Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technological capacity and organisational ambidexterity: the moderating role of environmental dynamism on Portuguese technological SMEs

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Review of Managerial Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research aimed to study the influence of environmental dynamism and technological capacity on organisational ambidexterity (OA) and the moderating role of environmental dynamism in small and medium-sized enterprises (SME). To this end, a structural equation model was applied to a sample of 224 SMEs in the sector of information technology, telecommunications and IT consultancy. The results obtained show that technological capacity has a significant, positive effect on OA as well as a statistically significant influence only in exploration but not in exploitation. And the moderating effect of environmental dynamism also has a positive effect in the relationship between technological capacity and OA, and stronger effect in the relationship between technological capacity and exploration. These results are consistent with the existing literature and shows that environmental dynamism and technological capacity influence OA in SMEs, but in a different way. Various implications for theory and practice are also presented.

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

  • Abebe MA, Angriawan A (2014) Organizational and competitive influences of exploration and exploitation activities in small firms. J Bus Res 67(3):339–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad N, Othman SN, Lazim HM (2014) A Review of Technological Capability and Performance Relationship in Manufacturing Companies. In: International Symposium on Technology Management and Emerging Technologies (IEEE), Bandung, Indonesia, pp 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTMET.2014.6936505

  • Armstrong JS, Overton T (1977) Munich personal RePEc archive estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14(3):396–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima K (2005) Resolving the capability—rigidity paradox in new product innovation. J Mark 69(4):61–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28(2):238–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi C, Glavas C, Mathews S (2016) SME international performance in Latin America: the role of entrepreneurial and technological capabilities. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 24(1):176–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-09-2016-0142

  • Bierly PE III, Daly PS (2007) Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrep Theory Pr 31(4):493–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00185.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw J, Gupta K (2013) Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Acad Manag Perspect 27(4):287–298. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen KA, Long JS (1992) Tests for structural equation models: introduction. Sociol Methods Res 21(2):123–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke J, Roper S (2017) Innovation, quality management and learning: short-term and longer-term effects. Res Policy 46(8):1505–1518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calof JL (1994) The relationship between firm size and export behavior revisited. J Int Bus Stud 25(2):367–387. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490205

  • Cao Q, Gedajlovic E, Zhang H (2009) Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organ Sci 20(4):781–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran A, Linderman K, Schroeder R (2012) Antecedents to ambidexterity competency in high technology organizations. J Oper Manag 30(1–2):134–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crick D, Spence M (2005) The internationalisation of ‘high performing’ UK high-tech SMEs: a study of planned and unplanned strategies. Int Bus Rev 14(2):167–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai L, Maksimov V, Gilbert BA, Fernhaber SA (2014) Entrepreneurial orientation and international scope: the differential roles of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. J Bus Ventur 29(4):511–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess GG, Beard DW (1984) Dimensions of organizational task environments. Adm Sci Q 29(1):52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2007) Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method—2007 update with new internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson L (2001) The contingency theory of organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California

  • Farjoun M (2007) The end of liberal globalization. Strateg Organ 5(3):19–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estrada S, Cano K, Aguirre J (2019) How is technology managed in SMEs? Differences and similarities between micro, small and medium enterprises. Contaduria y Administracion 64(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.22201/fca.24488410e.2019.1812

  • Figueiredo PN, Piana J (2018) Innovative capability building and learning linkages in knowledge-intensive service SMEs in Brazil’s mining industry. Resour Policy 58:21–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foglia E, Ferrario L, Lettieri E, Porazzi E, Gastaldi L (2019) What drives hospital wards’ ambidexterity: insights on the determinants of exploration and exploitation. Health Policy 123(12):1298–1307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco M, Haase H (2010) Failure factors in small and medium-sized enterprises: qualitative study from an attributional perspective. Int Entrep Manag J 6(4):503–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gedajlovic E, Cao Q, Zhang H (2012) Corporate shareholdings and organizational ambidexterity in high-tech SMEs: Evidence from a transitional economy. J Bus Ventur 27(6):652–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghofar A, Islam SMN (2015) Corporate governance and contingency theory. Springer International Publishing, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giniuniene J, Jurksiene L (2015) Dynamic capabilities, innovation and organizational learning: interrelations and impact on firm performance. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 213(1997):985–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Benito Ó, González-Benito J, Muñoz-Gallego PA (2014) On the consequences of market orientation across varied environmental dynamism and competitive intensity levels. J Small Bus Manag 52(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (2010) Multivariate data analisys, 7th edn. Prentice-Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Halevi Y, Carmeli A, Brueller NN (2015) Ambidexterity in Sbus: Tmt behavioral integration and environmental dynamism. Hum Resour Manag 54:223–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manag Rev 9(2):193–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He Z-L, Wong P-K (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15(4):481–494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho Y, Fang H, Lin J (2011) Technological and design capabilities: is ambidexterity possible? Manag Decis 49(2):208–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu C-W, Lien Y-C, Chen H (2013) International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. J World Busi 48(1):58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.06.007

  • Jansen JJ, Volberda HW, Van Den Bosch FA (2005) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: the impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 57(October):351–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Manag Sci 52(11):1661–1674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, Tempelaar MP, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organ Sci 20(4):797–811. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahle JH, Marcon É, Ghezzi A, Frank AG (2020) Smart products value creation in SMEs innovation ecosystems. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 156(February):120024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser HF, Rice J (1974) Little Jiffy, Mark Iv. Educ Psychol Measur 34(1):111–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kammerlander N, Burger D, Fust A, Fueglistaller U (2014) Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized enterprises: the effect of CEOs’ regulatory focus. J Bus Ventur 30(4):582–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan SJ, Mir AA (2019) Ambidextrous culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovations: the role of organizational slack and environmental factors. Bus Strategy Environ 28(4):652–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim L (2001) The dynamics of technological learning in industrialisation. Int Soc Sci J 53(168):297–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim T, Rhee M (2009) Exploration and exploitation: internal variety and environmental dynamism. Strateg Organ 7(1):11–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koberg CS (1987) Resource, environmental uncertainty, and adaptive organizational behavior. Acad Manag J 30(4):798–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocoglu I, Imamoglu SZ, Ince H, Keskin H (2012) Learning, R&D and manufacturing capabilities as determinants of technological learning: enhancing innovation and firm performance. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 58:842–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koufteros X, Vonderembse M, Jayaram J (2005) Internal and external integration for product development: the contingency effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Decis Sci 36(1):97–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman ML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad Manag Ann 4(1):109–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal D, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strateg Manag J 14:95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao S, Liu Z, Fu L, Ye P (2019) Investigate the role of distributed leadership and strategic flexibility in fostering business model innovation. Chin Manag Stud 13(1):93–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfsten H (2017) Innovation performance and organizational capabilities in the Swedish hybrid electric vehicle technology: a study of 40 SMEs. Int J Technol Manag Sustain Dev 16(1):49–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin MH, Simsek Z, Ling Y, Veiga JF (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. J Manag 32(5):646–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712

    Google Scholar 

  • Mammassis CS, Kostopoulos KC (2019) CEO goal orientations, environmental dynamism and organizational ambidexterity: an investigation in SMEs. Eur Manag J 37(5):577–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Conesa I, Soto-Acosta P, Carayannis EG (2017) On the path towards open innovation: assessing the role of knowledge management capability and environmental dynamism in SMEs. J Knowl Manag 21(3):553–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Román JA, Romero I (2017) Determinants of innovativeness in SMEs: disentangling core innovation and technology adoption capabilities. RMS 11(3):543–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews SW, Maruyama M, Sakurai Y, Perks KJ, Sok P (2019) Risk perceptions in Japanese SMEs: the role of Internet marketing capabilities in firm performance. J Strateg Mark 27(7):599–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesa AF, Iborra M, Safón V (2013) CEO-TMT interaction: do tenure and age affect ambidexterity dynamism? Eur J Int Manag 7(1):31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: past, present and future. Acad Manag Perspect 27(4):324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng MYP, Lin KH (2019) Impact of ambidexterity and environmental dynamism on dynamic capability development trade-offs. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11(8):2334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pertusa-Ortega EM, Molina-Azorín JF (2018) A joint analysis of determinants and performance consequences of ambidexterity. BRQ Bus Res Q 21(2):84–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer LA, Allison TH, Connelly BL (2016) Better together? Signaling interactions in new venture pursuit of initial external capital. Acad Manag J 59(5):1585–1604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston C, Coleman A (2000) Optimal number of response categories in rating scale: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and responding preferences. Acta Psychol 104:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ Sci 20(4):685–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisinger S, Lehner JM (2015) Navigating a family business through a changing environment: findings from a longitudinal study. Rev Manag Sci 9(2):411–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-014-0163-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revilla E, Prieto IM, Prado BR (2010) Knowledge strategy: its relationship to environmental dynamism and complexity in product development. Knowl Process Manag 17(1):36–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruzzier M, Hisrich RD, Antoncic B (2006) SME internationalization research: past, present, and future. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 13(4):476–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salisu Y, Abu Bakar LJ (2019) Technological capability, relational capability and firms’ performance. Revista de Gestão 27(1):79–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkees M, Hulland J (2009) Innovation and efficiency: it is possible to have it all. Bus Horiz 52(1):45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt U (2018) Supporting the sustainable growth of SMEs with content- and collaboration-based personal knowledge management systems. J Entrep Innov Emerg Econ 4(1):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Senaratne C, Wang CL (2018) Organisational ambidexterity in UK high-tech SMEs: an exploratory study of key drivers and barriers. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 25(6):1025–1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah Abdullah H, Ahmad J (2009) The fit between organisational structure, management orientation, knowledge orientation, and the values of ISO 9000 standard: a conceptual analysis. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 26(8):744–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobanke V, Adegbite S, Ilori M, Egbetokun A (2014) Determinants of technological capability of firms in a developing country. Procedia Eng 69:991–1000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soto-Acosta P, Popa S, Martinez-Conesa I (2018) Information technology, knowledge management and environmental dynamism as drivers of innovation ambidexterity: a study in SMEs. J Knowl Manag 22(4):824–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strand Ø, Wiig M, Torheim T, Solli-Sæther H, Nesset E (2017) Technological innovation capability and interaction effect in a scandinavian industry cluster. Int J Innov Manag 21(05):1740007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strobl A, Matzler K, Nketia BA, Veider V (2018) Individual innovation behavior and firm-level exploration and exploitation: how family firms make the most of their managers. Review of Managerial Science. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki O (2019) Uncovering moderators of organisational ambidexterity: evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Ind Innov 26(4):391–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swart J, Kinnie N (2007) Simultaneity of learning orientations in a marketing agency. Manag Learn 38(3):337–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamayo-Torres J, Gutierrez-Gutierrez L, Ruiz-Moreno A (2014) The relationship between exploration and exploitation strategies, manufacturing flexibility and organizational learning: An empirical comparison between Non-ISO and ISO certified firms. Eur J Oper 232(1):72–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.06.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece D, Pisano G (1994) The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Ind Corp Change 3(3):537–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DD, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe R, Holt R, Macpherson A, Pittaway L (2005) Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: a systematic review of the evidence. Int J Manag Rev 7(4):257–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai KH (2004) The impact of technological capability on firm performance in Taiwan’s electronics industry. J High Technol Manag Res 15(2):183–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzokas N, Kim YA, Akbar H, Al-Dajani H (2015) Absorptive capacity and performance: the role of customer relationship and technological capabilities in high-tech SMEs. Ind Mark Manag 47:134–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uotila J (2017) Punctuated equilibrium or ambidexterity: dynamics of incremental and radical organizational change over time. Ind Corp Change 27(1):131–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda HW, Van Bruggen GH (1997) Environmental turbulence: a look into its dimensionality. In: Bemelmans MTA (Ed) Dynamiek in organisatie en bedrijfsvoering. NOBO, Enschede, The Netherlands, pp 137–146. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1765/6438

  • Wamba SF, Dubey R, Gunasekaran A, Akter S (2020) The performance effects of big data analytics and supply chain ambidexterity: the moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Int J Prod Econ 222:107498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang CL, Rafiq M (2014) Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: a comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms. Br J Manag 25(1):58–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang W, Zhang C (2018) Evaluation of relative technological innovation capability: model and case study for China’s coal mine. Resour Policy 58:144–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang CL, Senaratne C, Rafiq M (2015) Success traps, dynamic capabilities and firm performance. Br J Manag 26(1):26–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks A, Swerissen H, Belfrage J (2007) Issues, challenges, and solutions in translating study instruments. Eval Rev 31(2):153–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei Z, Zhao J, Zhang C (2014) Organizational ambidexterity, market orientation, and firm performance. J Eng Technol Manag 33:134–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yalcinkaya G, Calantone RJ, Griffith DA (2007) An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities: implications for product innovation and market performance. J Int Mark 15(4):63–93. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.15.4.63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang T, Li C (2011) Competence exploration and exploitation in new product development. Manag Decis 49(9):1444–1470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zabala-Iturriagagoitia JM (2014) Innovation management tools: implementing technology watch as a routine for adaptation. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 26(9):1073–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2014.944150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou KZ, Wu F (2010) Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strateg Manag J 31(5):547–561. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is financed by National Funds of the FCT—Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology within the Project “UIDB/04007/2020”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Advanced Studies in Management and Economics Research Center (CEFAGE-UBI), ISLA – Instituto Superior de Línguas e Administração, Leiria, Portugal

    José Andrade

  2. Advanced Studies in Management and Economics Research Center (CEFAGE-UBI), University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal

    Mário Franco & Luis Mendes

Authors
  1. José Andrade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mário Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luis Mendes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis Mendes.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andrade, J., Franco, M. & Mendes, L. Technological capacity and organisational ambidexterity: the moderating role of environmental dynamism on Portuguese technological SMEs. Rev Manag Sci 15, 2111–2136 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00416-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00416-x

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Search

Navigation