Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:55:57.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Building dynamic capability through sequential ambidexterity: a case study of the transformation of a latecomer firm in China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2022

Xinmin Peng Open the ORCID record for Xinmin Peng [Opens in a new window] ,
Martin Lockett Open the ORCID record for Martin Lockett [Opens in a new window] ,
Dianguang Liu  and
Baoxin Qi
Xinmin Peng
Affiliation:
School of Business, Ningbo University, Ningbo, People's Republic of China
Martin Lockett
Affiliation:
Nottingham University Business School China, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo, People’s Republic of China
Dianguang Liu*
Affiliation:
School of Business, Ningbo University, Ningbo, People's Republic of China
Baoxin Qi
Affiliation:
Shanghai International College of Intellectual Property, Tongji University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
*
Author for correspondence: Dianguang Liu, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sequential ambidexterity is a specific dynamic capability which can play an important role in the technological catch-up of latecomer firms with limited knowledge and resources. Through a longitudinal case study, the trajectory of a latecomer firm's transformation from a generic technology manufacturer to a world-class innovator is analysed. This paper finds that sequential ambidexterity can be the basis of building dynamic capability, which enabled a latecomer to become a market leader through three major transitions. It shows how the building of dynamic capability through sequential ambidexterity is dependent on four mechanisms: senior manager cognition of the environment; organization learning orientation; organization structure design; and process reconfiguration. Building dynamic capability is also dependent on alignment between these mechanisms within the firm. Theoretically, the paper enhances understanding of the micro-foundations of developing dynamic capability through sequential ambidexterity. It also suggests that three contingent dimensions in determining the optimal approach to ambidexterity are: (i) industry leading versus catch-up firms, (ii) the scale of the firm, and (iii) the diversity of the downstream market. Furthermore, the paper provides practical insights for latecomer firms seeking to catch-up with industry leaders.

Keywords

Dynamic capabilityLatecomer firmsSequential ambidexterityTechnological catch-up
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 28 , Special Issue 3: Dynamic Capabilities: New Ideas , May 2022 , pp. 502 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2022

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.)

References

Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Raisch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California Management Review, 58(4), 36–58.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, 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
China Textile University (1999). The development of the China apparel industry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Center for Textile and Apparel Research.Google Scholar
Chou, C., Yang, K., & Chiu, Y. (2018). Managing sequential ambidexterity in the electronics industry, roles of temporal switching capability and contingent factors. Industry and Innovation, 25(8), 752–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, C. M. (2013). The innovator's dilemma. When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danneels, E. (2011). Trying to become a different type of company: Dynamic capability at Smith Corona. Strategic Management Journal, 32(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, X., Yu, Y., & Zhang, N. (2016). Evolution and coevolution, dynamic knowledge capability building for catching-up in emerging economies. Management and Organization Review, 12(4), 717–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In Killman, R. H., Pondy, L. R. & Sleven, D. (Eds.), The management of organization (pp. 167–188). New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines, team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, N., & Andersson, S. (2021). Predictive and effectual decision-making in high-tech international new ventures – A matter of sequential ambidexterity. International Business Review, 30(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. H., & Madsen, T. L. (2012). Micro-foundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1351–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, M. P., Serra, F. A. R., & Reis, N. R. (2011). On the adaptation of the firm's strategies to the international business environment: A knowledge-based and evolutionary perspective. European Journal International Management, 5(6), 633–655.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. St. Paul, Minneapolis: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Foss, N. J., & Kirkegaard, M. F. (2020). Blended ambidexterity: The copresence of modes of ambidexterity in William Demant Holding. Long Range Planning, 53(6). doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galvin, P., Rice, J., & Liao, T. (2014). Applying a Darwinian model to the dynamic capabilities view: Insights and issues. Journal of Management and Organization, 20(2), 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavetti, G. (2005). Cognition and hierarchy: Rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities’ development. Organization Science, 16(6), 599–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. (2000). Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., & Corley, K.G. (2017). Finding theory-method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3), 284–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, C. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, L., Zhang, M. Y., Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Cai, H. (2019). Seizing windows of opportunity by using technology-building and market-seeking strategies in tandem: Huawei's sustained catch-up in the global market. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(3), 849–879.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
Hallberg, N. L., & Felin, T. (2020). Untangling infinite regress and the origins of capability. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(1), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Review and assessment of managerial impact on strategic change. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1281–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobday, M. (1995). Innovation in East Asia: Diversity and development. Technovation, 15(2), 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Healey, M. P. (2011). Psychological foundations of dynamic capabilities: Reflexion and reflection in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1500–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, L. (1998). Crisis construction and organizational learning: Capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization Science, 9(4), 506–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamberg, J. A., & Tikkanen, H. (2006). Changing sources of competitive advantage, cognition and path dependence in the Finnish retail industry 1945–1995. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(5), 811–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K., & Malerba, F. (2017). Catch-up cycles and changes in industrial leadership: Windows of opportunity and responses of firms and countries in the evolution of sectoral systems. Research Policy, 46(2), 338–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, A. Y., Massini, S., & Peeters, C. (2011). Microfoundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routine. Organization Science, 22(1), 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., & Filippini, R. (2012). The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliometric investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization, 10, 450–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A. III, & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability, resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A. III, & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ossenbrink, J., Hoppmann, J., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2019). Hybrid ambidexterity: How the environment shapes incumbents’ use of structural and contextual approaches. Organization Science, 30(6), 1319–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, X. M., & Wu, D. (2013). Tie diversity, ambidexterity and upgrading of the latecomer firm in global production networks: Evidence from China's plastic equipment industry. Chinese Management Studies, 7(2), 310–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, X., Zheng, S., Collinson, S., Wu, X., & Wu, D. (2020). Sustained upgrading of technological capability through ambidextrous learning for latecomer firms. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 28(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Prange, C. (2012). Ambidextrous internationalization strategies: The case of Chinese firms entering the world market. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, S, Fan, D., Huang, X., & Li, Z. (2021) The micro-foundation of ambidextrous opportunity identification in international expansion. International Business Review, 30(1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, X., Zhu, F., Sun, M., Müller, R., & Yu, M. (2020). Facilitating efficiency and flexibility ambidexterity in project-based organizations: An exploratory study of organizational antecedents. Project Management Journal, 51(5), 556–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, T. (2016). The perilous leap between exploration and exploitation. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1688–1698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities, the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J. (2018). Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory. Journal of Management and Organization, 24(3), 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1147–1161.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vahlne, J. E., & Ivarsson, I. (2014). Globalization of Swedish multinational companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1411–1431.Google Scholar
Vahlne, J. E., & Jonsson, A. (2017). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA. International Business Review, 26(1), 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications, design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955.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
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar