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

Pertusa-Ortega, Eva M.; Molina Azorín, José Francisco; Tarí, Juan José; PereiraMoliner, Jorge; López-Gamero, María D. Article The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework BRQ Business Research Quarterly Provided in Cooperation with: Asociación Científica de Economía y Dirección de Empresas (ACEDE), Madrid Suggested Citation: Pertusa-Ortega, Eva M.; Molina Azorín, José Francisco; Tarí, Juan José; PereiraMoliner, Jorge; López-Gamero, María D. (2021) : The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, ISSN 2340-9436, Sage Publishing, London, Vol. 24, Iss. 4, pp. 355-371, https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420929711 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/261912 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420929711 Business Research Quarterly 2021, Vol. 24(4) 355 –371 © The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/2340944420929711 journals.sagepub.com/home/brq Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm). Introduction Global and dynamic environments have increased the need for organizations to be ambidextrous in order to outperform competition in the long run (Dolz et al., 2019). Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) conceptualize the ambidextrous organization as a firm that has the ability to compete in mature markets (where efficiency and incremental innovation are crucial) at the same time as developing new products for emerging markets (where experimentation and flexibility are critical). Ambidextrous organizations can develop exploration and exploitation activities, or other conflicting demands, with the same dexterity. Exploitation activities address the current viability of a firm, whereas exploration activities focus on its future viability (Levinthal & March, 1993). Previous research on this topic has mainly focused on the organizational level, studying antecedents and consequences of organizational ambidexterity (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). However, many scholars highlight the key role that individuals may play in ambidexterity, to address the root of the problem, that is, how organizations can be ambidextrous (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013; Eisenhardt et al., 2010; Keller & Weibler, 2015; LaureiroMartínez et al., 2015; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008, 2013; Raisch et al., 2009), encouraging studies that specifically focus on this individual level of analysis. Bonesso et al. (2014) point out that the analysis of ambidexterity only at the firm level implicitly assumes homogeneity at the individual level, neglecting how organizational members might influence the firm’s ability to pursue a balance The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework Eva M Pertusa-Ortega, José F Molina-Azorín, Juan José Tarí, Jorge Pereira-Moliner and María D López-Gamero 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 Keywords Microfoundations, individual ambidexterity, systematic review, multilevel research Department of Management, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain Corresponding author: Eva M Pertusa-Ortega, Department of Management, University of Alicante, Campus de San Vicente, Ap. 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain. Email: [email protected] 929711BRQ0010.1177/2340944420929711Business Research QuarterlyPertusa-Ortega et al. review-article2020 Review Essay 356 Business Research Quarterly 24(4) between exploration and exploitation or between other conflicting demands. In this article, we are interested in ambidexterity at the individual level (individual ambidexterity) as a key microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity. Although the term “ambidexterity” has been adapted to the organizational level to mean an organization’s capacity to do two different things equally well, the original meaning of ambidexterity is an individual’s capacity, specifically to be equally skillful with both hands (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013). Many authors conceptualize individual ambidexterity as the individual ability to pursue both exploitation and exploration activities and find synergies between them (Mom et al., 2009; Rogan & Mors, 2014; Tempelaar & Rosenkranz, 2019). As ambidexterity may also refer to other conflicting tasks, we use the term individual ambidexterity to refer to “the capability of individuals to perform contradictory activities and switch between different mindsets and action sets” (Bledow et al., 2009, p. 322). The interest in the microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity has increased, and the number of articles that focus on this topic has multiplied. More and more scholars have examined characteristics of ambidextrous individuals (managers, leaders, employees) along with antecedents and consequences of individual ambidexterity. However, what do we know and don’t know about individual ambidexterity as a key microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity until now? To address this gap, the purpose of this article is to examine the main characteristics, antecedents, and consequences of ambidexterity at the individual level, emphasizing several key theoretical and methodological issues of individual ambidexterity in order to advance research on this topic. Thus, the aim is to synthesize and integrate knowledge about individual ambidexterity, identifying opportunities and challenges for future research. For this purpose, we conduct a systematic literature review on individual ambidexterity. In the last 5 years, more than 50 papers have been published about this topic. This makes it difficult to keep up with state of the art and to assess the collective evidence in this particular area of business research (Snyder, 2019). This is why a literature review in the specific topic of individual ambidexterity can be relevant at this moment. To the best of our knowledge, no study has reviewed this specific literature on individual ambidexterity. In this article, we synthetize current knowledge and provide a research agenda for future research on some relevant issues of individual ambidexterity. This review adds value not only to take stock of studies published and integrate individual ambidexterity knowledge, but also to provide some ideas and suggestions for future research in order to make progress on this topic. Accordingly, this review makes the following value-added contributions. First, we discuss key issues that researchers should take into account to advance knowledge on this topic in a rigorous way. Second, we propose a framework that includes antecedents, consequences, and moderators of individual ambidexterity and their relationships, identifying gaps that need more research. Third, in order to help overcome the micro–macro divide in the management field (Aguinis et al., 2011; Molina-Azorín, 2014), the proposed framework is multilevel, integrating variables at the individual (micro) level and variables at the organizational (macro) level. This article is organized as follows. First, characteristics of methods employed to conduct the systematic review of individual ambidexterity are indicated. Next, the main findings about eight key issues are presented, taking stock of published literature on individual ambidexterity and examining problems, opportunities, and challenges to moving ambidexterity research forward. This article concludes with a discussion of what we know and do not know about the key issues of individual ambidexterity research, and a synthesis of future research proposals. Methods To produce a reliable knowledge stock about the microfoundations of ambidexterity, we follow the approach suggested by Denyer and Tranfield (2008) and Tranfield et al. (2003) for producing a systematic review, and the recommendations by Jones and Gatrell (2014). They suggest five main steps to carry out a systematic literature review that fulfills transparency, inclusivity, explanatory, and heuristic principles: (1) question formulation, (2) locating studies, (3) study selection and evaluation, (4) analysis and synthesis, and (5) reporting and using the results. The first step is to formulate our research question: what do we know and don’t know about individual ambidexterity up to now? In the following sections, we address the other four steps. Data collection According to this research question, our review is based on a systematic search to identify the relevant literature on individual ambidexterity. An electronic search was conducted in December, 2018, and updated in December, 2019. In order to identify relevant and rigorous studies about individual ambidexterity, we searched only for articles published in peer-reviewed journals, theoretical and empirical, published in any year. We excluded from our search conference papers, books, book chapters, monographs, theses, and unpublished works due to its limited impact in knowledge production in a research field and less quality demands compared to journals (Thunnissen & Gallardo-Gallardo, 2019). We also excluded non-English articles, as English is the prevalent language for scientific research. Pertusa-Ortega et al. 357 For the articles search, we used two of the largest and most generally accepted databases in the management field: Web of Science and Scopus. We used the term “ambidext*” combined with “microfoundat*,” “individual*,” “manager*,” “leader*,” “employee*,” or “multilevel*” in the topic section of Web of Science (title, abstract, and/or keywords), and in the “article title, abstract and keywords” section of Scopus. We also searched for studies that combined these last terms together with “exploit*” and “explorat*,” as exploration and exploitation are the most common terms used to refer to the tensions and contradictory demands in the ambidexterity literature. These searches yield a total of 885 articles, after removing duplicate papers. Inclusion criteria, coding, and data analysis Taking into account the purpose of this study, the present review examines studies that specifically analyze ambidexterity at the individual level (individual ambidexterity). Two authors read the abstracts of studies identified in the electronic search to determine whether these studies specifically examined individual ambidexterity. Papers that studied individual ambidexterity, and doubtful studies, were selected in order to read the full text. In this regard, we initially identified 130 papers. Moreover, we reviewed the lists of references of these studies for identifying other possible works. Furthermore, we checked several special issues published on ambidexterity (Ahammad et al., 2019; Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013; Gupta et al., 2006; Junni et al., 2015; Raisch et al., 2009). Some papers identified with our search strategy examined ambidexterity at organizational or team level, but not at individual level, with some papers studying individual antecedents of organizational or team ambidexterity. These papers were not considered because our review only focused on individual ambidexterity. Through discussion of authors, 71 papers were finally included in the list of studies that specifically examined individual ambidexterity (these studies are marked with an asterisk in the references list). The articles covered the period from 1999 to June 2020 (including papers in press). These 71 papers were included in the final sample for a content analysis in order to determine some general characteristics of articles and a specific analysis of key issues related to individual ambidexterity. Authors discussed possible codifications to identify the relevant categories. The coding categories are as follows: general publication data (authors, journal and year of publication); theoretical frameworks indicated in the articles; the concept and tensions or conflicting demands in individual ambidexterity and the approach to address them; the levels at which ambidexterity is analyzed (only individual or at the organizational or team level too); relationships analyzed (antecedents, consequences, moderators) and at which level (organization, group or individual level); the type of study; and main findings. Regarding the type of study, for empirical studies, we created subcategories about characteristics of the sample/ population, data collection procedures, statistical analyses applied, and the measure and operationalization of the individual ambidexterity variable. The coding template with these categories and subcategories was used for each article, and the content of the coding categories and subcategories for the final sample of 71 articles was included in an Excel file. Two authors coded all studies. The resultant inter-rater reliability, as measured by percentage of agreement, was 92%. Disagreements were discussed and resolved. Then, frequency counts and text coding and interpretation were used to analyze the data. A summary of the coded studies is presented in Appendix 1 in Supplemental Material. From data analysis, we identified eight key issues that are examined in the “Results” section. Characteristics of articles In this section, we indicate the main characteristics of the articles that have analyzed individual ambidexterity. As said above, the sample articles covered the period from 1999 to June 2020 (including papers in press). However, Figure 1 shows an increasing interest since 2015 (74.64% of the papers have been published since 2015). Regarding journals (Table 1), a total of 47 journals have published studies about individual ambidexterity. Organization Science is the journal with the greater number of published articles (six papers). However, 33 out of 47 journals have published just one article, which reflects that individual ambidexterity knowledge is widely dispersed around different journals. This reveals that individual ambidexterity is a multidisciplinary topic that can be addressed from different fields of study, because there are generic organizational journals but also other more specific journals from different fields, such as psychology, marketing, human resources, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 in press Figure 1. Published articles per year. 358 Business Research Quarterly 24(4) leadership, and innovation. This diversity of journals can make it more difficult to achieve a comprehensive knowledge of the topic (Thunnissen & GallardoGallardo, 2019). Therefore, our literature review can be useful to integrate this knowledge. The studies have been carried out both in manufacturing and service firms. Some studies have focused on one specific sector, while other studies have analyzed multiple industries, both manufacturing and services (see Table 2). Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of articles based on the type of study. There are both, theoretical and empirical studies, although empirical quantitative studies prevail (70.4% of the total). Results In this section, we examine several specific and important issues related to individual ambidexterity identified from the literature review. For each issue, we take stock of published studies, and we highlight some challenges to overcome gaps or problems identified, emphasizing opportunities for future research. Table 1. Published articles per journal. Organization Science 6International Journal of Innovation Management 1 Journal of Service Research 4International Journal of Project Management 1 The International Journal of Human Resource Management 4International Small Business Journal 1 Long Range Planning 3Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 1 Management Decision 3Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 1 European Management Journal 2Journal of Knowledge Management 1 Human Resource Management 2Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 1 Industrial Marketing Management 2Journal of Management & Organization 1 Journal of Business Research 2Journal of Marketing 1 Journal of Management 2Journal of Product Innovation Management 1 Journal of Management Studies 2The Journal of Psychology 1 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 2Journal of Small Business Management 1 Leadership & Organization Development Journal 2Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1 Strategic Management Journal 2The Leadership Quarterly 1 Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 1MIT Sloan Management Review 1 British Journal of Management 1Nankai Business Review International 1 Creativity and Innovation Management 1Organization Management Journal 1 Employee Relations: The International Journal 1Organizational Dynamics 1 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 1Research Policy 1 Harvard Business Review 1Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 1 Human Resource Management Review 1Technology Innovation Management Review 1 Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1Technovation 1 International Business Review 1The Journal of Creative Behavior 1 International Journal of Bank Marketing 1 Total 71 Table 2. Industry contexts of individual ambidexterity research. Industries Exemplars Banks Faia and Vieira (2017), Mom etal. (2019) Consulting firms Rogan and Mors (2014), Luu etal. (2018) Hospitals Burgess etal. (2015), Salas Vallina etal. (2019), Yu etal. (2018) Universities Y. C. Chang etal. (2016), Alghamdi (2018) Telecommunications Affum-Osei etal. (2020) Call centers Jasmand etal. (2012) Pharmaceutical industry K. Sok etal. (2016) Adhesives Souza-Luz and Gavronski (2020) Airline industry Kao and Chen (2016) Defense organizations Caniëls and Veld (2019), Kassotaki etal. (2019) High-tech sectors Zhang etal. (2019), Busola Oluwafemi etal. (2019), De Ruyter etal. (2020) Multiple industries Ajayi etal. (2017), Kauppila and Tempelaar (2016), Lee and Lee (2016) Pertusa-Ortega et al. 359 Issue 1: theoretical and conceptual frameworks Several theoretical frameworks and perspectives have been used to study individual ambidexterity. Some papers are only based on the literature about organizational ambidexterity, while other studies use more specific theoretical and conceptual frameworks. However, about one-third of the studies (29.6%) do not specify any theoretical approach (e.g., Bidmon & Boe-Lillegraven, 2019; De Ruyter et al., 2020; Hughes & Ogilvie, 2020). The studies of individual ambidexterity that explicitly indicate some theoretical framework are mainly based on microor psychological theories, such as cognitive dissonance and evaluation theory (Bonesso et al., 2014), social cognitive theory (Xiang et al., 2019), social exchange theory (Caniëls et al., 2017), neuroscience literature (LaureiroMartínez et al., 2015), behavioral complexity theory (Keller & Weibler, 2015), regulatory mode and focus theories (Jasmand et al., 2012), self-determination theory (Garcia et al., 2019), social identity theory (Luu et al., 2018), or the theory of planned behavior (Yu et al., 2018), among others. Theoretical frameworks at the organizational level have also been used, such as organizational learning and knowledge management theory (Greco et al., 2019), social capital theory (Lee & Lee, 2016), leadership (Probst et al., 2011), dynamic capabilities theory (Shamim et al., 2019), entrepreneurship theories (Yeganegi et al., 2019), upper echelon theory (Li et al., 2015), or strategy (Torres et al., 2015). Few papers combine organizational and individual theories (De Visser & Faems, 2015; Eisenhardt et al., 2010; Good & Michel, 2013). This diversity of theoretical approaches shows again that individual ambidexterity is a multidisciplinary topic that can be addressed from different lenses. But to achieve comprehensive understanding, different theories should be jointly analyzed. In this regard, to advance knowledge about how firms go from individual to organizational ambidexterity, as these issues are at different levels of analysis (individual and organization), future research should integrate microand macro-theories to a greater extent. As explained below, a multilevel approach may be useful. Furthermore, it is important for future studies to identify the theoretical and conceptual framework in which research is conducted to add rigor and better understanding of both the concepts and the results achieved. Issue 2: concept and tensions in individual ambidexterity The concept of ambidexterity has been largely discussed at the organizational level. In general, the concept of ambidexterity refers to the capacity to address two organizationally incompatible objectives equally well (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013), with the same dexterity. At the organizational level, there has been some debate about the degree in which an organization should develop both conflicting activities to consider it is ambidextrous. That is, is an organization ambidextrous when it is capable of developing both activities in balance, in a similar degree, or when it is capable of developing high levels of both activities? This debate also occurs at the individual level. As this debate has been largely discussed at the organizational level, we will not extend on this point. We focus on three different points regarding the concept of individual ambidexterity. First, at the individual level, scholars use the term ambidexterity to refer to different tensions or conflicting demands. Most papers have focused on the tensions between the exploration of new knowledge and the exploitation of current capabilities (De Visser & Faems, 2015; Kobarg et al., 2017; Laureiro-Martínez et al., 2015; Rosing & Zacher, 2017). However, other types of tensions and conflicting demands have also been analyzed at the level of individuals, for instance, flexibility versus efficiency in workplaces (Adler et al., 1999; Eisenhardt et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2018), adaptability versus alignment (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004), or creativity versus attention to detail (P. Sok & O’Cass, 2015). There is also a number of studies which addresses the individual ambidexterity as the tradeoff between sales and service quality (Agnihotri et al., 2017; Jasmand et al., 2012; Patterson et al., 2014; K. Sok et al., 2016), the sale of existing and new products (Van der Borgh et al., 2017; Van der Borgh & Schepers, 2014), or the exploitation of existing customers (farming) and the exploration of new customers (hunting) (Lam et al., 2019). Second, when researchers study individual ambidexterity, are they actually referring to a capability or behavior, or an outcome? (Awojide et al., 2018). There is some confusion in research about whether ambidexterity is an activity or an outcome (Vicentini et al., 2019). In this regard, authors should differentiate between individual ambidextrous behaviors (the ability to develop two contradictory behaviors, actions or activities equally well) and individual ambidextrous performance (the achievement of two Figure 2. Types of study in sample articles. 360 Business Research Quarterly 24(4) conflicting objectives). Other researchers even differentiate between individual ambidextrous orientation (Lam et al., 2019) and ambidextrous attitudes (Yu et al., 2018) as antecedents of individual ambidextrous behavior. These distinctions are important, and scholars should clearly identify and define these terms related to orientation, attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes to recognize the antecedents and consequences of ambidexterity at the individual level, to discern what we know and do not yet know about individual ambidexterity, to advance knowledge. In this regard, it could be also useful to analyze the relationships between these more specific concepts jointly, that is, the influence of ambidextrous orientation on ambidextrous behavior, and the effect of ambidextrous behavior on individual ambidextrous performance. Third, new concepts related to individual ambidexterity have been identified in our systematic review. Kapoutsis et al. (2019) introduce the concept of “influence tactic ambidexterity” at the manager level to denote the frequent use of both hard (maintaining efficiency and control through tactics such as exhibit higher task performance) and soft influence tactics (e.g., motivation, engagement, risk-taking, and trust). Kassotaki et al. (2019) introduce the term “ambidexterity penetration” that refers to the enactment of ambidexterity across multiple organizational levels, distinguishing among horizontal, vertical, and organizational penetration. Ajayi et al. (2017) propose two dimensions of employee ambidexterity: “employee passive ambidexterity,” that is the propensity of employees to exploit existing opportunities and explore new opportunities simply by following organizational procedures, and “employee active ambidexterity” that is the employees’ tendency to seek novel means to engage in exploitation and exploration activities outside organizational rules and procedures. As illustrated, there is not a clear dominant concept of individual ambidexterity. All this diversity of terms around the concept of individual ambidexterity raises the issue whether they actually provide value and increase knowledge about the microfoundations of ambidexterity or whether they are leading to a diffuse and dispersed field of study without solid foundations. One way to solve this issue in future research might be addressing more theoretical studies and conceptual developments to clarify terms, and to achieve a solid definition to be able to consolidate knowledge. We recognize that there is a great diversity of individuals and jobs in which individual ambidexterity can be applied. Therefore, different tensions or conflicting demands can be analyzed. However, researchers should be accurate in defining the concepts, and coherent with measures in empirical studies, as we will explain below. Issue 3: specific individuals and characteristics of ambidextrous individuals Individual ambidexterity has been examined for different types of individuals. Both managers and employees have been studied. With regard to managers, some papers analyze top or senior managers (Li et al., 2015; Tushman et al., 2011), and other papers focus on middle managers (e.g., Bonesso et al., 2014; Burgess et al., 2015; Keller & Weibler, 2015; Taylor & Helfat, 2009). Regarding other workers, different types of employees have also been analyzed, for example, knowledge workers (Lee & Lee, 2016), university researchers (Y. C. Chang et al., 2016), surgeons (Schultz et al., 2013), medical staff (Salas Vallina et al., 2019), nurses (Yu et al., 2018), salespeople (Agnihotri et al., 2017; Van der Borgh et al., 2017), frontline employees (Faia & Vieira, 2017; Gabler et al., 2017; Patterson et al., 2014), or legal service consultants (Luu et al., 2018), among others. Specific characteristics and skills of individuals to be ambidextrous have been examined. For example, Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004) identified four ambidextrous behaviors: ambidextrous individuals take the initiative and are alert to opportunities beyond the confines of their own jobs; they are cooperative and seek out opportunities to combine their efforts with others; they are brokers, always looking to build internal linkages; and they are multitaskers who are comfortable wearing more than one hat. These behaviors were also identified in the study by Fiset and Dostaler (2017). Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009, 2010) pointed out that ambidextrous individuals are individuals with passion and discipline. Mom et al. (2009) proposed three related characteristics of ambidextrous managers: ambidextrous managers host contradictions, they are multitasker, and they both refine and renew their knowledge, skills, and expertise to deal with explorative and exploitative tasks. Probst et al. (2011) emphasize that becoming an ambidextrous organization is first and foremost a leadership challenge, and business leaders need to balance current and new activities, combining short-term and long-term thinking, and craft emotionally engaging visions while staying focused on execution. In the specific area of supply chain, Souza-Luz and Gavronski (2020) found that the characteristics of an ambidextrous supply chain manager are a holistic yet focused approach, prior experience in multiple functional areas, technical knowledge, network connectivity, openness for sharing ideas with other managers, empathy skills and entrepreneurial capabilities. From a theoretical point of view, Bledow et al. (2009) proposed that ambidextrous leaders are characterized by cognitive as well as behavioral complexity and are able to dynamically adapt their tactics (such as being directive or providing autonomy) to contextual demands. These studies provide an inventory of different skills an individual would need to be ambidextrous. However, several questions arise at this point: are these characteristics present in every ambidextrous employee or manager? Are all of these characteristics equally relevant to become ambidextrous? Or are some of them more relevant than others? In this regard, Rapp et al. (2017) point out that Pertusa-Ortega et al. 361 there is an assumption of homogeneity in research in this topic, where all ambidextrous individuals are assumed to have the same abilities to manage the dual requirements, but this is unlikely. To solve these questions, more research is needed in different specific work contexts, organizational levels (top manager, middle manager, line manager, employees, etc.), industries, and so on, to gain clarity about specific characteristics for each type of individual. Issue 4: how to reconcile conflicting demands? Different approaches Research about organizational ambidexterity has identified three different approaches to reconcile the conflicting activities of exploration and exploitation: sequential, structural, and contextual (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). Sequential ambidexterity refers to a temporal cycle through periods of exploration and periods of exploitation. The structural approach proposes that is possible to pursue exploration and exploitation activities simultaneously, but in separated spaces, for example in separate or differentiated organizational units (Jansen et al., 2009). Contextual ambidexterity refers to the possibility of pursuing the two activities simultaneously and internally (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). The analysis of the microfoundations of ambidexterity is mainly included in the contextual approach, as this perspective is focused on the contextual factors that can help individuals to be ambidextrous, dividing their time between the two contradictory demands (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). However, is it possible to transfer the other two approaches to the study of ambidexterity at the individual level? Could we refer to sequential and structural individual ambidexterity? Which one can be more beneficial for a company? In this regard, Bledow et al. (2009) highlight that exploration and exploitation activities can be structurally separated to different subsystems or temporally separated within the same subsystem. They note that the structural approach may make sense at the team level, but not at the individual level. For instance, in a team responsible for the development of a new product, some members may concentrate on the exploration of radically new ideas, whereas others focus on the exploitation of useful ideas. Likewise, the same activities can be performed by an individual alone switching back and forth between engaging in exploration and exploitation activities, what refers to the individual sequential approach. Nevertheless, they do not examine empirically these two options. Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009, 2010) consider that there also exist two ways to achieve ambidexterity at the individual level: the sequential approach (employees which explore and exploit at different times in their work) and the structural approach (some workers focus more on exploitation and others on exploration). In the latter case, we would be referring to ambidextrous teams but not to ambidextrous individuals, as noted by Bledow et al. (2009). In the case studies examined by Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009, 2010), they found the two approaches, but they do not compare their effects. In our review, we have identified only one study that compares the two approaches to analyze which one could be more effective. Caniëls and Veld (2019) compare empirically the individual structural approach (individuals specialized in one of the two activities, exploration or exploitation) with the sequential approach (individuals that develop both exploration and exploitation activities during the last year). They find that when employees specialize in doing exploitative or explorative activities, innovative work behavior is higher than when employees undertake both explorative and exploitative activities in equal amounts. Therefore, this issue should be addressed by researchers in future studies, comparing the effects of the structural approach (ambidexterity at the team level) and the sequential approach of individual ambidexterity. Focusing our attention only at individual ambidexterity, two different research streams arise from our literature review about how an individual can develop two contradictory activities: one more general, which includes most studies, and another more specific which includes mainly studies from frontline employees. The general research stream defends that the development of two contradictory activities simultaneously by the same individual seems impossible. This point of view is in line with the neuroscientific research on individual exploration and exploitation by Laureiro-Martínez et al. (2015), who provide evidence that exploration and exploitation involve different modes of human attention and cannot be pursued simultaneously, rather, exploration and exploitation tasks have to be conducted consecutively. Keller and Weibler (2015) also argue against a simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation at the individual level as individuals are forced to divide their time between both competing patterns. Adler et al. (1999) could be also framed within this individual sequential approach, because they point out that “work can be organized so that people switch sequentially between the two types of tasks rather than attempting to do them both simultaneously. Switching allows greater focus and reduces the risk of confusion” (p. 46). In our review, there are studies that clearly focus on this sequential, temporal or cyclical approach of individual ambidexterity (e.g., Bidmon & Boe-Lillegraven, 2019; Greco et al., 2019; Lam et al., 2019; Schnellbächer et al., 2019), although most studies just name the contextual approach to justify the analysis of antecedents that help create the organizational context which facilitates that individuals can easily develop and integrate exploration and exploitation activities during a period of time. 362 Business Research Quarterly 24(4) However, which period of time should we take into account to consider that an individual is ambidextrous? Most empirical papers measure individual exploration and exploitation activities carried out during the last year, following Mom et al. (2007, 2009), but others consider the last month (Affum-Osei et al., 2020), weekly and daily activities (Rosing & Zacher, 2017), or specific units of action (Bidmon & Boe-Lillegraven, 2019; Volery et al., 2015). Then, how frequently should an individual switch between exploration and exploitation activities to consider him or her ambidextrous? Greco et al. (2019) answer this question from a theoretical point of view. They propose as a general rule of thumb that cycling between exploration and exploitation mindsets becomes counterproductive at the point that switching costs and mixing costs from rapid cycling outweigh the performance benefits of doing so. Whether this occurs over a span of minutes, hours, days, or longer will depend on a host of worker and work characteristics, along with the nature of the task. (p. 190) Therefore, future studies should try to measure these costs of individual switching between activities along with its performance benefits, to find out the optimal frequency in different specific context on work, individuals, industries, and so on. A second research stream that has arisen in our literature review defends that, in some industries, activities and jobs, it is possible for individuals to simultaneously develop exploration and exploitation activities, at the same time. Even more, this ambidextrous capability of employees is becoming more valuable. For instance, “in the services field, firms look for employees who have the dual capacity of exploiting existing competencies in service encounter and exploring new sales opportunities” at the same time (Faia & Vieira, 2017, p. 448). Employees dealing directly with customers (e.g., salespersons, frontline service employees) are under increased pressure to simultaneously engage in cross-/up-selling opportunities and fulfill service requests (K. Sok et al., 2016, p. 144). In these cases, there exists the possibility of trying to achieve both purposes simultaneously while attending the customer. During the few minutes a frontline employee is attending to a customer, the worker must be capable of thinking and acting ambidextrously to help the customer in what he or she is requesting and at the same time trying to surpass his or her needs and expectations by offering him or her new products or services. In our literature review, we have found examples at the bank industry (Faia & Vieira, 2017) or consulting firms (Luu et al., 2018). Other sectors in which meetings between employees and customers may require ambidextrous abilities by workers are, for example, the hotel industry and other tourism firms. However, no study has been published about individual ambidexterity in this sector. Issue 5: antecedents and contingent effects in individual ambidexterity research Some quantitative studies analyze antecedents of individual ambidexterity, which can be grouped at different levels: organization, group, or individual. In this regard, there are individual characteristics that may enhance employee’s ambidexterity, such as intrinsic motivation (Kao & Chen, 2016; Mom et al., 2019); cognitive, information, and social individual capabilities (Lee & Lee, 2016); self-efficacy (Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016; Mom et al., 2019; Patterson et al., 2014); attitudes and orientation of individuals (Lam et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2018) handling work stress and trust building for social support (Zhang et al., 2019); or psychological empowerment (Garcia et al., 2019). In the case of managers, the individual characteristics that can favor their ambidexterity are, for example, their decision-making authority, cross-functional interfaces and connectedness to other organization members (Mom et al., 2009), individual risk propensity (Li et al., 2015), or their tenure in the organization (Mom et al., 2015), although functional tenure of managers limits their ambidextrous behavior. Regarding organizational antecedents that might favor individual ambidexterity, we can highlight flexible and organic organizational structures (Ajayi et al., 2017; Y. C. Chang et al., 2016), clan culture (Ajayi et al., 2017), an organizational culture that promotes empowerment (Caniëls et al., 2017), or high-involvement human resource systems (Prieto-Pastor & Martin-Perez, 2015). At the team or unit level, different leadership styles have a positive influence on employee’ ambidexterity, such as paradoxical leadership (that combines strong managerial support with high performance expectations) (Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016), inspirational leadership (Salas Vallina et al., 2019), or ambidextrous leadership (that combines opening and closing behaviors of leaders) (Alghamdi, 2018; Busola Oluwafemi et al., 2019; Luu et al., 2018; Zacher et al., 2016). Some of these relationships between individual ambidexterity and its antecedents are moderated by other variables related to individual and organizational characteristics. For instance, some individual characteristics that may play a moderating role are age (Van der Borgh & Schepers, 2014), job experience (Patterson et al., 2014), proactive personality and emotional intelligence (Kao & Chen, 2016), or motivation (K. Sok et al., 2016). Organizational moderators that have been studied in the antecedents’ relationships are related to leadership styles (Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016; Yu et al., 2018), management support (Prieto-Pastor & Martin-Perez, 2015) or cross-functional coordination (Tempelaar & Rosenkranz, 2019). Pertusa-Ortega et al. 369 on incremental and radical innovation performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 359–372. Dolz, C., Iborra, M., & Safón, V. (2019). Improving the likelihood of SME survival during financial and economic crises: The importance of TMTs and family ownership for ambidexterity. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 22, 119–136. *Eisenhardt, K., Furr, N., & Bingham, C. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21, 1263– 1273. *Faia, V. D., & Vieira, V. A. (2017). Generating sales while providing service. The moderating effect of the control system on ambidextrous behaviour. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35, 447–471. *Fiset, J., & Dostaler, I. (2017). Opening the black box of ambidexterity: Three product development stories. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7, 4–11. *Gabler, C. B., Ogilvie, J. L., Rapp, A., & Bachrach, D. G. (2017). Is there a dark side of ambidexterity? Implications of duelling sales and service orientations. Journal of Service Research, 20, 379–392. *Garcia, F., Guidice, R. M., & Mero, N. P. (2019). The interactive effect of person and situation on explorative and exploitative behavior. Journal of Management & Organization. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/ jmo.2019.50 Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226. *Good, D., & Michel, E. J. (2013). Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. Journal of Psychology, 147, 435–453. *Greco, L. M., Charlier, S. D., & Brown, K. G. (2019). Trading off learning and performance: Exploration and exploitation at work. Human Resource Management Review, 29, 179–195. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706. Hofmann, D. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723–744. *Hughes, D. E., & Ogilvie, J. L. (2020). When sales becomes service: The evolution of the professional selling role and an organic model of frontline ambidexterity. Journal of Service Research, 23, 22–32. https://doi. org/10.1177/1094670519878882 *Jackson, N. C., Lescent-Giles, I., & Dunn-Jensen, L. M. (2017). Managing careers for ambidexterity and organizational alignment: Why it matters today to HR practice. Organization Management Journal, 14, 147–159. Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 797–811. *Jasmand, C., Blazevic, V., & De Ruyter, K. (2012). Generating sales while providing service: A study of customer service representatives’ ambidextrous behavior. Journal of Marketing, 76, 20–37. Jones, O., & Gatrell, C. (2014). Editorial: The future of writing and reviewing for IJMR. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 249–264. Junni, P., Sarala, R., Tarba, S., Liu, Y., & Cooper, C. (2015). Guest editors’ introduction: The role of human resources and organizational factors in ambidexterity. Human Resource Management, 54, S1–S28. *Kao, Y. L., & Chen, C. F. (2016). Antecedents, consequences and moderators of ambidextrous behaviours among frontline employees. Management Decision, 54, 1846–1860. *Kapoutsis, I., Papalexandris, A., & Thanos, I. C. (2019). Hard, soft or ambidextrous? Which influence style promotes managers’ task performance and the role of political skill. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30, 618–647. *Kassotaki, O., Paroutis, S., & Morrell, K. (2019). Ambidexterity penetration across multiple organizational levels in an aerospace and defense organization. Long Range Planning, 52, 366–385. *Kauppila, O. P., & Tempelaar, M. P. (2016). The social-cognitive underpinnings of employees’ ambidextrous behaviour and the supportive role of group managers’ leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 1019–1044. *Keller, T., & Weibler, J. (2015). What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager: Linking leadership and cognitive strain to balancing exploration and exploitation. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 22, 54–71. *Kobarg, S., Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. (2017). Individual ambidexterity and performance in the public sector: A multilevel analysis. International Public Management Journal, 20, 226–260. *Lam, S. K., DeCarlo, T. E., & Sharma, A. (2019). Salesperson ambidexterity in customer engagement: Do customer base characteristics matter? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 659–680. *Laureiro-Martínez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N., & Zollo, M. (2015). Understanding the exploration-exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decisionmaking performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 319–338. *Lee, Y. J., & Lee, J. H. (2016). Knowledge workers’ ambidexterity: Conceptual separation of competences and behavioural dispositions. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 24, 22–40. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112. *Li, C. R., Lin, C. J., & Tien, Y. H. (2015). CEO transformations leadership and top manager ambidexterity. An empirical study in Taiwan SMEs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36, 927–954. *Luu, T. T., Rowley, C., & Dinh, K. C. (2018). Enhancing the effect of frontline public employees’ individual ambidexterity on customer value co-creation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33, 506–522. Mathieu, J., & Chen, G. (2011). The etiology of the multilevel paradigm in management research. Journal of Management, 37, 610–641. Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2014). Microfoundations of strategic management: Toward micro-macro research in the resourcebased theory. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 17, 102–114. Molina-Azorín, J. F., Pereira-Moliner, J., López-Gamero, M. D., Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., & Tarí, J. J. (2019). Multilevel research: Foundations and opportunities in management. 370 Business Research Quarterly 24(4) BRQ Business Research Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2019.03.004 *Mom, T. J. M., Chang, Y. Y., Cholakova, M., & Jansen, J. J. P. (2019). A multilevel integrated framework of firm HR practices, individual ambidexterity, and organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management, 45, 3009–3034. *Mom, T. J. M., Fourné, S. P. L., & Jansen, J. J. P. (2015). Managers’ work experience, ambidexterity, and performance: The contingency role of the work context. Human Resource Management, 54, s133–s153. *Mom, T. J. M., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 910–931. *Mom, T. J. M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 812–828. O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 324–338. *Patterson, P., Yu, T., & Kimpakorn, N. (2014). Killing two birds with one stone: Cross-selling during service delivery. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1944–1953. *Prieto-Pastor, I., & Martin-Perez, V. (2015). Does HRM generate ambidextrous employees for ambidextrous learning? The moderating role of management support. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 589–615. *Probst, G., Raisch, S., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Ambidextrous leadership: Emerging challenges for business and HR leaders. Organizational Dynamics, 40, 326–334. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409. Raisch, S., Birskinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695. *Rapp, A. A., Bachrach, D. G., Flaherty, K. E., Hughes, D. E., Sharma, A., & Voorhees, C. M. (2017). The role of the sales-service interface and ambidexterity in the evolving organization: A multilevel research agenda. Journal of Service Research, 20, 59–75. *Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. (2014). A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization Science, 25, 1860–1877. *Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: The duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 694–709. *Salas Vallina, A., Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Ferrer-Franco, A. (2019). The individual side of ambidexterity. Do inspirational leaders and organizational learning resolve the exploitation-exploration dilemma? Employee Relations: The International Journal, 41, 592–613. *Schnellbächer, B., Heidenreich, S., & Wald, A. (2019). Antecedents and effects of individual ambidexterity: A cross-level investigation of exploration and exploitation activities at the employee level. European Management Journal, 37, 442–454. *Schultz, C., Schreyoegg, J., & von Reitzenstein, C. (2013). The moderating role of internal and external resources on the performance effect of multitasking: Evidence from the R&D performance of surgeons. Research Policy, 42, 1356–1365. *Shamim, S., Zeng, J., Choksy, U. S., & Shariq, S. M. (2019). Connecting big data management capabilities with employee ambidexterity in Chinese multinational enterprises through the mediation of big data value creation at the employee level. International Business Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101604 Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. *Sok, K., Sok, P., & De Luca, L. (2016). The effect of “can do” and “reason to do” motivations on service-sales ambidexterity. Industrial Marketing Management, 55, 144–155. *Sok, P., & O’Cass, A. (2015). Examining the new product innovation—performance relationship: Optimizing the role of individual-level creativity and attention-to-detail. Industrial Marketing Management, 47, 156–165. *Souza-Luz, A. R., & Gavronski, I. (2020). Ambidextrous supply chain managers in a slow clockspeed industry: Evidence from a Brazilian adhesive manufacturer. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 25(1), pp. 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2018-0318 *Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20, 718–739. *Tempelaar, M. P., & Rosenkranz, N. A. (2019). Switching hats: The effect of role transition on individual ambidexterity. Journal of Management, 45, 1517–1539. Thunnissen, M., & Gallardo-Gallardo, E. (2019). Rigor and relevance in empirical TM research: Key issues and challenges. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 22, 171–180. *Torres, J. P., Drago, C., & Aqueveque, C. (2015). Knowledge inflows effects on middle managers’ ambidexterity and performance. Management Decision, 53, 2303–2320. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222. *Tuncdogan, A., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2015). Regulatory focus as a psychological micro-foundation of leaders’ exploration and exploitation activities. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 838–850. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8–30. *Tushman, M. L., Smith, W., & Binns, A. (2011). The ambidextrous CEO. Harvard Business Review, 89, 74–80. *Van der Borgh, M., de Jong, A., & Nijssen, E. J. (2017). Alternative mechanisms guiding salespersons’ ambidextrous product selling. British Journal of Management, 28, 331–353. Pertusa-Ortega et al. 371 *Van der Borgh, M., & Schepers, J. J. L. (2014). Do retailers really profit from ambidextrous managers? The impact of frontline mechanisms on new and existing product selling performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 710–727. Vicentini, F., Peruffo, E., Meissner, D., & Mueller, J. (2019). Unpacking entrepreneurial intensity and individual ambidexterity in small project-based enterprises: A new perspective for the TV drama industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2914662 *Volery, T., Mueller, S., & Von Siemens, B. (2015). Entrepreneur ambidexterity: A study of entrepreneur behaviours and competencies in growth-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises. International Small Business Journal, 33, 109–129. *Xiang, S., Chen, G., Liu, W., Zhou, Q., & Xing, S. (2019). An empirical study of the impact of goal orientation on individual ambidexterity: Moderating roles of goal interdependence and constructive controversy. Nankai Business Review International, 10, 465–484. *Yeganegi, S., Laplume, A. O., Dass, P., & Greidanus, N. S. (2019). Individual-Level Ambidexterity and Entrepreneurial Entry. Journal of Small Business Management, 57, 1444– 1463. *Yu, T., Gudergan, S., & Chen, C. F. (2018). Achieving employee efficiency–flexibility ambidexterity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1449762 *Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50, 24–46. *Zhang, Y., Wei, F., & Van Horne, C. (2019). Individual ambidexterity and antecedents in a changing context. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3), Article 1950021.