Ambidexterity in Indonesian SMEs: A systematic review and synthesis for future research

References

• Agyapong, A., Mensah, H. K., & Ayuuni, A. M. (2018). The moderating role of social network on the relationship between innovative capability and performance in the hotel industry. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(5), 801–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJoEM-11-2016-0293
   Google Scholar
• Ahuja, G. (2000). The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/SICI1097-026620000321:3<317:AID-SMJ90>3.0.CO;2-B
   Google Scholar
• Aliasghar, O., & Haar, J. (2021). Open innovation: Are absorptive and desorptive capabilities complementary? International Business Review, 32(2), 101865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101865
   Google Scholar
• Ali, M., Shujahat, M., Ali, Z., Kianto, A., Wang, M., & Bontis, N. (2022). The neglected role of knowledge assets interplay in the pursuit of organisational ambidexterity. Technovation, 114, 102452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102452
   Google Scholar
• Amankwah-Amoah, J., & Adomako, S. (2021). The effects of knowledge integration and contextual ambidexterity on innovation in entrepreneurial ventures. Journal of Business Research, 127, 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.050
   Google Scholar
• Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent: Strategic assets. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140105
   Google Scholar
• Andrade, J., Franco, M., & Mendes, L. (2022). Facilitating and inhibiting effects of organisational ambidexterity in SME: An analysis centred on SME characteristics. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00831-9
   Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, T. J., Fang, E., & Palmatier, R. W. (2011). The effects of customer acquisition and retention orientations on a firm’s radical and incremental innovation performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0203-8
   Google Scholar
• Atuahene-Gima, K., Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2005). The contingent value of responsive and proactive market orientations for new product program performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(6), 464–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00144.x
   Google Scholar
• Bae, J., & Gargiulo, M. (2004). Partner substitutability, alliance network structure, and firm profitability in the telecommunications industry. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 843–859. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159626
   Google Scholar
• Barley, W. C., Treem, J. W., & Kuhn, T. (2018). Valuing multiple trajectories of knowledge: A critical review and agenda for knowledge management research. The Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 278–317. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0041
   Google Scholar
• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
   Google Scholar
• Beckman, C. M., Philips, D. J., & Haunschild, P. R. (2004). Friends or strangers? Firm-Specific Uncertainty, Market Uncertainty, and Network Partner Selection: Organization Science, 15(3), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0065
   Google Scholar
• Bengtsson, M., & Johansson, M. (2014). Managing coopetition to create opportunities for small firms. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 32(4), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242612461288
   Google Scholar
• Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploration, exploitation, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040711
   Google Scholar
• Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015). Reflections on the 2013 decade award—“Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited” ten years later. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0042
   Google Scholar
• Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0167
   Google Scholar
• Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011). On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1168–1181. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0641
   Google Scholar
• Brix, J. (2019). Ambidexterity and organizational learning: Revisiting and reconnecting the literatures. The Learning Organization, 26(4), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-02-2019-0034
   Google Scholar
• Brodjonegoro, B. (2020, September 4). Riset dan Inovasi Menuju Tatanan Kenormalan Baru. RISTEK-BRIN.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, D. W., & Konrad, A. M. (2001). Granovetter was right. The importance of weak ties to a contemporary job search. Group & Organization Management, 26(4), 434–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601101264003
   Google Scholar
• Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burvill, S. M., Jones-Evans, D., & Rowlands, H. (2018). Reconceptualising the principles of Penrose’s (1959) theory and the resource based view of the firm: The generation of a new conceptual framework. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 25(6), 930–959. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-11-2017-0361
   Google Scholar
• Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0426
   Google Scholar
• Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family–controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29(3), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00081.x
   Google Scholar
• Chang, Y. Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011.08.003
   Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California Management Review, 50(1), 56–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166416
   Google Scholar
• Chiu, Y. T. H. (2008). How network competence and network location influence innovation performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620910923694
   Google Scholar
• Chiu, Y. T. H. (2009). How network competence and network location influence innovation performance. The Journal of Business, 24(1), 10
   Google Scholar
• Cho, M., Bonn, M. A., & Han, S. J. (2019). Innovation ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for startup and established restaurants and impacts upon performance. Industry and Innovation, 27(4), 340–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2019.1633280
   Google Scholar
• Chu, Y., Chi, M., Wang, W., & Luo, B. (2019). The impact of information technology capabilities of manufacturing enterprises on innovation performance: Evidences from SEM and fsQCA. Sustainability, 11(21), 5946. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215946
   Google Scholar
• Claro, D. P., Gonzalez, G. R., & Claro, P. B. O. (2012). Network centrality and multiplexity: A study of sales performance. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 12(1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.3920/JCNS2012.x208
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
   Google Scholar
• Datta, A. (2011). Review and extension on ambidexterity: A theoretical model integrating networks and absorptive capacity. Journal of Management and Strategy, 2(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.5430/jms.v2n1p2
   Google Scholar
• De Leeuw, T., Lokshin, B., & Duysters, G. (2014). Returns to alliance portfolio diversity: The relative effects of partner diversity on firm’s innovative performance and productivity. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1839–1849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.12.005
   Google Scholar
• Expósito-Langa, M., & Molina-Morales, F. X. (2010). How relational dimensions affect knowledge redundancy in industrial clusters. European Planning Studies, 18(12), 1975–1992. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2010.515817
   Google Scholar
• Farzaneh, M., Wilden, R., Afshari, L., & Mehralian, G. (2022). Dynamic capabilities and innovation ambidexterity: The roles of intellectual capital and innovation orientation. Journal of Business Research, 148, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.030
   Google Scholar
• Fu, X., Luan, R., Wu, H. -H., Zhu, W., & Pang, J. (2021). Ambidextrous balance and channel innovation ability in Chinese business circles: The mediating effect of knowledge inertia and guanxi inertia. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.11.005
   Google Scholar
• Gaffney, N., Kedia, B., & Clampit, J. (2013). A resource dependence perspective of EMNE FDI strategy. International Business Review, 22(6), 1092–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.02.010
   Google Scholar
• García-Hurtado, D., Devece, C., Zegarra-Saldaña, P. E., & Crisanto-Pantoja, M. (2022). Ambidexterity in entrepreneurial universities and performance measurement systems. A literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-022-00795-5
   Google Scholar
• Gedajlovic, E., Honig, B., Moore, C. B., Payne, G. T., & Wright, M. (2013). Social capital and entrepreneurship: A schema and research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(3), 455–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12042
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159573
   Google Scholar
• Gnyawali, D. R., Madhavan, R., He, J., & Bengtsson, M. (2016). The competition–cooperation paradox in inter-firm relationships: A conceptual framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.014
   Google Scholar
• Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. Y. R. (2009). Coopetition and technological innovation in small and medium sized enterprises: A multilevel conceptual model. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 308–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00273.x
   Google Scholar
• Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. Y. R. (2011). Coopetition between giants: Collaboration with competitiors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.009
   Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. S. (1977). The strength of weak ties. In Social Networks (pp. 347–367). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-442450-0.50025-0
   Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/202051
   Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311
   Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. S. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330053147958
   Google Scholar
• Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. (2007). Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 32–69. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.32
   Google Scholar
• Gunsel, A., Altindag, E., Keceli, S. K., Kitapci, H., & Hiziroglu, M. (2017). Antecedents and consequences of organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of networking. Emerald Publishing Limited, 0368–492X: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-02-2017-0057
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026
   Google Scholar
• Hameed, W. U., Nisar, Q. A., & Wu, H. -C. (2021). Relationships between external knowledge, internal innovation, firms’ open innovation performance, service innovation and business performance in the Pakistani hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102745
   Google Scholar
• He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
   Google Scholar
• Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309343469/
   Google Scholar
• Hilman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309343469
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, W. H. (2007). Strategies for managing a portfolio of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 28(8), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.607
   Google Scholar
• Huang, S., Chen, J., & Liang, L. (2018). How open innovation performance responds to partner heterogeneity in China. Management Decision, 56(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2017-0452
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, M. (2018). Organisational ambidexterity and firm performance: burning research questions for marketing scholars. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(1–2), 178–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1441175
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, M., Filser, M., Harms, R., Kraus, S., Chang, M. -L., & Cheng, C. -F. (2017). Family firm configurations for high performance: The role of entrepreneurship and ambidexterity: Family firm configurations. British Journal of Management, 29(4), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12263
   Google Scholar
• Ibidunni, A. S., Kolawole, A. I., Olokundun, M. A., & Ogbari, M. E. (2020). Knowledge transfer and innovation performance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs): An informal economy analysis. Heliyon, 6(8), e04740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04740
   Google Scholar
• Iborra, M., Safón, V., & Dolz, C. (2022). Does ambidexterity consistency benefit small and medium-sized enterprises’ resilience? Journal of Small Business Management, 60(5), 1122–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.2014508
   Google Scholar
• Ikhsan, K., Almahendra, R., & Budiarto, T. (2017). Contextual ambidexterity in SMEs in Indonesia: A study on how it mediates organizational culture and firm performance and how market dynamism influences its role on firm performance. International Journal of Business and Society, 181), 369–390.
   Google Scholar
• Indarti, N., & Postma, T. (2013). Effect of networks on product innovation: Empirical evidence from Indonesian SMEs. Journal of Innovation Management, 1(2), 140–158. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_001.002_0010
   Google Scholar
• Ioanid, A., Deselnicu, D. C., & Militaru, G. (2018). The impact of social networks on SMEs’ innovation potential. Procedia Manufacturing, 22, 936–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.133
   Google Scholar
• Jacob, J., Mei, M. -Q., Gunawan, T., & Duysters, G. (2022). Ambidexterity and innovation in cluster SMEs: Evidence from Indonesian manufacturing. Industry and Innovation, 29(8), 948–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2022.2072712
   Google Scholar
• Jaidi, N., Siswantoyo, Liu, J., Sholikhah, Z., & Andhini, M. M. (2022). Ambidexterity behavior of creative SMEs for disruptive flows of innovation: A comparative Study of Indonesia and Taiwan. Journal of Open Innovation, Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030141
   Google Scholar
• Jansen, J. J. P., Simsek, Z., & Cao, Q. (2012). Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1286–1303. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1977
   Google Scholar
• Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
   Google Scholar
• Kahn, K. B., & Candi, M. (2021). Investigating the relationship between innovation strategy and performance. Journal of Business Research, 132, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.009
   Google Scholar
• Kamboj, S., Kumar, V., & Rahman, Z. (2017). Social media usage and firm performance: The mediating role of social capital. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 7(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-017-0468-8
   Google Scholar
• Kapucu, N., & Hu, Q. (2014). Understanding multiplexity of collaborative emergency management networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014555645
   Google Scholar
• Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8(4), 283–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127010387409
   Google Scholar
• Kenis, P., & Knoke, D. (2002). How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 275. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134355
   Google Scholar
• Knight, E., & Harvey, W. (2015). Managing exploration and exploitation paradoxes in creative organisations. Management Decision, 53(4), 809–827. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2014-0124
   Google Scholar
• Kuckertz, A., Br€andle, L., Gaudig, A., Hinderer, S., Arturo Morales Reyes, C., Prochotta, A., Steinbrink, K. M., & Berger, E. S. C. (2020). Startups in times of crisis – a rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00169
   Google Scholar
• Kuratko, D. F., & Hoskinson, S. (Eds.). (2018). The challenges of corporate entrepreneurship in the disruptive age (Vol. 28). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1048-4736201828
   Google Scholar
• Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 638–658. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318922
   Google Scholar
• Lavie, D., Kang, J., & Rosenkopf, L. (2011). Balance within and across domains: the performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organization Science, 22(6), 1517–1538. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0596
   Google Scholar
• Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797–818. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083085
   Google Scholar
• Lazer, D., & Friedman, A. (2007). The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(4), 667–694. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.059
   Google Scholar
• Lee, I. H., & Lévesque, M. (2023). Do resource-constrained early-stage firms balance their internal resources across business activities? If so, should they? Journal of Business Research, 159, 113410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113410
   Google Scholar
• Levinthal, D., & March, J. G. (1993). The Myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(Winter Special Issue), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009
   Google Scholar
• Lin, H. -E., & McDonough, E. F., III. (2014). Cognitive frames, learning mechanisms, and innovation ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(S1), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12199
   Google Scholar
• Lin, H. -E., McDonough, E. F., Lin, S. -J., & Lin, C. -Y. -Y. (2012). Managing the exploitation/exploration paradox: The role of a learning capability and innovation ambidexterity: Managing the exploitation/exploration paradox. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00998.x
   Google Scholar
• Liu, W., Sidhu, A., Beacom, A. M., & Valente, T. W. (2017). Social Network Theory. In P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner, & L. van Zoonen (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects (pp. 1–12). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0092
   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(5), 646–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
   Google Scholar
• Lu, Y., Wu, J., Peng, J., & Lu, L. (2020). The perceived impact of the Covid-19 epidemic: Evidence from a sample of 4807 SMEs in Sichuan Province, China. Environmental Hazards, 19(4), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1763902
   Google Scholar
• Majid, A., Yousaf, M., Yasir, Z., & Yousaf, Z. (2020). Network capability and strategic performance in SMEs: The role of strategic flexibility and organizational ambidexterity. Eurasian Business Review, 11(4), 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-020-00165-7
   Google Scholar
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
   Google Scholar
• McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1133–1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/SICI1097-026619991220:12<1133:AID-SMJ74>3.0.CO;2-7
   Google Scholar
• Molina-Morales, F. X., & Martínez-Fernández, M. T. (2010). Social Networks: Effects of Social Capital on Firm Innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(2), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00294.x
   Google Scholar
• Ngammoh, N., Mumi, A., Popaitoon, S., & Issarapaibool, A. (2023). Enabling social media as a strategic capability for SMEs through organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 35(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2021.1980682
   Google Scholar
• Nofiani, D., Indarti, N., Lukito-Budi, A. S., & Manik, H. F. G. G. (2021). The dynamics between balanced and combined ambidextrous strategies: A paradoxical affair about the effect of entrepreneurial orientation on SMEs’ performance. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 13(5), 1262–1286. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-09-2020-0331
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
   Google Scholar
• O’reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
   Google Scholar
• Papadopoulos, T., Baltas, K. N., & Balta, M. E. (2020). The use of digital technologies by small and medium enterprises during COVID-19: Implications for theory and practice. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102192
   Google Scholar
• Parida, V., Patel, P. C., Wincent, J., & Kohtamaki, M. (2015). Network Partner Diversity, Network Capability, and Sales Growth in Small Firms. Journal of Business Research, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.017
   Google Scholar
• Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Posen, H. E., & Levinthal, D. (2012). Chasing a Moving Target: Exploitation and Exploration in Dynamic Environments. Management Science, 58(3), 587–601. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1420
   Google Scholar
• Priyanka, Jain, M., & Dhir, S. (2022). Antecedents of organization ambidexterity: A comparative study of public and private sector organizations. Technology in Society, 70, 102046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102046
   Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058
   Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
   Google Scholar
• Randall, C., Edelman, L., & Galliers, R. (2017). Ambidexterity Lost? Compromising Innovation and the Exploration/Exploitation Plan. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 28(1), 1047–8310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2017.04.001
   Google Scholar
• Rintala, O., Laari, S., Solakivi, T., Töyli, J., Nikulainen, R., & Ojala, L. (2022). Revisiting the relationship between environmental and financial performance: The moderating role of ambidexterity in logistics. International Journal of Production Economics, 248, 108479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108479
   Google Scholar
• Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More Than Network Structure: How Knowledge Heterogeneity Influences Managerial Performance and Innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25(6), 541–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.398
   Google Scholar
• Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. (2015). A Network Perspective on Individual-Level Ambidexterity in Organizations. Organization Science, 25(6), 1860–1877. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0901
   Google Scholar
• Ross, W., & Robertson, D. (2007). Compound Relationships Between Firms. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 108–123. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.3.108
   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(3), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.376
   Google Scholar
• Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant Governance Structures: An Analysis of Structural and Relational Embeddedness in the Steel and Semiconductor Industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/SICI1097-026620000321:3<369:AID-SMJ93>3.0.CO;2-M
   Google Scholar
• Russo, A., & Vurro, C. (2010). Cross-Boundary Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in the Fuel Cell Industry. European Management Review, 7(1), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1057/emr.2010.2
   Google Scholar
• Sahi, G. K., Gupta, M. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2020). The effects of strategic orientation on operational ambidexterity: A study of Indian SMEs in the industry 4.0 era. International Journal of Production Economics, 220, 107395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.05.014
   Google Scholar
• Saratchandra, M., Shrestha, A., & Murray, P. A. (2022). Building knowledge ambidexterity using cloud computing: Longitudinal case studies of SMEs experiences. International Journal of Information Management, 67, 102551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102551
   Google Scholar
• Senaratne, C., & Wang, C. L. (2018). Organisational Ambidexterity in UK High-Tech SMEs: An Exploratory Study of Key Drivers and Barriers. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 25(6), 1025–1050. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-04-2018-0110
   Google Scholar
• Seo, E., Song, J., & Jin, C. (2022). Heterogeneity of optimal balance between exploration and exploitation: The moderating roles of firm technological capability and industry alliance network position. Industry and Innovation, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2022.2036598
   Google Scholar
• Sherer, P. D., & Lee, K. (2002). Institutional Change in Large Law Firms: A Resource Dependency and Institutional Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069287
   Google Scholar
• Shiri, G., Sauvée, L., & Abdirahman, Z. -Z. (2015). Bridge and Redundant Ties in Networks: The impact on Innovation in Food SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2014-0049
   Google Scholar
• Shymko, Y., & Diaz, A. (2012). A Resource Dependence, Social Network and Contingency Model of Sustainability in Supply Chain Alliances. Journal Business Excellence, 5(5), 502–520. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEX.2012.048800
   Google Scholar
• Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.x
   Google Scholar
• Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal Structure and New Venture Performance in Emerging Economic Sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785590
   Google Scholar
• Sitinjak, I., Malau, A. R., & Silalahi, A. D. K. (2022). Organizational Ambidexterity and Public Policy Support as Determinants of Business Resilience Among SMEs in Medan, Indonesia: Findings From Regression and fsQCA. 7th International Conference on Business and Industrial Research (ICBIR), 389–394. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBIR54589.2022.9786517
   Google Scholar
• Sosa, M. (2011). Where Do Creative Interactions Come From? The Role of Tie Content and Social Networks. Organization Science, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0519
   Google Scholar
• Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2018). Information technology, knowledge management and environmental dynamism as drivers of innovation ambidexterity: A study in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 1367–3270. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0448
   Google Scholar
• Stadler, C., Rajwani, T., & Karaba, F. (2014). Solutions to the Exploration/Exploitation Dilemma: Networks as a New Level of Analysis: Exploration/Exploitation Dilemma. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(2), 172–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12015
   Google Scholar
• Sun, B., & Lo, Y. J. (2014). Achieving Alliance Ambidexterity Through Managing Paradoxes of Cooperation: A New Theoretical Framework. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(2), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2013-0011
   Google Scholar
• Teece, D. L. (2017). Towards a Capability Theory of (Innovating) Firms: Implications for Management and Policy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(3), 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bew063
   Google Scholar
• Teece, D. L., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Agility: Risk, Uncertainty and Entrepreneurial Management in the Innovation Economy. California Management Review, 58(4), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13
   Google Scholar
• Tehseen, S., & Sajilan, S. (2016). Network Competence Based on Resource-Based View and Resource Dependence Theory. International Journal of Trade and Global Markets, 9(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTGM.2016.074138
   Google Scholar
• Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., & Fobrun, C. (1979). Social Network Analysis for Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.2307/257851
   Google Scholar
• Tiwana, A. (2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.666
   Google Scholar
• Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
   Google Scholar
• Tuli, K. L., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Kohli, A. K. (2010). Ties That Bind: The Impact of Multiple Types of Ties with a Customer on Sales Growth and Sales Volatility. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.1.36
   Google Scholar
• Turner, N., & Lee-Kelley, L. (2013). Unpacking the theory on ambidexterity: An illustrative case on the managerial architectures, mechanisms and dynamics. Management Learning, 44(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507612444074
   Google Scholar
• Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for Managing Ambidexterity: A Review and Research Agenda: Mechanisms for Managing Ambidexterity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.x
   Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L., & O’reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
   Google Scholar
• Utomo, P., & Simatupang, B. (2019). The Role of Alliances Formation in Organizational Ambidexterity and Firm Competitiveness: An Empirical Study in Indonesia Digital Startup Firms). International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8(08), 1404–1409.
   Google Scholar
• Van Beers, C., & Zand, F. (2013). R&D Cooperation, Partner Diversity, and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Production and Innovation Management, 31(2), 292–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12096
   Google Scholar
• Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2013). Strategic Ambidexterity in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Implementing Exploration and Exploitation in Product and Market Domains. Organization Science, 24(5), 1459–1477. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0790
   Google Scholar
• Wang, C. L., & Rafig, L. (2014). Ambidextrous Organizational Culture, Contextual Ambidexterity and New Product Innovation: A Comparative Study of UK and Chinese High-tech Firms. British Journal of Management, 25(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00832.X
   Google Scholar
• Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous Organizational Culture, Contextual Ambidexterity and New Product Innovation: A Comparative Study of UK and Chinese High-tech Firms: Contextual Ambidexterity. British Journal of Management, 25(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00832.x
   Google Scholar
• Warnerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
   Google Scholar
• Wenke, K., Zapkau, F. B., & Schwens, C. (2021). Too small to do it all? A meta-analysis on the relative relationships of exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity with SME performance. Journal of Business Research, 132, 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.018
   Google Scholar
• Widjaja, A. W., & Sugiarto. (2022). Strategic orientation’s dilemma of batik retailers in Jakarta. Heliyon, 8(6), e09622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09622
   Google Scholar
• Wilden, R., Hohberger, J., Devinney, T. M., & Lavie, D. (2018). Revisiting James March (1991): Whither exploration and exploitation? Strategic Organization, 16(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018765031
   Google Scholar
• Xie, X., & Wang, H. (2021). How to bridge the gap between innovation niches and exploratory and exploitative innovations in open innovation ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 124, 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.058
   Google Scholar
• Xie, X., Wu, Y., Palacios-Marqués, D., & Ribeiro-Navarrete, S. (2022). Business networks and organizational resilience capacity in the digital age during COVID-19: A perspective utilizing organizational information processing theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 177, 121548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121548
   Google Scholar
• Yuan, C., Xue, D., & He, X. (2021). A balancing strategy for ambidextrous learning, dynamic capabilities, and business model design, the opposite moderating effects of environmental dynamism. Technovation, 103, 102225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102225
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L., Wang, Y., & Wei, Z. (2018). How Do Managerial Ties Leverage Innovation Ambidexterity for Firm Growth? Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, 55(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2018.1526075
   Google Scholar