Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to answer calls for more research on how leaders may promote organizational ambidexterity (i.e. exploitation and exploration), and how such behaviors relate to transactional and transformational leadership styles. Design/methodology/approach – The findings presented in this paper are based on semi-structured interviews with 11 senior leaders in Australian Defence. Findings – This paper identifies three organizational mechanisms that leaders rely on to promote exploitation, and five behaviors that leaders rely on to promote exploration. These mechanisms and behaviors closely match transactional and transformational leadership styles, respectively. Originality/value – This paper provides support for the leadership ambidexterity construct, and for the thesis that transformational leadership is appropriate in the context of exploratory innovation, while transactional leadership is appropriate in the context of exploitative innovation.

Purpose This paper aims to explore how situational variables jointly affect the choice of leadership style. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative study is based on semi-structured interviews conducted with 11 senior leaders in the Australian Defence, including with the Chief of Defence Force. Findings The paper identifies four organizational factors (human capital, performance, time orientation and risk appetite) and two environmental factors (risk and stability) that are considered to have an effect on leader’s choice of transactional versus transformational styles. Furthermore, organizational human capital and leader’s training and experience are identified as prerequisites of leadership ambidexterity. Originality/value The findings explain how the choice of leadership style is contingent on internal and external factors, identifies several new contributing factors and explains how such factors may jointly affect the choice of leadership style.

The purpose of this chapter is twofold. Firstly, the authors discuss a range of personal, organizational, and environmental drivers underpinning conditions leading to leaders' choices of transactional, transformational, and ambidextrous leadership styles. A better understanding of these drivers and conditions may aid senior leaders with achieving the right balance between exploitation of existing lessons and exploration of new lessons. Secondly, they present the mechanisms through which senior leaders can achieve relevant lessons learned objectives associated with each of these leadership styles. The authors base their findings on interviews with the Chief of Defence Force and 10 other senior leaders in the Australian Defence Organisation.