No abstract

We investigated contextual organizational ambidexterity, defined as the capacity to simultaneously achieve alignment and adaptability at a business-unit level. Building on the leadership and organization context literatures, we argue that a context characterized by a combination of stretch, discipline, support, and trust facilitates contextual ambidexterity. Further, ambidexterity mediates the relationship between these contextual features and performance. Data collected from 4,195 individuals in 41 business units supported our hypotheses. 1 We would like to thank Marshall Schminke, Associate Editor of the Academy of Management Journal, for helping us to clarify the distinction between structural ambidexterity and contextual ambidexterity.

Since Geert Hofstede's Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (Sage, 1980) was published, researchers have utilized Hofstede's cultural values framework in a wide variety of empirical studies. We review 180 studies published in 40 business and psychology journals and two international annual volumes between 1980 and June 2002 to consolidate what is empirically verifiable about Hofstede's cultural values framework. We discuss limitations in the Hofstede-inspired research and make recommendations for researchers who use Hofstede's framework in the future. Journal of International Business Studies (2006) 37, 285–320. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202

SummaryThriving is defined as the psychological state in which individuals experience both a sense of vitality and learning. We developed and validated a measure of the construct of thriving at work. Additionally, we theoretically refined the construct by linking it to key outcomes, such as job performance, and by examining its contextual embeddedness. In Study 1, we conducted second-order confirmatory factor analyses in two samples, demonstrating initial support for the two-dimensional structure of thriving. We provided evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of thriving in relation to theoretically related constructs, such as positive and negative affects, learning and performance goal orientations, proactive personality, and core self-evaluations. In Study 2, across two different samples, we further assessed construct validity by establishing a relationship between thriving and career development initiative, burnout, health, and individual job performance, explaining significant variance beyond traditional attitudinal predictors, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Finally, in Study 3, we focused on understanding the contextual embeddedness of thriving. We found differences in reports of thriving across two points in time, when substantial changes are occurring in peoples' work lives and across contexts (i.e., work and non-work). Implications for theory and practice, as well as directions for future research, are discussed.

To understand why the virtual design strategies that organizations create to foster innovation may in fact hinder it, we unpack four characteristics often associated with the term ‘virtuality’ (geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, structural dynamism, and national diversity) and argue that each hinders innovation through unique mechanisms, many of which can be overcome by creating a psychologically safe communication climate. We first tested the plausibility of our arguments using in-depth qualitative analysis of interviews with 177 members of 14 teams in a variety of industries. A second study constituted a more formal test of hypotheses using survey data collected from 266 members of 56 aerospace design teams. Results show that the four characteristics are not highly intercorrelated, that they have independent and differential effects on innovation, and that a psychologically safe communication climate helps mitigate the challenges they pose. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory and research.