International firms in emerging economies have developed dynamic international capabilities to cope with resource constraints and the uncertainty of global markets. This research focuses on two dynamic capabilities: International ambidexterity and international open innovation. It also assessed the impact of international entrepreneurial culture (IEC) on both capabilities, as well as the mediating role of absorptive capacity and the moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire completed by 400 international companies in Colombia of varying sizes and sectors. Structural equation modeling revealed that IEC has a positive influence on IAI but a negative influence on IAC. Absorptive capacity was found not to mediate the relationship between IEC and either capability, and the moderating role of environmental dynamism was not confirmed. This study offers theoretical and managerial implications by identifying the dynamic capabilities that companies develop to operate in international markets.
AcostaASCrespoÁHAgudoJC (2018) Effect of market orientation, network capability, and entrepreneurial orientation on international performance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). International Business Review27(6): 1128–1140.
2.
AftabJVenezianiMSarwarH, et al. (2022) Organizational ambidexterity, firm performance and sustainable development: Mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation in Pakistani SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production367: 132956.
3.
AftabJVenezianiMSarwarH, et al. (2024) Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in SMEs: The mediating role of entrepreneurial competencies and moderating role of environmental dynamism. International Journal of Emerging Markets19(10): 3329–3352.
ArranzNArroyabeMFSchumannM (2020) The role of NPOs and international actors in the national innovation system: A network-based approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change159: 120183.
7.
BerniniMDuJLoveJH (2016) Explaining intermittent exporting: Exit and conditional re-entry in export markets. Journal of International Business Studies47: 1058–1076.
8.
BilichenkoOTolmachevMPolozovaT, et al. (2022) Managing strategic changes in personnel resistance to open innovation in companies. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity8(3): 151.
9.
BrownDMPattinsonS (2025) Organisational ambidexterity and sustainable value co-creation in a social enterprise: The case of Social Bite. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/14657503251320857.
10.
BuccieriDJavalgiRRGCavusgilE (2019) International new venture performance: Role of international entrepreneurial culture, ambidextrous innovation, and dynamic marketing capabilities. International Business Review28(6): 101–116.
11.
BuccieriDJavalgiRGCavusgilE (2020) International new venture performance: Role of international entrepreneurial culture, ambidextrous innovation and dynamic marketing capabilities. International Business Review29(2): 101639.
12.
BuccieriDJavalgiRGJancenelleVE (2021) Dynamic capabilities and performance of emerging market international new ventures: Does international entrepreneurial culture matter?International Small Business Journal39(5): 474–499.
13.
ChabbouhHBoujelbeneY (2023) Open innovation, dynamic organizational capacities and innovation performance in SMEs. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation24(3): 178–190.
14.
ChiuMLChiaoCLinCN (2023) The mediating role of absorptive capability between organizational internalization through social media and open inbound innovation. Information Systems Frontiers. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1007/s10796-023-10381-x.
15.
CohenWMLevinthalDA (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly: 128–152.
16.
DimitratosPJonesMV (2005) Future directions for international entrepreneurship research. International Business Review14(2): 119–128.
17.
DimitratosPPlakoyiannakiE (2003) Theoretical foundations of an international entrepreneurial culture. Journal of International Entrepreneurship1: 187–215.
18.
DimitratosP, et al. (2012) International entrepreneurial culture: Toward a comprehensive opportunity-based operationalization. International Business Review21(4): 708–721.
19.
ECLAC (2024) Preliminary Overview of the Economies of Latin America and the Caribbean 2023. Santiago: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.
20.
Escandón-BarbosaDHernández-EspallardoMRodríguezA (2016) International market orientation and international outcomes. Global Economy Journal16(4): 669–696.
21.
FerraryM (2011) Specialized organizations and ambidextrous clusters in the open innovation paradigm. European Management Journal29(3): 181–192.
22.
FreixanetJ, et al. (2021) Does international entrepreneurial orientation foster innovation performance?The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation22(1): 33–44.
23.
FuX, et al. (2022) International collaboration and innovation. Journal of World Business57(4): 101329.
24.
GabrielssonM, et al. (2014) International entrepreneurial culture and growth of international new ventures. Management International Review54: 445–471.
25.
HairJF, et al. (2016) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
HairJF, et al. (2017) PLS-SEM or CB-SEM. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis1(2): 107–123.
27.
HairJF, et al. (2019) When to use and how to report PLS-SEM. European Business Review31(1): 2–24.
28.
Hair JF Jr, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, et al. (2021) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
29.
JansenJJP, et al. (2005) Managing absorptive capacity. Academy of Management Journal48(6): 999–1015.
30.
Jurado-SalgadoJI, et al. (2022) Exploration and exploitation capabilities. Innovation. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2022.2055042.
31.
KhanSJMirAA (2019) Ambidextrous culture and innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment28(4): 652–663.
32.
López-ZapataERamírez-GómezADJ (2023) Intellectual capital and ambidexterity. Journal of Intellectual Capital24(2): 375–398.
33.
LuoYRuiH (2009) An ambidexterity perspective toward multinational enterprises from emerging economies. Academy of Management Perspectives23(4): 49–70.
34.
MaoHLiuSZhangJ, et al. (2021) Information technology competency and organizational agility: Roles of absorptive capacity and information intensity. Information Technology and People34(1): 421–451.
35.
MarchJ (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science2(1): 71–87.
36.
MartinSLJavalgiRRG (2016) Entrepreneurial orientation, marketing capabilities and performance: The moderating role of competitive intensity on Latin American firms. Journal of Business Research69(6): 2040–2051.
37.
MatzlerKAbfalterDEMooradianTA, et al. (2013) Corporate culture as an antecedent of successful exploration and exploitation. International Journal of Innovation Management17(5): 1350025.
38.
NaqshbandiMMJasimuddinSM (2022) The linkage between open innovation, absorptive capacity, and managerial ties: A cross-country perspective. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge7(2): 100167.
39.
NaqshbandiMMKamelY (2017) Inter-organizational knowledge sharing and open innovation: The role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Knowledge Management21(4): 896–914.
40.
NaqshbandiMMTabcheI (2018) The interplay of leadership, absorptive capacity, and organizational learning culture in open innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change133: 156–167.
41.
NaqshbandiMMKaurSMaP (2015) What organizational culture types enable and retard open innovation?Quality and Quantity49: 2123–2144.
42.
ÖzkayaHEDrogeCHultGTM, et al. (2015) Market orientation, knowledge competence, and innovation. International Journal of Research in Marketing32(3): 309–318.
43.
PengMYPChangYS (2023) Do social network relationships and overseas market orientation affect SMEs’ international performance?SAGE Open13(1): 21582440231153050.
44.
PengMYPLinKH (2021) International networking in dynamic internationalization capability. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence32(9–10): 1065–1084.
45.
PengMYPShaoL (2021) Determinants of new product development in the international context. Journal of Competitiveness13(3): 129.
46.
PengMWLebedevSVlasC (2023) International business strategy: A review and research agenda. Journal of World Business58(1): 101–123.
47.
PetricevicOTeeceDJ (2019) The structural reshaping of globalization. Journal of International Business Studies50: 1487–1512.
48.
PinhoJCPrangeC (2016) The effect of social networks and dynamic internationalization capabilities on international performance. Journal of World Business51(3): 391–403.
PrangeCVerdierS (2011) Dynamic capabilities, internationalization processes, and performance. Journal of World Business46(1): 126–133.
51.
RahmanMKhanSZRahmanM, et al. (2024) Internationalization capabilities and organizational mechanisms in emerging market firms. Journal of International Entrepreneurship22(1): 45–67.
52.
Rao-NicholsonRKhanZAkhtarP, et al. (2020) The contingent role of distributed leadership in cross-border M&as. The International Journal of Human Resource Management31(2): 232–253.
53.
RasiahR (2019) Innovation and internationalization in emerging economies: Evidence from Southeast Asia. Asian Economic Papers18(3): 1–20.
54.
RenGPengMYP (2021) The impact of global dynamic capabilities on the choice of governance structure. Frontiers in Psychology12: 619334.
55.
Ruano-ArcosLEscandon-BarbosaDRialp-CriadoJ (2023) International entrepreneurship and capability development in emerging markets. Journal of International Entrepreneurship.
56.
SarwarHAftabJIshaqMI, et al. (2023) Achieving business competitiveness through CSR and dynamic capabilities. Journal of Cleaner Production386: 135820.
57.
SchindlerJKallmuenzerAValeriM (2024) Entrepreneurial culture and disruptive innovation. Business Process Management Journal30(2): 366–387.
58.
Solís-MolinaMHernández-EspallardoMRodríguez-OrejuelaA (2018) Performance implications of organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Business Research91: 181–194.
59.
SuZAhlstromDLiJ, et al. (2013) Knowledge creation capability and product innovativeness. R&D Management43(5): 473–485.
TrigueroACórcolesDCuervaMC (2018) Persistence of innovation and firm growth. Small Business Economics50(2): 399–416.
65.
VasilchenkoEMorrishS (2011) The role of entrepreneurial networks in internationalization. Journal of International Marketing19(4): 88–105.
66.
WangCLRafiqM (2009) Organizational diversity and shared vision. European Journal of Innovation Management12(1): 86–101.
67.
WeerawardenaJ, et al. (2015) The role of market and socio-technical subsystems. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science43(2): 221–239.
68.
WuJLiuY (2018) The effect of innovation capability on firm performance: Evidence from emerging markets. Journal of Business Research85: 15–23.
69.
WuHChenJ (2020) International ambidexterity in multinational enterprises. Baltic Journal of Management15(3): 431–451.
70.
ZahraSAGeorgeG (2002) Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review27(2): 185–203.
71.
ZahoorNAdomakoS (2023) Open innovation failure in dynamic environments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change193: 122632.
72.
ZahoorNAl-TabbaaOKhanZWoodG (2021) Collaboration and internationalization of SMEs: The role of absorptive capacity. International Business Review30(1): 101–120.
73.
ZhangAZhangW (2022) Network orientation and innovation. Systems Research and Behavioral Science39(3): 668–678.
74.
ZhangXLiuYTarbaSY, et al. (2020) Micro-foundations of strategic ambidexterity. International Business Review29(6): 101710.
75.
ZhaoXLynchJGChenQ (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny. Journal of Consumer Research37(2): 197–206.
