Dynamic Capabilities and Firm Performance in the High-Tech Industry: Quadratic and Moderating Effects under Differing Ambidexterity Levels

Peng Peng,Zhang Zhang,Yang Yang,Yen Yen

doi:10.3390/su11185004

Abstract

This study uses the perspectives of dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity to investigate the direct effect of the development of an organization’s explorative and exploitative capabilities on organizational tensions and performance. We employed a sample of high-tech Taiwanese firms to test our hypotheses and surveyed the informants’ knowledge about their companies. We sent out 1000 questionnaires and received 234 valid responses, yielding a 23.4% effective response rate. The results also indicated that the consideration of incorporating balanced and combined dimension ambidexterity would benefit high-tech firms and help them facilitate higher performance. In summary, based on the results of previous studies, this study divided dynamic capabilities into exploitation capabilities and exploration capabilities, and divided ambidexterity into combined and balanced dimensions, so as to redefine the relationship between dynamic capabilities, ambidexterity and organizational performance from the perspective of tension, thereby enhancing the connotations of dynamic theory.

Highlights

In research on enterprise resources and capacity accumulation, different theories have produced different interpretations of the focal issues [1,2,3,4]
Most scholars have emphasized the importance of dynamic capabilities (DCs) and noted that significant changes will take place in the direction and path of capabilities over time, so analyses of firm performance should focus on exploring capability development rather than resource development [2,3,4,5]
The evaluation standard for discriminant validity is the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for one dimension greater than the correlation coefficient with any other dimension(s)

Summary

Introduction

In research on enterprise resources and capacity accumulation, different theories have produced different interpretations of the focal issues [1,2,3,4]. Most scholars have emphasized the importance of dynamic capabilities (DCs) and noted that significant changes will take place in the direction and path of capabilities over time, so analyses of firm performance should focus on exploring capability development rather than resource development [2,3,4,5]. Zott [7] noted that even minor differences in the capabilities of firms would produce differences in their performance, as found by Adner and Helfat [6]. This result is supported by the research results of Helfat and Peteraf [5] and O’Reilly and Tushman [8]. Peng and Lin [9] adopted the claims of Fainshmidt, Pezeshkan, Frazier, Nair, and Markowski [10] and indicated that most of the previous studies discussed explorative and exploitative capabilities to measure DC constructs [2,5,11,12,13,14,15]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion