This study proposes top management team (TMT) shared leadership as an important enabler of organizational ambidexterity. Moreover, we examine both how and when TMT shared leadership enhances organizational ambidexterity by considering two TMT processes as mediators (i.e., cooperative conflict management style and decision-making comprehensiveness) and two elements of organizational structure (i.e., connectedness and centralization of decision making) as important contingencies. We test our moderated mediation framework using time-lagged data from a cross-industry sample of 202 firms. We discuss how our findings extend strategic entrepreneurship, ambidexterity, and leadership research and provide implications for practice. Model 1: Ambidexterity Model 2: Ambidexterity Model 3: Ambidexterity Model 4: Cooperative conflict mgt. Model 5: Decision comprehens. Model 6: Ambidexterity Model 7: Ambidexterity Model 8: Cooperative conflict mgt. Model 9: Decision comprehens. Model 10: Cooperative conflict mgt. Model 11: Decision comprehens.

Despite the mounting evidence that innovation in management can fuel competitive advantage, we still know relatively little about how firms introduce new ways of managing. The goal of this introductory essay-and the Themed Section it introduces-is to advance this knowledge. To this end, we first synthesize the main developments in the field of management innovation and show that the field has branched into four main theoretical perspectives (rational, institutional, international business, and theory development perspectives). We then address the fragmentation issue that emerges from our review by proposing a co-evolutionary framework of management innovation that takes into account the dynamic and multilevel nature of the concept; we thus integrate the generation, diffusion, adoption, and adaptation phases of the management innovation process at the organizational, inter-organizational and macro level. Our integrative framework also addresses the role of human agency (managerial intentionality of internal and external change agents) and makes a distinction between three types of management innovations (new to the world, new to the organization and adapted to its context, and new to the organization without adaptation). Furthermore, we discuss the contributions of the studies included in the Themed Section and identify several avenues for future research that we consider priorities for driving the further development of the field.

This study attempts to increase the understanding of how offshoring influences the introduction of new products and services. Focusing on the offshoring of those business functions that provide direct knowledge inputs for innovation (i.e., production, R&D, and engineering), we propose that offshoring has an inverted U‐shaped influence on firm innovativeness. Additionally, we provide an upper echelon contingency perspective by considering the moderating role of two top management team (TMT) attributes (i.e., informational diversity and shared vision). Using a cross‐industry sample with lagged data, we find that offshoring has an inverted U‐shaped influence on firm innovativeness and that this relationship is steeper in firms with high TMT informational diversity and in firms with low TMT shared vision. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

In addressing the notion of team ambidexterity, we propose that sociopsychological factors (i.e., team cohesion and team efficacy) may help team members to resolve paradoxical challenges and to combine exploratory and exploitative learning efforts. In addition, we theorize that senior executives may play an important role in facilitating the emergence of ambidexterity at lower hierarchical levels. In doing so, we develop a multilevel contingency framework and propose that the effectiveness of teams to achieve ambidexterity is contingent upon supportive leadership behaviours at the organizational-level. Using multilevel, multisource, and temporally separated data on 87 teams within 37 high-tech and pharmaceutical firms, we not only reveal how team cohesion and efficacy may matter for the emergence of team ambidexterity but also show that the effectiveness of supportive leadership behaviours from senior executives varies across cohesive and efficacious teams.

How do organizational responses to environmental disruptions affect employees' job‐related well‐being? As the COVID‐19 pandemic has led to new ways of working, increased health concerns, and added responsibilities, employees are facing important challenges in doing their work that can affect their job‐related well‐being. This study aims to understand how different types of work support (i.e., perceived organizational support and supervisor accessibility) in response to environmental disruption interact with personality traits (i.e., core self‐evaluations and future focus) to influence changes in employees' affective commitment to their organization and in their job‐related well‐being. We develop a moderated mediation model and test it on data collected from 295 individuals working in the United Kingdom. We find that work support for the COVID‐19 pandemic, both perceived organizational support and supervisor accessibility, is associated with more positive changes in employees' job‐related well‐being and that this effect is mediated by changes in employees' affective commitment to their organization. Furthermore, we find that personality traits moderate the relationships between these two types of support and changes in affective commitment to the organization, with those relationships being more positive for employees with low core self‐evaluations and for those with a high future focus.

No abstract

Mirroring the growing trend for firms to support their operations by locating activities abroad, research on the practice of offshoring has increased considerably in recent years. However, despite the mounting research, understanding of the key factors influencing decision-making for offshoring remains surprisingly limited due to fragmentation. In this study, we synthesize and integrate insights from different research domains in order to develop a comprehensive decisional framework for key offshoring decisions. The integrative decisional framework is based on a systematic review of offshoring research published in the most influential management and business journals in the past 25 years. In addition to providing a snapshot of the state of research on decision-making for offshoring, this study aims to stimulate future research by identifying promising research opportunities. In particular, we propose that future research should use alternative theories to incorporate overlooked aspects of decision-making, integrate different theories to account for the interdependencies between decisions, and adopt a portfolio perspective that considers each decision as part of an overall offshoring strategy.

No abstract