| Course | LDR 736 Architecture of Leadership (LDR/736) |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Doctoral ambidextrous leadership analysis |
| Length | about 1,164 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | DBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for LDR 736 Week 5
Opening and Closing: Ambidextrous Leadership for Innovation and Efficiency in a Shipyard Building Its First Electric Ferries
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
LDR/736: Architecture of Leadership
Week 5 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Bayou Coast Marine, its teams and its results are composites written for a model paper.
Fifteen months into a thirty-month ferry contract, the yard at the center of this course has reached its midpoint. Earlier weeks described general manager Camille Arceneaux's paradoxical leadership and her foresight work, which identified electrical capability as a robust investment for any future. The ferry team, 22 engineers, electricians and welders led by electrical engineer Priya Nair, has solved difficult problems, including thermal management for battery rooms and a new grounding approach. But two problems have emerged. First, almost none of the team's learning has reached the tug line, even though future hybrid tugs will need it. Second, the ferry team's experiments have caused three schedule slips, and the tug line's managers complain that shared cranes and inspectors are diverted to the ferries. This paper examines ambidextrous leadership and how Camille can manage both exploration and exploitation.
Opening and Closing Behaviors
Rosing et al. (2011) proposed that the inconsistent relationship between leadership and innovation reflects the fact that innovation requires both exploration and exploitation. They described ambidextrous leadership as combining opening leader behaviors, such as encouraging experimentation, allowing errors and giving room for independent thinking, which increase variance in followers' behavior, with closing leader behaviors, such as setting guidelines, monitoring goals and sticking to plans, which reduce variance. Effective leaders switch flexibly between them as the innovation process moves from idea generation to implementation.
Organizational Ambidexterity
O'Reilly and Tushman (2013) took stock of work on how firms manage to keep improving what they already do while also chasing what they have never done. They described three approaches: sequential ambidexterity, alternating between exploration and exploitation over time; structural ambidexterity, separating exploratory units from exploitative ones with integration at the senior level; and contextual ambidexterity, in which individuals divide their own time. They emphasized that senior leaders' ability to manage the tensions is central to success.
Contextual Ambidexterity
Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) studied business units in multinational firms and found that a context characterized by a combination of performance management, stretch, discipline, and social support, trust and support, enabled contextual ambidexterity, which in turn related to unit performance. Neither performance pressure alone nor support alone produced ambidexterity; both were needed.
Structural Separation at Bayou Coast
The yard has in effect adopted structural ambidexterity: the ferry team works as a separate unit with its own space and freedom. Separation helped exploration, as the team's technical breakthroughs show. But integration, the senior leaders' job in O'Reilly and Tushman's account, has been weak. No mechanism moves learning to the tug line, and shared resources create conflict.
Camille's Opening Behaviors
With the ferry team, Camille has used opening behaviors well: she encourages experiments, tolerates failures on mock-ups and asks the team to challenge assumptions about steel-era procedures.
Camille's Closing Behaviors
She has been less consistent with closing behaviors on the ferry project. As the project moves from design toward construction, more closing is needed: firm schedules, decision deadlines and standard procedures for proven solutions. Three schedule slips occurred because experiments continued after designs should have been frozen.
The ferry team was still opening when the calendar said it was time to close.
The Tug Line's Experience
With the tug line, Camille relies mainly on closing behaviors, which suit efficient production. But the tug line has had little opening: few chances to explore hybrid systems the yard will soon need. Ambidexterity at the yard level requires some opening there too.
Supervisors in the Middle
Shared crane operators and inspectors face competing demands daily. Without clear priorities, they make ad hoc choices, which frustrates both teams. Gibson and Birkinshaw's point about context applies: supervisors need both clear performance expectations and support to balance demands.
What the Two Teams Said
Interviews showed how each team experienced the imbalance. Ferry team members described the freedom to experiment as energizing but admitted they sometimes kept refining solutions after they were good enough. Tug line managers described watching inspectors leave their hulls to check ferry mock-ups and losing a day each time. Both teams said they rarely talked to each other except to argue about cranes. Neither saw the other's work as connected to its own future, although hybrid tugs will need the ferry team's knowledge within a few years.
A Missed Transfer
One example illustrates the cost of weak integration. The ferry team developed a method for routing high-voltage cables through watertight bulkheads that cut installation time by a third. Two months later, the tug line installed shore power cables on a new tug using the old method, taking longer and failing a first inspection. No one had told them the new method existed.
Practice 1: Phase Gates for Closing
The ferry project will adopt phase gates: once a design element passes a gate, experiments stop and the design is frozen unless safety requires change. Camille will shift deliberately to closing behaviors at each gate.
Practice 2: Integration Mechanisms
A monthly technical exchange will bring ferry and tug engineers together. Two tug line electricians will rotate into the ferry team each quarter, carrying learning back. Proven ferry solutions will be written into the yard's standard procedures.
Practice 3: Shared Resource Rules
A weekly scheduling meeting will allocate cranes and inspectors by agreed priorities, with Camille resolving conflicts, so supervisors are not left to choose.
Practice 4: Exploration Time on the Tug Line
Tug line engineers will spend a small share of time on hybrid tug concepts, building on ferry lessons, giving the efficient side of the yard some room to explore.
Practice 5: A Supportive, Demanding Context
Following Gibson and Birkinshaw, both teams will have clear performance targets and visible support, such as training and recognition for sharing knowledge.
Measures
Exploitation: tug line schedule adherence, cost per vessel and ferry milestones after design freeze. Exploration: ferry technical solutions developed and lessons adopted in tug line standards. Integration: number of rotations and joint problem-solving sessions.
Results After Six Months
Six months after the practices began, the ferry project had passed two phase gates on schedule, the tug line had adopted the cable routing method and two other ferry solutions and crane conflicts fell after the weekly allocation meeting started. Tug line engineers produced a preliminary hybrid tug concept, the first exploratory work on that side of the yard in years.
Implications for Camille's Architecture
Camille will add a deliberate question to her weekly reviews: is this team in an opening or closing phase, and am I behaving to match?
Conclusion
Research shows that innovation requires leaders who switch between opening and closing behaviors, that organizations can achieve ambidexterity through sequential, structural or contextual designs and that a context combining performance pressure with support enables ambidexterity. At Bayou Coast, structural separation helped the ferry team explore, but weak integration and late closing caused slips and trapped learning. Phase gates, integration mechanisms, resource rules, exploration time for the tug line and a supportive, demanding context can help the yard do both.
References
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159573
O'Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014
What the LDR 736 Week 5 instructions ask
Week 5 of LDR 736 usually turns to ambidexterity, the balance between searching for new possibilities and getting the most from what an organization already does well. Expect to discuss structural, contextual and leadership approaches to ambidexterity, review evidence on how ambidexterity relates to innovation and performance and apply these ideas to an organization facing both efficiency and innovation demands. Strong papers distinguish leader behaviors from organizational structures, use empirical research, analyze specific situations where the balance succeeds or fails and propose practices with measures. Reviewers also value attention to the moments when a leader must switch modes. Cite peer-reviewed research in APA style.
How this LDR 736 Week 5 example is built
Halfway through the electric ferry contract, Bayou Coast's ferry team has solved battery integration problems the yard never faced before, but little of that learning has reached the tug line, and the ferry team's experiments have caused schedule slips that irritate the tug line's managers. The paper examines how leaders can manage both. Research proposes that ambidextrous leadership combines opening behaviors that encourage exploration with closing behaviors that encourage exploitation, switched flexibly as tasks change. A review of organizational ambidexterity distinguishes structural separation from contextual approaches that let individuals divide time between exploration and exploitation. A study of business units found that a context combining performance management with social support enabled ambidexterity and higher performance. The analysis shows where Camille's leadership switches well and where it does not, and recommends practices.
LDR 736 Week 5 grading rubric: where the points go
The ambidexterity paper is assessed on conceptual clarity, use of evidence and the quality of its application. Reviewers look for moments when the leader switched modes, or failed to, described with dates and consequences. Reviewers expect a clear account of opening and closing behaviors, of structural and contextual ambidexterity and of evidence linking them to innovation and performance. They reward analysis of specific moments when leaders switched or failed to switch, and recommendations that combine leader behavior with organizational design. Measures for both exploration and exploitation, such as lessons transferred and schedule adherence, show the student understands that ambidexterity means doing both well, not one at a time.
LDR 736 Week 5 help: mistakes to avoid
Ambidexterity papers often describe the concept without showing how leaders actually switch between modes. Identify specific behaviors and moments. Another common gap is treating structural separation as the whole answer; separate units can explore but may never transfer learning. Address integration. Some papers praise exploration and neglect the closing behaviors that turn ideas into reliable products. Include both. Others ignore the people in the middle, such as supervisors and engineers who must balance demands daily. Describe their role. Include the middle managers who feel the tension most. Finally, propose measures for both sides, since organizations tend to measure exploitation and neglect exploration.
Related LDR 736 sample papers
Other LDR 736 week samples
- LDR 736 Week 1: Historical Foundations of Leadership
- LDR 736 Week 2: Emerging Leadership Theories
- LDR 736 Week 3: Leadership Decision Making
- LDR 736 Week 4: Foresight and Future Orientation
- LDR 736 Week 6: Leadership and Performance Excellence
- LDR 736 Week 7: Leader Self-Development
- LDR 736 Week 8: Personal Architecture of Leadership
More DBA sample papers
- LDR 726 Week 5: Team Building and Team Training
- LDR 731 Week 5: Stakeholders and Balanced Value
- MGT 711 Week 5: Societal and Regulatory Factors
- MGT 726 Week 5: Global Communication Strategies
LDR 736 Week 5 questions, answered
What does LDR 736 Week 5 usually cover?
It usually covers ambidextrous leadership and organizational ambidexterity, balancing exploration of new possibilities with exploitation of existing capabilities through leader behaviors and organizational design.
Where can I find a free LDR 736 Week 5 sample paper?
A complete doctoral Week 5 paper on ambidextrous leadership at a shipyard building its first electric ferries is published above.
What is ambidextrous leadership?
It is a leadership approach combining opening behaviors that encourage experimentation and variance with closing behaviors that reduce variance and ensure execution, switched flexibly as needed.
What is the difference between structural and contextual ambidexterity?
In the structural form, separate groups handle new and existing work; in the contextual form, the same people split their own time between improving today's work and trying new things.
Does ambidexterity improve performance?
Research found that business units with a context supporting both performance and social support achieved higher ambidexterity, which was associated with better performance.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All LDR 736 week samples · All courses