While a firm’s ability to jointly pursue both an exploitative and exploratory orientation has been posited as having positive performance effects, little is currently known about the antecedents and consequences of such ambidexterity in small-to medium-sized firms (SMEs). To that end, this study focuses on the pivotal role of top management team (TMT) behavioral integration in facilitating the processing of disparate demands essential to attaining ambidexterity in SMEs. Then, to address the bottom-line importance of an ambidextrous orientation, the study hypothesizes its association with relative firm performance. Multisource survey data, including CEOs and TMT members from 139 SMEs, provide support for both hypotheses.
Abernathy, W. J.1978. The productivity dilemma. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D.1999. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10: 43-68.
3.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W.1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411-423.
4.
Barnett, W. P., & Freeman, J.2001. Too much of a good thing? Product proliferation and organizational failure. Organization Science, 12: 539-539.
5.
Barney, J. B.1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.
6.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L.2003. Exploration, exploitation, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28: 238-256.
7.
Bollen, K. A.1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
8.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M.1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentless shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 1-34.
9.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R.1993. Alternative ways of addressing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation, models:136-162. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
Burgelman, R. A.1991. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organizational Science, 2: 239-262.
11.
Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B.1997. Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12: 9-30.
12.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. in press. Top management team behavioral integration, decision quality, and organizational decline. Leadership Quarterly.
13.
Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W., & Huber, G. P.2001. Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Review, 44: 937-956.
14.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P.1999. Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23: 19-39.
15.
Coleman, J. S.1990. Rational action, social networks, and the emergence of norms. In C. Calhoun, M. W. Meyer, & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Structures of power and constraint:91-112. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Covin, J. G., Prescott, J. E., & Slevin, D. P.1990. The effects of technological sophistication on strategic profiles, structure and firm performance. Journal of Management Studies, 27: 485-510.
17.
Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B.1984. Measuring organization performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and the conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 265-273.
18.
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E.1987. Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12: 76-90.
19.
Edwards, J. R.1993. Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research. Personnel Psychology, 46: 641-665.
20.
Edwards, J. R.1994. The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58: 51-100.
21.
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E.1993. On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to differences scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1577-1613.
22.
Eisenhardt, K.1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14: 57-74.
23.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A.2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105-1121.
24.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B.1990. Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 504-529.
25.
Floyd, S., & Lane, P.2000. Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25: 154-177.
26.
Geletkanycz, M. A.1998. The salience of “culture’s consequences”: The effect of cultural values on top executive commitment to the status quo. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 615-634.
27.
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K.1990. Understanding prosaic behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 698-709.
28.
Ghemawat, P., & Costa, J.1993. The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 59-73.
29.
Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J.2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 209-226.
30.
Granovetter, M.1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481-510.
31.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V.1986. Resource sharing among SBUs: Strategic antecedents and administrative implications. Academy of Management Journal, 29: 695-714.
32.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C.1995. Multivariate data analysis with readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33.
Hambrick, D. C.1994. Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the team label. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 16: 171-214. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
34.
Hambrick, D. C.1995. Fragmentation and the other problems CEOs have with their top management teams. California Management Review, 37: 110-128.
35.
Hambrick, D. C.1998. Corporate coherence and the top management team. In D. C. Hambrick, D. A. Nadler, & M. L. Tushman (Eds.), Navigating change: How CEOs, top teams, and boards steer transformation:123-140. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
36.
Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S.1987. Managerial discretion: A bridge between two polar views on organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 9: 369-406. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
37.
Hambrick, D. C., Li, J., Xin, K., & Tsui, A. S.2001. Compositional gaps and downward spirals in international joint venture management. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 1033-1053.
38.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A.1984. Upper echelon: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193-206.
39.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J.1989. Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
Harry, M. J., & Schroeder, R.2000. Six sigma: The breakthrough management strategy revolutionizing the world’s top corporations. New York: Currency.
41.
Hartigan, J. A., & Wong, M. A.1979. A K-means clustering algorithm. Applied Statistics, 28: 100-108.
42.
He, Z., & Wong, P.-K.2004. Exploration and exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidextrous hypothesis. Organization Science, 15: 481-496.
43.
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B.1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9-30.
44.
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T.1995. Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications:158-176. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M.1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6: 1-55.
46.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G.1993. rwg: An assessment of within-group inter-rater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-339.
47.
Janis, I.1972. Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
48.
Jöreskog, K. G.1993. Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models:294-316. New York: Wiley.
49.
Kline, R. B.1998. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guildford.
50.
Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims H. P., Smith, K. A., et al.1999. Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 445-458.
51.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G.1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-112.
52.
Li, H., & Zhang, Y.2002. Founding team comprehension and behavioral integration: Evidence from new technology ventures in China. In D. Nagao (Ed.), Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings:1-6. New York: Briarcliff Manor.
53.
March, J. G.1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-87.
54.
Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J.1994. A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20: 439-464.
55.
Nohria, N., & Gulati, R.1996. Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1245-1264.
56.
Nonaka, L.1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5: 714-737.
57.
O’Reilly, C. A., III., Snyder, R. C., & Boothe, J. N.1993. Executive team demography and organizational change. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance:147-175. New York: Oxford University Press.
58.
O’Reilly, C. A., III., & Tushman, M. L.2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4): 74-81.
59.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P.2003. Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
60.
Porter, M. E.1985. Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
61.
Robinson, R. B., & Pearce, J. A.1988. Planned patterns of strategic behavior and their relationship to business-unit performance. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 43-60.
62.
Romanelli, E.1987. New venture strategies in the minicomputer industry. California Management Review, 30: 160-175.
63.
Shaw, M. E.1981. Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
64.
Shook, C. L., Ketchen, D. J., Hult, G. T. M., & Kacmar, K. M.2004. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 397-404.
65.
Siegel, P. A., & Hambrick, D.1996. Business strategy and the social psychology of top management teams. In J. A. C. Baum & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in strategic management, 13: 91-119. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
66.
Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A.1999. Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 662-675.
67.
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M., & Dino, R.2005. Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration, Academy of Management Journal, 48: 69-84.
68.
Small Business Association. 2003. Administrative economic plan (Release 03-02). Washington, DC: Author.
69.
Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D.2005. Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability and the rate of new product introduction in high technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 346-357.
70.
Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., O’Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A.1994. Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 39: 412-438.
71.
Smith, W., & Tushman, M.2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16: 522-536.
72.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S.1996. Using multivariate statistics. New York: HarperCollins.
73.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A.1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509-533.
74.
Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A.1978. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3: 613-624.
75.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A., III.1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38: 8-30.
76.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A., III.1997. Winning through innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
77.
Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E.1985. Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 7: 171-222. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
78.
Uzzi, B.1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 35-67.
79.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P.2001. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 134-143.
80.
Weick, K. E.1982. Management of organizational change among loosely coupled elements. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Change in organizations:375-408. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
81.
Weick, K. E.1995. Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage.
82.
Winer, B. J.1971. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
83.
Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. W.1989. Strategic process effects on consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 295-302.
84.
Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A.2000. International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 925-950.
