Skip to main content

Contextual ambidexterity in SMEs: the roles of internal and external rivalry

Abstract

This article seeks to extend research on small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and ambidexterity by investigating contingency factors that influence the relationship between contextual ambidexterity and SME performance. Acknowledging the importance of internal knowledge flows in leveraging ambidexterity, it offers unique insights into how internal and external rivalry conditions influence performance outcomes related to an ambidextrous posture. Using a sample of Canadian-based SMEs, the study shows that the contextual ambidexterity–performance relationship is suppressed at higher levels of internal rivalry and amplified at higher levels of external rivalry. The findings suggest that developing an ambidextrous posture should not be an end by itself, and they point to the need for SMEs to understand how the features of their internal and external environments affect the performance consequences of such posture.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Previous research uses different terms to label the dimensions underlying ambidexterity, but they essentially capture the same phenomena and can be used interchangeably (Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008). For parsimony, we use the terms “alignment” and “adaptability” hereafter.

  2. 2.

    A follow-up analysis showed that our reported results were robust when applied to the complete sample of 232 firms, indicating their applicability across a wide spectrum of firms. A comparison of the SME and non-SME participating firms did not reveal any significant differences in terms of the focal constructs either. Finally, we did not find any significant differences between responding and nonresponding firms (regardless of size) in terms of their industry and location (province) distribution.

  3. 3.

    To ensure that the responses would cover organization-wide phenomena rather than idiosyncratic issues that have to do with specific departments, in the cover letter and survey instrument, we referred to the firm’s functional areas broadly. For the measure of internal rivalry, we clarified that we were not interested in investigating resource competition between specific departments but rather between “the managers who typically are most preoccupied with technological (or technical) issues such as operations, engineering, or research and development on one hand, and those who are typically most preoccupied with commercial activities such as marketing or sales on the other.”

References

  1. Adler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychology Bulletin, 1033, 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing, 51, 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Audia, P. G., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Less likely to fail: Low performance, firm size, and factory expansion in the shipbuilding industry. Management Science, 52, 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bierly, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 123–135.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brunninge, O., Nordqvist, M., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Corporate governance and strategic change in SMEs: The effects of ownership, board composition and top management teams. Small Business Economics, 29(3), 295–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavior sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Corso, M., Martini, A., Pellegrini, L., & Paolucci, E. (2003). Technological and organizational tools for knowledge management: In search of configurations. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 397–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cosh, A., Fu, X., & Hughes, A. (2012). Organisation structure and innovation performance in different environments. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Cui, A. S., Griffith, D. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2005). The influence of competitive intensity and market dynamism on knowledge management capabilities of multinational corporation subsidiaries. Journal of International Marketing, 13(3), 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. De Clercq, D., Dimov, D., & Thongpapanl, N. (2010). The moderating impact of internal social exchange processes on the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. De Luca, L. M., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2007). Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: Examining the different routes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. de Visser, M., de Weerd-Nederhof, P., Faems, D., Song, M., van Looy, B., & Visscher, K. (2010). Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: A firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on innovation performance. Technovation, 30(5/6), 291–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 677–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230–251.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dougherty, D. (2008). Bridging social constraint and social action to design organizations for innovation. Organization Studies, 29(3), 415–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 397–428.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fauchart, E., & Keilbach, M. (2009). Testing a model of exploration and exploitation as innovation strategies. Small Business Economics, 33(3), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fisher, R. J., Maltz, E., & Jaworski, B. J. (1997). Enhancing communication between marketing and engineering: The moderating role of relative functional identification. Journal of Marketing, 61, 54–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

  28. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19, 756–795.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ghemawat, P., & Ricart i Costa, J. (1993). The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 77, 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and analysis of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gupta, A. K., Raj, S. P., & Wilemon, D. L. (1986). A model for studying R&D-marketing interface in the product innovation process. Journal of Marketing, 50, 7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Houston, M. B., Walker, B. A., Hutt, M. D., & Reingen, P. H. (2001). Cross-unit competition for a market charter: The enduring influence of structure. Journal of Marketing, 65, 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Huy, O. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jansen, J., Tempelaar, M., Van Den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jansen, J., Simsek, Z., & Cao, Q. (2012). Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1286–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Karlsen, A. (2011). “Cluster” creation by reconfiguring communities of practice. European Planning Studies, 19(5), 753–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kim, N., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2010). Using exploratory and exploitative market learning for new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 519–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1998). Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: The overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lahiri, S., Pérez-Nordtvedt, L., & Renn, R. W. (2008). Will the new competitive landscape cause your firm’s decline? It depends on your mindset. Business Horizons, 51(4), 311–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lane, P. J., & Lubaktin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Leonard-Barton, D. A. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product innovation strategy and performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1123–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of TMT behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Pan, X. (2006). Cross-functional “coopetition”: The simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. (1996). Market intelligence dissemination across functional boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. McDonough, E. F. (2000). Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(3), 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–268.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Palacios, D., Gil, I., & Garrigos, F. (2009). The impact of knowledge management on innovation and entrepreneurship in the biotechnology and telecommunications industries. Small Business Economics, 32(3), 291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon, L., & 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 

  65. Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–81.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Préfontaine, L., & Bourgault, M. (2002). Strategic analysis and export behaviour of SMEs: A comparison between the United States and Canada. International Small Business Journal, 20(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Puranam, P., Singh, H., & Zollo, M. (2006). Organizing for innovation: Managing the coordination-autonomous dilemma in technology acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Rosenbloom, R. S., & Christensen, C. M. (1994). Technological discontinuities, organizational capabilities, and strategic commitments. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 655–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ruef, M., & Scott, W. R. (1998). A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 877–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ruekert, R. W., & Walker, O. C., Jr. (1987). Marketing’s interaction with other functional units: A conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing, 51, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Sherman, J. D., Berkowitz, D., & Souder, W. (2005). New product development performance and the interaction of cross-functional integration and knowledge management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(5), 399–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Simons, T., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 102–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Soderquist, K. E. (2006). Organising knowledge management and dissemination in new product development. Long Range Planning, 39(5), 497–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Song, X. M., & Parry, M. E. (1997). Teamwork barriers in Japanese high-technology firms: The sociocultural differences between R&D and marketing managers. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(5), 356–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Song, X. M., & Xie, J. (2000). Does innovativeness moderate the relationship between cross-functional integration and product performance? Journal of International Marketing, 8(4), 61–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Song, X. M., Dyer, B., & Thieme, R. J. (2006). Conflict management and innovation performance: An integrated contingency perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Strang, D., & Jung, D.-I. (2009). Participatory improvement at a global bank: The diffusion of quality teams and the demise of a Six Sigma initiative. Organization Studies, 30(1), 31–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20(4), 718–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Tsai, W. P. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Van Looy, B., Martens, T., & Debackere, K. (2005). Organizing for continuous innovation: On the sustainability of ambidextrous organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, 208–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Zatzick, C. D., Moliterno, T. P., & Fang, T. (2012). Strategic (MIS)FIT: The implementation of TQM in manufacturing organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1321–1330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dirk De Clercq.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N. & Dimov, D. Contextual ambidexterity in SMEs: the roles of internal and external rivalry. Small Bus Econ 42, 191–205 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9471-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ambidexterity
  • Knowledge
  • Rivalry
  • Contingencies
  • SMEs

JEL Classifications

  • M10
  • M19
  • L26