Strengthening organizational ambidexterity with top management team mechanisms and processes

References

• Ahammad, M. F., Lee, S. M., Malul, M., & Shoham, A. (2015). Behavioral ambidexterity: The impact of incentive schemes on productivity, motivation, and performance of employees in commercial Banks. Human Resource Management, 54 (S1), (S45–S62).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670–687.10.2307/256705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arvanitis, S., Seliger, F., & Stucki, T. (2016). The relative importance of human resource management practices for innovation. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15, 1–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1652–1661.10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(Suppl. 1), 107–124.10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
   Google Scholar
• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckman, C. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 741–758.10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berraies, S., Achour, M., & Chaher, M. (2015). Focusing the mediating role of knowledge management practices: How does institutional and interpersonal trust support exploitative and exploratory innovation? Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 31, 1479–1492.10.19030/jabr.v31i4
   Google Scholar
• Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19, 3–23.10.1111/hrmj.2009.19.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannella, A. A., Park, J. H., & Lee, H. U. (2008). Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 768–784.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20, 781–796.10.1287/orsc.1090.0426
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao, Q., Simsek, Z., & Zhang, H. (2010). Modelling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1272–1296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappelli, P., & Neumark, D. (2001). Do “high-performance” work practices improve establishment-level outcomes? Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 54, 737–775.10.1177/001979390105400401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmeli, A. (2008). Top management team behavioral integration and the performance of service organizations. Group & Organization Management, 33, 712–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 207–218.10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2006). Top management team behavioral integration, decision quality, and organizational decline. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 441–453.10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30, 749–778.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Dewhurst, F. (2007). Linking organizational learning and customer capital through an ambidexterity context: An empirical investigation in SMEs 1. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1720–1735.10.1080/09585190701570882
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, Y. Y. (2015). A multilevel examination of high-performance work systems and unit level organisational ambidexterity. Human Resource Management Journal, 25, 79–101.10.1111/hrmj.2015.25.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295, 295–336.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, K. D., Smith, K. G., & Oliver, C. (2003). Top management team social networks and organizational innovation: An information theory explanation of TMT value creation. Working Paper, Maryland: Robert Smith School of Business.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 740–751.10.2307/30040665
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44, 25–46.10.2307/41166121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D & B India. (2008). dnb.co.in. Retrieved November 17, 2015, from D & B India Emerging SMEs of India database https://www.dnb.co.in/SMEs/
   Google Scholar
• De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N. T., & Dimov, D. (2013). Shedding new light on the relationship between contextual ambidexterity and firm performance: An investigation of internal contingencies. Technovation, 33, 119–132.10.1016/j.technovation.2012.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donate, M. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2011). Organizational factors to support knowledge management and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15, 890–914.10.1108/13673271111179271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donate, M. J., Peña, I., & Sánchez de Pablo, J. D. (2016). HRM practices for human and social capital development: Effects on innovation capabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, 928–953.10.1080/09585192.2015.1047393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. R. (1994). Regression analysis as an alternative to difference scores. Journal of Management, 20, 683–689.10.1177/014920639402000311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garaus, C., Güttel, W. H., Konlechner, S., Koprax, I., Lackner, H., Link, K., & Müller, B. (2016). Bridging knowledge in ambidextrous HRM systems: Empirical evidence from hidden champions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, 355–381.10.1080/09585192.2015.1045007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15(Suppl. 2), 91–112.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.10.2307/20159573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Güttel, W. H., & Konlechner, S. W. (2009). Continuously hanging by a thread: Managing contextually ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Business Review, 61, 150–171.
   Google Scholar
• Hackman, J. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorcsh (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F., Jr, Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. (1993). Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 844–863.10.2307/256761
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambrick, D. C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integation and reconsideration of the ‘team’ label. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (p. 171–214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hambrick, D. C. (1995). Fragmentation and the other problems CEOs have with their top management teams. California Management Review, 37, 110–127.10.2307/41165801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659–684.10.2307/2393871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.10.2307/2667032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494.10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., & Fox, B. C. (2015). Managerial social networks and ambidexterity of SMEs: The moderating role of a proactive commitment to innovation. Human Resource Management, 54, 201–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672.10.2307/256741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 982–1007.10.1111/joms.2008.45.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen, J. J., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 797–811.10.1287/orsc.1080.0415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1264–1294.10.5465/amj.2011.0088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, K., Takeuchi, R., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Where do we go from here? New perspectives on the black box in strategic human resource management research. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1448–1480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299–312.10.5465/amp.2012.0015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, S. C., & Snell, S. A. (2009). Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: A framework for human resource management. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 65–92.10.1111/joms.2008.46.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanter, R. M. (2006). Innovation: The classic traps. Harvard Business Review, 84, 72–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194.10.2307/3069433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kostopoulos, K. C., Bozionelos, N., & Syrigos, E. (2015). Ambidexterity and unit performance: Intellectual capital antecedents and cross-level moderating effects of human resource practices. Human Resource Management, 54(S1), 111–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 216–239). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krishnan, T. N., & Scullion, H. (2016). Talent management and dynamic view of talent in small and medium enterprises. Human Resource Management Review. (in press) doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Andrade, L. S., & Drake, B. (2009). Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 64–85.10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi, D. (2013). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Y.-H., & Huang, J.-W. (2013). Exploitative and exploratory learning in transactive memory systems and project performance. Information & Management, 50, 304–313.10.1016/j.im.2013.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, C.-R., Lin, C.-J., & Huang, H.-C. (2014). Top management team social capital, exploration-based innovation, and exploitation-based innovation in SMEs. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26, 69–85.10.1080/09537325.2013.850157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez-Cabrales, A., Perez-Luño, A., & Cabrera, R. V. (2009). Knowledge as a mediator between HRM practices and innovative activity. Human Resource Management, 48, 485.10.1002/hrm.v48:4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646–672.10.1177/0149206306290712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2005). A test of strategic orientation formation versus strategic orientation implementation: The influence of TMT functional diversity and inter-functional coordination. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13, 4–19.10.1080/10696679.2005.11658540
   Google Scholar
• Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. C., Lepak, D. P., & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2011). Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance work systems and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1105–1118.10.1037/a0024710
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mihalache, O. R., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2014). Top management team shared leadership and organizational ambidexterity: A moderated mediation framework. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8, 128–148.10.1002/sej.1168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 812–828.10.1287/orsc.1090.0427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mooney, A. C., & Sonnenfeld, J. (2001). Exploring antecedents to top management team conflict: The importance of behavioral integration. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• MSME Annual report. (2014–2015). Ministry of micro, small and medium enterprises. New Delhi: Ministry of MSME India.
   Google Scholar
• National Knowledge Commission. (2007, June). Innovation in India. New Delhi: National Knowledge Commission, Government of India.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C. A., & Pfeffer, J. (2000). Hidden value: How great companies achieve extraordinary results with ordinary people. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53, 5–22.10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 324–338.10.5465/amp.2013.0025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. (2007). Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33, 196–222.10.1177/0149206306298657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1420–1442.10.5465/amj.2011.0255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866.10.1111/crim.1998.36.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Executive, 18, 47–57.10.5465/AME.2004.12690298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelaez, A., & Mohan, K. (2013). Role of interdependence, social integration & behavioral integration in shaping software development process. Presented at the Northeast Decision Sciences Institute Conference, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Pereira, C. M., & Gomes, J. F. (2012). The strength of human resource practices and transformational leadership: Impact on organisational performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 4301–4318.10.1080/09585192.2012.667434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.10.1177/014920638601200408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.10.3758/BF03206553
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prieto Pastor, I. M., Perez Santana, M. P., & Martín Sierra, C. (2010). Managing knowledge through hum an resource practices: em pirical exam ination on the Spanish autom otive industry. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 2452–2467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prieto, I. M., & Pilar Pérez Santana, M. (2012). Building ambidexterity: The role of human resource practices in the performance of firms from Spain. Human Resource Management, 51, 189–211.10.1002/hrm.v51.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695.10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renuka, S. D., & Venkateshwara, B. A. (2006). A comparative study of human resource management practices and advanced technology adoption of SMEs with and without ISO certification. Singapore Management Review, 28, 41–61.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125.10.1002/(ISSN)1097-4679
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 201–221.10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santangelo, G. D., & Pini, P. (2011). New HRM practices and exploitative innovation: A shopfloor level analysis. Industry & Innovation, 18, 611–630.10.1080/13662716.2011.591977
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sels, L., De Winne, S., Maes, J., Delmotte, J., Faems, D., & Forrier, A. (2006). Unravelling the HRM-performance link: Value-creating and cost-increasing effects of small business HRM. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 319–342.10.1111/joms.2006.43.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, M. K., & Bhagwat, R. (2006). Practice of information systems: Evidence from select Indian SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17, 199–223.10.1108/17410380610642278
   Google Scholar
• Shin, D., & Konrad, A. M. (2014). Causality between high-performance work systems and organizational performance. Journal of Management,. 20, 1–25 doi:10.1177/0149206314544746.
   Google Scholar
• Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662–673.10.2307/256987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 597–624.10.1111/joms.2009.46.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 69–84.10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinha, S. (2013). Managing ambidexterity in growth phase of start-up firms (Doctoral Dissertation). IIMA, Ahmedabad, India.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. Sociological Methodology, 16, 159–186.10.2307/270922
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, J. P. (1983). Predicting satisfaction with social support from social network structure. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 141–152.10.1007/BF00894363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swart, J., & Kinnie, N. (2010). Organisational learning, knowledge assets and HR practices in professional service firms. Human Resource Management Journal, 20, 64–79.10.1111/hrmj.2010.20.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tisak, J., & Smith, C. S. (1994). Defending and extending difference score methods. Journal of Management, 20, 675–682.10.1177/014920639402000310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsao, C. W., & Wang, Y. H. (2014). The moderating impact of TMT behavioral integration on the relationship between TMT perceptions of HR value and firm adoption of high-performance work systems. Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 89–109.
   Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L., Anderson, P. C., & O’Reilly, C. (1997). Technology cycles, innovation streams, and ambidextrous organizations: Organization renewal through innovation streams and strategic change. Managing Strategic Innovation and Change, 34, 3–23.
   Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A., III (1996). Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8–30.10.2307/41165852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venugopal, A., & Krishnan, T. N. (2014). Role of top management behavioral integration in managing innovation paradoxes. Paper presented at the twelfth AIMS International Management Conference, Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode, India.
   Google Scholar
• Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 145–180.10.2307/2393703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wageman, R., & Baker, G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 139–158.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2009). Organizational diversity and shared vision: Resolving the paradox of exploratory and exploitative learning. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12, 86–101.10.1108/14601060910928184
   Google Scholar
• Westphal, J. D. (1999). Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of ceo-board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 7–24.10.2307/256871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91–121.10.2307/256474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, A. (1999). Employment relations in SMEs. Employee relations, 21, 206–217.10.1108/01425459910273062
   Google Scholar
• Yitzhack Halevi, M., Carmeli, A., & Brueller, N. N. (2015). Ambidexterity in SBUs: TMT behavioral integration and environmental dynamism. Human Resource Management, 54, 223–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar