Today’s companies compete in an increasingly volatile and unpredictable marketplace (Christopher and Holweg, 2011; Dubey et al., 2018). To remain competitive, companies need to explore for new market opportunities and exploit existing efficiencies within their operations (March, 1991; Wu et al., 2017). Exploration includes the search for new possibilities, the discovery of innovative ideas and the flexibility to respond to new opportunities as they arise (March, 1991). Exploitation refers to selecting, refining and implementing standardized procedures to achieve efficiencies in a firm’s operations (March, 1991). For a long time, scholars have argued that operations managers are faced with a trade-off between flexibility and efficiency—where prioritising one is often to the detriment of the other (De Meyer et al., 1989; Kannan, 1998; Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984; Skinner, 1985; Skinner, 1969; Hill, 1993). The argument goes that companies should pursue either a low cost competitive strategy supported by efficient operational processes, or a strategy of differentiation supported by more flexible processes (Hill, 1993; Markides, 2006; Porter, 1996, 1980). According to this group of scholars, attempting to reconcile efficiency and flexibility results in the operation becoming stuck in-between, leading to high switching costs (Porter, 1980, 1996; Markides, 2006). Yet, another group of scholars argues that organisations can be simultaneously flexible and efficient by developing an ambidexterity capability (Duncan, 1976; Adler et al., 1999; Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Tushman and O’Reilly III, 1996). Ambidextrous organisations are ones that are aligned and efficient in the management of today’s business demands, while also adaptive enough to changes in the environment so they will be around tomorrow (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004 p. 209). For example, Adler et al. (1999) found that by partitioning its operation, a Toyota subsidiary could exploit the cost advantages associated with repetitive tasks whilst simultaneously exploring for new flexible manufacturing systems during non-routine work. Other OM scholars have found that companies with operational ambidexterity capabilities are able to explore new, and exploit existing, processes simultaneously—leading to enhanced operational performance (Kortmann et al., 2014; Patel et al., 2012; Tamayo-Torres et al., 2017). The notion of operational ambidexterity has since been extended beyond the boundaries of the firm—to the supply chain (Blome, Schoenherr and Kaesser, 2013; Im and Rai, 2008; Kristal et al., 2010; Lee and Rha, 2016; Rojo et al., 2016). Kristal et al. (2010) defined supply chain ambidexterity as a firm’s strategic choice to simultaneously pursue both supply chain exploitation (efficiency) and exploration ( flexibility) practices (Kristal et al., 2010 p. 415). The notion of supply chain ambidexterity runs counter to those scholars that suggest companies should select the right supply chain for their product; with primarily functional products using efficient supply chains and primarily innovative products relying on flexible supply chains (i.e. Fisher, 1997). Instead, supply chain ambidexterity means managers are not faced with an either/or decision, but can simultaneously have a flexible and efficient supply chain for a particular product (Lee and Rha, 2016; Rojo et al., 2016).