Unveiling the Secrets of Fusion Ambidexterity PART 2: A Dance of Tensions and Strategic Approach
In the realm of organizational ambidexterity, tensions play a pivotal yet often overlooked role, acting as the connective chain between exploitation and exploration. Organizations have predominantly focused on resolving these tensions, acknowledging them as a negative byproduct of ambidexterity. However, we propose a shift in perspective, positioning tension as a central element that binds the two facets of organizational ambidexterity, offering a unique perspective on how organizations can achieve ambidextrous excellence.
Unveiling the Core: Tensions in Ambidexterity
Tensions reside at the heart of ambidexterity, akin to the core body between the left and right hands, following the binary interference logic. This underlying tension resulting from performing two contradictory actions simultaneously, originates from cognitive dissonance resulting from the integration of opposing knowledge streams. At the individual level, successful management of paradoxical tensions demands cognitive, behavioral, and emotional abilities.
This perspective suggests that ambidextrous orientation manifests as an interference load on cognition, triggering the sensation of tension. It challenges the predominant focus on tension resolution, asserting that tension itself is a sign of an organization effectively navigating the delicate balance between exploitation and exploration. Hence, this cognitive interference, paradoxically, becomes the driving force behind ambidexterity.
Reframing Ambidexterity
The fragmented understanding of organizational ambidexterity and the little success in achieving it, can be tied with the tension resolution perspective. Instead resolving tensions, we propose to embrace them and use them as a resource. Think of it through the bimanual coordination: the interference (tension) arising as people attempt simultaneous and asymmetric movements using both hands. Just like in bimanual activities, where practice and learning reduce interference, organizations can learn to embrace tensions better as they become more ambidextrous. Hence, such interference can be mitigated through practice and learning.
Furthermore, we assert that organizational learning occurs through variation, or interference, within the organization. They present opportunities for learning through mutual learning, a concept echoed in the past decade. Hence, when an organization successfully balances the two opposing activities of exploitation and exploration, it is, in fact, learning, thereby feeding the feelings of tension.
The Choreography of Ambidexterity
Now, let's introduce the concept of choreography. In our view, choreography represents the strategic approach of the firm, a crucial element in achieving organizational ambidexterity. According to the paradoxical ambidexterity views, this strategic approach revolves around a commonly shared strategic purpose and a paradoxical frame. The strategic purpose emphasizes duality, with an emphasis on the simultaneous pursuit of both exploitation and exploration. The paradoxical frame consists of differentiation and integration, facilitating a shared mindset that allows individuals to comprehend and adopt this dual pursuit. Once the strategic approach is in place, the organization can orchestrate its activities ambidextrously without resolving tensions but, instead, by effectively managing them. The strategic approach, adopting a duality view, serves as the foundation for the choreography designed to deliver an exquisite performance.
Exquisite Performance through Ambidextrous Movements
What sets an exquisite performance apart? In the context of organizational ambidexterity, the answer lies in ambidextrous movements. To illustrate, imagine a dance performance where one of the choreographed movements involves both hands performing different activities simultaneously, ultimately forming a single, synchronized motion. These movements, designed to deliver higher performance, involve the simultaneous and integrated execution of opposing activities. Therefore, we challenge the prevailing notion of ambidexterity as the separate execution of exploitation and exploration, proposing instead that true organizational ambidexterity is a balanced merged movement outcome.
Similarly, organizational ambidextrous activities are those that neither exploitation nor exploration can achieve in isolation. Just as with our dance example, simply performing two opposing activities simultaneously is not enough. They must be carefully designed to merge seamlessly into a choreography to deliver value. Organizational ambidexterity, therefore, isn't just the simultaneous performance of exploitation and exploration but, rather, the balanced merged motion of both. When strategically designed and aligned, this motion becomes a value-producing function, enabling an exquisite performance in the organizational context.
Making Ambidexterity Intelligent
We introduce the concept of "intelligent ambidexterity." It departs from traditional views, suggesting that organizational intelligence is not solely dependent on sustaining a sufficient level of exploration. Instead, intelligence is achieved when merged knowledge streams from exploitation and exploration are complemented with a strategic approach. The tension inherent in ambidextrous learning lays the foundation, and a strategic approach transforms it into organizational intelligence.
In conclusion, tensions are not enemies but stimuli for ambidextrous learning. When coupled with a strategic approach, they pave the way for organizational intelligence. This blog post asserts that learning and a strategic approach are integral components of successful organizational ambidexterity, setting the stage for an exploration of the role of ambidextrous organizational learning in the next Part 3 of the series.
Thank you for reading. Let me hear your thoughts.
Mari Stenberg
REVOLUTIONIZE IMPACT
Follow us at LinkedIn Page Revolutionize Impact
References:
1. Stenberg, M. (2021). An Integrated Literature Review of Organizational Ambidexterity: The Rise of Fusion Ambidexterity.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717.
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202-225.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5-22.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536.
