Raidén, A B and Räisänen, C (2018) Conceptualising behavioural ambidexterity and the effects on individual well-being. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2018, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
Academic work demands behavioural ambidexterity: the ability to simultaneously demonstrate exploration (creativity in research and/or in innovative teaching and learning practice) and exploitation (compliance with quality assurance). However, the effects of behavioural ambidexterity on the well-being of individual employees are not well known. We examine the relations between work design, behavioural ambidexterity and perceptions of well-being conceptually drawing on critical review of the three strands of literature. Our focus is on well-being, after a well-established holistic definition based on healthcare, philosophy, psychology and sociology literatures, which have converged on three core dimensions of well-being: psychological (happiness), physical (health) and social (relationships). We highlight the influence of personal circumstances and the role of agency in work design as two key antecedents of positive well-being outcomes.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | behavioural ambidexterity; work-design; performance; well-being; agency |
| Index terms: | agency, dimension, psychology, well-being, exploration, philosophy, quality assurance, exploitation, sociology, drawing, ambidexterity, creativity, compliance |
| Subjects: | management, health safety and environment, social theory, sociology, innovation and creative processes, quality assurance, behavioral psychology, philosophical studies, mental health and wellbeing, strategic management, technical documentation, environmental resource management, health monitoring assessment and metrics |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Design Practice, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here