Abstract
This study examines when small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) benefit from innovation ambidexterity for their growth. We argue that innovation ambidexterity in SMEs is sensitive to resource configuration, necessitating a careful fit assessment among firms’ internal resources (firm size), external resources (customer concentration) and the forms of innovation ambidexterity. Patent and utility model data from 912 firm-years for the 2000–2017 period in the Korean electronic parts industry were analysed using a feasible generalised least squares (FGLS) model. Consistent with our prediction, we establish that firm size is negatively related to the growth effect of balanced innovation ambidexterity (BIA), but positively to that of combined innovation ambidexterity (CIA), and that customer concentration is positively related to the growth effect of CIA. The three-way interaction patterns further demonstrate that smaller firms with high customer concentration achieve the best growth when pursuing BIA, whereas the same configuration can lead to the worst growth if they adopt CIA.
Plain English Summary
When does smallness help or hinder firms to implement innovation ambidexterity? We collected longitudinal innovation data from SMEs in the Korean electronic parts industry to examine how firm size, customer concentration and innovation ambidexterity affect firm growth individually and jointly. There are two important implications. First, for research, this study indicates that smallness is a liability for combined innovation ambidexterity (CIA), but it is an asset for balanced innovation ambidexterity (BIA). Our configurational approach further suggests that research should include a careful fit assessment of firm size, customer concentration and the organisational and technological requirements involved in BIA and CIA to be able to determine the liability and asset of smallness in innovation ambidexterity. Second, for practice, smaller firms are advised to pursue BIA to achieve sustainable growth, but larger SMEs are recommended to adopt CIA. Further to this, smaller firms with high customer concentration can achieve the best growth when pursuing BIA, whereas the same configuration of internal and external resources can lead to the worst growth if they adopt CIA. However, larger SMEs with high customer concentration can effectively pursue CIA and achieve the best growth.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 78(4), 678–690. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1811167
Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.176
Aldrich, H., & Auster, E. R. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 8, 165–198. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-12,412-001
Andrevski, G., & Ferrier, W. J. (2019). Does it pay to compete aggressively? Contingent roles of internal and external resources. Journal of Management, 45(2), 620–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316673718
Arend, R. J. (2014). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: How firm age and size affect the ‘capability enhancement–SME performance’ relationship. Small Business Economics, 42(1), 33–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9461-9
Arend, R. J., & Wisner, J. D. (2005). Small business and supply chain management: Is there a fit? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 403–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.11.003
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Murray, J. Y. (2007). Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: A social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing, 15(2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.15.2.1
Audretsch, D. B. (2004). Sustaining innovation and growth: Public policy support for entrepreneurship. Industry and Innovation, 11(3), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366271042000265366
Bamiatzi, V. C., & Kirchmaier, T. (2014). Strategies for superior performance under adverse conditions: A focus on small and medium-sized high-growth firms. International Small Business Journal, 32(3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242612459534
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069456
Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.003
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.9416096
Bierly, P., & Daly, P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 493–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00185.x
Birley, S., & Westhead, P. (1990). Growth and performance contrasts between ‘types’ of small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11(7), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250110705
Blau, P. M. (1970). A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review, 35, 201–218. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093199
Bluedorn, A. C. (1993). Pilgrim’s progress: Trends and convergence in research on organizational size and environments. Journal of Management, 19(2), 163–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639301900201
Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01772.x
Box, G. E., Hunter, W. H., & Hunter, S. (1978). Statistics for experimenters. (Vol. 664)John Wiley and sons.
Burgelman, R. A. (1994). Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 24–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393493
Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 339–365.https://doi.org/10.2307/2393923
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0426
Carreira, C., & Silva, F. (2010). No deep pockets: Some stylized empirical results on firms’ financial constraints. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24(4), 731–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2009.00619.x
Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (2000). The demography of corporations and industries. Princeton University Press.
Chandler, G. N., McKelvie, A., & Davidsson, P. (2009). Asset specificity and behavioral uncertainty as moderators of the sales growth—Employment growth relationship in emerging ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.002
Chang, Y. Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small-to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011.08.003
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. https://doi.org/10.5465/256688
Choi, Y. R., & Shepherd, D. A. (2005). Stakeholder perceptions of age and other dimensions of newness. Journal of Management, 31(4), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304272294
Chowdhury, S. (2011). The moderating effects of customer driven complexity on the structure and growth relationship in young firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.10.001
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, J. F. S. (1996). Innovative assets and inter-asset linkages—A resource-based approach to innovation. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4(3), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599600000009
Cockburn, I., & Grilliches, Z. (1988). The estimation and measurement of spillover effects of R&D investment: Industry effects and appropriability measures in stock market’s valuation of R&D and patents. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 78, 419–423.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
d’Amboise, G., & Muldowney, M. (1988). Management theory for small business: Attempts and requirements. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 226–240. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306873
Degryse, H., de Goeij, P., & Kappert, P. (2012). The impact of firm and industry characteristics on small firms’ capital structure. Small Business Economics, 38(4), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9281-8
Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. B. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00080-0
Djupdal, K., & Westhead, P. (2015). Environmental certification as a buffer against the liabilities of newness and smallness: Firm performance benefits. International Small Business Journal, 33(2), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613486688
Dolan, C., & Humphrey, J. (2000). Governance and trade in fresh vegetables: The impact of UK supermarkets on the African horticulture industry. Journal of Development Studies, 37(2), 147–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/713600072
Fackler, D., Schnabel, C., & Wagner, J. (2013). Establishment exits in Germany: The role of size and age. Small Business Economics, 41(3), 683–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9450-z
Fiegenbaum, A., & Karnani, A. (1991). Output flexibility—a competitive advantage for small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120203
Fischer, E., & Reuber, A. R. (2004). Contextual antecedents and consequences of relationships between young firms and distinct types of dominant exchange partners. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.09.005
Fritsch, M., & Lukas, R. (2001). Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy, 30(2), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00115-8
Fujimoto, T. (2007). Architecture-based comparative advantage: A design information view of manufacturing. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 4(1), 55–112. https://doi.org/10.14441/eier.4.55
Gedajlovic, E., Cao, Q., & Zhang, H. (2012). Corporate shareholdings and organizational ambidexterity in high-tech SMEs: Evidence from a transitional economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(6), 652–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.06.001
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159573
Gimenez-Fernandez, E. M., Sandulli, F. D., & Bogers, M. (2020). Unpacking liabilities of newness and smallness in innovative start-ups: Investigating the differences in innovation performance between new and older small firms. Research Policy, 49(10), 104049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104049
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Makri, M. (2003). The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040616
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311
Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall.
Grupp, H., Schwitalla, B., Schmoch, U., & Granberg, A. (1990). Developing industrial robot technology in Sweden, West Germany, Japan, and the U.S.A. In J. Sigurdson (Ed.), Measuring the dynamics of technological change: 106–129. Pinter Publishers.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026
Hansen, B., & Hamilton, R. T. (2011). Factors distinguishing small firm growers and non-growers. International Small Business Journal, 29(3), 278–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610381846
He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
Heide, J. B., & John, G. (1988). The role of dependence balancing in safeguarding transaction-specific assets in conventional channels. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200103
Heo, M., & Leon, A. C. (2010). Sample sizes required to detect two-way and three-way interactions involving slope differences in mixed-effects linear models. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 20(4), 787–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543401003618819
Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2006). Resource and capability constraints to innovation in small and large plants. Small Business Economics, 26(3), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-2140-3
Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., & Hill, C. W. (1993). Managerial incentives and investment in R&D in large multiproduct firms. Organization Science, 4(2), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.2.325
Hult, R. (2020). Significant electronic technology trends over the past 20 years. Available online: https://www.connectorsupplier.com/significant-electronic-technology-trends-over-the-past-20-years/ (Accessed on 27 September 2020).
ILO. (2014). Ups and downs in the electronics industry: Fluctuating production and the use of temporary and other forms of employment, Sectoral Policies Department.
Jansen, D., Von Goertz, R., & Heidler, R. (2009). Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientific fields. Scientometrics, 83(1), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0022-1
Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
Josefy, M., Kuban, S., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2015). All things great and small: Organizational size, boundaries of the firm, and a changing environment. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 715–802. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2015.1027086
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069433
Katila, R., & Shane, S. (2005). When does lack of resources make new firms innovative? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 814–829. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803924
Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Thomas, J. B., & Snow, C. C. (1993). Organizational configurations and performance: A comparison of theoretical approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1278–1313. https://doi.org/10.5465/256812
Kim, Y. K., Kim, T. U., Park, S. T., & Jung, J. R. (2016). Establishing the importance weight of appropriability mechanism by using AHP: The case of the China’s electronic industry. Cluster Computing, 19(3), 1635–1646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-016-0608-3
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., & Muller, K. E. (1988). Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods. PWS-Kent.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502–518. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.5.502
Larson, A. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 76–104. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393534
Lee, S. G., Koo, C., & Nam, K. (2010). Cumulative strategic capability and performance of early movers and followers in the cyber market. International Journal of Information Management, 30(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.09.003
Leenders, R. T., & Gabbay, S. M. (1999). CSC: An agenda for the future. In Corporate social capital and liability (pp. 483–494). Springer.
Lei, D., Hitt, M. A., & Bettis, R. (1996). Dynamic core competences through meta-learning and strategic context. Journal of Management, 22(4), 549–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639602200402
Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. Rand Journal of Economics, 25, 319–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555833
Levinthal, D. A. (1997). Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43(7), 934–950. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.7.934
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009
Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10, 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.5.535
Liñán, F., Paul, J., & Fayolle, A. (2019). SMEs and entrepreneurship in the era of globalization: Advances and theoretical approaches. Small Business Economics, 53, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00180-7
Loveman, G., & Sengenberger, W. (1991). The re-emergence of small-scale production: An international comparison. Small Business Economics, 3(1), 1–37.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Miller, D. (1996). Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7), 505–512. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199607)17:7%3c505::AID-SMJ852%3e3.0.CO;2-I
Mills, D. E., & Schumann, L. (1985). Industry structure with fluctuating demand. American Economic Review, 75(4), 758–767. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1821353
Murphy, K. R., & Russell, C. J. (2017). Mend it or end it: Redirecting the search for interactions in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 549–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115625322
Nason, R. S., McKelvie, A., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2015). The role of organizational size in the heterogeneous nature of corporate entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9632-6
Nerkar, A. (2003). Old is good? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Management Science, 49, 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.2.211.12747
O’Reilly, C. A., III., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
O’Reilly, C. A., III., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–83.
O’Reilly, C. A., III., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
Ortega-Argilés, R., Vivarelli, M., & Voigt, P. (2009). R&D in SMEs: A paradox? Small Business Economics, 33(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9187-5
Pennings, J. M., & Lee, K. (1999). Social capital of organization: Conceptualization, level of analysis, and performance implications. In Corporate social capital and liability (pp. 43–67). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5027-3_3
Penrose, E. G. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Wiley.
Priem, R. L., Li, S., & Carr, J. C. (2012). Insights and new directions from demand-side approaches to technology innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management research. Journal of Management, 38(1), 346–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311429614
Quintana-García, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2008). Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification. Research Policy, 37(3), 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.002
Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.160
Rothaermel, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), 759–780. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0404
Rumelt, R. P. (1995). Inertia and transformation. In Resource-based and evolutionary theories of the firm: Towards a synthesis (pp. 101–132). Springer.
Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107308906
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Socialism, capitalism and democracy. Harper and Brothers.
Short, J. C., McKelvie, A., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Chandler, G. N. (2009). Firm and industry effects on firm performance: A generalization and extension for new ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.53
Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0212
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(5), 864–894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.x
Smith, H. L., Dickson, K., & Smith, S. L. (1991). “There are two sides to every story”: Innovation and collaboration within networks of large and small firms. Research Policy, 20(5), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90069-3
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage.
Solís-Molina, M., Hernández-Espallardo, M., & Rodríguez-Orejuela, A. (2018). Performance implications of organizational ambidexterity versus specialization in exploitation or exploration: The role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Research, 91, 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.001
Son, B. G., Ha, B. C., & Lee, T. H. (2019). Small and medium-sized enterprises’ collaborative buyer–supplier relationships: Boundary spanning individual perspectives. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), 966–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12423
Suh, J. (2002). The industrial competitiveness of Korea’s IT industry. Preliminary Draft, Korea Development Institute.
Terziovski, M. (2010). Innovation practice and its performance implications in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 31(8), 892–902. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.841
Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00172-X
Tripsas, M. (1997). Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+%3c119::AID-SMJ921%3e3.0.CO;2-0
Tsvetkova, A., Thill, J. C., & Strumsky, D. (2014). Metropolitan innovation, firm size, and business survival in a high-tech industry. Small Business Economics, 43(3), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9550-z
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.738
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393808
Varum, C. A., & Rocha, V. C. (2012). The effect of crises on firm exit and the moderating effect of firm size. Economics Letters, 114(1), 94–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.09.015
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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0790
Walker, R. D. (1995). Patents as scientific and technical literature. Scarecrow Press.
Wall, T. D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S. J., Sheehan, M., Clegg, C. W., & West, M. (2004). On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02485.x
Wang, S. L., Luo, Y., Maksimov, V., Sun, J., & Celly, N. (2019). Achieving temporal ambidexterity in new ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 56(4), 788–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12431
Wei, S., Ke, W., Liu, H., Wei, K. K., & Hua, Z. (2013). Supply chain exploitation, exploration, and firm performance: Effects of top management and information technology capabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Information Systems.
Wei, Z., Yi, Y., & Guo, H. (2014). Organizational learning ambidexterity, strategic flexibility, and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 832–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12126
Weinzimmer, L. G., Nystrom, P. C., & Freeman, S. J. (1998). Measuring organizational growth: Issues, consequences and guidelines. Journal of Management, 24(2), 235–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400205
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Aspiring for, and achieving growth: The moderating role of resources and opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 1919–1941. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-6486.2003.00406.x
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001
Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press.
Yli-Renko, H., & Janakiraman, R. (2008). How customer portfolio affects new product development in technology-based entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.5.131
Yli-Renko, H., Sapienza, H. J., & Hay, M. (2001). The role of contractual governance flexibility in realizing the outcomes of key customer relationships. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(6), 529–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00062-2
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6587995
Zajac, E. J., Kraatz, M. S., & Bresser, R. K. (2000). Modeling the dynamics of strategic fit: A normative approach to strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 429–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200004)21:4%3c429::AID-SMJ81%3e3.0.CO;2-%23
Zimmermann, A., Hill, S., Birkinshaw, J., & Jäckel, M. (2018). Complements or substitutes? Investigating the interplay amongst drivers of ambidexterity in SMEs. Academy of Management Proceedings, Chicago. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.17518abstract
Funding
This study received financial support from the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A3A2A02093277).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, Y.R., Ha, S. & Kim, Y. Innovation ambidexterity, resource configuration and firm growth: is smallness a liability or an asset?. Small Bus Econ 58, 2183–2209 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00507-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00507-3
Keywords
- Ambidexterity
- Innovation
- Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
- Growth
- Firm size
- Customer concentration
- Fit
- Liability of smallness