In recent years, growing demands for innovation and equitable outcomes have placed significant pressure on schools to balance stability with change. Schools, as public institutions, are unique in their long-standing traditions and their responsibility to support students' holistic development (Tye, 2000). This dual responsibility makes organizational ambidexterity—a dynamic balance of exploration and exploitation (Levinthal & March, 1993)—highly relevant in education. Despite its importance, research on ambidexterity in schools remains limited compared to its extensive exploration in business and management (Bingham & Burch, 2019). Accordingly, this study addresses this gap by investigating the microfoundations of ambidexterity in schools.

Organizational ambidexterity arises from collective interactions that connect previously unlinked ideas and knowledge in innovative ways, making it a multilevel phenomenon embedded across organizational levels (Tarba et al., 2020). A microfoundation perspective highlights the role of individuals and their interactions in shaping ambidextrous capabilities (Raisch et al., 2009). Senior leaders, such as school principals, play a pivotal role in influencing organizational behaviors and outcomes (Zimmermann et al., 2018). Furthermore, a mediation perspective suggests that the effects of organizational entities are often mediated through micro-level actors and mechanisms (Linder & Foss, 2018).

We designed the conceptual mediation model based on Coleman’s (1990) bathtub model. This model discusses that collective phenomena arise as a result of organizational antecedents impacting the conditions of individuals. These conditions may encourage the actions of individuals, and concomitantly lead to societal outcomes (Felin & Foss, 2020). According to this conceptualization, leader trust in teachers (social conditions) influences teacher organizational commitment (conditions of individual actions), this encourages teacher ambidexterity (individual action), leading to school ambidexterity (societal outcomes). Thus, individual actions lead to macro-level associations (the role of leader trust on school ambidexterity).

The study explores three key research questions:

• What is the direct role of teacher organizational commitment on teacher ambidexterity at the individual level?
• What is the direct role of leader trust in school ambidexterity at the school level?
• How does leader trust indirectly influence school ambidexterity through the mediating roles of teacher organizational commitment and ambidexterity?

Educational leadership literature identifies trust as essential for fostering ambidexterity and innovation in schools (Dedering & Pietsch, 2023). Teachers who feel trusted are more likely to perform routine duties effectively and take risks by experimenting with new approaches (Byun et al., 2017). Similarly, principals who trust their teachers are more confident in implementing initiatives and allowing greater flexibility in work arrangements (Ladegard & Gjerde, 2014). Leader trust, as a macro-level construct, fosters stable social exchange patterns, enabling schools to balance innovation with stability. Similarly, teachers’ organizational commitment serves as a key mediator, linking leader trust to ambidextrous outcomes. Commitment not only enhances teachers’ capacity to fulfill regular duties but also motivates them to engage in exploratory behaviors, contributing to organizational learning and innovation.

This study integrates micro- and macro-level perspectives to advance the conceptualization of school ambidexterity as a dynamic organizational capability. It emphasizes the role of leader trust as a foundational social condition, aligning with Gibson and Birkinshaw’s (2004) assertion that trust is critical for ambidexterity. By addressing the interplay between individual and organizational factors, this research enriches the literature on ambidexterity in public institutions, provides practical insights for educational policymakers and practitioners, and informs strategies for enhancing principal leadership skills and driving innovation in schools.

Sample We employed a two-stage stratified cluster sampling procedure, and reached a sample size of 3,075 teachers (1,999 female, 1,075 male and one missing) and 261 school principals from 12 NUTS regions across Turkiye. Including overtime, the mean weekly workload for teachers was 32.82 hours. The sample consisted of 298 teachers at the early childhood education level, 1079 at the primary level, 992 at the lower secondary level, and 706 at the upper secondary level. The participating school principals were mostly male (80%), with a mean of 4.19 years of experience at the current school. The sizes of the participating schools ranged from 31 to 2,840 students. Instruments Data collected from teachers and school principals through four data collection tools: School ambidexterity (α= 0.95) was measured using six items developed by Dedering and Pietsch (2023) upon the conceptualization of March (1991). Items loaded on two subscales: exploration and exploitation. A sample item for exploration is “Our school generates new ideas through unconventional thinking,” and for exploitation, “Our school continuously improves its quality.” Teacher ambidexterity (α= 0.87) was measured by six items developed by Mom et al. (2009). Teachers were requested to report to what extent they personally engaged in exploitation and exploration activities during the last 12 months. Teacher organizational commitment (α= 0.84) was measured using the scale originally developed by Mowday et al. (1979) and adapted into Turkish by Efeoğlu (2006). A sample item is as follows: “I find that my values and the school’s values are very similar.” School principal trust in teachers (α= 0.86) was measured using four items developed by Dedering and Pietsch (2023). The items were designed to capture four domains of trust: benevolence, competence, honesty, and integrity. A sample item is, “I can, by and large, trust that teachers at my school are very competent in their jobs.” Analytic approach The present study adopted a two-level 2-1-1-2 multilevel mediation model (Preacher et al., 2010) using Mplus with maximum likelihood estimation to ensure robust parameter estimation. To assess the suitability of aggregating teacher-level variables, we computed ICC(1), ICC(2), and rWG(J) values, examining internal consistency and group agreement, even with modest between-group differentiation. Before the main analysis, we tested an empty measurement model including all latent variables and employed measurement isomorphism across levels.

The main SEM model yielded good model fit (x2/df= 3.41, p < 0.001, RMSEA= 0.029, CFI= 0.979, SRMRW= 0.043, SRMRB= 0.114). Results showed that teacher organizational commitment predicted teacher ambidexterity significantly (β= 0.207) at individual level. Besides, leader trust as a macro factor independent variable had a positive role on school ambidexterity through the mediating roles of teacher commitment and ambidexterity (γ= 0.353) at school level. The present study offers robust insight into the micro-foundations of ambidexterity in public organizations and presents a compelling argument for adopting a contextual approach to ambidexterity. By integrating micro- and macro-level perspectives in schools, the study provides a unique lens into the mechanisms that could enable the systematic development of ambidexterity as a dynamic organizational capability. Notably, even after controlling for individual follower variables, a relationship between principal trust as reported by principals and organizational trust as reported by teachers persists at the organizational level. This finding suggests that the relationship between leader trust in followers and organizational ambidexterity is not fully mediated by the micro- and cross-level mechanisms examined in our study. It implies that a leader’s trust in followers may also foster stable and enduring patterns of social exchange, which manifest in tangible work processes and outcomes. Consequently, an ambidextrous climate can be regarded as a social condition in itself, exerting influence on individuals within an organization. The findings of this research are critical for policymakers seeking to enhance principals’ leadership skills, ultimately driving organizational learning, improving student outcomes, and laying a foundation for future innovations across all levels of society.

Bingham, A. J., & Burch, P. (2019). Reimagining complexity: exploring organizational ambidexterity as a lens for policy research. Policy Futures in Education, 17(3), 402–420. Byun, G., Dai, Y., Lee, S., & Kang, S. (2017). Leader trust, competence, LMX, and member performance: a moderated mediation framework. Psychological Reports, 120(6), 1137–1159. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press. Dedering, K., & Pietsch, M. (2023). School leader trust and collective teacher innovativeness: On individual and organisational ambidexterity’s mediating role. Educational Review. Advance online publication. Efeoglu, I. E. (2006). The effects of work family conflict on job stress, job satisfaction and organizational commitment: a study in the pharmaceutical industry (Unpublished master’s thesis). Çukurova University, Adana. Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2020). Microfoundations for institutional theory? Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 65, 393–408. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. Ladegard, G., & Gjerde, S. (2014). Leadership coaching, leader role-efficacy, and trust in subordinates. A mixed methods study assessing leadership coaching as a leadership development tool. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 631–646. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 95–112. Linder, S., & Foss, N. J. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational goals: a review and new directions for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 39–62. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247. Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695. Tarba, S. Y., Jansen, J. J., Mom, T. J., Raisch, S., & Lawton, T. C. (2020). A microfoundational perspective of organizational ambidexterity: critical review and research directions. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 102048. Tye, B. B. (2000). Hard truths: Uncovering the deep structure of schooling. Teachers College Press. Zimmermann, A., Raisch, S., & Cardinal, L. B. (2018). Managing persistent tensions on the frontline: a configurational perspective on ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 55(5), 739–769.