Based on the assumption that a granular study of ambidexterity is necessary to gain a proper understanding of the original, organizational-level construct, the field has witnessed a surge in research on individual (micro) and team or unit (meso)-level ambidexterity. Yet, despite twenty years of micro- and meso-level research, ambidexterity remains a proverbial ‘black box’. This review carries out a systematic inquiry into the causes that sustain the ambiguity surrounding how individuals, teams, or units can effectively integrate the mutually exclusive task demands of exploration and exploitation. We identify three contributing factors: (a) neglect of temporal dynamics; (b) discord in conceptualization and measurement; and (c) theoretical incoherence in predictors of ambidexterity across multiple levels. We call into question the long-held premise in micro- and meso-level research—namely, that ambidexterity is ‘built from the bottom-up’—suggesting it may not be as definitive as widely accepted, but an assumption worth testing. We offer a number of recommendations in the hope of inspiring a redirection in micro- and meso-level research on ambidexterity.
