Indirect ambidextrous leadership as an alternative to direct ambidextrous leadership

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to differentiate the ambidextrous leadership concept into direct and indirect types to provide an alternative when the requirements of direct ambidextrous leadership cannot be met. Design/methodology/approach Desk research is used in this paper to relate the ambidextrous leadership concept to the roles of leader and manager to more comprehensively determine the requirements for being a direct/indirect ambidextrously leading executive than is possible by referring only to opening and closing leadership or exploration and exploitation. Findings Special requirements in the context of ambidextrous leadership can be transferred from the top executive/chief executive officer to third parties, for example, some control tasks in the area of exploitation can be distributed among the top management team, enabling the top executive to focus on tasks such as developing an organisation-wide vision and its strategic implementation. Indirect ambidextrous leadership exists if the top executive distributes exploitation tasks to third parties. Direct ambidextrous leadership exists if the top executive assumes leadership in both the exploration and exploitation areas. This means that the demands on the top executive are different in direct ambidextrous leadership and in indirect ambidextrous leadership. Originality/value The literature has not yet focused on the differentiation between direct and indirect ambidextrous leadership. This paper contributes towards closing this gap. The potential for indirect ambidextrous leadership can be essential for a company’s success because in addition to direct ambidextrous leadership, it represents the possibility of creating a sustainable organisation in a changing market.