IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i14p3931-d249756.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Linking Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: The Drivers of Sustainability in High-Tech Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Yao-Ping Peng

    (School of Economics and Management, Xi’an University of Posts & Telecommunications, Xi’an 710121, China)

  • Ku-Ho Lin

    (Department of Administration Business, National Chung Hsing University, Taichuang 402, Taiwan)

  • Dennis Liute Peng

    (Institute of Management Science, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu 1001, Taiwan)

  • Peihua Chen

    (Institute of Management Science, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu 1001, Taiwan)

Abstract

To strengthen national competitiveness and sustainability, the high-tech industry has been developed as the center of gravity of industrial development in each country, covering the development of new products and the expansion to new customers and markets. Although both aspects are indispensable to high-tech firms’ growth momentum and competitive advantages, it is difficult to develop them at the same time. In recent years, scholars have been paying an increasing amount of attention to the significance of organizational ambidexterity in different management fields. Importantly, transformed high-tech firms are obliged to manage the tensions and conflicts that arise from the exploration of new knowledge and the exploitation of existing knowledge to find an appropriate balance between the two to yield synergistic effects. In this study, an original method was used to measure differences in the degree of ambidexterity. The method establishes a multiplicative term of exploration and exploitation to represent the degree of effect of ambidexterity. The higher the exploration and exploitation are, the higher the degree of ambidexterity will be. This study takes as its objects electronics manufacturing firms in Taiwan that engage in the development of new high-tech products. We issued a total of 1000 questionnaires to electronics manufacturing firms in Taiwan and received 228 valid ones. The results indicate that exploitation has a positive effect on performance, and there is an inverse U-shaped correlation between exploration/exploitation and performance. Ambidexterity and its interaction with the market orientation were found to have a positive influence on organizational performance. We also investigated the extent to which an organization places emphasis on resources and the influence of resource allocation on organizational performance. We suggest that the co-existence of exploration and exploitation is important to organizational performance. Accordingly, developing the two capabilities at the same time conforms to the concept of ambidexterity.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Yao-Ping Peng & Ku-Ho Lin & Dennis Liute Peng & Peihua Chen, 2019. "Linking Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: The Drivers of Sustainability in High-Tech Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-17, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:14:p:3931-:d:249756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3931/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3931/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Yao-Ping Peng & Ku-Ho Lin, 2019. "Impact of Ambidexterity and Environmental Dynamism on Dynamic Capability Development Trade-Offs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Prange, Christiane & Verdier, Sylvie, 2011. "Dynamic capabilities, internationalization processes and performance," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 126-133, January.
    3. Georg Schreyögg & Martina Kliesch‐Eberl, 2007. "How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual‐process model of capability dynamization," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(9), pages 913-933, September.
    4. Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    5. Michael Lubatkin & Zeki Simsek & Yan Ling & John F. Veiga, 2006. "Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to Medium-Sized Firms : The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration," Post-Print hal-02311781, HAL.
    6. Sarah Cheah & Yuen-Ping Ho, 2019. "Coworking and Sustainable Business Model Innovation in Young Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Jay J. Ebben & Alec C. Johnson, 2005. "Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(13), pages 1249-1259, December.
    8. Delin Zeng & Jingbo Hu & Taohua Ouyang, 2017. "Managing Innovation Paradox in the Sustainable Innovation Ecosystem: A Case Study of Ambidextrous Capability in a Focal Firm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.
    9. Nieves, Julia & Haller, Sabine, 2014. "Building dynamic capabilities through knowledge resources," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 224-232.
    10. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    11. Shuaishuai Li & Suyang Han & Tiyan Shen, 2019. "How Can a Firm Innovate When Embedded in a Cluster?—Evidence from the Automobile Industrial Cluster in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Qing Cao & Eric Gedajlovic & Hongping Zhang, 2009. "Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 781-796, August.
    13. Wu, Lei-Yu, 2007. "Entrepreneurial resources, dynamic capabilities and start-up performance of Taiwan's high-tech firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(5), pages 549-555, May.
    14. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    15. Wu Zhan & Roger (Rongxin) Chen, 2013. "Dynamic capability and IJV performance: The effect of exploitation and exploration capabilities," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 601-632, June.
    16. Christiane Prange & Sylvie Verdier, 2011. "Dynamic capabilities, internationalization processes and performance," Post-Print hal-02312587, HAL.
    17. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    18. David J. Teece, 2007. "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(13), pages 1319-1350, December.
    19. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    20. Maurizio Zollo & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 339-351, June.
    21. Anne Marie Knott & Hart E. Posen, 2005. "Is failure good?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(7), pages 617-641, July.
    22. Justin J. P. Jansen & Gerard George & Frans A. J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2008. "Senior Team Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 982-1007, July.
    23. Yoo Hwan Lee & Young Wook Seo, 2018. "Strategies for Sustainable Business Development: Utilizing Consulting and Innovation Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    24. Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
    25. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    26. Wu, Lei-Yu, 2010. "Applicability of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views under environmental volatility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 27-31, January.
    27. M. Dolores Botella-Carrubi & Tomas F. González-Cruz, 2019. "Context as a Provider of Key Resources for Succession: A Case Study of Sustainable Family Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, March.
    28. Yamakawa, Yasuhiro & Yang, Haibin & Lin, Zhiang (John), 2011. "Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performance implications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 287-296, March.
    29. Jiang, Xu & Li, Yuan, 2009. "An empirical investigation of knowledge management and innovative performance: The case of alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 358-368, March.
    30. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Panagiotis Kafetzopoulos & Evangelos Psomas & Anastasia A. Katou, 2023. "Promoting Strategic Flexibility and Business Performance through Organizational Ambidexterity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Mirosław Matusek, 2022. "Exploitation, Exploration, or Ambidextrousness—An Analysis of the Necessary Conditions for the Success of Digital Servitisation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Jie Zhen & Cejun Cao & Hanguang Qiu & Zongxiao Xie, 2021. "Impact of organizational inertia on organizational agility: the role of IT ambidexterity," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 53-65, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Yao-Ping Peng & Ku-Ho Lin, 2019. "Impact of Ambidexterity and Environmental Dynamism on Dynamic Capability Development Trade-Offs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Michael Yao-Ping Peng & Zhaohua Zhang & Hsin-Yi Yen & Shu-Mi Yang, 2019. "Dynamic Capabilities and Firm Performance in the High-Tech Industry: Quadratic and Moderating Effects under Differing Ambidexterity Levels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Leo Aldianto & Grisna Anggadwita & Anggraeni Permatasari & Isti Raafaldini Mirzanti & Ian O. Williamson, 2021. "Toward a Business Resilience Framework for Startups," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, March.
    4. Ferreira, Jorge & Coelho, Arnaldo & Moutinho, Luiz, 2020. "Dynamic capabilities, creativity and innovation capability and their impact on competitive advantage and firm performance: The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 92.
    5. Úbeda-García, Mercedes & Claver-Cortés, Enrique & Marco-Lajara, Bartolomé & Zaragoza-Sáez, Patrocinio, 2020. "Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 363-372.
    6. Demetris Vrontis & Alkis Thrassou & Gabriele Santoro & Armando Papa, 2017. "Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 374-388, April.
    7. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    8. Vahlne, Jan-Erik & Jonsson, Anna, 2017. "Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 57-70.
    9. Telma Mendes & Vítor Braga & Carina Silva & Vanessa Ratten, 2023. "Taking a closer look at the regionally clustered firms: How can ambidexterity explain the link between management, entrepreneurship, and innovation in a post-industrialized world?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 2007-2053, December.
    10. Montserrat Boronat-Navarro & Alexandra García-Joerger, 2019. "Ambidexterity, Alliances and Environmental Management System Adoption in Spanish Hotels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Jiewei Zu & Jianan Wang & Jun Ma, 2022. "Ambidexterity in a Rapidly Changing Environment of China: Top Management Team Decision Making and Sustained Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, March.
    12. David B. Audretsch & Maribel Guerrero, 2023. "Is ambidexterity the missing link between entrepreneurship, management, and innovation?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1891-1918, December.
    13. Jorge Ferreira & Sofia Cardim & Arnaldo Coelho, 2021. "Dynamic Capabilities and Mediating Effects of Innovation on the Competitive Advantage and Firm’s Performance: the Moderating Role of Organizational Learning Capability," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 620-644, June.
    14. Bruyaka, Olga & Prange, Christiane, 2020. "International cultural ambidexterity: Balancing tensions of foreign market entry into distant and proximate cultures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 491-506.
    15. Bob Walrave & A Georges L Romme & Kim E van Oorschot & Fred Langerak, 2017. "Managerial attention to exploitation versus exploration: toward a dynamic perspective on ambidexterity," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(6), pages 1145-1160.
    16. Mavroudi, Eva & Kesidou, Effie & Pandza, Krsto, 2020. "Shifting back and forth: How does the temporal cycling between exploratory and exploitative R&D influence firm performance?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 386-396.
    17. Olga Kassotaki, 2022. "Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    18. Partanen, Jukka & Kohtamäki, Marko & Patel, Pankaj C. & Parida, Vinit, 2020. "Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    19. Manuel Guisado-González & Jennifer González-Blanco & José Luis Coca-Pérez, 2019. "Exploration, exploitation, and firm age in alliance portfolios," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(4), pages 387-406, December.
    20. Koryak, Oksana & Lockett, Andy & Hayton, James & Nicolaou, Nicos & Mole, Kevin, 2018. "Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 413-427.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:14:p:3931-:d:249756. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.