RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP VISION DEVELOPMENT AND ETHICS

In search of balance. Managing ambidexterity in a fast growing techno-SME 361
and exploitative innovation can be used to distinguish between different types of innovation,
but other classifications can also be used.
Implementing ambidexterity forms
When forms of ambidexterity are implemented, at a company level, we would recommend
focusing on contextual and leadership solutions, to create a genuinely ambidextrous organization,
even though some structural solutions may be more appropriate later on as the company
grows and becomes more complex. At the moment, the contextual solution appears to
offer the best fit. However, in both cases, leadership solutions are essential to a successful
implementation, and investing in leadership solutions also means investing in the possible
future situation. At a project level, more research is needed to determine which form of
ambidexterity matches certain projects.
In addition, we recommend involving employees in developing the organization of innovation.
From the interviews, it became clear that many employees are highly committed to
the organization and have ideas about how to develop the innovation process. Involving them
not only provides the company with a potential idea generator, it also makes them feel involved
and heard. Indeed, even at (work-) group level, ambidextrous mechanisms can work (see also
Luo, Xu & Ling, 2015).
All this shows that adopting a multilevel approach, and looking at ambidexterity at different
organizational levels, is a smart strategy (see also Chamdrasekan, Linderman &
Schroeder, 2012; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009)).
References
Ampelmann. (2014). Offshore personnel transfer company Ampelmann. Retrieved 2014-02-01, from http://w
ww.ampelmann.nl/company/
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009, July). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity:
Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science. 20(4), 696-717.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity
dilemma revisited. The Academy of Management Review. 28(2), pp.238-256.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management
Review. 45(4), 47-55.
Boumgarden, P., Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Sailing into the wind: exploring the relationships among
ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic management journal. 33, 587-610.
Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity
enable organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The leadership
quarterly. 20, 207-218.
Chanddrasekaran, A., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R. (2012). Antecedents to ambidexterity competency in
high technology organizations. Journal of operations management. 30, 134-151.
Chang, Y. Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium sized firms.
European Management Journal. 30(1), 1-17.
Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N., & Dimov, D. (2013). Contextual ambidexterity in SMEs: the roles of internal
and external rivalry. Small Business Economics. 42(1), 191-205.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational
ambidexterity. The Academy of Management Journal. 47(2), 209-226.