How employee exploration and exploitation affect task performance: The influence of organizational competitive orientation

Zhang, Jing A.; Chen, Guoquan; O’Kane, Conor; Xiang, Shuting; Wang, Jingyi

doi:10.1080/09585192.2020.1745866

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While ambidexterity has been discussed in several different ways such as adaptability and alignment (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), flexibility and efficiency (Adler et al, 1999;Yu et al, 2020), and radical and incremental innovation (Smith & Tushman, 2005), the most predominant view conceptualizes ambidexterity based on " March's (1991) notions of exploration and exploitation" (Simsek et al, 2009, p. 865;Zimmermann et al, 2015). Building on this insight, individual ambidexterity refers to an individual's dynamic ability to simultaneously engage in, and/or switch between, exploration and exploitation (Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016;Mom et al, 2009;Rogan & Mors, 2014;Tempelaar & Rosenkranz, 2019;Zhang et al, 2022). Exploration and exploitation stem from different underlying knowledge, entail different challenges, and require different learning processes to develop (Lee & Meyer-Doyle, 2017).…”

Section: Individual Ambidexterity and Social Cognitive Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Development of Individual Ambidexterity Across Institutional Environments: Symmetric and Configurational Analyses

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Buoyed by recent calls for research to explore micro-level cognitive explanations for ambidexterity, this study examines how individuals’ self-efficacy and resilience affect individual ambidexterity across different institutional environments. Building on social cognitive theory, we posit that self-efficacy enhances ambidexterity via resilience and that such relationship varies across economic institutional environments. Our symmetric (PLS-SEM) and configurational (fsQCA) analyses of 1907 knowledge workers in China, New Zealand and Australia provide supportive and complementary evidence for these theoretical arguments. Specifically, PLS-SEM reveals that the mediating effects of resilience on the relationship between self-efficacy and individual ambidexterity are stronger in an environment where economic institutions are weak. fsQCA complements PLS-SEM by showing that individual ambidexterity can be explained by multiple configurations of psychological self-efficacy, resilience, characteristics related to institutions, and personal demographic factors. Taken together, these findings contribute to the international business literature by providing a nuanced understanding of how different psychological resources integrate and interact with institutional factors to enhance individual ambidexterity.

show abstract

Section: Individual Ambidexterity and Social Cognitive Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Development of Individual Ambidexterity Across Institutional Environments: Symmetric and Configurational Analyses

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also a cheaper and safer option for users (Enkel and Gassmann, 2010;Yeganegi et al, 2019). Exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation have differences regarding task difficulty, technical tools and outputs, competency and input demands on participants, and the resulting impacts (Benner and Tushman, 2003;Roberts and Dinger, 2018;Zhang et al, 2022). Owing to the diverse innovation activities, participants' psychological perceptions may vary in online user innovation communities.…”

Section: Exploratory Innovation and Exploitative Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different types of innovation activities (exploratory innovation vs. exploitative innovation) have different demands (e.g. expertise, effort) from users and also have different impacts on them (Benner and Tushman, 2003;Roberts and Dinger, 2018;Zhang et al, 2022). It remains to be explored how user participation in different types of innovation activities leads to different psychological perceptions and continuous knowledge sharing intention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How innovation types affect users' continuous knowledge sharing intention: a self-determination perspective

Chen

Zhang²

2022

AJIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis research aims to investigate the effects of innovation types (exploratory innovation vs. exploitative innovation) on users' psychological perceptions (perceived self-improvement and prosocial impact) and continuous knowledge sharing intention and the moderating effects of monetary incentives.Design/methodology/approachThe research model was developed based on the self-determination theory. A two-study approach involving an online survey (n = 338) and an online experiment (n = 160) was employed to collect quantitative data. Structural equation modeling and variance analysis were adapted to analyze the data.FindingsThe results show that exploratory innovation leads to higher perceived self-improvement among users than exploitative innovation, whereas exploitative innovation leads to higher perceived prosocial impact than exploratory innovation. The perceived self-improvement and perceived prosocial impact positively affects users' continuous knowledge sharing intention. Monetary incentives moderate the relationships among perceived self-improvement, perceived prosocial impact and continuous knowledge sharing intention.Originality/valueThis research highlights the role of users' experience of initial participation in forming continuous knowledge sharing intentions and also reveals the effectiveness of monetary incentives in different types of innovation activities. The findings provide a more comprehensive understanding of the antecedents of users' continuous knowledge sharing behavior, offering new insights and recommendations for managerial practitioners.

show abstract

“…Following the logic of organizational ambidexterity, the literature has extended research of ambidexterity into various levels, including individual level (Mom, Chang, Cholakova and Jansen, 2019; Zhang, Chen, O’kane, Xiang and Wang, 2020), functional level such as marketing ambidexterity (Josephson, Johnson and Mariadoss, 2016) and brand level (Beverland et al , 2015; Moussa and de Barnier, 2020). In particular, in the context of brand, ambidexterity is interpreted as the ability of a brand to create value for consumers through simultaneous pursuit and synergies of brand relevance and consistency (Beverland et al , 2015), which are a brand’s two fundamental components but “antagonist perceptions at a consumer level” (Moussa and de Barnier, 2020).…”

Section: Theory and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Green brand ambidexterity and consumer satisfaction: the symmetric and asymmetric approach

Zhang

Chen²,

Walton³

et al. 2022

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Consumer satisfaction towards a brand is one of a firm’s important performance outcomes. However, building a strong green brand to foster consumers’ satisfaction is often challenging for firms. Drawing on the dynamic capability and mechanism-enabling perspectives of ambidexterity. The purpose of this research is to explore mechanisms of perceived brand performance and green trust through which green brand ambidexterity acts as a facilitator of consumer satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach The hypothesized relationships were tested by both partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM; symmetric approach) and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA; asymmetric approach) with data collected from a green consumer questionnaire survey in Hong Kong. Findings The results from PLS-SEM indicate that green brand ambidexterity affects consumer satisfaction through multiple mediating paths of perceived brand performance, green trust-consumer and the sequential integration of perceived brand performance and green trust. Results from fsQCA further reinforced these findings. Research limitations/implications The present research provides a nuanced understanding of how ambidexterity enhances consumer satisfaction in the context of a green brand by identifying multiple mechanisms. Originality/value There is a lack of research on how green brand ambidexterity affects green brand outcomes from the perspective of value creation for consumers. The present research fills this gap by providing more comprehensive explanations of mechanisms for green brand ambidexterity to facilitate consumer satisfaction. It also offers a better understanding of how the effects of green brand ambidexterity are viewed on a path-dependency that is aligned with the dynamic capability perspective of ambidexterity and how green trust forms a critical path to enable green brand ambidexterity and perceived brand performance to enhance consumer satisfaction.

show abstract

How employee exploration and exploitation affect task performance: The influence of organizational competitive orientation

Cited by 21 publications

References 98 publications

The Development of Individual Ambidexterity Across Institutional Environments: Symmetric and Configurational Analyses

The Development of Individual Ambidexterity Across Institutional Environments: Symmetric and Configurational Analyses

How innovation types affect users' continuous knowledge sharing intention: a self-determination perspective

Green brand ambidexterity and consumer satisfaction: the symmetric and asymmetric approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About