Joint actions with large partners and small-firm ambidexterity in asymmetric alliances: The mediating role of relational identification

Feng, Yanan; Teng, Da; Hao, Bin

doi:10.1177/0266242619842592

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 123 publications

(190 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings highlight a lapse in current treatments of relational resources and relational embeddedness in ambidexterity research (Feng et al, 2019;Heavey et al, 2015), which have failed to anticipate negative consequences for ambidexterity at the disaggregated level. This is in part driven by the failure of studies to account for context (Khan et al, 2018;Zahra et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Young technology-based firms are typically skilled at identifying abundant and novel entrepreneurial opportunities but are less skilled at assembling and coordinating the resources needed to exploit those opportunities due to liabilities of age and firm size (Lubatkin et al, 2006; Voss et al, 2008; Voss and Voss, 2013). These firms start with low resource stocks that direct advantage-seeking behaviour towards resource attraction and acquisition activities, commonly through relationships (Feng et al, 2019; Heavey et al, 2015), to offset their newness and size disadvantages. The incubator provides the platform or ecosystem for this behaviour.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing on strategic entrepreneurship, we examine how strategic and entrepreneurial behaviours create tendencies that favour one innovation activity over the other, or, are common to both. Young technology-based firms with limited resources and liabilities of newness use different capabilities to implement explorative and exploitative innovations (Feng et al, 2019; Heavey et al, 2015). Firms pursuing strategic entrepreneurship seek new opportunities (opportunity-seeking behaviour) either to expand current product offerings by refining burgeoning competences (with exploitative innovation) or to adventure into new product domains (with explorative innovation) by remodelling its resource base (advantage-seeking behaviour) to compete on both market and technology frontiers (Kollmann and Stöckmann, 2014; Mazzei, 2018; Simsek et al, 2017; Withers et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Strategic entrepreneurship behaviour and the innovation ambidexterity of young technology-based firms in incubators

Hughes

Morgan

et al. 2020

International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation ambidexterity is especially complex for young technology-based firms because they are resource-challenged and knowledge deficient in strategic terms; but they possess considerable scope for entrepreneurship. Strategic entrepreneurship may provide a solution. Incubators emerged as a policy solution precisely due to this dilemma. We conceptualise that strategic entrepreneurship, as a synthesis of opportunity-seeking and advantage-seeking behaviours of young technology-based firms, can affect both explorative and exploitative innovation activities in these firms and expect that subsequent innovation ambidexterity affects profitability. Our empirical analyses reveal complex and competing interrelationships that both ease and exacerbate the tensions associated with innovation ambidexterity. We contribute to theory by testing strategic entrepreneurship as it applies to innovation ambidexterity and evidence behaviours that contribute to its foundations. To entrepreneurs and managers, we offer a set of prescriptions for innovation ambidexterity in young firms that accounts for the complementarities between complex and theoretically opposing constructs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strategic entrepreneurship behaviour and the innovation ambidexterity of young technology-based firms in incubators

Hughes

Morgan

et al. 2020

International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In high-tech industries, the research activity is fundamental. A moderate level of marketing, manufacturing, or financing activities may create knowledge synergistic effects in achieving innovation ambidexterity [18,[59][60][61][62]. As an increase in functional diversity, the share of research activity decreases, and the marginal synergy diminishes.…”

Section: Alliance Network Functional Diversity and Innovation Ambidexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alliance Network Diversity and Innovation Ambidexterity: The Differential Roles of Industrial Diversity, Geographical Diversity, and Functional Diversity

Zhang

Tang

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation ambidexterity, namely, performing exploitative and exploratory innovation simultaneously, is important for high-tech firms to achieve sustainable success. This can be achieved by building an egocentric alliance network. Research into the influence of alliance network diversity on innovation ambidexterity is seeing more attention. However, the differences among multiple alliance network diversities are unclear. Grounded on a knowledge-based view, organizational learning theory, and transaction cost theory, this study investigates in-depth the roles of geographical diversity, industrial diversity, and functional diversity of the alliance network. The empirical analysis based on panel data, including alliance data from the SDC Joint & Venture database and patent data from the Derwent Innovation Index database of 106 top high-tech firms from electronic information and biopharmaceutical industries, suggests that industrial diversity enhances firm innovation ambidexterity, geographical diversity impedes firm innovation ambidexterity, and functional diversity shows an inverted U-shaped relationship with firm innovation ambidexterity. These results provide practical suggestions about alliance network diversity configuration and innovation ambidexterity construction for high-tech firms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1041 2 of 16 composition [17,18], network capability [19,20], network embeddedness [21], network position [22], network brokerage, network tie strength [23], and network dynamics [24], were also found to impact ambidexterity.Recently, increasing attention is being paid to alliance network diversity. Researchers have considered various dimensions of alliance network diversity from the perspectives of partner attributes and alliance attributes [25], including partner type diversity, technological diversity, industrial diversity, geographical diversity, and functional diversity [26,27]. Partner type diversity indicates the diversification of partners including business partners, customers, suppliers, competitors, and venture capital firms, and knowledge partners including universities, research institutions, technology intermediaries, intellectual property organizations, and government agencies. The fact that knowledge partners mainly engage in R&D activities, while business partners primarily engage in production, marketing, or financing suggests that partner type diversity could be reflected by functional diversity. Furthermore, technological diversity mainly indicates the diversification of technology affiliated with alliance partners, which can be reflected by the industrial and national background of partners in the global industry division of innovation. In this respect, it may overlap with industrial diversity and geographical diversity. As such, the industrial diversity, geographical diversity, and functional diversity, which indicate the diversification of industrial background, national background of network partners, and functional attributes of alliance activities, respectively, are investigated...

show abstract

“…In this cooperative relationship, SMEs are relatively dependent on the resources of the core enterprise, leading to the unequal status of the two parties in the cooperative relationship, thus forming an asymmetric R&D alliance [1]. Although the asymmetric R&D alliance can bring substantial potential benefits to both partners, the failure rate of this alliance form is over 60%, and the asymmetric R&D alliance is precarious [2,3]. However, scholarly attention has not yet turned to the field of asymmetric alliance but has focused on symmetric alliance [4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between Intellectual Property Risk and Stability of Asymmetric Research and Development Alliance

Zhang

Guo

et al. 2021

Complexity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) establish asymmetric research and development (R&D) alliance with core enterprises to improve innovation efficiency. Unfortunately, the gap in the status and bargaining power between enterprises in such partnerships makes the intellectual property risk situation complicated. While gaining support and assistance from core enterprises, SMEs face the risk of exposing their core knowledge and key resources, which seriously affects the stability of R&D alliance and the sustainability of cooperative innovation. How to protect the intellectual property rights of SMEs in the asymmetric R&D alliance and improve the alliance’s stability is an urgent problem to be solved. Based on the theory of resource dependence and transaction cost, this study uses 260 high-tech companies participating in the asymmetric R&D alliance as a sample to conduct empirical research from the perspective of SMEs in a weak position. The purpose of this study is to sort out the types of intellectual property risks in the alliance and clarify the relationship between them and the stability of asymmetric R&D alliance. Furthermore, this study examines the moderating effects of contract governance mechanisms and relational contracts to explore effective governance mechanisms at the alliance level. Empirical results show that the intellectual property investment risk and the intellectual property loss risk have a significant negative impact on the stability of asymmetric R&D alliance. The contract governance mechanism negatively moderates the impact of intellectual property investment risk on the stability of the asymmetric R&D alliance. The relationship governance mechanism negatively moderates the impact of intellectual property loss risk on the stability of the asymmetric R&D alliance. The contract and relationship governance mechanism jointly negatively moderate the impact of intellectual property investment risk and loss risk on the stability of the asymmetric R&D alliance.

show abstract

Joint actions with large partners and small-firm ambidexterity in asymmetric alliances: The mediating role of relational identification

Cited by 20 publications

References 123 publications

Strategic entrepreneurship behaviour and the innovation ambidexterity of young technology-based firms in incubators

Strategic entrepreneurship behaviour and the innovation ambidexterity of young technology-based firms in incubators

Alliance Network Diversity and Innovation Ambidexterity: The Differential Roles of Industrial Diversity, Geographical Diversity, and Functional Diversity

The Relationship between Intellectual Property Risk and Stability of Asymmetric Research and Development Alliance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About