Antecedents and Performance of Ambidextrous Strategies

The antecedents for strategy selection were divided into those related to the uncertainty of the environment, the resources of the company, structural conditions, the behavioral context relating to processes, norms, and values of the company, its age and size, and the abilities of the managerial staff and leadership.

Uncertainty of the environment was determined through the prism of dynamics, complexity, and unpredictability in the environment. The respondents expressed their opinions on particular features of their company’s environment over the previous three years. The results are shown in Table 4.8.

Environment dimensions

I disagree (%)

It’s hard to say (%)

I agree (%)

DE 1: Changes on the market were very intensive (significant, strong)

66.2

0.3

33.5

DE 2: Changes were frequent

79.8

0.6

19.6

DE 3: Changes were fast

79.8

4.1

29.1

DE 4: Our customers regularly expected new products

52.3

5.5

42.2

DE 5: Product demand changed often and quickly

63.3

0

36.7

DE 6: Over the last year nothing changed on the market*

35.8

0.4

63.8

Dynamics of the environment (DE)

Me = 3

СЕ 1: There were many diverse entities on the market

11.2

1.0

87.8

CE 2: There were considerable differences between clients’ tastes

61.8

1.1

37.1

CE 3: Changes which occurred in demand, competition, technology, and regulations were discontinuous and nonlinear

48.5

24.6

26.9

CE 4: There were complex, difficult to recognize relationships between entities on the market

47.8

11.3

40.9

Complexity of the environment (CE)

Me = 4

UE 1: Behaviors of market stakeholders (vendors, customers, competitors) were unpredictable

78.9

6.5

14.6

UE 2: Behaviors or other entities on the market were unpredictable

77.8

6.0

16.2

UE 3: Economic, social or political, and legal changes were difficult to predict

62.3

11.9

25.8

UE 4: It is difficult to predict how the technology will advance in our industry over the next few years

69.2

3.3

27.5

UE 5: Information on market changes was difficult to access

70.4

3.9

25.7

Unpredictability of the environment (UE)

Me = 3

* In the case of reverse claims, the grades for calculating the means were reversed in order to achieve compliance in the scale.

For the sake of simplicity, a grouping was made: “I disagree” (grades 1—3), “It’s difficult to say” (grade 4), and “I agree” (grades 5-7).

The dynamics of the environment was assessed by the companies as weak, which means that—in the opinion of the majority of respondents— changes on the market in the last three years were not very frequent or major. The only factor that nearly half of the respondents agreed with is that customers regularly expected new products. Kruskal-Wallis tests (at p < 0.05) indicated statistically significant differences due to product specialization and the scope of the market covered. The entities operating on the domestic market consider their environment to be more dynamic than those operating on regional or local markets, while in the case of those operating on international and global markets, the opinions of respondents varied widely. Higher scores for dynamics were also pointed out by representatives from diversified companies, especially those with unrelated diversification. No statistically significant differences were noted in terms of the size of the enterprise.

As far as the complexity of the environment is concerned, the vast majority confirmed this complexity by the existence of many different market players (87.8%), while only 40% agreed that there were significant differences in customers’ tastes or the fact that links between market players were difficult to recognize. Nearly half of the respondents did not indicate that the changes that occurred in demand, competition, technology, or regulation were discontinuous and nonlinear. In this respect, it can be concluded that—apart from the fact that many and different players operate on the market—the complexity of the environment is low. There were no statistically significant differences (Kruskal-Wallis tests) in the complexity of the environment in relation to the company’s sector, industry, size, market, or product specialization.

Similarly, the unpredictability of the environment was considered to be low. Nearly 80% of the respondents did not agree that the behavior of market stakeholders (suppliers, customers, and competitors) or other market players was unpredictable, and nearly 70% also did not share the opinion that it was difficult to predict technological progress in their industry or that information about market changes was difficult to obtain. To a slightly lesser extent (62.3%), the respondents did not believe that the economic, social, or political/legal changes in the last three years were difficult to predict. Therefore, it can be concluded that the majority of respondents considered the environment to be predictable. In this case, some statistically significant differences were noted (Kruskal-Wallis tests). A greater unpredictability of the environment—especially in the area of socioeconomic, political, and legal changes as well as technological ones—was pointed out by companies operating in the finance and insurance sectors, and difficulties in predicting technological progress were also pointed out by large companies and those operating on the global market more frequently.

In light of the presented results, the surveyed businesses perceived their environment in the last three years as quite certain, presenting relatively few and minor changes, low complexity, and high predictability. Mann- Whitney U Tests were carried out to check whether there are differences in the perception of the environment depending on the company’s choice of a pure ambidextrous strategy or another developmental path. The results of these statistical tests indicate that there were no statistically significant differences (Table 4.9; p > 0.05) with one exception, namely companies pursuing an ambidextrous strategy rated changes in demand, competition, technology, and regulation as nonlinear and discontinuous to a higher degree, which indicates a greater complexity of their environment. The results of logistic regression, on the other hand, indicate that in such a case the probability of following an ambidextrous strategy is 23% higher than another type of strategy (p = 0.02).

Apart from this one case, no other statistically significant differences were found, although the mean rank for individual factors determining the dynamics, complexity, and unpredictability of the environment was, in many cases, higher in companies with an ambidextrous strategy than in other companies. Hypothesis H2 must therefore be rejected. The uncertainty of the environment expressed in higher (a) dynamics, (b) complexity, and (c) unpredictability is not positively linked to the choice of an

Table 4.9 Ambidextrous Strategy and Discontinuity and Nonlinearity of Changes in the Environment—Mann-Whitney U Test and Logistic Regression

Mann-Whitney U Test

Pure

ambidextrous

strategy

Other

development

strategy

Rank comparison

Effect, r

Me

Rank

mean

Me

Rank

mean

U

Z

P

СЕ 3: Changes which occurred in demand, competition, technology, and regulations were discontinuous and nonlinear

4

250.9

3

220.5

20252.5

-2.30

0.02

0.2

Logistic

regression

Grade

Wald Chi- square

Odds quotient

P

CE 3: Changes which occurred in demand, competition, technology, and regulations were discontinuous and nonlinear

0.21

5.6

1.23

0.02

ambidextrous strategy, and therefore the uncertainty of the environment does not affect the choice of ambidextrous strategy by companies operating in Poland.

This finding was most likely due to the fact that a significant portion of the companies with a pure ambidextrous strategy were manufacturing companies, operating in various industrial processing industries, and the environment was more certain, according to the respondents. In addition, the respondents assessed changes in the environment only from the perspective of the last three years and perhaps a broader timeframe is needed to see the turbulence and uncertainty of the environment which is so often highlighted in the literature (e.g., Cao, 2011; Eroglu &c Hofer, 2014).

Access to resources is connected with the environment, or more precisely with abundance in the environment, because in an abundant environment it is possible to obtain the resources necessary to implement strategic objectives faster and easier. On the other hand, it may also induce resource interdependence on external actors, and co-created and shared resources not only require appropriate coordination, but may also create the risk of conflict, which may in turn hinder the implementation of the strategy. Therefore, the resource slack—the difference between the company’s resources and the needs of its current operations—becomes an important element here. The resource slack not only encourages exploration activities and the search for new paths of development, but it also reduces competition for resources between internal units of the organization and reduces the need to share them. Table 4.10 presents the opinions of respondents on the resources available to their companies, in terms of access to resources, the associated slack, and resource interdependence.

More than 90% of the companies indicate that they are able to easily and quickly obtain the necessary resources from the market, and that their structure and ownership corresponds to the objectives and requirements of the strategy they have adopted. Over 60% of the respondents were of the opinion that their resources are sufficient to carry out both exploration and exploitation activities, and that possible resource needs can be satisfied at a relatively low cost, thanks to the significant supply of such resources. About half of the companies do not share the view that they have more resources than promising ideas, and that they have few resources that can be used for new strategic initiatives in the short term. On the other hand, nearly half of the surveyed companies agree with this state of affairs. Nearly 40% of entities have significant resources for training and rewarding creative and committed employees, while 60% indicate a lack of such resources. Therefore, it can be concluded that the majority of companies operating in Poland have adequate resources for the implementation of their adopted strategy, or they can easily obtain them; nearly half of them additionally have some resource slack. However, there are differences in this perception of resource conditions depending on the size of the company, sector, and market in which it operates (Kruskal-Wallis

Dimensions of resources

1 disagree (%)

It’s bard to say (%)

I agree (%)

ARRS 1: We have sufficient resources for operating activities (exploitation)

30.8

9.0

60.2

ARRS 2: We have sufficient resources to undertake innovation activities

32.3

4.1

63.6

ARRS 3: We can easily and quickly acquire the necessary resources from the market

5.1

0

94.9

ARRS 4: We can acquire the necessary resources at a relatively low cost, owing to their ample supply

23.0

11.4

65.6

ARRS 5: The structure and stock of resources is appropriate for the objectives and requirements of the adopted strategy

8.9

0

91.1

ARRS 6: We have more resources than promising ideas on how to use them

50.0

0.2

49.8

ARRS 7: We have few resources which can be used in short term to carry out new strategic initiatives*

54.6

1.9

43.5

ARRS 8: We have ample resources for training and rewarding employees who actively think of changes necessary in the company or new business problems

60.3

0.4

39.3

Access to resources and resource slack (ARRS)

Me = 5

IR 1: Our strategic (valuable) resources are cocreated and shared with outside partners

22.3

0

77.7

IR 2: The degree of resource-based codependence from other organizations is high

96.0

0.7

3.3

IR 3: Our strategic business units (subsystems separated by product and/or market, e.g., facilities, branches, offices) must closely cooperate to achieve objectives

22.3

0.2

77.5

IR 4: The degree to which the strategic business units must exchange information and share resources to fulfill their tasks is high

22.1

10.2

67.7

IR 5: The degree of sharing resources between various departments in the company is high

4.5

0.7

94.8

IR 6: Our company is characterized by relatively high external resource interdependence*

3.5

0.6

95.9

IR 7: Our company is characterized by relatively high internal resource interdependence*

74.0

0

26.0

Resource interdependence (IR)

Me = 5

* In the case of reverse claims, the grades for calculating the means were reversed in order to achieve compliance in the scale.

For the sake of simplicity, a grouping was made: “I disagree” (grades 1—3), “It’s difficult to say” (grade 4), and “I agree” (grades 5-7).

tests). In large companies, the structure and state of resources are more in line with the requirements of the strategy, and they have more resources to train and reward the best employees, especially if companies operate on international and global markets. Production companies have more abundant resources and greater resource slack, especially in the context of exploration and exploitation activities.

Given the interdependence of resources, the vast majority of companies (more than 90%) declared independence in terms of external relations, with most of them indicating that they co-create and share strategic resources with external partners. About three-fourths of the companies enjoy a high degree of internal interdependence, especially in terms of sharing resources between different departments in the company. In more than half of the companies surveyed, strategic business units have to cooperate closely, exchange information, and share resources in order to achieve their goals. Statistically significant differences were noted here regarding the sector, industry, and the scope of the company’s operations (Kruskal-Wallis tests). Relatively high resource interdependence is characteristic of commercial companies, co-creation and sharing of resources is typical of industrial processing entities, and close cooperation of strategic business units is characteristic of companies operating on the international market.

When analyzing and evaluating company’s resources depending on the choice (or not) of a pure ambidextrous strategy (Mann-Whitney U Tests), only a few correlations proved to be statistically significantly different as shown in Table 4.11.

Companies pursuing an ambidextrous strategy have more resources for exploitation and significant resources for training and rewarding employees who actively think about the changes needed in the company or new business issues. At the same time, in such entities, business units cooperate closely with each other and share strategic resources with external partners. However, it should be noted that over 90% of the companies in this group declared a high degree of resource interdependence. Moreover, the analysis with Spearman’s rank correlation (with p < 0.05) indicates a high correlation (R = 0.65) between having sufficient resources for exploitation (ARRS1) and exploration (ARRS2) and (R = 0.72) between having more resources than promising ideas on how to use them (ARRS6) and having a significant pool of resources that can be used in a short period of time for new initiatives (ARRS7 reversed), where in the latter case the respondents expressed varying opinions. Nearly half of them indicated a resource slack and half did not. A statistically significant, although weak and negative correlation is the one between ARRS5 and RI2 (R = -0.2), which means that if the availability and types of resources corresponded to the objectives and requirements of the ambidextrous strategy, then the respondent indicated a lower degree of resource dependency on other entities and vice versa, if the resource conditions did not meet the requirements of the

Mann-Whitney U Test

Pure

ambidextrous

strategy

Other

development

strategy

Rank comparison

Effect, r

Me

Rank

mean

Me

Rank

mean

U

Z

P

ARRS 1: We have sufficient resources for operating activities (exploitation)

5

251.6

4

220.2

20141.5

-2.38

0.02

0.1

ARRS 8: We have ample resources for training and rewarding employees who actively think of changes necessary in the company or new business problems

5

284.2

3

204.3

15227.5

-6.05

0.00

0.3

IR 1: Our

strategic (valuable) resources are co-created and shared with outside partners

6

253.6

5

219.2

19848.5

-2.60

0.01

0.1

IR 3: Our strategic business units (subsystems separated by product and/ or market, e.g., facilities, branches, offices) must closely cooperate to achieve objectives

6

251.2

5

220.4

20206.5

-2.33

0.02

0.1

strategy, then a high degree of dependency on other organizations was noted.

In view of the above results, Hypothesis H3 cannot be clearly confirmed and must be rejected. Only 4 out of 15 factors of resource conditions were statistically significantly different (p < 0.05); therefore, greater access to resources and the associated slack and lower resource interdependence are not positively linked to the choice of an ambidextrous strategy by companies operating in Poland. However, taking into account the mean rank for particular factors, it can be seen that in the group of companies implementing an ambidextrous strategy, possessing sufficient resources for exploration and exploitation activities, cooperating between strategic business units, and co-creating and sharing resources with external entities were assessed higher, with a relatively low external resource interdependence and a higher internal dependence, which probably results from the need to share resources, including knowledge, by exploration and exploitation units within the company. In assessing the resource slack, companies with an ambidextrous strategy were characterized by more slack in terms of having significant resources for training and remuneration of employees contributing to the company’s development and less in terms of free resources for new strategic initiatives, with very different opinions among the respondents.

Another group of antecedents were structural conditions. The respondents assessed the level of structural differentiation, decentralization, and formalization, including routine and non-routine activities and the degree of inter-functional and social relations. The results of the answers are presented in Table 4.12.

The companies taking part in the survey separate business units that specialize in specific functions and/or markets, separate line and staff cells, and have separate units that focus on current operations. They have fewer separate units focused on innovative activities and less often make a structural separation between exploration and exploitation activities. To a limited extent (about 6%) the companies cooperate with external entities in order to achieve innovative goals. Their organizational structures are quite centralized, although in a significant portion of them, the lower level managers participate in making strategic decisions. They are characterized by considerable formalization of both routine and non-routine tasks, a variety of inter-functional links, and strong social links.

The Kruskal-Wallis tests, however, showed statistically significant differences (at p < 0.05) in the structural characteristics of individual company groups. The larger the company, the stronger the structural differentiation and the greater the decentralization and formalization of routine activities. The wider the scope of the company’s operations (on international and global markets), the stronger the structural differentiation. The more

Table 4.12 Structural Features in the Opinion of the Companies Surveyed1

Structural dimensions

I disagree (%)

It’s bard to say (%)

I agree (%)

SD1: We have separate units concentrated on innovative activities (new product and market opportunities)

73.2

3.5

23.3

SD2: We conduct innovative activities in an alliance or another form of collaboration with external partner(s)

89.6

4.6

6.1

SD3: We have separate cells which concentrate on day-to-day activities (e.g., manufacturing, marketing, sales)

8.6

0

91.4

SD4: We use our external partners to commercialize our innovations

87.0

6.9

6.1

SD5: The innovation and exploitation activities (e.g., manufacturing) are structurally (physically) separated in our company

76.1

0.6

23.3

SD6: Our business units specialize in specific functions and/or markets

3.7

1.5

94.8

SD7: Linear cells (directly executing company objectives, e.g., manufacturing or sales departments) and staff cells (advisory, e.g., financial or HR department) are clearly separated in our company

9.0

1.7

89.3

Structural differentiation (SD)

Me = 3

Del: Lowest level managers participate in making strategic decisions

4.6

0

95.4

De2: Top management makes decisions regarding day-to-day operations*

18.1

0.5

81.4

De3: Employees have the freedom to choose the methods of working

81.9

1.1

17.0

De4: Employees may set their own objectives

81.0

0.4

18.6

De5: Employees have an influence on how their results are assessed

78.7

4.0

17.3

De6: Even minor issues must be referred to a manager for final decision*

17.8

0.2

82.0

Decentralization (Dc)

Me = 2.5

FRT1: Routine tasks are defined in written procedures

12.2

0.7

87.1

FRT2: Employees may act on their own, even if routine actions are in place*

87.7

0.2

12.1

FRT3: Written job descriptions are in place for all workstations responsible for routine tasks

12.4

0.5

87.1

(Continued)

Table 4.12 (Continued)

Structural dimensions

I disagree (%)

It’s bard to say (%)

I agree (%)

Formalization of routine tasks (FRT)

Me = 5

FNT1: We do not have written instructions for non-routine tasks

6.8

12.5

80.7

FNT2: Employees performing non-routine tasks may obtain necessary information without respecting the chain of command

83.3

9.9

6.8

FNT3: Employees may establish the best way to perform non-routine tasks themselves

87.0

6.6

6.4

Formalization of non-routine tasks (FNT)

Me = 3

Cfll: We regularly discuss the opportunities of cooperation between cells

6.1

7.7

86.2

CfI2: We coordinate the flow of knowledge between units

4.9

0.4

94.7

CfI3: Employees of various departments cooperate in the creation and testing of new ideas

2.7

0.2

97.1

CfI4: We establish inter-departmental teams to share knowledge

2.9

0.2

96.9

CfI5: We regularly set up temporary teams to boost cooperation between units

19.4

4.7

75.9

Cross-functional interfaces (Cfl)

Me = 5

SL1: In our company, there are many opportunities of information exchange between employees of various departments and of establishing contacts

6.3

1.3

92.4

SL2: Employees from various departments are comfortable when it is necessary to cooperate with employees of other departments

0.2

2.9

96.9

SL3: People in our company are available to one another

0

2.9

97.1

SL4: In our company, it is easy to talk (even if virtually) practically to everybody if need be, regardless of rank and position

0

2.8

97.2

SLS: Managers discourage employees from discussing work with people who are not their immediate superiors*

93.8

0.5

5.7

Social links (SL)

Me = 5

* In the case of reverse claims, the grades for calculating the means were reversed in order to achieve compliance in the scale.

For the sake of simplicity, a grouping was made: “I disagree” (grades 1—3), “It’s difficult to say” (grade 4), and “I agree” (grades 5-7).

diversified the company, the greater the formalization of routine tasks and the need for integration and coordination through inter-functional links. Moreover, those companies which indicated the implementation of innovative and exploitation activities through structural separation simultaneously declared stronger structural differentiation and greater decentralization and formalization of routine activities (positive and statistically significant Spearman’s rank correlations, with weak or moderate strength; R = 0.1-0.3).

The Mann-Whitney U Tests and the logistic regression also revealed statistically significant differences in structural characteristics between the companies that chose the ambidextrous strategy and those with other strategies. The results are presented in Tables 4.13 and 4.14.

The organizational structure of companies which simultaneously carry out exploration and exploitation activities (ambidextrous strategy) can be characterized by clear structural differentiation, more decentralization and formalization of routine tasks, and stronger, different cross-functional links. However, no statistically significant differences were noted with regard to the formalization of non-routine tasks or social links. This is due to the fact that in the vast majority of the companies surveyed, the formalization of non-routine tasks and social links were assessed as high, regardless of the type of strategy adopted.

Hypothesis H4, therefore, is partly confirmed: the organizational structure is positively linked to the choice of an ambidextrous strategy in the sense that the stronger the structural differentiation of exploration and exploitation tasks (a), the greater the decentralization of decisions (b), the greater

Table 4.13 Ambidextrous Strategy and Structural Features of the Surveyed Companies—Mann-Whitney U Tests

Specification

Pure

ambidextrous

strategy

Other

development

strategy

Rank comparison

Effect, r

Me

Rank

mean

Me

Rank

mean

U

Z

P

Structural

differentiation

(SD)

4

255.0

3

218.5

19622.5

-2.77

0.006

0.1

Decentralization

(De)

3.5

262.0

2.5

215.1

18578.5

-3.55

0.000

0.2

Formalization of routine tasks (FRT)

6

264.0

5

214.1

18275.0

-3.77

0.000

0.2

Cross-functional interfaces (Cfl)

5

247.2

4

222.3

20805.0

-2.16

0.03

0.1

Specification

Grade

Wald Chi- square

Odds quotient

P

Structural differentiation (SD)

0.27

10.2

1.31

0.001

Decentralization (De)

0.36

17.8

1.42

0.000

Formalization of routine tasks (FRT)

0.47

18.4

1.59

0.000

Cross-functional interfaces (Cfl)

0.31

4.41

1.35

0.03

the formalization of routine tasks (d), and the stronger the cross-functional interfaces (e), the greater the propensity of businesses operating in Poland to choose it. It is not clear, however, that the less formalized the non-routine tasks (c), or the stronger the social relations (f), the greater the company’s propensity to choose a pure ambidextrous strategy. This was influenced by the fact that the vast majority of respondents indicated a high formalization of tasks, regardless of their nature, and therefore the method of performing non-routine tasks must be approved by their superiors. On the other hand, in almost all of the companies people have good social connections, are available to each other, and have many opportunities to exchange information, and managers do not discourage them from discussing work.

Structural features relate to the level of the whole organization, but in implementing the strategy, the behavioral context is equally important. Therefore, the respondents were then asked to assess the company’s systems and processes from the perspective of their impact on people’s behavior, management systems, and cultural values. The results are presented in Table 4.15 with the behavioral context being a multiplicative measure of individual pairs of variables.

The systems and processes in the participating companies encouraged people to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their actions, with only a few of them involving a rigorous evaluation of the results achieved in relation to the objectives set, which was associated with receiving a reward or a penalty, and the use of feedback to improve the work. At the same time, the respondents from a vast majority of companies declared that these systems provide social support to employees. Using the organizational context grid proposed by Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004a), individual companies were classified according to the solutions they have adopted. The results are illustrated in Figure 4.2.

The high percentage of companies with a high performance context in both groups suggests that there are no statistically significant differences

Dimensions of the organizational context

I disagree (%)

It’s hard to say (%)

/ agree (%)

The systems and processes in our company encourage people to:

PM1: set demanding/ambitious goals

4.0

0

96.0

PM2: undertake creative actions instead of narrowly defined tasks

3.6

0.4

96.0

PM3: higher concentration on job well done than on reward

2.2

0

97.8

PM4: increase the task stretch (diversify tasks)

3.5

3.2

93.3

PM5: rigorously assess of achieved results against set goals, followed by reward or punishment

82.3

13.9

3.8

PM6: take responsibility for the results of one’s work

2.4

0.2

97.4

PM7: use feedback regarding the assessment of one’s work to correct and improve the execution of tasks

91.7

5.0

3.3

Performance management (PM)

M = 4.73

SSI: put effort into one’s development

0.8

5.0

94.2

SS2: have the power necessary for proper task performance

0

9.8

90.2

SS3: delegate decisions to the lowest level possible

2.4

3.7

93.9

SS4: make decisions based on facts and analyses and not on politics and coalitions

0.8

4.7

94.5

SSS: share information with others who need it to make the right decisions

0.6

1.3

98.1

SS6: develop skills necessary to follow the company’s strategy

2.2

1.6

96.2

SS7: treat failure as an opportunity to learn and not something to be ashamed of

7.2

2.5

90.3

SS8: take prudent risks

6.6

0.6

92.8

Social support (SS)

M = 5.15

Performance management x Social support

24.35

OD1: we respect the diverse views of our employees

0

9.2

90.8

OD2: we value that our employees have different experience, skills, and knowledge

0

10.6

89.4

(Continued)

Table 4.15 (Continued)

Dimensions of the organizational context

I disagree (%)

It’s hard to say <%)

I agree (%)

OD3: we encourage all employees to generate as many alternative solutions to the problem as possible

1.7

3.2

94.1

Organizational diversity (OD)

M = 5.51

CV1: all our employees see themselves as partners in building options for the development of their own department and/ or company

2.7

2.4

94.9

CV2: the option for development of a specific department/company is clearly communicated to all employees

1.2

2.7

96.1

CV3: anyone who works in our company is aware of long-term plans and options for development of their department and/ or company

0

1.1

98.9

Common vision (CV)

M = 5.71

Organizational diversity x Common vision

31.46

Our management systems-.

All: are consistent and support the main company goals

0.5

0

99.5

A12: cause the waste of resources on unproductive actions*

96.9

3.1

0

A13: establish conflicting objectives, therefore people start working toward a certain goal and end up with an opposite one*

97.0

3.0

0

Alignment (Al)

M = 5.77

Adi: encourage people to question obsolete practices and traditions

7.0

1.4

91.6

Ad2: are flexible enough to quickly respond to market changes

7.0

1.4

91.6

Ad3: change quickly in response to change in our business priorities

6.1

1.7

92.2

Adaptation (Ad)

to

II

s

Alignment x Adaptation

29.48

* In the case of reverse claims, the grades for calculating the means were reversed in order to achieve compliance in the scale.

For the sake of simplicity, a grouping was made: “I disagree” (grades 1—3), “It’s difficult to say” (grade 4), and “I agree” (grades 5-7).

The Choice of an Ambidextrous Strategy and the Behavioral Context in the Surveyed Companies

Figure 4.2 The Choice of an Ambidextrous Strategy and the Behavioral Context in the Surveyed Companies

between them that leads to Hypothesis H5a being rejected. However, the Mann-Whitney U Tests indicate differences in the assessment of systems and processes that are conducive to employee performance and efficiency in both groups (Table 4.16). Moreover, the probability of choosing an ambidextrous strategy is 232% higher in those companies where performance management is rated as high.

However, the context for an ambidextrous strategy is not only to focus on high performance and improvement but also to build systems that guarantee a lot of social support. In this case, there are no statistically significant differences. Therefore, Hypothesis H5a—which defines the behavioral context through the interaction of performance management and social support—should be rejected.

Taking into account cultural norms and values, the behavioral context is considered to be the product of organizational diversity and the common vision of people in the organization. In over 90% of the companies surveyed, these dimensions were said to be high, which means that in the vast majority of companies the cultural context favors the integration of exploration and exploitation, but it is stronger in those companies that implement a strategy of ambidexterity, as confirmed by Mann-Whitney U Tests (Table 4.17).

The results of the logistic regression showed that a stronger interaction of organizational diversity with a shared vision increases by 12% the probability that the ambidextrous strategy will be chosen. Moreover, all respondents in this type of company declared some degree of tolerance of differences between people and common goals and development of the organization.

Mann-Whitney U Test

Pure

ambidextrous

strategy

Other

development

strategy

Rank comparison

Effect, r

M

Rank

mean

M

Rank

mean

U

Z

P

Performance

management

(PM)

4.82

254.2

4.67

218.9

19750.5

-2.67

0.008

0.1

Logistic

regression

Grade

Wald Chi- square

Odds quotient

P

PM

1.20

11.2

3.32

0.0008

Table 4.17 Ambidextrous Strategy and Behavioral Context—Mann-Whitney UTest

Mann-Whitney

UTest

Pure

ambidextrous

strategy

Other

development

strategy

Rank comparison

Effect, r

M

Rank

mean

M

Rank

mean

U

Z

P

Organizational diversity (OD)

5.6

257.4

5.4

217.4

19270.5

-3.0

0.002

0.1

Common vision (CV)

5.8

249.8

5.6

221.1

20414.0

-2.2

0.029

0.1

>

О

X

Q

О

32.5

263.1

30.2

214.6

18408.5

-3.7

0.000

0.2

The third element of the behavioral context is the balance between alignment and adaptability of management systems. In almost all the companies surveyed, the management systems were assessed as consistent and supporting the general objectives of the company, without leading to a waste of resources on unproductive activities or setting conflicting objectives. Likewise, the adaptation of management systems was rated high, with few being considered not flexible enough to respond to market changes, and thus not rapidly changing in response to changing business priorities. There were no statistically significant differences between the group of companies using an ambidextrous strategy and the group of remaining companies (Mann-Whitney U Tests and logistic regression results), which means that in companies operating in Poland, management systems are perceived by the management as coherent and conducive to the development goals that are set as well as highly adaptable, regardless of the type of strategy adopted.

In view of these results relating to the different dimensions of the behavioral context, Hypothesis H5b should be confirmed and Hypotheses H5a and H5c should be rejected. Thus, companies are more inclined to choose a pure ambidextrous strategy the higher their level of organizational diversity' and the more common their vision, but this does not depend on the interaction of performance management with social support and the adaptability and alignment of management systems, as these features are universal in nature and describe the vast majority of companies in Poland.

It was then checked whether the size and age of the company are relevant to the selection of a pure ambidextrous strategy. To this end, a chi- square test of independence was carried out for the individual company groups (Table 4.18).

The results indicate that the choice of an ambidextrous strategy depends on the size of the company, which confirms Hypothesis H6a and that there is no dependence on the age of the company, which means Hypothesis H6b must be rejected. An ambidextrous strategy is more often chosen by large and medium-sized companies, which may be due to the larger pool of resources they possess, as well as structural conditions that are more appropriate to the specifics of exploration and exploitation activities.

Finally, a separate group of antecedents for choosing the ambidextrous strategy are the ability of executives to engage in exploration and exploitation, their leadership behavior—combining an openness to new ideas and concepts and ensuring high efficiency and effectiveness—and the team behavior of the group of executives, expressed in a common vision, social inclusion, and the remuneration system. The opinions expressed by respondents on this subject are presented in Table 4.19. It should be noted that the number of members of the executive management team

Table 4.18 Ambidextrous Strategy, Age and Size of the Company

Specification

Pure

ambidextrous strategy (% of the group)

Other development strategy (% of the group)

Statistics

Size of the company:

  • • small
  • • medium
  • • large
  • 8.1
  • 49.6
  • 42.3
  • 43.3
  • 27.3
  • 29.4

p = 0.00000 Cramer’s V = 0.4

Age of the company:

  • • up to 5 years
  • • 6-10 years
  • • 11-20 years
  • • over 20 years
  • 6.2
  • 19.1
  • 40.2 34.5
  • 7.6
  • 18.3
  • 38.4
  • 35.7

p > 0.05

164 Ambidextrous Strategy

Table 4.19 Strategic Leadership in the Opinion of the Companies Surveyed1

Dimensions of strategic leadership

I disagree (%)

It’s hard to say (%)

I agree (%)

The top management of our company is involved in activities:

IErAl: which required creativity

2.1

0.2

97.7

IErA2: which required acquisition of new skills or knowledge

1.2

0

98.8

IErA3: innovative and risky, knowing that some of them will be unsuccessful

79.0

11.6

9.4

IErA4: concentrated on restoration of products or company processes

7.0

0.7

92.3

IErA5: connected with searching for new opportunities in regard to products/services, processes, or markets

2.8

3.7

93.5

Involvement in exploration activities (IErA)

M = 4.88

IEsAl: which require routine activities

0

0.3

99.7

IEsA2: which require experience and are based on current knowledge, without the need to acquire new knowledge

0

0

100

IEsA3: which allow to boost process efficiency and performance

15.2

4.9

79.9

IEsA4: concentrated on achieving short-term goals

21.2

3.0

75.8

IEsA5: related to the exploitation of the current markets and products

8.1

4.3

87.6

Involvement in exploitation activities (IEsA)

M = 5.21

Involvement in exploration activities x Involvement in exploitation activities (IErA x IEsA)

25.42

The top management of our company:

OBI: permits various methods of executing tasks

16.4

3.8

79.8

OB2: encourages experimentation with various ideas

4.2

6.3

89.5

OB3: motivates people to take risks

4.8

0.6

94.6

OB4: creates opportunities for independent thinking and taking action

13.0

0.2

86.8

OB5: propagates the values of openness and tolerance

2.4

0

97.6

OB6: allows errors and treats them as a basis for learning

4.0

0

96.0

Open behaviors (OB)

M = 5.32

CB1: establishes procedures for task execution

4.3

3.8

91.9

CB2: controls adherence to rules and procedures

4.4

0.9

94.7

CB3: motivates to minor improvements and boosting performance

21.3

0

78.7

Dimensions of strategic leadership

I disagree (%)

It’s hard to say (%)

I agree (%)

CB4: keeps to established plans and monitors the achievement of goals

4.6

0.7

94.7

CB5: propagates values of high efficiency and performance

3.4

0

96.6

CB6: penalizes errors and concentrates on avoiding them

94.2

3.7

11.8

Closed behaviors (CB)

M = 4.89

Open behaviors x Closed behaviors (OB x CB)

26.01

The chief executive team (management) of our company has:

SV1: shared objectives

4.6

9.9

85.5

SV2: full agreement regarding the company vision absence of a clearly defined shared vision51'

  • 3.9
  • 85.1
  • 7.4
  • 9.3
  • 88.7
  • 5.6

SV3: full engagement of each member in the execution of company goals

0.1

3.7

96.2

SV4: an enthusiastic attitude to shared objectives and mission of the organization

0.1

3.4

96.5

Shared vision (SV)

M = 5.42

SI 1: quick defense against criticism of any member by a person from the outside

0.2

3.6

96.2

SI2: participation of each member in top-level decisions of the company

0

3.5

96.5

SI3: good understanding within the team

2.9

4.5

92.6

SI4: readiness to cooperate and mutual assistance

3.4

2.9

93.7

SI5: dissatisfaction with decisions made by at least one member51'

94.6

0.1

5.3

SI6: competition between team members51

90.9

5.3

3.8

Social integration (SI)

M = 5.43

In our company:

Rel: a considerable part of the remuneration of the TMT is based on a variable part (bonuses, share in profits, etc.)

37.6

27.7

34.7

Re2: the variable part of top management’s remuneration depends on the performance of the company as a whole

44.8

17.7

37.5

Re3: to attract the best candidates, many rewards and bonuses for the top management are offered

5.6

13.2

81.2

Remuneration (Re)

M = 4.26

* In the case of reverse claims, the grades for calculating the means were reversed in order to achieve compliance in the scale.

For the sake of simplicity, a grouping was made: “I disagree” (grades 1—3), “It’s difficult to say” (grade 4), and “I agree” (grades 5-7).

differed from company to company. In 0.2% of the companies, strategic decisions were made solely by the owner; in 79.3% of the companies the management board consisted of two to five people; in 18.3% the chief executive team was made up of six to ten people; and in 2.2% the management board consisted of more than ten people and they were capital groups.

When assessing the managerial staff’s ability to be ambidextrous, it can be seen that managers are strongly committed to exploitation activities, especially those that require routine action, knowledge, and experience, which is largely related to the exploitation of existing markets and products. They are slightly less committed to exploration activities. They take actions requiring creativity, new skills, and knowledge; they focus on new products and seek new market opportunities, but only to a limited extent (only 9.4% of respondents) do they take innovative and risky actions, knowing that some of them may fail. They therefore demonstrate a certain caution in their exploration. However, the relatively high averages for both activities allow us to conclude that the respondents perceive themselves, as well as other managers from the TMT, as ambidextrous managers. There were no statistically significant differences between companies pursuing a pure ambidextrous strategy and other development concepts, apart from one element. The results of logistic regression [p = 0.02) indicate that the probability of choosing an ambidextrous strategy is 30% lower in those companies that focus mainly on short-term goals. In other cases, the involvement of chief executives in particular exploration and exploitation activities was evaluated at the same level that does not confirm Hypothesis H7a.

Likewise, the leadership style was mostly described by the surveyed managers as ambidextrous, that is, one that displays both open and exploratory behaviors—including, in particular, the promotion of the values of tolerance and acceptance of mistakes, which is treated as a learning opportunity—and closed behaviors focused on the promotion of high performance values, the control of rules and procedures, and an adherence to goals. To a small extent (11.8% of companies), the management team sanctions mistakes and focuses on avoiding them. However, in the case of leadership, statistically significant differences can be identified between companies pursuing an ambidextrous strategy and other entities (Table 4.20).

In companies with an ambidextrous strategy, the leadership behavior of top executives is much more characterized by openness, especially of encouraging experimentation with different ideas and creating opportunities for independent thinking and action, while having a high degree of control over the procedures for performing tasks and monitoring the goals. Therefore, in this group of companies, the ambidextrous leadership style is stronger, which is conducive to this strategy. Therefore, Hypothesis H7b can be confirmed. Strategic leadership is positively linked to the

Mann-Whitney U Test

Pure

ambidextrous

strategy

Other

development

strategy

Rank comparison

Effect, r

M

Rank

mean

M

Rank

mean

U

Z

P

Open behaviors (OB)

5.45

260.0

5.45

216.1

18872.5

-3.3

0.001

0.2

OB x CB

26.6

251.2

5.25

220.4

20199.0

-2.3

0.019

0.1

Logistic

regression

Grade

Wald Chi- square

Odds quotient

P

OB X CB

0.08

6.39

1.08

0.01

choice of an ambidextrous strategy, because the more interaction of open and closed leadership behaviors, the greater the company’s propensity to choose it.

The role of the TMT is also highlighted as an antecedent to the choice of an ambidextrous strategy, pointing in particular to the need for a shared vision, social inclusion, and the way they are rewarded. In businesses operating in Poland, top-level managers indicate a community of goals and agreement on the company’s vision, with full commitment and an enthusiastic attitude to its implementation. It can therefore be concluded that the top management has a very cohesive vision. Similarly, more than 90% of the respondents expressed an opinion of strong social integration between the members of the board, which is manifested primarily in co-deciding on the most important issues for the company, a good understanding in the team, and a readiness to help. As regards the method for remuneration of the chief executives, the respondents selected different answers. In some companies, the remuneration includes situational rewards (bonuses, share in profits), but it depends on the level of effectiveness of the company as a whole, and in some entities, there are no such practices. However, the respondents from 81.2% of the companies stated that many different rewards and bonuses are used to attract the best candidates, so the remuneration system is quite diverse.

When analyzing the results between ambidexterity and other types of strategies, no statistically significant differences were noted in relation to the community of vision and social integration. Therefore, Hypotheses H7c and H7d should be rejected. A strong shared vision and social integration of the management team characterizes about 90% of the companies operating in Poland regardless of the strategic path of the company development.

Specification

Grade

Wald Chi- square

Odds

quotient

P

Rel: A considerable part of the remuneration of the TMT is based on a variable part (bonuses, share in profits, etc.)

0.26

5.34

1.23

0.02

Re2: The variable part of top management’s remuneration depends on the performance of the company as a whole

0.22

4.93

1.25

0.02

In terms of remuneration of the top-level managers, the results of the logistic regression showed some differences between these entities, as shown in Table 4.21. At the same time, the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient for the two specified variables (Rel and Re2) indicates a strong relationship between them (R = 0.8, p < 0.05).

This means that the probability of choosing an ambidextrous strategy is 23% higher if part of the executives’ remuneration is variable and 25% higher if this part depends on the effectiveness of the company as a whole. Thus, it can be concluded that the more the remuneration of top managers is conditional, the greater the propensity to choose an ambidextrous strategy, which confirms Hypothesis H7c.

When making strategic choices, companies strive to grow and improve their business performance. Development is a qualitative category and can take place in different directions, but it is always a confirmation of the right decisions and effectiveness of managerial actions. When making their assessment, the respondents were asked first to determine the effects of the company’s strategic activities in terms of products and markets over the last three years. The results of the answers are presented in Table 4.22.

Activities related to the exploitation of existing products and markets were evaluated at a similar level whether the companies were using an ambidextrous strategy or other types of strategy. More than 70% of the companies had increased their sales in existing markets and 66% had improved their existing products. The differences are revealed in relation to exploration activities, which were carried out to a much greater extent by companies with an ambidextrous strategy. Half (50%) of these companies had entered new markets, and nearly 70% had started to manufacture and/or offer new products, technologies, or ways to meet customers’ needs. More often in this type of business, the costs of production and delivery of current products to the market had also been reduced and new market segments had been entered. To a limited extent, the surveyed

Table 4.22 Effects of Strategic Activities of the Companies Surveyed

Specification

Pure

ambidextrous strategy(%)

Other strategy (%)

Yes

No

Yes

No

Sales in existing markets has increased

74.7

25.3

77.5

22.5

The company has entered a new market (in the geographical sense)

48.8

51.2

26.2

73.8

The company has entered a new market segment (began serving a new, relatively homogeneous group of customers)

35.1

64.9

29.0

71.0

The company has improved its existing products (or services)

66

34.0

66.6

33.4

The company has reduced the costs of manufacturing and supplying the current products to the market

59.4

40.6

32.5

67.5

The company has started to produce/ offer new products/technologies/ways of meeting customers’ needs

68.9

31.1

61.4

38.6

The company has withdrawn a product from the market

1.8

98.2

3.5

96.5

The company has withdrawn from the market

4.6

95.4

4.6

95.4

The company has withdrawn from a given market segment

1.4

98.6

6.4

93.6

companies withdrew from a given market or stopped offering a given product, but such actions were taken more often by companies implementing a strategy other than an ambidextrous one.

In order to better recognize the effectiveness of strategic actions among companies following the ambidextrous strategy, the effects of individual actions (affirmative answers) were referred to the current market scope and product specialization (Figure 4.3).

In the product/market dimension, an ambidextrous strategy combines the exploitation of existing markets and products with the exploration of new ones. Among the companies which have implemented this type of strategy, and thus declare that they focus on both activities, 68.9% had started to offer new products (or services), while at present they are mostly diversified companies, especially related ones. More than half of them have simultaneously improved their existing products and/or reduced the costs of their manufacturing processes, which proves the effectiveness of the strategic actions taken. The vast majority of product-specialized companies, which accounted for 6.7% of the companies with an ambidextrous

Effects of Ambidextrous Strategy by Product Specialization and the Market Scope of the Surveyed Companies

Figure 4.3 Effects of Ambidextrous Strategy by Product Specialization and the Market Scope of the Surveyed Companies

strategy, had expanded the scope of their specialization, expanding their product range while modernizing their existing product ranges. Only 1.8% of the companies had withdrawn a given product from the market, and they were related, diversified companies. In terms of the market, thanks to the implementation of an ambidextrous strategy, the companies had started to operate in foreign markets, while increasing sales in the markets previously served. It can therefore be concluded that the strategic actions of most of the companies in this group have been successful, and that only a small proportion of them, have not enjoyed the desired effect, despite their efforts to explore and exploit their products and markets.

The respondents were also asked to assess the market and financial effects of the strategy from the last three years. Their answers are presented in Table 4.23.

Results

Worse

(%)

Almost the same (%)

Better

(%)

FP1: Average net profit

23.1

12.9

64.0

FP2: Average return on sales (net profit to net sales)

25.3

11.3

63.4

FP3: Average return on assets (net profit to total assets)

30.9

11.2

57.9

FP4: Average return on equity (net profit to equity)

28.4

12.5

59.1

FP5: Average return on investment (net profit to investment expenditures)

26.3

17.1

56.6

Financial parameters (FP)

Me = 5

MP1: Average sales growth rate

25.4

13.8

60.8

MP2: Average market share

24.2

16.4

59.4

MP3: Average customer loyalty degree

24.4

14.1

61.5

MP4: Average growth through innovation

25.3

15.2

59.5

MP5: Company performance/success in general

27.1

12.7

60.2

Market parameters (MP)

Me = 5

1 For the sake of simplicity, a grouping was made: “I disagree” (grades 1-3), “It’s difficult to say” (grade 4), and “I agree” (grades 5-7).

Approximately 60% of the companies operating in Poland declared that the financial parameters expressed in mean net profit, return on sales, return on assets, return on capital, and return on investment have improved as a result of the strategic choices made and the strategy implemented. Similarly, the market parameters expressed by the mean sales growth rate, market share, customer loyalty, and others were assessed better than in the previous periods. Overall, 60% of the respondents indicated the success of the company, which confirms that the right choices were made and proves that the Polish management staff have good strategic management. Between 11% and 17% of the companies surveyed evaluated their performance at the same level as before; over 20% evaluated it as worse, especially the mean return on assets, which suggests weaker management of the company’s assets in order to generate profit.

The Mann-Whitney U Tests revealed statistically significant differences between the companies implementing an ambidextrous strategy and the others (Table 4.24).

Specification

Pure

ambidextrous

strategy

Other

development

strategy

Rank comparison

M

Rank

mean

M

Rank

mean

U

Z

P

FP1: Average net profit

4.9

250.7

4.6

220.6

20278.0

-2.28

0.02

FP2: Average return on sales (net profit to net sales)

5.1

263.8

4.5

214.2

18304.0

-3.75

0.00

FPS: Average return on investment (net profit to investment expenditures)

4.6

250.5

4.3

220.7

20303.5

-2.26

0.02

Financial parameters (FP)

4.9

250.3

4.4

220.8

20338.0

-2.23

0.03

MP1: Average sales growth rate

4.8

258.1

4.3

217.0

19168.5

-3.11

0.00

MP2: Average market share

4.8

262.3

4.3

215.0

18535.0

-3.58

0.00

MP3: Average customer loyalty degree

4.7

259.0

4.3

216.6

19029.0

-3.21

0.00

MP4: Average growth through innovation

4.6

250.0

4.3

221.0

20383.0

-2.20

0.03

MP5: Company performance/success in general

4.7

253.7

4.2

219.2

19828.5

-2.61

0.01

Market parameters (MP)

4.7

252.1

4.3

220.0

19059.5

-3.19

0.00

FP x MP

23.0

252.1

18.9

220.0

20070.5

-2.43

0.01

The mean rank for all market parameters and the three financial parameters is higher among the companies with an ambidextrous strategy, which means that these companies have better evaluated the market and the financial performance of their strategy. At the same time, the high correlation of Spearman’s rank coefficients between the assessment of financial and market parameters in this group of entities (Table 4.25) indicate a strong relationship between them. Thus, Hypothesis H8 can be confirmed, that is there is a positive impact of an ambidextrous strategy on the performance of the company resulting in better financial and market results.

The research model also assumes that the relationship between an ambidextrous strategy and performance is modeled by market orientation.

Financial parameters

Market parameters

PR1

PR2

PR3

PR4

PRS

PF1

0.67s

0.62s

0.68 s

0.71s

0.70s

PF2

0.69s

0.63s

0.62 s

0.65s

0.66s

PF3

0.69s

0.64s

0.73 s

0.68s

0.74s

PF4

0.69s

0.68s

0.66 s

0.77s

0.73s

PF5

0.74s

0.70s

0.77s

0.65s

0.76 s

* R > 0.62 is significant at p < 0.05.

which may be reactive, proactive, or a combination of the two. Therefore, the respondents were asked to assess the market orientation of their companies by addressing individual statements describing reactive and proactive orientation, taking into account the previous three years. Their opinions are presented in Table 4.26.

Approximately 80% of companies declared that they focus on aspects of reactive orientation, including understanding the needs expressed by customers, monitoring customer satisfaction, and setting business objectives in relation to it. Nearly half of the companies regularly and often assess customer satisfaction and disseminate the findings throughout the company, while half do not. Similarly, almost half of the companies brainstorm about how customers can use their products and look for opportunities in areas where they have difficulty in expressing their needs, thus showing signs of proactive orientation. Meanwhile, nearly 80% additionally analyze key trends, work with the main users of their products to identify their needs, and try to discover the needs that customers are not aware of.

Therefore, the surveyed companies have aspects of both reactive and proactive market orientation. There are statistically significant differences between companies using an ambidextrous strategy and those with other strategies (Mann-Whitney U Tests). The mean rank for companies with a pure ambidextrous strategy is much higher. Moreover, the individual dimensions of each orientation mostly correlate positively and are statistically significant in this type of business (Table 4.27).

The attempt to discover the unconscious needs of clients correlates most strongly with understanding the needs expressed by them (R = 0.43) and monitoring the level of involvement in meeting them (R = 0.40). This shows that companies are trying to exploit existing product/market domains but at the same time are looking for new ones. They analyze key

Market orientation dimensions

I disagree (%)

It’s hard to say (%)

l agree (%)

ROl: We try to understand the needs expressed by customers

17.0

3.8

79.2

R02: We constantly monitor the level of involvement in meeting customer needs

20.3

0

79.7

R03: We regularly and frequently assess customer satisfaction

50.9

0

49.1

R04: Data regarding customer satisfaction are distributed at all levels of the company

53.8

3.3

42.9

R05: Business objectives result from customer satisfaction

17.0

0

83.0

Reactive orientation (RO)

Me = 5

POl: We try to discover the needs of our customers they are not aware of

22.5

0

77.5

P02: We brainstorm on how the customers may use our products

45.3

0

54.7

РОЗ: We seek opportunities in areas where customers find it difficult to express their needs

57.0

1.1

41.9

P04: We work with main users of our products to identify the needs of most customers in advance

18.9

0

81.1

POS: We analyze key trends to anticipate what our customers might need in future

15.9

0

84.1

Proactive orientation (PO)

Me = 5

1 For the sake of simplicity, a grouping was made: “I disagree” (grades 1—3), “It’s difficult to say” (grade 4), and “I agree” (grades 5-7).

Table 4.27 Mutual Correlation of Spearman’s Rank Coefficient Between the Assessment of Reactive and Proactive Orientation in Companies With an Ambidextrous Strategy

Reactive

orientation

Proactive orientation

POl

P02

РОЗ

P04

POS

ROl

0.43s

0.16

0.13

0.25 s

0.37s

R02

0.40s

0.11

0.04

0.34 s

0.22s

R03

0.21s

-0.04

-0.04

0.20 s

0.17s

R04

0.21s

0.06

0.08

0.26 s

0.17s

R05

0.29s

0.24 s

0.07

0.19s

0.17s

R > 0.17 is significant at p < 0.05.

trends in order to be able to anticipate customers’ needs in the future, without forgetting to satisfy their needs to the maximum.

In order to determine the degree of balance between proactive and reactive orientations, the quotient of the mean grades of the individual actions was used.2 As a result of the analysis carried out, 46% of the companies in which these orientations are balanced and 54% of the companies in which there is an imbalance between them were identified as companies with an ambidextrous strategy, with a reactive orientation in 37.4% of them and a proactive orientation in 16.6%.

The effect of moderating the relationship between an ambidextrous strategy and the performance of the company through market orientation, taking into account the balance (or imbalance) between reactive and proactive orientation, which is covered by Hypothesis H9, was taken into account in SEM and is dealt with in the next section. It will allow, through a single model, the estimation of the impact of individual antecedents on the choice of an ambidextrous strategy in the context of the company’s financial and market performance, taking into account their approach to strategy and the moderating role of market orientation. In other words, through the dependency paths, the structural model will again test the detailed hypotheses, which this time will be considered together, as well as the main hypothesis.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >