International Journal of

Homepage: http://ijmres.pk/
Management Research Vol 10, No 2, 2020 June, PP. 85-95
and Emerging Sciences E-ISSN: 2313-7738, ISSN: 2223-5604

CAN COGNITIVE CRAFTING ENHANCE BUSINESS PERFORMANCE? THE

MEDIATING ROLE OF EMPLOYEE AMBIDEXTERITY IN THE CONTEXT
OF SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES
1*
Fouzia Hadi Ali, 2Sadia Farooq, 3Farah Naz Naqvi
1
Assistant Professor, Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
*Corresponding Email: fozia.hcc@pu.edu.pk
2
Assistant Professor, Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab,
Lahore, Pakistan. Pakistan. Email: sadia.hcc@pu.edu.pk
3
Assistant Professor, Hailey College of Banking and Finance,
University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. Pakistan. Email: farah@puhcbf.edu.pk

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History: Cognitive proactive ability to redesign tasks can influence the behaviour of
Received: 03 Aug 2019 employees to explore, execute and exploit opportunities that tend to enhance
Revised: 09 Dec 2019 business performance. The present study aims to validate the proposed three-
Accepted: 02 Mar 2020 dimension structure of employee ambidexterity in the context of small and
Available Online: 05 Jun 2020
medium enterprises. Moreover, the study examines the effect of cognitive
Keywords:
abilities on the business performance of those employees who are involved in
Cognitive Crafting; Employee multitasking activities in small and medium enterprises. A total of 600
Ambidexterity; Exploration; structured questionnaires were administered randomly to employees of service
Execution; Exploitation; sector small and medium enterprises with a response rate of 98.3%. The results
Business Performance show validation of a three-dimensional construct of employee ambidexterity.
Moreover, the findings reveal a partial mediation of the three dimensions of
JEL Classification: employee ambidexterious behaviour between the relationship of cognitive
D83, L32, L33 crafting and business performance. The findings implicate to realise the
importance of the cognitive abilities of employees who redesign their tasks in a
situation where they confront with multiple tasks that require collective
accomplishment in small and medium businesses.
© 2020 The authors, under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0

1. INTRODUCTION
Jobs at the workplaces are undergoing a revolution. Instead of organisations designing the requirements of the
jobs, it is the job holders who actively redesign their job tasks. Such activities are more prevalent in those organisations
such as Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) that have less formalised organisational structures. Moreover,
due to the overlapping activities, the employees face challenges to explore and exploit opportunities. Out of these
opportunities, exploration-type involves pursuing those business opportunities that are new to the firm, while
exploitation type involves those opportunities that require further refinement and sustainability to gain competitive
advantage (March, 1991). Moreover, in order to balance the short and long-term requirements of the business, it is
essential to pursue ambidextrous behaviour that can address both exploration and exploitation simultaneously.
However, due to scarce resources, it is difficult for smaller organisations to achieve such an ambidextrous orientation.
Moreover, specifically in the context of SMEs, the employees are exposed to an environment that promotes
decentralised decision making, and lesser formal rules and procedures. So in such environments employees are directly
involved in exploring and exploiting opportunities (Moses, Kayode, & Susan, 2017). However, another perspective
further suggests that exploitative activities is linked to other factors such as enhancing efficiency, implementing and
executing changes. While on the one hand, the exploitive approach focuses upon improving the existing system,
customers and markets and on the other hand explorative approach focus on innovative aspects such as seeking new
opportunities and divergent thinking (Smith, 2017). Although, Tushman and O'Reilly (1996) define the ambidextrous
organisations as those that can implement both explorative and exploitative changes. However, the current study posits
to highlight the significance of execution/implementation as an essential factor apart from exploration and
exploitation. Such a proposition means that no matter how effectively the current systems are dealt with and how
creatively new opportunities or ideas are explored they tend to be meaningless if not correctly implemented.

85
Ali et al. Cognitive Crafting Enhance Business Performance . . .

Furthermore, for useful exploration, exploitation and execution require intrinsically motivated employees
(Caniëls, Neghina, & Schaetsaert, 2017). For this reason, several researchers (Caniëls et al., 2017; Holmqvist & Spicer,
2012; Moses et al., 2017) have coined the involvement of employees in explorative and exploitative activities as
“employee ambidexterity”. However, particularly, in SMEs, employees are burdened with overlapping activities that
may be beyond their specific job description, so it is essential to assess the psychological state that may induce them
to accept multiple tasks while simultaneously implementing or executing the decisions. So the present study aims to
examine the dimensionality of ambidexterity by introducing execution as a separate factor in the existing two-factor
(exploration and exploitation) construct developed by Mom, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda (2007).
Most recently, Caniëls et al. (2017) suggest that motivation is a driving factor that determines how actively the
employees are engaged in ambidextrous behaviours. The Self-Determination Theory suggests, intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational factors influence situational responses of people with the consideration of psychological needs that leads
to self-determination and growth (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Therefore, we can infer that individual motivation uses their
cognitive abilities to reshape their jobs that can play a central role in assessing the functioning of ambidextrous
behaviour among the employees which may result in improved business performance. Furthermore, intrinsically
motivated employees are better able to identify the meaning of work (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and redefine their jobs
cognitively that can resultantly improve firm performance. However, still, there is limited evidence that can support
the argument that the cognitive abilities can create synergy among the employees to become ambidexterious that leads
to enhancing business performance (Prieto & Santana, 2012).
Moreover, most of the studies focus mostly on organisational ambidexterity rather than employee ambidexterity.
So various studies call for exploring the ambidexterious behaviour at an employee level (Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013;
Caniëls & Veld, 2016; Prieto & Santana, 2012). The reason to study employee ambidexterity can be attributed to the
nature of organisations. In the context of SMEs, employees are directly linked to enhancing business performance and
tend to perform multiple roles that require proactive abilities to deal with every task efficiently (Marija, Slavica, &
Grozdana, 2014). Therefore, in light of the above discussion, the present study aims to achieve two-fold objectives.
Firstly, it tries to reassess the dimensionality of the employee ambidexterity construct proposed by Mom et al. (2007).
Secondly, the present study explores the mediating role of employee ambidexterity between the relationship of
cognitive crafting and business performance in the context of Small and Medium Enterprises.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Cognitive Crafting
Most recently cognitive crafting is gaining attention by different researchers who advocate this concept as an
enabler to redefine changes proactively in their jobs (Niessen, Weseler, & Kostova, 2016; Weseler & Niessen, 2016).
Although in the past cognitive crafting is perceived as a type of coping strategy for avoidance where employees try to
shape their jobs just to fit their respective preferences and need (Tims & Bakker, 2010). However, it is believed that
cognitive crafting can be an effective proactive strategy that can create a fit with the organisational environment by
altering the meaning of the work (Niessen et al., 2016). The Self-Determination Theory, (SDT) presented by Deci and
Ryan (2000) suggests that the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors with innate psychological needs (i.e.
autonomy relatedness and competence) determine the situational responses. Intrinsic motivation is concerned with the
active engagement of individuals in a task that seems exciting and meaningful (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Motivation is
said to be one of the significant predictors of proactive behaviours (Devloo, Anseel, De Beuckelaer, & Salanova,
2015) that elicit job crafting behaviour (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Job crafting refers to the proactive behaviour
of employees to redefine or restructure their jobs so that they are better able to satisfy their needs (Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001). Job crafting can take three forms, i.e. task crafting, relational crafting and cognitive crafting
(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). The current study focuses on cognitive crafting. It refers to a mental state where
employees holistically view their jobs and redefine or reframe them in a way to make them more meaningful (Berg,
Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2013). Therefore, employees who consider their jobs meaningful are more involved in their
jobs and perform better (Weseler & Niessen, 2016).
Moreover, the proponents of SDT argue that intrinsically motivated employees are more involved in their
tasks/jobs and are motivated to perform at a high level (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Therefore, we can expect intrinsically
motivated employees to redefine their jobs cognitively to make them purposeful. Hence, there is a natural link from
intrinsic motivation to cognitively crafted jobs specifically in SMEs. Since the managerial aspects of SMEs are
attributed to a proactive attitude towards the events in the environment that involves flexibility and willingness to
accept the risk (Marija et al., 2014). So it can be argued that cognitive crafting can prove to be a positive attitude
amongst the employees to enhance business performance specifically in the context of SMEs. The burden of numerous
overlapping activities relating to planning or exploring opportunities, exploiting the routine tasks and implementing

86
 Int. J. Management Research & Emerging Sciences/10(2) 2020, 85-95

the plans become a challenging task for SMEs. It is argued that in SMEs, working in an efficient manner by the
managers calls for 60% of the time for planning and development, 25% to exploit current tasks and 15% to implement
routine tasks (Avlijaš, 2008). These facts reveal that in small businesses employees tend to assume multiple roles and
are engaged in multitasking activities (such as exploration, exploitation and execution) simultaneously. Therefore, the
current study aims to explore the attribute of cognitive crafting among the employees that creates ambidexterious
behaviour in a dynamic environment such as SMEs
Ambidexterity
The Ambidexterity Theory presented by March (1991) suggests that the organization should be able to balance
the explorative and exploitative activities in order to adopt the change successfully. Moreover, ambidexterity refers to
the organisational ability of simultaneously engaging in exploitative and explorative activities (March, 1991; Raisch
& Birkinshaw, 2008). Exploitation refers to the improvement and refinement of existing competencies, products,
resources and organisational procedures. The exploitative activities direct towards attaining efficiency. On the other
hand, exploration refers to searching for new alternatives (Zhang, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2012). Explorative
orientation links to risk-taking, experimentation and involvement in creative and innovative activities (March, 1991;
Zhang et al., 2012). During the past years various studies were conducted to identify the outcomes of ambidexterity
such as, customer satisfaction (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), sales growth (He & Wong, 2004), innovation (Katila &
Ahuja, 2002), firm performance (Auh & Menguc, 2005; Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006; Na, Qinhai, Janine,
& Patrick, 2016) and perceived organizational performance (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). However, the preliminary
studies focus more on organisational ambidexterity, and less attention is given to ambidexterity at the employee level
(Caniëls et al., 2017). Moreover, Caniëls and Veld (2016) state that organisational ambidexterity is dependent upon
the integration of explorative and exploitative behaviour by employees. Such integration of activities as an
ambidextrous behaviour among the employees is termed as “employee ambidexterity”. Employee ambidexterity refers
to the behavioural orientation of employees towards ambidextrous activities, i.e. exploitation and exploration (Mom,
van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009).
Similarly, Minbaeva, Mäkelä, and Rabbiosi (2012) assert that it is the employees who execute the ambidextrous
activities in an organisation - specifically in the context of SMEs. The reason for such an argument is because SMEs
possess limited resources and retain only those employees who contribute to enhance the performance of the firms
(Castrogiovanni, 2011). Most recently, Moses et al. (2017) report that ambidextrous employees in SMEs contribute
to the overall ambidexterity of the organisation that resultantly improves the organisational growth. Additionally,
employees in SMEs are characterized by being ambitious, possess tendency of accepting the risk and are desirous to
achieve success for their enterprise (Marija et al., 2014), so they can implement (execute) the exploitative and
explorative changes (Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). Moreover, it is notable that the employees in smaller organisations
not only involve in the explorative and exploitive activities but are indulged in the effective implementation or
execution also. However, in the literature, the construct of ambidexterity is limited to exploitation and exploration
where implementation/execution is discussed as a factor of exploitative activity. For instance, Smith (2017) argues
that exploitative activities are associated with others factors such as enhancing efficiency, implementing and executing
changes. In contrast, the present study posits to give due importance to the implementation or execution of various
activities separately in the context of SMEs. The reason for such a proposition can be attributed to the complex
overlapping activities that the employees perform in small organisations. As proper implementation or execution can
enhance business performance (Marija et al., 2014). Therefore, the current study focuses on employee ambidexterity
specifically in SMEs and explores the implementation/execution activity as a separate dimension to ambidexterity
construct.
Linking Cognitive Crafting, Employee Ambidexterity and Business Performance in the Context of SMEs
In the past several studies investigate various antecedents of ambidexterity (Caniëls et al., 2017), that includes
organizational structure (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), knowledge transfer and integration (Gibson & Birkinshaw,
2004), managerial commitment and leadership (Smith & Tushman, 2005) , team composition (Beckman, 2006), and
motivation (Caniëls et al., 2017; Pierro, Kruglanski, & Higgins, 2006). Motivation is one of the critical factors that
determine the performance of employee (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999) which as a result affect the overall organisational
performance. Intrinsically motivated employees are more involved in their tasks (Starbuck & Webster, 1991) are
interested in discovering a new solution (Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2006) and solving problems (Oldham &
Cummings, 1996). Hence, as a result, the ambidextrous activities are stimulated and resultantly improves efficiency
(Caniëls et al., 2017). Moreover, Jasmand, Blazevic, and de Ruyter (2012) assert that the ambidextrous behaviour of
employees is linked to motivation. Recently the study of Caniëls et al. (2017) argues that intrinsic motivation plays a
vital role in driving ambidexterity at the individual level, i.e. employee ambidexterity. Additionally, the findings of

87
Ali et al. Cognitive Crafting Enhance Business Performance . . .

Ya-Ling and Ching-Fu (2016) also conclude that intrinsic motivation is an essential predictor of employee
ambidexterity.
It is noteworthy to argue that intrinsic motivation increases the time spent on a task or technique, which in turn
generates skill (Starbuck & Webster, 1991) to cognitively craft their jobs so that they can exploit, execute and explore
the activities which as a result enhances business performance. However, the literature is silent to examine how
cognitive crafting improves employee ambidextrous behaviour that resultantly enhances business performance.
Therefore the study proposes that cognitive crafting will positively affect business performance when the employees
are involved in ambidextrous activities (such as exploration, exploitation and execution). The propositions formulated
are as follows:
Proposition 1: Cognitive crafting enhances business performance by improving explorative behaviour among
SME employees
Proposition 2: Cognitive crafting enhances business performance by improving executing behaviour among SME
employees
Proposition 3: Cognitive crafting enhances business performance by improving exploitative behaviour among
SME employees
Employee Ambidexterity

Exploration

Execution Business
Cognitive crafting Performance

Exploitation

Fig. 1. Conceptual Model

3. METHODOLOGY
Population
The population consists of the employees of SMEs operating in the service sector. The list of SMEs was obtained
from SMEDA (Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority). The list consists of a population of 4493
firms operating in the service sector. Purposive sampling is used to ensure that companies from 63 subsectors (see
Table 1 in the appendix) are included in the sample. For computing the appropriate sample size, a thumb rule suggested
by Costello and Osborne (2005) that provides a criterion for determining the sample size is used. The rule suggests a
multiple of 20 of the total items in the questionnaire. Therefore, for the current study, a total of 600 questionnaires
were personally administered to the employees of the SMEs operating in service sectors. Due to some incomplete
responses received, so out of the 600 questionnaires administered, only 590 were suitable for further analysis with a
response of 98.3%. The sample consists of 86.4% male and 13.6% female respondents. Most of the respondents were
permanent employees (62%) while the remaining were on a contract basis (28.5%).
Measures
Employee ambidexterity variable is measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (to a very small extent) to 5 (to
a very large extent). To evaluate ambidexterity (exploitation and exploration) eleven item scale (five exploration items
and six exploitation items) of Mom et al. (2007) was adopted. Furthermore, the scale regarding the execution was not
available in the literature. Therefore, the scale for execution was self-constructed based on the features of the other
two dimensions of ambidexterity (i.e. exploration and exploitation). Cognitive crafting variable is measured on a 5-
point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). To evaluate cognitive crafting four-item scale of Niessen et al.
(2016) was adopted. Business performance variable was measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). To evaluate business performance four-item scale of Tan and Liu (2014) was adopted.
The overall value of Cronbach’s alpha for the instrument was α= 0.892 that shows that the reliability is established.
Moreover, Hair , Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2013) suggest testing the convergent and discriminant validity of the
instrument. The convergent validity is assessed by calculating Outer Loadings, Composite Reliability (CR) and

88
 Int. J. Management Research & Emerging Sciences/10(2) 2020, 85-95

Average Variance Extracted (AVE) by following the procedure of Fornell and Larcker (1981) with the help of Smart
PLS-SEM. Table 2 below shows the value of outer loadings, Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) to test for convergent validity.
Table 2. Reliability and Convergent Validity of the Instrument
Construct Sources Outer Loadings CR AVE
EX (Mom et al., 2007) 0.817 0.529
EX1 0.788
EX2 0.609
EX3 0.785
EX4 0.714
EX5
EN 0.787 0.430
EN1 0.627
EN2 0.577
EN3 0.537
EN4 0.734
EN5 0.771
EP (Mom et al., 2007) 0.781 0.472
EP1 0.672
EP2 0.683
EP3 0.735
EP4 0.653
EP5
EP6
CC (Niessen et al., 2016) 0.786 0.479
CC1 0.705
CC2 0.663
CC3 0.649
CC4 0.749
BP (Tan & Liu, 2014) 0.823 0.538
BP1 0.725
BP2 0.754
BP3 0.721
BP4 0.733

Table 2 above shows the values of Outer Loadings, AVE and CR to test for the convergent validity. Hair , Hult,
Ringle, and Sarstedt (2014) state that convergent validity is established when the values of AVE, CR, and Outer
Loadings are higher than 0.50, 0.70 and 0.60. Apart from AVE, the values of CR and Outer Loadings are within the
prescribed range. The values of AVE in case of exploration, execution, and exploitation are less than the prescribed
limit (higher than 0.05) but are higher than 0.40. Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2000) recommend that the value of
AVE not less than 0.40 is also acceptable. Therefore the convergent validity is established as the calculated values of
AVE, CR and Outer loadings are in the range of acceptable region. After assessing convergent validity, the researchers
suggest testing for discriminant validity by using a heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). Discriminant
validity ensures that each construct in the structural model measures a different concept (Hair , Hult, Ringle, &
Sarstedt, 2017; Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015). So Table 3 below depicts discriminant validity.
Table 3. Discriminant Validity
Constructs HTMT Correlation
CC -> BP 0.762
EN -> BP 0.618
EN -> CC 0.651
EP -> BP 0.713
EP -> CC 0.794
EP -> EN 0.916
EX -> BP 0.701
EX -> CC 0.796
EX -> EN 0.889
EX -> EP 0.883

89
Ali et al. Cognitive Crafting Enhance Business Performance . . .

Table 3 above shows the discriminant validity. According to Henseler et al. (2015) and Hair et al. (2017), the
HTMT Ratio should be less than 0.90 to establish discriminant validity. Table 3 above shows that HTMT ratio is less
than 0.90 except in EP -> EN where the HTMT ratio is higher than 0.90, i.e. 0.916
4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Structural Model Assessment
After the verification of reliability and validity, the next step is to test for the statistical significance of the
structural models. A nonparametric procedure referred to as bootstrapping procedure is carried out using the Smart
PLS-SEM to examine the significance of the model. The bootstrapping procedure calculates the value of predictive
accuracy (R2), predictive relevance (Q2) and path modelling. Moreover, the bootstrapping procedure evaluates the
model fitness by calculating the value of Standardized Root Mean Square (SRMR). The value of SRMR (Standardized
Root Mean Square) calculated for the structural model used in this study is 0.111 which is within the acceptable range,
i.e. within 0 to 1 (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). Figure 2 below shows the model extracted through
bootstrapping procedure.

Fig. 2. PLS-SEM Model

Figure 2 above shows the direct and indirect effect of cognitive crafting (CC) on business performance (BP)
through the mediation of employee ambidexterity (i.e. exploration, execution, and exploitation). Model extracted
through bootstrapping procedure shows that all the CC (independent variable) has a positive and highly significant
impact on the BP (p = 0.000 < 0.05) and mediating variable i.e. exploration (EX), execution (EN) and exploitation
(EP) (p = 0.000 <0.05). Moreover, mediating variable EX, EN and EP show a positive and highly significant impact
on dependent variable i.e. BP (p = 0.002, 0.020, 0.001 <0.05). Therefore as the exploration (EX), execution (EN) and
exploitation (EP) mediates the relationship between cognitive crafting and business performance all the proposed
propositions, i.e. P1, P2, and P3 are accepted.
Predictive Accuracy
The predictive accuracy is calculated by the coefficient of determination, i.e. R2 using the PLS-Bootstrapping
procedure. The value of R2 represents the amount of combined variance as explained by exogenous variable into an
endogenous variable. In this study, endogenous variables, i.e., BP, EX, EN and EP have the value of R2 0.365,
0.297,0.198 and 0.257. Additionally, for cross-validating, the predictive accuracy of each endogenous variables PLS-
SEM also calculates the value of Stone-Geisser Q2 (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974). Table 4 below displays the values of
R2 (predictive accuracy) and Q2 (cross-validated predictive relevance) for the model. The table also discusses the
effect size with respect to Q2.

90
 Int. J. Management Research & Emerging Sciences/10(2) 2020, 85-95

Table 4. Results of R2 and Q2

Constructs R2 Adjusted R2 Q² Effect Size
Business Performance 0.365 0.361 0.185 Medium
Exploration 0.297 0.296 0.146 Small
Execution 0.198 0.196 0.078 Small
Exploitation 0.257 0.256 0.115 Small
2 2 2
Effect Size: Small: 0.0 < Q effect size < 0.15; Medium: 0.15 < Q effect size < 0.35; Large: Q effect size > 0.35

Table 4 above discusses the values of R2 and Q2. The predictive relevance of the structural model is established
when the values of Q2 are > Zero. In the current study, the predictive relevance of the structural model is established
as the value of Q2 for BP, EX, EN and EP are 0.185, 0.146, 0.078 and 0.115 which is greater than zero Moreover, the
effect size of Q2 varies from small to medium.
5. DISCUSSION
In this study, we sought to investigate the mediating role of ambidexterity between the relationship of
cognitive crafting and business performance specifically in the context of SMEs. However, initially, the study
proposed to investigate the dimensionality of ambidexterity by introducing execution as a separate dimension from
exploration and exploitation. The reason to examine execution as a separate dimension is to consider implementation
as an additional factor that requires particular attention (Marija et al., 2014). This means that while new opportunities
are explored effectively, and the current activities are improved, it is also essential to execute or implement the changes
efficiently. The current study validates empirically the implementing activity, i.e. execution as a separate dimension
of ambidexterity apart from exploration and exploitation in the context of SMEs. This result can be well associated
in the context of SMEs as the employees are burdened with overlapping activities (Marija et al., 2014), and sometimes
any task can be left well attended. So we can infer that those employees who are proactive and can craft their jobs
cognitively have better chances to deal with such overlapping activities swiftly. This means that when employees
view their work holistically, they tend to feel responsible for those tasks even though such tasks are not formally
assigned to them. Moreover, due to the multitasking behaviour of employees in SMEs, they tend to have a good
understanding of their activities and how such activities will lead to influence business performance. Our findings
suggest that business performance improves when cognitively motivated employees with ambidextrous behaviour
craft their jobs/tasks. This means that cognitive crafting tends to create synergy among the employees to explore,
exploit and execute effectively. The conceptual model empirically validates the partial mediation of the employees’
ambidextrous behaviour that creates a link between cognitive crafting and business performance. The findings of the
study also have some important theoretical and practical implications that are as follows.
Implications
The results of the study contribute to the ambidexterity theory by recognising execution as a separate
dimension from exploration and exploitation in the context of SMEs. The significant mediating role of ambidexterity
(i.e. exploration, execution and exploitation) between cognitive crafting and business performance suggests that SMEs
should motivate their employees to involve in ambidextrous activities in order to improve business performance.
Moreover, those organisations that do not follow a set organisational structure and lacks proper delegation of
responsibilities require an understanding of the employee's cognitive abilities. Furthermore, the present study
implicates that SMEs should realise that the employees can redesign their work tasks proactively and become able to
arrange their multiple tasks utilising their cognitive abilities to explore, exploit and execute. However, while realising
the significance of cognitive crafting caution is required. Organisations should monitor that when task boundaries are
extended work in intensified. Such an intensification of work tasks may lead to work overload and stress.
Limitations and Future Directions
Even though the current study contributes to the existing literature of crafting and employee ambidexterity, the
study is still subject to some limitations. First, there are three types of crafting, i.e. task, relational and cognitive.
However, the current study only focused on cognitive crafting. So, the current study suggests investigating the other
two types of crafting that may induce the employees to involve in ambidextrous activities that can improve business
performance. Second, the current study is conducted on the services sector of SMEs in Pakistan. Furthermore, the
present recommends the future researchers to replicate the study in other sectors to generalise the findings. One of the
most significant contributions of this paper is the identification of execution as a separate dimension of ambidexterity

91
Ali et al. Cognitive Crafting Enhance Business Performance . . .

and the development of the scale. The study recommends the future researchers to conduct this research in other
industries to identify the importance of execution as a separate dimension.
REFERENCES
Ambrose, M., & Kulik, C. (1999). Old Friends, New Faces: Motivation Research in the 1990s. Journal of
Management, 25(3), 231-292.
Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity.
Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652-1661.
Avlijaš, R. (2008). Preduzetništvo i menadžment malih i srednjih preduzeća. Belgrade: Singidunum.
Beckman, C. M. (2006). The Influence of Founding Team Company Affiliations on Firm Behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(4), 741-758.
Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. In B. J. Dik, Z. S. Byrne &
M. F. Steger (Eds.), Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace (pp. 81-104). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the Distinctive Contribution of Ambidexterity to the Field of
Organization Studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287-298.
Caniëls, M., Neghina, C., & Schaetsaert, N. (2017). Ambidexterity of employees: the role of empowerment and
knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1098-1119.
Caniëls, M., & Veld, M. (2016). Employee ambidexterity, high performance work systems and innovative work
behaviour: How much balance do we need? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-
21.
Castrogiovanni, G. J. (2011). The role of human capital factors in small business performance and success. In C. L.
Cooper & Ronald J. Burke (Eds.), Human Resource Management in Small Business (pp. 71-92). Cheltenham:
Edgar Elgar.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for
Getting the Most from Your Analysis. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination
of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Devloo, T., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., & Salanova, M. (2015). Keep the fire burning. European Journal of Work
and Organizatinal Psychology, 24(4), 491-504.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A Guide for the Uninitiated. London: Sage.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101-107.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational
ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The Interplay Between Exploration and Exploitation. Academy
of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Hair , J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM) (Second ed.): Sage Publications.
Hair , J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hair , J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis.
Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-
based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
Holmqvist, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). The Ambidextrous Employee: Exploiting and Exploring People's Potential.
Managing ‘Human Resources’ by Exploiting and Exploring People’s Potentials, 1-23.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model
fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
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.
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new
product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194.

92
 Int. J. Management Research & Emerging Sciences/10(2) 2020, 85-95

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), 646-672.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Marija, L.-M., Slavica, S., & Grozdana, B. (2014). Specifics of Management in Small and Medium-Size Enterprises
in Serbia. Scientific Review, 47(3-4), 104-117.
Minbaeva, D. B., Mäkelä, K., & Rabbiosi, L. (2012). Linking HRM and knowledge transfer via individual-level
mechanisms. Human Resource Management, 51(3), 387-405.
Mom, T. J. M., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating Managers' Exploration and
Exploitation Activities: The Influence of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Horizontal Knowledge Inflows.
Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910-931.
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. 20(4), 812-828.
Moses, A. O., Kayode, O., & Susan, M. (2017). Stimulating employee ambidexterity and employee engagement in
SMEs. Management Decision, 55(4), 662-680.
Na, F., Qinhai, M., Janine, B., & Patrick, F. (2016). Intellectual capital and organizational ambidexterity in Chinese
and Irish professional service firms. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 3(2),
94-114.
Niessen, C., Weseler, D., & Kostova, P. (2016). When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The role of individual
motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Human Relations, 69(6), 1287-1313.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at Work. The
Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
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.
Prieto, I. M., & Santana, M. P. P. (2012). Building ambidexterity: The role of human resource practices in the
performance of firms from Spain. Human Resource Management, 51(2), 189-211.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators. Journal
of Management, 34(3), 375-409.
Smith, S. M. (2017). Organizational Ambidexterity: welcome to Paradox City. Human Resource Management
International Digest, 25(1), 1-3.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for
Managing Innovation Streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536.
Starbuck, W. H., & Webster, J. (1991). When is play productive? Accounting, Management and Information
Technologies, 1(1), 71-90.
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society. Series B (Methodological), 36(2), 111-147.
Tan, M., & Liu, Z. (2014). Paths to success: an ambidexterity perspective on how responsive and proactive market
orientations affect SMEs' business performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(5), 420-441.
Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. South African
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1-9.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary
Change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-29. doi: 10.2307/41165852
Weseler, D., & Niessen, C. (2016). How job crafting relates to task performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
31(3), 672-685.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work.
The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
Ya-Ling, K., & Ching-Fu, C. (2016). Antecedents, consequences and moderators of ambidextrous behaviours among
frontline employees. Management Decision, 54(8), 1846-1860.
Zhang, D., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R. G. (2012). The moderating role of contextual factors on quality
management practices. Journal of Operations Management, 30(1-2), 12-23.

93
Ali et al. Cognitive Crafting Enhance Business Performance . . .

Appendix

Table 1. Subsectors in the Service sector

No. Subsectors
1 Advertising and Marketing
2 Agriculture and Horticulture
3 Automobile
4 Aviation
5 Beverages
6 Building material
7 Bicycles
8 Cables and wires
9 Carpet and tapestry
10 Cement
11 Chemicals
12 Computers and software
13 Construction
14 Consultants
15 Cosmetics
16 Crockery
17 Customs clearing and forwarding
18 Dairy products
19 Departmental stores
20 Edible and cooking oil
21 Educational institution
22 Electric and appliances
23 Engineering
24 Financial institution
25 Firefighting miscellaneous
26 Food and allied
27 Fuel and energy
28 Furniture & wood
29 Gas & gas appliances
30 Glass-ceramics and sanitary
31 Handicrafts
32 Iron and steel
33 Jewellery & gemstones
34 Leather and tanneries
35 Livestock, birds & fisheries
36 Machinery
37 Medical and laboratory equipment
38 Medicine
39 Metal and metals product
40 Mineral
41 Miscellaneous
42 Optical and goods
43 Packaging
44 Paper and board
45 Plastic and PVC

94
 Int. J. Management Research & Emerging Sciences/10(2) 2020, 85-95

46 Poultry
47 Printing and publishing
48 Real estate brokers & developers
49 Rice
50 Rubber
51 Services
52 Shoes
53 Sports Goods
54 Stationery
55 Sugar and allied
56 Telecommunications
57 Textile
58 Timber
59 Tourism and recreation
60 Toys
61 Transport
62 Watches
63 Water and water plants

95