A general assumption in public sector research is that public organizations have to be efficient and innovative to overcome challenges such as demographic changes and digitization. This argument has been discussed in light of ambidexterity theory, for example. However, only little public sector research has focused on "how" public organizations reach ambidexterity. We take this question into account and focus on design and leadership conditions that are necessary or sufficient for ambidexterity. More precisely, the main question of this article is: Which combination of leadership and design conditions plays a role for ambidexterity in public organizations? We theoretically rely on the concept of ambidexterity, collected data in Belgian public cultural centers, and analyzed the data via the set-theoretic method Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). We can conclude from our analysis that six different combinations of design and leadership conditions were found to be sufficient for ambidexterity in our dataset. What is more is that public organizations combine design and leadership conditions of both structural and contextual ambidexterity to balance simultaneously exploitation and exploration. Hereby this article provides new theoretical and empirical insights and offers opportunities for further ambidexterity research in public organizations.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how public cultural organizations use ambidextrous design to balance exploitation and exploration given their organizational structure that mainly stimulates exploitation. Design/methodology/approach The authors use an abductive methodology and, perform an in-depth comparative case study. The data sample consists of two Belgian public cultural centers located in the Flemish area. In all, 21 semi-structured interviews where analyzed using Nvivo. Findings Results show, first, that although both cases have the same formal organization chart, their informal structure differs. Second, both cases have a different point of view toward exploitation and exploration. Third, no “pure” ambidextrous designs were found. Finally, the paper formulates theoretical propositions for ambidexterity and public sector research. Research limitations/implications Limitations of this paper are threefold. First, the authors only compared two cases, so generalization of the findings is limited. Second, although the authors managed to make contributions to ambidexterity and public sector research, theory building is not finished. Finally, researchers have to improve empirical evidence focusing on which design elements lead toward ambidextrous public organizations. Originality/value This paper makes a threefold contribution to ambidexterity literature and public sector research. First, the focus on public sector organizations is a rarely taken approach in ambidexterity research. Second, the specific use of ambidextrous design attributes to the limited public sector research that has focused on ambidexterity. Third, the focus on small organizations with limited resources is a rarely taken focus in ambidexterity and public sector research.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

No abstract