AMBIDEXTERITY IN EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR

Despite the narrow link between ambidextrous behavior at the organizational level, a number of studies within the research indicate that answers to central questions on this topic remain incomplete (Gupta et al.,2006; Alghamdi, 2018). In conclusion, it can be postulated that not only organizations and leaders, but also teams and individual employees have to deal with the tension between exploration and exploitation in order to perform. In this context, an employee is defined as a person who works under an employment contract, whether oral or written, explicit or implicit, and who has acknowledged rights and obligations. This group of people could also be characterized as workers or employees (source). Accordingly, employee behavior is defined as an employees’ reaction to a particular situation at the workplace. It describes a behavioral way of activity patterns during their work performance.

Consequently, employee behavior is a central object of investigation in organizational research. This characteristic is justified by the fact that this type of transactional relationship is used to investigate economic exchange in terms of income and performance. In addition, it should be mentioned that within this exchange expectations (implicit or explicit), promises, deceptions etc. are included. According to Martin (2017), it should be noted that an exact specification of the work performance is often difficult to implement contractually and the transactional relationship is extended by an interpersonal component for task fulfilment. From a scientific point of view, research topics on engagement, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Commitment etc. are predominantly discussed in this context. Essentially, the purpose is to examine the situation in which employees can proactively engage themselves for the entire organization in addition to their contractually agreed work performance.

To understand these behavioral activity patterns within an organization, different levels of analysis can be distinguished. Due to the scope and complexity of the topic, this paper focuses only on isolated explanations of human behavior within organizations. Two theoretical approaches come into consideration, which on the one hand focus on the respective person and the situation. In this context Von Rosenstiel (2011) provides an overview of the different approaches and the scientific work. With regard to personal traits, it becomes clear that the appropriate behavior of persons is activated by needs, motives or desires on the one hand, and thus personal attitudes serve as a function of behavior.

However, a purely psychological explanations of the behavior of the employees pose a risk. According to the psychologist Kurt Lewin (1935) every behavior of a person is dependent on the respective situation. This theory is based on the assumption that an appropriate situation

can motivate and encourage a person to behave in a certain way. Both explanatory approaches refer to the intention to show a certain behavior. In addition to these two explanatory models for the emergence of employee behavior, the behavioral process within the behavioral sciences is examined. Based on this theory, the ability to behave is usually determined by organizational conditions (e.g. access to resources, clarity of roles, tolerance of behavior within the hierarchy).

According to Martin (2017), employee behavior is comprised of the three factors described (see figure 6). In summary, it can be argued that the behavior of employees is not only due to personal characteristics, to the respective situation, but also to organizational regulations.

Applied to the discussion on ambidexterity in organizations, the question arises as to which behaviors should be encouraged by employees? In this context, Caniëls & Veld (2016) describe that successful companies are characterized by the fact that employees perform a combination of explorative and exploitative behaviors. Exploration in employee behavior means in general to find new ways of accomplishing a task or to solve problems with a new approach. In contrast, exploitation means to use existing resources and methods to generate efficiency in the organization. In this respect, ambidexterity of employees is defined as a behavioral pattern that can emphasize a combination of exploitative and explorative activities within a given period of time (Mom et al., 2006). The ambidextrous behavior of employees is understood in different dimensions in the literature. According to Kauppila & Tempelaar (2016), the behavior of ambidextrous employees is primarily seen as a skill that can perform both explorative and exploitative tasks. An explorative behavior serves here to adhere to rules and to build up a routine in work. Exploratory behavior, on the other hand, is mainly about experimenting with ideas and analyzing and interpreting the environment.

Figure 6 Determinants of Employee Behavior (adapted from: Martin, 2017).

Employee Behavior

Organization Roles, Regulations

Person Motivation, Skills Situation

Beneficial, Detrimental

According to Gupta et al. (2006), it is important to note that an increase in one behavioral pattern is only at the expense of the other and thus an ambidextrous balance in behavior is neglected. Consequently, an equal combination of explorative and exploitative activities is sought. According to Good & Michel (2013) a cognitive learning perspective of the employees is necessary to achieve ambidexterity in behavior. It can be argued that employees must be intellectually capable of switching flexibly between exploration and exploitation in changing environments. In the following table 4, the empirical studies on the individual ambidexterity of employees are once again reviewed and compared in terms of their conception.

Table 4 Different Concepts of Ambidexterity in Employee Behavior

Authors (publication) Methodology Conception of Ambidextrous Employee Behavior

Mom, T.

(2006)

Empirical Study Exploration Behavior &

Exploration Behavior on Manager Level Weibler, J., &

Keller, T. (2011)

Empirical Study Exploration Behavior & Exploration Behavior on Manager/ Employee Level

Hafkesbrink, J., Bachem, C.,

& Kulenovic, D. (2012)

Empirical Study Individual Exploitation Competencies & Individual Exploration Competencies

Good, D., &

Michel, E. J. (2013)

Empirical Study Individual Exploitation abilities & Individual Exploration abilities

Keller, T &

Weibler, J., (2015)

Empirical Study Exploration Behavior & Exploration Behavior on Manager/ Employee Level

Kauppila, OP, &

Tempelaar, MP. (2016)

Empirical Study Exploration Behavior & Exploration Behavior on Employee Level

Caniëls, M. C., &

Veld, M. (2016).

Empirical Study Exploration Behavior & Exploration Behavior on Employee Level

Ajayi, O. M., Odusanya, K., &

Morton, S. (2017)

Empirical Study Suggestion orientation & Implementation orientation on Employee level

Luo, B., Zheng, S., Ji, H., &

Liang, L. (2018).

Empirical Study Exploration Behavior & Exploration Behavior in Top Management Teams

Luu, T. T., Rowley, C., &

Dinh, K. C. (2018)

Empirical Study Exploration Behavior & Exploration Behavior in Public Service

Alghamdi, F.

(2018)

Empirical Study Exploration Behavior & Exploration Behavior on Employee Level

Among all these determinants of employee behavior, leadership was arguably noted as one of the most important factors influencing behavior in organizations. It is assumed, that the leadership behavior of a manager influences the behavior of employees and works towards a desirable target state (Bledow et al. 2009). From a theoretical point of view, leadership behavior can stimulate employee behavior in many ways. Firstly, leaders can motivate and encourage their employees to behave in a way that is based on their personality. In this context the motivation of the employees is enabled by showing their character traits. Conger (1999) describes a connection of the perceived personality of a supervisor with the motivation of the employees. Secondly, through the leadership behavior of a manager, resources such as information and instruments can be provided for the necessary support and thus stimulate behavior. Based on this theory, employees behave as long as they are supported by their supervisor. In this context, several studies indicate that transformational leadership has the most significant impact on an outcome (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). However, it should be noted that most of the studies were carried out a long time ago and that from today's perspective, one-sided leadership behavior should be disregarded, particularly for reasons of flexibility. Under this assumption, a combination of several leadership behaviors adds value to flexibility and agility. In this context, two leadership behaviors are performed simultaneously in an ambidextrous leadership. Thus, an open leadership behavior should stimulate an explorative behavior of the employees and a closed leadership behavior should contribute to an exploitative behavior.