What is the role of proactive and responsive market orientation on firm ambidexterity? Moreover, how do firm differentiation and diversification influence this relationship?
Nicolaas Vermeulen | 6178979 24-06-2016
MSc. Business Administration | Strategy University of Amsterdam
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Nicolaas Maximiliaan Antonie Vermeulen who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of contents Abstract 3 Introduction 4 Literature review 8 Methodology 23 Results 31
Discussion & Conclusion 33
Literature overview 39
Abstract
The literature on ambidexterity suggests that firms that want to pursue a sustainable business should simultaneously engage in both exploratory and explorative activities. Firms that are capable of managing the paradox between exploration and exploitation are considered ambidextrous. While much research has focused on the competitive benefits of ambidexterity, less attention is given on how to achieve ambidexterity. Literature suggests an important role of proactive market orientation and responsive market orientation in this issue. However, empirical evidence is lacking. From an attention-based perspective, the current study proposes that there is a significant relation of proactive market orientation and responsive market orientation on ambidexterity. Moreover, this relation is moderated by the degree of structural differentiation for proactive market orientation. Furthermore, this research proposes a three-way interaction of firm scope, structural differentiation, and market orientation on ambidexterity. However, no significant results were found in this relation. The current study contributes to the ambidexterity literature and offers useful handles for future academic research.
Introduction
The literature on ambidexterity suggests that firms that want to pursue a sustainable business strategy should engage in both exploitative and explorative activities (Smith & Tushman, 2005). The ability to simultaneously engage in exploitative and exploratory activities ensures both short-term profitability and long-short-term survival (Laureiro-Martínez, Brusoni, Canessa, & Zollo, 2015; Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, & Tushman, 2009; Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). Firms that can successfully manage this exploration-exploitation paradox are considered ambidextrous firms (He & Wong, 2004; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Duncan, 1976). While much research has focused on the competitive benefits of ambidexterity (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; He & Wong, 2004), less research has focused on how to achieve ambidexterity. Some literature has focused on organizational antecedents of ambidexterity like leadership styles and integration mechanisms (Jansen, Tempelaar, van den Bosch & Volberda, 2009; Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling & Veige, 2006; Smith & Tushman, 2005). Other literature has focused on environmental antecedents, like market dynamism and competitiveness (Auh & Menguc 2005; Jansen, van den Bosch & Volberda, 2005a).
Despite these different insights on the antecedents of ambidexterity, a better understanding is required of the role of strategic orientation behind the trade-off between exploration and exploitation (Wei, Zhao & Zhang, 2014). Wei et al. (2014) applied the attention-based view (Ocasio, 1997) to provide more clarity on this issue. According to this view, decision-makers focus their attention on a set of given issues and answers. The channeling and distribution of attention to these issues and answers are crucial for the formulation, and implementation of strategic orientation. Strategic orientation refers to the pattern of decisions in a firm that determines and reveals its objectives and goals, which produce policies and plans to achieve these
goals (Ocasio, 1997). Market orientation is one of the most pervasive strategic orientations because it facilitates a culture that leads a firm to create superior value for customers, through the acquisition of crucial market information (Narver & Slater, 1990). Furthermore, the way a firm innovates and evolves is highly dependable on the market conditions in which it is active (McCarthy, Lawrence, Wixted & Gordon, 2010). Consequently, the market orientation activities of a firm determine how to anticipate on these conditions (Markides, 2013). Different scholars have made a distinction between responsive and proactive market orientation. Responsive market orientation addresses the expressed needs of customers, while proactive market orientation tries to address the latent needs of customers (Baker & Sinkula, 2007; Atuahene-Gima, Slater & Olson, 2005; Narver, Slater & Maclachlan, 2004). In this context responsive and proactive market orientation may affect the trade-off decisions between exploitation and exploration in different ways (Wei et al., 2014; Atuahene-Gima et al., 2005), and thus, influence whether a firm becomes ambidextrous or not.
Therefore, this research will examine market orientation as an antecedent of ambidexterity, to provide more clarity and deeper insights on these processes and systems. Market orientation is especially relevant to examine, considering the relation between responsive market orientation and exploitative [incremental] innovation, and proactive market orientation and exploratory [radical] innovation (Wei et al. 2014; Atuahene-Gima et al. 2005; Narver et al., 2004). Wei et al. (2014) deepened our understanding of the role of market orientation in achieving ambidexterity, through examination of responsive- and proactive market orientation. However, they stated: “This study identifies the importance of market orientation and its match with ambidexterity, but the processes and systems needed to realize such a match call for further investigation.” (Wei et al. 2014, p. 151). This research proposes that one of these processes and systems that realize such a match is organizational design. Developing a superior market
orientation that leads to ambidexterity is a complex process, which needs some form of structure to facilitate it (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990), considering the paradoxical activities associated with ambidexterity (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Accordingly, this research will expand the current literature on the role of market orientation in achieving ambidexterity. This will be done by combining current knowledge on market orientation with literature about organizational design, which might moderate the facilitating role of market orientation on ambidexterity. These moderating factors are the degree of structural differentiation and diversification.
The moderating role of the degree of structural differentiation on the relation between market orientation and ambidexterity is interesting, considering the heterogeneous environments in which firm often operate (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1976). To deal with these heterogeneous environments Levinthal and March (1993) propose simplification mechanisms by decomposing the heterogeneous environment into subenvironments. Thus, increasing the effectiveness of learning about these environments. There is an ongoing theoretical discussion around the question whether units should be differentiated or integrated (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). One method of achieving ambidexterity is the subdivision of tasks into distinct organizational units, which foster a suitable context for exploitation or exploration (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Another way of reaching ambidexterity is the integration of exploitation and exploration in a single organizational unit. In this form, organizations design a context wherein employees can simultaneously engage in both types of activities (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). This study will address what organizational structure fits best with the two forms of market orientation to facilitate ambidexterity. Furthermore, this research will examine a three-way interaction, by looking at the combined effect of the broadness of a firm’s scope and structural differentiation on ambidexterity. Burgelman (2002) introduced variation-reducing, induced strategic processes and
variation-increasing, autonomous strategic processes. These autonomous processes can lead to firm diversification or specialization, which conceptually divide a firm into discrete businesses (Levinthal & March, 1993; Rumelt, 1974). This specialization process is another mechanism of learning. The principle behind this is that learning in one diversified business unit releases the pressure to learn in another business unit, due to knowledge transfer (Levinthal & March, 1993). This study proposes that the combination of these two learning mechanisms enhances a firm’s market orientations.
This empirical study will contribute to current ambidexterity literature in at least two ways. First, although a considerable amount of research has focused on the effects of proactive- and responsive market orientation on exploration and exploitation, this is the first study to examine the direct link with ambidexterity. Thus, shedding new light on the antecedents of ambidexterity. Second, combining current literature of market orientation and organizational design, from an attention-based perspective, offers useful handles for further theorizing on the interplay between organizational design and strategic orientations and the achievement of ambidexterity. Altogether, this brings forth the following research question:
What is the role of proactive and responsive market orientation on firm ambidexterity? Moreover, how do firm differentiation and diversification influence this relationship?
Literature review
Exploitation, Exploration, and Ambidexterity
Despite all the attention, it was only until March’s (1991) article when ambidexterity started to gain academic and organizational relevance. Since then the terms ‘exploitation’ and ‘exploration’ have increasingly become dominant research subjects in the analyses of organizational learning, technological innovation, organizational adaptation, strategic management, and organizational design (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). Unfortunately, this has not contributed to making ambidexterity a less ambiguous concept. Following Lin and McDonough III (2011), the term ‘innovation ambidexterity’ (ambidexterity hereafter) has being applied in this thesis, referring to “the attainment of high levels of both incremental and radical innovation.” It is relevant to notice that this definition has a performance-oriented outcome. Meaning: an organization will only reach ambidexterity when both forms of innovation are at a high level.
Firms that want to pursue a sustainable business should engage in both exploratory and exploitative activities (Smith & Tushman, 2005). Although both exploration and exploitation are crucial for organizational survival (March, 1991), they bring paradoxical challenges with them. Exploitation relates to leveraging on existing businesses, described by terms such as: “Refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, [and] execution.” While, exploration is linked to the search for new opportunities and possibilities, described by terms such as: “Search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, [and] innovation”. (March, 1991, p. 71). Incremental innovations are considered exploitative because they come forth from existing organizational knowledge and are focused on serving current customer needs. On the contrary, radical innovations are considered exploratory, because they are focused on gaining new customers, or entering new markets through the acquisition of new knowledge, or the departure from existing skills (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). When
firms predominantly focus on exploitation, this will result in high short-term profits. However, this focus will ultimately result in inertia and a firm that is not able to keep up with environmental changes (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Ahuja & Lampert, 2001; March, 1991). On the other hand, when firms focus solely on exploration activities, they may improve their ability to renew its knowledge base and find new opportunities and possibilities, but they will never be able to reap on these opportunities, and they will eventually go out of business (Levinthal & March, 1993). Firms that are capable of dealing with this paradoxical behavior sets are considered ambidextrous organizations (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004: Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Duncan, 1976). Furthermore, ambidexterity is not solely about the simultaneous development of exploration and exploitation separated from each other. It is also about creating synergies through integration mechanisms that link previously unconnected complementary exploratory and exploitative knowledge sources, and provide opportunities to leverage on common resources (Jansen et al., 2009).
Attention-based view, Market Orientation and Ambidexterity
Top managers are confronted with an overload of information on a daily basis (Mintzberg 1973; Cyert & March 1963). As a way to handle this overload, some scholars developed a view of a three-staged information processing sequence: attention, interpretation, and action (Dutton & Jackson 1987; Daft & Weick 1984). Ocasio (1997) made a simplification of this model. He argued that although attention and interpretation can be conceptually distinguished, they are so interrelated that this distinction is not meaningful. Following this argumentation, he proposed the attention-based view. Ocasio (1997) stated that the interpretation of stimuli remarkably influences how much attention is devoted to them. The attention-based view sees firms as systems of differentiated attention, in which strategic orientations are formed based on the
organization’s context and situation. These strategic orientations are carried out by individual decision-makers (Ocasio, 1997). ‘Attention’, defined by Ocasio (1997, p. 189) as “the noticing, encoding, interpreting, and focusing of time and effort by organizational decision-makers on both (a) issues; the available repertoire of categories for making sense of the environment: problems, opportunities, and threats; and (b) answers: the available repertoire of action alternatives: proposals, routines, projects, programs, and procedures.” The way attention to these issues and answers is channeled and distributed is a crucial part of the formulation and implementation of strategic orientation. According to the attention-based view, the strategic orientations of a firm are the framework that determines and reveals its objectives and goals, which form the policies and plans to achieve these goals (Ocasio, 1997). One such a strategic orientation is the way firms anticipate and adapt to the developments in the market, or how to adjust the product-market domain (Cho & Hambrick, 2006), in other words: market orientation.
Market orientation is an important antecedent of product innovation behaviors (Slater & Narver, 1994). Market orientation helps firms to acquire the needed market information to fulfill the customers’ needs (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). The same is stated by Narver and Slater (1990, p.21), who assert that market orientation is an “organizational culture that most effectively creates the necessary behaviors for creating superior value for buyers […].” Later research conducted by Kyriakopoulos and Moorman (2004) examined the effect of market orientation on firm ambidexterity. Unfortunately, their interpretation of market orientation was too narrow, by treating market orientation as a one-dimension construct, namely responsive market orientation. These definitions solely perceive market orientation as the refinement and adaptations of current innovations to meet current needs, rather than the development of new products targeted at emerging needs and markets (Christensen & Bower, 1996; March, 1991). This interpretation has received criticism. Christensen and Bower (1996), argue that listening too closely to customer
needs will result in a loss of a competitive position within an industry because this only leads to incremental innovations and the neglect of more innovative products. Furthermore, Hamel and Prahalad (1994) stated that market orientation lets managers solely see the world through the eyes of their served customers, leaving the firm open to the tyranny of the served market.
Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001) recognized shortcomings in the way market orientation was defined as described above and added entrepreneurship orientation as an opposing construct. Entrepreneurship orientation is a learning and selection mechanism that brings forth exploratory, and risk-seeking behaviors in the innovation process (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Miller, 1983). Entrepreneurship orientation is a proactive orientation associated with high levels of risk, due to the aggressive initiation of innovations (Foxall, 1984 in Atuahene-Gima & Ko, 2001). Later on Narver et al. (2004) further elaborated on market orientation and made a distinction between proactive and responsive market orientation. A responsive market orientation is a business’s attempt to discover, understand and to satisfy customers’ expressed needs. According to Narver et al. (2004), this is the version of the construct of market orientation on which virtually all previous empirical research had focussed. Whereas a proactive market orientation is the attempt to discover, understand and to satisfy customers’ latent needs. This distinction had resemblance with the earlier work of Kohli and Jaworski (1990). With their new definition of market orientation Narver et al. (2004) enhanced the way to examine the relation between market orientation and its effects on, in this case, firm ambidexterity.
An explanation for the difference in proactive and responsive market orientation can be found in the attention-based view (Ocasio, 1997). These two forms of market orientation differ in the way attention is distributed towards a set of given issues and answers to these issues. This difference in attention distribution leads to different strategic orientations (Ocasio, 1997). Responsive market-oriented firms focus more on issues regarding the expressed needs of its
current customers in existing markets. They tend to focus on current business opportunities and competitors (Narver et al. 2004). Thus, these firms probably pay more attention to activities that facilitate the acquirement of information on current product-markets, competitors and other threats (Ocasio, 1997; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). On the contrary, proactive market orientation is focused on the future or discovery of latent markets. Consequently, firms adopting a proactive market-oriented strategy, possibly pay more attention towards the search for new business opportunities and focussing on countering future competition (Narver et al. 2004; Ocasio, 1997).
Responsive market orientation may cause conflicts within organizations between exploration and exploitation (Hamel, 2000). Firms that choose a responsive market orientation strategy are driven by a dominant logic that focuses on current needs and markets. Dominant logic is defined as the way business is conceptualized by managers. It is a shared cognitive map of learned problem-solving behavior that develops as a result of the operant conditioning, paradigms, cognitive biases, and pattern-recognition processes (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986). Exploration often does not match the dominant logic of a responsive market orientation strategy, because it introduces radically new products, services or technologies (He & Wong, 2004; March, 1991). Thus, exploratory activities will not receive a high credibility or priority within firms that have a responsive market orientation (Atuahema-Gima et al. 2005; Narver et al., 2004). Furthermore, within firms exploitation often drives out exploration because the returns on exploitation are more certain and closer in time and space than the returns of exploration (March, 1991). As firms develop greater capabilities at a particular activity, they engage in it more and more, better known as the ‘success trap’ (Levinthal & March, 1993). This exploitation focus is driven by an experience-based attention perspective, which limits the ability of decision-makers to perceive action alternatives distant from their ongoing experiences (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000). Ultimately, this becomes the self-destructive product of learning, leading core capabilities
to become core rigidities (Leonard-Barton, 1992), and firms not being able to keep up with developing markets and the ever-changing customer needs (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). Moreover, responsive market orientation may even lead to resource competition rather than resource- and knowledge sharing between exploration and exploitation because of this mismatch with the dominant logic, which predominantly focuses on exploitation (Christensen & Bower, 1996). Thus, the idea of the simultaneous development of exploration and exploitation that also leads to synergies will be lost (Jansen et al., 2009). Following the theories and insights mentioned above, this brings forth the first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1a: Responsive market orientation has a negative effect on firm ambidexterity.
When observing proactive market orientation and the combination of exploration and exploitation, another situation arises. The dominant logic in responsive market-oriented firms which predominantly focuses on current markets and customer needs is in large contrast to the dominant logic in proactive oriented firms. Here, exploration is seen as an important aspect of the existence of the firm and thus has high legitimacy (Atuahema-Gima et al. 2005). The experience-based attention perspective of a responsive market orientation limits the ability of decision-makers to perceive alternatives from their ongoing experiences (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000), leading to core rigidities (Leonard-Barton, 1992). Accordingly, Levinthal and March (1993), argue that the primary challenge of an organization is to maintain a certain level of exploration. A firm with a proactive market orientation has a forward-looking attention perspective which increases a firm’s capabilities to overcome core rigidities (Ocasio, 2011). Thus, by being ahead of the wave with the development of new capabilities, firms can easily switch from exploiting their core capabilities to new capabilities, that match the requirements of the changing market
environment (Atuahene-Gima et al., 2005; Narver et al., 2004). Furthermore, proactive market orientation stimulates firms to search for opportunities beyond the existing product-market domain (Narver et al. 2004). This may result in getting access to new resources that otherwise would not be part of the existing resource base (Gupta, Smith & Shalley, 2006). These factors result in fewer conflicts about the allocation of attention and resources between exploration and exploitation, which may occur in responsive-oriented firms (Christensen & Bower, 1996). Where responsive market orientation may not be supportive for synergies between exploration and exploitation, proactive market orientation does. Proactive market orientation nurtures creativity within firms, which brings forth ideas that challenge existing cause-effect relations, and also improves the problem-solving capacity. Thus, also being more creative with the use of scarce resources (Atuahene-Gima et al., 2005). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Market orientation, Ambidexterity, and Organizational Design
There is a variety of current literature on the antecedents of ambidexterity. One of these antecedents is organizational design (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). O’Reilly and Tushman (2007) state that a firm only becomes ambidextrous when both exploration and exploitation are strategically integrated within the same firm. Managing these two inconsistent alignments simultaneously is much more complex than managing one consistent strategy after the other, or even externalize one or more of these activities (Gupta et al., 2006). Current literature provides two broad approaches that facilitate the simultaneous engagement in both exploratory and exploitative activities, fostering ambidexterity. The first is ‘structural differentiation’ within firms, which allows the subdivision of different competencies or activities within separate organizational units. In this case the subdivision of exploratory and exploitative activities (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Through this structural differentiation, firms make it possible to divide their attention to different issues, like inconsistent demands from arising opportunities and simultaneously develop multiple solutions to them in each different unit (Ocasio, 1997). The second approach is a contextual solution or ‘structural integration’. In this organizational form, exploratory and exploitative activities are combined in a single organizational unit. Organizations need to design a context wherein employees can simultaneously engage in both types of activities (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).
Where structural differentiation tries to solve the exploration/exploitation paradox through structural means (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013), structural integration does this through what is termed contextual ambidexterity. Defined as “the behavioral capacity to simultaneously demonstrate alignment and adaptability across an entire business unit (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004, p. 211).” This is achieved through a supportive organizational context, which is characterized by an interaction of stretch, discipline, and trust. This context encourages
employees to make their judgments on how to best divide their time, or attention, between exploratory or exploitative activities (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Although these two approaches to achieve ambidexterity seem very different, they can be interpreted as two ends of a continuum. In both approaches, the main objective is to align exploratory and exploitative activities to achieve ambidexterity (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). When looking at the degree of differentiation, it can be stated that zero differentiation is equal to structural integration. In this organizational form, there are no different subunits which can separate exploratory and exploitative activities. Thus, it has to be managed through the contextual interactions of stretch, discipline, and trust in a single business unit (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).
The studies described above examined organizational design as an antecedent of ambidexterity. However, this study examines organizational design as a moderator on the direct effect of proactive- and responsive market orientation on ambidexterity. The moderating role of the degree of structural differentiation on the relation between market orientation and ambidexterity is relevant, taking into consideration that the main goal from both proactive- and responsive market orientation is learning, or gaining knowledge (Narver et al., 2004). Levinthal and March (1993) introduced ‘simplification’ as a mechanism to facilitate learning from experience. They state that experience is often clouded by the interactive complexity of how experience is shaped by multiple actors. Particularly in environments in which experience is a noisy reflection of multiple organizational decisions, highly interactive learning probably is confusing and unrewarding. Thus, Levinthal and March (1993) proposed a way of increasing the effectiveness of learning through the transformation of these confusing and interactive environment into less confusing and less interactive environments, by decomposing the environment into relevant subenvironments and treating them as autonomous.
Thus far proactive and responsive market orientation are described as uniform orientations. However, today's modern organizations are expected to deal with their heterogeneous task environments. These heterogeneous task environments consist of both stable subenvironments, but also highly dynamic subenvironments. Each subenvironment has its specific requirements, and they need to be addressed by specific means (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). More precise; the exploration and exploitation requirements of each subenvironment may significantly differ from each other, causing confusion. Accordingly, structural differentiation may facilitate firms to become better synchronized with their local subenvironments (Levinthal & March, 1993). This separation will not only facilitate exploration and exploitation simultaneously but in particular fosters an organizational culture on subunit level, which takes into account the different competencies, systems, incentives, and processes (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). As a consequence firms can gather far more specific and relevant information about these diverse subenvironments, thus resulting in an enrichment of their market orientations (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Consequently, from this perspective market orientation is not a uniform orientation, but a composition of multiple subunit-level market orientations.
Proactive market orientation stimulates firms to search for opportunities beyond the existing product-market domain, and the focus is on attaining new knowledge sources, technologies, and products. On the contrary, responsive market-oriented firms focus on addressing the expressed customer needs within existing markets (Atuahene-Gima et al., 2005; Narver et al. 2004). Firms with a responsive market orientation predominantly exploit their current capabilities and deepen their current knowledge base to address these existing customers and markets (Levinthal & March, 1993). This implies that the task environments of firms with a responsive market orientation are less heterogeneous than the task environments of firms with a proactive market orientation (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Therefore, it is expected that
differentiation will not contribute to an enrichment of a responsive market orientation. Concerning the explorative behaviors in different markets associated with proactive market orientation, the opposite effect is expected. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 2a: The negative relation between responsive market orientation and ambidexterity will be more negative due to the moderating effect of degree of differentiation.
Hypothesis 2b: The positive relation between proactive market orientation and ambidexterity will be more positive due to the moderating effect of degree of differentiation.
Firm Scope, Differentiation and Market Orientation
When looking at the corporate level, a distinction can be made into induced strategic processes and autonomous strategic processes. Induced processes are within the current scope of the firm, building forth on existing knowledge and competencies. Autonomous strategic processes emerge outside the scope of the firm and involve the creation of new competencies (Burgelman, 2002; Burgerlman, 1991). Identifying new business opportunities through these autonomous strategic processes may result into firm diversification (Rumelt, 1974). Diversification defined by Rumelt (1974, p. 12) as “the idea that a corporation’s activities can be conceptually divided into some discrete businesses,” each of which, “could be managed independently of the firm’s other activities” (Pitts, 1977). Rumelt (1974) made classification system of diversification strategies. This system consists out of four broad categories in ascending order in the broadness of firm scope; (1) single business, (2) dominant business, (3) related business, (4) unrelated business, or conglomerate. Classification of a firm into one of these categories is based on the percentage of a firm’s total sales attributed to a discrete business area.
Alongside the simplification mechanism to facilitate learning, Levinthal and March (1993) introduced another learning mechanism: ‘specialization’. Specialization facilitates learning in the sense that it tends to focus attention on a certain product or service, and narrow the related competencies. The principle of this learning system is that it can adapt to a variety of mechanisms, at several different points, which approximately deliver the equivalent overall effect. The successful adaptation in one part of the organization reduces the pressure to adapt in another part of the organization. Consequently, the adapting part keeps on developing greater and greater competencies relative to the part of the system that is not adapting. This mechanism produces the specialization of learning competencies, better known as diversification (Levinthal & March, 1993; Rumelt, 1974).
Building forth on the perspective of a composition of multiple subunit-level market orientations, the increasing scope of a firm adds relevant insights to this thinking. Concerning this interrelatedness, the present study accordingly proposes a three-way interaction of firm scope, structural differentiation, and market orientation on ambidexterity. First, it is important to recognize the difference between diversification and structural differentiation. Structural differentiation, or simplification, refers to the separation of a firm into distinct business units that do not necessarily operate on a parallel basis and is related to knowledge acquisition. For example, a production unit [exploitation] and a R&D unit [exploration] (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Levinthal & March, 1993). Diversification, or specialization, also refers to the separation of a firm into distinct business units. However, these units do operate on a parallel basis, and they are related to different businesses. For example, a computer business and a software business, that operate under the same parent company (Levinthal & March, 1993; Rumelt, 1974). Thus, firm diversification and differentiation are two separate dimensions. Nevertheless, the learning mechanisms may empower each other.
As an organization produces more of a product, the costs decrease at a decreasing rate due to organizational learning. This phenomenon is referred to as a learning curve, an experience curve, or learning by doing (Argote & Epple, 1990). Learning rates can differ from organization to organization. One of the proposed reasons for these differing learning rates is transfer of productivity gains or knowledge transfer. Transfer of productivity gains can occur when experience gained in the production of a certain product, can be transferred to another related business producing similar products. Transfer of knowledge between related organizations might occur through for instance: communications, training, modifications in technology and personnel movement (Argote & Epple, 1990). According to Levinthal and March (1993) learning is nested into an organization and occurs in several different but interrelated units at a time. A firm learns
which strategy to follow and simultaneously how to operate its business within several alternative strategies. Accordingly, learning in one unit of the organization is a substitute for learning in another unit. Following this argumentation, these diversified units will foster higher learning rates due to the transfer of knowledge or productivity gains, facilitating synergies (He & Wong, 2004; Argote & Epple, 1990). Combined with the structural differentiation within these diversified units, which facilitates a better synchronization with their local sub-environments (Levinthal & March, 1993), this consequently might add up to the enrichment of market orientation (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967).
Since the learning transfer occurs for products and services already being exploited (Argote & Epple, 1990), it is expected that this relation will have a positive effect on responsive market orientation. Responsive market orientation is predominantly occupied with exploiting current capabilities and is related to incremental innovations (Narver et al., 2004). In this context, knowledge transfer may add significant input to responsive market-oriented business units. Proactive market orientation focuses on discovering latent customer needs and exploring new opportunities within undiscovered markets (Narver et al., 2004). The creativity associated with proactive market orientation (Atuahene-Gima et al., 2005) might lead to combining knowledge from several diversified units, which facilitates radical innovations. Accordingly, the final two hypotheses are constructed:
Hypothesis 3a: The higher the relation between firm scope, firm differentiation and responsive market orientation the higher the level of firm ambidexterity.
Hypothesis 3b: The higher the relation between firm scope, firm differentiation and proactive market orientation the higher the level of firm ambidexterity.
Conceptual Model
The model below gives a visual on the constructed hypotheses in this research. It shows the relation between the dependent and independent variables and the moderating variables in this relation.
H1a: Responsive market orientation has a negative effect on firm ambidexterity. H1b: Proactive market orientation has a positive effect on firm ambidexterity.
H2a: The negative relation between responsive market orientation and ambidexterity will be more negative due to the moderating effect of degree of differentiation.
H2b: The positive relation between proactive market orientation and ambidexterity will be more positive due to the moderating effect of degree of differentiation.
H3a: The higher the relation between firm scope, firm differentiation and responsive market orientation the higher the level of firm ambidexterity.
H3b: The higher the relation between firm scope, firm differentiation and proactive market orientation the higher the level of firm ambidexterity.
Proactive/responsive market orientation Degree of structural differentiation Ambidexterity Firm Scope
Methodology Data collection
This research has an empirical and quantitative nature to test each hypothesis. The unit of analysis were senior managers from several Dutch firms, operating in a broad range of different industries. The organizational size was ranging from small and medium-sized enterprises to multinational enterprises. Considering the relatively short period available for this research data is collected using a survey because this ensures fast data collection (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Together with five other graduating students, conducting research on similar topics, surveys were combined to obtain a higher response rate. The initial sample (n=2502) was derived from the database of the Integrand foundation. Integrand is a student mediation organization, providing internships to students. The response rate was lower than expected. accordingly the survey was also sent to a list of other Dutch companies derived from the Dutch Chamber of Commerce (n=3219). Altogether the total sample size consisted of 5721 respondents. 431 respondents started the survey, and 186 respondents finished the whole survey, resulting in a response rate of 3,25%.
Measures
The unit of analysis is at the firm level. All constructs, accept firm diversification, were measured using a seven-point scale, with anchors (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (7) ‘strongly agree.' For these three scales, which measured firm ambidexterity, market orientation and structural differentiation a factor analysis was conducted to measure the underlying factors. After these factor analyses, some items had to be deleted from each scale, the get valid measures. After that, a reliability analysis was conducted, measuring the Cronbach's Alphas. After some adjustments, all scales were reliable and valid.
Dependent variable
Firm Ambidexterity consisted out of the two variables ‘exploration’ ( =0.76) and ‘exploitation’ ( =0.75) and was derived from Jansen, van den Bosch and Volberda (2006). The factor analysis indicated that all items had factor loadings above 0.5. However, the cross-loading of the last item that was intended to measure exploitation was above 0.4. Consequently, this item was deleted from the scale. After the removal of this item, all factor loadings were above 0.5. Exploitation consisted out of three items ( =0.71). The ambidexterity construct ( =0.79) is calculated by multiplying the mean-centered variable of exploration with the mean-centered variable of exploitation. The factor analyses of the ambidexterity constructed resulted in two components. The first component had a variance of 45.26% and an Eigenvalue of 3.2. The second component had a variance of 16.06% and an Eigenvalue of 1.1. As stated by Lavie, Stettner and Tushman (2010), by combining these two loose constructs into one, it makes the straightforward measurement of balance between exploratory and exploitative activities possible.
Independent variables
Market orientation consisted of the two variables ‘proactive market orientation’ and ‘responsive market orientation’ and was measured using the scale of Narver et al. (2004). Because the survey could not be too long, it was decided to use a shorter version of this scale, derived from Zhang and Duan (2010). Instead of measuring two components in the factor analysis, it measured three components. All components loaded positively on the first component. Item one and two also loaded positively on the third component and item three and four loaded positively on the second component. An additional factor analysis was carried out for these four items. Item three and four had factor loading above 0.8 on the first component and a negative cross-loading, item one and
two had positive cross-loadings on both components above 0.5. Consequently, item one and two were removed from the scale. Responsive market orientation had a variance of 86.18% and an Eigenvalue of 1.7. Proactive market orientation had a variance of 72.17% and an Eigenvalue of 2.2. This resulted in a reliable and valid measure for responsive market orientation ( =0.81) and proactive market orientation ( = 0.84).
Moderating variables
Structural differentiation ( = 0.75) was measured using the six-item scale of Jansen et al. (2009). The factor analysis indicated the scale existed out of two components. All items had cross-loadings above 0.5 only the third en fourth item had cross-loadings higher than 0.4. Since structural differentiation is supposed to measure one scale, it was decided to delete item three and four. After removal of these to items the factor analysis, all items loaded positively on one component. This component had a variance of 57.94%, with an Eigenvalue of 2.3.
Firm diversification was measured using the single question scale of Goll and Smabrhaya (1995) consisting out of four answering options. Respondents were asked to choose between four options in ascending order; (1) single business, (2) dominant business, (3) related business and (4) unrelated business or conglomerate. Initially, this classification system was developed by Rumelt (1974) and was a two-tier breakdown to assign a firm to one of ten categories of diversification. For this research, a simplified version of the system is applied, derived from Goll and Sambhraya (1995). Although it was measured on an ordinal scale in Goll and Smabrhaya (1995), it can be treated as a ratio scale, since all four options are measured in the percentage of a firm’s total sales attributed to a discrete business area.
Control variables
In this empirical research, four relevant control variables were included to check for other possible explanations. First, large organizations may have sufficient resources to facilitate innovative activities, yet do not have the flexibility to engage in exploration (Ahuja & Lampert, 2001). Furthermore, the effect of firm size can bias the results because as a firm grows, more managerial layers are necessary to manage the firm effectively. Research indicates that the adaptation and innovation rate of an organization are affected by the number of managerial layers (Sharma, 1999). To control for this, the natural algorithm of number of full-time employees was added to the survey, to measure ‘firm size’.
Second, since incumbent firms are naturally more inclined towards exploitative efforts (Gilbert, 2005), the natural algorithm of ‘firm age’ was included, measured in the number of years from the firm’s founding.
Third, ‘senior team size’ was included because the size of the team could affect the heterogeneity of the senior team, and consequently, affect the achievements of ambidexterity. Following prior studies, senior team size was measured by the number of senior executives responsible for strategy formation and implementation (e.g., Siegel & Hambrick, 2005).
Lastly, ‘firm industry’ was included, since the industry a firm is active in can influence the extent to which a firm engages in exploitative or exploratory activities (Sidhu, Commandeur, & Volberda, 2007; He & Wong, 2004). Accordingly, nine industry dummies were included: primary, manufacturing, selling/distribution/retailing (SDR), finance & banking, education, other service industries, civil service and local governments, armed forces, professionals in private practice. However, there was only one respondent in the armed forces industry, and one in the professionals in private practice industry. Consequently, these two respondents were recoded into ‘other industries’ together with the six respondents of the civil service and local governments
industry. This resulted in seven industry control variables. The three largest industries were: ‘other service industries’ (43.0%), ‘manufacturing’(16.1%), and ‘SDR’ (14.0%).
Common method bias
Although the scales used in this study have thoroughly been tested in the previous research, an additional statistical procedure was taken to examine the severity of the common method bias. The procedure taken is Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003), and was conducted on all items throughout the sample. The factor analyses showed that the largest factor explains 30.43% of the variance, which indicates little threat of the common method bias.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlationsa
Notes. Numbers in the parentheses on the diagonal are Cronbach's alphas of the composite scales.
an = 186
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
(1) Ambidexterity 27.24 9.34 -
(2) Responsive market orientation 4.92 1.50 0.27** (0.84)
(3) Proactive market orientation 5.01 1.16 0.52** 0.26** (0.81)
(4) Differentiation 3.65 1.32 0.15* 0.26** 0.05 (0.75) (5) Diversification 2.35 1.05 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.10 -
(6) Senior team size 1.85 0.99 0.17* 0.33** 0.14 0.31** 0.26** -
(7) Firm size 2.87 1.01 0.09 0.47** 0.10 0.48** 0.17* 0.63** -
(8) Firm age 3.40 0.88 -0.13 0.18* -0.08 0.30** 0.15* 0.29** 0.52** -
(9) Primary (farming, fishing, mining, etc.) 0.06 0.25 -0.05 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03 0.03 0.16* -
(10) Manufacturing 0.16 0.37 -0.01 -0.01 0.03 0.25** 0.15* 0.04 0.09 0.13 -0.12 -
(11) Selling, distribution & retailing 0.14 0.35 -0.05 -0.13 -0.15* -0.05 -0.05 -0.14 -0.07 0.06 -0.11 -0.18* -
(12) Finance & banking 0.11 0.31 -0.04 0.08 -0.09 0.16* 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.06 -0.09 -0.15* -0.14 -
(13) Other service industries 0.43 0.50 0.23** -0.03 0.23** -0.23** 0.01 -0.01 -0.15** -0.32** -0.23** -0.38** -0.35** -0.30** -
(14) Other industries 0.01 0.07 -0.05 0.08 0.02 -0.11 -0.10 -0.06 -0.06 -0.12 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.06 - (15) Education 0.05 0.23 -0.21** 0.08 -0.17* -0.12 -0.24** 0.01 -0.02 0.06 -0.06 -0.11 -0.10 -0.08 -0.21** -0.02 -
Table 2. Results of Regression Analyses
* p < .05
** p < .01 *** p < .001
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Independent Variables b t b t b t b t
Control variables
Senior team size 0.18 1.91 0.13 1.55 0.14 1.77 0.14 1.66
Firm size 0.09 0.86 -0.04 -0.46 -0.09 -0.93 -0.11 -1.11
Firm age -0.20 -2.26* -0.14 -1.78 -0.16 -2.03* -0.13 -1.61
Primary -0.05 -0.65 -0.02 -0.35 -0.03 -0.47 -0.04 -0.55
Manufacturing -0.05 -0.64 -0.02 -0.27 -0.06 -0.84 -0.06 -0.91
Selling, distribution & retailing -0.05 -0.67 0.04 0.56 0.03 0.47 0.02 0.33
Finance & banking -0.10 -1.32 -0.03 -0.51 -0.05 -0.81 -0.05 -0.75
Other Industries -0.06 -0.90 -0.08 -1.35 -0.09 -1.41 -0.11 -1.70
Education -0.22 -3.03** -0.15 -2.30* -0.16 -2.43* -0.17 -2.35*
Direct effects
Responsive market orientation 0.18 2.49* 0.16 2.16* 0.16 2.10*
Proactive market orientation 0.43 6.34*** 0.44 6.57*** 0.43 6.27***
Differentiation 0.10 1.36 0.08 1.05
Diversification -0.02 -0.33
Moderation
Responsive market orientation
x differentiation -0.11 -1.56 -0.12 -1.68
Proactive market orientation x
differentiation 0.15 2.18* 0.17 2.33*
Responsive market orientation
x diversification 0.03 0.36
Proactive market orientation x
diversification -0.08 -1.15
Differentiation x diversification 0.10 1.47
Responsive market orientation
x differentiation x diversification 0.07 0.91
Proactive market orientation x
differentiation x diversification -0.08 -1.06 Constant 8.79 2.38** 8.79 2.38** 33.73 12.55*** 33.26 11.99*** R2 0.12 0.34 0.37 0.39 ΔR2 0.12 0.22 0.02 0.01 F 2.72** 8.21*** 7.27*** 5.35*** df 9.176 2.174 2.171 2.165
Analysis and Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations of all variables in this study. Table 2 presents the results of the regression analysis with ambidexterity as the dependent variable. The baseline model 1 presents the control variables. Model 2 introduces the direct effects of responsive market orientation and proactive market orientation. Model 3 contains the direct effect of the moderating variable differentiation and its interaction effects with responsive- and proactive market orientation. Finally, model 4 presents the three-way interaction of diversification, differentiation, and responsive- and proactive market orientation. All independent variables were mean-centered prior to the formation of the interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991). Furthermore, to check for multicollinearity, the variance inflation factors (VIFs) were calculated for each of the regression equations. The maximum VIF measured was 1.70, which is far below the rule-of-thumb cutoff of 10 (Neter, Wasserman & Kutner, 1990).
Unfortunately, the proposed negative relationship between responsive market orientation and ambidexterity (Hypothesis 1a) is not supported (β= 1.13, p = .014). In fact, the regression shows a significant positive relationship. Hypothesis 1b, which posited a positive relation between proactive market orientation and ambidexterity is supported (β= 3.44, p < .001).
With regards to the interaction effect of differentiation, the results indicate that there is no signification moderating effect of differentiation on the relation between responsive market orientation and ambidexterity. Hence, Hypothesis 2a is not supported (β= -0.97, p = .121). However, Hypothesis 2b which stated the degree of differentiation has a positive moderating effect on the relation between proactive market orientation and ambidexterity is supported (β= 1.21, p = .031).
Concerning the three-way interaction proposed in Hypothesis 3a (β= 0.61, p = .364) and Hypothesis 3b (β= -0.55, p = .290), there are nog significant results. It can be stated that there is
no second order interaction effect; the degree wherein differentiation influences the relation between responsive market orientation, as well as proactive market orientation, on ambidexterity, is not dependent on the degree of diversification. Furthermore, there is no direct effect of diversification on ambidexterity, nor an interaction effect of diversification on the relation between responsive market orientation and proactive market orientation with ambidexterity.
Fig 1. The moderating effect of structural differentiation on proactive market orientation and
ambidexterity 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Low proactive market
orientation market orientationHigh proactive
A m b id ext er it y Low differentiation High differentiation
Discussion and Conclusion
Despite the fact that ambidexterity is essential for a sustainable business (Laureiro-Martínez et al., 2015; Raisch et al., 2009; Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991), a better understanding is required on the processes and systems needed to achieve ambidexterity (Wei et al., 2014). This study argues that investigating the role of strategic orientations behind the trade-off decisions between exploration and exploitation will deepen our understanding of this process. Specifically, this study aims to investigate how proactive- and responsive market orientation (Narver et al., 2004) are moderated by structural differentiation (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996) and firm scope (Rumelt, 1974) in a three-way interaction, and how this affects firm ambidexterity. Results indicate that proactive- and responsive market orientation have different effects on ambidexterity in firms that are structurally differentiated. Unfortunately, no significant results were found for the three-way interaction. Nevertheless, examining the role of strategic orientation in relation to structural differentiation and firm scope this study contributes to ambidexterity literature from the attention-based view (Ocasio, 1997). The findings of this study also offer important managerial implications.
Theoretical contributions
The results of this study show that both proactive market orientation and responsive market orientation have a positive effect on firm ambidexterity. These findings suggest that firms with a proactive market orientation have a forward looking-attention perspective (Ocasio, 2011). Consequently, these firms always try to maintain a certain level of exploration (Narver et al., 2014), which increases a firm’s ability to overcome core capabilities to becoming core rigidities (Leonard-Barton, 1992). These firms are ahead of the wave by already developing new
capabilities. Thus at the moment when the market changes, these firms can easily switch from exploiting their current capacities, to the new capabilities. They might even be the firms causing the shifting market. Interestingly though, this research fails to support the hypothesis that responsive market orientation has a negative effect on firm ambidexterity. Moreover, it shows a significant positive relation, yet much weaker than proactive market orientation. Nevertheless, this is not in line with the expectations that the exploitative focus of responsive market orientation may contribute to short-term wins (March, 1991), but eventually will become the self-destructive product of learning (Leonard-Barton, 1992). A possible explanation can be found in the given fact that the 43% of the firms participating in this research are active in service industries. Service firms operate in relatively stable environments because service technologies are changing much less rapidly (Gilley & Rasheed, 2000). These firms tend to rely more on the exploitation of current capabilities because there is no urge to innovate radically. Thus, exploratory activities are low in comparison to exploitative activities (Jansen et al., 2006). This matches the dominant logic of responsive market orientation (Narver et al., 2004; Prahalad & Bettis, 1986). Future research should incorporate environmental factors potentially influencing this relationship.
This study shows interesting findings on the moderating role of structural differentiation on proactive- and responsive market orientation. As proposed differentiation has a significant positive moderating effect on proactive market orientation. These findings support the suggestion that market orientation is not a uniform orientation but consist of multiple subunit-level orientations. This confirms the effectiveness of the simplification of experiences as a learning mechanism proposed by Levinthal and March (1993). In this way, firms can structurally divide their attention to the heterogeneous subenvironments, with their the organizational subcultures; taking into account the different competencies, systems, incentives and processes (O’Reilly &
Tushman, 2008). This structural differentiation results in an enrichment of the proactive market orientations of a firm, and consequently facilitates firm ambidexterity.
There was no significant interaction between structural differentiation and responsive market orientation. Apparently, proactive market orientation consists of a certain heterogeneity, while responsive market orientation can be interpreted as a more uniform orientation. However, responsive market orientation does have a significant positive effect on ambidexterity. Coming back to the notion that zero structural differentiation equals structural integration, in combination with these findings, implies that responsive market orientation might be enhanced by the contextual interactions of stretch, discipline, and trust within an integrated structure (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). This is in line with Wei et al. (2014) who identified market orientation as a critical contextual element in the achievement of ambidexterity. Future studies should further investigate this integration/differentiation link with market orientation and ambidexterity.
Unfortunately, no significant results were found for the three-way interaction of firm scope, structural differentiation, and responsive- or proactive market orientation on ambidexterity. Suggesting that the proposed increase of learning curves due to the transfer of knowledge and productivity gains between diversified units (Argote & Epple, 1990), combined with structural differentiation (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996), did not contribute to the joint empowerment of market orientation. A possible explanation can be found in the fact that the added value of an increasing firm scope is the transfer of knowledge and productivity gains between the diversified units. However, the transfer of knowledge and productivity was not incorporated as a measure in this study, but solely as a theoretical argumentation for the hypothesis. It is possible that the firms participating in this research are lacking integration mechanism, facilitating the transfer of knowledge and productivity gains. Accordingly, future
research should also examine the role of integration mechanism on the joint empowerment of firm scope and structural differentiation (Jansen et al. 2009).
Managerial implications
Next to the theoretical contributions, this research also has implications for managers. First, managers should be aware that how they channel and distribute their attention to the daily overload of information, ultimately determines their strategic orientation. They should be aware of the significant direct influence of strategic orientation on the achievement of ambidexterity. Accordingly, when a firm decides to leverage ambidexterity for a sustainable business, managers should start with a review of their current market orientation and align it with the strategic goal.
Second, in line with the thinking of Levinthal and March (1993), the primary challenge of a firm is to maintain a certain level of exploration for a sustainable business, since incumbent firms are naturally inclined towards exploitative efforts (Gilbert, 2005). A proactive market orientation is suited best for this because it anticipates on potential radical market changes, by applying a forward-looking attention perspective (Ocasio, 2011). A responsive market orientation also facilitates ambidexterity. This orientation is probably better suited for service firms in stable environments (Gilley & Rasheed, 2000). However, managers should take into account the risk of potential radical market developments. This causes their product or service to become obsolete, which eventually results in bankruptcy (March, 1991).
Third, managers should take into consideration the effects of organizational design on the type of market orientation they implement. As the findings of this study indicate, structural differentiation within a firm significantly enriches the proactive market orientation by providing deeper insights in the heterogeneous subenvironments in which the firm operates. The separation will foster the simultaneous engagement in exploitation and exploration, but also facilitates
organizational subcultures, taking into account the different competencies, systems, incentives, and processes. This perception of market orientation will ultimately result in far deeper and richer insights than treating it as a uniform orientation.
Limitations and future research
The present study contributes to current ambidexterity literature and also provides several issues for future research. Although this study has given a possible explanation for the surprising, significant positive relationship of responsive market orientation on ambidexterity, it needs further empirical examination. Future research may examine whether environmental dynamism has an influence on the determination of a certain type of market orientation. Furthermore, the relation between structural differentiation and structural integration on market orientation also needs further attention. In this study, firm structure was measured solely through structural differentiation. Future research should incorporate both structural integration and structural differentiation measures, to come to deeper insights on this relation. Lastly, the results for the three-way interaction of firm scope, structural differentiation and market orientation on ambidexterity, also needs further empirical examination. Considering the transfer of knowledge and productivity gains, future research should incorporate integration mechanisms in their research, to provide empirical evidence to the question whether these constructs are truly connected or not.
Concerning the short time available to gather sufficient data a convenience sampling method was applied. Although this has contributed to a higher internal validity, convenience sampling negatively affects the external validity. Furthermore, the sample was largely derived from the Integrand database. A sampling bias could have affected the results of this study since 42% of the firms are Dutch service firms. To be able to generalize the findings of this research to
other situations; future research should also focus on other countries, with a random sampling method. In line with the short time available for this research, this survey was combined with five other surveys to get a higher response rate. This combination resulted in a survey of almost 70 items. This could have led to respondent weariness, which might affect the way respondents answer the survey questions. Furthermore, it can lead to high survey dropout rates. In order to confine these dropout rates the scales had to be shortened. This might also have influenced the results of this study. Luckily future research can easily overcome these restraints, by focussing solely on the relevant variables, resulting in a shorter survey with the original scales.
Overall this study has deepened current knowledge on the antecedents of ambidexterity, from an attention-based perspective. Furthermore, it provides valuable theoretical handles for future research.
Literature overview
Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652-1661.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publication, Newbury Park.
Argote, L., & Epple, D. N. (1990). Learning curves in manufacturing. Carnegie Mellon University, Graduate School of Industrial Administration. 920-924.
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Ko, A. (2001). An empirical investigation of the effect of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization science, 12(1), 54-74.
Atuahene-Gima, K., Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2005). The Contingent Value of Responsive and Proactive Market Orientations for New Product Program Performance. Journal of product innovation management, 22(6), 464-482.
Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2007). Does market orientation facilitate balanced innovation programs? An organizational learning perspective. Journal of product innovation
Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 325-357.
Cho, T. S., & Hambrick, D. C. (2006). Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: The case of airline deregulation. Organization
Science, 17(4), 453-469.
Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic management journal,17(3), 197-218.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2.
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of management review, 9(2), 284-295.
Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization, 1, 167-188
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of management review, 12(1), 76-90.
Foxall, G. R. (1984). Corporate innovation: Marketing and strategy. Croom Helm, Beckenham, Kent, UK.
Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. (2000). Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative science quarterly, 45(1), 113-137.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741-763.
Gilley, K. M., & Rasheed, A. (2000). Making more by doing less: an analysis of outsourcing and its effects on firm performance. Journal of management, 26(4), 763-790.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of management journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the Revolution Harvard Business School Press. Boston, MA, USA, 343-354.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635-672.
