using transformational leadership behavior to enhance

Using transformational

leadership behavior to

enhance contextual

ambidexterity

Executive Program in Management Studies, Strategy track

Date: 26-01-2018

Ronald H. Nijenbanning

11144904

E-mail: [email protected]

Supervisor: Prof dr. Ed Peelen

mailto:[email protected]

of 72

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Ronald Nijenbanning, who declares to take full responsibility for

the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources

other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of

the work, not for the contents.

of 72

ABSTRACT

Today’s turbulent environment makes it a challenge for companies to survive since they need to

be cost-effective and efficient in their current activities, but they also need the ability to adapt and

innovate. This study tries to find a solution to this challenge by investigating the achievement of

long-term business-unit performance through the creation of an intra-organizational context

where the individual is encouraged to manage the tension between being efficient in the current

activities (i.e. exploitation) and being innovative (i.e. exploration), with influence of

transformational leadership behavior. Data from a quantitative study, by means of an online

survey taken from people working either on middle-management- or operational level in

business-units (N = 114), resulted in the finding that transformational leadership behavior can

enhance the positive significant effect of intra-organizational context on contextual

ambidexterity. This study also provides some interesting suggestions for further research.

of 72

FOREWORD

My current employment is at the Quality Assurance department of two divisions of CECO

Environmental (NASDAQ: CECE), which operate in the gas industry making parts for gas-

energy plants. In order to achieve a certain level of quality within the organization, our

department analyzes the processes and activities of the organization, standardizes them, and

measures effectiveness and efficiency after a certain period of time, resulting in opportunity for

improvements. A discussion we currently have within the organization is that standardization can

lead to inflexibility, and can suppress creativity and innovation. Since the environment becomes

more dynamic and competitive, our organization needs to be able to adapt to changing

circumstances (i.e. be more flexible and organic). Because of this challenge, my interests started

to develop in how to balance efficiency with flexibility and innovation within an organization.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my supervisor prof dr. Ed Peelen for his guidance

during my master thesis and for the interesting discussions we had. Besides, I would like to thank

all participants of this study for their input.

Finally I would like to dedicate this master thesis to both my grandmothers who passed away

during the two-and-a-half years of my master study. They were proud when I started my master

study and supported me greatly, and still do till this day.

of 72

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Thesis structure ....................................................................................................................... 8

2 Literature review ....................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 What is meant with organizational ambidexterity and how is it created? ............................ 10

2.1.1 In a ‘sequential’ manner ................................................................................................. 12

2.1.2 In a ‘structural’ manner .................................................................................................. 12

2.1.3 In a ‘contextual’ manner ................................................................................................ 13

2.1.4 Sequential and structural ambidexterity versus contextual ambidexterity .................... 13

2.2 What is meant with the context of an organization and how is it related to organizational

ambidexterity? ............................................................................................................................ 15

2.2.1 Context as antecedent of organizational ambidexterity as antecedent of performance . 16

2.3 What is meant with leadership and what is meant with leadership behavior? ..................... 17

2.3.1 Leadership and organizational ambidexterity ................................................................ 18

2.3.2 Leadership behaviors ..................................................................................................... 19

2.3.3 Transformational leadership and organizational ambidexterity..................................... 20

3. Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................ 21

4. Research design ........................................................................................................................ 24

4.1 Data collection ...................................................................................................................... 24

4.2 Sample .................................................................................................................................. 25

of 72

4.3 Measures ............................................................................................................................... 26

4.3.1 Dependent variable – performance ................................................................................ 27

4.3.2 Independent variable – intra-organizational context ...................................................... 27

4.3.3 Moderator variable – transformational leadership behaviors ........................................ 28

4.3.4 Mediator variable – contextual ambidexterity .............................................................. 30

4.3.5 Control variables ............................................................................................................ 30

5. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 32

5.1 Data preparation ................................................................................................................... 32

5.2 Hypotheses testing ................................................................................................................ 35

6. Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 46

6.1 Findings & theory ................................................................................................................. 46

6.2 Limitations (general) and further research ........................................................................... 49

6.3 Implications .......................................................................................................................... 51

7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 55

8. References ................................................................................................................................. 57

of 72

1 INTRODUCTION

Because of disruptive technologies and political turmoil, today’s environment is quite dynamic

and turbulent. It makes it a challenge for companies to survive, since they need the ability to

adapt and to be innovative and flexible. However, companies need not only being able to adapt.

Companies need also to be able to be successful in their current activities; being efficient and

competitive on low cost. To conclude, there is a tension which needs to be addressed by

companies in order to be successful on the long-term; innovation, flexibility and adaptability,

versus efficiency, stability, standardization.

The concept of organizational ambidexterity; ‘an organization’s ability to be aligned and efficient

in its management of today’s business demands (also called ‘exploitation’) while simultaneously

being adaptive to changes in the environment’ (also called ‘exploration’) (March, 1991), is key to

address the tension as mentioned earlier. Dividing resources between exploitation and exploration

can be quite a challenge, but managing the tension between them is necessary to achieve long-

term performance (March, 1991; He & Wong, 2004; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). A lot of

research is done regarding organizational ambidexterity, including antecedents, moderators,

outcomes and possible ways to achieve organizational ambidexterity. One of those possible ways

to achieve organizational ambidexterity is by influencing contextual factors, also called

‘contextual ambidexterity’. Birkinshaw & Gibson (2004) describe contextual ambidexterity as a

way to achieve ambidexterity by creating an intra-organizational context where the individual

manages the tension between alignment (i.e. exploitation) and adaptability (i.e. exploration). The

collective behavior of individuals would result in contextual ambidexterity at organizational

level, which in turn leads to long-term performance. However, they point out that the relation

between ‘context’ and ‘contextual ambidexterity’ still needs research. They suggest to further

of 72

delineate the fundamental aspects of intra-organizational context and the relationship with

contextual ambidexterity. Raisch & Birkinshaw (2008) conduct research on three antecedents

(among others) of organizational ambidexterity, with contextual factors as one of them. They also

suggest to further investigate the relationship between contextual factors (and the other

antecedents) and organizational ambidexterity, by focusing on possible relationships between the

antecedents.

Another topic which needs more research regards the role of leadership in achieving

organizational ambidexterity, such as the role of senior team and leadership behaviors and styles,

on organizational ambidexterity (Jansen et al., 2009; Nemanich & Vera, 2009; Rosing et al.,

2011; O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2013). There is research done regarding the relationship of

leadership on organizational ambidexterity. In their research, Jansen et al. (2008) found that

transformational leadership behaviors (hereinafter referred to as ‘TLBs’) have a positive effect as

a moderator on the relationship of senior team attributes on organizational ambidexterity. TLBs

can be described as a creative exchange between leaders and subordinates, in order to bring about

vision driven change in people and context (Bass, 1985; Burke et al., 2006). Jansen et al. (2008)

suggest though, to further investigate the effect of leadership behaviors on lower levels within

organizations to take the notion of multiple levels within an organization into account. They

found a positive effect of leadership on senior team dynamics, and are therefore curious how this

would work on lower levels. They also refer to Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) and their statement

that leaders may serve as examples for lower levels regarding management of the tension

between alignment and adaptability. As mentioned earlier, Raisch & Birkinshaw (2008) describe

contextual factors as antecedent of organizational ambidexterity, but structural factors and

of 72

leadership-based factors as well. Since the possible relationships between the antecedents are not

investigated, they make it one of the suggestions for further research.

Summarized, there is still a lot of research to be done within the field of organizational

ambidexterity regarding contextual factors as antecedent, and the role of leadership (behaviors) in

achieving it. Combined, research needs to be conducted on how (top) management can enhance

the effect of an intra-organizational context where the tension between exploitation and

exploration is managed by individuals throughout an organization. Individuals on top

management level play an important role by setting out the frame-work to manage the tension

between adaptability and alignment, but individuals at middle management and operational levels

play an important role too. As Bordia et al. (2004) describe, participation leads to awareness and

understanding of change events, and that the involvement of lower levels is necessary since they

often have more (current) knowledge of operations and related developments.

Therefore, I would like to contribute to the field of organizational ambidexterity by investigating

the moderating effect of TLBs on the relationship between intra-organizational context and

performance, through contextual ambidexterity. This brings me to the following research

question:

What transformational leadership behaviors enhance the effect of intra-organizational context on

performance, through contextual ambidexterity?

1.1 Thesis structure

Chapter two provides an overview of the main theoretical concepts organizational ambidexterity,

intra-organizational context and transformational leadership behaviors. This overview will result

in a better understanding of the research topic and provides insight in what is already researched.

of 72

Chapter three provides an overview of all hypotheses that will be tested in order to answer the

research question. Argumentation is provided as well for each hypothesis. The chapter concludes

with the conceptual model which shows the hypotheses in a graphical way.

Chapter four describes the research design, the variables, sample data, and describes how the

variables will be measured.

Chapter five will describe the results of the research and the main findings.

Chapter six will provide finding, limitations of the research, recommendations for future research

and implications.

Finally, the seventh chapter will provide conclusions.

of 72

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will provide an overview of the main theoretical concepts organizational

ambidexterity, intra-organizational context and transformational leadership behaviors. It will

result in a better understanding of the research topic and provides insight in what is already

researched.

2.1 What is meant with organizational ambidexterity and how is it created?

“Aligned and efficient in their management of today’s business demands while simultaneously

adaptive to changes in the environment”, is how Duncan (1976) describes organizational

ambidexterity. It regards the balancing of learning activities exploitation and exploration.

Exploitation is described by March (1991) as engaging in activities such as standardization and

refinement and as an organization striving for efficiency, and exploration is described as

engaging in activities such as innovation and experimentation and striving for flexibility. The

challenge for an organization and its management is to balance exploitation and exploration, and

to allocate resources between the two, since they are both crucial elements for achieving long-

term performance (March, 1991; He & Wong, 2004; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). One of the

reasons why this challenge is often present is that it takes longer to see the return on the

investment in exploration than in exploitation (March, 1991). Another reason is that exploitation

comes with less uncertainty than exploration, the latter having a higher risk of failure (Levinthal

& March, 1993). Therefore, it often happens that there lies too much focus on exploitation. Even

though it can lead to short-term performance, it can result in organizations that have trouble to

appropriately react to changes in the environment due to a low focus on innovation (Raisch &

Birkinshaw, 2008; Ahuja & Lampert, 2001; Leonard-Barton, 1992; Smith & Tushman, 2005).

of 72

Kortmann et al. (2014) makes the same point, by stating that too much focus on operational

efficiency (similar to exploitation) can result in a negative influence on strategic flexibility. On

the other hand, too much focus on exploration can result in a vicious circle of search and

unrewarding change (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Smith & Tushman, 2005; Volberda & Lewin,

2003). Similar, Kortmann et al. (2014) describe that too much focus on exploration can result in a

lack of economies of scale (Grewal and Tansuhaj, 2001; Smith & Tushman, 2005).

Rather, companies should see exploitation and exploration as complements. Cao et al. (2009)

describe that synergies can develop between exploitation and exploration. Exploitative activities

can result in higher effectiveness regarding the development of new possibilities. The knowledge

of current activities and resources can form the foundation for new ideas and possibilities.

As mentioned earlier, in order to achieve long-term performance, a balance must be established

between exploitation and exploration (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Smith & Tushman, 2005).

Multiple researchers have found evidence that organizational ambidexterity has a positive effect

on performance, with these studies on various levels such as organizational, project and business-

unit level (O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2013). Results of He & Wong’s (2004) research for example,

indicated that ambidexterity is positively associated with sales growth. Lubatkin et al. (2006) also

found that performance (relative to that of other major competitors on profitability and growth) is

affected by a balance between exploitation and exploration, but through behavioral integration

(i.e. a team’s wholeness and unity of effort).

The question remains, how do firms establish organizational ambidexterity in their firm? To

answer this question, the forms to achieve ambidexterity as defined by O’Reilly III & Tushman

(2013) will be followed.

of 72

2.1.1 In a ‘sequential’ manner

A first manner to establish organizational ambidexterity is to shift in structures through time,

according to the dynamics in the environment of the organization (Duncan, 1976; Kaupilla,

2010). In their article, Siggelkow & Levinthal (2003) describe three forms of organizational

structure; the centralized structure, decentralized structure and temporary decentralized structure

which later reintegrates. The latter holds that in order to start exploration, a decentralized

structure is handled to provide new ideas and innovations space and resources. Eventually it is

refined and formalized in order to achieve efficiency. As their results show, Siggelkow &

Levinthal (2003) describe that in cases when interactions between the organization’s activities are

inescapable, this form can lead to higher performance than the pure centralized or decentralized

structure. In opposite to the structural manner (as described later on), this manner holds that

exploitation and exploration are pursued within the same business-unit, which results in

exploration activities staying close to the core business (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).

This manner of is also labeled as ‘sequential ambidexterity’ (O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2013).

2.1.2 In a ‘structural’ manner

A second manner to establish organizational ambidexterity is to separate exploitation and

exploration in the organization, by, for example, creating separate business-units or divisions for

both of them (Tushman & O’Reilly III, 2008). The various subdivisions are then organized to

meet their different environmental demands (Tushman & O’Reilly III, 2008; Gilbert, 2005). For

example, in case radical innovation is necessary because of disruptiveness in the environment,

exploratory units need to be separated from the exploitative ones (Christensen, 1998). These

separate units are often differently organized from each other, regarding incentive systems and

of 72

team structures for example (O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2004). This however, results in the need

for coordination. Top management needs to establish a vision along with a shared corporate

culture to integrate the different units. This creates coordination costs (Lawrence & Lorsch,

1967).

This manner is also labeled as ‘structural ambidexterity’ (O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2013).

2.1.3 In a ‘contextual’ manner

A third manner to establish organizational ambidexterity is to give the floor to the individuals

within an organization to pursue both exploration and exploitation, giving them the opportunity

to divide their time between the two (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). For example, should

employees focus on current customer accounts to meet quota, or should they nurture new

customers with slightly different needs? (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004). Giving the floor to the

individual should result in individuals efficiently performing their tasks in order to pursue

customer satisfaction, but simultaneously acting in a flexible manner by looking for potential

disruptions in the environment and new ways for innovation. This requires strategic direction and

a certain context within the organization which is necessary to motivate individuals to act and let

them act in a certain behavior to achieve this.

This manner is also labeled as ‘contextual ambidexterity’ (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; O’Reilly

III & Tushman, 2013).

2.1.4 Sequential and structural ambidexterity versus contextual ambidexterity

The main difference between sequential and contextual ambidexterity regards the process of

ambidexterity. Whereas sequential ambidexterity is more static, contextual ambidexterity is more

of 72

organic and more viable to continuously reconfigure a company’s activities to meet the demands

of the environment (Raisch et al. 2009).

The main difference between structural and contextual ambidexterity is the structure of

organizations; structural ambidextrous organizations are separated in units pursuing exploitation

and units pursuing exploration, whereas contextual ambidextrous organizations will act more as a

whole with ambidexterity pursued within the same unit. Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) describe

that in structural ambidextrous organizations it happens that the explorative units (e.g. R&D

department) of structural ambidextrous organizations often lack in connections with the core

business and operations, which is the main cause of coordination costs which are often present in

these type of organizations (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). It even happens that the separation leads

to isolation of explorative units. In opposition, pursuing ambidexterity within the same unit

makes it easier for contextual ambidextrous organization to adapt as a whole.

However, according to Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) there are successful samples of sequential

and structural ambidexterity as well. Therefore, they suggest to use these forms of ambidexterity

as complements, using structural ambidexterity as a kind of starting point. This way new ideas

and innovations are provided with resources and space to develop. Eventually, the new ideas and

innovations should be reintegrated within the organization, so switching back to contextual

ambidexterity in a sequential manner. This holds however, that structural ambidexterity should

only be temporal.

of 72

2.2 What is meant with the context of an organization and how is it related to

organizational ambidexterity?

Bartlett & Ghosal (1994) describe context as the invisible set of stimuli that encourage and

stresses individuals to act in a certain way, having effect on performance. To configure the

context, they refer to four attributes which can be influenced by actions of management through

systems, processes, and beliefs that shape individual behaviors in an organization. The four

attributes of context are discipline, stretch, trust and support.

Bartlett & Ghosal (1994) describe the ‘discipline’ feature of context as: “members voluntarily

strive to meet all expectations generated by their explicit or implicit commitments. Establishment

of clear standards of performance and behavior, a system of open, candid, and rapid feedback,

and consistency in the application of sanctions contribute to the establishment of discipline.”

Bartlett & Ghosal (1994) describe the ‘stretch’ feature of context as: “induces members to

voluntarily strive for more, rather than less, ambitious objectives. Establishment of a shared

ambition, the development of a collective identity, and the ability to give personal meaning to the

way in which individuals contribute to the overall purpose of an organization contribute to the

establishment of stretch.”

Bartlett & Ghosal (1994) describe the ‘support’ feature of context as: “an attribute of an

organization's context that induces its members to lend assistance and countenance to others.

Mechanisms that allow actors to access the resources available to other actors, freedom of

initiative at lower levels and personal orientation of senior functionaries that gives priority to

providing guidance and help over exercising authority contribute to the establishment of

support.”

of 72

Bartlett & Ghosal (1994) describe the ‘trust’ feature of context as: “an attribute of context that

induces members to rely on the commitments of each other. Fairness and equity in a business-

unit’s decision processes, involvement of individuals in decisions and activities affecting them,

and staffing positions with people who possess and are seen to possess required capabilities

contribute to the establishment of trust.”

The four attributes described by Bartlett & Ghoshal (1994) together should foster an environment

where individuals pursue ambitious goals through discipline and stretch, and should also foster a

cooperative environment through support and trust.

Individual behavior is affected by these organizational context features, as they result in

initiative, cooperation, and learning.

2.2.1 Context as antecedent of organizational ambidexterity as antecedent of performance

Research shows that context is an antecedent of organizational ambidexterity on business-unit

level, which is an antecedent of performance (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Raisch & Birkinshaw,

2008).

Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) extend the framework of Bartlett & Ghosal (1994) by stating that

context is an antecedent for organizational ambidexterity with individuals pursuing both

exploration and exploitation. The qualitative interviews that Gibson & Birkshaw (2004)

conducted, resulted in the conclusion that the four attributes by Bartlett & Ghoshal (1994) are

complements that all have to be available for an organization to become ambidextrous. For their

research they could not use the four attributes as described by Bartlett & Ghoshal (1994), and

therefore they used two other concepts for the items of the four attributes discipline, stretch, trust

and support:

of 72

Performance management for ‘discipline’ and ‘stretch’, which is related to motivating

people to achieve high performance and making them responsible for their actions

Social context for ‘trust’ and ‘support’, which is related to see to people’s needs and

provide care

These should result in a context that can enable organizational ambidexterity. It is of importance

to mention, that both concepts need to be balanced, since an overemphasis on one of them can

lead to low performance (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).

In describing contextual ambidexterity, Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) state that to achieve

superior performance as an organization, it is essential to build a context that allows capabilities

of alignment and adaptability emerge simultaneously.

2.3 What is meant with leadership and what is meant with leadership behavior?

Jago (1982) stated that leadership has two dimensions; a ‘process’ and a ‘property’ dimension.

The ‘process’ dimension holds that leadership is the use of a non-forcible power in order to steer

the organization, its activities and employees to follow a future developmental path. The

‘property dimension holds the set of competences and characteristics of a leader which executes

this non-forcible power in a successful manner. The leadership construct can be divided in two

conceptualizations;

Leadership traits; which can be seen as general acknowledged characteristics that can be

measured of an individual

Leadership behavior; which can be seen as the patterns in actions individuals can take

In general the key research question in the leadership literature is how leaders can influence the

organizational context that determines a firm’s financial performance and long-term survival

of 72

(Yukl, 2008; Boal & Hooijberg, 2000; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996). Put in different words

from the perspective of ambidexterity, the key question of leadership is, how can leaders

influence organizational context that facilitate short-term alignment for financial performance

and simultaneously facilitate adaption for long-term survival.

2.3.1 Leadership and organizational ambidexterity

Multiple authors have predicted that leadership has effect on organizational ambidexterity,

mostly in an indirect way. Smith & Tushman (2005) for example, proposed that leaders can play

a major role in managing the tension between exploration and exploitation, through decisions

with an integrative nature such as the recognition of opportunities, linkages, and synergies. These

decisions can lead to creating value. Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) also propose that the role of

leadership in creating ambidexterity is of importance, as creating the context within the

organization in which individuals can manage the tension of exploration and exploitation.

However, there are authors who define leadership as a direct effect on organizational

ambidexterity as well. As mentioned earlier, Lubatkin et al. (2006) that ambidexterity is affected

through behavioral integration (i.e. a team’s wholeness and unity of effort). Beckman (2006)

proposes the affiliations and previous experiences of founding team members and the interactions

among them, have direct effect on organizational ambidexterity. Jansen et al. (2008) describe that

senior teams and leadership are important antecedents to balance the tension between exploitation

and exploration.

of 72

2.3.2 Leadership behaviors

Schein (1990) describes that leadership behaviors are important to set an example to the

organization and its employees, and therefore influence the context of the organization.

In the article of Burke et al. (2006), multiple types of leadership behaviors are mentioned:

Task-focused leadership

o Transactional

o Initiating structure

o Boundary spanning

Person-focused leadership

o Transformational

o Consideration

o Empowerment

o Motivational

Transformational leadership is described as a creative exchange between leaders and

subordinates, in order to bring about vision driven change in people and context (Bass, 1985;

Burke et al., 2006). This suits the research question, since it regards the bottom-up involvement

of the operational layer of an organization in the tension of exploration and exploitation, and how

leaders can establish a context within the organization to make this happen. Therefore, focus will

lie on this kind of leadership.

In the article of Bommer and Rubin (2005), six transformational leadership behaviors are

described:

1. Identifying and articulating a vision. A vision should describe a better future for its

followers, and it impacts an employee’s perception that current conditions will improve

of 72

2. Fostering the acceptance of group goals. Leaders encourage employees to work together

to achieve group goals

3. High performance expectations. Leaders communicate high expectations in order to instill

confidence in followers to that they can achieve these goals

4. Providing intellectual stimulation. Leaders encourage followers to re-examine some of

their assumptions and to find new ways of improving their performance

5. Role modeling. Leaders provide a behavioral example of subordinates to work according

to the organization’s beliefs and values

6. Providing individualized support. By respecting followers and oversee their development

related to personal needs

2.3.3 Transformational leadership and organizational ambidexterity

Research is executed on the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational

ambidexterity. Jansen et al. (2008) found that transformational leadership has a positive effect as

a moderator on the relationship between senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity.

Also Nemanich & Vera (2009) determined that a relationship between transformational

leadership and organizational ambidexterity exists. They described some transformational

leadership behaviors having impact on organizational ambidexterity, such as providing a clear

vision, the encouragement of employees to work for the greater good as a common goal and

promote adaptive behavior.

of 72

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter provides an overview of all hypotheses that will be tested in order to answer the

research question.

To ensure that there is (1) a relationship between intra-organizational context and contextual

ambidexterity and (2) a relationship between contextual ambidexterity and performance, as is

mentioned in the literature, the first hypothesis of this research is:

H1: Contextual ambidexterity mediates the positive relationship between intra-

organizational context and performance

H1A: Intra-organizational context has a positive effect on contextual

ambidexterity

H1B: Contextual ambidexterity has a positive effect on performance

More specifically, it is expected that the more an intra-organizational context is characterized by

an interaction of performance management and social support, the more it will relate to a higher

level of contextual ambidexterity, which will in turn lead to a higher level of performance.

As mentioned earlier, Raisch & Birkinshaw (2008) suggest for further research to search for

possible interrelationships between the antecedents of organizational ambidexterity of their

model; structural-, contextual- and leadership-based factors. The different factors could possibly

complement each other in the achievement of organizational ambidexterity. Therefore the

moderation of leadership (by means of TLBs) on the relationship between intra-organizational

context and contextual ambidexterity will be tested. Note: due to the time span of the master

thesis, the focus will lie on three TLBs. These three TLBs are not chosen without reason, as is

elaborated on below.

of 72

As Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) described with the example of Oracle, one of the key successes

of Oracle was that objectives were clear among the organization. In contrary, another example

showed that no clear and overarching vision resulted on business-units each devising their own

goals and objectives. Hambrick (1994) found this as well; describing that a vision expresses the

future advancing direction and can prevent organizations from breaking into pieces. Tushman &

O’Reilly (1996) also described the importance of vision as a source for ambidexterity. These

articles indicate the importance of a clear vision in relation to organizational ambidexterity which

is communicated by management. Therefore, the TLB ‘identifying and articulating a vision by a

leader’ is included.

As Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) described with the example of Oracle, one of the key successes

of Oracle was that high expectations and goals were set for the employees. A balance needs to be

maintained, since overemphasis on high expectations can lead to burn-outs (Bartlett & Ghoshal,

1994; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), but still, this context is desirable for achieving exploitation

and exploration. Therefore, the TLB ‘high performance expectation by a leader’ is included.

Tushman & O’Reilly (1996) described supportive leaders as a source of ambidexterity. As

Bommer & Rubin (2005) mentioned, individuals are more likely to support ideas of leaders who

support them. Therefore, the TLB ‘providing individual support by a leader’ is included.

The moderation effect of TLBs on the relationship between intra-organizational and contextual

ambidexterity is tested through the second hypothesis:

H2: The relationship between intra-organizational context and contextual

ambidexterity is positively moderated by transformational leadership behaviors (TLBs).

More specifically, we expect that the stronger leadership behaviors are characterized by an

interaction of identifying and articulating a vision, high performance expectations, and providing

of 72

individual support, the stronger the positive effect of intra-organizational context (characterized

by an interaction of performance management and social support) on contextual ambidexterity

will be.

The main and final test of this research is to determine whether TLBs (characterized by an

interaction of leadership behaviors identifying and articulating a vision, high performance

expectations and providing social support) enhance the positive effect of intra-organizational

context (characterized by an interaction of performance management and social support) on

performance, through the mediating role of contextual ambidexterity. Therefore, the third

hypothesis is:

H3: The indirect effect of intra-organizational context on performance through

contextual ambidexterity will be moderated by transformational leadership behaviors

The hypotheses for this research are to be found in the conceptual model (see figure 1).

Figure 3.1: Conceptual model

of 72

4. RESEARCH DESIGN

This chapter describes the research design of this study in order to answer the following research

question; What transformational leadership behaviors enhance the effect of intra-organizational

context on performance, through contextual ambidexterity?

4.1 Data collection

In order to answer the hypotheses and research question, quantitative research by means of a

cross-sectional survey was executed. As described by Fowler Jr. (2013), one of the purposes of

survey designs can be to ‘tap’ in the subjective feelings of people, in order to get a feeling of their

needs or opinions. This is the main reason that the survey method was chosen for this study, since

its purpose is to gather opinions and perspectives to answer the hypotheses and ultimately, the

research question. Besides, there is a practical reason for the research design, which holds that the

thesis’ period of time is quite short and the goal was to reach out to many respondents with

consistent questions to have a valid conclusion based on comparable information (Fowler Jr.,

2013).

The survey was a self-completed survey (Saunders et al., 2012), electronically distributed and

set-up with Qualtrics. See the appendix for the questionnaire and its content. Since the aim lied

on the opinions of respondents, Likert scales with a maximum of five possible answers were used

(ranging from ‘Completely disagree’ to ‘Completely agree’). Besides, a sixth possible answer

was included; “No answer”. This way, respondents were not pushed to answer to questions they

were not able to answer. The personal network of the author was used to get respondents (via e-

mail and social media). The respondents were also asked to distribute the survey in their personal

networks in order to get more respondents. The survey included an introduction containing

of 72

information regarding the content of the survey so that respondents had access to the appropriate

information for completing the survey. Both can be found in the appendix.

4.2 Sample

As mentioned in the literature review, relationships between intra-organizational context and

contextual ambidexterity and between contextual ambidexterity and performance, are supported

at business-unit level. Therefore the aim regarding respondents regarded individuals working in

business-units. To ensure this perspective was maintained, the questions were set on business-

unit level. For the respondents working in single-unit companies, the explanation was given that

they could consider ‘business-unit’ as a synonym for ‘single-unit’.

Within business-units, the aim lied at individuals working at middle management and operational

levels (i.e. every possible position but top management) to get their perspective of certain

transformational leadership behaviors’ effect on the enhancement of the effect of intra-

organizational context on their ambidextrous behavior/activities.

The sample finally consisted of 133 respondents, of which 19 respondents were in top

management layer. These were excluded since the aim lied on individuals working at middle

management and operational levels, as mentioned earlier. 58 respondents belonged to the

operational layer (50.9%), 50 respondents belonged to the middle management layer (43.9%) and

6 respondents did not indicate which layer they were working at (5.5%).

Of the 114 remaining responses, 85 were completely answered. Most of the respondents were

working at companies with more than 250 employees (45.6%) or companies with 0-50 employees

(30.7%). Most of the respondents were working in the ‘Industry’ sector (47.4%) and the

‘Business services’ sector (12.3%) (see graph 4.1 for the total distribution). The average age of

of 72

the companies respondents were working for was 46.42 years. The average years of working

experience of the respondents was 14.95.

Graph 4.1: Respondents’ distribution of industries

4.3 Measures

In this section, all variables and their measures will be explained. All were derived from previous

research.

of 72

4.3.1 Dependent variable – performance

The concept performance is used differently in multiple studies (Kirby, 2005). According to

Richard et al. (2009) this is due to the fact that performance is measured in different ways

because of differences in stakeholders, heterogeneous product market circumstances, and time. In

general there are two ways to measure performance (Richard et al., 2009, Junni et al., 2013),

which are in an ‘objective’ manner (e.g. based on financial indicators) or in a ‘perceptual’

manner. The latter has in general two ‘sub-manners’, which are ‘relative’ measurement (i.e.

benchmarked with competitors) and ‘absolute’ measurement (i.e. not benchmarked with

competitors). Most studies measure performance through requesting/looking up financial data or

interviewing/surveying top management levels to provide insight on relative performance (Junni

et al., 2013). Due to the fact that the level of analysis of this research is on business-unit level,

and the time-span of the thesis is quite short, the decision was made to (1) not gather financial

information of each business-unit which will be surveyed and (2) not survey top-management

levels to provide insight regarding performance. Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) measure

performance in an absolute perceptual manner, by surveying top-management and middle-

management levels with four items. Their way of measurement was partly used for this research,

with the difference that middle-management and operational levels were surveyed. An example

of a question regarding the opinion of a respondent on performance: “This business-unit is

achieving its full potential”.

4.3.2 Independent variable – intra-organizational context

The independent variable intra-organizational context was measured as an interaction of the

factors performance management (with four items) and social context (with four items), as partly

of 72

depicted by Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004). The difference with the latter is that three and five

(respectively) items were deleted in order to shorten the survey time. As described in chapter two,

performance management counts for ‘discipline’ and ‘stretch’, which is related to motivating

people to achieve high performance and making them responsible for their actions. Social context

counts for ‘trust’ and ‘support’, which is related to see to people’s needs and provide care. An

example of a question regarding the opinion of a respondent on performance context: “Systems in

this organization encourage people to set challenging/aggressive goals”. An example of a

question regarding the opinion of a respondent on social support: “Systems in this organization

devote considerable effort to developing their subordinates”.

4.3.3 Moderator variable – transformational leadership behaviors

As mentioned in chapter two, transformational leaders are capable of giving more meaning to the

work, which results in employees who are more committed and perform beyond expectations (De

Hoogh et al., 2004). Most studies with transformational leadership behavior as a variable,

measure by means of the ‘Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)’ of Bass and Aviolo

(1993) (Eisenbeiß & Boerner, 2013, De Hoogh et al., 2004, Jansen et al., 2008, Nemanich &

Vera, 2009). However, there has been criticism on the MLQ. In their article, Muenjohn &

Armstrong (2008) provide a summary of this criticism. They state that the four transformational

leadership behaviors mentioned by Bass (1985), which were each used as a single factor, may be

best used as a single factor since they were highly correlated with each other. Another point of

criticism Muenjohn & Armstrong (2008) provide regards the unclear conceptual distinction

between the transformational leadership behaviors ‘idealized influence’ and ‘inspirational

motivation’. The conclusion of Muenjohn & Armstrong (2008) is that the MLQ has an unclear

of 72

factor structure, and that it is therefore doubtful to use it for measurement of transformational

leadership behaviors. That is why the ‘Charismatisch leiderschap in Organisaties (CLIO)’

questionnaire of De Hoogh et al. (2004) was used, since it deals with the criticism above as a

response to the MLQ. In their article and questionnaire, De Hoogh et al. (2004) test the

transformational leadership behaviors as mentioned in chapter two somewhat different. They

equal identifying and articulating a vision as ‘charismatic leadership’ (Dutch: ‘charismatisch

leiderschap’) and measure it by means of six items. However, for this research five items were

used in order to shorten the survey time. An example of a question regarding the opinion of a

respondent on identifying and articulating a vision: “Management of this business-unit has a

vision and direction for the future”. De Hoogh et al. (2004) equal high performance expectations

with a part of transactional leadership, named ‘contingent reward’ (Dutch: ‘contingent belonen’)

and measure it by means of three items. However, they point out that ‘contingent reward’

correlates stronger with transformational leadership than transactional leadership. An example of

a question regarding the opinion of a respondent on high performance expectations:

“Management of this business-unit delegates challenging responsibilities to subordinates”.

De Hoogh et al. (2004) equal individual support by a leader as ‘empowerment’, which is a

combination of individual consideration and intellectual stimulation (Dutch: ‘individuele

consideratie en intellectuele stimulatie’) and measure it by means of four items. An example of a

question regarding the opinion of a respondent on individual support: “Management of this

business-unit stimulates employees to develop their skills as much as possible”.

Since the goal is to measure the moderating effect of transformational leadership behaviors as a

whole, the three transformational leadership behaviors will be multiplied with each other to have

one variable tested.

of 72

4.3.4 Mediator variable – contextual ambidexterity

The mediator variable contextual ambidexterity was measured in line with the construct as

presented by Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004), by asking questions regarding the concepts

alignment/exploitation and adaptability/exploration. As mentioned in chapter two, exploitation

can be defined by key words standardization, refinement and efficiency, whereas exploration can

be defined by key words innovation, experimentation and flexibility. Due to the fact that the

time-span of the thesis was quite short, the decision was made to not survey top-management

levels to provide insight regarding contextual ambidexterity. Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004)

measure contextual ambidexterity by interviewing top-management and middle-management

levels. Their way of measurement was partly used for this research, with the difference that

middle-management and operational levels were surveyed. An example of a question regarding

the opinion of a respondent on alignment/exploitation: “The systems in this business-unit work

coherently to support the overall objectives of this organization”. An example of a question

regarding the opinion of a respondent on adaptability/exploration: “The systems in this business-

unit are flexible enough to allow us to respond quickly to changes in our markets”.

4.3.5 Control variables

The control variables for this research were company size, (business) unit size, company age,

total years of work experience, years with the company, operating layer within the (business) unit

and industry.

Company and business-unit size were chosen to determine flexibility of the organization. Larger

companies are in general less flexible with lots of reporting levels, whereas smaller companies

are in general more able to adjust quickly to opportunities and treats.

of 72

Company age was chosen to determine the conservativeness within the organization. Older

companies tend to be more conservative and stick to the current working methods and products

(i.e. exploitation), in comparison with newer companies.

The total amount of years of work experience was chosen since there is difference in opinion and

view between someone who just graduated and someone who has ten years of work experience.

Similar, years with the company was chosen to differentiate the newbies from the oldies, where

the latter often have a more knowledge of the company and its methods than someone who has

been working at the company for less than a year.

Again similar, operating layer within the company was chosen to differentiate operational level

from middle management level, since the different kind of responsibilities of both often results in

different viewpoints.

Industry was chosen to differentiate the general levels of exploration and exploitation. A common

steel manufacturing company is likely to be more focused on efficiency (i.e. exploitation) than a

high-tech developing company which will be more focused on innovation (i.e. exploration).

of 72

5. RESULTS

This chapter describes the results of the research and the main findings.

5.1 Data preparation

To prepare the data for hypotheses testing, some steps were taken.

First the data was screened on odd and missing answers. Odd answers included typos and

misunderstood questions. These answers were all corrected, for example: an answer on the

question what year the company the respondent works for was founded; “After the merger: seven

years ago” was changed to “2010”. Also, all cells indicating the answer possibility ‘No answer’

were deleted and indicated as ‘missing values’ since they do not contribute the analyses (list wise

deletion). One of the questions was how large the business-unit is the respondent is working at.

One of the answer possibilities was ‘Not applicable (single unit)’. Of the 133 filled answers, only

10 were answered with ‘Not applicable (single unit)’. These answers were deleted and indicated

as ‘missing values’ (list wise deletion).

Second, normality checks for skewness and kurtosis were executed. Only the item “The

organization in this BU…works coherently to support the overall objectives” (AL1) and control

variables company size, business-unit size, and operating level in the organization had skewness

and/or kurtosis issues. However, for item AL1 the decision was made to not correct it, since the

skewness and kurtosis were minor (-1.139 and 1.046 respectively). Also for the control variables

no corrections were made, but reference is made to the ‘Discussion’ chapter of this report.

Third, outlier checks were executed. Only the item “My manager…shows to be convinced of

his/her ideals, conceptions and values” showed a Z-score of >3 (-3.40297). When checking the

of 72

distribution via histogram, it showed little negative skew and a little kurtosis, and therefore no

corrections were made.

Fourth, the reversed item “The organization in this BU…causes us to use resources on

unproductive activities” (rAL4), was recoded into a new variable (AL4).

Fifth, a principal axis factoring analysis (PAF) was conducted on the scales of the factors (1)

‘identifying and articulating a vision’ (IAV), (2) ‘high performance expectations’ (HPE), and (3)

‘providing individual support’ (IS) to see whether the variable transformational leadership

behaviors is valid. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the

analysis, KMO = 0.907. Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ² (66) = 727,233, p < 0.001, indicated that

correlations between items were sufficiently large for PAF. An initial analysis was run to obtain

eigenvalues for each component in the data. Two components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s

criterion of 1 and in combination explained 65.836% of the variance. In agreement with Kaiser’s

criterion, examination of the scree plot revealed a levelling off after the second factor. Thus, two

factors were retained and rotated with an Oblimin with Kaiser normalization rotation. Table 5.1

shows the factor loadings after rotation. The items that cluster on the same factors suggest that

factor 1 represents employee development by a leader, and factor 2 represents future orientation

by a leader. Even though this two-factor solution is contradiction with the original plan and

constructs of previous research (see literature review), to use a one-factor solution

(transformational leadership behaviors), the Kaiser’s criterion and scree plot criterion are

followed.

Fifth, reliability analysis was executed. The contextual ambidexterity scale has high reliability,

with Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.816. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that only the item

“The organization in this BU…causes us to use resources on unproductive activities” (AL4) does

of 72

not have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (0.086). Also, the item would affect

reliability positively with .031 if it were deleted. Therefore this item was deleted, which resulted

in a new Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.847. All other variables have high reliability, with Cronbach’s

Alphas = 0.883 for TLB: employee development (self-created variable based on transformational

leadership behaviors), = 0.891 for TLB: future orientation (self-created variable based on

transformational leadership behaviors), = 0.778 for intra-organizational context, and = 0.762 for

performance. For most variables the corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items

have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above 0.30). Also, none of the items

would substantially affect reliability if they were deleted. Only for the variable intra-

organizational context there were some items that do not have good correlations with the total

score of the scale (0.155 and 0.280). However, since deleting the items would affect reliability in

a minor way, it was decided to not delete them.

The final step of data preparation was the creating the final scales by taking the means of the

means. The means of the items of alignment and adaptability were added to form contextual

ambidexterity (“CA”), and of performance management and social context to form intra-

organizational context (“IOC”). Also the mean of the items of performance was taken to form

performance (“P”).

Table 5.1: Transformational leadership behaviors (factor loadings)

Item

Rotated factor loadings

EmpDev FutOrient

My manager…only criticizes employees with appropriate reasons .930 .151

My manager…sees to the creation of the conditions in which employees can adequately

execute their activities/tasks .825 .016

My manager…delegates challenging responsibilities to employees .769 .008

My manager…involves employees with decisions that are of importance for their work .637 -.250

My manager…talks with employees about what is of importance for them .622 -.242

My manager…gives employees the feeling that they work on an important and common

mission/task .535 -.371

of 72

My manager…has a vision and a direction for the future -.196 -1.014

My manager…is always looking for new possibilities for the organization -.032 -.869

My manager…is able to enthuse others for his/her plans .241 -.623

My manager…shows to be convinced of his/her ideals, conceptions and values .117 -.612

My manager…stimulates employees to develop their talents in the best way possible .313 -.601

My manager…stimulates employees to think about problems in new ways .423 -.510

Eigenvalues 6.701 1.199

% of variance 55.84 9.995

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 2 components extracted.

5.2 Hypotheses testing

Reference is made to table 5.2 for descriptive statistics and correlations. The table shows

correlations between the main variables. As can be seen in table 5.2, high correlations exist

between performance and contextual ambidexterity (r = 0.562, p ≤0.01), performance and TLB:

future orientation (r = -0.440, p ≤0.01), performance and TLB: employee development (r = 0.474,

p ≤0.01), and performance and intra-organizational context (r = 0.679, p ≤0.01). With regard to

the outcome variable ‘performance’ and the related prediction that contextual ambidexterity

positively affects it, these figures show that it is likely that the prediction is true. The figures

show correlations between transformational leadership behaviors and performance as well. This

was not predicted, but will be further investigated since the knowledge of how to affect

performance is, as mentioned in the introduction (chapter one), valuable. High correlations also

exist between contextual ambidexterity and TLB: future orientation (r = -0.438, p ≤0.01),

contextual ambidexterity and TLB: employee development (r = 0.340, p ≤0.01), and contextual

ambidexterity and intra-organizational context (r = 0.664, p ≤0.01). Based, on these figures it is

likely that the predictions regarding (1) a positive effect of intra-organizational context on

contextual ambidexterity and (2) that this positive effect is enhanced by transformational

of 72

leadership behaviors, are true. Finally, high correlations exist between intra-organizational

context and TLB: employee development (r = 0.427, p ≤0.01), and between intra-organizational

context and TLB: future orientation (r = -0.501, p ≤0.01). These figures show that these variables

are related to each other, which could indicate that the predication that transformational

leadership behavior positively enhances the effect of intra-organizational context on contextual

ambidexterity is true.

Table 5.2 also shows tendencies to correlations between some of the main variables and control

variables; between performance and operating layer in the business-unit of the respondent (r =

0.219, p ≤0.05) and between contextual ambidexterity and business-unit size (r = 0.199, p

≤0.05). These correlations will be further investigated since it is interesting to know whether

there is a difference in perception of performance based on the operating layer within a business-

unit you are located. Also it would be interesting to know whether an effect exists between

business-unit size and contextual ambidexterity, since it could mean that in order to achieve

contextual ambidexterity, one should keep the size at a certain level.

To further test the hypotheses, the modeling tool “PROCESS” by Hayes was used. This tool was

used for its integration of many functions of popular statistical tools (Hayes, 2012) which suit the

tests needed to be done; mediation, multiple moderation and multiple moderated mediation.

Hayes (2013) defines 74 models of which use was made of three for this research.

Model four was used to test the first hypothesis, which regards mediation. The effect of intra-

organizational context on contextual ambidexterity a1 = 0.755 means that two business-units that

differ by one unit on intra-organizational context, are estimated to differ by 0.755 units on

contextual ambidexterity. The figure is positive, meaning that those business-units with a

of 72

relatively stronger intra-organizational context are estimated stronger in contextual

ambidexterity (for a graphical representation, see graph 5.1). This effect is statistically different

from zero, t = 8.616, p = 0.000, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.581 to 0.929. This holds

that the effect predicted in hypothesis 1a is found. The effect of b1 = 0.237 would indicate that

two business-units who have the same intra-organizational context but that differ by one unit in

their level of contextual ambidexterity, are estimated to differ by 0.237 units in performance. The

figure is positive, meaning that those business-units with strong contextual ambidexterity are

estimated to have higher performance. However, the effect is not significant, with p = 0.055, with

t = 1.943, a 95% confidence interval from -0.006 to 0.479. This holds that the effect predicted in

hypothesis 1b is not found. The indirect effect of 0.179 would mean that two business-units

which differ by one unit in their reported intra-organizational context, are estimated to differ by

0.179 in their reported performance as a result of the tendency for those who hold the intra-

organizational context in high regard which results in a higher balance between alignment and

adaptability, which in turn leads to higher performance. However, this effect is not significant,

since the 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval is below and above zero (-0.02 to 0.402). This

holds that the effect predicted in hypothesis 1 is not found.

Besides the main variables, one of the control variables had a significant effect as well: company

size on contextual ambidexterity (coeff. = 0.144, p = 0.037). This means that the larger

companies are, the stronger they will be in their achievement of contextual ambidexterity or the

more likely it will be that they are contextually ambidextrous.

of 72

Table 5.2: Means, standard deviations, correlations

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Company size 2.16 .888 -

2. Business-unit size 1.35 .594 .307**

-

3. Company date of founding 1970.58 38.180 -.395**

-.201 -

4. Work experience in years 14.95 12.074 .062 .054 -.045 -

5. Operating layer in business-unit 1.46 .501 .108 .218* -.071 .172 -

6. Industry 7.29 2.434 .065 .187 .029 -.077 .212* -

7. Intra-organizational context 3.5712 .63891 -.039 .003 .002 -.209* .175 .007 (.778)

8. TLB: employee development .0000000 1.0000000 -.015 .072 .033 -.218* .046 .220

* .427

** (.883)

9. TLB: future orientation .0000000 1.0000000 -.074 -.115 -.036 .273**

-.073 -.058 -.501**

-.568**

(.891)

10. Contextual ambidexterity 3.5450 .71146 .184 .199* -.157 -.155 .169 .089 .664

** .340

** -.438

** (.847)

11. Performance 3.2569 .76700 -.008 -.064 .003 -.135 .219* .089 .679

** .474

** -.440

** .562

** (.762)

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

of 72

Furthermore, the model four of Hayes (2013) included direct tests and total tests of mediation as

default. These were not included in the conceptual model of this research, but the results proved

that they should be mentioned. The direct effect of intra-organizational context, c1 = 0.588, is the

estimated difference in performance between two business-units experiencing the same level of

contextual ambidexterity but which differ by one unit in their reported intra-organizational

context, meaning that the business-unit with stronger intra-organizational context but with the

equal contextual ambidexterity, is estimated to be 0.588 units higher in its reported performance

(for a graphical representation, see graph 5.2). This direct effect is statistically different from

zero, t = 4.381, p = 0.000, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.321 to 0.855.

The total effect of intra-organizational context on performance is c = 0.767, meaning two

business-units who differ by one unit in intra-organizational context, are estimated to differ by

0.767 units in their reported performance. The figure is positive, which means the business-unit

with a stronger intra-organizational context reports higher performance. This effect is statistically

different from zero, t = 7.713, p = 0.000, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.569 to 0.965.

Table 5.3: Mediation results

Consequent

Contextual Ambidexterity (M) Performance (Y)

Antecedent

Coeff

. SE p

Coeff. SE p

Intra-organizational

context (X) a1 .755 .088 <.001 c1 .588 .134

<.00

1

Contextual Ambidexterity

(M) - - - b1 .237 .122 .055

Company size (CV1) .144 .068 .037 - - -

constant i1 4.288 3.143 .1761 i2

3.549 .819

R2 = .542

R2 = .482

of 72

F(7.84) = 14.199, p<.001

F(8.83) = 9.6336,

p<.001

Effect SE p LLCI ULCI

Direct effect c1 .588 .134 <.001 .321 .855

Total effect c1 .767 .1 <.001 .569 .965

Boot SE

Boot LLCI

Boot

ULCI

Indirect effect a1

b1 .179 .108 -0.02 .402

Graph 5.1: Intra-organizational context and contextual ambidexterity Graph 5.2 Intra-organizational context and performance

Model two was used to test the second hypothesis, which regards multiple moderation. The

regression coefficient for XW is c4 = 0.188, which would mean that the effect of intra-

organizational context on contextual ambidexterity depends on TLB: employee development.

However, the effect is not significant since p = 0.119, with t(73) = 1.579. This means that there is

no moderation effect from TLB: employee development. The regression coefficient for XZ is c5 =

0.313 and is statistically different from zero, t(73) = 2.905, since p = 0.005. Thus, the effect of

intra-organizational context on contextual ambidexterity depends on TLB: future orientation..

This holds that the effect predicted in hypothesis 2 is only partly found. Moreover, 4.75% of

contextual ambidexterity is explained by the interaction between intra-organizational context and

of 72

TLB: future orientation and in total, this model accounts for 58.9% of variance in contextual

ambidexterity.

Table 5.4: Multiple moderation results

Coeff. SE t p

Intercept i1 7.819 3.345 2.338 0.022

Intra-organizational context (X) c1 .752 .106 7.099 <.001

TLB: employee development (W) c2 -.002 .071 -.022 .982

TLB: future orientation (Z) c3 -.023 .078 -.297 .767

IOC*TLB: employee development (XW) c4 .188 .119 1.579 .119

IOC*TLB: future orientation (XZ) c5 .313 .108 2.905 .005

R2 = 0.589, p<.001

F(11.73) = 9.504

Model nine was used to test the third hypothesis, which regards multiple moderated mediation.

The results indicate that no evidence is found for a significant multiple moderated mediation

effect, so it is not proven that the positive effect of intra-organizational context on performance,

through contextual ambidexterity, is enhanced by TLB: employee development and/or TLB:

future orientation. The first interaction effect (with TLB: employee development), as described

earlier at the multiple moderation results, is not significant with a regression coefficient for XW

is a5 = 0.189. The second interaction effect (with TLB: future orientation), as described at the

multiple moderation results, is significant (p = 0.005) with a regression coefficient for XZ is a6 =

0.313. However, the multiple moderated mediation effect is not found since This holds that the

effect predicted in hypothesis 3 is not found.

of 72

However, this effect is not significant, since the 95% bootstrap confidence interval is below and

above zero (-0.018 to 0.169). This holds that the effect predicted in hypothesis 3 is not found.

Table 5.5: Multiple moderated mediation results

Consequent

Contextual Ambidexterity (M) Performance (Y)

Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

Intra-organizational context (X) a1 .752 .106 <.001 c1 .655 .128 <.001

Contextual Ambidexterity (M) a2 - - - b1 .205 .111 .068

TLB: employee development

(W) a3 -.002 .071 .982 - - -

TLB: future orientation (Z) a4 -.023 .077 .767 - - -

IOC*TLB: employee

development (XW) a5 .189 .119 .119 - - -

IOC*TLB: future orientation

(XZ) a6 .313 .108 .005 - - -

constant i1 7.819 3.345 .022 i2 -0,9145 3.377 .7873

R2 = .589 R2 = .558

F(11.73) = 9.504, p<.001 F(4.221) = 11.98, p<.001

Besides tests regarding the hypotheses, some additional tests were performed for significant

correlations. Hierarchical multiple regression was performed to investigate the ability of TLB

employee development to predict levels of performance, after controlling for company size,

business-unit size, work experience, operating layer in the business-unit and industry. In the first

step of hierarchical multiple regression, six predictors were entered company size, business-unit

size, work experience, operating layer in the business-unit and industry. This model was not

significant F (6, 78) = 1.438; p = 2.11. After entry of TLB: employee development at step two the

of 72

total variance explained by the model as a whole was 25,8% F (1, 77) = ; p < 0.001. In the final

model, one out of seven predictor variables was statistically significant; if TLB: employee

development increases for one, the performance of the business-unit will increase for 0.421. So,

TLB: employee development has a significant positive effect on performance.

Table 5.6: TLB: employee development and performance

R R2 R

2 change B SE β t

Step 1 .316 .030

Company size

-.080 .102 -.093 -.778

Business-unit size

-.089 .151 -.071 -.591

Company date of

founding

.001 .002

.030 .262

Work experience in

years

-.010 .006

-.164 -1.480

Operating layer in

business-unit

.213 .172

.146 1.242

Industry

.057 .034 .191 1.650

Step 2 .508 .258*** .158

Company size

-.054 .094 -.063 -.575

Business-unit size

-.104 .138 -.083 -.754

Company date of

founding

.001 .002 .048 .457

Work experience in

years

-.005 .006 -.090 -.873

Operating layer in

business-unit

.236 .157 .161 1.503

Industry

.025 .032 .083 .760

TLB: employee

development

.305 .075 .421*** 4.054

Note. Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001

Hierarchical multiple regression was performed to investigate the ability of TLB future

orientation to predict levels of performance, after controlling for company size, business-unit

size, work experience, operating layer in the business-unit and industry. In the first step of

hierarchical multiple regression, six predictors were entered company size, business-unit size,

of 72

work experience, operating layer in the business-unit and industry. This model was not

significant F (6, 78) = 1.438; p = 2.11. After entry of TLB: future orientation at step two the total

variance explained by the model as a whole was 25,8% F (1, 77) = ; p = 0.001. In the final model,

one out of seven predictor variables was statistically significant; if TLB: future orientation

increases for one, the performance of the business-unit will decrease for 0.418. So, TLB: future

orientation has a significant negative effect on performance.

Table 5.7: TLB: future orientation and performance

R R2 R

2 change B SE β t

Step 1 .316 .030

Company size

-.080 .102 -.093 -.778

Business-unit size

-.089 .151 -.071 -.591

Company date of

founding

.001 .002

.030 .262

Work experience in

years

-.010 .006

-.164 -1.480

Operating layer in

business-unit

.213 .172

.146 1.242

Industry

.057 .034 .191 1.650

Step 2 .508 .258*** .158

Company size

-.091 .093 -.106 -.971

Business-unit size

-.126 .139 -.100 -.906

Company date of

founding

-6.399 .002 .000 .003

Work experience in

years

-.003 .006 -.043 -.410

Operating layer in

business-unit

.154 .158 .105 .974

Industry

.052 .032 .176 1.663

TLB: employee

development

-.308 .076 -.418*** -4.051

Note. Statistical significance: *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001

Furthermore, an independent samples T-test was executed in order to further test the correlation

between performance and operating layer within a business-unit. The results indicate that on

of 72

average, participants of the middle-management layer within a business-unit have higher

perceptions of performance (M = 3.437, SE = 0.101) than those of the operational layer within a

business-unit (M = 3.102, SE = 0.103). This difference, -0.335, BCa 95% CI

[-0.639, -0.075], was significant t(106) = -2.306, p = 0.023.

Graph 5.3: Perceptions of performance by operational layers and middle-management layers within business-units.

of 72

6. DISCUSSION

This chapter provides findings, limitations of the research, recommendations for future research

and implications.

6.1 Findings & theory

All the tests as described in the previous chapter to determine whether TLBs enhance the relation

between intra-organizational context and contextual ambidexterity and so resulting in the

business-unit performance, resulted in significant and non-significant effects.

The first significant effect results in evidence found for hypothesis 1a. It holds that the stronger

an intra-organizational context is present (through performing performance management and

establishing a social context), the easier it is for individuals within a business-unit to manage the

tension between alignment and adaptability, and so contributing to the business-unit’s collective

achievement of contextual ambidexterity. It concurs with the findings founded in the established

literature, such as Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) who also found this effect. Another significant

effect partly results in evidence found for hypothesis 2. Since factor analysis resulted in a

different set of variables than expected, with two variables for TLB (that being ‘employee

development’ and ‘future orientation’) instead of one overarching and integrated variable, the

model included two moderators. Only the TLB ‘future orientation’ had a positive significant

moderating effect on the relationship between intra-organizational context and contextual

ambidexterity, and thus enhances the positive effect of intra-organizational context (through

performing performance management and establishing a social context). It is similar to the

moderating effect of TLBs on the relationship of senior team attributes on organizational

ambidexterity, and it concurs with the finding of Nemanich & Vera (2009) regarding the positive

of 72

effect of transformational leadership behaviors, such as providing a vision and encouraging

employees to work for the greater good, on organizational ambidexterity. Another determinant of

contextual ambidexterity, and a significant effect, showed to be company size. It holds that the

larger a company is, the higher is their level of contextual ambidexterity. As described in

O’Reilly III & Tushman (2013), larger companies tend to have more resources to invest in

alignment and adaptability within the business-unit, and in managing the tension between the

two. Other significant effects regard determinants of business-unit performance, such as the

positive direct effect of intra-organizational context. It holds that the stronger an intra-

organizational context is present (through performing performance management and establishing

a social context), the higher the performance in a business-unit will be. It concurs with the

finding White (1986) made, that the context of an organization influence its performance level

(e.g. higher ROI with pure cost strategies when low levels of autonomy exist). Two other

significant effects on business-unit performance that were found regard positive and negative

effects; that of TLB: employee development and TLB: future orientation, respectively. It holds

that when leaders invest more in employee development, business-unit performance will increase.

On the other hand it holds that the more leaders are future oriented, business-unit performance

will decrease. Especially the latter’s effect is strange, since it was also found that it has a positive

significant effect on contextual ambidexterity (as mentioned earlier), which has a positive

significant effect on business-unit performance according to Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004). Most

studies on the relationship between TLB and performance show that TLB has a positive effect on

performance (Dvir et al., 2002, Bass et al., 2003, and Wang et al. 2011). However, in all of these

studies, TLB is presented as a combination of aspects a leader needs to possess and is therefore

measured as one integrated variable. This way the aspects complement each other instead of

of 72

having different effect as antecedent. The final significant effect that was found regards the

variables operating layer and business-unit performance. It holds that on average, participants of

the middle-management layer within a business-unit have higher perceptions of performance than

those of the operational layer within a business-unit. That there are differences between both

operating layers makes sense, as described in Huy (2001) where Huy describes that middle

managers have an understanding of the organizational core values and competencies, from both

the operational layer and top-management layer perspectives.

Unfortunately, no evidence was found to support all other hypotheses. The other parts of

hypothesis 1, namely the effect of contextual ambidexterity on performance (1b) and the

mediation effect of contextual ambidexterity (1 in total), are not supported. Even though the p-

value of the effect of contextual ambidexterity on performance (1b) was really close to the

threshold (p = ,055), and the total effect of the model (even though included with the significant

direct effect of intra-organizational context) is significant, we cannot accept this hypothesis. As

described in chapter two, multiple evidence is found of the effect of organizational ambidexterity

on performance (March, 1991; He & Wong, 2004; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008), and of the

mediation effect of contextual ambidexterity between the relationship of intra-organizational

context and performance (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Therefore, not finding a significant effect

would rather be due to this study, as will be described in the second paragraph of this chapter

(6.2). Also, evidence to support hypothesis two was only partly found, as there was no

significant effect of TLB: employee development on performance found. Therefore, the second

hypothesis and the third hypothesis with TLB as a moderating variable on the relationship

between intra-organizational context and contextual ambidexterity, creating the moderated

mediation effect on business-unit performance, are not supported. Even though correlations

of 72

between these variables were found (see chapter five of this report), a possible explanation for

not finding significant effects, based on theory, is the fact that in most literature TLB exists of

multiple aspects instead of three (Bommer and Rubin, 2005, Dvir et al., 2002, Bass et al., 2003,

and Wang et al. 2011). As described in chapter three of this report, an argued decision was made

for using three dimensions, but still; a complete involvement could have resulted in significant

effects of both hypotheses two and three. Another possible explanation could be that different

leadership behaviors work in different environments. As mentioned in chapter three, multiple

leadership behaviors exist. For example, Nemanich & Vera (2009) describe that TLBs work best

in dynamic and turbulent environments. Therefore it could well be that the TLBs of this study

should be complemented with other behaviors (which work best in stable environments for

example) to determine the moderating role of a more generic concept: ‘leadership behaviors’.

6.2 Limitations (general) and further research

Possible reasons why no significant effects were found vary. One major limitation of the research

would be the sample size of the hypothesis tests. The sample size of the mediation test to find

evidence to support hypothesis 1 was N = 92. The sample size of the multiple moderation test to

find evidence to support hypothesis 2 was N = 85, just as the sample size of the multiple

moderated mediation test to find evidence to support hypothesis 3. A higher sample size could

have resulted in lower p-values, such as the effect of contextual ambidexterity on performance

which was now p = 0.055, which is really close to the significance level. This is the first

suggestion for further research; have these tests with at least N = > 100, and see how the p-values

will show.

of 72

Regarding the research methods, a limitation was a typical disadvantage of questionnaires;

misunderstanding of the questions. For example, when the survey was open for two weeks, one

of the author’s colleagues came to discuss the concept ‘business-unit’. He argued that a business-

unit is a department within an organization, which resulted in answers to the survey questions

from the wrong perspective. According to the author’s opinion, there are multiple concepts in the

ambidexterity field of research which can be misunderstood, especially when targeting lower

levels of an organization as respondents. Therefore for further research either (1) include a list of

concepts to the survey as appendix or (2) perform (a combination with) qualitative research as

Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) did. Another limitation related to the research method is its cross-

sectional nature, since these findings are based on a snap-shot: e.g. February (low season) could

show different figures than July (high season), depending on order intake. Therefore, multiple

snapshots could be taken in order to determine whether the figures are stable over a longer-term

period. Finally, besides deleting items of pre-defined structures by other researchers, also the

items of the variable ‘performance’ were differently presented than was used by Gibson &

Birkinshaw (2004), since they asked respondents to evaluate the business-units performance over

the last five years. Unfortunately, only at the data analysis it was found this extra information was

not included in the questionnaire. Therefore, the construct was not entirely copied and it could

have resulted in different answers with different results.

A limitation regarding the data analysis is the use of ‘missing values’. As mentioned in the ‘Data

preparation’ paragraph of chapter five, the fourth control variable “How large is the business-unit

you work in?” had a fourth answer possibility: “Not applicable (single unit)”. Ten respondents

answered like this, and these were indicated as missing values (list wise deletion). Since the aim

of 72

of this study lied on people working in business-units, this is not entirely valid and therefore a

limitation of this study.

Regarding the control variables and the sample, it can be stated that the findings of this study can

be mainly generalized on small companies (0-50) and large companies (more than 250), since

they consist of 76, 3% of all respondents. This is a limitation of this study, since only a small

group of respondents belonged to small- to medium sized companies. Future studies can perhaps

focus on this size group only to determine whether the findings account for them as well. Also,

the two major sectors companies of respondents operate in are ‘Industry’ and ‘Business services’.

All other sectors had fewer respondents, and can therefore not be generalized.

As mentioned in paragraph 6.1, a study included with all dimensions of TLB (e.g. Bommer and

Rubin, 2005), integrated in one variable, could have resulted in significant moderation and

moderated mediation effects. Therefore, a suggestion for further research is to include all the six

dimensions of TLB instead a few of them.

Also mentioned in paragraph 6.1 is the suggestion for further research regarding other ‘leadership

behaviors’ that could also have effect besides ‘transformational’. As Nemanich & Vera (2009)

describe, TLBs work best in dynamic and turbulent environments. Therefore another suggestion

for further research is to include other leadership behaviors (e.g. Burke et al. 2006) as

moderating- and moderated mediating effects in the conceptual model of this study, based on

different possible environments a company can be present in (e.g. turbulent and stable).

6.3 Implications

A lot of research is done in organizational ambidexterity, but less in contextual ambidexterity.

This study shows that by creating an intra-organizational context, the level of contextual

of 72

ambidexterity within a business-unit will be higher. Also, though speculative, it can be stated that

at least the relationship between contextual ambidexterity and performance would be significant

if the sample size of this study would be larger since the effect is close to the significance level

(p-value = 0.055). Even though these effects, and mediation effect, were also found by Gibson &

Birkinshaw (2004), still the confirmation that an intra-organizational context positively affects

contextual ambidexterity, and that contextual ambidexterity probably positively affects

performance, are valuable because there is not a lot of research regarding contextual

ambidexterity. Additionally, this study contributes by finding a moderator on the relationship

between intra-organizational context and contextual ambidexterity; the transformational

leadership behavior ‘future orientation’ with a positive effect. Since not a lot of research is

conducted regarding (1) the determinants of intra-organizational context and its effect on

contextual ambidexterity and (2) the role of leadership behaviors and the achievement of

ambidexterity (Raisch & Birkinshaw 2008, Jansen et al., 2009; Nemanich & Vera, 2009; Rosing

et al., 2011; O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2013), this is perhaps the major contribution of the study to

the field of organizational ambidexterity. As stated in paragraph 6.2, it is also a suggestion for

further research, to perform more research on this moderating effect by including and integrating

other TLBs and perhaps even other leadership behaviors (e.g. transactional leadership behaviors).

Another effect which was found during this study was the effect of intra-organizational context

on performance. Even though White (1986), and perhaps other studies already found that a strong

intra-organizational context results in higher performance, this study is based on intra-

organizational context as a combination of performance management (i.e. motivating people to

achievements) and social context (i.e. seeing to people’s needs).

of 72

Regarding managerial implications, this study contributes by providing ways to achieve

contextual ambidexterity and performance within a business-unit. Though already found by

Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004), this study shows that when employees are motivated to achieve

high performance and when their needs are seen to, an intra-organizational context is created.

This is of importance for a business-unit, since it motivates individuals to manage the tension

between adaptability (i.e. ‘exploration’) and alignment (i.e. ‘exploitation’) themselves, resulting

in ambidexterity. As a collective this results in contextual ambidexterity within the business-unit.

Speculatively, for a larger company with multiple business-units, it could mean that on the

organizational level, ambidexterity can be achieved when there is a collective of business-unit

ambidexterity. Summarized, top management should install the ‘management systems’ according

to this manner, which also provides them a tool for easier steering where the overall focus needs

to lie. This is of importance since too much focus on operational efficiency (similar to

exploitation) can result in a negative influence on strategic flexibility. On the other hand, too

much focus on exploration can result in a vicious circle of search and unrewarding change

(Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Smith & Tushman, 2005; Volberda & Lewin, 2003). Another

managerial implication found during this study, is that this process can be enhanced by leaders

who are future oriented. Leaders serve as an example; by looking for new possibilities and

enthusing others for it, leaders can set the bar which is expected of employees to achieve but also

provide the support to the right direction in where to focus on. The final contribution this study

does regards the effect of TLB on performance. In this study, TLB was divided in two variables;

‘employee development’ and ‘future orientation’. The stronger a leader focuses on employee

development, the higher the performance of the business-unit. However, the stronger a leader is

future oriented, the lower the performance of the business-unit. This is in contrary to most studies

of 72

on the relationship between TLB and performance, where it is found that TLB (though integrated

instead of divided in separate variables) positively affects performance (Dvir et al., 2002, Bass et

al., 2003, and Wang et al. 2011). Put in other words, it is of importance for leaders within a

business-unit, that they find a balance in their leadership between the different transformational

leadership behaviors, instead of just a few aspects.

Finally, the respondents were all operating in middle-management- or operational layers within

business-units, and all the contributions mentioned above (both theoretical and managerial) are

from their perspective. Theoretical it contributes since the perspective of this combination is not

often studies (Jansen et al., 2008). Managerial, it is a confirmation that the intra-organizational

context as depicted above will motivate individuals to divide their time between efficient and

short-term related activities and innovative and long-term related activities, plus the leadership

behaviors necessary to enhance the effect.

of 72

7. CONCLUSION

This study was built around the following research question: What transformational leadership

behaviors enhance the effect of intra-organizational context on performance, through contextual

ambidexterity? The study was conducted via cross-sectional quantitative study, focused on

individuals working in business-units operating in middle management and operational layers.

An online survey was set-up and distributed via e-mail and social media within the personal

network of the author. Unfortunately, the research question cannot be answered, since not enough

significant effects were found to support the hypotheses (see results section of this report). For

answering the research question, the model of Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004) was extended with a

moderating variable: transformational leadership behaviors. To measure the latter, input was used

of the ‘CLIO questionnaire’ of De Hoogh et al. (2004). The first hypothesis tested the mediation

effect of contextual ambidexterity between intra-organizational context and performance, of

which only the first part was proven by a positive significant effect of intra-organizational

context on performance. Additionally a positive, significant, direct effect was found when testing

the mediation, although not predicted and included in this research. Summarized it tells us that by

creating the appropriate intra-organizational context (through performing performance

management and establishing a social context) within the business-unit, contextual ambidexterity

and performance are achieved. In addition, testing the second hypothesis partly resulted in

evidence that transformational leadership behaviors (TLB ‘future orientation’) enhance the effect

of intra-organizational context on performance. The effect of intra-organizational context on

contextual ambidexterity was already proven by Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004), so the major

contribution of this study (both theoretical and managerial) regards moderating effect of the

transformational leadership behavior ‘future orientation by a leader’. This is just one aspect of

of 72

TLB, and this study also shows that all aspects should be integrated by a leader in order to have a

stronger moderating effect (speculatively) and non-negative effects on performance. It is also one

of the suggestions for further examination; the role of TLB in creating the intra-organizational

context where the individual manages the tension between alignment and adaptability.

of 72

8. REFERENCES

Ahuja, G., & Morris Lampert, C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A

longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic

management journal, 22(6‐7), 521-543.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture.

Public administration quarterly, 112-121.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by

assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2),

207.

Beckman, C. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm

behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 741-758.

Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). Building an ambidextrous organisation.

Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change:

Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about

organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 733-753.

of 72

Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2004). Uncertainty during

organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of business and

psychology, 18(4), 507-532.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What

type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The leadership

quarterly, 17(3), 288-307.

Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for

innovation. The management of organization, 1, 167-188.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on

follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of management journal,

45(4), 735-744.

Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A double‐edged sword: Transformational leadership and

individual creativity. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 54-68.

Fowler Jr, F. J. (2013). Survey research methods. Sage publications.

Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The

dimensions of quality of management. Strategic management journal, 15(S2), 91-112.

of 72

Christenson, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge,

Mass.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of

organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.

Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine

rigidity. Academy of management journal, 48(5), 741-763.

Grewal, R., & Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic

crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of marketing, 65(2), 67-80.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,

moderation, and conditional process modeling.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Model templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved December,

12, 2013.

He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the

ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4), 481-494.

of 72

De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2004). De ontwikkeling van de

CLIO: een vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties. Gedrag en Organisatie,

17(5), 354-381.

Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management science, 28(3),

315-336.

Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes

and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of

Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007.

Jansen, J. J., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural

differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization

Science, 20(4), 797-811.

Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and

performance: A meta-analysis. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299-312.

Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate

interorganizational partnerships. Strategic organization, 8(4), 283-312.

Kirby, J. (2005). Toward a theory of high performance. Harvard business review, 83(7), 30-9.

ISO 690

of 72

Kortmann, S., Gelhard, C., Zimmermann, C., & Piller, F. T. (2014). Linking strategic flexibility

and operational efficiency: The mediating role of ambidextrous operational capabilities. Journal

of Operations Management, 32(7), 475-490.

Laplume, A. O., & Dass, P. (2012, August). Exploration and exploitation for various stages of

firm growth through diversification. In annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Boston.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex

organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-47.

Leonard‐Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new

product development. Strategic management journal, 13(S1), 111-125.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic management

journal, 14(S2), 95-112.

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.

of 72

Muenjohn, N., & Armstrong, A. (2008). Evaluating the structural validity of the multifactor

leadership questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformational-

transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research, 4(1).

Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the

context of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 19-33.

O'Reilly 3rd, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard business

review, 82(4), 74-81.

O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and

future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.

Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and

moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409.

Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity:

Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization science, 20(4),

685-695.

Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational

performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of management, 35(3), 718-804.

of 72

Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-

innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.

Saunders, M. N., & Lewis, P. (2012). Doing research in business & management: An essential

guide to planning your project. Pearson.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American psychologist, 45(2), 109.

Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized,

decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and

adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6), 650-669.

Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management

model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522-536.

Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing

evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-29.

Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of

management review, 29(2), 222-240.

Volberda, H. W., & Lewin, A. Y. (2003). Co‐evolutionary dynamics within and between firms:

From evolution to co‐evolution. Journal of management studies, 40(8), 2111-2136.

of 72

Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and

performance across criteria and levels: A meta-a

White, R. E. (1986). Generic business strategies, organizational context and performance: An

empirical investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 7(3), 217-231.

of 72

APPENDIX

A. Survey

Intro

Dear participant,

First we would like to thank you for your cooperation to this graduate research.

In most companies nowadays, everything needs to be done faster, easier and more efficient. At the same time, a

company needs to be able to adapt to changes in the environment. For most companies, it is a challenge to find a

balance between the two aspects.

We are interested in the role of leadership at finding this balance, and how you contribute to it from your activities.

After this introduction we will provide you with statements of which we would like you to give your opinion

regarding best suitable for your work situation. There are no good or wrong answers, since the aim lies on your

experience or opinion.

Answering the questions will take approximately 10 minutes. Please try to address all statements, since the

combination of your answers is of value.

Your response is completely anonymous. The answers to this questionnaire will be treated confidential, and will not

be shared.

In case of questions, do not hesitate to send an e-mail to: [email protected] Again, thank you

very much for your cooperation!

Ronald Nijenbanning

Contextual ambidexterity

A common challenge for a company is to find a balance between being innovative and efficient. The following

statements regard the organization within your business-unit. In case you are not operative in a business-unit, you

may consider ‘business-unit’ as a synonym for ‘single-unit’. Please indicate per statement to which level you agree

or disagree. If you are not able to address the statement, please answer with “No answer”.

of 72

The organisation within this business-unit...

Completely

disagree (1)

Disagree

(2)

Neither

disagree or

agree (3)

Agree (4) Completely

agree (5)

No answer

(6)

“…works coherently to

support the overall

objectives” (AL_1) o o o o o o “…facilitates the efficient

utilization of resources”

(AL_2) o o o o o o “…supports the

achievement of

efficiency-related

objectives” (AL_3) o o o o o o

“…causes us to use

resources on

unproductive activities”

(rAL_4) o o o o o o

“…encourages people to

challenge outmoded

traditions/practices/sacred

cows” (AD_1) o o o o o o

“…is flexible enough to

allow us to respond

quickly to changes in our

markets” (AD_2) o o o o o o

“…evolves rapidly in

response to shifts in our

business priorities”

(AD_3) o o o o o o

“…facilitates

reconfiguration of

activities to respond to

changes in the external

environment” (AD_4)

o o o o o o

Contextual ambidexterity

Each company has a different internal context, which motivates people to perform which sees to people’s needs. The

following statements regard the internal context of your business-unit, and to which level it influences your

performance. In case you are not operative in a business-unit, you may consider ‘business-unit’ as a synonym for

of 72

‘single-unit’. Please indicate per statement to which level you agree or disagree. If you are not able to address the

statement, please answer with “No answer”.

The organisation within this business-unit…

Completely

disagree (1) Disagree (2)

Neither

disagree or

agree (3)


agree (5)

No answer

(6)

“…encourages people

to set

challenging/aggressive

goals” (PM1) o o o o o o

“…issues creative

challenges to the

people, instead of

narrowly defining

tasks” (PM2)

o o o o o o

“…is more focused on

getting the job done

well than on getting

promoted” (PM3) o o o o o o

“…holds people

accountable for their

performance” (PM_4) o o o o o o “…devotes

considerable effort to

developing the people

within this business-

unit” (SC_1)

o o o o o o

“…gives everyone

sufficient authority to

do their jobs well”

(SC_2) o o o o o o

“…bases decisions on

facts and analysis, not

politics” (SC_3) o o o o o o “…treats failure (in a

good effort) as a

learning opportunity,

not something to be

ashamed of” (SC_4)

o o o o o o

of 72

Performance

A company is successful when a balance exists between being innovative and efficient. The following statements

regard the performance of your business-unit. In case you are not operative in a business-unit, you may consider

‘business-unit’ as a synonym for ‘single-unit’. Please indicate per statement to which level you agree or disagree. If

you are not able to address the statement, please answer with “No answer”.

Completely


Neither

disagree or

agree (3)


agree (5)

No answer

(6)

“This

business-unit

is achieving its

full potential”

(P_1)

o o o o o o

“People at my

level are

satisfied with

the level of

business-unit

performance”

(P_2)

o o o o o o

“This

business-unit

does a good

job of

satisfying our

customers”

(P_3)

o o o o o o

“This

business-unit

gives me the

opportunity

and

encouragement

to do the best

work I am

capable of”

(P_4)

o o o o o o

Transformational leadership behaviors

Good leadership can result in employees who are more committed, motivated, and performing beyond expectations.

The following statements regard the leadership within your business-unit. In case you are not operative in a business-

of 72

unit, you may consider ‘business-unit’ as a synonym for ‘single-unit’. Please indicate per statement to which level

you agree or disagree. If you are not able to address the statement, please answer with “No answer”.

My manager…

of 72

Completely


Neither

disagree or

agree (3)


agree (5)

No answer

(6)

“…has a vision

and a direction

for the future”

(IAV_1) o o o o o o

“…is always

looking for new

possibilities for

the organization”

(IAV_2)

o o o o o o

“…is able to

enthuse others

for his/her plans”

(IAV_3) o o o o o o

“…gives

employees the

feeling that they

work on an

important and

common

mission/task”

(IAV_4)

o o o o o o

“…shows to be

convinced of

his/her ideals,

conceptions and

values” (IAV_5)

o o o o o o

“…sees to the

creation of the

conditions in

which employees

can adequately

execute their

activities/tasks”

(HPE_1)

o o o o o o

“…only criticizes

employees with

appropriate

reasons”

(HPE_2)

o o o o o o

“…delegates

challenging

responsibilities to

employees”

(HPE_3)

o o o o o o

of 72

“…talks with

employees about

what is of

importance for

them” (IS_1)

o o o o o o

“…stimulates

employees to

think about

problems in new

ways” (IS_2)

o o o o o o

“…involves

employees with

decisions that are

of importance for

their work”

(IS_3)

o o o o o o

“…stimulates

employees to

develop their

talents in the best

way possible”

(IS_4)

o o o o o o

Control variables

CV1 How large is the company you work for?

o 0 - 50 employees (1)


o More than 250 employees (3)

CV2 How large is the business-unit you work in? In case you work for a single-unit company, choose 'Not

applicable (single unit)'



o More than 250 employees (3)

o Not applicable (single unit) (4)

of 72

CV3 When was the company you work for founded? (year, may be an estimate)

________________________________________________________________

CV4 What is your total amount of work experience in years? (may be an estimate)

________________________________________________________________

CV5 What is the layer within the business-unit you work in?

o Operational layer (1)

o Middle management layer (2)

o Top management layer (3)

CV6 In which industry does the business-unit you work for operate?

o Agricultural sector (1)

o Construction and realty (2)

o Automotive (3)

o Retail & consumer goods (4)

o Healthcare (5)

o Wholesale (6)

o Industry (7)

o Leisure (hospitality) (8)

o Government & public services (9)

o Transport & Logistics (10)

o Business services (11)

o Telecommunications (12)

using transformational leadership behavior to enhance

Documents