Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T18:01:42.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The interactive effect of person and situation on explorative and exploitative behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2019

Fernando Garcia Open the ORCID record for Fernando Garcia [Opens in a new window] ,
Rebecca M. Guidice  and
Neal P. Mero
Fernando Garcia*
Affiliation:
Dalton State College, 650 College Dr., Dalton, GA 30720, USA
Rebecca M. Guidice
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 South College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403, USA
Neal P. Mero
Affiliation:
School of Business Administration, Stetson University, DeLand, FL, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: fgarcia@daltonstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine contextual factors (empowerment, ownership, and accountability) that facilitate and promote exploration and exploitation behavior. Data were obtained from an American manufacturing company using employee and supervisor surveys (n = 297). Findings indicate that empowerment improved exploitation and that when employees perceived they would have to be accountable for their actions, employees who felt empowered showed lower gains in exploration behaviors compared with those who felt less empowered; in contrast, those having feelings of ownership exhibited higher gains in exploration behavior than those who scored low in ownership. Although ownership was theorized to have a positive effect on exploitative behavior, we found evidence for its negative effects instead. We contribute to the limited individual-level ambidexterity literature by providing empirical evidence on the effects of contextual factors on ambidextrous behavior. This knowledge could help firms better manage employee behavior and implement effective supervisory oversight.

Keywords

explorationexploitationempowermentownershipambidexterity
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 28 , Issue 6 , November 2022 , pp. 1235 - 1255
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. (2005). An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28, 403–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement, and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1999). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, D. E., & Lawler III, E. E. (1995). Empowering service employees. Sloan Management Review, 36(4), 73–85.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Pierce, J. L., & Crossley, C. (2014). Toward an understanding of the development of ownership feelings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 318–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York, New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Christopher, A. N., & Schlenker, B. R. (2005). The protestant work ethic and attributions of responsibility: Applications of the triangle model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(7), 1502–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization, 1, 167–188.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernhaber, S. A., & Patel, P. C. (2012). How do young firms manage product portfolio complexity? The role of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 33(13), 1516–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filippini, R., Güttel, W. H., & Nosella, A. (2012). Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge management initiatives. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagne, M., Senecal, C. B., & Koestner, R. (1997). Proximal job characteristics, feelings of empowerment, and intrinsic motivation: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(14), 1222–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, D., & Michel, E. (2013). Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 147(5), 435–453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, A., & Berry, J. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
Hill, S. A., & Birkinshaw, J. (2014). Ambidexterity and survival in corporate venture units. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1899–1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Im, G., & Rai, A. (2008). Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Science, 54(7), 1281–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57(4), 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasmand, C., Blazevic, V., & Ruyter, K. D. (2012). Generating sales while providing service: A study of customer service representative's ambidextrous behavior. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8, 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klimoski, R., & Inks, L. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied linear regression models (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Google Scholar
Laureiro-Martinez, D., Brusoni, S., & Zollo, M. (2010). The neuroscientific foundations of the exploration-exploitation dilemma. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 3(2), 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawler III, E. E. (1986). High-involvement management. Participative strategies for improving organizational performance. , San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.Google Scholar
Lee, J. Y., Park, S., & Baker, R. (2018). The moderating role of top management support on employees’ attitudes in response to human resource development efforts. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(3), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, M. T., Luciano, M. M., D'Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Dean, M. D. (2014). Modeling time-lagged reciprocal psychological empowerment–performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1244–1253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mero, N. P., Guidice, R. M., & Brownlee, A. (2007). Accountability in a performance appraisal context: The effect of audience and form of accountability on rater response and behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 223–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mero, N. P., Guidice, R. M., & Werner, S. (2014). A field study of the antecedents and performance consequences of perceived accountability. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1627–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 517–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mom, T. J., van den Bosh, 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(4), 812–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., & Filippini, R. (2012). The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization, 10(4), 450–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, S., Glaister, K. W., & Marginson, D. (2006). Empowerment and accountability: Evidence from the UK privatized water industry. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 521–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–83.Google ScholarPubMed
O'Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J. L., Iiro, J., & Cummings, A. (2009). Psychological ownership within the job design context: Revision of the job characteristics model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 298–310.Google Scholar
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, M., Haanæs, K., Hollingsworth, J., & Pasini, F. L. (2013). Ambidexterity: The art of thriving in complex environments. Retrieved June 5, 2017, from BCG Web site. Retrieved from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2013/strategy-growth-ambidexterity-art-thriving-complex-environments.aspx.Google Scholar
Roch, S. G., & McNall, L. A. (2007). An investigation of factors influencing accountability and performance ratings. The Journal of Psychology, 141(5), 499–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothaermel, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), 759–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., John, P., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101(4), 632–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Yates, J. F. (1996). Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieger, P., Zellweger, T., & Aquino, K. (2013). Turning agents into psychological principals: Aligning interests of non-owners through psychological ownership. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 361–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity's conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 864–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spreitzer, G. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. Handbook of Organizational Behavior, 1, 54–72.Google Scholar
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681.Google Scholar
Tushman, M., Smith, W., & Binns, A. (2011). The ambidextrous CEO. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 74–80.Google ScholarPubMed
Tushman, M. L., Anderson, P. C., & O'Reilly, C. (1997). Technology cycles, innovation streams, and ambidextrous organizations: Organization renewal through innovation streams and strategic change. In. Tushman, M. L. & Anderson, P. C. (Eds.), Managing strategic innovation and change (pp. 3–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Léonard, M., … Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions de l’âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 756–767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunsch, G., Russo, F., & Mouchart, M. 2010. Do we necessarily need longitudinal data to infer causal relations? Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 106, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar