경쟁가치 리더십과 양면성: 팀 양면성의 선행조건과 결과에 대한 실증연구

Since March’s(1991) seminal work on exploration and exploitation in organizational learning,the construct of organizational ambidexterity has attracted the attention of an increasing numberof organizational theorists. An “ambidextrous” organization is one that is capable of pursuingtwo ends simultaneously: exploring new knowledge and technologies and then developing newproducts and services with the help of reconfigured resources, while exploiting existing productsand services by leveraging current competencies in a stable organizational atmosphere. Theorysuggests that achieving ambidexterity enables a firm to enhance its performance and sustainablecompetitiveness. Thanks to the burgeoning research interest in the possible link between ambidexterity and performance,there is now convincing empirical evidence suggesting that for an organization to survive in theface of a turbulent environment, they must demonstrate the dynamic capability of ambidexterity. Yet while the evidence for the benefits of ambidexterity is accumulating, there still exists a gapin understanding how ambidexterity is actually managed within organizations. Current researchlacks insight into the core leadership style and mechanisms that underlie how ambidexterity shouldbe managed in practice. Scant research exists to explain the contextual antecedents that might help achieve and promoteambidexterity. In the few exceptional cases thatintroduce organizational antecedent variables intheir research models, the concept of organizational context has beenused diffusely and ambiguously. Furthermore, ambidexterity hasfor the most part been investigated at the organization or businessunit level. There is a lack of research focused onthe individual or group level of analysis. Finally, the construct of ambidexterity and thedifferences in its operationalizations remain conceptually unclear. Corresponding to the ‘balance’ view thatemphasizes the trade-off betweenexploration and exploitation, ambidexterity can be operationalized as the absolute differences oftwo activities. However, according to the ‘combined’ view that characterizes exploration and exploitationas independent activities, orthogonal to each other, ambidexterity can be operationalized as theproduct of two activities. To fill these gaps in organizational research, this study examines the relationship betweenambidexterity and thecontextual antecedent of leadershipat a team level of analysis from the standpointof an individual organization. For this purpose, the leadership styles of team leaders were measuredbased on the competing values framework. In addition, this study also explores whether ambidexteritymediates the relationship between team leadership as a contextual antecedent and team effectivenessas a consequence at the team level of analysis. Survey data from1,686 employees in a Korean semiconductor-manufacturing firm was aggregatedinto 154 teams foranalysis after several validity checks. Hierarchical regression was used to evaluatethe hypotheses. The findings were as follows. First, the more a team’s context was characterizedaccording tothe competing values leadership style of the team leader, the higher the level of teamambidexterity. Second, the higher the level of ambidexterity in a team, the higher the level of teameffectiveness that asmeasured byteam performance and team involvement. In addition, we foundthat the construct of ambidexterity operationalized as the product of exploration and exploitationpartly mediated the relationship between the contextual leadership antecedent – expressed via competingvalues leadership style – and team effectiveness. We believe this study helps clarify the conceptual and operational understanding of ambidexterity. In particular, it expandsthe body of research into team level analysis and contextual antecedentsof ambidexterity. The limitations of this study and the implications of these findings for substantiatingand extending future research on ambidexterity are discussed.