Purpose
This paper aims to offer a novel set of insights to understand the role of network ties in pursuit of radical innovation. In this sense, the purpose of the study is to analyze how the heterogeneity in the content of network ties affects radical innovation performance.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on a comprehensive review of existing literature, this paper conceptualizes how different types of network ties affect radical innovation performance by deriving five research propositions.
Findings
Both buyer-supplier ties and peer collaboration ties are positively related to radical innovation performance, whilst the peer collaboration ties may be further affected by partner similarity. Compared to other two types of network ties, equity ties act as more of moderating roles on spurring radical innovation. Crowding out between network ties prevents firms from knowledge searching within an extensive network scope, reducing the opportunities of mixing and matching different kinds of knowledge needed for radical innovation.
Research limitations/implications
The study suggests a natural way of launching marketing strategy by selectively integrating different sources of knowledge (market, supplier or technology) needed for commercializing radical technologies, highlighting the importance of partner selection for radical innovation among different types of firms surrounding the current market. For managers, it is necessary to identify and select network ties helpful for long-term business and strategic interests.
Originality/value
This paper makes two main contributions. First, it addresses the question of how networks influence radical innovation by identifying three types of network ties and their effects – individual and in combination – on extension of the depth and breadth of knowledge and development of disruptive ideas. Second, it develops the existing literature by demonstrating the crowding-out effect of network ties.
This study draws on theories of organizational inertia and relational view to examine how the pursuit of partnership synergy influences radical innovation in different technological contexts. We differentiate between two types of synergy: explicit synergy, defined as the potential to exchange interfirm operational elements to renew processes or capabilities, and tacit synergy, conceptualized as the potential to synthesize cross‐boundary resources to develop new perspectives or thinking modes. We find that both explicit and tacit synergies have positive impacts on radical innovation, and such impacts are contingent on interfirm technological diversity and environmental technological dynamism in opposing ways. Specifically, environmental technological dynamism positively moderates the relationship between explicit synergy and radical innovation but not the relationship between tacit synergy and radical innovation. In contrast, interfirm technological diversity positively moderates the relationship between tacit synergy and radical innovation but not the relationship between explicit synergy and radical innovation. Our study sheds new light on the generation of radical innovation in alliances. It also provides practitioners with useful guidelines for crafting synergy strategies that will facilitate the pursuit of radical innovation.
Prior studies on power and interfirm learning in alliances have devoted limited attention to multiplicate influences of diverse power sources on exploration and exploitation and whether such influences on these two strategies are similar or different. This study investigates the joint effects of two types of perceived power-capability-driven power and position-driven power-on exploration versus exploitation in asymmetric alliances. Using a sample of 205 high-technology firms in China, the analyses suggest that each of the two types of perceived power separately has no direct effects on either exploration or exploitation. However, they complement (multiplicative effects) each other in promoting exploitation and exploration. Interestingly, the balanced effect of perceived position-driven power and perceived capability-driven power is positively related to exploration, while no such an impact is found in terms of exploitation. This study provides alternative insights about inter-organizational learning in asymmetric alliances and points out a direction for future research.
This article investigates the role of relational identification in the relation between joint actions and small-firm ambidexterity in asymmetric alliances. Using survey data on Chinese high-technology firms, we find that joint problem-solving and joint sensemaking are both positively associated with a small firm’s relational identification. We also find a positive relationship between a small firm’s relational identification and knowledge exploration and exploitation. More importantly, we show that relational identification mediates the relationships between joint actions (i.e. joint problem-solving and joint sensemaking) and small-firm ambidexterity, except for the relationship between joint sensemaking and small-firm knowledge exploitation. This study advances our understanding of the association between joint actions and ambidexterity by providing a social identification explanation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.