Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T22:44:52.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Firm Growth Performance and Relative Innovation Orientation of Exploration vs Exploitation: Moderating Effects of Cluster Relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2020

Zhendong Li ,
Marina Yue Zhang Open the ORCID record for Marina Yue Zhang [Opens in a new window]  and
Huiying Zhang
Zhendong Li
Affiliation:
Hangzhou Dianzi University, China
Marina Yue Zhang*
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Huiying Zhang
Affiliation:
Tianjin University, China
*
Corresponding author: Marina Yue Zhang (myzhang@swin.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article studies the latent mechanisms underlying the non-linear correlation between a firm's relative innovation orientation of exploration vs exploitation and performance. We also investigate the moderating effects of cluster relationships on this relationship. Using a sample of 638 SMEs in four industry clusters in Tianjin, China, we confirm an inverted U-shaped correlation between a firm's relative innovation orientation and performance, and explicate the latent mechanisms underlying such an inverted U shape. We find that the number and strength of a firm's cluster relationships can moderate this inverted U-shaped curve: the former moves the turning point of the inverted U shape toward exploratory orientation, and the latter moves the turning point toward exploitative orientation. For improved performance, we discuss appropriate innovation balancing strategies for cluster firms with different cluster relationships, and optimal cluster strategies under different innovation-balancing conditions. This study adds to the increasing scholarly effort on latent mechanisms behind U-shaped relationships and moderating effects on such relationships in management research.

摘要

摘要

本文研究了企业的相对创新导向（RIO）与成长绩效之间的非线性关系，以及企业的集群关系对上述非线性关系的调节作用。企业的相对创新导向是由其探索式创新 （ER）与利用式创新（EI）的差值与其总和之比决定的，即RIO=（ER-EI）/（ER+EI）。通过对中国天津地区的638家位于集群中的中小企业的问卷调查，我们确认了企业的相对创新导向与绩效之间存在一种倒U型的关系，并研究了这种关系产生的机理。我们发现企业的集群关系的数量和强度对这种倒U型关系有不同的调节作用：企业的集群关系的数量会使这种倒U型曲线更偏向于探索式创新，而集群关系的强度则有利于该曲线更偏向于利用式创新。 通过这些发现，我们讨论了企业在不同的集群关系中应该如何选择合适的创新平衡战略；同时，我们也讨论了企业在不同的创新平衡条件下，应该如何选择最佳集群战略。本文对管理研究中倒U型关系的机理及调节因素做出了理论贡献并做出了实证检验。

Аннотация

АННОТАЦИЯ

В данной статье исследуются скрытые механизмы, которые лежат в основе нелинейной корреляции между относительной ориентацией на разработку или совершенствование инноваций и производительностью компании. Мы также изучаем влияние отношений внутри кластера на эту взаимосвязь. На основании выборки из 638 малых и средних предприятий в четырех промышленных кластерах в Тяньцзине (Китай), мы находим подтверждение перевернутой U-образной зависимости между относительной инновационной ориентацией и производительностью компании, а также раскрываем скрытые механизмы, лежащие в основе такой перевернутой U-образной кривой. Мы приходим к выводу о том, что количество и сила связей компании внутри кластера могут видоизменить эту перевернутую U-образную кривую: первый фактор перемещает поворотную точку перевернутой U-образной кривой в сторону ориентации на разработку, а второй – в сторону ориентации на совершенствование инноваций. В целях повышения производительности, мы рассматриваем подходящие стратегии для баланса инноваций в кластерных компаниях с различными отношениями внутри кластера, а также оптимальные кластерные стратегии при различных условиях для баланса инноваций. Эта работа вносит свой вклад в обширные научные исследования по изучению скрытых механизмов, лежащих в основе U-образной зависимости, а также факторов воздействия на такие взаимосвязи в области управления.

Resumen

RESUMEN

Este artículo estudia los mecanismos latentes que subyacen la correlación no linear entre la orientación relativa a la innovación de una empresa de exploración versus explotación y desempeño. También investigamos los efectos moderadores de las relaciones de clústeres en esta relación. Usando una muestra de 638 pymes en cuatro clústeres en Tianjin, China, confirmamos una correlación en forma de U invertida entre la orientación innovadora relativa y el desempeño, y explicamos los mecanismos latentes que subyacen esta forma de U invertida. Encontramos que la cantidad y la fortaleza de las relaciones de los clústeres de una empresa pueden moderar esta curva en forma de U invertida: los movimientos anteriores al punto de inflexión hacia la orientación explotadora. Para mejorar el desempeño, discutimos estrategias de equilibrar la innovación apropiada para empresas de clúster con diferentes relaciones de clúster, y estrategias de clúster optimas bajo diferentes condiciones de equilibrio de innovación. Este estudio agrega al crecimiento esfuerzo académico sobre los mecanismos latentes detrás de las relaciones en forma de U y los efectos moderadores en estas relaciones en la investigación en gestión.

Keywords

cluster relationshipsexploitative innovationexploratory innovationfirm performanceinverted U-shaped curverelative innovation orientation集群关系利用式创新探索式创新公司业绩倒U曲线相对创新导向отношения внутри кластерасовершенствующие инновациирадикальные инновациипроизводительность компанийперевернутая U-образная криваяотносительная ориентация на инновации.relaciones de clústerinnovación explotadorainnovación exploratoriadesempeño de la empresacurva en forma de U invertidaorientación relativa a la innovación
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 143 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Can Huang

References

REFERENCES

Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Arikan, A. T. 2009. Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters. Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 658.Google Scholar
Arora, A., Athreye, S., & Huang, C. 2016. The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators. Research Policy, 45(7): 1352–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atuahene-Gima, K. 2005. Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4): 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auh, S., & Menguc, B. 2005. Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12): 1652–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D. W., & Wright, M. 2018. Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1): 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. 2007. Does market orientation facilitate balanced innovation programs? An organizational learning perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(4): 316–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, M., & Leker, J. 2013. Exploration and exploitation in product and process innovation in the chemical industry. R&D Management, 43(3): 196–212.Google Scholar
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. 2001. A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 292–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, G. G. 2005. Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3): 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, G. G., & Zaheer, A. 2007. Geography, networks, and knowledge flow. Organization Science, 18(6): 955–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2002. Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4): 676–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 238–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boumgarden, P., Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. R. 2012. Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6): 587–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. 2002. Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2): 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2): 349–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. 2009. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. 2009. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4): 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. 2006. Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 544–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, Y., Goodale, J. C., Byun, G., & Ding, F. 2018. Strategic flexibility in new high-technology ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 55(2): 265–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, C., Lee, J., & Schilling, M. A. 2010. Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science, 21(3): 625–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiol, C. M. 1995. Thought worlds colliding: The role of contradiction in corporate innovation processes. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 19(3): 71–91.Google Scholar
Fleming, L. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1): 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. 1991. Regression diagnostics: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209–226.Google Scholar
Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & van den Oord, A. 2008. Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37(10): 1717–1731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giuliani, E. 2007. The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: Evidence from the wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(2): 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z.-L. 2016. Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7): 1177–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4): 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkpen, A. C., & Wang, P. 2006. An examination of collaboration and knowledge transfer: China–Singapore Suzhou industrial park. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4): 779–811.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., Volberda, H. W., & van Den Bosch, F. A. 2005. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57: 351–363.CrossRefGoogle 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(6): 1183–1194.Google Scholar
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combination capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383–397.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. 2006. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 797–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. 1998. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40(3): 112–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H.-L., & Tang, M.-J. 2010. Vertical integration and innovative performance: The effects of external knowledge sourcing modes. Technovation, 30(7): 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, S.-J., Lin, H.-E., & McDonough, E. F. 2016. Knowledge Acquisition in Production Networks: Effective Strategies for System Integrators and Component Specialists. Management and Organization Review, 12(4): 659–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. 2010. With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1): 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, C.-H. 2011. The effects of innovation alliance on network structure and density of cluster. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1): 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madhavan, R., Gnyawali, D. R., & He, J. 2004. Two's company, three's a crowd? Triads in cooperative-competitive networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6): 918–927.Google Scholar
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organization learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, B. T., & Folta, T. B. 2011. Performance differentials within geographic clusters. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1): 104–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, P., & Mudambi, R. 2005. Analytical differences in the economics of geography: The case of the multinational firm. Environment and Planning A, 37(10): 1857–1876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudambi, R., & Swift, T. 2011. Proactive R&D management and firm growth: A punctuated equilibrium model. Research Policy, 40(3): 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niesten, E., & Stefan, I. 2019. Embracing the paradox of interorganizational value co-creation–value capture: A literature review towards paradox resolution. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(2): 231–255.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozer, M., & Zhang, W. 2015. The effects of geographic and network ties on exploitative and exploratory product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7): 1105–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps, C. C. 2010. A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 890–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porter, M. E. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2): 73–84.Google Scholar
Pouder, R., & Caron, H. S. J. 1996. Hot spots and blind spots: Geographical clusters of firms and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1192–1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, M., Wang, Y., Zhang, M. Y., & Zhu, H. 2014. The evolution of R&D capability in multinational corporations (MNCs) in emerging markets: Evidence from China. International Journal of Technology Management, 64 (2–4): 210–231.CrossRefGoogle 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(3): 369–386.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sammarra, A., & Biggiero, L. 2008. Heterogeneity and specificity of inter–firm knowledge flows in innovation networks. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4): 800–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasabuchi, S. 1980. A test of a multivariate normal mean with composite hypotheses determined by linear inequalities. Biometrika, 67(2): 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. 2007. Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7): 1113–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, F. K., & Egelhoff, W. G. 2000. Innovative capabilities of a firm and the use of technical alliances. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(2): 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. 2010. Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3): 456–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawali, D. R. 2011. When do relational resources matter? Leveraging portfolio technological resources for breakthrough innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4): 797–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stettner, U., & Lavie, D. 2014. Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 35(13): 1903–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, T. E. 2000. Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8): 791–811.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripsas, M. 1997. Surviving radical technological change through dynamic capability: Evidence from the typesetter industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(2): 341–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. 1996. Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. 2009. Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2): 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Q., & von Tunzelmann, N. 2000. Complexity and the functions of the firm: Breadth and depth. Research Policy, 29(7): 805–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications: Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zang, J. 2018. Structural holes, exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation. Management Decision, 56(8): 1682–1695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. 2012. How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9): 1090–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar