Ambidextrous Organizational Culture, Contextual Ambidexterity and New Product Innovation: A Comparative Study of UK and Chinese High‐tech Firms
| Date | 01 January 2014 |
| Author | Catherine L. Wang,Mohammed Rafiq |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00832.x |
| Published date | 01 January 2014 |
Ambidextrous Organizational Culture,
Contextual Ambidexterity and New
Product Innovation: A Comparative Study
of UK and Chinese High-tech Firms
Catherine L. Wang and Mohammed Rafiq1
School of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey
TW20 0EX, UK, and 1School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK
Corresponding author email: Catherine.Wang@rhul.ac.uk
Contextual ambidexterity is of paramount importance for new product innovation and
organizational success, particularly in high-tech firms operating in a dynamic environ-
ment. Whilst it is recognized that contextual ambidexterity is grounded in organizational
culture, existing research has not crystallized what kind of organizational culture enables
contextual ambidexterity and consequently new product innovation. In this paper,
drawing on data from 150 UK and 242 Chinese high-tech firms, we conceptualize
ambidextrous organizational culture as a higher-order construct consisting of organiza-
tional diversity and shared vision, and examine its impacts on contextual ambidexterity
and consequently on new product innovation outcomes. Using structural equation mod-
elling, we find significant relationships between ambidextrous organizational culture,
contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation outcomes; contextual ambidex-
terity mediates the relationship between ambidextrous organizational culture and new
product innovation outcomes. Our findings also suggest that the above relationships are
robust in the UK–China comparative research context, and that contextual ambidexter-
ity and new product innovation outcomes are dependent on business unit level heteroge-
neity (i.e. ambidextrous organizational culture and research and development strength)
rather than industry or cross-cultural differences.
Introduction
Organizational ambidexterity as a metaphor refer-
ring to firms’ ability to both explore new compe-
tences and exploit existing competences has
attracted considerable interest (Gibson and Bir-
kinshaw, 2004; Raisch et al., 2009; Simsek et al.,
2009; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996, 1997),
especially in new product innovation research
(Atuahene-Gima, 2005; He and Wong, 2004).
Exploitation is recognized as conducive to incre-
mental innovation and short-term performance,
while exploration is required for radical innova-
tion and long-term success (Levinthal and March,
1993; March, 1991). Balancing exploration and
exploitation for the purposes of successful new
product innovation and long-term survival is
a critical and challenging task (March, 1991;
McGrath, 2001; McNamara and Baden-Fuller,
1999). Traditionally, exploration and exploitation
are considered as competing organizational activi-
ties (Duncan, 1976), and their balance is achieved
through structural or temporal separation (Gupta,
We acknowledge the research support of the Economic
and Social Research Council, UK (Award No. RES-061-
25-0023), and the research assistance of Dr Xiaoqing Li
and Dr Yu Zheng.
bs_bs_banner
British Journal of Management, Vol. 25, 58–76 (2014)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00832.x
© 2012 The Author(s)
British Journal of Management © 2012 British Academy of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
Smith and Shalley, 2006; Simsek et al., 2009).
However, recent research suggests that contextual
ambidexterity (i.e. simultaneous exploration and
exploitation within a business unit) is not only
possible but also a necessity to business success,
especially in high-tech firms that often have no
choice but to exploit existing competences for
short-term commercial benefits and simultane-
ously explore new competences for long-term
success (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). However,
little research exists that addresses the enablers of
contextual ambidexterity (Simsek et al., 2009).
It is argued that contextual ambidexterity is
grounded in the type of organizational culture
(Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1994; Gibson and Birkin-
shaw, 2004; Simsek et al., 2009) that promotes
both creativity and discipline (Jelinek and Schoon-
hoven, 1993), or both the presence of different
knowledge and the integration of multiple perspec-
tives to develop a cohesive point of view (Eisen-
hardt and Schoonhoven, 1990). Traditionally, the
dual demands of exploration and exploitation are
considered paradoxical, and little is known about
the mechanisms to integrate them in the pursuit
of contextual ambidexterity. Recent conceptual
developments in the organizational identification
and organizational learning literatures argue that
diverse individual knowledge, skills and abilities
that promote creativity (which we refer to as
‘organizational diversity’, see below), provided
that these differences reflect shared expectations
and group norms that confer discipline (which we
refer to as ‘shared vision’, see below), can go hand
in hand with, or even form the basis for, a shared
organizational identification (Rink and Ellemers,
2007). This provides an insight into the type of
organizational culture required for contextual
ambidexterity but has not been conceptually inte-
grated or examined in the organizational ambidex-
terity and innovation literatures. Therefore, our
first objective is to conceptualize and examine
ambidextrous organizational culture (consisting
of organizational diversity and shared vision) as an
antecedent to contextual ambidexterity and conse-
quently new product innovation outcomes.
The interest in the above relationships increases
in a cross-cultural research context. For example,
the literature is divided as to what extent firms’
radical and incremental innovative capabilities
are related to national culture (van Everdingen
and Waarts, 2003) or organizational culture
(Tellis, Prahbu and Chandy, 2009). This suggests
that the extent to which firms in different nations
explore and exploit may vary, and more research
is needed to examine the relationships between
ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual
ambidexterity and new product innovation in a
cross-cultural context. Specifically, we compare
UK and Chinese high-tech firms. The UK and
China are not only representative of western and
eastern cultures (Hofstede, 2001) but are also
widely recognized for their contrasting compe-
tences in exploration and exploitation. Hence, our
second objective is to examine the robustness of
the relationships between ambidextrous organiza-
tional culture, contextual ambidexterity and new
product innovation outcomes in UK and Chinese
high-tech firms.
In sum, our objectives and intended contribu-
tions to theory are mainly twofold. First, we
borrow insights from the organizational identity
and organizational learning literatures to concep-
tualize ambidextrous organizational culture and
examine its effects on contextual ambidexterity
and consequently new product innovation out-
comes. We contribute to the organizational ambi-
dexterity and innovation literatures by providing
further evidence of contextual ambidexterity, chal-
lenging traditional approaches. More impor-
tantly, we explicate how contextual ambidexterity
takes place, enhancing the understanding of
the enablers of contextual ambidexterity and
resolving the paradox of ‘capability–rigidity’ or
‘competence exploration–exploitation’ (Atua-
hene-Gima, 2005). Second, we compare and con-
trast the extent to which the relationships between
ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual
ambidexterity and new product innovation out-
comes vary between UK and Chinese firms across
different high-tech industries. We contribute to the
organizational ambidexterity and innovation lit-
eratures by examining the applicability and
robustness of contextual ambidexterity and its
antecedents and consequences in a cross-cultural
context. Additionally, our findings have practical
and methodological implications.
Theoretical background and
research hypotheses
Contextual ambidexterity
At the centre of organizational ambidexterity lies a
key debate as to whether exploration and exploi-
Contextual Ambidexterity 59
© 2012 The Author(s)
British Journal of Management © 2012 British Academy of Management.
To continue reading
Request your trial