Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Slack resources, exploratory and exploitative innovation and the performance of small technology-based firms at incubators

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to contribute (1) to the understanding about how small technology-based firms in spite of being constrained by limited resources, can still perform exploratory and exploitative innovation and (2) to extend knowledge about the role of slack resources in the context of small technology-based firms in facilitating those innovation activities. Herein, we focus on two types of slack resources: internal slack, resources that are available within the firms and external slack, additional resources that are gathered through the facilitation of external sources such as business incubators. Using a sample of 141 small technology-based firms located at incubators, this study combined two streams of research on incubator studies and innovation to construct some hypotheses examining the role of slack resources and innovation activities in enhancing the performance of small technology-based firms operating in incubator setting. Our findings demonstrate that neither slack resources nor innovation activities alone explain firm performance. Instead, small technology-based firms fit their innovation activities to their slack resources. While the relationship between internal slack and performance is mediated by exploitative innovation, exploratory innovation plays a role as a mediator for the relationship between external slack and performance.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afifi, A. A., & Elashoff, R. M. (1966). Missing observations in multivariate statistics I. Review of the literature. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 61(315), 595–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. J. (2012). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: faculty and students in spinoffs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 661–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J., & Singh, J. V. (1983). Organizational slack and political behavior among top management teams. In Academy of management proceedings (Meeting abstract supplement), pp. 43–47.

  • Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2891–2902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2005). A matter of life and death: innovation and firm survival. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(6), 1167–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1994). Market attractiveness, resource-based capabilities, venture strategies, and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(4), 331–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small-to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (2001). Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 937–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (1995). Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 453–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. L., & Kesner, I. F. (1997). Organizational slack and response to environmental shifts: The impact of resource allocation patterns. Journal of Management, 23(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Bauerschmidt, A., & Hofer, C. W. (1998). The determinants of new venture performance: An extended model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 5–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103–1122.

    Article  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 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., Todor, W. D., Spendolini, M. J., Fielding, G. J., & Porter, L. W. (1980). Organization structure and performance: A critical review. Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, F., Lohrke, F. T., Fornaciari, C. J., & Turner, R. A. (2004). Slack resources and firm performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 565–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebben, J. J., & Johnson, A. C. (2005). Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(13), 1249–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. F., Brush, C. G., & Manolova, T. (2005). Co-alignment in the resource–performance relationship: Strategy as mediator. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 359–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 484–503.

    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 

  • Greve, H. R. (2007). Exploration and exploitation in product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(5), 945–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004). A systematic review of business incubation research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readins (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    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 

  • Herold, D. M., Jayaraman, N., & Narayanaswamy, C. R. (2006). What is the relationship between organizational slack and innovation? Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(3), 372–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hisrich, R. D., & Smilor, R. W. (1988). The university and business incubation: Technology transfer through entrepreneurial development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 13(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R. (1995). Structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and take overs. American Economic Review, 76, 323–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., & Muller, K. E. (1988). Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods. Belmont, CA: Duxburry Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleine, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamine, W., Mian, S., & Fayolle, A. (2014). How do social skills enable nascent entrepreneurs to enact perseverance strategies in the face of challenges? A comparative case study of success and failure. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 20(6), 517–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D., & March, J. G. (1981). A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2(4), 307–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2005). R&D networks and product innovation patterns—academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on Science Parks. Technovation, 25(9), 1025–1037.

    Article  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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Willey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S. A. (1997). Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: an integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 251–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S., Fayolle, A., & Lamine, W. (2012). Building sustainable regional platforms for incubating science and technology businesses Evidence from US and French science and technology parks. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 13(4), 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2008). University spin-off firms: Lessons from 10 years of experience in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 35(2), 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 599–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter SG (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change, pp. 929–964.

  • Newbert, S. L. (2005). New firm formation: A dynamic capability perspective*. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(1), 55–77.

    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 

  • Nooteboom, B., Berger, H., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (1997). Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 308–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1995). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, L., Rice, M., & Sundararajan, M. (2004). The role of incubators in the entrepreneurial process. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (2008). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    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 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). Incubator firm failure or graduation?: The role of university linkages. Research Policy, 34(7), 1076–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. (2009). Beyond incubation: An analysis of firm survival and exit dynamics in the post-graduation period. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 403–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. P., Wolf, G., Chase, R. B., & Tansik, D. A. (1988). Antecedents of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 601–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. V. (1986). Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 562–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smilor, R. W. (1987). Commercializing technology through new business incubators. Research Management, 30(5), 36–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., Baumann, J. P., & Reilly, A. H. (1996). Agency theory and variable pay compensation strategies. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 751–767.

    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. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 172–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veliyath, R., & Shortell, S. M. (1993). Strategic orientation, strategic planning system characteristics and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 30(3), 359–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 423–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N., & Camillus, J. C. (1984). Exploring the concept of “fit” in strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 513–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmentalthreat 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 

  • Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1994). An assessment of firms located on and off science parks in the United Kingdom. London: HM.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Innovation, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, LA1 4YX, UK

    Danny Soetanto & Sarah L. Jack

Authors
  1. Danny Soetanto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah L. Jack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danny Soetanto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soetanto, D., Jack, S.L. Slack resources, exploratory and exploitative innovation and the performance of small technology-based firms at incubators. J Technol Transf 43, 1213–1231 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9533-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9533-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation