The Cognitive Microfoundations and Supportive Dynamic Capabilities of Innovation Ambidexterity in IT Companies

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Postdoc in Business Administration, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 . Faculty Member, Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.


Today, organizations need to enhance their capacities to manage the tensions between exploration and exploitation. The purpose of this research is to study the cognitive microfoundations and supportive dynamic capabilities of innovation ambidexterity. To conduct research, multiple-case study and classic grounded theory methods are used. Five IT companies in Iran are selected as cases in point. Interviews with top executives are conducted and several organizational documents are analyzed. The findings show that successful IT companies, nurture special capabilities within themselves to manage the ambidexterity tensions. These capabilities include the asymmetric balancing of the corporate portfolio, cuddling and admonition of human resources, flexibility of structure, adaptation of performance appraisal, managerial stabilization, physical and professional liveliness, and innovation acceleration. Moreover, the CEOs of successful companies were equipped with the cognitive frames of spectral forecasting, accelerated analytical orientation, Progressive time orientation, and Emotional ambivalence orientation, while using the cognitive mechanisms of preference, sequence, and verification. Therefore, the recruiting and training of cognitively capable CEOs, and developing and reinforcing the organizational capabilities which are supportive of ambidexterity, can facilitate the emergence and continuance of explorative and exploitative innovations in IT companies.


Main Subjects

Artang, A., Bagheri, A., & Akbari, M. (2021). The effect of personal and social characteristics of entrepreneurship team on open innovation in information technology firms in Tehran. [In Persian]. Journal of Technology Development Management, 9(3), 73-98.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Beekman, T. L., & Seo, H. S. (2022). Analytic versus holistic: Cognitive styles can influence consumer response and behavior toward foods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 37(2), e12723.
Bengtsson, M., & Raza-Ullah, T. (2016). A systematic review of research on coopetition: Toward a multilevel understanding. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 23-39.
Benischke, M. H., Martin, G. P., & Glaser, L. (2019). CEO equity risk bearing and strategic risk taking: The moderating effect of CEO personality. Strategic Management Journal, 40(1), 153-177.
Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017). The interplay between intuition and rationality in strategic decision making: A paradox perspective. Organization Studies, 38(3/4), 365-401.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 1–18). Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers.
Child, J., Hsieh, L., Elbanna, S., Karmowska, J., Marinova, S., Puthusserry, P., ... & Zhang, Y. (2017). SME international business models: The role of context and experience. Journal of World Business, 52(5), 664-679.
Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Shams, S. R. (2019). Triggering technological innovation through cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A micro-foundational perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 148-166.
Clauss, T., Kraus, S., Kallinger, F. L., Bican, P. M., Brem, A., & Kailer, N. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity and competitive advantage: The role of strategic agility in the exploration-exploitation paradox. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6(4), 203-213.
Cristofaro, M. (2017). Herbert Simon’s bounded rationality: Its historical evolution in management and cross-fertilizing contribution. Journal of Management History, 23(2), 170-190.
Deylami Azodi, A., Khodadad Hosseini, S. h., Kordnaij, A., & Moshabaki Esfahani, A. (2020). Conceptualizing and explaining the pattern of business model adaptation in the ICT industry [In Persian]. Business Strategies Journal, 17(1), 77-99.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 484-503.
Ghemawat, P., & Ricart Costa, J. E. I. (1993). The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 59-73.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
Golden, B. R. (1992). The past is the past—or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 848-860.
Gröschl, S., Gabaldón, P., & Hahn, T. (2019). The co-evolution of leaders’ cognitive complexity and corporate sustainability: The case of the CEO of Puma. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(3), 741-762.
Gupta, A., Nadkarni, S., & Mariam, M. (2019). Dispositional sources of managerial discretion: CEO ideology, CEO personality, and firm strategies. Administrative Science Quarterly64(4), 855-893.
Hambrick, D.C. (2016). Upper echelons theory. In M. Augier, & D. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 1-5). Palgrave Macmillan.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
Heidari, A., Divandari, A., Arabi, S. M., & Seyed Kalali, N. (2016). Investigating the relationship between dynamic capabilities and performance with mediating effect of operational capabilities. Journal of Business Management Perspective, 15(3), 125-140.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831-850.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2018). The dynamics of intuition and analysis in managerial and organizational decision making. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 473-492.
Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57(4), 351-363.
Jiang, F., Wang, D., & Wei, Z. (2021). How Yin-Yang cognition affects organizational ambidexterity: The mediating role of strategic flexibility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1-28.
Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19(5), 729-752.
Kaviyani, H., Salehi Sedghiani, J., & Fathabadi, H. (2018). Investigation of the relationship between strategic thinking and organizational ambidexterity (case of military units) [In Persian]. Transformation Management Journal, 10(2), 21-44.
Khalilnejad, S., & Daneshvar Deylami, M.R. (2018). A Study of the effect of learning strategies on new products development with regard to moderating role of strategic orientations and cognitive capabilities [In Persian]. Strategic Management Studies Journal, 24(2), 13-34.
Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N., & Mole, K. (2018). Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 47(2), 413-427.
Lee, K., Woo, H. G., & Joshi, K. (2017). Pro-innovation culture, ambidexterity and new product development performance: Polynomial regression and response surface analysis. European Management Journal35(2), 249-260.
Lee, R., Lee, J. H., & Garrett, T. C. (2019). Synergy effects of innovation on firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 99, 507-515.
Liu, Y., Collinson, S., Cooper, C., & Baglieri, D. (2022). International business, innovation and ambidexterity: A micro-foundational perspective. International Business Review, 31(3), 101852.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of management, 32(5), 646-672.
Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. (2018). Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29(3), 449-470.
Marquis, C., & Battilana, J. (2009). Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 283-302.
Montealegre, R., Iyengar, K., & Sweeney, J. (2019). Understanding ambidexterity: Managing contradictory tensions between exploration and exploitation in the evolution of digital infrastructure. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(5), 647-680.
Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 19-33.
Nutt, P. C., & Wilson, D. C. (2010). Crucial trends and issues in strategic decision making. In P. C. Nutt, & D. C. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of Decision Making (pp. 3-30). Wiley-Blackwell.
O’Reilly III, C. A. (2016). Organizational ambidexterity. In M. Augier, & D. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 1-4). Palgrave Macmillan.
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206.
Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens, P. D. (2003). The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 795.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of management review, 14(4), 562-578.
Preuss, L., & Fearne, A. (2021). Cognitive frames held by supply chain managers: Implications for the management of sustainability in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. Advance online publication.
Randhawa, K., Nikolova, N., Ahuja, S., & Schweitzer, J. (2021). Design thinking implementation for innovation: An organization's journey to ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 38(6). 668-700.
Seyed Kalali, N. (2016). Developing a model of competitive advantage in knowledge intensive business services based on dynamic capability theory: A study on management consulting industry [PhD. Dissertation, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran]. Central Library of University of Tehran.
Seyed Kalali, N., & Heidari, A. (2016). How was competitive advantage sustained in management consultancies during change: The role of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Organizational Change Management29(5), 661-685.
Shepherd, N.G., & Rudd, J.M. (2014). The influence of context on the strategic decision‐making process: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(3), 340-364.
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592-1623.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Teece, D. J. (2020). Hand in glove: Open innovation and the dynamic capabilities framework. Strategic Management Review, 1(2), 233-253.
Van Neerijnen, P., Tempelaar, M. P., & Van de Vrande, V. (2021). Embracing paradox: TMT paradoxical processes as a steppingstone between TMT reflexivity and organizational ambidexterity. Organization Studies, 1-22.
Von den Driesch, T., Da Costa, M. E. S., Flatten, T. C., & Brettel, M. (2015). How CEO experience, personality, and network affect firms' dynamic capabilities. European Management Journal, 33(4), 245-256.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522-537.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications. Sage Publications.
Zimmermann, A., Hill, S. A., Birkinshaw, J., & Jaeckel, M. (2020). Complements or substitutes? A microfoundations perspective on the interplay between drivers of ambidexterity in SMEs. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 101927.