Designing a Model of Ambidextrous Leadership Capabilities for Organizational Evolution and Renewal
Keywords:
Ambidextrous leadership, organizational ambidexterity, organizational renewal, exploration and exploitation, grounded theory, leadership capabilities, organizational evolutionAbstract
This study aimed to design a qualitative model of ambidextrous leadership capabilities that explains how leaders balance exploration and exploitation to support organizational evolution and renewal. This qualitative study was conducted using an inductive grounded theory approach. Participants included 23 senior and middle managers, organizational development consultants, innovation managers, and human resource executives working in large and medium-sized organizations in Tehran. Participants were selected through purposive and theoretical sampling based on their direct experience with organizational change, innovation, restructuring, and strategic renewal. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews lasting 45–75 minutes. Sampling continued until theoretical saturation was achieved after the twenty-first interview, and two additional interviews were conducted to confirm category stability. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding with the support of NVivo software. The analysis produced five main categories: paradoxical strategic sensemaking, exploratory capability activation, exploitative discipline and operational anchoring, temporal switching and boundary management, and renewal-oriented learning governance. These categories formed a core category labeled dynamic orchestration of exploration–exploitation tensions. The findings showed that ambidextrous leadership is not merely the simultaneous use of flexible and controlling behaviors, but a higher-order capability through which leaders interpret contradictions, activate experimentation, preserve operational reliability, switch between divergent and convergent modes, and institutionalize learning for renewal. The proposed model suggests that organizational evolution depends on leaders’ capacity to manage the paradox between continuity and change. Ambidextrous leadership capabilities enable organizations to pursue innovation without losing efficiency and to maintain operational discipline without suppressing renewal. The model provides a practical framework for leadership development, succession planning, organizational design, and strategic transformation in dynamic environments.
References
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. V. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.03
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cascio, W. F., & Montealegre, R. (2016). How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte University Press.
Kane, G. C., Phillips, A. N., Copulsky, J. R., & Andrus, G. R. (2019). The technology fallacy: How people are the real key to digital transformation. MIT Press.
Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043493
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211644
Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi, J., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.0
