Skip to main content

Adapting to Change: Employees Ambidexterity as a Driver for Operational Adaptability and Organizational Development

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Process Management: Blockchain, Robotic Process Automation, Central and Eastern European, Educators and Industry Forum (BPM 2024)

Abstract

The paper demonstrates that employee ambidexterity plays a critical role in achieving operational adaptability and the development of an organization in a dynamic environment. It advances theories of business process management by showing that process actors, who are capable of implementing change inherently and rapidly, can create flexible business processes. This allows for the effective meeting of customer needs and the achievement of business performance. The CATI method was utilized to examine 209 process actors from Polish enterprises. Given the survey’s size and nature, the PLS-SEM method was employed. The research results confirmed that organizations operating within an adaptiveness paradigm rely on actors who perform their work appropriately to the emerging circumstances. This confirms the necessity of conducting in-depth research on the social implications of agile BPM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Accenture: Business agility report 2020 (2020). https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights/technology/business-agility-report-2020. Accessed 22 Jan 2024

  2. Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.: Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ. Sci. 20(4), 696–717 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.04062009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Badakhshan, P., Conboy, K., Grisold, T., vom Brocke, J.: Agile business process management. A ystematic literature review and an integrated framework. Bus. Process Manag. J. 26(6), 1505–1523 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-12-2018-0347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bazan, P., Estevez, E.: Industry 4.0 and business process management: state of the art and new challenges. Bus. Process Manag. J. 28(1), 62–80 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brown, T.A.: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, New York, London, The Guilford Press 34 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bruno, G., et al.: Key challenges for enabling agile BPM with social software. J. Softw.: Evol. Process 23(4), 297–326 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Caputo, A., Marzi, G., Pellegrini, M.M.: The internet of things in manufacturing innovation processes: development and application of a conceptual framework. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 22(2), 341–358 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Jin, J., Wang, L., Chow, W.S.: IT capability and organizational performance: the roles of business process agility and environmental factors, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 1–17 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.4

  9. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Jin, J., Wang, L., Chow, W.S.: IT capability and organizational performance: the roles of business process agility and environmental factors. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 23(3), 326–342 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cronbach, J.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3), 297–303 (1951)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Çulha, D., Dogru, A.: Towards an agile methodology for business process development, In: Nanopoulos, A., Schmid, W. (Eds), Proceedings of 6th International Conference, S-BPM ONE2014 in Eichst€att, pp. 133–142, Germany, Springer-Verlag, Cham (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Di Ciccio, C., Marrella, A., Russo, A.: Knowledge-intensive processes: an overview of contemporary approaches. In: ter Hofstede A.H.M., Mecella M., Sardina S., Marrella A. (Eds.), 1st International Workshop on Knowledge-Intensive Business Processes (KiBPs), pp. 33–47 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Duncan, R.B.: The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. Manag. Organ. 1(1), 167–188 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ghoshal, S., Bartlett, C.: Linking organizational context and managerial action: the dimensions of quality in management. Strateg. Manag. J. 15, 91–112 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gibson, C.B., Birkinshaw, J.: The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Manag. J. 47(2), 209–226 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Grönroos, C., Voima, P.: Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 41(2), 133–150 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guisado-González, M., González-Blanco, J., Coca-Pérez, J.L.: Analyzing the relationship between exploration, exploitation and organizational innovation. J. Knowl. Manag. 21(5), 1142–1162 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Market. Theory Pract. Taylor Francis 19(2), 139–152 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C.: Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Bus. Ethics Q. 23(1), 97–124 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hibbert, S., Winklhofer, H., Temerak, M.S.: Customers as resource integrators: toward a model of customer learning. J. Serv. Res. 15(3), 247–261 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P., Van Der Aalst, W.M., Krogstie, J.: Business process management in the large. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 3(6), 385–388 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Huang, P.-Y., Pan, S.L., Ouyang, T.H.: Developing information processing capability for operational agility: implications from a Chinese manufacturer. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 23, 462–480 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hughes, M., Hughes, P., Morgan, R.E.: Exploitative learning and entrepreneurial orientation alignment in emerging young firms: implications for market and response performance. Br. J. Manag. 18, 359–375 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Junni, P., Sarala, R.M., Taras, V., Tarba, S.Y.: Organizational ambidexterity and performance: a meta-analysis. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 27(4), 299–312 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: part I. Account. Horiz. 15(1), 87–104 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Khan, S., J., Mir, A.A.: Ambidextrous culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovations: the role of organizational slack and environmental factors. Business Strat. Environ. 28(4), 652–663 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Klammer, A., Gueldenberg, S.: Unlearning and forgetting in organizations: a systematic review of literature. J. Knowl. Manag. 23(5), 860–888 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kolar, J., Pitner, T.: Agile BPM in the age of cloud technologies. Scal. Comput.: Pract. Exper. 13(4), 285–294 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kuran, T.: The tenacious past: theories of personal and collective conservatism. J. Econ. (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lee, J.Y., Seo, Y., Jeung, W., Kim, J.H.: How ambidextrous organizational culture affects job performance: a multilevel study of the mediating effect of psychological capital,. J. Manag. Organ. 1(16) (2017). https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.38

  31. Lee, O.K., Sambamurthy, V., Lim, K.H., Wei, K.K.: How does IT ambidexterity impact organizational agility? Inf. Syst. Res. 26(2), 398–417 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Leroi-Werelds, S.: An update on customer value: state of the art, revised typology, and research Agenda. J. Serv. Manag. 30(5), 650–680 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-03-2019-0074

  33. Liang, H., Wang, N., Xue, Y., Ge, S.: Unraveling the alignment paradox: how does business-IT alignment shape organizational agility? Inf. Syst. Res. 28(4), 863–879 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lu, Y., Ramamurthy, K.: Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: an empirical examination. MIS Q. 35(4), 931–954 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L.: An overview of service-dominant logic. In: Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Service-Dominant Logic, pp. 3–21, Sage Publications, London (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Malinova, M., Mendling, J.: Identifying do’s and don’ts using the integrated business process management framework. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 24(4), 882–899 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mao, H., Gong, Y., Titah, T.: Understanding the relationship between IT capabilities and operational agility: a multimethod approach. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 36(2), 409–436 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-12-2021-0521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mao, H., Liu, S., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., Gong, Y.: Information technology competency and organizational agility: roles of absorptive capacity and information intensity. Inf. Technol. People 34(1), 421–451 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. March, J.G.: Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1), 71–87 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Martins, P.V., Zacarias, M.: An agile business process improvement methodology. Procedia Comput. Sci. 121, 129–136 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Marzi, G., Zollo, L., Boccardi, A., Ciappei, C.: Additive manufacturing in SMEs: empirical evidences from Italy. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 15(01) (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Meyer, N., Schiffner, S.: Democratizing business process management: empowering process participants to contribute to the enactment of business processes. In: 2014 IEEE 16th Conference on Business Informatics, pp. 93–100 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Meziani, R., Magalhães, R.: Proposals for an agile business process management methodology. In: First International Workshop on Organizational Design and Engineering (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mikalef, P., Pateli, A.: Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance: findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J. Bus. Res. 70, 1–16 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Miller, K.D., Pentland, B.T., Choi, S.: Dynamics of performing and remembering organizational routines. J. Manage. Stud. 49(8), 1536–1558 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ngai, E.W.T., Chau, D.C.K., Chan, T.L.A.: Information technology, operational, and management competencies for supply chain agility: findings from case studies. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 20, 232–249 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Niu, K.-H., Li, H.: Knowledge management and organizational adaptation effectiveness: an empirical study. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Commer. 7(1), 10–26 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  48. O’Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M.L.: Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 27(4), 324–338 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: Business Model Generation. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Petrillo, A., Di Bona, G., Forcina, A., Silvestri, A.: Building excellence through the agile reengineering performance model (ARPM): a strategic business model for organizations. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 24(1), 128–157 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Prakash, A., Jha, S.K., Prasad, K.D., Singh, A.K.: Productivity, quality and business performance: an empirical study. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 66(1), 78–91 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2015-0041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., Tushman, M.L.: Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ. Sci. 20(4), 685–695 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rialti, R., Marzi, G., Silic, M., Ciappei, C.: Ambidextrous organization and agility in big data era. The role of business process management systems. Bus. Process Manag. J. 24(5), 1091–1109 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-07-2017-0210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rialti, R., Zollo, L., Pellegrini, M.M., Ciappei, C.: Exploring the antecedents of brand loyalty and electronic word of mouth in social-media-based brand communities: do gender differences matter? J. Glob. Mark. 30(3), 147–160 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Jr., Nitzl, C., Ringle, C.M., Howard, M.C.: Beyond a tandem analysis of SEM and PROCESS: Use of PLS-SEM for mediation analyses. Int. J. Mark. Res. 62(3), 288–299 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Schmenner, R., Swink, M.: On theory in operations management. J. Oper. Manag. 17(1), 97–113 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Schmitt, A., Hörner, S.: Systematic literature review – improving business processes by implementing agile. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 27(3), 868–882 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J.F., Souder, D.: A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. J. Manage. Stud. 46(5), 864–894 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sneyd, K.P., Rowley, J.: Linking strategic objectives and operational performance: an action research-based exploration. Meas. Bus. Excell. 8(3), 42–51 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Spiegel, M., Schmiedel, T., vom Brocke, J.: What makes change harder – or easier. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 58(3), 88–89 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Suša Vugec, D., Tomičić-Pupek, K., Bosilj Vukšić, V.: Social business process management in practice: overcoming the limitations of the traditional business process management. International Journal of Engineering Business Management 10, 1–10 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sutherland, J., Schwaber, K.: The scrum guide (2016). http://www.scrumguides.org. Accessed on 15 Jan 2024

  63. Tallon, P.: Inside the adaptive enterprise: an information technology capabilities perspective on business process agility. Inf. Technol. Manage. 9(1), 21–36 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  64. Tan, F., Pan, S.L., Zuo, M.: Realising platform operational agility through information technology–enabled capabilities: a resource-interdependence perspective. Info Syst. J. 29, 582–608 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Thiemich, C., Puhlmann, F.: An agile BPM project methodology. In: Daniel, F. et al. (Eds), Business Process Management: 11th International Conference, BPM 2013, Proceedings, August 26–30, pp. 291–306, Springer, Beijing and Berlin Heidelberg (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Thompson, G., Seymour, L.F., O’Donovan, B: Towards a BPM success model: an analysis in South African financial services organisations. In: Halpin, T., et al. (Eds), Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 29, pp. 1-13, Springer, Heidelberg (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Tian, X., Pavur, R., Han, H., Zhang, L.: A machine learning-based human resources recruitment system for business process management: using LSA BERT and SVM. Bus. Process Manag. J. 29(1), 202–222 (2023)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Valmohammadi, C., Roshanzamir, S.: The guidelines of improvement: relations among organizational culture, TQM and performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 164, 167–178 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. van der Aalst, W.M.P., et al.: Business process mining: an industrial application. Inf. Syst. 32(5), 713–732 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J. Mark. 68(1), 1–17 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M.: Business Process Management, Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, Management Information Systems, vol. 7, pp. 1–9. Wiley (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  72. von Rosing, M., Gill, A.Q.: Applying agile principles to BPM. In: von Rosing, M., von Scheel, J., Scheer, A.-W. (Eds), The Complete Business Process Handbook - Body of Knowledge from Process Modeling to BPM, Vol. I, pp. 557–581 Elsevier – Morgan Kaufmann, Waltham, MA (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  73. Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., Santoro, G., Papa, A.: Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms. J. Technol. Transf. 42(2), 374–388 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Wamba-Taguimdje, S.-L., Fosso Wamba, S., Kala Kamdjoug, J.R., Tchatchouang Wanko, C.E.: Influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on firm performance: the business value of AI-based transformation projects. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 26(7), 1893–1924 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariusz Hofman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Ethics declarations

Disclosure of Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Specification of the measurement model (results of the confirmatory factor analysis)

Specification of the measurement model (results of the confirmatory factor analysis)

1.1 AI technologies (AIT), CR = 0.930, Cronbach’s α = 0.895, AVE = 0.772

The use of artificial intelligence allows us to create new and innovative process solutions

0.665

Machine learning algorithms help us monitor process results

0.947

Machine learning algorithms help us choose the best method to streamline processes

0.952

AI-based technologies allow us to monitor changes to customer behavior on an ongoing basis

0.919

1.2 Agile methods and practices (AMP), CR = 0.897, Cronbach’s α = 0.847, AVE = 0.686

Agile methodologies help us implement changes to business processes

0.829

We focus on our customer expectations and requirements in the course of day-to-day meetings

0.763

The use of retrospective allows us to continuously perfect our abilities and learn from changes

0.866

The agile approach stimulates openness to change and experimentation

0.853

1.3 Agile organizational culture (AOC), CR = 0.864, Cronbach’s α = 0.790, AVE = 0.614

Thanks to organizational culture based on agility, our organization can quickly respond to changes

0.776

Our organizational culture promotes experimentation and learning from retrospection

0.785

In our organization, there is consent to the departure from the established operational methods and to the learning of new ones to meet our customer expectations better

0.777

The management allows us to combine adaptation- and development-oriented activities

0.795

2.1 Contextual ambidexterity (CA), CR = 0.910, Cronbach’s α = 0.868, AVE = 0.717

Our employees are able to innovate and refine processes simultaneously

0.841

As employees, we are open to change and able to implement it fast

0.823

We can explore new opportunities and exploit existing processes simultaneously

0.862

We are capable of conducting process-based and project-based operations simultaneously

0.860

3.1 Operational agility (OA), CR = 0.956, Cronbach’s α = 0.947, AVE = 0.731

Our operations are flexible and can be easily adapted to market changes

0.861

Our business processes are simple and easy to modify with a view to creating value

0.744

We are able to quickly adapt our operations to market changes

0.866

We adapt our business processes to meet the evolving market requirements

0.894

Our organization quickly adapts to changes in the business environment

0.888

The ability to respond fast to changes is the key to our adaptability

0.878

Our operations are flexible to meet the changing business demands

0.890

Our organization is constantly searching for new opportunities while relying on its existing experience

0.807

4.1 Business performance (BP), CR = 0.917, Cronbach’s α = 0.879, AVE = 0.736

Our organization has better financial results than competing organizations

0.775

We fulfill the planned financial and non-financial objectives

0.877

Our operational methods contribute to strengthening our competitive advantage

0.895

Our operational methods support the long-term development of our organization

0.878

4.2 Value co-creation (VC), CR = 0.923, Cronbach’s α = 0.888, AVE = 0.749

Our customers actively participate in the process of product and service value co-creation

0.868

Our processes are comprehensible to customers, which facilitates their engagement in value co-creation

0.887

We are open to changes which positively affect the value creation process for customers

0.811

We continuously cooperate with our customers on new methods to create value

0.893

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Hofman, M., Grela, G., Orzelska, P., Banaś, J. (2024). Adapting to Change: Employees Ambidexterity as a Driver for Operational Adaptability and Organizational Development. In: Di Ciccio, C., et al. Business Process Management: Blockchain, Robotic Process Automation, Central and Eastern European, Educators and Industry Forum. BPM 2024. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 527. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70445-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70445-1_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-70444-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-70445-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics