Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Strategic marketing ambidexterity: antecedents and financial consequences

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Strategic marketing ambidexterity (SMA), the blend of a firm’s exploitation of existing competencies and exploration of future capabilities in strategic marketing activities, represents a dynamic capability that is vital in achieving superior performance. Given its criticality, the authors examine how firm antecedents and industry contexts affect the shift in a firm’s SMA over time (movement in the blend of exploitation and exploration). In addition, the authors examine SMA’s influence on firm financial outcomes, i.e., risk and return. Using data from 1999 to 2011 on publically traded firms, the authors show that firm maturity and slack (financial and strategic) are key determinants of SMA. Specifically, increased firm maturity and strategic slack result in a shift toward exploitation, whereas increased financial slack results in a shift toward exploration. Industry competitiveness moderates these effects. In terms of the financial performance implications of SMA, the authors find that shifts in SMA toward exploitation increase return, but they also increase firm-idiosyncratic risk. The authors conclude with implications for theory and managerial practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal, R., & Gort, M. (2002). Firm and product life cycles and firm survival. American Economic Review, 92(2), 184–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). Why do firms reduce business risk? Academy of Management Journal, 33(3), 520–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. F. (1982). Marketing, strategic planning and the theory of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. R., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1984). Stage of the product life cycle, business strategy, and business performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang, A., Hodrick, R. J., Xing, Y., & Zhang, X. (2006). The cross-section of volatility and expected returns. Journal of Finance, 61(1), 259–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Greve, H. R. (2007). A behavioral theory of the firm—40 years and counting: introduction and impact. Organization Science, 18(3), 337–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability: rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J., III. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, C., Simin, T., & Zhao, J. (2008). Can growth options explain the trend in idiosyncratic risk? Reviews of Financial Studies, 21(6), 2599–2633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carhart, M. M. (1997). On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 57–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castrogiovanni, G. J. (1991). Environmental munificence: a theoretical assessment. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 542–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarty, A., & Grewal, R. (2011). The stock market in the driver’s seat! Implications for R&D and marketing. Management Science, 57(9), 1594–1609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 474–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical Product Innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corsaro, D., Ramos, C., Henneberg, S. C., & Naude, P. (2012). The impact of network configuration on value constellations in business markets—The case of an innovation network. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 48(4), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (2011). Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dotzel, T., Shankar, V., & Berry, L. L. (2013). Service innovativeness and firm value. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). The cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., & Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2008). Effect of service transition strategies on firm value. Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, G. (2005). Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 661–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, R., & Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: the role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 67–80.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Kim, H. (2001). Entry barriers: a dull-, one-, or two-edged sword for incumbents? Unraveling the paradox from a contingency perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J., Tellis, G. J., & Griffin, A. (2007). Research on innovation: a review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Science, 25(6), 687–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, K. B., Singhal, V. R., & Zhang, R. (2009). The effect of operational slack, diversification, and vertical relatedness on the stock market reaction to supply chain disruptions. Journal of Operations Management, 27(3), 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2007). The thought worlds of marketing and sales: Which differences make a difference? Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 124–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Rajan, M. V. (1997). The choice of performance measures in annual bonus contracts. The Accounting Review, 72(2), 231–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jap, S. D., & Ganesan, S. (2000). Control mechanisms and the relationship life cycle: implications for safeguarding specific investments and developing commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 227–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: an organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L., Lee, R., Saini, A., & Grohman, B. (2003). Market-focused strategic flexibility: conceptual advances and an integrative model. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 74–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurt, D., & Hulland, J. (2013). Aggressive marketing strategy following equity offerings and firm value: the role of relative strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. (2011). The alignment of contract terms for knowledge-creating and knowledge-appropriating relationship portfolios. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 110–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R., & Grewal, R. (2004). Strategic responses to new technologies and their impact on firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 157–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lillis, C. M., Narayana, C. L., & Gilman, J. L. (1976). Competitive advantage variation over the life cycle of a franchise. Journal of Marketing, 40(4), 77–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2009). The debate over doing good: corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, R. M., & Kammen, D. M. (1999). Underinvestment: the energy technology and R&D policy challenge. Science Magazine, 285(5428), 690–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAlister, L., Srinivasan, R., & Kim, M. (2007). Advertising, research and development, and systematic risk of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management Science, 30(10), 1161–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishina, Y., Pollock, T. G., & Porac, J. F. (2004). Are more resources always better for growth? Resources stickiness in market and product expansion. Strategic Management Journal, 25(12), 1179–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizik, N. (2010). The theory and practice of myopic management. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 594–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: the financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mom, T. J. M., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in mangers’ ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1245–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29(1), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L. S., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. E. (2013). Understanding social media effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 547–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rego, L. L., Billett, M. T., & Morgan, N. A. (2009). Consumer-based brand equity and firm risk. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinartz, W., Thomas, J. S., & Kumar, V. (2005). Balancing acquisition and retention resources to maximize customer profitability. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 135–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create advantage: breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390–1412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, S., & Hanssens, D. M. (2009). Marketing and firm value: metrics, methods, findings, and future directions. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 293–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, S., Pauwels, K., Silva-Risso, J., & Hanssens, D. M. (2009). Product innovations, advertising, and stock returns. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 24–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J., & Peng, M. W. (2003). Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transitions: two studies from an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1249–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D. W., Orr, L. M., & Bush, V. D. (2011). Improving customer-focused marketing capabilities and firm performance via marketing exploration and exploitation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(5), 736–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2013). Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises: implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market domains. Organization Science, 24(5), 1459–1477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross sections and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Brett W. Josephson

  2. Department of Marketing and International Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

    Jean L. Johnson & Babu John Mariadoss

Authors
  1. Brett W. Josephson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean L. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Babu John Mariadoss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brett W. Josephson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Josephson, B.W., Johnson, J.L. & Mariadoss, B.J. Strategic marketing ambidexterity: antecedents and financial consequences. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 44, 539–554 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0438-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0438-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation