Businesses today are expected to keep existing customers satisfied, attract new ones, enhance current products, develop new offerings, provide reliable service, and boost sales, all at the same time. Survival rests on this balancing act as customers become more informed, more demanding, and more selective. 

A recent study led by Dr. Omar S. Itani, associate professor and chairperson of the Department of Marketing at the Adnan Kassar School of Business, in collaboration with faculty members from the US, Singapore, and India, examines how firms can manage this balance and convert it into improved performance. Titled “The paradox of ambidexterity: marketing and service-sales in the spotlight,” the study was published in the Journal of Business Research. 

In today’s fast-paced business world, corporate leaders are often encouraged to be “ambidextrous” and leverage existing strengths while also exploring new opportunities. Yet, a gap remains between what companies are advised to do and what they can realistically achieve, and there is insufficient data on how high-level decisions translate into day-to-day operational activities.

“Our objective was to ascertain whether corporate marketing ambidexterity genuinely influences the development of strategic service-sales capabilities and, more crucially, to identify the internal and external forces that determine the success or failure of this relationship,” explained Dr. Itani. 

In the study, “ambidexterity” refers to the ability to perform two distinct tasks effectively at once. In marketing, this entails balancing “exploitation”—improving existing marketing strategies—with “exploration,” developing new ones. In service and sales, it could mean addressing customers’ existing needs while identifying suitable opportunities to offer them related or upgraded products or services by cross-selling or up-selling.

Surveying 190 upper managers and executives from US firms across different sizes, industries, markets, and product offerings, the study found that marketing ambidexterity at the firm level is significantly related to strategic service-sales ambidexterity. In practical terms, firms that are good at both improving existing marketing processes and developing new ones are better positioned to balance customer service and sales activities. 

The study also shows that this balance is not achieved by only one side performing well. Firms need high levels of both marketing exploitation and exploration. On examining each activity separately, the researchers found that neither exploitation nor exploration had a significant direct link to customer service provision, cross- and up-selling, or service-sales ambidexterity on its own. This reinforces one of the study’s central points, namely that the combined capability matters more than either activity alone. 

As Dr. Itani put it, “Genuine ambidexterity does not entail a passive 50/50 allocation of resources.” Rather than simply dividing attention between two goals, firms need to build strength in both. This is especially relevant for executives who may assume that balance means compromise. The study suggests the opposite. Firms need to reach a high level of competence in both established marketing practices and new market-oriented initiatives. 

Context also matters. Dr. Itani noted that demanding customer environments can drain resources and disrupt the alignment between marketing and service-sales. When customers have high expectations for quality, support, and fit with their needs, firms may struggle to translate strong marketing capabilities into balanced service and sales.  Therefore, leaders need to plan for these pressures rather than assume that teams can absorb them on their own. 

By contrast, when upper management values marketing and is satisfied with its outcomes, marketing insights are more likely to support service and sales across the firm. This indicates that marketing serves not only as a department that communicates with customers, but also as an internal function that helps other teams understand customer needs, market changes, and sales opportunities. 

Finally, strategic service-sales ambidexterity was positively related to firm performance. Cross- and up-selling also had a significant direct link to performance, while customer service provision alone did not. Among the controls, brand equity and offering quality were linked to stronger firm performance. Market turbulence helped explain some service and sales outcomes but weakened service-sales ambidexterity, while most firm size, market type and offering type effects were not statistically significant. 

The study demonstrates that though balance is useful, it is not easily achieved. Firms need strong marketing capabilities, internal support from leadership, and realistic strategies for handling demanding customers. 

Above all, as Dr. Itani emphasized, “organizational ambidexterity constitutes a top-down, integrated capability,” and should not be expected solely from frontline employees who are required to serve customers while also boosting sales. 

When marketing, service, and sales reinforce one another across the organization, firms are better placed to serve customers and improve performance. For executives, the challenge is to create the conditions that allow this balance to work, turning what Dr. Itani described as an operational paradox into “a distinctive profit-generating engine.” 

To browse more scholarly output by the LAU community, visit our open-access digital archive, the Lebanese American University Repository (LAUR).