Team Building and Organizational Ambidexterity: A Relational Analysis


Namrata Nanda,Siddharth Misra,Rajith K.R,



Team Building,Organizational Ambidexterity,Psychological Safety,Employee Commitment to change,Moderated mediation,


This paper aims to identify and test the relationship of Team Building andOrganizational Ambidexterity by prompting bank employees to engage in commitment towards change.A structured questionnaire was prepared and distributed among employees of selected public and private banks across the country. A total of 240 valid responses were gathered from this survey using snowball and convenience sampling techniques. Descriptive statistics, regression analysis and factor analysis was used to interpret the results of the collected data. The analysis of data has been carried by using IBM SPSS and AMOS 20 version. The major takeaway of this research highlights the private sector banks where the commitment of employee towards change impacted team building leading to high ambidexterity as compared to that of public sector banks. Also, the results of the hypotheses formulated, holds true to the relationship of Team Building and Organizational Ambidexterity becomes stronger with a mediator Employee Commitment to Change and moderator, Psychological Safety in place.This research reflects on the importance of managing interpersonal threats hidden within every committed employee with the help of psychologically safe work environment and thus, promoting a strong culture of team spirit and being an ambidextrous organization. This paper confirms the effect of Team Building on Organizational Ambidexterity through Employee Commitment to Change and unlocks the dark box of how organizations can become ambidextrous by adding novelty to this research with the presence of Psychological Safety as a moderator.


I. Beckman, C. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations
on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 741-758.
II. Beer, M., Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., &Tekie, E. B. (2005). Strategic
management as organizational learning: Developing fit and alignment
through a disciplined process. Long Range Planning, 38(5), 445-465.
III. Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic
management: Insights from a process study. Management science, 29(12),
IV. 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.
V. 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.
VI. Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., &Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in
teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy
of management Journal, 50(5), 1217-1234.
VII. Černe, M., Hernaus, T., Dysvik, A., &Škerlavaj, M. (2017). The role of
multilevel synergistic interplay among team mastery climate, knowledge
hiding, and job characteristics in stimulating innovative work
behavior. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(2), 281-299.
VIII. Denis, J. L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective
leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of
Management journal, 44(4), 809-837.
IX. Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Top management team
process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical
model and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2),

X. Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Top management team
process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical
model and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2),
XI. Forbes, D. P. (2007). Reconsidering the strategic implications of decision
comprehensiveness. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 361-376.
XII. Fredrickson, J. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1984). Strategic decision processes:
Comprehensiveness and performance in an industry with an unstable
environment. Academy of Management journal, 27(2), 399-423.
XIII. Gibson, C. B., &Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and
mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management
Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
XIV. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., &Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between
exploration and exploitation. Academy of management journal, 49(4), 693-
XV. He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical
test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4), 481-494.
XVI. Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational
change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of applied
psychology, 87(3), 474.
XVII. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Strategic
entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic
management journal, 22(6‐7), 479-491.
XVIII. Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating
competitive advantage through streams of innovation. Business
horizons, 50(1), 49-59.
XIX. Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., &Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic
entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of
management, 29(6), 963-989.
XX. Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., &Volberda, H. W. (2008).
Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role
of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982-
XXI. Jaros, S. (2010). Commitment to organizational change: A critical
review. Journal of Change Management, 10(1), 79-108.
XXII. KetchenJr, D. J., Ireland, R. D., & Snow, C. C. (2007). Strategic
entrepreneurship, collaborative innovation, and wealth creation. Strategic
entrepreneurship journal, 1(3-4), 371-385.
XXIII. Kleinbaum, A. M., &Tushman, M. L. (2007). Building bridges: The social
structure of interdependent innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 1(1‐2), 103-122.

XXIV. Kour, H., &Gakhar, K. (2015). Innovative HRM Practices: A Comparison of
Public and Private Sector Banks of India. MANTHAN: Journal of Commerce
and Management, 2(1), 1-28.
XXV. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of
sociology, 14(1), 319-338.
XXVI. Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., &Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity
and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top
management team behavioral integration. Journal of management, 32(5),
XXVII. Makumbe, W. (2016). Predictors of effective change management: A
literature review. African Journal of Business Management, 10(23), 585-593.
XXVIII. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational
learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.
XXIX. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., &McMurrian, R. (1997). An
investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a
personal selling context. Journal of marketing, 61(3), 85-98.
XXX. O’Reilly III, C. A., &Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic
capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in organizational
behavior, 28, 185-206.
XXXI. Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as
predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination
of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader
behaviors. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice, 6(2), 172.
XXXII. Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr, H. P. (1999). Empowered selling
teams: How shared leadership can contribute to selling team
outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(3), 35-51.
XXXIII. Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model
of organizational trust: Past, present, and future.
XXXIV. Shin, Y., Kim, M., Choi, J. N., & Lee, S. H. (2016). Does team culture
matter? Roles of team culture and collective regulatory focus in team task
and creative performance. Group & Organization Management, 41(2), 232-
XXXV. Siren, C. A., Kohtamäki, M., &Kuckertz, A. (2012). Exploration and
exploitation strategies, profit performance, and the mediating role of strategic
learning: Escaping the exploitation trap. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 6(1), 18-41.
XXXVI. Slaby, J., Mühlhoff, R., &Wüschner, P. (2019). Affective
arrangements. Emotion Review, 11(1), 3-12.
XXXVII. Smith, W. K., &Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions:
A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization
science, 16(5), 522-536.

XXXVIII. Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., &Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Extension of the
Three-Component Model of Commitment to Five Foci: Development of
measures and substantive test. European journal of psychological
assessment, 18(2), 123.
XXXIX. Taneja, S., Pryor, M. G., & Toombs, L. A. (2011). Frederick W. Taylor’s
scientific management principles: Relevance and validity. Journal of Applied
Management and Entrepreneurship, 16(3), 60.
XL. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations:
Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management
review, 38(4), 8-29.
XLI. Wang, C. L., &Rafiq, M. (2009). Organizational diversity and shared vision:
Resolving the paradox of exploratory and exploitative learning. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 12(1), 86-101.
XLII. Yu, M. C., Mai, Q., Tsai, S. B., & Dai, Y. (2018). An empirical study on the
organizational trust, employee-organization relationship and innovative
behavior from the integrated perspective of social exchange and
organizational sustainability. Sustainability, 10(3), 864.
XLIII. Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The
leadership quarterly, 19(6), 708-722.

View Download