Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T13:56:34.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the determinants of ambidexterity in the context of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs): A meta-analytical review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2023

Rubina Chakma Open the ORCID record for Rubina Chakma [Opens in a new window]  and
Sanjay Dhir Open the ORCID record for Sanjay Dhir [Opens in a new window]
Rubina Chakma*
Affiliation:
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India
Sanjay Dhir
Affiliation:
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India
*
Corresponding author: Rubina Chakma, E-mail: rchakma09@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Decades of ambidexterity research have gained huge scholarly attention from diverse research areas like marketing, organizational learning, innovation management, supply chain management, strategy, and entrepreneurship. However, it has been observed that past studies do not provide a quantitative assessment of ambidexterity determinants applicable to small and medium firms. In response, this study attempts to address this gap by providing an extensive list of eight determinants that are significantly related to Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) ambidexterity. We employed Random effects meta-analytical procedure to examine the combined effect sizes of each determinant. The analysis was based on 37 empirical publications from 2004 to 2021, involving 8422 SME observations and 48 correlations. The findings of the meta-analysis revealed that all the considered determinants such as Knowledge management, Entrepreneurial orientation, Formalization, Market orientation, Networking, Technological capability, Organization context, and Environmental dynamism are heterogeneous, and they all exert a significant positive impact on ambidexterity.

Keywords

Ambidexterityheterogeneitymeta-analysisrandom effects modelSmall and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , First View , pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

*Abbas, J., Zhang, Q., Hussain, I., Akram, S., Afaq, A., & Shad, M. A. (2020). Sustainable innovation in small medium enterprises: The impact of knowledge management on organizational innovation through a mediation analysis by using SEM approach. Sustainability, 12(6), 2407. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Abebe, M. A., & Angriawan, A. (2014). Organizational and competitive influences of exploration and exploitation activities in small firms. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 339–345. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.01.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Andrade, J., Franco, M., & Mendes, L. (2020). Technological capacity and organisational ambidexterity: The moderating role of environmental dynamism on Portuguese technological SMEs. Review of Managerial Science, 15(7), 2111–2136. doi: 10.1007/s11846-020-00416-xGoogle Scholar
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayoko, O. (2021). SMEs, innovation and human resource management. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(1), 1–5. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2021.8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, N. (2018). Exploring the relationship between institutional factors and FDI attractiveness: A meta-analytic review. International Business Review, 27(1), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.05.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Berard, C., & Fréchet, M. (2020). Organizational antecedents of exploration and exploitation in SMEs: The role of structural and resource attributes. European Business Review, 32(2), 211–226. doi: 10.1108/EBR-12-2018-0216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Bierly, P. E., Damanpour, F., & Santoro, M. D. (2009). The application of external knowledge: Organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00829.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298. doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed- effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Cao, Q., Simsek, Z., & Zhang, H. (2010). Modelling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7), 1272–1296. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00877.xGoogle Scholar
*Cenamor, J., Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2019). How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through digital platforms: The roles of digital platform capability, network capability and ambidexterity. Journal of Business Research, 100, 196–206. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakma, R., Paul, J., & Dhir, S. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2021.3114609.Google Scholar
*Chams-Anturi, O., Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Romano, P. (2020). The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 25(3), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420966331Google Scholar
*Chang, Y. Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium- sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2011.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Chang, Y. Y., Hughes, M., & Hotho, S. (2011). Internal and external antecedents of SMEs’ innovation ambidexterity outcomes. Management Decision, 49(10), 1658–1676. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111183816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Dezi, L., Alberto, F., Armando, P., & Demetris, V. (2021). The role of external embeddedness and knowledge management as antecedents of ambidexterity and performances in Italian SMEs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(2), 360–369. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2019.2916378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolz, C., Iborra, M., & Safón, V. (2019). Improving the likelihood of SME survival during financial and economic crises: The importance of TMTs and family ownership for ambidexterity. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 22(2), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durán, W., & Aguado, D. (2022). CEOs’ managerial cognition and dynamic capabilities: A meta-analytical study from the micro foundations approach. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(3), 451–479. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2022.24Google Scholar
Ebben, J. J., & Johnson, A. C. (2005). Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(13), 1249–1259. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourné, S. P. L., Rosenbusch, N., Heyden, M. L. M., & Jansen, J. P. (2019). Structural and contextual approaches to ambidexterity: A meta-analysis of organizational and environmental contingencies. European Management Journal, 37(5), 564–576. doi: 10.101 6/j.emj.2019.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Fu, N., Ma, Q., Bosak, J., & Flood, P. (2015). Exploring the relationships between HPWS, organizational ambidexterity and firm performance in Chinese professional service firms. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management, 6(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHRM-09-2014-0029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Granero, A., Fernández-Mesa, A., Jansen, J. J. P., & Vega-Jurado, J. (2018). Top management team diversity and ambidexterity: The contingent role of shared responsibility and CEO cognitive trust. Long Range Planning, 51(6), 881–893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, F., Guidice, R., & Mero, N. (2019). The interactive effect of person and situation on explorative and exploitative behavior. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(6), 1235–1255. 10.1017/jmo.2019.50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giampaoli, D., Ciambotti, M., & Bontis, N. (2017). Knowledge management, problem solving and performance in top Italian firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. doi: 10.1007/s10654-017-0256-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Günsel, A., Altındağ, E., Kılıç Keçeli, S., Kitapçı, H., & Hızıroğlu, M. (2018). Antecedents and consequences of organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of networking. Kybernetes, 47(1), 186–207. doi: 10.1108/K-02-2017-0057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation’. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., & Fox, B. C. (2015). Managerial social networks and ambidexterity of SMEs: The moderating role of a proactive commitment to innovation. Human Resource Management, 54(S1), s201–s221. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heirati, N., O'Cass, A., & Sok, P. (2017). Identifying the resource conditions that maximize the relationship between ambidexterity and new product performance. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 32(8), 1038–1050. doi: 10.1108/JBIM-08-2016-0191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 Index? Psychological Methods, 11, 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hur, H. (2019). Job security matters: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between job security and work attitudes. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(5), 925–955. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2019.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta analysis. The Academy Of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khosravi, P., Newton, C., & Rezvani, A. (2019). Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research. European Management Journal, 37(6), 694–707. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirca, A. H., & Yaprak, A. (2010). The use of meta-analysis in international business research: Its current status and suggestions for better practice. International Business Review, 19(3), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Ko, W. W., & Liu, G. (2019). How information technology assimilation promotes exploratory and exploitative innovation in the small- and medium-sized firm context: The role of contextual ambidexterity and knowledge base. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(4), 442–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N., & Mole, K. (2018). Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 47(2), 413–427. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Lee, Y., Cortes, A. F., Zhuang, Y., & Herrmann, P. (2020). Social capital and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating effect of absorptive capacity. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 16(8), 1793–1812. doi: 10.1108/IJOEM-07-2019-0542Google Scholar
Lei, H., Khamkhoutlavong, M., & Le, P. B. (2021). Fostering exploitative and exploratory innovation through HRM practices and knowledge management capability: The moderating effect of knowledge-centered culture. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(8), 1926–1946. doi: 10.1108/JKM-07-2020-0505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, D., Lin, J., & Cui, W. (2018). The trade-off between knowledge exploration and exploitation in technological innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 781–801. doi: 10.1108/JKM-09-2016-0401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Q., & Yi, L. (2021). The multilevel effectiveness of entrepreneurial leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–19. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2020.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672. doi: 10.1177/0149206306290712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Mammassis, C. S., & Kostopoulos, K. C. (2019). CEO goal orientations, environmental dynamism and organizational ambidexterity: An investigation in SMEs. European Management Journal, 37(5), 577–588. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2019.08.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marín-Idárraga, D. A., Hurtado González, J. M., & Cabello Medina, C. (2020). Factors affecting the effect of exploitation and exploration on performance: A meta-analysis. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 25(4), 312–336. doi: 10.1177/2340944420972707Google Scholar
Martinez-Conesa, I., Soto-Acosta, P., & Carayannis, E. G. (2017). On the path towards open innovation: Assessing the role of knowledge management capability and environmental dynamism in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(3), 553–570. doi: 10.1108/JKM-09-2016-0403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathias, B. D. (2014). Exploration, exploitation, ambidexterity, and firm performance: A meta-analysis. Technology Innovation Entrepreneurship and Competitive Strategy, 14, 289–317. doi: 10.1108/S1479-067X20140000014009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathias, B. D., Mckenny, A. F., & Crook, T. R. (2018). Managing the tensions between exploration and exploitation: The role of time. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(3), 316–334. doi: 10.1002/sej.1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Mu, J. (2015). Marketing capability, organizational adaptation and new product development performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 49, 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, V., Rosenbusch, N., & Bausch, A. (2013). Success patterns of exploratory and exploitative innovation: A meta-analysis of the influence of institutional factors. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1606–1636. doi: 10.1177/0149206313484516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, T., Huang, F., & Tian, X. (2021). A meta-analysis of the impact of open innovation on performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–18. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2021.38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A. III, & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 75(3), 1–30.Google Scholar
*Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1420–1442. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, J., & Barari, M. (2022). Meta-analysis and traditional systematic literature reviews—What, why, when, where, and how?. Psychology and Marketing, 39(6), 1099–1115. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Peng, M. Y. P., Lin, K. H., Peng, D. L., & Chen, P. (2019). Linking organizational ambidexterity and performance: The drivers of sustainability in high-tech firms. Sustainability, 11(14), 3931. doi: 10.3390/su11143931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., & Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2018). A joint analysis of determinants and performance consequences of ambidexterity. Business Research Quarterly, 21(2), 84–98. doi: 10.1016/j.brq.2018.03.001Google Scholar
*Prajogo, D., & Mcdermott, C. M. (2014). Antecedents of service innovation in SMEs: Comparing the effects of external and internal factors. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(3), 521–540. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pugliese, R., Bortoluzzi, G., & Balzano, M. (2022). What drives the growth of start-up firms? A tool for mapping the state-of-the-art of the empirical literature. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25 (6), 242–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2021-0163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Ramachandran, I., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Badrinarayanan, V. (2019). Enabling and leveraging ambidexterity: Influence of strategic orientations and knowledge stock. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(6), 1136–1156. doi: 10.1108/JKM-11-2018-0688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Sahi, G. K., Gupta, M. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2020). The effects of strategic orientation on operational ambidexterity: A study of Indian SMEs in the industry 4.0 era. International Journal of Production Economics, 220, 107395. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.05.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Santoro, G., Thrassou, A., Bresciani, S., & Del Giudice, M. (2021). Do knowledge management and dynamic capabilities affect ambidextrous entrepreneurial intensity and firms’ performance?. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(2), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2907874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, D., & Morschett, D. (2020). Decades of research on foreign subsidiary divestment: What do we really know about its antecedents? International Business Review, 29(4), 101653. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, X., Su, L., & Cui, A. P. (2020). A meta-analytic study on exploration and exploitation. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 35(1), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-03-2019-0119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simao, L., & Franco, M. (2018). External knowledge sources as antecedents of organizational innovation in firm workplaces: A knowledge-based perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 237–256. doi: 10.1108/JKM-01-2017-0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S., Dhir, S., Gupta, A., Das, V. M., & Sharma, A. (2020). Antecedents of innovation implementation: A review of literature with meta-analysis. Foresight (Los Angeles, Calif ), 23(3), 273–298. doi: 10.1108/FS-03-2020-0021Google Scholar
Smith, A., Gilbert, D., & Sutherland, F. (2017). The explore–exploit tension: A case study of organizing in a professional services firm’. Journal of Management & Organization, 23(4), 566–586. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2017.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2018). Information technology, knowledge management and environmental dynamism as drivers of innovation ambidexterity: A study in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 824–849. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tian, H., Dogbe, C. S. K., Pomegbe, W. W. K., Sarsah, S. A., & Otoo, C. O. A. (2020). Organizational learning ambidexterity and openness, as determinants of SMEs’ innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2), 414–438. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-05-2019-0140Google Scholar
*Tran, H. Q. (2016). Top management team behavioral integration, organizational ambidexterity, and firm performance: Empirical evidence from small businesses. Strategic Management Quarterly, 4(3), 1–26. doi: 10.15640/smq.v4n3a1Google Scholar
*Tsai, H. T., & Ren, S. (2019). Antecedents of strategic ambidexterity in the context of internationalisation: A panel study of Taiwan small and median-sized enterprises. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 31(8), 986–1001. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2019.1582764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. III (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 1–24. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1120813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Tzokas, N., Kim, Y. A., Akbar, H., & Al-Dajani, H. (2015). Absorptive capacity and performance: The role of customer relationship and technological capabilities in high-tech SMEs. Industrial Marketing Management, 47, 134–142. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vahlne, J. E., & Jonsson, A. (2017). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA. International Business Review, 26(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., Santoro, G., & Papa, A. (2017). Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), 374–388. doi: 10.1007/s10961-016-9502-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, J. (2021). Dimensional research on organization structure: Meta-analysis and conceptual redirection. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–18. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2021.63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Wang, D. S. (2019). Association between technological innovation and firm performance in small and medium-sized enterprises: The moderating effect of environmental factors. International Journal of Innovation Science, 11(2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-04-2018-0049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenke, K., Zapkau, F. B., & Schwens, C. (2021). Too small to do it all? A meta-analysis on the relative relationships of exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity with SME performance. Journal of Business Research, 132, 653–665. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Wiratmadja, I. I., Profityo, W. B., & Rumanti, A. A. (2020). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity on Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) performance. IEEE Access, 9, 4423–4434. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3048139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R. J., & Griffith, D. A. (2007). An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities: Implications for product innovation and market performance’. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), 63–93. doi: 10.1509/jimk.15.4.63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Zhang, J. A., Edgar, F., Geare, A., & O'Kane, C. (2016). The interactive effects of entrepreneurial orientation and capability-based HRM on firm performance: The mediating role of innovation ambidexterity. Industrial Marketing Management, 59, 131–143. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.02.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Zhou, K. Z., & Wu, F. (2010). Technological capability, strategic flexibility and product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 547–561. doi: 10.1002/smjGoogle Scholar
*Zimmermann, A., Hill, S. A., Birkinshaw, J., & Jaeckel, M. (2020). Complements or substitutes? A microfoundations perspective on the interplay between drivers of ambidexterity in SMEs. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101927CrossRefGoogle Scholar