Top Management Processes That Facilitate Innovative Ambidexterity

• In Event: Interactive Roundtable Discussions & Member Community Information Tables
  In Interactive Roundtable: Business Leadership Interactive Roundtable Discussions

Short Description

Ambidextrous organizations exploit their existing capabilities and explore new opportunities, enabling them to outperform others. It is challenging for top management teams to stay in two worlds — success in each requires unique actions while partly contradicting the other. Findings of a quantitative research study exploring how top management teams foster innovative ambidexterity will launch this discussion.

Detailed Abstract

Social and Cognitive Top Management Processes that Facilitate Innovative Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Cognitive Frames and Processes

Recent research revealed that ambidextrous organisations, which are “capable of exploiting existing competencies as well as exploring new opportunities with equal dexterity” (Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling & Veiga, 2006, p. 647), outperform others (He & Wong, 2004; Junni, Sarala, Taras & Tarba, 2013). The reason is that these firms focus on the here and now and the future at the same time.

Furthermore, it is empirically founded and tested that the group processes of top management teams (TMT) facilitate corporate strategy and, thus, ambidexterity (Bromiley & Rau, 2016; Eggers & Kaplan, 2013; Lubatkin et al., 2006; Smith, 2014; Smith & Tushman, 2005), whereas the role of TMT cognition remained empirically neglected to a large extent.
This presentation – based on a research project that has not yet been published - contributes to the literature of TMT cognition by theoretically developing cognitive mediating processes between TMT group processes (behavioural integration) and innovative ambidexterity. The study empirically tests the proposed model by employing a sample of 101 German top managers, and validates the mediating role of cognitive frames and cognitive processes using partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modelling (SEM).

In our presentation we show that our study replicates the relationship between behavioural integration and innovative ambidexterity. By synthesising tasks and social processes, behavioural integration promotes the adoption of paradoxical frames, creates a mutual understanding that the competing strategies of both exploitation and exploration are legitimate, and establishes a collective self-efficiency that both objectives can be targeted. We show that paradoxical frames encourage individuals to engage in cognitive differentiation and integration, although paradoxical frames are not significantly related to innovative ambidexterity. Solely appreciating exploitation and exploration does not foster ambidexterity, but it is an antecedent for cognitive differentiation and integration. TMT processes of cognitive differentiation and integration directly foster innovative ambidexterity. Integrative complexity partly mediates the relationship between paradoxical frames and innovative ambidexterity.

An ex post analysis of different levels of environmental dynamism was conducted using a multi-group analysis, suggesting that paradoxical frames combined with the absence of integrative complexity can even be harmful to innovative ambidexterity, stressing the importance of cognitive differentiation and integration in highly dynamic environments. In low environmental dynamism, paradoxical frames combined with the absence of integrative complexity foster innovative ambidexterity.
Based on our research project, several contributions have been derived that are relevant to theory, research and practice.
First, we empirically validated the relationship between cognitive frames, cognitive processes and innovative ambidexterity at top management level (top leaders). Thereby, our research model makes an important distinction between cognitive frames and cognitive styles, and investigates their different influences. Second, it tests the assumption that cognitive frames play a role in fostering ambidexterity in a western country like Germany and makes an important generalisation of the cognitive frame assumption (Lin & McDonough, 2014). Third, it relates social factors, such as group processes, to top management cognition, stressing that group processes within TMTs influence their cognitive frames. Thus, cognitive frames could mediate the relationship between behavioural integration and innovative ambidexterity. Fourth, we show that the relationship between cognitive frames and innovative ambidexterity is mediated by cognitive processes. Finally, our findings extend the understanding of which antecedents foster ambidexterity by focusing on cognitive frames, cognitive styles and group processes. Our presentation is consequently also highly interesting to practitioners – e.g. HR managers and top decision makers - who are interested in understanding how top managers and their teams come to detailed decisions to foster ambidexterity.

*Comments for reviewers:
The findings of our research study are only presented visually because we aim to submit our paper to an international Journal by the end of April/May. Thus, we cannot submit a written paper at the moment. Consequently, this detailed abstract of our presentation should not be used for any publication at the moment. This procedure was recommended by a person from the International Leadership Association whom we contacted by email.

Participants

• Lothar Winnen, HMKW Cologne - University of Applied Sciences

• Rafael Wilms, South Westphalia University of Applied Sciences

• Ralf Lanwehr, University of Applied Sciences