Exploratory and exploitative leadership compared: evidence from China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organisational ambidexterity studies are advanced by comparing intra-departmental and extra-departmental leadership and introducing a triage model which explains a previously overlooked process for achieving ambidexterity. Organisations triage significant high uncertainty challenges to ad hoc projects outside the established departmental structure for exploratory management (extra-departmental), and triage lower uncertainty challenges to established departments for exploitative management (intra-departmental). The data support this proposition, and that most managers take on significant amounts of extra-departmental leadership as well as their intra-departmental. The data reveal that exploratory leadership involves more objectives development, communication and legitimisation, than does exploitative. Managers perceive that intra-departmental work is more important for career advancement than extra-departmental. This research extends the scope of ambidexterity research in China with a Chinese sample. It extends our understanding of ambidexterity in several ways and provides theory and results which promise to enrich future research, managerial practice and cross-cultural comparisons.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".