Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Understanding ambidexterity at the individual level: task assignment perspective

  • Manuscript
  • Published:
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While previous studies on ambidexterity have focused on the antecedents or consequences of organizational ambidexterity, not many studies have attempted to explore ambidexterity at the individual level. This study intends to fill such gap and provides arguments on the effects of three different types of task assignment (exploration only, exploitation only, and both exploration and exploitation) on individual performance to understand ambidexterity. We adopted a single-agent simulation model and examined the relationship between the three types of task assignment and individual performance measured by the knowledge creation level. Individual attitude toward risk and tension between exploration and exploitation are considered in our simulation model. The findings suggest that the assignment of the ambidextrous task (both exploration and exploitation) generates the highest individual performance under some conditions, which negates the assumption that individuals find it difficult to handle both exploration and exploitation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Abernathy WJ, Clark KB (1985) Innovation—mapping the winds of creative destruction. Res Policy 14(1):3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ Sci 10(1):43–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ (1965) Aspects of the theory of risk-bearing. Helsinki, Yrjö Jahnssonin Säätiö

  • Bhatnagar R, Saddikutti V, Rajgopalan A (2007) Contingent manpower planning in a high clock speed industry. Int J Prod Res 45(9):2051–2072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman RA (2002) Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Adm Sci Q 47(2):325–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao Q, Gedajlovic E, Zhang HP (2009) Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organ Sci 20(4):781–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chae SW, Seo YW, Lee KC (2015) Task difficulty and team diversity on team creativity: multi-agent simulation approach. Comput Hum Behav 42:83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eiselt HA, Marianov V (2008) Employee positioning and workload allocation. Comput Oper Res 35(2):513–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd SW, Lane PJ (2000) Strategizing throughout the organization: managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Acad Manag Rev 25(1):154–177

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He ZL, Wong PK (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15(4):481–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heimerl C, Kolisch R (2010) Work assignment to and qualification of multi-skilled human resources under knowledge depreciation and company skill level targets. Int J Prod Res 48(13):3759–3781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmqvist M (2004) Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical study of product development. Organ Sci 15(1):70–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, Tempelaar MP, Van DB, Volberda HW (2009) Structural differentiation and AMBIDEXTERITY: the mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organ Sci 20(4):797–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junni P, Sarala RM, Taras V, Tarba SY (2013) Organizational ambidexterity and performance: a meta-analysis. Acad Manag Perspect 27(4):299–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila R, Ahuja G (2002) Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad Manag J 45(6):1183–1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunz J (2011) Group-level exploration and exploitation: a computer simulation-based analysis. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 14(4):18. doi:10.18564/jasss.1798.

  • Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman ML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad Manag Ann 4:109–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strateg Manag J 14:95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindley DV (1973) Making Decisions. John Wiley, London

  • March JG, Shapira Z (1987) Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Manag Sci 33(11):1404–1418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath RG (2001) Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Acad Manag J 44(1):118–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehlhorn, K., Newell, B. R., Todd, P. M., Lee, M. D., Morgan, K., Braithwaite, V. A., and Gonzalez, C. (2015). Unpacking the exploration–exploitation tradeoff: A synthesis of human and animal literatures. doi: 10.1037/dec0000033

  • Ming P (2010) Thriving in the New: implication of exploration on organizational longevity. J Manag 36(6):1529–1554

    Google Scholar 

  • Mom TJM, Van DB, Volberda HW (2009) Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organ Sci 20(4):812–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nembhard DA, Osothsilp N (2005) Learning and forgetting-based worker selection for tasks of varying complexity. J Oper Res Soc 56(5):576–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J Manag 34(3):375–409

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross SA (1981) Some stronger measures of risk aversion in the small and the large with applications. Econometrica 49(3):621–638

  • Sayin S, Karabati S (2007) Assigning cross-trained workers to departments: a two-stage optimization model to maximize utility and skill improvement. Eur J Oper Res 176(3):1643–1658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheremata WA (2000) Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Acad Manag Rev 25(2):389–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith WK, Tushman ML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams. Organ Sci 16(5):522–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam M, Youndt MA (2005) The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Acad Manag J 48(3):450–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Adm Sci Q 31(3):439–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Oreilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38(4):8–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uotila J, Maula M, Keil T, Zahra SA (2009) Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of s&p 500 corporations. Strateg Manag J 30(2):221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu MC, Sun SH (2006) A project scheduling and staff assignment model considering learning effect. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28(11–12):1190–1195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshimura M, Fujimi Y, Izui K, Nishiwaki S (2006) Decision-making support system for human resource allocation in product development projects. Int J Prod Res 44(5):831–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, Hongik University, 72-1 Sangsu-Dong, Mapo-Gu, Seoul, 121-791, Korea

    Kihoon Hong, Gun Jea Yu & Eunjung Hyun

Authors
  1. Kihoon Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gun Jea Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eunjung Hyun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gun Jea Yu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hong, K., Yu, G.J. & Hyun, E. Understanding ambidexterity at the individual level: task assignment perspective. Comput Math Organ Theory 24, 34–50 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-017-9245-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-017-9245-5

Keywords