This study investigates the effect of organizational context and entrepreneurial orientation in facilitating ambidextrous behaviours that shape creativity in Malaysian-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). A cross-sectional research design was used with a total of 183 owner-managers. Questionnaires were distributed via email and analysed using Partial Least Squares (SmartPLS). The results reveal that organizational context and entrepreneurial orientation positively predict ambidextrous behaviours. Furthermore, ambidextrous behaviours were found to be positively influencing creativity. This study recommends a possible route in developing innovative firms through ambidextrous behaviours among SMEs in Malaysia. Accordingly, several important implications for academics and industry decision-makers are formulated.
AlexievA. S.JansenJ. J. P.Van den BoschF. A. J. & VolberdaH. W. (2010). Top management team advice seeking and exploratory innovation: The moderating role of TMT heterogeneity.Journal of Management Studies, 47(7), 1343–1364. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00919.x
3.
AmabileT. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.
4.
AmabileT. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations.California Management Review, 40(1), 39–59.
5.
AmabileT. M. (2013). Componential theory of creativity. In KesslerE. H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (pp. 135–140). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
AmabileT. M.ContiR.CoonH.LazenbyJ. & HerronM. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity.Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
7.
AndersonN.PotočnikK. & ZhouJ. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations.Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.
8.
AudiaP. G. & GoncaloJ. A. (2007). Past success and creativity over time: A study of inventors in the hard disk drive industry.Management Science,52(1), 1–15.
9.
AuhS. & MengucB. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity.Journal of Business Research, 58, 1652–1661.
10.
AxtellC. M.HolmanD. J.UshworthK. L.WallT. D.WatersonP. E. & HarringtonE. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 39, 599–617.
11.
AyubA.RazzaqA.AslamM. S. & IftekharH. (2013). Gender effects on entrepreneurial orientation and value innovation: Evidence from Pakistan.Business and Social Sciences, 2(1), 82–90.
12.
BaerM. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations.Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102–1119.
13.
BagozziR. P. & YiT. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
14.
BeckerJ. M.KleinK. & WetzelsM. (2012). Hierarchical Latent Variable Models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for Using Reflective-Formative Type Models.Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 359–394.
15.
BharadwajS. & MenonA. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: Individual creativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both?Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(6), 424–434.
16.
BledowR.FreseM.AndersonN.ErezM. & FarrJ. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity.Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305–337.
ChangY. Y. & HughesM. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms.European Management Journal, 30(1), 1–17. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011.08.003
19.
ChangY. Y.HughesM. & HothoS. (2011). Internal and external antecedents of SMEs’ innovation ambidexterity outcomes.Management Decision, 49(10), 1658–1676.
20.
ChenJ.-X. & YuanyuanL. (2010). CEO golden-mean thinking, ambidextrous orientation and organizational performance in Chinese context.Nankai Business Review International, 1(4), 460–479.
21.
CohenL. & MussonG. (2000). Entrepreneurial identities: Reflections from two case studies.Organization, 7(1), 31–48.
22.
CovinJ. G. & SlevinD. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments.Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75–87.
23.
CovinJ. G.SlevinD. P. & HeeleyM. B. (1999). Pioneers and followers: Competitive tactics, environment and firm growth.Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 175–210.
24.
CuiA. P.WalshM. F. & ZouS. (2014). The importance of strategic fit between host-home country similarity and exploration exploitation strategies on small and medium sized entreprises’ performance: A contingency perspective.Journal of International Marketing, 22(4), 67–85.
25.
FarjounM. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as in duality.The Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202–225.
26.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA. & LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses.Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
27.
FornellC. & ChaJ. (1994). Partial least squares. In BagozziR. P. (Ed.), Advanced methods of marketing research (pp. 52–78). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
28.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50.
29.
GerbingD. W. & AndersonJ. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment.Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192.
30.
GhoshalS. & BartlettC. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management.Strategic Management Journal, 15, 91–112.
31.
GibsonC. B. & BirkinshawJ. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity.Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
32.
GongY.HuangJ. C. & FarhJ. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy.Academy of Management Journal,52(4), 765–778.
33.
GrobeckerA. & GermainR. (2013). Organizational antecedents of sustainability: Lessons from Russia.Academy of Management Proceedings, 2013(1), 16518.
34.
GuptaA. K.SmithK. G. & ShalleyC. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation.Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.
35.
HairJ. F.RingleC. M. & SarstedtM. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance.Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12.
36.
HairJ. F.MarkoS.HopkinsL. & KuppelwieserV. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research.European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.
37.
HairJ. F.HultG. T. M.RingleC. M. & SarstedtM. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M. & SinkovicsR. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing.Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–319.
39.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M. & SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
40.
HenselerJ.HubonaG. & RayP. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines.Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20.
41.
HolmqvistM. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development.Organization Science, 15(1), 70–84.
42.
JansenJ. J. P.Van den BoschF. A. J. & VolberdaH. W. (2005). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents.Schmalenbach Business Review, 57, 351–363.
43.
JiaL.ShawJ. D.TsuiA. S. & ParkT. Y. (2014). A social-structural perspective on employee-organization relationships and team creativity.Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 869–891.
44.
JunniP.SaralaR. M.TarasV. & TarbaS. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis.Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312.
45.
KauppilaO.-P. & TempelaarM. P. (2016). The social-cognitive underpinnings of employees’ ambidextrous behavior and the supportive role of group managers’ leadership.Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 1019–1044.
46.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
47.
KraussS.FreseM.FriedrichC. & UngerJ., (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation: a psychological model of success among southern African small business owners.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(3), 315–328.
48.
KumarN.SternL. W. & AndersonJ. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants.Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633–1651.
49.
LisboaA. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation, innovative capabilities, and performance outcomes: An empirical investigation.Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8), 1274–1284.
50.
LiuD.LiaoH. & LoiR. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity.Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1187–1212.
51.
LiuD.GongY.ZhouJ. & HuangJ. C. (2017). Human resource systems, employee creativity, and firm innovation: The moderating role of firm ownership.Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 1164–1188.
52.
LubatkinM. H.SimsekZ.LingY. & VeigaJ. 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.
53.
LumpkinG. T. & DessG. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance.Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 135–172.
54.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
55.
MatinaroV. & LiuY. (2017). Towards increased innovativeness and sustainability through organizational culture: A case study of a Finnish construction business.Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 3184–3193.
56.
MillerD. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms.Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.
57.
Miron-SpektorE.ErezM. & NavehE. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox.Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 740–760.
58.
MomT. J. M.van den BoschF. A. J. & VolberdaH. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms.Organization Science, 20(4), 812–828.
59.
MomT. J. M.SebastianP. L. F. & JansenJ. J. P. (2015). Managers’ work experience, ambidexterity and performance: The contingency role of the work context.Human Resource Management, 45(3), 295–308.
60.
NabergojA. S. (2014). A resource-based view of entrepreneurial creativity and its implications to entrepreneurship education.Economic and Business Review, 16(2), 163–183.
61.
NamanJ. L. & SlevinD. P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical tests.Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 137–153.
62.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
63.
O’ReillyC. A. & TushmanM. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future.Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.
Otero-NeiraC.Fernandez-AriasM. J. & Tapio-LindmanM. (2013). Market orientation and entrepreneurial proclivity: Antecedents of innovation.Global Business Review, 14(3), 385–395.
66.
PatelP. C.MessersmithJ. G. & LepakD. P. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity.Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1420–1442.
67.
PengD. X. & LaiF. (2012). Using partial least squares in operations management research: A practical guideline and summary of past research.Journal of Operations Management, 30(6), 467–480.
68.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y. & PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
69.
PoonW. C.OsmanM. & YusoffW. F. W. (2018). The impact of behavioral complexity on exploitative and explorative behavior among owner-managers of SMEs in Malaysia.Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), 1–13.
70.
RaischS. & BirkinshawJ. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators.Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.
71.
RaischS.BirkinshawJ.ProbstG. & TushmanM. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance.Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.
72.
RedmondM. R.MumfordM. D. & TeachR. J. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Leader influences on subordinate creativity.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,55, 120–151.
73.
RingleC. M.SarstedtM. & StraubD. W. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly.MIS Quarterly,36(1), 3–14.
RosingK.FreseM. & BauschA. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership.The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974.
76.
SarooghiH.LibaersD. & BurkemperA. (2015). Examining the relationship between creativity and innovation: A meta-analysis of organizational, cultural, and environmental factors.Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 714–731.
77.
SchreyöggG. & Kliesch EberlM. (2007). How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual process model of capability dynamization.Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), 913–933.
78.
ScottS. G. & BruceR. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace.Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.
79.
ShalleyC. E. & GilsonL. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity.Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33–53.
80.
ShalleyC.ZhouJ. & OldhamG., (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?Journal of Management,30(6), 933–958.
81.
SiaS. K. & AppuA. V. (2015). Work autonomy and workplace creativity: Moderating role of task complexity.Global Business Review, 16(5), 772–784.
82.
SineW. D.MitsuhashiH. & KirschD. A. (2006). Revisiting burns and stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors.Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 121–132.
83.
SME Corporation. (2012–2020). SME Masterplan 2012–2020. SME Corporation Malaysia. Retrieved 18January2017, from http://www.smecorp.gov.my/index.php/en/resources/2015-12-21-11-07-06/sme-masterplan/book/11-sme-%20masterplan-english/3-sme-masterplan
84.
SME Corporation. (2014). SME annual report 2014/2015. Malaysia: SME Corporation.
85.
SmithW. K. & TushmanM. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams.Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.
86.
SawangS.ZolinR.MattewsJ. & BezemerM. (2014). Innovation in the Australian Spatial Information Industry. In StettnerU.AharonsonB. S. & AmburgeyT. L. (Eds), Exploration and Exploitation in Early Stage Ventures and SMEs (pp. 211–236). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
87.
TuanL.T. (2016). Organizational ambidexterity, entrepreneurial orientation, and I-deals: The moderating role of CSR.Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 145–159.
88.
TushmanM. L. & O’ReillyC. A. (2002). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
89.
TurnerN.SwartJ. & MaylorH. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. InternationalJournal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317–332.
90.
TushmanM. L. & O’ReillyC. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change.California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.
91.
ValaeiN.RezaeiS. & IsmailW. K. W. (2017). Examining learning strategies, creativity, and innovation at SMEs using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis and PLS path modeling.Journal of Business Research, 70, 224–233.
92.
VenkataramanS.SarasvathyS. D.DewN. & ForsterW. R. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Whither the promise? Moving forward with entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial.Academy of Management Review, 37, 21–33.
93.
VoleryT.MuellerS. & von SiemensB. (2013). Entrepreneur ambidexterity: A study of entrepreneur behaviours and competencies in growth-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises.International Small Business Journal, 1–21. doi: 10.1177/0266242613484777
94.
VoorheesC. M.BradyM. K.CalantoneR. & RamirezE. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134.
95.
WiklundJ. & ShepherdD. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses.Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307–1314.
96.
WildenR.HohbergerJ. & DevinneyT. M. (2018). Revisiting James March (1991): Whither exploration and exploitation. Strategic Organization. doi: 10.1177/1476127018765031
97.
WoodmanR. W.SawyerJ. E. & GriffinR. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity.Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.
98.
WulfT.StubnerS. & BlarrW. H. (2010). Ambidexterity and the concept of fit in strategic management—Which better predicts success? (HHL Working Papers No. 89). Leipzig: Leipzig Graduate School of Management.
99.
ZacherH. & WildenR. G. (2014). A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self-reported employee innovation.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 813–820.
100.
ZhangJ. A.EdgarF.GeareA. & O’KaneC. (2016). The interactive effects of entrepreneurial orientation and capability-based HRM on firm performance: The mediating role of innovation ambidexterity.Industrial Marketing Management, 59, 131–143. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.02.01
