Although organizational ambidexterity has gained momentum in recent innovation research, previous literature still offers a confusing and partial picture about how to leverage ambidexterity for new product development because of two limitations. First, previous research mainly focuses on static resource endowment and thus offers little insight about how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity. Second, conceptual confusion on the notion of the balance dimension of organization ambidexterity still exists. This study seeks to explore how firms should dynamically reconfigure resource portfolios to leverage organizational ambidexterity for new product development and to bring greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. By extending the static resource assumption, which is central to the extant debate in organizational ambidexterity literature, this research unpacks ambidexterity into a relative exploratory dimension and an interactive dimension. We further investigated the moderating effect of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility on the impacts of the two dimensions on new product development performance. Based on the dynamic resource management view and organizational learning theory, we proposed six hypotheses and collected data from 213 firms through a survey to examine the hypotheses. Our results indicate that relative exploratory dimension and interactive dimension have different effects on new product development. Specifically, the relative exploratory dimension has an inverse U‐shaped effect on new product development while the interactive dimension has a positive effect. Furthermore, we find that resource flexibility and coordination flexibility have positive moderating effects on the relationships between the two dimensions of ambidexterity and new product development performance. Our study contributes to the ambidexterity research in three ways. First, from a dynamic resource management view, this study extends previous ambidexterity research from a static view to a dynamic view by exploring the moderating effects of resource flexibility and coordination flexibility. Second, we extend the understanding on ambidexterity by bringing greater conceptual clarity to the notion of balance. Third, this research provides new evidence on the effects of ambidextrous learning on new product development performance in transition economy such as China, where ambidextrous learning is crucial for firms to adapt to a dynamic environment.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to address the conflicting views on the role of bottom‐up learning; this research combines the information‐processing and organizational inertia views to explore how bottom‐up learning affects both exploratory and exploitative innovations and if the effects are contingent on organizational formalization.Design/methodology/approachData for this study are obtained through an interview survey instrument from 213 firms. The questionnaire is adopted from several previous studies on organizational learning, structure and innovation with minor translation adjust. A pilot test was conducted and necessary modifications were made to the questionnaire. Tests show that the sampling validity is not biased by non‐response bias and the measure reliability and validity are acceptable. Furthermore, Harman one‐factor and CFA tests show that the results should not be biased by common method bias. The multicollinearity is also tested and controlled during regression analysis.FindingsThe findings show that bottom‐up learning has accelerated positive effect on exploitative innovation while having an inverted U‐shaped effect on explorative innovation. Furthermore, the organizational formalization strengthens the positive effect of bottom‐up learning on exploitative innovation and the U‐shaped effect on exploratory innovation.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to organizational inertia and information‐processing theories by providing a complete picture on how firms built exploitative and exploratory innovations through bottom‐up learning aligned with appropriate organizational structure.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract