Introduction

The current dynamic business world is characterised by technological advancements and tough competition. During this changing era, firms must constantly develop their existing skills in a world of intense competition while simultaneously developing new skills by discovering new methods to be more competitive than their rivals. Considering these requirements, ambidexterity is also of high importance in business management. Ambidexterity is described as the ability to pursue exploitative activities that emphasise the exploitation of present resources and their improvement, efficiency and execution while engaging in explorative activities that emphasise discoveries, versatility and invention. Researchers and professionals from various disciplines are fascinated by ambidexterity due to the increasing popularity of this concept in the existing literature (Günsel et al., 2018).

Much research has been conducted on the antecedents of ambidexterity (Günsel et al., 2018; Koryak et al., 2018; Salas-Vallina et al., 2021) and the impact of ambidexterity on business, firm and individual performance (Günsel et al., 2018; Katou et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2019). Even with all these studies, researchers are still trying to figure out what causes ambidexterity and what effects it has. In particular, it is still unclear to what extent HR and organisational factors contribute to ambidexterity (Junni et al., 2015), and the consequences of ambidexterity are poorly understood. Therefore, the integrated framework lacks the antecedents and outcomes of ambidexterity. A systematic management of ambidexterity is impossible without understanding these antecedents and outcomes. For developing a structured approach to ambidexterity, prior knowledge of antecedents and outcomes is especially valuable because it can support managers in identifying the most suitable antecedents and determining the best combination of antecedents based on the needs of the organisation. As a result, an integrated framework represents a system for managing ambidexterity.

After looking at the research on ambidexterity, the article suggests an integrated conceptual framework that includes its causes and effects. This systematic review is an in-depth look at the topic. It looks at the causes and effects of ambidexterity, including how they affect these factors and what effects they might have. This article gives managers a full picture of ambidexterity, helps them understand what factors affect it, and helps them think about what could happen. Furthermore, the study suggests potential future research opportunities for researchers and practitioners.

Other literature reviews have also been found in the literature, but they either aren’t current or only indirectly relate to ambidexterity, so that’s why our current study focuses on the literature regarding organisational ambidexterity antecedents and outcomes. A study by Junni et al. (2015) that analyses the literature from 2005 to 2014 and analyses 41 empirical papers, taking forward the research of Junni et al. (2015) and adding some new perspectives and points for further investigation into this area, will be the objective of this article.

Our next section describes the methodology, followed by a detailed review of the antecedents and the outcome of organisational ambidexterity. Further, using the research review, the study constructed a key findings table, a methodological analysis and an integrated framework of the role of factors in organisational ambidexterity and its leading outcomes. The authors summarise the key findings, identify key gaps in research and suggest future research directions.

Review Methodology

According to Webster and Watson (2002),

review of prior, relevant literature is an essential feature of any academic project. An effective review creates a firm foundation for advancing knowledge. It facilitates theory development, closes areas where a plethora of research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed.

The systematic review process was used to reach the article’s goal. The study started by examining the literature on the concept of ambidexterity. High-quality journals and databases like Emerald, Springer, John Wiley & Sons, Sage, Taylor & Francis and Google Scholar were used to compile the research for this article. A set of selection criteria was used to select similar articles. First, the keywords ‘ambidexterity’ or ‘organisational ambidexterity’ and ‘antecedents of ambidexterity or organisational ambidexterity’ or ‘outcome of ambidexterity or organisational ambidexterity’ or ‘exploration and exploitation’ are used to locate relevant articles. The year of publication was used as a second inclusion and exclusion criterion. The current study looked at papers published between 2015 and 2021. Using the above-mentioned filters, the researcher first found 442 papers in the databases. The titles of these articles were studied, and 180 papers were deemed appropriate based on their titles. The abstracts of these papers were then reviewed, and 47 empirical papers were found to be directly linked to this study. Among the 47 empirical studies, 5 were qualitative (interviews and case studies) and 42 were quantitative (data collection and statistical analysis). These studies were mapped to observe the general research trend in this area. In Figure 1, the study presents the number of publications reviewed between 2015 and 2021. Furthermore, Figure 1 also presents the distribution of research by type of analysis (quantitative or qualitative). An increasing trend shows that the topic is still of interest. Each study featured a considerable quantity of data, so the researcher constructed a table to compare these studies. The major components of these studies were divided into the following sections:

• Paper details (author and year of publication)

• Methodology and sample information

• Antecedents of organisational ambidexterity

• Outcome of organisational ambidexterity

• Key findings

 

Figure 1. Number of Research in the Sample per Year and Research Method.

 

Literature Review

Organisational Ambidexterity’s Antecedents

Many studies have examined the antecedents and factors leading to organisational ambidexterity. We also examined many other variables to uncover the antecedents. This study classified the antecedents of organisational ambidexterity in the prior studies from 2015 to 2021 using Junni et al.’s (2015) framework of human resources (HR) and organisational antecedents of ambidexterity. Junni et al. (2015) conducted a review that provides a comprehensive model of surveys that examined the HR and organisational antecedents of ambidexterity up to 2014.

Because there have been a significant number of studies since then, we extended this approach by analysing the studies from 2015 to 2021. Table 1 contains a list of 47 studies.

Many researchers suggest that to effectively develop ambidexterity in organisations, managers need human resource management (HRM) practises and systems. For example, Salas-Vallina et al. found that to effectively develop ambidexterity in organisations, managers need human resource management practises and systems. For example, Salas-Vallina et al. (2021) propose that work units are better able to undertake simultaneous exploration and exploitation activities when HR practises are geared towards employees’ well-being and a unit-level capacity for organisational learning exists. Additionally, Úbeda-García et al. (2016) suggest that when developing an HRM system, managers must consider policies such as comprehensive employee recruitment, training and performance appraisals, as well as equitable compensation arrangements, to promote organisational ambidexterity.

Further, they have found that high-performance work system (HPWS) adoption creates an environment that can facilitate ambidexterity, both direct and indirect, through HR flexibility (Úbeda-García et al., 2018b). Seminal contributions have been made by several researchers, for instance, Fu et al. (2015), Chang (Chang, 2016), Úbeda-García et al. (2018a) and Gürlek (2020).

Additionally, previous studies have emphasised that the high-involvement work system (HIWS) enhances ambidexterity. For example, according to Malik et al.’s (2019) data, Semicon employed both efficiency-oriented and empowerment-oriented HRM practises to establish an ambidextrous environment for its employees. The authors discovered that high-involvement HRM practises were used for exploring new ideas, along with efficiency-driven HRM practises, to create contextual ambidexterity (Malik et al., 2017). Additionally, Garaus et al. (2016) defined ‘an ambidextrous HRM system as a particular type of HPWS that facilitates the continuous integration of exploration and exploitation in the pursuit of increased flexibility and efficiency’. Further, they said that HRM systems with ambidextrous capabilities permit a firm to handle the opposing tasks of exploration and exploitation within the context of a ‘common frame of reference’ and the capability to coordinate knowledge. Furthermore, numerous studies have investigated whether organisational discipline, support, trust and context facilitate ambidexterity in organisations (Chams-Anturi et al., 2019; Günsel et al., 2018). Ajayi et al. (2017) indicate that the ‘organisational context elements (knowledge sharing, adhocracy, clan culture and organic structure)’ will reinforce employees’ capability to simultaneously add to their organisations’ competitive advantage in the present and future. Schnellbächer et al.’s 2019 findings indicate that organisational architecture and organisational context promote ambidexterity in individuals.

As a result, Indian small and medium enterprises (SMEs) follow strategic orientations to strengthen operational ambidexterity (Sahi et al., 2020). Furthermore, Dezi et al. (2019) and Soto-Acosta et al. (2018) consider knowledge management and the external embeddedness orientation of firms to be important contributors to ambidexterity, exploitative innovation and exploratory innovation. They also found that, when it comes to the environment, environmental dynamism and innovative ambidexterity are both good things. Recent studies have indicated that employee attitude and behaviour, manager leadership style and top management team (TMT) characteristics positively affect organisational ambidexterity. Zhang et al. (2019) have proved that handling work stress and building trust are two antecedents that influence the process and capabilities of individual ambidexterity.

Shahzadi and Khurram’s (2020) research shows that employees with high self-efficacy can balance conflicting tasks and healthcare workers’ attitudes and expectations of others. Yu et al.’s (2020) research also shows that self-efficacy is a major factor in determining efficiency-flexibility ambidexterity. Katou et al.’s (2020) research suggests that leaders who are socially aware and good at managing relationships can help with both exploitation and exploration. According to Mayanja et al.’s (2021) research, employees with high self-efficacy can balance conflicting tasks and healthcare workers’ attitudes and expectations of others. Yu et al.’s (2020) research also shows that self-efficacy is a major factor in determining efficiency-flexibility ambidexterity. Katou et al.’s (2020) research suggests that leaders who are socially aware and good at managing relationships can help with both exploitation and exploration. According to Mayanja et al. (2021), when SME owners and managers provide a degree of freedom for their employees to achieve desired goals, entrepreneurial ambidexterity is likely to flourish. According to Venugopal et al.’s (2020) results, ‘the meta-construct of TMT behavioural integration with the sub-processes of TMT cooperation, information sharing and collaborative decision-making’ increases the integrated and equalising aspects of ambidexterity.

Organisational Ambidexterity’s Outcomes

Many empirical studies have investigated organisational ambidexterity in several organisations across different countries. These studies demonstrate a favourable impact of organisational ambidexterity on organisational performance, individual performance, product innovation and innovative work behaviour. As an organisation becomes more ambidextrous, it will achieve better results, so ambidexterity is a crucial characteristic of organisations that attain high performance (Chams-Anturi et al., 2019; Fu et al., 2015). Additionally, an organisation’s ambidexterity can mediate the connection between organisational trust and organisational performance and help reduce organisational tension (Peng & Lin, 2021). Furthermore, Katou et al.’s (2020) study defined performance as a synthesis of the following two distinct constructs: productivity and creativity. According to research, exploration tasks are independently linked to creativity, whereas exploitation tasks appear to be more closely related to productivity. Based on the findings of Sahi et al. (2020), Indian SME enterprises are engaging in both exploratory and exploitatory activities, which, in turn, result in better business performance. Additionally, individual ambidexterity improves performance at different levels within an organisation, namely at the levels of the team and department (Schnellbächer et al., 2019). In Zhang et al.’s (2020) research, employees’ exploitation and exploration both contribute to their task performance. Furthermore, using HPWS is appropriate for developing ambidextrous learning abilities, which results in improved organisational performance (Úbeda-García et al., 2016, 2018). Additionally, exploitation and exploration activities can be developed and lead to ambidexterity, and then hotel performance can be improved (Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2021).

 

Table 1. Antecedents and Outcomes of Organisational Ambidexterity.

Source: Literature review from 2015 to 2021.

Note: * Denotes qualitative studies.

Abbreviations: high-involvement HR systems (HIHRs), high-performance work systems (HPWSs), organisational ambidexterity (OA), top management team (TMT), integrative HR practices (IHRP), high-involvement HRM practices (HIHRMP), ambidextrous organisational culture (AOC),

high-commitment HRM system (HCHRM system), quality management practices (QMPs), well-being-oriented management (WOM), role breadth

self-efficacy (RBSE), intrinsic motivational orientation (IMO).

 

Furthermore, the results indicate that the efficiency-flexibility ambidexterity of employees improves their performance as well (Yu et al., 2020). Schnellbächer and Heidenreich (2020) discovered that participation in ambidextrous knowledge-seeking and providing enhance departmental success and knowledge accumulation. Prieto-Pastor and Martin-Perez (2015) found that High-involvement HR systems (HIHRssss) influenced the employees’ ambidextrous behaviour, which in turn facilitated and partly mediated ambidextrous learning. Affum-Osei et al. (2020), found that employees who sense more organisational assistance are more willing to engage in ambidextrous behaviour to provide excellent service. As a result, employees’ ambidextrous behaviours were positively related to their service performance. Similarly, Luu et al. (2018) discovered a favourable link existed between employees’ ambidexterity and customer value creation. Malik et al.’s 2019 study found that Semicon’s leaders are ambidextrous and that management practises lead to increased product innovation. Healthcare practitioners report that training is critical for diverse innovations and provides an ambidextrous environment for innovation (Malik et al., 2017). Shahzadi and Khurram (2020) found that innovative work behaviours are determined by self-efficacy, and the performance of innovation is higher when employees have high IT ambidexterity (Waheed et al., 2020). Furthermore, Caniëls and Velds (2019) response surface analysis indicates that specialising in one of two exploratory or exploitative actions is advantageous for innovative work behaviour when the imbalance between exploration and exploitation is examined.

Methodology Analysis

Researchers examined the papers used in this study and discovered some general methodological trends. The researcher found most studies (89%) collected data by survey method (questionnaire), as shown in Table 1. Only 11% of studies have used interviews (either semi-structured, structured, or in-depth interviews) to get information from the people they wanted to learn about. The author discovered that the interview method is used the most in case studies. Only two studies used the interview method, but these are not case studies (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2018; Swart et al., 2019). Furthermore, the research revealed 38 papers that collected data from single respondents. Of these 38 studies, 19 collected data from owners, top managers, HR managers and CEOs, and 19 collected data from employees. Only four studies collected data from multi-level respondents. Two of these studies collected data from managers and employees, one from managers and supervisors, and the other two from senior and operational managers. There are very few studies of multi-level respondents because there may be difficulties in data collection with multi-level respondents.

At the next level, the researcher notices that people are becoming more interested in the idea of organisational ambidexterity’s causes and effects. Figure 2 shows that the majority of these 22 research studies have been conducted in European nations. The other studies have been conducted in Asian (18), African (3), Australian (3) and American (1) countries. According to our review, only one study was conducted in American countries.

An Integrated Framework of Antecedents and Outcomes of Organisational Ambidexterity

The key variables examined in the literature as antecedents and outcomes of organisational ambidexterity are illustrated in Figure 3. General observations show employee characteristics, HR practises, HR systems, organisational culture, context and trust are the main factors that determine ambidexterity. The study suggests that employee characteristics (self-efficacy, individual action, handling work stress and employee engagement) help employees achieve their ambidexterity. The author further contends that leaders’ social intelligence and their ambidextrous leadership—transformational leadership styles that promote leaders’ competence and motivation to successfully handle the ambidexterity problem at various levels—improve ambidexterity.

 

Figure 2. Continental Distribution of Studies.

Also, the study showed that HRM practises and HRM systems have a big impact on how well employees and leaders are inspired to be ambidextrous and how well they help employees and leaders develop the skills they need to be ambidextrous. Furthermore, the study suggests that workers who believe in their organisations’ support and trust them work ambidextrously. Ambidextrous organisational culture plays a significant role in the formation of contexts that are suited for organisational ambidexterity. Furthermore, elements of the organisational context (sharing of information, adhocracy, clan culture and organic structure) can increase the capacity of employees to simultaneously contribute to the existing and potential competitive edge of their organisations. Furthermore, the study suggests that workers who believe in their organisations’ support and trust them work ambidextrously. Ambidextrous organisational culture plays a significant role in the formation of contexts that are suited for organisational ambidexterity. According to the study, organisational factors like organisational ambidextrous context, trust and an ambidextrous organisational culture all play an important role in enhancing ambidexterity.

Moreover, other elements that enhance ambidexterity, such as information technology capabilities, knowledge management capabilities and external embeddedness, serve as supporting variables for ambidexterity. Further, the study contends that individuals’ organisational learning and dynamic capabilities can build and maintain a balance between exploration and exploitation.

This study’s main point is that ambidexterity is attained when employee characteristics, leader behaviour and organisational elements work together to support it. Furthermore, the study revealed that organisational ambidexterity is a vital ability for organisations to attain better performance: the more ambidextrous an organisation, the better its degree of performance. Moreover, individual ambidexterity contributes to departmental performance, effectiveness, efficiency and team performance.

 

Figure 3. An Integrated Framework of Antecedents and Outcome of Organisational Ambidexterity.

An ambidextrous environment is also good for different kinds of innovations: innovative performance, innovative work behaviour and innovative product results. Furthermore, ambidextrous behaviour supports employees' efforts to aid in customer value co-creation. As a result, the author suggests that ambidexterity reduces organisational tensions and improves individual, employee and overall organisational performance.

Discussion, Conclusion and Future Research Direction

This study contributes in different ways. It first backs up the finding of Junni et al. (2015) that affecting factors of ambidexterity are still fragmented because of their use of multiple-level phenomena and different theoretical perspectives. Second, an analysis of the literature suggests that multiple constructs are used by researchers, such as employee ambidexterity, individual ambidexterity, contextual ambidexterity, entrepreneurial ambidexterity and organisational ambidexterity, that help practitioners understand the concept of ambidexterity. Third, we discovered that employee and manager characteristics, HR practises and systems, social relationships, organisational structure and the environment all influence organisational ambidexterity. Next, organisational ambidexterity leads to individual, team, departmental, firm and organisation-level outcomes. These findings have further implications for managers and theory, as well as opening up new research topics. This study assists managers in identifying the critical factors that promote ambidexterity at various levels. In addition, managers cultivate ambidextrous behaviour in their staff and improve their innovative behaviour and performance. Thus, the findings of this study led the researchers to conclude that organisational ambidexterity improves technological advancements and competitive advantages, which in turn improve individual, firm and organisation performance, thereby assisting organisations in innovative work behaviour and product and service innovations. Further, after researching a significant corpus of literature on the topic, the researcher revealed gaps in previous studies. Based on an analysis of the 47 studies listed above, most were done in European and Asian countries. This means that future studies should focus on Africa, Australia and the United States. Further, Indian studies in this domain are still in their nascent stages. In addition, to support these ideas, more empirical research should be done. While researching the literature, the author also discovered that there aren’t many multilevel and multi-nation studies. As a result, there’s a need to further investigate the phenomenon at various levels and outside of national borders in order to determine its significance in the global market. Examining how cultural and environmental factors affect the global market may be interesting. Furthermore, from a micro-foundational standpoint, globalisation offers an intriguing context in which different ambidexterity models in both developing and developed nations may be made conceivable.

The author found that few studies collect qualitative data from respondents. So, future studies may collect more qualitative information from employees and managers to understand the ambidexterity phenomenon and its importance in organisational performance. More case studies and other qualitative research are needed to gain a clear understanding of the phenomenon and determine its impact on firm and organisational performance. As a result, individual, organisational and societal significance, as well as academic and research implications, are predicted to emerge through relative exploration.

While assessing and drawing conclusions, the shortcomings of the research should be clearly stated. This study includes only empirical studies that were published from 2015 to 2021 and written in English. As a result, the abovementioned shortcomings should be addressed in future research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Suman  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3813-2637