Combining old and new tricks: ambidexterity in aerospace design and integration teams

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -This paper seeks to examine how aerospace design and integration teams in a highly partnered supply chain are able to leverage extant capabilities and develop new ones when faced with the necessity to adapt to organizational change. Design/methodology/approach -Building on the concept of contextual ambidexterity (Gibson and Birkinshaw), this research uses a combination of qualitative material and objective performance data to investigate the working context of five aerospace design and integration teams, their solutions to crisis-triggering events, and their subsequent schedule adherence. Findings -Team members enacted ambidextrous roles similar to those identified by Birkinshaw and Gibson. These behaviors allowed teams to create ambidextrous solutions when faced with crisis. Teams working in a supportive context were found to produce a greater diversity of ambidextrous solutions, which was found to relate to both overall ambidexterity and schedule adherence performance.Research limitations/implications -Although the results should be interpreted with care, the research answers Raisch and Birkinshaw's call for a more precise definition of organizational ambidexterity as the paper focuses on specific roles played by team members. The findings also point to a potential link between the diversity of ambidextrous behavioral roles and their ability to craft ambidextrous solutions. Practical implications -Teams that can quickly adapt to challenge through ambidextrous solutions are particularly useful in the context of highly partnered supply chains. Managers should therefore actively promote ambidextrous behaviors to ensure that the search for ambidextrous solutions becomes a conscious and deliberate process. Originality/value -This paper substantiates the ambidexterity concept by providing concrete examples drawn from highly partnered aerospace supply chains.

The role of HRM in facilitating team ambidexterity

“…In addition, much of the research in the area of ambidexterity has used a macro‐perspective, and only very recently has consideration been given to the group or project team level (Liu and Leitner, ; Fiset and Dostaler, ; Fay et al, ). Indeed, in their introduction to a special issue on the role of HRM in supporting ambidexterity, Junni et al () remarked on the dearth of studies addressing how HRM supports teams in balancing exploitation and exploration.…”

Micro-foundational ambidexterity and multinational enterprises: A systematic review and a conceptual framework

“…Furthermore, Mom et al (2009) found that when organizational procedures promote a manager's decision-making authority, the development of managerial ambidexterity is enhanced. Adding to this, Fiset and Dostaler (2013) empirically showed that a supportive organizational context is positively related with the development of contextual ambidexterity in a project level, which, in turn, enhances the development of schedule adherence performance.…”

The dual nature of adaptive coordination in teams

“…Speaking up may act as a coordination mechanism that induces flexibility (Kolbe et al, 2012), while itself requiring stability through a team climate of psychological safety (Bienefeld & Grote, 2014b; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006) and directive leadership (Farh & Chen, 2017). Structural coordination mechanisms, such as performance management systems or role-based requirements for team composition, can set a frame for team behavior that reduces uncertainty and frees cognitive resources for adequately responding to the concurrent demands for reliable performance and exploration (e.g., Ben-Menahem, von Krogh, Erden, & Schneider, 2016; Fiset & Dostaler, 2013; Valentine & Edmondson, 2015). Proposition 1: As both flexibility and stability demands increase, ambidextrous coordination (i.e., personal coordination through both formal and shared leadership and mutual adjustment combined with enabling and constraining structural coordination mechanisms) becomes increasingly positively related to desired adaptive outcomes.…”

“…Considering learning and performance as examples of desired adaptive outcomes, one can speculate that the coordination modes differ in their effects. Ambidextrous and exploratory coordination should have positive effects on both learning and performance (e.g., Fiset & Dostaler, 2013; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Miron-Spektor & Beenen, 2015). Experiental coordination is more conducive to learning (e.g., Pyrko et al, 2017) and exploitative coordination to performance, although learning may happen as part of continuous minor variations in routines (Feldman & Pentland, 2003) or be prodded by explicit proactivity routines (Vough, Bindl, & Parker, 2017).…”