Innovation management and firms' performance : the role of business strategy, organizational capabilities and external environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the modern highly competitive business environments innovation research has flourished as the need of organizations to develop new products, to compete intensively and to perform their tasks adequately has become vital (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995; Damanpour, 1991). This continuous change leads firms to confront with the tension of exploring new opportunities or exploiting current competencies (Floyd & Lane, 2000; Lavie, Stettner, & Tushman, 2010). March’s (1991) “ambidexterity” premise refers to the simultaneous pursuit of these contrasting activities (exploration and exploitation). Specifically, firms seek to adjust to the turbulent environmental conditions through exploring new ideas, products and/or services while simultaneously developing their existing products, markets and competences (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Jansen, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2006). Several literatures have increasingly argued about the antecedents of exploration and exploitation and their impact to firms’ ambidexterity as well as the relationship between ambidexterity and firms’ financial performance (He & Wong, 2004; Jansen, Volberda, & Van Den Bosch, 2005a). This doctoral study copes with the antecedents of firms’ ambidextrous orientation and the firm-level ambidexterity-financial performance relationship. Through the use of hierarchical regression modeling, the results of the empirical research at a sample of 133 top performing Greek companies show that: 1) top managers’ creative self-efficacy positively affects firms’ ambidextrous orientation, 2) top managers’ learning goal orientation positively impacts firms’ ambidextrous orientation, 3) top managers’ performance goal orientation negatively influences firms’ ambidextrous orientation, 4) firms’ external knowledge flows positively affect firms’ ambidextrous orientation, 5) firms’ innovation & flexibility climate positively impacts firms’ ambidextrous orientation, 6) firms’ social capital is not associated with firms’ ambidextrous orientation, 7) firms’ organizational capital positively influences firms’ ambidextrous orientation, 8) firms’ participative decision making positively affects firms’ ambidextrous orientation, 9) the complementary effect of the simultaneous pursuit of a differentiation and a low-cost strategy negatively impacts firms’ ambidextrous orientation, 10) firms’ ambidextrous orientation is positively related to firms’ financial performance and that, 11) Firm size moderates the relationship between firms’ ambidextrous innovation orientation and its subsequent financial performance in such a way that this positive effect is increased as size increases. Overall, these findings offer important contributions to organizational ambidexterity literature, by indicating new antecedents of firms’ ambidexterity and a positive relationship of ambidexterity and firms’ financial performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".