|
Individual Ambidexterity Through the Lens of Cognitive Style |
|---|---|
| รหัสดีโอไอ | |
| Creator | R. G. Clapp |
| Title | Individual Ambidexterity Through the Lens of Cognitive Style |
| Contributor | V. Ruckthum |
| Publisher | Graduate School of Business and Advanced Technology Management Assumption University Thailand |
| Publication Year | 2569 |
| Journal Title | ABAC ODI Journal Vision. Action. Outcome |
| Journal Vol. | 14 |
| Journal No. | 1 |
| Page no. | 76-92 |
| Keyword | Cognitive Style, Ambidexterity, Cognitive Diversity, Idea Style, Information Processing |
| URL Website | http://www.assumptionjournal.au.edu/index.php/odijournal |
| Website title | ABAC ODI Journal Vision. Action.Outcome |
| ISSN | 2408-2058 |
| Abstract | Drawing on Piaget (1964, 1971) developmental theory, this study conceptualises linear and nonlinear reasoning as described in the formal operational stage as independent yet additive forms of thinking. This offers a nuanced understanding of the additive variant of cognitive style and clarifies the coexistence of linear and nonlinear concepts, along with the definition of ambidexterity and the position of any bias, linear or nonlinear. At the individual level, ambidexterity enables the balancing of incremental improvements with disruptive novelty. Also, when reflected into group, organisational, and cultural levels, the benefits of cognitive diversity become available. Such perspectives enhance an organisation capacity for creativity and adaptability in complex environments. To assess ambidexterity at the individual level, including any potential bias, measures of linearity and nonlinearity were derived from self-assessed evaluations of idea style outcomes in a sample of (n=153) participants. Results sthat (n=83) individuals demonstrated ambidexterity, with no significant difference between their linear and nonlinear scores (RCI, p > .05). In contrast, (n=67) individuals exhibited a linear bias, scoring significantly higher on the linear than the nonlinear measures, while only (n=3) showed a nonlinear bias. A comparison of the sample means at the group level for linearity and nonlinearity revealed a significant difference (p < .001, t=12.5), indicating an overall bias towards linear reasoning. Additionally, 42% (n=64) of participants scored at medium or higher levels of nonlinear reasoning, suggesting a broadly normal distribution. Adding support to earlier findings that fewer than 50% of adults regularly show nonlinear reasoning (Huitt & Hummel, 2003; Kuhn et al., 1977). |
