Research on the relationship among social network embedding, ambidextrous equilibrium innovation and international entrepreneurship

PENG Hua-Tao; PAN Yue-Yi

Science Research Management ›› 2022, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (11) : 45-54.

Peng Huatao^1,2, Pan Yueyi¹, Chen Yun¹

Author information +

History +

Abstract

The importance of international opportunities has become increasingly prominent due to the development of globalization. Born globals, as a special kind of international start-up enterprises, born with an international vision and enter the international market at the beginning of establishment. It has always been the focus of research in the academic that how born globals overcome the characteristics of small scale and lack of resources, and occupy a core position in the complex and changeable international competitive environment.
Ambidextrous innovation is an effective means for enterprises to gain competitive advantage, and more and more born globals have gradually realized that whether they can achieve equilibrium between exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation will directly affect their international entrepreneurial performance. On the one hand, they are opposite because they seize the limited resources, so enterprises need to strike a balance between the two. On the other hand, they can promote, complement and benefit each other to overcome the drawbacks of a single innovation model, and enterprises can pursue both high exploration and high exploitation. It′s necessary to explore that whether the equilibrium between the two can promote the international entrepreneurial performance of born globals.
Connections between enterprises can affect innovation and entrepreneurship of enterprises. Social network, as a significant social capital, is a way for enterprises to obtain resources, which is conducive to the realization of innovation and the improvement of entrepreneurial performance. Born globals locate in domestic and foreign markets, with abundant opportunities and extensive information channels. In addition, the results of social networks are reflected in many aspects, not only in the transformation of innovation, so it′s worth exploring that whether social network has the same role for born globals, as well as how it plays an impact between ambidextrous innovation and international entrepreneurial performance. Therefore, based on the theories of organizational ambidexterity and social network, this paper uses Stata 16.0 software to analyze the panel data of born globals in China from 2011 to 2020.
The first purpose of this study is to explore the impact of the balanced dimension and complementary dimension of ambidextrous innovation on their international entrepreneurial performance. And the second purpose is to explore the moderating effect of social network centrality and structural holes, so we construct social network based on the concurrent relationship between directors of enterprises, Ucinet6 software is used to calculate the centrality and structural holes.
The results of study in this paper are as follows: The balance dimension and complementary dimension of ambidextrous innovation both have positive effects on the international entrepreneurial performance of born globals. The centrality, as well as structural holes both have negative moderating effects on the relationship between the complementary dimension of ambidextrous innovation and the international entrepreneurial performance, but have no moderating effects on the balanced dimension.
The theoretical contributions of this paper include the following two aspects. Firstly, it further confirms the relationship between ambidextrous innovation and the international entrepreneurial performance of born globals. We incorporate the balanced dimension and complementary dimension into the study, enrich the research field of ambidextrous innovation and international entrepreneurship, and provide new research ideas for the influencing factors of the international entrepreneurial performance of born globals. Secondly, it further reveals the influence mechanism of social network between the ambidextrous innovation of born globals as well as the output of international entrepreneurship, and illustrates the negative moderating effect of centrality and structural holes.

Key words

ambidextrous equilibrium innovation / international entrepreneurship / centrality / structural hole / born global

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Peng Huatao, Pan Yueyi, Chen Yun. Research on the relationship among social network embedding, ambidextrous equilibrium innovation and international entrepreneurship[J]. Science Research Management. 2022, 43(11): 45-54

References

[1] Mainela T, Puhakka V, Sipola S. International entrepreneurship beyond individuals and firms: On the systemic nature of international opportunities[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2018, 33(4): 534-550.
[2] Martin S L, Javalgi R G. Epistemological foundations of international entrepreneurship[J]. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2018, 14(3): 671-680.
[3] O'cass A, Weerawardena J. Examining the role of international entrepreneurship, innovation and international market performance in SME internationalisation[J]. European Journal of Marketing, 2009, 43(11-12): 1325-1348.
[4] Luo Y, Rui H. An Ambidexterity Perspective Toward Multinational Enterprises From Emerging Economies[J]. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2009, 23(4): 49-70.
[5] Prange C, Verdier S. Dynamic capabilities, internationalization processes and performance[J]. Journal of World Business, 2011, 46(1): 126-133.
[6] Martin S L, Javalgi R G, Cavusgil E. Marketing capabilities, positional advantage, and performance of born global firms: Contingent effect of ambidextrous innovation[J]. International Business Review, 2017, 26(3): 527-543.
[7] Knight G A, Cavusgil S T. Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 2004, 35(2): 124-141.
[8] Fernhaber S A, Mcdougall-Covin P P. Is more always better? Risk trade-offs among internationalizing new ventures[J]. European Business Review, 2014, 26(5):406-420.
[9] O’reilly Iii C A, Tushman M L. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma[J]. Research in organizational behavior, 2008, 28: 185-206.
[10] Atuahene-Gima K, Murray J Y. Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: A social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China[J]. Journal of International Marketing, 2007, 15(2): 1-29.
[11] March J G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning[J]. Organization science, 1991, 2(1): 71-87.
[12] Gupta A K, Smith K G, Shalley C E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2006, 49(4): 693-706.
[13] Hsu C-W, Lien Y-C, Chen H. International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies[J]. Journal of World Business, 2013, 48(1): 58-67.
[14] Yaqub M Z, Sreckovic M, Cliquet G, et al. Network innovation versus innovation through networks[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2020, 90: 79-89.
[15] Sepulveda F, Gabrielsson M. Network development and firm growth: A resource-based study of B2B Born Globals[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2013, 42(5): 792-804.
[16] Heavey C, Simsek Z, Fox B C. Managerial Social Networks and Ambidexterity of SMEs: The Moderating Role of a Proactive Commitment to Innovation[J]. Human Resource Management, 2015, 54: S201-S221.
[17] 陈运森. 社会网络与企业效率:基于结构洞位置的证据[J]. 会计研究, 2015(1): 48-55+97.
[18] 张敏, 童丽静, 许浩然. 社会网络与企业风险承担——基于我国上市公司的经验证据[J]. 管理世界, 2015(11): 161-175.
[19] Yildiz H E, Morgulis-Yakushev S, Holm U, et al. Directionality matters: Board interlocks and firm internationalization[J]. Global Strategy Journal, 2021: 1-21.
[20] Pugliese A, Bezemer P-J, Zattoni A, et al. Boards of Directors' Contribution to Strategy: A Literature Review and Research Agenda[J]. Corporate Governance-an International Review, 2009, 17(3): 292-306.
[21] Jansen J J P, George G, Van Den Bosch F a J, et al. Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2008, 45(5): 982-1007.
[22] Contractor N S, Wasserman S, Faust K. Testing multitheoretical, multilevel hypotheses about organizational networks: An analytic framework and empirical example[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2006, 31(3): 681-703.
[23] Lindstrand A, Handll S M. International and market-specific social capital effects on international opportunity exploitation in the internationalization process[J]. Journal of World Business, 2017, 52(5): 653-663.
[24] Jansen J J P, Van Den Bosch F a J, Volberda H W. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators[J]. Management Science, 2006, 52(11): 1661-1674.
[25] Benner M J, Tushman M L. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited[J]. Academy of management review, 2003, 28(2): 238-256.
[26] Ferreras-Méndez J L, Llopis O, Alegre J. Speeding up new product development through entrepreneurial orientation in SMEs: The moderating role of ambidexterity[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2022, 102: 240-251.
[27] Assink M. Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model[J]. European journal of innovation management, 2006, 9(2):215–233.
[28] Walrave B, Van Oorschot K E, Romme A G L. Getting Trapped in the Suppression of Exploration: A Simulation Model[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2011, 48(8): 1727-1751.
[29] O'reilly Iii C A, Tushman M L. Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future[J]. Academy of management Perspectives, 2013, 27(4): 324-338.
[30] Li R, Peng C, Koo B, et al. Obtaining sustainable competitive advantage through collaborative dual innovation: empirical analysis based on mature enterprises in eastern China[J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2021, 33(6): 685-699.
[31] Yu S-H, Chen H-C. External knowledge, intraorganisational networks and exploratory innovation: an empirical examination[J]. Innovation-Organization & Management, 2020, 22(3): 250-269.
[32] Cao Q, Gedajlovic E, Zhang H. Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects[J]. Organization Science, 2009, 20(4): 781-796.
[33] Beckman C M. The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2006, 49(4): 741-758.
[34] Katila R, Ahuja G. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction[J]. Academy of management journal, 2002, 45(6): 1183-1194.
[35] Zang J, Li Y. Technology capabilities, marketing capabilities and innovation ambidexterity[J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2017, 29(1): 23-37.
[36] Zhou L, Wu W-P, Luo X. Internationalization and the performance of born-global SMEs: the mediating role of social networks[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 2007, 38(4): 673-690.
[37] Siu W-S, Bao Q. Network strategies of small Chinese high-technology firms: A qualitative study[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2008, 25(1): 79-102.
[38] Burt R S. Structural holes[M]. Harvard university press, 1992.
[39] Singh D, Delios A. Corporate governance, board networks and growth in domestic and international markets: Evidence from India[J]. Journal of World Business, 2017, 52(5): 615-627.
[40] Nandy M, Lodh S, Kaur J, et al. Impact of directors' networks on corporate social responsibility: A cross country study[J]. International Review of Financial Analysis, 2020, 72: 101601.
[41] Zhao J. Knowledge management capability and technology uncertainty: driving factors of dual innovation[J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2021, 33(7): 783-796.
[42] Dong J Q, Yang C-H. Being central is a double-edged sword: Knowledge network centrality and new product development in US pharmaceutical industry[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2016, 113: 379-385.
[43] Salman N, Saives A L. Indirect networks: an intangible resource for biotechnology innovation[J]. R & D Management, 2005, 35(2): 203-215.
[44] Larcker D F, So E C, Wang C C Y. Boardroom centrality and firm performance[J]. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2013, 55(2-3): 225-250.
[45] Harms R, Schiele H. Antecedents and consequences of effectuation and causation in the international new venture creation process[J]. Journal of international entrepreneurship, 2012, 10(2): 95-116.
[46] Omer T C, Shelley M K, Tice F M. Do well-connected directors affect firm value?[J]. Journal of Applied Finance (Formerly Financial Practice and Education), 2014, 24(2): 17-32.
[47] Abdul Wahab E A, Jamaludin M F, Agustia D, et al. Director Networks, Political Connections, and Earnings Quality in Malaysia[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2020, 16(3): 687-724.
[48] Alguezaui S, Filieri R. Investigating the role of social capital in innovation: sparse versus dense network[J]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2010, 14(6): 891-909.
[49] Chetty S, Agndal H. Social capital and its influence on changes in internationalization mode among small and medium-sized enterprises[J]. Journal of International Marketing, 2007, 15(1): 1-29.
[50] Masiello B, Izzo F. Interpersonal Social Networks and Internationalization of Traditional SMEs[J]. Journal of Small Business Management, 2019, 57: 658-691.
[51] Obstfeld D. Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation[J]. Administrative science quarterly, 2005, 50(1): 100-130.
[52] Kogut B, Zander U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology[J]. Organization science, 1992, 3(3): 383-397.
[53] Hashai N, Almor T. Gradually internationalizing ‘born global’firms: an oxymoron?[J]. International business review, 2004, 13(4): 465-483.
[54] He Z L, Wong P K. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis[J]. Organization Science, 2004, 15(4): 481-494.
[55] Gao Y, Hu Y, Liu X, et al. Can public R&D subsidy facilitate firms’ exploratory innovation? The heterogeneous effects between central and local subsidy programs[J]. Research Policy, 2021, 50(4): 104221.
[56] Podolny J M, Stuart T E. A role-based ecology of technological change[J]. American journal of sociology, 1995, 100(5): 1224-1260.
[57] 戴静, 杨筝, 刘贯春, et al. 银行业竞争、创新资源配置和企业创新产出——基于中国工业企业的经验证据[J]. 金融研究, 2020(2): 51-70.
[58] Desai V M. The behavioral theory of the (governed) firm: Corporate board influences on organizations’ responses to performance shortfalls[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2016, 59(3): 860-879.
[59] Lu L-H, Wong P-K. Performance feedback, financial slack and the innovation behavior of firms[J]. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2019, 36(4): 1079-1109.
[60] Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: Methods and applications[J], 1994.
[61] Gonzalez-Brambila C N, Veloso F M, Krackhardt D. The impact of network embeddedness on research output[J]. Research Policy, 2013, 42(9): 1555-1567.
[62] Naldi L, Achtenhagen L, Davidsson P. International Corporate Entrepreneurship among SMEs: A Test of Stevenson's Notion of Entrepreneurial Management[J]. Journal of Small Business Management, 2015, 53(3): 780-800.
[63] Xie Q. CEO tenure and ownership mode choice of Chinese firms: The moderating roles of managerial discretion[J]. International Business Review, 2014, 23(5): 910-919.
[64] 李春涛, 闫续文, 宋敏, et al. 金融科技与企业创新——新三板上市公司的证据[J]. 中国工业经济, 2020(1): 81-98.
[65] Zhang Z, Luo T. Knowledge structure, network structure, exploitative and exploratory innovations[J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2020, 32(6): 666-682.
[66] Junni P, Sarala R M, Taras V, et al. Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis[J]. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2013, 27(4): 299-312.
[67] 焦豪. 双元型组织竞争优势的构建路径:基于动态能力理论的实证研究[J]. 管理世界, 2011(11): 76-91+188.
[68] Vrontis D, Thrassou A, Santoro G, et al. Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms[J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2017, 42(2): 374-388.
[69] Liu J, Zhu Y. Promoting tacit knowledge application and integration through guanxi and structural holes[J]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2021, 25(5): 1027-1058.
[70] Xie X, Fang L, Zeng S, et al. How does knowledge inertia affect firms product innovation?[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2016, 69(5): 1615-1620.