The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework

Abstract

The analysis of ambidexterity at the individual level may help to open the black box of organizational ambidexterity and to address the microfoundations of the exploration/exploitation dilemma in order to know how it can be achieved. The purpose of this article is to examine the main characteristics, antecedents, and consequences of individual ambidexterity, highlighting several key theoretical and methodological issues. Through a systematic literature review, we synthesize and integrate knowledge about individual ambidexterity, identifying opportunities and challenges for future research. We propose a multilevel framework that includes antecedents, consequences, and contingent effects of individual ambidexterity and their relationships. This multilevel framework may help to overcome the micro–macro divide in the management field. We also provide a synthesis of future research proposals. JEL CLASSIFICATION: M10

Theory of consumption values in consumer behaviour research: A review and future research agenda

“…A systematic literature review was used since it is suggested as an appropriate technique for determining research gaps in current literature and providing future search directions (Hao et al, 2019). Thus, the procedures for the systematic literature review were conducted by considering the suggestions developed by Palmatier et al (2018), Okoli (2015), andTranfield et al (2003), and previous review studies (Keupp & Gassmann, 2009;Paul et al, 2017;Pertusa-Ortega et al, 2020) and theory-based review studies (Gilal et al, 2019(Gilal et al, , 2021. This study followed the six major steps, which are topic formulation, study design, sampling, data collection, analysis, and reporting (Palmatier et al, 2018).…”

“…This study followed the six major steps, which are topic formulation, study design, sampling, data collection, analysis, and reporting (Palmatier et al, 2018). Considering the systematic literature review methodology (Gilal et al, 2019;Keupp & Gassmann, 2009;Okoli, 2015;Paul & Criado, 2020;Paul et al, 2017;Pertusa-Ortega et al, 2020;Rebouças & Soares, 2020), the domain of this review is the academic articles published in the journals indexed in Web of Science and Scopus, which were chosen to ensure a complete coverage of research related to the TCV across various journals and to guarantee the quality of the selected articles. Article was selected as the document type for the review because it covers verified knowledge, has the highest impact power in the field, and depicts the research area that shows the research attention and resources with solid perspective (Keupp & Gassmann, 2009).…”

“…This review focused on articles using the TCV in the consumer behaviour literature, which were selected using keywords "theory of consumption values" and "consumption values theory". In addition, articles based on primary studies (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research); written in English language, which is accepted as a common language for research in scientific fields (Pertusa-Ortega et al, 2020); and published between 1991 (which is the year that the TCV was introduced) and 2020 were considered during this selection process. During article searching, the Scopus database was used to search using these keywords in the title, abstract, and keywords of the articles; when searching Web of Science, the topic option was used, which includes searches of the title, abstract, author keywords, and keywords plus (Rebouças & Soares, 2020).…”

“…This diversity demonstrates that the TCV is a multidisciplinary subject that applies in numerous fields beyond consumer behaviour, including psychology, information technology, tourism, environment, food science, management, and education. Thus, this study provides integrated knowledge about the TCV because it is difficult to capture a complete picture due to the diversity of journal disciplines (Pertusa-Ortega et al, 2020).…”

Beyond high and low: Obstacles and opportunities associated with conceptualizing middle power and other middle‐range effects

“…Second, constructs related to how individuals experience and respond to role‐based or psychological conflicts, tensions, and paradoxes may moderate the effects of different conceptualizations of middle power on various outcomes. For example, individuals who are higher (vs. lower) in individual ambidexterity (Bledow et al., 2009; Martin et al., 2019; Papachroni & Heracleous, 2020; Pertusa‐Ortega et al., 2020) or have a stronger (vs. weaker) paradox mindset (Miron‐Spektor et al., 2018; see also Kleiman & Enisman's,2018 perspective on “conflict mindsets”) may be better equipped to navigate the challenges associated with occupying a middle‐power role and/or experiencing fluctuating power states. Similarly, benefits may accrue to middle‐power individuals who endorse a middle‐ground approach to resolving paradoxes, which involves “taking a midway position that acknowledges each of the two opposing elements or positions in a paradox to moderate levels, such that parts of these opposing aspects are preserved” (Leung et al., 2018, p. 445).…”