Investigate Strategic Ambidexterity: How Environmental Dynamism Affects Networking Capability in Small Businesses
This study intends to investigate strategic ambidexterity (STA) by examining how environmental dynamism (EN) affects networking capability (NE) in small businesses. In addition, the moderating influence of EN on the relationship between NE and STA is examined. The association between networking capability, environmental dynamism, and strategic ambidexterity was determined by analyzing the responses from a survey of 185 small business owners in the province of West Java. The research has employed survey questionnaires and smart PLS for data analysis. This study indicated that small business networking capability and environmental dynamism directly affected strategic ambidexterity. However, this study's outcomes reveal that environmental dynamism as a moderator in the relationship between networking capability and strategic ambidexterity is insignificant.
2. Tambunan T. Entrepreneurship Development: SMEs in Indonesia. J Dev Entrep. 2007;12(01):95–118.
3. Ikhsan K, Almahendra R, Budiarto T. Contextual ambidexterity in SMEs in Indonesia: A study on how it mediates organizational culture and firm performance and how market dynamism influences its role on firm. Int J Bus Soc. 2017;18(S2):369–90.
4. Van Laere K, Heene A. Social networks as a source of competitive advantage for the firm. J Work Learn. 2003;15(6):248–58.
5. Brass DJ, Galaskiewicz J, Greve HR, Tsai W. Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Acad Manag J. 2004;47(6):795–817.
6. Majid A, Yasir M, Yasir M, Yousaf Z. Network capability and strategic performance in SMEs: the role of strategic flexibility and organizational ambidexterity. Eurasian Bus Rev [Internet]. 2021;11(4):587–610. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-020-00165-7
7. Garousi Mokhtarzadeh N, Amoozad Mahdiraji H, Jafarpanah I, Jafari-Sadeghi V, Cardinali S. Investigating the impact of networking capability on firm innovation performance: using the resource-action-performance framework. J Intellect Cap. 2020;21(6):1009–34.
8. Partanen J, Kohtamäki M, Patel PC, Parida V. Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow. Int J Prod Econ [Internet]. 2020;221(August 2018):107470. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.08.005
9. Mu J, Thomas E, Peng G, Di Benedetto A. Strategic orientation and new product development performance: The role of networking capability and networking ability. Ind Mark Manag [Internet]. 2017;64:187–201. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.09.007
10. Mitrega M, Forkmann S, Ramos C, Henneberg SC. Networking capability in business relationships - Concept and scale development. Ind Mark Manag [Internet]. 2012;41(5):739–51. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.06.002
11. Fayos T, Calderón H, García-García JM, Derqui B. The upcoming rise of SMEs in cross-border public procurement: is it a matter of networking capabilities? J Int Entrep [Internet]. 2022;(0123456789). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-022-00310-5
12. Zacca R, Dayan M, Ahrens T. Impact of network capability on small business performance. Manag Decis. 2015;53(1):2–23.
13. Tidd J, Bessant J, Pavitt K. Managing innovation: Integrating technological, organizational and market change. 2013;
14. Simerly RL, Li M. Environmental dynamism, capital structure and performance: A theoretical integration and an empirical test. Strateg Manag J. 2000;21(1):31–49.
15. Venkatraman N. Performance implications of strategic coalignment: a methodological perspective. J Manag Stud. 1990;27(1):19–41.
16. Revilla E, Prieto IM, Prado BR. Knowledge strategy: Its relationship to environmental dynamism and complexity in product development. Knowl Process Manag. 2010;17(1):36–47.
17. Mohammad HI. Mediating effect of organizational learning and moderating role of environmental dynamism on the relationship between strategic change and firm performance. J Strateg Manag. 2019;12(2):275–97.
18. Tajeddini K, Martin E, Ali A. Enhancing hospitality business performance: The role of entrepreneurial orientation and networking ties in a dynamic environment. Int J Hosp Manag [Internet]. 2020;90(May):102605. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102605
19. Tajeddini K, Mueller S. Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism on the Relationship between a Firm’s Entrepreneurial Orientation and Financial Performance. Entrep Res J. 2018;1–13.
20. Peters K, Buijs P. Strategic ambidexterity in green product innovation: Obstacles and implications. Bus Strateg Environ. 2022;31(1):173–93.
21. Adomako S, Mole KF, Franklin RJ, Murnieks CY. Entrepreneurial passion and venture profit: Examining the moderating effects of political connections and environmental dynamism in an emerging market. Int Small Bus J. 2022;02662426221085182.
22. Ensley MD, Pearce CL, Hmieleski KM. The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership behavior and new venture performance. J Bus Ventur. 2006;21(2):243–63.
23. Ruiz-Ortega MJ, Parra-Requena G, Rodrigo-Alarcón J, García-Villaverde PM. Environmental dynamism and entrepreneurial orientation: The moderating role of firm’s capabilities. J Organ Chang Manag. 2013;26(3):475–93.
24. Xu S, He J, Morrison AM, De Domenici M, Wang Y. Entrepreneurial networks, effectuation and business model innovation of startups: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Creat Innov Manag. 2022;31(3):460–78.
25. Voss GB, Voss ZG. Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises: Implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market domains. Organ Sci. 2013;24(5):1459–77.
26. Mei L, Rentocchini F, Chen J. Antecedents of strategic ambidexterity in firms’ product innovation: External knowledge and internal information sharing. J Small Bus Manag [Internet]. 2021;00(00):1–30. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1944635
27. Tsai HT, Ren S. Antecedents of strategic ambidexterity in the context of internationalisation: a panel study of Taiwan Small and median-sized enterprises. Technol Anal Strateg Manag [Internet]. 2019;31(8):986–1001. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1582764
28. Ragazou K, Passas I, Garefalakis A, Dimou I. Investigating the Research Trends on Strategic Ambidexterity, Agility, and Open Innovation in SMEs: Perceptions from Bibliometric Analysis. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex. 2022;8(3):118.
29. Karami M, Tang J. Entrepreneurial orientation and SME international performance: The mediating role of networking capability and experiential learning. Int Small Bus J Res Entrep. 2019;37(2):105–24.
30. Minniti M. The role of government policy on entrepreneurial activity: productive, unproductive, or destructive? Entrep theory Pract. 2008;32(5):779–90.
31. Eggers F, Kraus S, Hughes M, Laraway S, Snycerski S. Implications of customer and entrepreneurial orientations for SME growth. Manag Decis. 2013;
32. Imam Ghazali. Model Persamaan Struktural Konsep dan Aplikasi dengan Program AMOS 24. 7th ed. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro; 2017.
33. Ghazali I, Latan H. Partial least squares: Konsep, teknik dan aplikasi menggunakan program smartPLS 3.0. 2nd ed. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro; 2015.
34. He ZL, Wong PK. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci. 2004;15(4):481–95.
35. Zhang J, Qi L. Crisis preparedness of healthcare manufacturing firms during the covid-19 outbreak: Digitalization and servitization. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(10).
36. Chen DQ, Preston DS, Swink M. How the use of big data analytics affects value creation in supply chain management. J Manag Inf Syst [Internet]. 2015;32(4):4–39. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1138364
37. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Black WC, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. EIGHTH EDI. Cengage Learning; 2019. 95–120 p.
38. Hair Jr JF, Hult GTMTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Second Edition. Second Edi. SAGE Publications, Inc. SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2017. 1–385 p.
39. Soto-Acosta P, Popa S, Martinez-Conesa I. Information technology, knowledge management and environmental dynamism as drivers of innovation ambidexterity: a study in SMEs. J Knowl Manag. 2018;22(4):824–49.
40. Andrade J, Franco M, Mendes L. Technological capacity and organisational ambidexterity: the moderating role of environmental dynamism on Portuguese technological SMEs. Rev Manag Sci [Internet]. 2021;15(7):2111–36. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00416-x
41. Hon AHY, Lui SS. Employee creativity and innovation in organizations: Review, integration, and future directions for hospitality research. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. 2016;
42. Majid A, Yasir M. Individual and work dynamics affecting the determinants of functional flexibility in SMEs: evidence from Pakistan. J Entrep Emerg Econ. 2017;
43. Felipe CM, Roldán JL, Leal-Rodr\’\iguez AL. An explanatory and predictive model for organizational agility. J Bus Res. 2016;69(10):4624–31.
44. Yunita T, Wijayanti M, Bukhari E, Prasetyo ET. The Dilemma of Innovative Behavior of Hybrid Entrepreneurs in the Role of Employees. J Maksipreneur Manajemen, Koperasi, dan Entrep. 2022;11(2):253.
45. Yunita T, Nursal MF, Fikri AWN, Meutia KI. Pandemic Covid-19 and Uncertainty: Impacts on Students Entrepreneurial Intentions. Int J Entrep Bus Dev. 2021;04(06):897–907.
Copyright (c) 2023 International Journal of Science, Technology & Management
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.