Process ambidexterity driven by environmental uncertainty: balancing flexibility and routine

Abstract

PurposeThis study aims to extend ambidexterity theory from the perspective of organisational learning and examine how process ambidexterity, which comprises operational flexibility and operational routine, responds to environmental uncertainty and ultimately reduces organisational risks.Design/methodology/approachThis study tests the hypotheses by analysing 464 annual reports of 115 listed companies in the Chinese agricultural and food industry using content and secondary data analyses. Four case studies are also provided.FindingsThe results show that (1) environmental uncertainty has a positive effect on either operational flexibility or operational routine; (2) both operational flexibility and operational routine have negative effects on organisational risks, supporting the view that process ambidexterity mediates the relationship between environmental uncertainty and organisational risks; and (3) organisational slack plays the role of “double-edged sword” by negatively moderating the effect of environmental uncertainty on operational flexibility and positively moderating the effect of environmental uncertainty on operational routine.Originality/valueIn an uncertain environment, companies are exposed to greater risk. This study contributes to risk management in three ways: first, it extends ambidexterity theory to process management and proposes how process ambidexterity balances operational flexibility and routines. Second, it distinguishes between the different conditions under which flexibility or routines are superior. Third, it explains the mechanisms related to how organisations can resolve environmental uncertainty into risk through process ambidexterity.

Exploring the supply chain ambidexterity: a multilevel micro-foundational perspective

“…Understanding how ambidexterity operates across various settings is crucial due to the increasingly complex and volatile nature of the performance landscape for firms and SCs (Zimmermann et al , 2015). Importantly, we contribute significantly to the understanding of SC ambidexterity, conceptualizing it as an interaction among different levels within the firm and across firms in the SC (Chandrasekaran et al , 2012; Yu et al , 2023; Simsek, 2009; Aoki and Wilhelm, 2017).…”

“…The reflection of the context and strategic orientation of SC must be enacted at the level of SCM practices, processes and routines (Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Chandrasekaran et al , 2012; Yu et al , 2023). The ambidexterity should be penetrated horizontally across the processes to galvanize the generative potential of interrelated yet conflicting poles of efficiency and responsiveness (Eisenhardt et al , 2010; Kassotaki et al , 2019).…”

“…In the SCM literature, Chandrasekaran et al (2012) explore ambidexterity in operations across multiple levels and its consequences. More recently, Yu et al (2023) contributed to our understanding of ambidexterity at the level of SC processes and routines. Field evidence from exemplary companies like Toyota, Intel and Cisco supports the idea that ambidexterity in operations/SC should manifest at the level of practices and routines, considering how these practices interact to yield macro- or system-level outcomes (Burgelman, 1991; Gulati and Puranam, 2009; Aoki and Wilhelm, 2017).…”

“…However, while significantly enhancing our understanding of ambidexterity in operations and the SC, this body of research primarily treats the concept as an aggregate and macrolevel phenomenon. Ambidexterity is inherently complex, operating at micro levels such as practices, processes and individual psychological characteristics (Zimmermann et al , 2015; Yu et al , 2023). It emerges from intricate interactions across intra- and inter-firm activities (Simsek, 2009; Chandrasekaran et al , 2012; Kassotaki et al , 2019; Martin et al , 2019), warranting a nuanced examination of its micro-foundations.…”