Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational Ambidexterity, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and I-Deals: The Moderating Role of CSR

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The interaction between static and dynamic facets in organizational ambidexterity produces “change” energy for the organization. The purpose of the research therefore is to examine the predicting role of organizational ambidexterity for entrepreneurial orientation and idiosyncratic deals (i-deals). The moderating role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the effect of organizational ambidexterity on entrepreneurial orientation was also investigated. The cross-sectional data for SEM-based analysis were garnered from 427 supervisor-subordinate dyads from software companies in Vietnam business setting. The research findings confirmed the positive relationship between organizational ambidexterity and entrepreneurial orientation, which was moderated by CSR. Entrepreneurial orientation was also found as a strong predictor of i-deals.

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

  • Anderson, K., & McAdam, R. (2005). An empirical analysis of lead benchmarking and performance measurement: Guidance for qualitative research. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(4), 354–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponsive bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayub, A., Razzaq, A., Aslam, M. S., & Iftekhar, H. (2013). Gender effects on entrepreneurial orientation and value innovation: evidence from Pakistan. Business and Social Sciences, 2(1), 82–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation for structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A., Li, S. X., & Usher, J. M. (2000). Making the next move: How experiential and vicarious learning shape the locations of chains’ acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 766–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 741–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression Diagnostics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beresford, R., & Michels, N. (2014). Embedding change through the entrepreneurial role of middle managers in the UK further education sector. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 19(2), 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brettel, M., Engelen, A., & Oswald, D. K. M. (2011). What is the “right” market orientation for new entrepreneurial ventures? Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 81(6), 83–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology, 2 (pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttar, H. M., & Kocak, A. (2011). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation dynamic capabilities and firm performance: An exploratory study of small Turkish firms. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 7(3), 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, S., & Price, B. (1991). Regression analysis by example. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. F. (2010). The relationships of organizational justice, social exchange, psychological contract, and expatriate adjustment: An example of Taiwanese business expatriates. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(7), 1090–1107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2009). Fifty years of psychological contract research: What do we know and what are the main challenges? In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 24 (pp. 71–130). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq, D., Dimov, D., & Thongpapanl, N. T. (2013). Organizational social capital, formalization, and internal knowledge sharing in entrepreneurial orientation formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 505–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq, D., & Rius, I. B. (2007). Organizational commitment in Mexican small and medium-sized firms: The role of work status, organizational climate, and entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Small Business Management, 45(4), 467–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E, Jr. (1993). Corporate culture customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization (Vol. 1, pp. 167–188). New York: North-Holland.

    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 

  • Farooq, O., Payaud, M., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment: Exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1928-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frishammar, J., & Åke Hörte, S. (2007). The role of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation for new product development performance in manufacturing firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(6), 765–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1997). The individualized corporation. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golan, M., & Weizman, A. (1998). Reliability and validity of the family eating and activity habits questionnaire. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 52(10), 771–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, M., & O’Connor, J. (Eds.). (2013). Corporate social responsibility and alcohol: the need and potential for partnership. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., Roberge, M. É., Ho, V. T., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Fairness in idiosyncratic work arrangements: Justice as an i-deal. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 23(1), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grobecker, A., & Germain, R. (2013). Organizational antecedents of sustainability: Lessons from Russia. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2013, No. 1, p. 16518). Academy of Management.

  • Groysberg, B., & Lee, L. E. (2009). Hiring stars and their colleagues: Exploration and exploitation in professional service firms. Organization Science, 20(4), 740–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, S., Bentein, K., & Lapalme, M. È. (2013). Idiosyncratic deals and high performers’ organizational commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, in press.

  • Guerrero, M., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2013). The effect of intrapreneurial experience on corporate venturing: Evidence from developed economies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 397–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Puranam, P. (2009). Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organization Science, 20(2), 422–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, X., Hansen, E., Panwar, R., Hamner, R., & Orozco, N. (2013). Connecting market orientation, learning orientation and corporate social responsibility implementation: Is innovativeness a mediator? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research.

  • Hansen, S. D., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. D., Sapienza, H. J., & Bowie, N. E. (2009). Ethics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 407–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, P., & Allen, M. (2001). Partnership as union strategy: A preliminary evaluation. Employee Relations, 23(2), 164–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund, G., & Ridderstrale, J. (1997). Toward a theory of the self-renewing MNC. In B. Toyne & D. Nigh (Eds.), International business: An emerging vision (pp. 329–353). Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., & Baumgartner, H. (1995). Beurteilung von Kausalmodellen: Bestandsaufnahme und Anwendungsempfehlungen (Evaluation of causal models: Review and recommendations). Marketing ZFP: Zeitschrift für Forschung und Praxis (Marketing: Journal for Research and Management), 17(3), 162–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, J. (2010). Strategic stakeholder orientations and performance consequences: A case of private nonprofit performing arts in the US. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15(1), 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Doyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C. C. (2009). Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: An empirical study of technology R&D teams in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(11), 786–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2007). Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation among large firms: Lessons from the Spanish experience. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 594–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: Fresh insights into theory vs practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jantunen, A., Puumalainen, K., Saarenketo, S., & Kyläheiko, K. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, dynamic capabilities and international performance. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, H. (2012). A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization relationships (EORs): Transformational leadership, procedural justice, and family-supportive workplace initiatives. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, K. G., Drozdenko, R., & DeLoughy, S. (2013). The role of corporate value clusters in ethics, social responsibility, and performance: A study of financial professionals and implications for the financial meltdown. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. P. (2006). Alignment: Using the balanced scorecard to create corporate synergies. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapu, H. (2001). The life of entrepreneurial managers and her life values. Unpublished PhD thesis, Marmara University, SBE.

  • Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. (2011). Who and what is fair matters: A multi-foci social exchange model of creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 86–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Li, H., & Li, S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 43, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: the cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior (pp. 31–53). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, S. I., Frese, M., Friedrich, C., & Unger, J. M. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation: A psychological model of success among southern African small business owners. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(3), 315–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühne, B., Gellynck, X., & Weaver, R. D. (2013). The influence of relationship quality on the innovation capacity in traditional food chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 52–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantos, G. P. (2002). The ethicality of altruistic corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(3), 205–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, C., & Gudmundsson, S. V. (2014). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm strategy and small firm performance. International Small Business Journal, 32(1), 36–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litano, M. L., Myers, D. P., & Major, D. A. (2014). How can men and women be allies in achieving work–family balance? The role of coping in facilitating positive crossover. In R. J. Burke & D. A. Major (Eds.), Gender in organizations: Are men allies or adversaries to women’s career advancement? (pp. 365–384). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Du, S. (2014). Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firm innovation. Marketing Letters,. doi:10.1007/s11002-014-9302-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luu, T. T. (2010). Organisational culture, leadership and performance measurement integratedness. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 9(3), 251–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luu, T. T. (2012). What trust grows through upward influence? Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 4(2), 158–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luu, T. T. (2013a). The role of CSR in clinical governance and its influence on knowledge sharing. Clinical Governance: An International Journal, 18(2), 90–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luu, T. T. (2013b). Corporate social responsibility, upward influence behavior, team processes and competitive intelligence. Team Performance Management, 19(1/2), 6–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luu, T. T. (2013c). Underneath organizational health and knowledge sharing. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(1), 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variables effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I. (2001). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(1), 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2006). Marketing research: An applied approach (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. Y. (2010). Organizational behavior: Emerging knowledge and practice for the real world. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2014). “Human quality treatment”: Five organizational levels. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 457–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minoja, M. (2012). Stakeholder management theory, firm strategy, and ambidexterity. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muchiri, M. K. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation and leadership: A review, model and research agenda. Paper accepted for presentation at the Small Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand 26th Annual Conference, Sydney, 11–12 July, 2013.

  • Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn And Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donohue, W., & Nelson, L. (2009). The role of ethical values in an expanded psychological contract. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2), 251–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M. (2013). Corporate social responsibility, noise, and stock market volatility. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(3), 238–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otubanjo, O. (2012). Theorising the interconnectivity between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate identity. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 3(1), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirsch, J., Gupta, S., & Grau, S. L. (2007). A framework for understanding corporate social responsibility programs as a continuum: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(2), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podnar, K., & Golob, U. (2007). CSR expectations: The focus of corporate marketing. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(4), 326–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1177–1194.

    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 

  • Resick, C. J., Hargis, M. B., Shao, P., & Dust, S. B. (2013). Ethical leadership, moral equity judgments, and discretionary workplace behavior. Human Relations, 66(7), 951–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. (2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohiua, G. (2011). Towards a better understanding of the relationship between speed of internationalization and performance outcomes among young international ventures. Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Business, Brock University.

  • Rosen, C. C., Slater, D. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2013). Let’s make a deal: Development and validation of the ex post i-deals scale. Journal of Management, 39(3), 709–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), 759–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The idiosyncratic deal: Flexibility versus fairness? Organizational Dynamics, 29, 260–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 977–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Hornung, S., & Kim, T. G. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Testing propositions on timing, content, and the employment relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 338–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., & Kim, T. (2004). Idiosyncratic deals: How negotiating their own employment conditions affects workers’ relationships with an employer. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S. Y., & Engelen, A. (2014). On cultural and macroeconomic contingencies of the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 255–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sastry, M. A. (1997). Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 237–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreyögg, G., & Kliesch-Eberl, M. (2007). How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), 913–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., & Krueger, N. F. (2002). An intentions-based model of entrepreneurial teams’ social cognition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starratt, R. J. (2003). Centering educational administration: Cultivating meaning, community, responsibility. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 7 (pp. 171–222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser, W. (2014). CSR 2.0: Transforming corporate sustainability and responsibility. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (2003). A configuration theory assessment of marketing organization fit with business strategy and its relationship with marketing performance. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 100–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerman, G., McFarlan, F. W., & Iansiti, M. (2006). Organization design and effectiveness over the innovation life cycle. Organization Science, 17(2), 230–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xerri, M. J., & Brunetto, Y. (2013). Fostering innovative behaviour: The importance of employee commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(16), 3163–3177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Government, University of Economics (UEH), 59C Nguyen Dinh Chieu Street, Ward 6, District 3, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Luu Trong Tuan

Authors
  1. Luu Trong Tuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luu Trong Tuan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tuan, L.T. Organizational Ambidexterity, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and I-Deals: The Moderating Role of CSR. J Bus Ethics 135, 145–159 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2476-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2476-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation