that a consistent leadership style—rather than frequent switching—may be preferable should be considered more closely.
Rosing et al. also highlight the high cognitive demands of ambidextrous leadership and suggest that, as an alternative, different managers could be assigned to phases of exploration and exploitation (see Rosing, K. et al., Ambidextrous Leadership, 2011, p. 969). Research on the prerequisites for successful implementation could therefore provide further practical approaches.
To use ambidextrous leadership effectively as a lever for increasing company-wide innovation performance within an ambidextrous organization, future studies should aim to deepen the understanding of interactions between ambidextrous leadership across the organizational and micro levels.
Finally, the relationship between autonomy and ambidextrous behavior opens a relevant research field, especially in the context of flatter hierarchies. Based on existing findings, it could be investigated whether reducing hierarchy levels—together with increased individual autonomy—generally promotes ambidextrous behavior among employees and how these structural changes influence overall innovation performance. It might even be useful to introduce flatter hierarchies first to encourage ambidextrous employee behavior—independently of ambidextrous leadership—and thereby strengthen innovation capability. However, these assumptions are speculative and would need to be tested empirically.
In conclusion, current findings suggest that ambidextrous leadership is a promising concept for supporting organizational innovation performance. However, the public perception of the concept as a “universal remedy” for innovation challenges should be questioned. Significant research gaps remain regarding prerequisites, mechanisms, and limitations. The relatively broad application of ambidextrous leadership in practice may therefore be viewed critically—but it may also contribute to further learning over time.
About the author
Jeanne Witzmann
Graduate Psychologist, M.Sc. Human Resource Management
Our author studied psychology in Düsseldorf and then specialized in Human Resource Management. She is a partner at rising systems and works in holacratic structures. The company specializes in agile product and software development and has innovation firmly embedded in its DNA.
References
Alghamdi, Faris (2018). Ambidextrous leadership, ambidextrous employee, and the interaction between ambidextrous leadership and employee innovative performance. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 7. 10.1186/s13731-018-0081-8
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45-68
Duncan, R.B. (1976). The Ambidextrous organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation, in R. Kilman & L. Pondy (eds.) The Management of Organizational Design. New York: North Holland: 167-188
Gibson, C.B. & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal 2004, Vol. 47, No. 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
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. Exploitation : An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4), 481-494
Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15(1), 70-81
De Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour. European Journal of innovation management, vol. 10, no. 1, 41-64
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109- 155
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(5), 646- 672
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87
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
Mueller-Seeger, J. & Renzl, B. & Will, M. (2018). Ambidextrous leadership: a meta-review applying static and dynamic multi-level perspectives. Review of Managerial Science. 10.1007/s11846-018-0297-9
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409
Rosing, K., Rosenbusch, N., & Frese, M. (2010). Ambidextrous leadership in the innovation process. In Innovation and international corporate growth (pp. 191-204). Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974
Ruhnke, M. & Mulder, R. H. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and innovative work behaviour in a company. Paper presented at the at the 8th Conference of the EARLI SIG Learning and Professional Development, Regensburg (Germany)
Smith, W., Tushman, M. (2005). Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams. Organization Science – ORGAN SCI. 16. 522-536. 10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
Tushman, M.L., O’Reilly, C.A. (1996). The ambidextrous organization: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38 :8–30
Zacher, H., Wilden, R.G. (2014). A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self-reported employee innovation. J Occup Organ Psychol 87 :813–820
Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 36 (1)