Ambidestreza individual y resultados de desempeño: el papel moderador de la autorregulación
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26439/pjm2026.n003.7990Palabras clave:
ambidestreza individual, desempeño en innovación, desempeño en tareas, iniciativa personalResumen
Objetivos: este estudio examina la relación entre la ambidestreza individual (capacidad de equilibrar exploración y explotación), y tres resultados de desempeño: innovación, desempeño en tareas e iniciativa personal. Asimismo, analiza los mecanismos cognitivos de variedad e interrupción y evalúa el papel moderador de las orientaciones autorregulatorias. Metodología/diseño: se recopilaron datos de 297 empleados y supervisores en una empresa manufacturera estadounidense. Se utilizó un diseño de encuesta con múltiples fuentes para minimizar el sesgo de método común y se empleó análisis de regresión jerárquica. Resultados: la ambidestreza individual se asoció positivamente con innovación, desempeño en tareas e iniciativa personal. Además, la interacción entre la ambidestreza y la orientación de evaluación mejoró el desempeño en tareas, con mayores beneficios para los empleados con alta orientación de evaluación. Originalidad/Valor: este estudio amplía la investigación limitada sobre la relación ambidestreza–desempeño a nivel individual introduciendo mecanismos cognitivos como vías explicativas y aplica la teoría del modo regulatorio para examinar efectos moderadores. Ofrece nuevas perspectivas sobre cómo las diferencias individuales influyen en diversas formas de desempeño. Implicaciones prácticas: los gerentes deben fomentar entornos que apoyen la exploración y la explotación, reclutar y capacitar en capacidades ambidiestras y alinear los roles con las orientaciones autorregulatorias de los empleados para maximizar los beneficios. Implicaciones sociales: este estudio resalta el valor social de las habilidades ambidiestras al mostrar cómo los individuos pueden satisfacer demandas operativas e innovadoras. Estas capacidades fomentan la adaptabilidad, proactividad y la resiliencia, fortaleciendo la competitividad organizacional y contribuyendo a la estabilidad económica.
Descargas
Referencias
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage. https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=LcWLUyXcmnkC
Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28, 403-450. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135709
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 554-571. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30040649
Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.011
De Juan, L. L. (2025). Individual ambidexterity and organizational performance among employees. Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 3(2), 369-381. https://www.jippublication.com/index.php/jip/article/view/713
Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilman, L. R. Pondy & D. P. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization design: Strategies and implementation (pp. 167-189). Elsevier Science.
Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). CROSSROADS—Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1125-1279. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0564
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23005-6
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 37-63. https://www.jstor.org/stable/256630
Garcia, F., Guidice, R. M., & Mero, N. P. (2022). The interactive effect of person and situation on explorative and exploitative behavior. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(6), 1235-12-55. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.50
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Good, D., & Michel, E. (2013). Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. The Journal of Psychology, 147(5), 435-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2012.710663
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026
Hair Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Mutivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 375-497. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 293-344). Elsevier Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01005-0
Hughes, M. (2018). Organisational ambidexterity and firm performance: Burning research questions for marketing scholars. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(1-2), 178-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1441175
Hunter, L. W., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2007). Feeling the heat: Effects of stress, commitment, and job experience on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 953-968. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279227
Jasmand, C., Blazevic, V., & De Ruyter, K. (2012). Generating sales while providing service: A study of customer service representatives’ ambidextrous behavior. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 20-37. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0448
Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M. (2003). Work interrupted: A closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life. The Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 494-507. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196791
Junni, P., Sarala, R., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299-312. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0015
Kalafatis, S. P., Blankson, C., Boatswain, M. L., & Tsogas, M. H. (2020). Preference for action: Regulatory mode in B2B positioning decision-making. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(12), 2111-2125. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim-04-2019-0145
Kane, G. C., & Alavi, M. (2007). Information technology and organizational learning: An investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science, 18(5), 796-812. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0286
Krishnaveni, R., & Monica, R. (2018). Factors influencing employee performance: The role of human resource management practices and work engagement. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 19(4), 450-475. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2018.095093
Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000). To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 793-815. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.793
Kutner, M., Nachtsheim, C., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied linear regression models (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill. https://www.amazon.com/Applied-Linear-Regression-Models-Student/dp/0073014664
Laureiro-Martinez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N., & Zollo, M. (2015). Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 319-338. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2221
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95-112. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486499
Liang, H., Wang, N., & Xue, Y. (2022). Juggling information technology (IT) exploration and exploitation: A proportional balance view of IT ambidexterity. Information Systems Research, 33(4), 1386-1402. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.1105
Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis (4th ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609823
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293-334. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044045
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Miller, C. C., Burke, L. M., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Cognitive diversity among upper‐echelon executives: Implications for strategic decision processes. Strategic Management Journal, 19(1), 39-58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3094179
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of organizational behavior, 25(2), 175-199. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.237
Mom, T. J. M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812-828. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0427
Mom, T. J. M., Chang, Y.-Y., Cholakova, M., & Jansen, J. J. P. (2018). A multilevel integrated framework of firm HR practices, individual ambidexterity, and organizational ambidexterity. Journal Of Management, 45(7), 3009-3034. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318776775
Mu, T., Van Riel, A., & Schouteten, R. (2020). Individual ambidexterity in SMEs: Towards a typology aligning the concept, antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Small Business Management, 60(2), 347-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2019.1709642
Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13(4), 370-386. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.370.2947
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634. https://doi.org/10.5465/256657
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74-81. https://hbr.org/2004/04/the-ambidextrous-organization
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
Peng, M. Y.-P., Lin, K.-H., Peng, D. L., & Chen, P. (2019). Linking organizational ambidexterity and performance: The drivers of sustainability in high-tech firms. Sustainability, 11(14), Article 3931. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU11143931
Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azorín, J. F., Tarí, J. J., Pereira-Moliner, J., & López-Gamero, M. D. (2020). The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework. BRQ. Business Research Quarterly, 24(4), 355-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420929711
Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing: Effects of ‘locomotion’ and ‘assessment’ on intrinsic and extrinsic task‐motivation. European Journal of Personality, 20(5), 355-375. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.600
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization science, 20(4), 685-695. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988
Rozhkov, M., Cheung, B. C. F., & Tsui, E. (2016). Workplace context and its effect on individual competencies and performance in work teams. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 18(1), 49-81. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2017.080842
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506-516. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701
Speier, C., Valacich, J. S., & Vessey, I. (1999). The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: An information overload perspective. Decision Sciences, 30(2), 337-360 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01613.x
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-29. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
Tushman, M. L., Smith, W. K., & Binns, A. (2011). The ambidextrous CEO. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 74-80. http://www.iot.ntnu.no/innovation/norsi-pims-courses/tushman/Tushman,%20Smith%20&%20Binns%20(2011).pdf
Wang, J., Kim, T.-Y., Bateman, T. S., Jiang, Y., & Tang, G. (2024). A paradox theory lens on proactivity, individual ambidexterity, and creativity: An empirical look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(6), 896-911. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2786
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540-555. https://doi.org/10.2307/256941
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.49388995
Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 54-68. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-11-2012-0141
Zhang, M. J., Zhang, Y., & Law, K. S. (2022). Paradoxical leadership and innovation in work teams: The multilevel mediating role of ambidexterity and leader vision as a boundary condition. Academy of Management Journal, 65(5), 1652-1679. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1265
Zijlstra, F. R. H., Roe, R. A., Leonora, A. B., & Krediet, I. (1999). Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(2), 163-185. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166581
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Todos los trabajos publicados están sujetos a una licencia Creative Commons BY 4.0. Esta licencia permite compartir el material en cualquier medio o formato, así como adaptar, transformar y construir a partir del material para cualquier propósito. Ambas posibilidades sólo están permitidas en la medida en que se cumpla la condición de atribución. Esta condición requiere dar crédito adecuado tanto al autor como a la revista, proporcionando un enlace a la licencia e indicando los cambios realizados en caso de haberlos. Esto puede hacerse en cualquier forma razonable, pero no debe sugerir que el licenciante promueva a usted o su uso del material.
La licencia Creative Commons BY 4.0 permite a los autores mantener los derechos patrimoniales de su obra sin restricciones. Si algún trabajo publicado por la revista PJM fuera distribuido, difundido o cualquier otra acción contemplada en la licencia, se deberá mencionar de manera visible y explícita al autor o autores y a la revista.
(2)_.png)
.png)
