Identifying the focal role of top management paradoxical cognition in ambidextrous firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Past studies have associated top management’s paradoxical cognition and actions with the ambidextrous performance of firms. Compared to large firms, the top management members of small firms play a focal role in resolving the paradoxical tensions of explorative and exploitative innovation strategies. Anchored in the upper echelons perspective, the purpose of this paper is to explore the influences of two top management team (TMT) processes on organizational ambidexterity: TMT behavioral integration and TMT involvement in small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Design/methodology/approach The research is set in the context of 78 hi-tech SMEs across IT, biotech, and electronics industry. Multiple responses were collected from each firm. The authors used hierarchical regression analysis to test the hypotheses. Findings The findings from this paper demonstrate that the process of TMT behavioral integration enhances organizational ambidexterity. However, the results show that neither the top management’s involvement, nor the interaction of the top management’s involvement with the behavioral integration of a TMT, enhances organizational ambidexterity. Research limitations/implications The limited examination of two TMT processes has restricted the scope of this paper. The study has also been unable to measure paradoxical cognition in the TMT objectively and without proxy measures. Originality/value The results from this study add to the existing literature on paradoxical cognition, ambidexterity, and behavioral integration. The results from this study also lend support to the upper echelons perspective. Further, the findings from this paper present significant practical implications by throwing light on the senior team processes necessary for small ambidextrous firms in emerging economies. The volatile and rather unpredictable nature of emerging economies underscore the relevance of examining the facilitating conditions of small ambidextrous firms in these countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".