Network Ambidextrous Capabilities, Routine Replication, and Opportunity Iteration of Digital Startups—Evidence from China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses
2.1. Digital Startups and Opportunity Iteration Digitalization
2.2. Network Ambidextrous Capabilities
2.3. Research Hypothesis
2.3.1. The Direct Effect of Network Ambidextrous Capabilities on Opportunity Iteration
- (1)
- Network exploitation capability and Opportunities Iteration
- (2)
- Network Exploration Capability and Opportunity Iteration
2.3.2. Mediating Effect of Routine Replication
- (1)
- Mediating Effect of General Routines Replication
- (2)
- The Mediating Effect of flexible routines replication
2.3.3. The Moderating Role of Digital Leadership
- (1)
- The moderating role of digital leadership in the relationship between Replication of general routines and opportunity iteration
- (2)
- The Moderating Role of Digital Leadership in replication of flexible routines and Opportunity Iteration
2.3.4. Moderated Mediation Effects
- (1)
- Moderation of General Routines Replication by Digital Leadership
- (2)
- The Moderating Effect of Digital Leadership on the Mediating Role of Replication of Flexible Routines
3. Research Design
3.1. Sample Selection and Data Sources
3.2. Variable Measurement
- (1)
- Network Exploitation Capability: This refers to a company’s ability to leverage and develop existing network connections and relationships to optimize its current resource base (e.g., market knowledge). This paper draws on the studies by Walter (2006) [82], Mitrega et al. (2012) [83], and Faroque (2022) [66], measuring network development capability through inter-organizational and personal coordination, conflict management, and internal communication. A total of 10 items were included.
- (2)
- Network Exploration Capability: This is the ability to establish new network connections and expand existing ones by maintaining an open attitude toward new relationships. Accordingly, this paper adopts the research of Mitrega (2012) [83], Parida (2009) [84], and Faroque (2022) [66], measuring network utilization capability through new relationship exploration and pairing. A total of seven items were included.
- (3)
- Replication of General Routines: This involves the incremental dynamic process of knowledge transfer between firms. This paper draws on the measurement methods of general routines replication by Pentland (2003) [40] and Wei Long (2020) [58]. The replication of general routines was measured using a validated five-item scale developed by Wei Long (2023) [57]. Specifically, these were: (1) the technical operation manuals of partner companies, which are task-aligned, are easy to imitate or describe; (2) the company adopts the work methods and practices of experienced partner companies when executing tasks; (3) through regular assessments, the company can participate in the revision of standards; (4) the company relies on clear strategic planning to implement organizational changes and address internal and external challenges; and (5) the company tends to maintain existing partnerships to strengthen knowledge transfer channels.
- (4)
- Replication of Flexible Routines: This refers to the breakthrough dynamic process of knowledge transfer between firms. Accordingly, this paper adopts the measurement methods for flexible routines replication from Bresman (2013) [53], Chen Yanliang (2014) [11], and Wei Long (2020) [58]. The replication of flexible routines was measured using a validated five-item scale developed by Wei Long (2023) [57]. Specifically, they were as follows: (1) task-related rules acquired from partner companies are difficult to articulate and cannot be clearly documented; (2) task execution methods and practices learned from partner companies require hands-on experience to master; (3) through periodic project feedback, the company actively participates in the revision of standards; (4) the company quickly adopts, promotes, and applies new organizational standards to address internal and external challenges; and (5) the company tends to expand its range of partnerships to establish knowledge transfer channels.
- (5)
- Opportunity Iteration: This describes the ongoing process of entrepreneurial opportunity development, essentially involving the adjustment, refinement, or upgrading of existing opportunities. This paper, therefore, draws on the studies by Wood and McKinley (2017) [1], Liu Zhiyang et al. (2019) [2], and Guo Runping (2022) [7] to measure opportunity iteration. A total of five items were included: (1) continuously experimenting with and adjusting original entrepreneurial opportunities even after the company is established; (2) quickly modifying and refining original entrepreneurial opportunities in response to environmental changes; (3) rapidly adjusting or improving original entrepreneurial opportunities based on feedback from stakeholders (e.g., customers, employees, investors, government agencies, partners); (4) frequently adjusting and refining original entrepreneurial opportunities; and (5) regularly upgrading and updating original entrepreneurial opportunities.
- (6)
- Digital Leadership: This is the social influence process in which leaders use digital technologies to transform individuals, groups, and organizations regarding attitudes, emotions, thinking, behavior, and performance towards digital strategies [85] (Avolio et al., 2014). Therefore, this paper draws on the studies by Sawy (2016) [70], Avolio (2014) [85], Van (2019) [86] and Q Yao (2024) [18], measuring digital leadership in five areas: digital communication and coordination, digital motivation and change management, digital team building and maintenance, digital technology expertise, and digital trust cultivation. A total of five items were included as follows: (1) leaders facilitate internal and external communication and coordination through digital technologies; (2) leaders utilize digital technologies for organizational incentives and management transformation; (3) leaders establish and maintain digital teams; (4) leaders possess digital thinking and expertise in digital technologies; and (5) leaders foster digital trust within the organization.
- (7)
- Control Variables: Research indicates that executives’ entrepreneurial experience positively influences the acquisition of entrepreneurial knowledge, thereby promoting entrepreneurial success [87]. Therefore, this study includes entrepreneurial experience as a control variable at the individual level, measured by whether the entrepreneur has previously founded another company before establishing the current one (1 = yes; 0 = no). At the firm level, Petruzzelli et al. (2018) suggest that company size impacts innovation development [88]. This study controls for company size, as outlined in “Maturity of Knowledge Inputs and Innovation Value: The Moderating Effect of Firm Age and Size”, by measuring the number of employees (1–20, 21–50, 51–100, 101–200, and over 200). Previous research emphasizes that industry type affects firms’ innovation strategy choices and recommends controlling for industry type to avoid bias [89]. Accordingly, this study controls for industry type, categorized into five sectors based on the “2020 China Digital Economy Development White Paper”: software industry, internet industry, telecommunications, electronic information manufacturing, and other industries. Guo (2020) [90] points out that an open external technological environment allows digital startups to access necessary technology and knowledge at relatively low costs, influencing firm growth. This study controls for the openness of the technological environment, measured by the ease of access to technology and the associated costs, based on existing research.
4. Hypothesis Testing and Analysis
4.1. Common Method Bias Test
4.2. Reliability and Validity Analysis
4.3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis
4.4. Regression Analysis
- (1)
- Main Effect Test
- (2)
- Mediation Effect Test
- (3)
- Test of Moderating Effect
- (4)
- Moderated Mediation Effect Test
4.5. Robustness Check
5. Discussion
5.1. Research Conclusions
- (1)
- The micro-dynamics of digital startups’ network ambidextrous capabilities are crucial for achieving opportunity iteration. Both network exploitation and exploration capabilities positively impact opportunity iteration under the explore–exploit dichotomy. This finding corroborates previous research by Faroque [66] and Shi et al. [94], which demonstrated that an organization’s ambidextrous capabilities positively impact opportunity development and performance. Specifically, network exploitation capability helps digital startups leverage existing relationships to acquire resources, expand their knowledge base, and iterate opportunities for improving and updating digital products or services. Startups with network exploration capability can reconfigure or restructure existing networks, enabling them to integrate and absorb complementary network resources and capital, thereby creating comprehensive market intelligence, identifying market changes, and adapting through opportunity iteration.
- (2)
- From a capability perspective, the structural dimensions of general routines and flexible routines replication mediate the relationship between network ambidextrous capabilities and opportunity iteration. This conclusion supports the perspective of Wei [58] that “the impact mechanisms of routine replication on innovation may vary across different dimensions from the capability perspective”. Replication of general routines partially mediates the effect of network exploitation on opportunity iteration, while replication of flexible routines partially mediates the effect of network exploration on opportunity iteration. This suggests that replication of general routines, supported by network exploitation capability, constructs a resource base through fixed cognitive traces, resulting in clear, stable explicit rules or behavior patterns, which are then adjusted and refined through imitation. In contrast, replication of flexible routines, supported by network exploration capability, expands the resource base through improvisational cognitive traces, leading to diverse, dynamic implicit rules or behavior patterns, which promote the improvement and upgrading of entrepreneurial opportunities through optimized practices.
- (3)
- Digital leadership positively moderates the impact of routine replication on opportunity iteration and mediates the relationship between network ambidextrous capabilities and opportunity iteration. Consistent with Yao et al. [18], who emphasized the role of digital communication, coordination, digital motivation, change management, and digital trust cultivation in facilitating organizational digital transformation, our findings highlight that effective communication and coordination under digital leadership create seamless information channels. Motivational measures foster a positive team environment, and the cultivation of digital trust enhances organizational identification. These factors collectively improve the efficiency of knowledge integration during the routine replication process, accelerating the organization’s ability to identify, evaluate, and validate opportunities. Aligned with Nambisan’s [23] view that “digital teams are crucial for opportunity creation in digital startups”, our study shows that leaders’ digital skills and the establishment and maintenance of digital teams enable organizations to effectively leverage digital technologies. This capability strengthens the process of identifying and developing diverse entrepreneurial opportunities during routine replication. In summary, under the influence of digital leadership, organizations actively learn from and adopt best general routines and flexible routines from partner organizations. This optimization of structure and processes significantly accelerates the iteration of entrepreneurial opportunities in a digital context.
5.2. Theoretical Contributions
5.3. Managerial Implications
5.4. Research Limitations and Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wood, M.S.; Mckinley, W. After the venture: The reproduction and destruction of entrepreneurial opportunity. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2017, 11, 18–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.Y.; Li, B.; Zhuang, X.H. Research on iterative mechanism of entrepreneurial opportunity in start-up enterprises. Stud. Sci. Sci. 2019, 37, 500–516. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, H.; Hu, L.; Kim, Y. How Does Iteration of Entrepreneurial Opportunities in User Enterprises Affect Entrepreneurial Performance? A Dual Case Study Based on Dual Strategic Orientations. Systems 2023, 11, 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadreddin, A.; Chan, Y.E. Pathways to developing information technology-enabled capabilities in born-digital new ventures. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2023, 68, 102572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nambisan, S. Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2017, 41, 1029–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.J.; Hu, L.Y.; Gu, Y.Z. Research on the impact of user experience on entrepreneurial opportunity iteration—An exploratory case study based on Xiaomi. Stud. Sci. Sci. 2022, 40, 2035–2044. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, R.P.; Han, M.Y.; Li, S.M. Customer orientation, entrepreneurial learning, and opportunity iteration in digital new ventures. Stud. Sci. Sci. 2023, 41, 1661–1670. [Google Scholar]
- Ge, B.; Wang, Q.; Yao, M. From ideas to entrepreneurial opportunity: A study on AI. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2022, 39, 618–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faroque, A.R.; Morrish, S.C.; Kuivalainen, O.; Sundqvist, S.; Torkkeli, L. Microfoundations of network exploration and exploitation capabilities in international opportunity recognition. Int. Bus. Rev. 2021, 30, 101767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, A.; Hoopes, D.G.; Knott, A.M. Redesigning routines for replication. Strateg. Manag. J. 2015, 36, 851–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.L.; Gao, C. Study on the Replication Mechanism of Routines in Organizations Based on Organization Ambidexterity Competence. China Ind. Econ. 2014, 28, 147–159. [Google Scholar]
- Winter, S.G.; Szulanski, G.; Ringov, D.; Jensen, R.J. Reproducing knowledge: Inaccurate replication and failure in franchise organizations. Organ. Sci. 2012, 23, 672–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brewer, M.B. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bul. 1991, 17, 475–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardichvili, A.; Cardozo, R.; Ray, S. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. J. Bus. Ventur. 2003, 18, 105–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Lin, X.; Sheng, F. Digital leadership and exploratory innovation: From the dual perspectives of strategic orientation and organizational culture. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 902693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neely Jr, B.H.; Lovelace, J.B.; Cowen, A.P.; Hiller, N.J. Metacritiques of upper echelons theory: Verdicts and recommendations for future research. J. Manag. 2020, 46, 1029–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fenwick, M.; McCahery, J.A.; Vermeulen, E.P. Will the world ever be the same after COVID-19? Two lessons from the first global crisis of a digital age. Eur. Bus. Organ. Law. Rev. 2021, 22, 125–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, Q.; Tang, H.; Liu, Y.; Boadu, F. The penetration effect of digital leadership on digital transformation: The role of digital strategy consensus and diversity types. J. Enterp. Inf. 2024, 37, 903–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Autio, E. Digitalisation, Ecosystems, Entrepreneurship and Policy. 2017. Available online: https://tietokayttoon.fi/documents/1927382/2116852/20_2017_Digitalisation%2C+ecosystems%2C+entrepreneurship+and+policy/6b383210-70de-491f-b0df-38de52699458?version=1.0 (accessed on 18 August 2024).
- Legner, C.; Eymann, T.; Hess, T.; Matt, C.; Böhmann, T.; Drews, P.; Ahlemann, F. Digitalization: Opportunity and challenge for the business and information systems engineering community. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidson, E.; Vaast, E. Digital entrepreneurship and its sociomaterial enactment. In Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2010; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Dutot, V.; Van Horne, C. Digital entrepreneurship intention in a developed vs. emerging country: An exploratory study in France and the UAE. Transnatl. Corp. Rev. 2015, 7, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nambisan, S.; Lyytinen, K.; Majchrzak, A.; Song, M. Digital innovation management. MIS Q. 2017, 41, 223–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.M.; Liu, Y.; Chen, H.T. Digital entrepreneurship: Research on its elements and core generation mechanism. FEM 2020, 42, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, J.; Meng, Q.S.; Zhang, Y.; Jin, J. Digital entrepreneurship: The future directions of entrepreneurship theory and practice in the digital era. Stud. Sci. Sci. 2018, 36, 1801–1808. [Google Scholar]
- Kahre, C.; Hoffmann, D.; Ahlemann, F. Beyond business-IT alignment-digital business strategies as a paradigmatic shift: A review and research agenda. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa Beach, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2017; pp. 4706–4715. [Google Scholar]
- Vial, G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2021, 13–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, R.P.; Gong, R.; Lu, P. Strategic Learning, Organizational Agility, and Opportunity Iteration: An Empirical Study Based on Digital Startups. FEM Foreign Econ. Manag. 2024, 46, 22–37. [Google Scholar]
- Broekhuizen, T.L.; Broekhuis, M.; Gijsenberg, M.J.; Wieringa, J.E. Introduction to the special issue–Digital business models: A multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 847–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adler, P.S.; Kwon, S.W. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 17–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naudé, P.; Sutton-Brady, C. Relationships and networks as examined in Industrial Marketing Management. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 79, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gronum, S.; Verreynne, M.L.; Kastelle, T. The role of networks in small and medium-sized enterprise innovation and firm performance. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2012, 50, 257–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamakawa, Y.; Yang, H.; Lin, Z.J. Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performance implications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit. Res. Policy 2011, 40, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felicetti, A.M.; Corvello, V.; Ammirato, S. Digital innovation in entrepreneurial firms: A systematic literature review. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2024, 18, 315–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svensson, C.; Udesen, J.; Webb, J. Alliances in financial ecosystems: A source of organizational legitimacy for fintech startups and incumbents. Technol. Innov. Manag. 2019, 9, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bembom, M.; Schwens, C. The role of networks in early internationalizing firms: A systematic review and future research agenda. Eur. Manag. J. 2018, 36, 679–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, E.Y.; Fisher, G.; Lounsbury, M.; Miller, D. Optimal distinctiveness: Broadening the interface between institutional theory and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 2017, 38, 93–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, H.; Guo, H.; Shen, R. Organisational regulatory legitimacy, entrepreneurial orientation, and SME innovation: An optimal distinctiveness perspective. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2019, 31, 833–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spigel, B. The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2017, 41, 49–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldman, M.S.; Pentland, B.T. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Adm. Sci. Q. 2003, 48, 94–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreuzer, T.; Lindenthal, A.K.; Oberländer, A.M.; Röglinger, M. The effects of digital technology on opportunity recognition. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2022, 64, 47–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvarez, S.A.; Barney, J.B. Entrepreneurial opportunities and poverty alleviation. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2014, 38, 159–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, M.L.; Shapiro, C. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Am. Econ. Rev. 1985, 75, 424–440. [Google Scholar]
- Mubarak, M.F.; Petraite, M. Industry 4.0 technologies, digital trust and technological orientation: What matters in open innovation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 161, 120332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steininger, D.M. Linking information systems and entrepreneurship: A review and agenda for IT-associated and digital entrepreneurship research. Inf. Syst. J. 2019, 29, 363–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofacker, C.; Golgeci, I.; Pillai, K.G.; Gligor, D.M. Digital marketing and business-to-business relationships: A close look at the interface and a roadmap for the future. Eur. J. Mark. 2020, 54, 1161–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, H.; Li, Y.; Li, Y.H. Impact of Innovation Strategy and Political Strategy on the Performance of Digital New Ventures from Optimal Distinctiveness Perspective. R. D Manag. 2021, 33, 12–26. [Google Scholar]
- Annarelli, A.; Battistella, C.; Nonino, F.; Parida, V.; Pessot, E. Literature review on digitalization capabilities: Co-citation analysis of antecedents, conceptualization and consequences. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 166, 120635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkataraman, S.; Sarasvathy, S.D.; Dew, N.; Forster, W.R. Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Whither the promise? Moving forward with entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2012, 37, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bessant, J.; Öberg, C.; Trifilova, A. Framing problems in radical innovation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 1284–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spee, P.; Jarzabkowski, P.; Smets, M. The influence of routine interdependence and skillful accomplishment on the coordination of standardizing and customizing. Organ. Sci. 2016, 27, 759–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heimeriks, K.H.; Schijven, M.; Gates, S. Manifestations of higher-order routines: The underlying mechanisms of deliberate learning in the context of postacquisition integration. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 703–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bresman, H. Changing routines: A process model of vicarious group learning in pharmaceutical RD. Acad. Manag. J. 2013, 56, 35–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutcliffe, K.M.; McNamara, G. Controlling decision-making practice in organizations. Organ. Sci. 2001, 12, 484–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parmigiani, A.; Howard-Grenville, J. Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2011, 5, 413–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szulanski, G.; Jensen, R.J. Overcoming stickiness: An empirical investigation of the role of the template in the replication of organizational routines. MDE Manag. Decis. Econ. 2004, 25, 347–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, L.; Dang, X.H.; Li, L.X. The Impact of Routines Replication and Inter-organizational Dependence on Innovation Catalyst: A Moderated Mediating Model. Manag. Rev. 2023, 35, 131. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, L.; Dang, X.H. Impact of routine replication on bootleg innovation: The moderating effect of network closure and knowledge base. Sci. Res. Manag. 2020, 41, 30. [Google Scholar]
- Ruggles, R. The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1998, 40, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 242–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friesl, M.; Larty, J. Replication of routines in organizations: Existing literature and new perspectives. Int. J. Manag. 2013, 15, 106–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, Y.; Shao, Y.F.; Wu, Y.B. Routine replication and breakthrough innovation: The moderating role of knowledge power. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2021, 33, 426–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Segarra-Ciprés, M.; Bou-Llusar, J.C. External knowledge search for innovation: The role of firms’ innovation strategy and industry context. J. Knowl. Manag. 2018, 22, 280–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benner, M.J.; Tushman, M.L. Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2003, 28, 238–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winter, S.G.; Szulanski, G. Replication as strategy. Organ. Sci. 2001, 12, 730–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faroque, A.R.; Torkkeli, L.; Sultana, H.; Rahman, M. Network exploration and exploitation capabilities and foreign market knowledge: The enabling and disenabling boundary conditions for international performance. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2022, 101, 258–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.D.; Wu, H.M. Routine Replication and Environmental Munificence Mediation of Human Capital and Knowledge Transfer. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2023, 40, 141–150. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, S.H.; Majid, A.; Yasir, M.; Javed, A. Social capital and business model innovation in SMEs: Do organizational learning capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation really matter? Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2021, 24, 191–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvarez, S.A.; Barney, J.B.; McBride, R.; Wuebker, R. Realism in the study of entrepreneurship. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2014, 39, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Sawy, P.; Kraemmergaad, H.; Amsinck, A. Vinther How LEGO built the foundations and enterprise capabilities for digital leadership. MIS Q. Exec. 2016, 15, 141–166. [Google Scholar]
- Yücebalkan, B.; Eryılmaz, B.; Özlü, K.; Keskin, Y.B.; Yücetürk, C. Digital leadership in the context of digitalization and digital transformations. Curr. Acad. Stud. Soc. Sci. 2018, 1, 489–505. [Google Scholar]
- Waal, B.D.; van Outvorst, F.; and Ravesteyn, P. Digital leadership: The objective-subjective dichotomy of technology revisited. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance ECMLG, Bucharest, Romania, 10–11 November 2016; pp. 52–61. [Google Scholar]
- Li, W.; Liu, K.; Belitski, M.; Ghobadian, A.; O’Regan, N. e-Leadership through strategic alignment: An empirical study of small-and medium-sized enterprises in the digital age. J. Inf. Technol. 2016, 31, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, A.; Klarner, P.; Hess, T. How do chief digital officers pursue digital transformation activities? The role of organization design parameters. Long. Range Plan. 2020, 53, 101890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lane, J.; Leonardi, P.; Contractor, N.; DeChurch, L. Teams in the Digital Workplace: Technology’s Role for Communication, Collaboration, and Performance. Small Group Res. 2024, 55, 139–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatima, T.; Masood, A. Impact of digital leadership on open innovation: A moderating serial mediation model. J. Knowl. Manag. 2024, 28, 161–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berman, S.; Korsten, P. Leading in the connected era. Strategy Leadersh. 2014, 42, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynn Pulley, M.; Sessa, V.I. E-leadership: Tackling complex challenges. Ind. Commer. Train. 2001, 33, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benitez, J.; Arenas, A.; Castillo, A.; Esteves, J. Impact of digital leadership capability on innovation performance: The role of platform digitization capability. Inf. Manag. 2022, 59, 103590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudito, P.; Sinaga, M.F. Digital Mastery: Building Digital Leadership to Win the Era of Disruption; Gramedia Main Library: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Zimmerman, M.A.; Zeitz, G.J. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 414–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walter, A.; Auer, M.; Ritter, T. The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 2006, 21, 541–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitrega, M.; Forkmann, S.; Ramos, C.; Henneberg, S.C. Networking capability in business relationships—Concept and scale development. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2012, 41, 739–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parida, V.; Lahti, T.; Wincent, J. Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: A study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2016, 12, 1147–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avolio, B.J.; Sosik, J.J.; Kahai, S.S.; Baker, B. E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 105–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Wart, M.; Roman, A.; Wang, X.; Liu, C. Operationalizing the definition of e-leadership: Identifying the elements of e-leadership. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2019, 85, 80–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Politis, D. The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2005, 29, 399–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petruzzelli, A.M.; Ardito, L.; Savino, T. Maturity of knowledge inputs and innovation value: The moderating effect of firm age and size. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 86, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Z.L.; Wong, P.K. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ. Sci. 2004, 15, 481–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, H.; Wang, C.; Su, Z.; Wang, D. Technology push or market pull? Strategic orientation in business model design and digital start-up performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2020, 37, 352–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrout, P.E.; Bolger, N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, X.; Su, L.; Cui, A.P. A meta-analytic study on exploration and exploitation. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2020, 35, 97–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giardino, C.; Bajwa, S.S.; Wang, X.; Abrahamsson, P. Key challenges in early-stage software startups. In Proceedings of the Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming: 16th International Conference, XP 2015, Helsinki, Finland, 25–29 May 2015; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. Proceedings 16. pp. 52–63. [Google Scholar]
- Prommer, L.; Tiberius, V.; Kraus, S. Exploring the future of startup leadership development. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 2020, 14, e00200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s a | CR | KMO | AVE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Network exploitation capability | 0.715~0.769 | 0.925 | 0.9 | 0.95 | 0.554 | 0.744 | ||||||
2. Network exploration capability | 0.697~0.761 | 0.892 | 0.9 | 0.917 | 0.541 | 0.507 | 0.712 | |||||
3. Replication of general routines | 0.740~0.771 | 0.87 | 0.9 | 0.878 | 0.572 | 0.535 | 0.706 | 0.756 | ||||
4. Replication of flexible routines. | 0.715~0.756 | 0.857 | 0.9 | 0.869 | 0.546 | 0.517 | 0.509 | 0.6 | 0.719 | |||
5. Opportunity Iteration | 0.741~0.782 | 0.875 | 0.9 | 0.879 | 0.585 | 0.591 | 0.619 | 0.69 | 0.633 | 0.765 | ||
6. Digital Leadership | 0.725~0.779 | 0.873 | 0.9 | 0.878 | 0.579 | 0.596 | 0.603 | 0.61 | 0.608 | 0.613 | 0.76 | |
7. Technological environment openness | 0.736~0.785 | 0.872 | 0.9 | 0.869 | 0.577 | 0.575 | 0.558 | 0.622 | 0.531 | 0.53 | 0.66 | 0.76 |
Variables: | Experience | Size | Industry | TEO | NEIC | NERC | RGR | RFR | DL | OI | VIF |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Experience | 1 | 1.248 | |||||||||
Size | 0.379 ** | 1 | 1.235 | ||||||||
Industry | 0.14 | −0.031 | 1 | 1.019 | |||||||
TEO | 0.151 ** | 0.18 ** | −0.008 | 1 | 1.412 | ||||||
NEIC | 0.324 ** | 0.3 ** | 0.085 | 0.386 ** | 1 | 1.542 | |||||
NERC | 0.073 | 0.068 | −0.043 | 0.357 ** | 0.337 ** | 1 | 1.391 | ||||
RGR | 0.05 | 0.127 * | −0.031 | 0.383 ** | 0.341 ** | 0.429 ** | 1 | 1.432 | |||
RFR | 0.097 | 0.082 | −0.04 | 0.34 ** | 0.347 ** | 0.322 ** | 0.364 ** | 1 | 1.327 | ||
DL | 0.121 * | 0.135 ** | 0.012 | 0.393 ** | 0.374 ** | 0.359 ** | 0.345 ** | 0.363 ** | 1 | 1.386 | |
OI | 0.12 * | 0.107 * | −0.032 | 0.317 ** | 0.37 ** | 0.366 ** | 0.395 ** | 0.38 ** | 0.344 ** | 1 | |
Mean | 0.6 | 2.82 | 2.19 | 4.4231 | 4.3016 | 4.3948 | 4.3909 | 4.4022 | 4.3349 | 4.2796 | |
Standard Deviation | 0.491 | 1.282 | 0.891 | 1.30163 | 1.26787 | 1.26562 | 1.28185 | 1.26534 | 1.30814 | 1.30878 |
Variable | OI | RGR | RFR | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | M9 | M10 | M11 | M12 | M13 | |
Control variable | |||||||||||||
Experience | 0.065 | 0.001 | 0.059 | 0.076 | 0.051 | 0.024 | 0.049 | 0.046 | 0.053 | −0.034 | −0.087 | 0.045 | 0.04 |
Size | 0.027 | −0.023 | 0.028 | 0.004 | 0.025 | −0.031 | 0.027 | −0.044 | 0.004 | 0.071 | 0.03 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
Industry | −0.03 | −0.057 | −0.018 | −0.022 | −0.029 | −0.044 | −0.02 | −0.037 | −0.028 | −0.025 | −0.047 | −0.002 | 0.007 |
TEO | 0.302 *** | 0.204 *** | 0.2 *** | 0.182 *** | 0.201 *** | 0.125 | 0.137 ** | 0.058 | 0.063 | 0.375 *** | 0.294 *** | 0.332 *** | 0.251 *** |
Independent variable | |||||||||||||
NEIC | 0.303 *** | 0.235 *** | 0.151 ** | 0.251 *** | |||||||||
NERC | 0.287 *** | 0.229 *** | 0.164 ** | 0.23 *** | |||||||||
Mediator variable | |||||||||||||
RGR | 0.32 *** | 0.268 *** | 0.242 *** | ||||||||||
RFR | 0.305 *** | 0.253 *** | 0.205 *** | ||||||||||
Moderator variable | |||||||||||||
DL | 0.142 ** | 0.16 ** | |||||||||||
Interaction term | |||||||||||||
RGR × DL | 0.176 *** | ||||||||||||
RFR × DL | 0.211 *** | ||||||||||||
R2 | 0.107 | 0.176 | 0.179 | 0.194 | 0.189 | 0.234 | 0.233 | 0.277 | 0.288 | 0.152 | 0.199 | 0.118 | 0.164 |
Adj. R2 | 0.098 | 0.165 | 0.168 | 0.183 | 0.178 | 0.221 | 0.22 | 0.261 | 0.272 | 0.143 | 0.188 | 0.108 | 0.152 |
F | 11.039 | 15.636 | 15.993 | 17.67 | 17.099 | 18.548 | 18.454 | 17.39 | 18.352 | 16.442 | 18.193 | 12.227 | 14.319 |
Indirect Effect | Coefficient | Standard Error | 95% Confidence Interval | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||||
Replication of general routines | Low (−1 s.d) | 0.0192 | 0.0176 | −0.126 | 0.0567 |
Medium | 0.0627 | 0.0189 | 0.0286 | 0.103 | |
High (+1 s.d) | 0.1062 | 0.0282 | 0.0547 | 0.1644 | |
Criterion for Determining Moderated Mediation Effects | 0.0332 | 0.0106 | 0.0141 | 0.0555 | |
replication of flexible routines | Low (−1 s.d) | 0.0006 | 0.0169 | −0.0342 | 0.0329 |
Medium | 0.0487 | 0.0168 | 0.0199 | 0.0847 | |
High (+1 s.d) | 0.0968 | 0.0277 | 0.0485 | 0.1559 | |
Criterion for Determining Moderated Mediation Effects | 0.0367 | 0.012 | 0.0164 | 0.0634 |
Variable | OI | RGR | RFR | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | M7 | M8 | M9 | M10 | M11 | M12 | M13 | |
Control variable | |||||||||||||
Experience | 0.053 | 0.02 | 0.048 | 0.08 | 0.056 | 0.049 | 0.051 | 0.069 | 0.063 | −0.083 | −0.109 | −0.008 | −0.012 |
Size | 0.012 | −0.003 | 0.014 | 0.007 | 0.028 | −0.005 | 0.027 | −0.02 | 0.013 | 0.016 | 0.004 | −0.052 | −0.05 |
Industry | −0.056 | −0.063 | −0.045 | −0.039 | −0.05 | −0.047 | −0.043 | −0.044 | −0.044 | −0.054 | −0.06 | −0.019 | −0.011 |
TEO | 0.29 | 0.198 *** | 0.187 *** | 0.174 *** | 0.19 | 0.119 * | 0.125 * | 0.051 | 0.054 | 0.365 | 0.294 *** | 0.329 | 0.247 *** |
age | 0.038 | −0.041 | 0.037 | −0.001 | 0 | −0.058 | 0.006 | −0.049 | −0.016 | 0.124 | 0.063 | 0.126 | 0.125 |
attributes | −0.07 | −0.03 | −0.075 | −0.052 | −0.065 | −0.023 | −0.07 | −0.033 | −0.055 | −0.055 | −0.025 | −0.017 | −0.02 |
Independent variable | |||||||||||||
NEIC | 0.304 *** | 0.241 *** | 0.153 | 0.236 *** | |||||||||
NERC | 0.289 *** | 0.231 *** | 0.165 ** | 0.23 *** | |||||||||
Mediator variable | |||||||||||||
RGR | 0.317 *** | 0.27 *** | 0.243 *** | ||||||||||
RFR | 0.303 | 0.25 *** | 0.205 *** | ||||||||||
Moderator variable | |||||||||||||
DL | 0.144 ** | 0.159 ** | |||||||||||
Interaction term | |||||||||||||
RGR × DL | 0.175 *** | ||||||||||||
RFR × DL | 0.208 *** | ||||||||||||
R2 | 0.113 | 0.177 | 0.185 | 0.197 | 0.193 | 0.235 | 0.237 | 0.279 | 0.291 | 0.162 | 0.201 | 0.125 | 0.171 |
Adj. R2 | 0.098 | 0.162 | 0.169 | 0.181 | 0.177 | 0.219 | 0.22 | 0.259 | 0.271 | 0.149 | 0.186 | 0.111 | 0.155 |
F | 7.72 | 11.213 | 11.814 | 12.741 | 12.436 | 13.972 | 14.095 | 13.96 | 14.787 | 11.799 | 13.114 | 8.707 | 10.75 |
Indirect Effect | Coefficient | Standard Error | 95% Confidence Interval | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||||
Replication of general routines | Low (−1 s.d) | 0.0184 | 0.0168 | −0.105 | 0.0554 |
Medium | 0.0591 | 0.019 | 0.0256 | 0.0986 | |
High (+1 s.d) | 0.0999 | 0.0285 | 0.0479 | 0.1583 | |
Criterion for Determining Moderated Mediation Effects | 0.0311 | 0.0104 | 0.0123 | 0.0524 | |
Replication of flexible routines | Low (−1 s.d) | 0.0013 | 0.0164 | −0.0329 | 0.0333 |
Medium | 0.0487 | 0.0165 | 0.0202 | 0.0833 | |
High (+1 s.d) | 0.0961 | 0.0279 | 0.0463 | 0.1541 | |
Criterion for Determining Moderated Mediation Effects | 0.0362 | 0.0121 | 0.0153 | 0.062 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yu, X.; Jiang, F.; Luo, J. Network Ambidextrous Capabilities, Routine Replication, and Opportunity Iteration of Digital Startups—Evidence from China. Systems 2024, 12, 314. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12080314
Yu X, Jiang F, Luo J. Network Ambidextrous Capabilities, Routine Replication, and Opportunity Iteration of Digital Startups—Evidence from China. Systems. 2024; 12(8):314. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12080314
Chicago/Turabian StyleYu, Xu, Fang Jiang, and Junmei Luo. 2024. "Network Ambidextrous Capabilities, Routine Replication, and Opportunity Iteration of Digital Startups—Evidence from China" Systems 12, no. 8: 314. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12080314
APA StyleYu, X., Jiang, F., & Luo, J. (2024). Network Ambidextrous Capabilities, Routine Replication, and Opportunity Iteration of Digital Startups—Evidence from China. Systems, 12(8), 314. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12080314