Ambidextrous Idea Generation—Antecedents and Outcomes*

Ambidexterity, defined as the capability to develop both incremental and radical innovations, is an important driver of firm success. Idea generation is an essential starting point for both types of innovation. Therefore, this study investigates whether ambidextrous idea generation, defined as the capability to actively generate both incremental and radical ideas, affects new product development (NPD) success. Analyses on the Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS) data, which includes data from 453 companies distributed over 24 countries, demonstrate that ambidextrous idea generation does indeed affect NPD program success. Consequently, this study also investigates which antecedents foster ambidextrous idea generation. The innovation paradox concept predicts that achieving ambidexterity requires overcoming paradoxical antecedents. Therefore, we tested whether combinations of financial and breakthrough orientations (the paradox of strategic emphasis), a formal innovation process and an innovation culture (the paradox of innovation drivers), tight and loose customer coupling (the paradox of customer orientation), and internal development and external collaboration (the paradox of openness) affects ambidextrous idea generation. The results show that only customer orientation and openness have the expected inverted u‐shaped effect. These finding are in line with construal level theory, which predicts that the organizational characteristics that influence idea‐generation activity must be at the same construal level to have the desired effect. The contribution of this study is twofold. First, the analyses indicate that ambidextrous idea generation has significant repercussions for the entire NPD program. Second, the results show that resolving innovation paradoxes only has an effect if the construal level of the paradox and the activity match. This finding indicates an important boundary condition for the innovation paradox concept.     

A Study of the Performativity of the “Ambidextrous Organizations” Theory: Neither Lost in nor Lost before Translation

Ambidextrous organizations succeed both in incremental and discontinuous innovation. However, there is little direct empirical evidence on how managers implement the principles of the “ambidextrous organizations” theory to dynamically align the structure and culture of ambidextrous organizations. Our study does not focus on analyzing the factors that give rise to organizational ambidexterity but focuses on analyzing whether the factors suggested by prior theorizing on “ambidextrous organizations” are implemented by managers in their daily practice as suggested by prior theorizing. Accordingly, this study does not investigate the traditionally conceptualized gap between academic theorizing and managerial practice since “ambidextrous organizations” theory can be characterized as rigorous and relevant. We investigate whether the “ambidextrous organizations” theory is implemented as suggested by prior theorizing and whether successful implementation is subject to managing in the way that scholars' prior theorizing suggests. Based on qualitative and quantitative data from two longitudinal case studies, we find that managers overlooked the process dimension in evaluating the required degree of ambidexterity. Furthermore, the organizational structure and culture for incremental innovation did not differ from the structure and culture for discontinuous innovation alongside the expected dimensions. Finally, the discontinuous innovation business unit had to be reintegrated to ensure sustained growth. During the reintegration processes, organizational capabilities mutated. We linked our findings on the processes and performativity of ambidextrous organizing to extant theories and developed the rationale for the observed novel phenomena of innovation myopia, second‐order competency traps, and capability mutations.     

The Locus of Innovation: The Effect of a Separate Innovation Unit on Exploration,Exploitation, and Ambidexterity in Manufacturing and Service Firms

This paper investigates the effects of having a separate innovation unit on exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity in manufacturing and service firms according to traditional paradigms of the innovation management discipline that innovation units should be organized in a separate department. Many manufacturing firms have such a unit while few service firms do. This paper sets out to investigate the advantages of having such a unit for exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity, and whether there are differences between manufacturing and service firms that could help explain why such units are present or absent. The literature suggests that a separate innovation unit has a positive effect on exploration and ambidexterity in manufacturing firms. However, the effect on improving operational activities, that is, exploitation, is unclear. If exploration and exploitation are two ends of a continuum, as the literature suggests, more exploration comes at the cost of exploitation. On the other hand, others have suggested the possibility of an orthogonal relationship, where a separate unit can simultaneously enhance exploration and exploitation. In this paper, the Dutch Community Innovation Survey (CIS) is used to investigate these relationships for manufacturing and service firms, with a question added to the survey regarding the locus of innovation within each firm, that is, mostly within a dedicated innovation unit or dispersed throughout the firm. Our findings show that a separate innovation unit increases exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity in both manufacturing and service firms. It thereby provides support for the orthogonal view of ambidexterity. A separate unit enhances the ability to exploit and be ambidextrous equally in service and manufacturing firms, but has a weaker positive effect on exploration, and exploratory and ambidextrous performance in service firms. This finding implies that both manufacturing and service firms benefit from having a separate innovation unit, with the advantages being greatest for manufacturing firms. In service firms, such an innovation unit alone may not be sufficient, as such units are expensive to maintain, while they contribute less to ambidextrous performance than in manufacturing firms. Based on the latter finding, future studies should make a distinction between the ability to be ambidextrous in creating exploratory and exploitative innovations, and ambidextrous performance, the ability to gain financially from engaging in both types of activities simultaneously.     

Cognitive Frames,Learning Mechanisms,and Innovation Ambidexterity

While there is general agreement about the need for firms to both exploit and explore, there has been little empirical research that has focused on understanding how firms can manage the tension that arises from engaging in these two activities. Some writers have theorized that the cognitive frames that individuals, teams, and organizations possess may play an important role in managing these tensions and fostering ambidextrous outcomes. However, a review of the extant literature on cognition and cognitive frames reveals that their role in managing this tension has not been examined at any level, including the strategic business unit (SBU) level. This paper has taken a first step in providing empirical validation for the notion that ambidextrous cognitive frames play an important role in generating innovation ambidexterity. To test the hypotheses, primary data were gathered from 178 Taiwanese companies (190 SBUs) operating in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, financial management, mechanical engineering, and electronic engineering sectors. Questionnaires were administered to senior level managers and middle‐level managers in each SBU. Because the theory and hypotheses of this study require an SBU level of analysis, respondents' individual scores on each variable were aggregated, and the SBU mean responses for each question were computed. Multiple regression analyses were performed to test the hypotheses. Different cognitive styles were found to impact different types of learning. An independent cognitive style was found to have a positive impact on intra‐SBU learning, while a reflection cognitive style had a positive impact on inter‐SBU learning. More importantly, ambidextrous cognitive frames, i.e., the combination of these two styles, were found to indirectly foster innovation ambidexterity by facilitating intra‐SBU learning and inter‐SBU learning simultaneously. These results suggest that managing the tension that arises from exploiting and exploring begins with the presence of dual cognitive styles. Ambidextrous cognitive frames enable SBUs to cognitively juxtapose contradictions and tensions in ways that allow them to “embrace” rather than avoid or deny these tensions. These findings provide validation for viewing SBUs as separate, holistic entities that collaboratively shape their cognitive frames. And it is these cognitive frames that enable their information processing which in turn causes the SBU to act or perform in a distinctive or characteristic manner. Additionally, these findings suggest that management teams may need to adopt ambidextrous cognitive frames that broaden the “problem space” to include multiple sources of learning that emanate from inside, as well as outside of the SBU or organization.     

Using meta‐analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research: Guidelines and an empirical illustration via the strategic leadership‐performance relationship

This paper demonstrates how meta‐analysis can be combined with structural equation modeling (MASEM) to address new questions in strategic management research. We review this integration, describe its implementation, and compare findings from bivariate meta‐analyses, a direct‐effect structural equations model, and two mediating frameworks using data on the strategic leadership and performance relationship. Results drawn from 208 articles that collectively included data on 495,638 observations demonstrate the new insights available from MASEM while also suggesting a revision to conventional thinking on strategic leadership. Whereas some theories posit that boards of directors influence firm performance through monitoring and disciplining the top management team, MASEM provides more support for the view that boards mediate the top management teams' decisions. Implications for applying MASEM in strategic management are offered. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Can Quality‐Oriented Firms Develop Innovative New Products?

Research suggests that a strong focus on quality improvement can adversely affect exploration and thus the development of innovative new products. The focus on quality improvement including total quality management (TQM) has been termed quality orientation. The literature suggests that one way to reduce the adverse effect of a quality orientation on innovativeness is to adopt ambidextrous or dual organizational forms. However, dual organizational forms are cumbersome and expensive to implement. This paper argues that a less demanding structural arrangement for developing innovative products in quality‐oriented organizations involves the creation of cross‐functional teams that are explicitly encouraged to take risk and granted autonomy. In this model, the two dimensions of innovativeness—namely, novelty and appropriateness— are treated separately because quality orientation and encouragement to take risk can have differential effects on these two dimensions. A survey of 141 new product development projects reveals that quality orientation does not adversely affect product novelty in cross‐functional product development teams. However, encouragement given to cross‐functional teams to take risk leads to more novel products. On the other hand, while a quality orientation improves product appropriateness, encouragement to take risk affects it adversely. Quality orientation is able to mitigate the adverse effect of encouragement to take risk on appropriateness. But encouragement to take risk does not influence the relationship between a quality orientation and novelty. Autonomy improves the positive effect of encouragement to take risk on new product novelty but does not influence the effect of a quality orientation on novelty. Both novelty and appropriateness enhance a new product's performance, and both these dimensions of innovativeness partially mediate the effect of quality orientation and fully mediate the effect of encouragement to take risk on new product performance.     

Organizational Learning Ambidexterity,Strategic Flexibility,and New Product Development

Although organizational ambidexterity has gained momentum in recent innovation research, previous literature still offers a confusing and partial picture about how to leverage ambidexterity for new product development because of two limitations. First, previous research mainly focuses on static resource endowment and thus offers little insight about how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity. Second, conceptual confusion on the notion of the balance dimension of organization ambidexterity still exists. This study seeks to explore how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity for new product development and to bring greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. By extending the static resource assumption, which is central to the extant debate in organizational ambidexterity literature, this research unpacks ambidexterity into a relative exploratory dimension and an interactive dimension. We further investigated the moderating effect of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility on the impacts of the two dimensions on new product development performance. Based on the dynamic resource management view and organizational learning theory, we proposed six hypotheses and collected data from 213 firms through a survey to examine the hypotheses. Our results indicate that relative exploratory dimension and interactive dimension have different effects on new product development. Specifically, the relative exploratory dimension has an inverse U‐shaped effect on new product development while the interactive dimension has a positive effect. Furthermore, we find that resource flexibility and coordination flexibility have positive moderating effects on the relationships between the two dimensions of ambidexterity and new product development performance. Our study contributes to the ambidexterity research in three ways. First, from a dynamic resource management view, this study extends previous ambidexterity research from a static view to a dynamic view by exploring the moderating effects of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility. Second, we extend the understanding on ambidexterity by bringing greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. Third, this research provides new evidence on the effects of ambidextrous learning on new product development performance in transition economy such as China, where ambidextrous learning is crucial for firms to adapt to a dynamic environment.     

The architecture of coopetition: Strategic intent,ambidextrous managers,and knowledge sharing

The study investigates the significance of strategic intent, manager's ambidexterity, and knowledge sharing routines for firms in their quest to pursue coopetition. We utilize the resource-based view and the dynamic capabilities theory to ground our hypotheses. We test the hypotheses using the data collected from 313 firms that engage in coopetition relationships through an online survey. The findings forward knowledge sharing and ambidextrous managers as intervening variables, in that when complemented with knowledge sharing, a firm's strategic intent could better guide the firm's managers to pursue coopetition successfully. Findings further advocate that knowledge sharing complements to enable the relationship between a firm's strategic intent and its ambidextrous managers, as well as the relationship between strategic intent and coopetition. Furthermore, results also indicate that ambidextrous managers, with a skillset of a combination of exploration and exploitation, are positively associated to coopetition. Overall, the findings make important theoretical as well as empirical contributions to the coopetition and strategic alliance literature.     

The relationship between innovation culture and innovation outcomes: exploring the effects of sustainability orientation and firm size

Being sustainability‐oriented has become a key strategy for many firms. Equally, innovation culture and innovation outcomes have long been recognized as important contributors to the growth of firms. However, the literature on sustainability and innovation provides limited understanding of the important relationship between sustainability orientation, innovation culture and innovation outcomes. Given that large firms and small firms differ in building and employing their strategic assets, firm size matters in understanding the relationship. Through the lens of resource‐based view, we develop a theoretical model embedding the four components and test it using data from a global survey: the 2012 Comparative Performance Assessment Study. Our research contributes to sustainability literature and innovation theory by providing an integrated framework to explicate the mechanism through which the innovation culture of the firm impacts on innovative performance through the sustainability orientation of the firm. The findings advance our understanding of the extent to which sustainable orientation can explain the relationship between innovation culture and innovation outcomes. Our evidence shows that the innovation culture of a firm facilitates the sustainability orientation of the firm and that the converse also applies. The research also contributes to our knowledge of the differences between large and small firms in leveraging their strategic assets in terms of innovation culture and sustainability orientation to facilitate superior innovation outcomes. Although firm size moderates the relationship between innovation culture and innovation outcomes, the research shows that this no longer holds when sustainability orientation is included in the relationship. A strong sustainability orientation can be a competitive advantage for firms in the R&D Management delivery of superior innovation outcomes.     

Cannibalize and combine? The impact of ambidextrous innovation on organizational outcomes under market competition

How can a firm achieve ambidexterity? The present study proposes that the answer to this question lies in the distinction between ambidextrous culture and ambidextrous innovation. Drawing upon organizational learning theory and the source-position-performance framework, we propose that ambidexterity requires the adoption of two important organizational cultures, willingness to cannibalize (WTCA) and willingness to combine existing knowledge (WTCO), which allow firms to attain superior performance through the implementation of both radical and incremental (i.e., ambidextrous) innovations. Our major contribution lies in addressing the important debate in the literature on whether exploration and exploitation are complements or substitutes. Furthermore, competition intensity is a key condition that determines the degree to which the two types of organizational cultures and the two types of innovations are necessary for superior firm performance. The study uses data from multiple respondents from 199 Chinese firms. Our findings thus suggest that WTCA and WTCO, which are traditionally treated as opposites, are complements in generating radical innovations.     

Aligning Knowledge Assets for Exploitation,Exploration, and Ambidexterity: A Study of Companies in High‐Tech Parks in China

There is little research that has explored the effects of how knowledge assets are aligned with each other in exploitation and exploration innovation strategies. This study uses alignment theory to explore the effects of aligning knowledge assets on facilitating a firm's ability to pursue ambidexterity, which is defined as the simultaneous pursuit of explorative and exploitative innovation strategies. We also explore the relative influence of organizational and human capital in fostering an exploitation innovation strategy on the one hand, and an exploration innovation strategy on the other. Using a primary survey sample of 127 companies in two high‐tech parks in China, we found that greater reliance on relatively more organizational capital versus human capital has a significantly positive impact on the success of an exploitative innovation strategy. The amount of organizational capital relative to the amount of human capital has a stronger positive association with exploratory innovation strategy when social capital is greater. We also found that the combination of organizational, human, and social capital fosters ambidexterity, i.e., the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation. This study extends alignment theory and examines the effects of aligning these knowledge assets on a firm's ability to foster organizational ambidexterity.     

Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross‐level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes

Research suggests that unit‐level ambidexterity positively impacts subsequent unit performance but theory and testing on this impact remain impoverished. We develop a cross‐level model suggesting that structural and resource attributes of the organizational context significantly shape the relationship between unit ambidexterity and performance. Using multisource and lagged data from 285 organizational units located within 88 autonomous branches, results from hierarchical linear modeling show that this relationship is boosted when the organization is decentralized, more resource munificent, or less resource interdependent. We also find that structural differentiation of the organization does not condition the unit ambidexterity‐performance relationship. Through this cross‐level theory and testing, we develop a richer explanation of the effectiveness of ambidextrous units operating in multiunit contexts. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Interplay of Customer and Product Innovation Dynamics: An Exploratory Study

The challenges of successfully developing radical or really new products have received considerable attention from a variety of marketing, strategic, and organizational perspectives. Previous research has stressed the importance of a market‐driven customer orientation, the resolution of market and technological uncertainty, and organizational processes such as cross‐functional teams and organizational learning. However, several fundamental issues have not been addressed. From a customer's perspective, a more innovative product tends to have uncertain benefits and requires customers to learn new behaviors. Customer preferences can, therefore, change as product experience and learning increase. From a firm's perspective, it is unclear how to be customer‐oriented under such dynamic preferences, and product strategies using evolving technologies will tend to interact with how customers learn about an innovation. This research focuses on identifying unresolved issues about these customer and product innovation dynamics. A conceptual framework and series of propositions are presented that relate both changing technology and customer learning to a firm's strategic decisions in developing and launching really new products. The framework is based on in‐depth interviews with high‐tech product managers across several sectors, focusing on the business‐to‐business context. The propositions resulting from the framework highlight the need to consider relevant customer dynamics as integral to a firm's product innovation process. Successful innovation strategies and future research challenges are discussed, and applications to better understanding customer needs and theories of disruptive innovation are examined. Several key insights for innovation success hinge on a broad, downstream orientation to customer needs and product innovation dynamics. To be effective innovators, firms must know their customers' customers and competitors as well as or better than their immediate customers do. Market research must extend downstream for a comprehensive understanding of customer needs dynamics. In the context of disruptive innovation, new dimensions of customer needs may become more valuable based on perceived downstream customer trends. Firms may also innovate on secondary needs because mainstream customers do not always give firms the design freedom to radically innovate on primary features. Understanding customer commitments and how they develop under evolving needs can help firms focus resources on innovative efforts more likely to be accepted by customers.     

Conceptualizing Innovation Orientation: A Framework for Study and Integration of Innovation Research*

The term innovation orientation has been frequently used in the innovation literature, but with a mix of conceptualizations and meanings. Drawing from work found in the innovation, management, and marketing literatures over the past 35 years, the concept of innovation orientation as a system is conceptualized and defined in this article. The domain of innovation orientation is delineated as a multidimensional knowledge structure and a framework for understanding innovation orientation and its consequences in an organizational context are developed. The framework defines the innovation orientation knowledge structure as composed of a learning philosophy, strategic direction, and transfunctional beliefs within an organization that define and direct the organizational strategies and actions toward specific innovation‐enabling competencies and processes. These innovation‐oriented firm competencies are in the areas of resource allocation, technology, employees, operations, and markets. The framework then explains that these appropriately developed innovation‐enabling competencies lead to innovation outcomes, specifically ideal innovation form, type, and rate that, in turn, affect firm performance. An inventory of propositions for future research that correspond to the innovation orientation concept is also presented in this comprehensive framework. This study provides two important contributions to the existing innovation literature. First, the article examines the vast innovation literature to arrive at a clear definition of the innovation orientation construct to provide a consistent conceptualization for future research. Second, the article develops a comprehensive, organized framework for understanding innovation orientation and its effects. In doing this, the framework extends the dynamic capabilities research stream by offering an explanation of how innovation orientation fosters the development of organizational competencies and makes it possible for a firm to recognize and respond to shifts in market dynamism.     

The impact of strategic dissent on organizational outcomes: A meta‐analytic integration

Research summary: Strategic dissent represents divergence in ideas, preferences, and beliefs related to ideal and/or future strategic emphasis. Conventional wisdom in strategic management holds that such differences in managerial cognitions lead to higher‐quality strategic decisions, and thus to enhanced firm performance. However, 4 decades of empirical research have not provided consistent findings or clear insights into the effects of strategic dissent. Hence, we analyze the relative validity of predictions about these effects from both social psychological theories of group behavior and information processing perspectives on decision‐making. Then, we conduct a meta‐analytic path analysis (MASEM) based on current empirical evidence. Synthesizing data from 78 articles, we put to rest the notion that strategic dissent leads to positive outcomes for organizations and estimate how negative its effects actually are. Managerial summary: Top management teams (TMTs) set the tone and direction for their firms in important ways. Top managers, however, often disagree over fundamental issues related to strategy. Such strategic dissent affects how important decisions are made, and thus how the firm performs. In more specific terms and contrary to popular belief, strategic dissent creates not only dysfunctional relationships among top managers, but also disrupts the process by which these managers exchange, discuss, and integrate information and ideas in making strategic decisions. In short, firms have not yet generated value through numerous perspectives, ideas, and opinions among their top managers. We discuss interventions that could prove helpful in efforts to benefit from having diverse cognitions in a TMT.     

Do Retailers Really Profit from Ambidextrous Managers? The Impact of Frontline Mechanisms on New and Existing Product Selling Performance

When manufacturers introduce a new product to the market, downstream retail partners are faced with inherent trade‐offs. Retail sales personnel have to support the new product's introduction with substantial sales efforts but also sell the existing products in stock, before storage and devaluation costs spin out of control. This study shows how retail sales managers can guide sales personnel's performance of new and existing product selling, respectively. The authors argue that a manager may prioritize selling new products, existing products, or both (i.e., have an ambidextrous selling orientation). Based on data gathered from sales representatives and company databases of a large European consumer electronics retailer, the authors perform a time‐lagged partial least squares analysis to test empirically their conceptual model. The authors find that ambidextrous sales managers outperform their singular‐oriented counterparts if they properly align their orientation with a frontline management mechanism consisting of task autonomy, performance feedback, and employee age. More specifically, ambidextrous managers promote net profit obtainment if they grant their sales employees task autonomy and give little performance feedback. In addition, a remarkable finding is that older sales agents tend to outperform their younger counterparts when working under an ambidextrous manager. The authors discuss the implications of these findings.     

Do Formal Management Practices Impact the Emergence of Bootlegging Behavior?

Innovation in an organization often relies on initiatives by employees who take action to develop their ideas and obtain buy‐in by organizational decision‐makers. To achieve this, employees sometimes apply unorthodox approaches, ignoring formal structures to further elaborate their ideas' potential and promote their implementation. They work without formal legitimacy and gather their own resources until sufficient clarity allows for informed decisions. Finally, they bypass formal communication channels to convince top management of the merits of their ideas. Despite the significance of such bootlegging behavior, research has barely addressed the antecedents of this deviance. Drawing on strain theory and social cognitive theory, we study whether the emergence of bootlegging behavior is influenced by formal management practices, in particular, strategic autonomy, front‐end formality, rewards, and sanctions. Additionally, we investigate the role of employees' self‐efficacy related to innovation tasks at the entrepreneurial stage to explain the emergence of bootlegging. We tested the proposed relationships with empirical field survey data using structural equation modeling. In summary, this paper concludes that intrapreneurial self‐efficacy, strategic autonomy, and rewards for innovation accomplishments foster bootlegging. Front‐end formality has a positive effect on bootlegging by increasing intrapreneurial self‐efficacy, but it reduces the likelihood that employees will ignore formal structures when promoting their ideas and gathering their own resources to support their bootlegging efforts.     

How Do Transformational Leaders Promote Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation? Examining the Black Box through MASEM

Understanding how firms can promote exploratory and exploitative innovations is of high interest for both scholars and practitioners. Although a substantial body of research has emphasized that top management's transformational leadership is crucial to innovation, the mechanisms through which strategic leaders influence these distinct types of innovations remain unclear. Building on upper echelon and social learning theory, this study develops and empirically examines a model that investigates the mediating roles of three distinct strategic orientations (market, learning, and entrepreneurial orientation) on the relationship between transformational leadership and exploratory and exploitative innovation. Using meta‐analytic methods combined with structural equation modeling, this study integrates findings from separate research streams, covering over 15 years of research, and using a sample of 215 effect sizes from 75 studies. The results from the partial mediation model reveal that transformational leaders play a key role in creating these specific strategic orientations which, in turn, support different innovation outcomes. Specifically, the findings indicate that transformational leaders promote exploitative innovations predominantly by building a market orientation, whereas they foster exploratory innovations by stimulating an entrepreneurial and a learning orientation. Hence, this study extends upper echelon research by uncovering the different mechanisms through which transformational leaders promote exploratory and exploitative innovations as it theoretically identifies and empirically validates the unique mediating roles of three specific strategic orientations. The results thus provide valuable insights for the challenging management of exploratory and exploitative innovations, as they provide a “guiding map” which reveals how transformational leaders from the top may use specific orientations to foster these distinct types of innovations.     

What we will do versus what we can do: The relative effects of unit‐level NPD motivation and capability

Although a firm's innovation performance has been commonly attributed to its innovative capability, in a study of 102 Chinese automobile assemblers, we find that employees' collective motivation for new product development (NPD) is more important than NPD capability in determining firms' innovation performance. This finding suggests that researchers need to simultaneously consider both unit‐level capability and unit‐level motivation in studying the mechanisms that drive innovation. Furthermore, our results indicate that a firm's strategic orientation focusing on NPD affects its employees' collective NPD motivation and NPD capability through relevant, mediating HRM practices. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ambidextrous marketing capabilities and performance: How and when entrepreneurial orientation makes a difference

There are two marketing capabilities situated at the product-market interface: customer management (CM) and new product development (NPD). Both are ambidextrous given they involve exploitation and exploration, yet important questions remain unanswered. Is it beneficial to have higher combined levels of exploitation and exploration? Or should these be balanced? What internal and external factors might influence these two forms of ambidexterity? This study examines these issues using data from a sample of U.S. manufacturers. We find that entrepreneurial orientation (EO) differentially affects the exploration-exploitation balance within CM and NPD, in dynamic environments. Performance improves when there is higher combined ambidexterity in both CM and NPD; it suffers when NPD ambidexterity is imbalanced by an emphasis towards exploration. CM can be similarly imbalanced yet has no adverse impact. A moderated mediation analysis reveals that EO has both positive and negative associations with performance under different environmental conditions.