Search

Purpose: Ambidexterity increases an organisation's capability to successfully navigate dynamic and uncertain environments. While leaders are expected to model flexible learning and practices throughout the organisation, little is known about the leader characteristics and contextual factors that underpin ambidexterity. This study aims to explore whether paradoxical thinking, integrator behaviours and managerial role and level influence the likelihood of leaders exhibiting ambidexterity. Design/methodology/approach: This study relied on a self-report questionnaire completed by 152 managers of a large, public health-care organisation in New Zealand. A k-means cluster analysis of the data was conducted to identify leader ambidexterity clusters, and the hypothesised effects were tested with multinomial logistic regressions. Findings: Health-care managers favoured exploitation and moderate ambidexterity. Higher levels of integrator behaviours (i.e. reflective learning and context responsiveness) were found among leaders who showed high ambidexterity. Context responsiveness was the sole significant predictor distinguishing between high ambidexterity and other ambidexterity profiles. No statistically significant differences in ambidexterity cluster membership were found between clinical and non-clinical roles and across managerial levels. Research limitations/implications: While our study relied on a cross-sectional self-reported design, the findings underscore the importance of learning behaviours and context responsiveness to ambidexterity. This study discusses avenues for future research and leadership development towards improved organisational learning systems and practices. Originality/value: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is one of the first to test the contribution of paradoxical thinking and integrator behaviours to health-care leader ambidexterity and to examine differences in ambidexterity profiles across managerial levels and roles. The factor analysis suggests that integrator behaviours represent two distinct constructs: reflective learning and context responsiveness.

There is growing expectation that local volunteers will play a more integrated role in disaster response, yet emergent volunteer groups are often 'outsiders' to crisis management. Questions have been raised, therefore, about how emergent groups can forge relationships with established response agencies. This paper analyses how the Student Volunteer Army, as an emergent group, gained 'authority to operate' after the earthquakes in Canterbury, New Zealand, in 2010-11. It traces how the volunteers accrued authority through multiple sources of permission and credibility and demonstrates the possibility for established response agencies and emergent groups to generate impactful and mutually supportive relationships. However, the analysis also points to two interrelated tensions that can arise, regarding the terms by which emergent groups are recognised, and the 'distance' considered necessary between the two parties. The discussion considers the implications for inclusiveness, risk, and responsibility of further integrations of emergent volunteers in disaster response., (© 2021 The Authors Disasters © 2021 ODI.)