Journal of Strategic Management Studies

Journal of Strategic Management Studies

Investigating the impact of ambivalent factors on international marketing agility

Document Type : Research

Authors
Soheila Khoddami 1
Faeaz Sadegh Vaziri 1
Amin Honari 2
1 Associate Professor, Faculyu of Management, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
2 Master's degree in international business management, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/smsj.2023.397319.1849
Abstract
Introduction
International marketing agility is a concept that has recently been raised among researchers in the field of international marketing, thus, researchers have defined and analyzed this concept and its factors in different ways. In the first stage, the current research aims to classify the dimensions of Ambidextrous Factors in the form of Output-Driven and Capacity-Driven dimensions based on the previous literature, for this purpose, we considered "agile processes" and "previous experience in entrepreneurship" as the Output-Driven dimension of Ambidextrous Factors and "marketing planning" and "maintaining flexibility" as a Capacity-Driven dimension to be able to observe the difference between these two perspectives in the same statistical population. Also, since these dual factors have not been examined together in previous studies from the angle of international marketing agility, the second goal of this research is to investigate the impact of these dimensions on international marketing agility.
Methodology
This research is practical in terms of its purpose. On the other hand, since this research seeks to investigate the effect of ambidextrous capabilities on international marketing agility, it can be considered as descriptive-survey research. In terms of data collection, this research is quantitative. This research is cross-sectional in terms of time and the research was conducted at a certain point in time. The statistical population of this research was selected from among entrepreneurs, producers and activists of export companies. These people are those who are responsible for a business or play an important role in it. In this research, there are people from carpet, nuts and dried fruit, saffron, fisheries and handicrafts manufacturing and exporters. The sample size in this research is 201 people, which is explained in more detail in the data collection section. The sample size is based on Klein's formula. The sampling method in this research is non-probability. The main tool for data collection is questionnaires. Finally, 201 valid questionnaires including data collection and analysis have been analyzed by the partial least square method. In order to analyze the data from Pearson correlation coefficient and from modeling structural equations with PLS software, hypotheses have been tested
Results and Discussion
The findings obtained from the data analysis showed that five research hypotheses have been confirmed and the forth hypothes isn't confirmed. In fact, according to the numbers obtained from the data analysis (value of the standard coefficient) and the value of the t statistic, it shows that 5 hypotheses of the current research have been confirmed. In the comparison between Capacity-Driven dichotomy (β=0.78) and Output-Driven (β=0.13), although both have a positive and significant effect on international marketing agility, the effectiveness of Capacity-Driven dichotomy is much higher. In comparing the independent influence of the dimensions of two pillars on international marketing agility, marketing planning (β=0.49), maintaining flexibility (β=0.37) and process agility (β=0.23) have the most to the least impact on international marketing agility and also that entrepreneurial history (β=0.02) had no significant effect on international marketing agility.
Conclusion
The results show that the Capacity-Driven dichotomy has a much greater impact on international marketing agility than the Output-Driven dichotomy. On the other hand, increasing the effectiveness of maintaining flexibility on the agility of international marketing compared to marketing planning and the difference of this result with previous research can indicate that global markets need flexibility due to the events that have happened to the world in the last few years. This result shows that those who are considered continuous entrepreneurs (entrepreneurial experience) and can keep their organization's processes and mechanisms up to date (process agility) are more inclined to export and enter foreign markets than those who do not have one of these two capabilities. According to the obtained results, the following are suggested to entrepreneurs and exporters: Managers must develop clear directions and processes to unite the organization's components around a common goal. This capability strengthens the systemic approach in the organization and enables companies to create new product advantages and move international performance. Also, managers should be aware of the
 
importance of preferring a flexible approach to planning in dynamic environments. They must also use flexible decision-making processes. This reduces the risks of inertia. What is important is the balance between marketing planning and maintaining flexibility that enables managers to accept outside perspectives and consider a wide range of solutions. One of the most important limitations of the current research is that we examined the model in one country, which future researchers can evaluate our model in various industries or several countries, which increases the validity of the model.
Keywords
International marketing agility
Ambidexterity
Entrepreneurial experience
Process agility
Marketing planning
Flexibility maintenance

Subjects

  1. Aharoni, Y., Tihanyi, L., & Connelly, B. L. (2011). Managerial decision-making in international business: A forty-five-year retrospective. Journal of World Business, 46(2), 135-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.05.001
  2. Alsos, G. A., & Carter, S. (2006). Multiple business ownership in the Norwegian farm sector: Resource transfer and performance consequences. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(3), 313-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.09.003
  3. Alves, A. C., Dinis-carvalho, J., Sousa, R. M., & Alves, A. C. (2012). The Learning Organization Emerald Article : Lean production as promoter of thinkers to achieve companies ' agility,  The Learning Organization; Bradford, 19 (3), 219-237.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471211219930
  4. Asseraf, Y., Lages, L.F. and Shoham, A. (2019), "Assessing the drivers and impact of international marketing agility", International Marketing Review, 36 (2),  289-315. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-12-2017-0267
  5.  Baron, R. A. (2004). The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship's basic '"why"' questions. Journal of Business Venturing. 19(2), 221-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00008-9
  6.  Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52(9), 1331-1344. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0538
  7.  Baron, R. A., & Ward, T. B. (2004). Expanding Entrepreneurial Cognition’s Toolbox: Potential Contributions from the Field of Cognitive Science. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(6), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00064.x
  8. Bauer, F., Dao, M. A., Matzler, K., & Tarba, S. Y. (2017). How Industry Lifecycle Sets Boundary Conditions for M&A Integration. Long Range Planning, 50(4), 501-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.09.002
  9.  Bustinza, O. F., Gomes, E., Vendrell-Herrero, F., & Tarba, S. Y. (2018). An organizational change framework for digital servitization: Evidence from the Veneto region. Strategic Change, 27(2), 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2186
  10.  Cao, Q., Simsek, Z., & Zhang, H. (2010). Modelling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7), 1272-1296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00877.x
  11.  Carmeli, A., Zivan, I., Gomes, E., & Markman, G. D. (2017). Underlining micro socio-psychological mechanisms of buyer-supplier relationships: Implications for inter-organizational learning agility. Human Resource Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.002
  12.  Chen, J., Sousa, C. M. P., & He, X. (2019). Export market re-entry: Time-out period and price/quality dynamisms. Journal of World Business, 54(2), 154-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2019.01.001
  13. Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00090.x
  14.  Cunha, M. P. E., Gomes, E., Mellahi, K., Miner, A. S., & Rego, A. (2020). Strategic agility through improvisational capabilities: Implications for a paradox-sensitive HRM. Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), 100695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100695
  15.  Elo, M., & Silva, S. (2022). Who creates international marketing agility? Diasporic agility guiding new market entry processes in emerging contexts. Thunderbird International Business Review, 64(5), 443-463. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22284
  16.  Dibrell, C., Craig, J. B., & Neubaum, D. O. (2014). Linking the formal strategic planning process, planning flexibility, and innovativeness to firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 2000-2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.011
  17.  Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating busines model renewal. Long Range Planning, 43(s 2–3):370–382 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.006
  18.  Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization Design - Strategies and Implementation, 1, 167-189.      
  19.  Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154-177. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.2791608
  20.  Gaglio, C. M. (2004). The role of mental simulations and counterfactual thinking in the opportunity identification process. In Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice (28), 533-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00063.x
  21.  Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159573
  22.  Glaister, A. J., Liu, Y., Sahadev, S., & Gomes, E. (2014). Externalizing, Internalizing and Fostering Commitment: The Case of Born-Global Firms in Emerging Economies. Management International Review, 54(4), 473-496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-014-0215-6
  23.  Gomes, E. (2020). Mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances as collaborative methods of strategic development and change. Strategic Change, 29(2), 145-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2317
  24.  Gomes, E., Sousa, C. M. P., & Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2020). International marketing agility: conceptualization and research agenda. International Marketing Review, 37(2), 261-272. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-07-2019-0171
  25.  Gompers, P., Kovner, A., Lerner, J., & Scharfstein, D. (2010). Performance persistence in entrepreneurship. Journal of Financial Economics, 96(1), 18-32

 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.11.001

  1. Greene, W. H. (2003). ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS (5th ed.). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458. 
  2.  Grewal, R., & Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 67-80.

https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.67.18259

  1. Griffith, D. A., & Hoppner, J. J. (2013). Global marketing managers: Improving global marketing strategy through soft skill development. International Marketing Review, 30 (1), 21-41

https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331311298555

  1. Hagen, B., Zucchella, A., & Ghauri, P. N. (2019). From fragile to agile: marketing as a key driver of entrepreneurial internationalization. International Marketing Review, 36(2), 260-288. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-01-2018-0023
  2.  He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494

 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078

  1.  Headd, B. (2003). Redefining Business Success: Distinguishing between Closure and Failure. Small Business Economics, 21(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024433630958
  2.  Hsu, C. W., Lien, Y. C., & Chen, H. (2013). International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. Journal of World Business. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.06.007
  3.  Hsu, W. T., Chen, H. L., & Cheng, C. Y. (2013). Internationalization and firm performance of SMEs: The moderating effects of CEO attributes. Journal of World Business, 48(1),  58-67 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.06.001
  4.  Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.88
  5.  Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001
  6.  Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., Bosch, F. A. J. Van Den, & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior Team Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Rol. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00775.x

  1. Katayama, H., & Bennett, D. (2001). Agility, Adaptability and Leanness: A Comparison of Concepts and a Study of Practice. In Agile Manufacturing: The 21st Century Competitive Strategy, 483-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-008043567-1/50025-5
  2.  Keith, N., Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2016). Informal Learning and Entrepreneurial Success: A Longitudinal Study of Deliberate Practice among Small Business Owners. Applied Psychology, 65(3), 515-540. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12054
  3.  Krueger, N. F. (2003). The Cognitive Psychology of Entrepreneurship. In Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24519-7_6
  4. Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., & Leiva, J. C. (2018). Sustainable and traditional product innovation without scale and experience, but only for KIBS! Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(4), 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041169
  5.  Lages, L. F. (2016). VCW-Value Creation Wheel: Innovation, technology, business, and society. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4849-4855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.042
  6. Lewis, M. W., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California Management Review, 56(3), 58-77.https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.58
  7.  Li, R., Liu, Y., & Bustinza, O. F. (2019). FDI, service intensity, and international marketing agility: The case of export quality of Chinese enterprises. International Marketing Review, 36 (2), 213-238. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-01-2018-0031
  8.  Liu, Y. (2017). Born global firms' growth and collaborative entry mode: the role of transnational entrepreneurs. International Marketing Review, 34(1), 46-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-05-2015-0130
  9.  Luo, Y., & Rui, H. (2009). An ambidexterity perspective toward multinational enterprises from emerging economies. Academy of Management Perspectives,  23(4):49-70

https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.23.4.49

  1. Maria Elo., Liubov Ermolaeva., Maria Ivanova-Gongne., & Daria Klishevich. (2022). Resilience and business model adaptation in turbulent times: experiences of Russophone migrant entrepreneurs in Germany during Covid-pandemic. Small Enterprise Research,29( 3), 250-272, https://doi.org/10.1080/13215906.2022.2134916
  2.  Martin, R. L. (2014). The big lie of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 92(1/2), 3-8.              
  3.  McDonald, M. H. B. (1989). Ten barriers to marketing planning. Journal of Marketing Management, 5(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.1989.9964084
  4.  McDonald, M., & Wilson, H. (2011). Marketing Plans:   How to Prepare Them, How to Use Them. Marketing Plans. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119205876
  5.  Michel, J. G., & Hambrick, D. C. (1992). Diversification Posture and Top Management Team Characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 9-37. https://doi.org/10.5465/256471
  6.  Minniti M., Bygrave W. (2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(3), 5–16 https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870102500301
  7.  Mitchell, B. C. (2004). Motives of Entrepreneurs: A Case Study of South Africa. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 167-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/097135570401300203
  8.  Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 698-723. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.1255634
  9.  Morgan, N. A., Katsikeas, C. S., & Vorhies, D. W. (2012). Export marketing strategy implementation, export marketing capabilities, and export venture performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(2), 271-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0275-0 
  10.  Morgan, N. A., Vorhies, D. W., & Mason, C. H. (2009). Market orientation, marketing capabilities, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 909-920. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.764
  11.  Nadkarni, S., & Herrmann, P. O. L. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1050-1073. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533196
  12.  Nemkova, E., Souchon, A. L., Hughes, P., & Micevski, M. (2015). Does improvisation help or hinder planning in determining export success? Decision theory applied to exporting. Journal of International Marketing, 23(3), 41-65. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.14.0071
  13.  O'Cass, A., Ngo, L. V., & Siahtiri, V. (2012). Examining the marketing planning-marketing capability interface and customer-centric performance in SMEs. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(6), 463-481. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2012.707675
  14.  O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2285704
  15.  Osei, C., Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., Omar, M., & Gutu, M. (2019). Developing and deploying marketing agility in an emerging economy: the case of Blue Skies. International Marketing Review,  36 (2), 190-212.https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-12-2017-0261
  16.  Parker, S. C. (2013). Do serial entrepreneurs run successively better-performing businesses? Journal of Business Venturing,  28 (5), 652-666.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.08.001
  17.  Partanen, J., Kohtamäki, M., Patel, P. C., & Parida, V. (2020). Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow. International Journal of Production Economics, 221, 107470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.08.005
  18.  Politis, D. (2008). Does prior start‐up experience matter for entrepreneurs' learning? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(3), 472-489. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000810892292
  19. Prange, C., & Verdier, S. (2011). Dynamic capabilities, internationalization processes and performance. Journal of World Business, 46(1), 126-133

 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.05.024

  1. Rabetino, R., Harmsen, W., Kohtamäki, M., & Sihvonen, J. (2018). Structuring servitization-related research. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 38(2), 350-371

 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2017-0175

  1.  Raschke, R. L. (2010). Process-based view of agility: The value contribution of IT and the effects on process outcomes. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 11(4):297-313

 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2010.09.005

  1.  Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5):956-974

 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014

  1.  Rumelt, R. (2011). The perils of bad strategy. McKinsey Quarterly, 1(3), 1-10. 
  2.  Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2012). Shaping Agility through Digital Options: Reconceptualizing the Role of Information Technology in Contemporary Firms, MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 237-263 10.2307/30036530
  3. Santos-Vijande, M. L., López-Sánchez, J. Á., & Trespalacios, J. A. (2012). How organizational learning affects a firm's flexibility, competitive strategy, and performance. Journal of Business Research,  65 (8), 1079-1089.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.002
  4.  Sarasvathy, S. D., Menon, A. R., & Kuechle, G. (2013). Failing firms and successful entrepreneurs: Serial entrepreneurship as a temporal portfolio. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 417-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9412-x
  5.  Shams, R., Vrontis, D., Belyaeva, Z., Ferraris, A., & Czinkota, M. R. (2021). Strategic agility in international business: A conceptual framework for "agile" multinationals. Journal of International Management, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2020.100737
  6.  Shimizu, K., & Hitt, M. A. (2004). Strategic flexibility: Organizational preparedness to reverse ineffective strategic decisions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(4), 44-59.

https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2004.15268683

  1. Simmons, S. A., Carr, J. C., Hsu, D. K., & Shu, C. (2016). The Regulatory Fit of Serial Entrepreneurship Intentions. Applied Psychology, 65(3), 605-627. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12070
  2. Slotegraaf, R. J., & Dickson, P. R. (2004). The paradox of a marketing planning capability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 371-385.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070304265217

  1.  Souchon, A. L., Hughes, P., Farrell, A. M., Nemkova, E., & Oliveira, J. S. (2016). Spontaneity and international marketing performance. International Marketing Review, 33 (5), 671-690.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-06-2014-0199

  1.  Tallon, & Pinsonneault. (2011). Competing Perspectives on the Link Between Strategic Information Technology Alignment and Organizational Agility: Insights from a Mediation Model. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 463. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044052
  2.  Tallon, P. P. (2008). Inside the adaptive enterprise: An information technology capabilities perspective on business process agility. Information Technology and Management, , 9(1), 21–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-007-0024-8
  3. Theoharakis, V., & Hooley, G. (2003). Organizational resources enabling service responsiveness: Evidence from Greece. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(8), 695-702

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.06.009

  1.  Toft-Kehler, R., Wennberg, K., & Kim, P. H. (2014). Practice makes perfect: Entrepreneurial-experience curves and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 453-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.07.001
  2. Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-29. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
  3.  Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, D. M. (2009a). Habitual Entrepreneurs. (A. Basu, M. Casson, N. Wadeson, & B. Yeung, Eds.) (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199546992.003.0017
  4.  Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2009b). Habitual Entrepreneurs. The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199546992.003.0017
  5.  Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2009c). The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(2), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.008
  6.  Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Flores, M. (2010). The nature of entrepreneurial experience, business failure and comparative optimism. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(6), 541-555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.04.001
  7. Vaillant, Y., & Lafuente, E. (2019a). Entrepreneurial experience and the innovativeness of serial entrepreneurs. Management Decision, 57(11), 2869-2889. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2017-0592
  8. Vaillant, Y., & Lafuente, E. (2019b). The increased international propensity of serial entrepreneurs demonstrating ambidextrous strategic agility: A precursor to international marketing agility. International Marketing Review,  36 (2),  239-259.https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-01-2018-0015
  9. Van Gelderen, M., & Jansen, P. (2006). Autonomy as a start-up motive. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000610645289
  10.  Van Praag, C. M., & Cramer, J. S. (2001). The Roots of Entrepreneurship and Labour Demand: Individual Ability and Low Risk Aversion. Economica, 68(269), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468- 0335.00232
  11.  Vendrell-Herrero, F., & Wilson, J. R. (2017). Servitization for territorial competitiveness: taxonomy and research agenda. Competitiveness Review, 27  (1),2-11 https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-02-2016-0005
  12.  Vendrell-Herrero, F., Parry, G., Opazo-Basáez, M., & Sanchez-Montesinos, F. J. (2018). Does business model experimentation in dynamic contexts enhance value capture? International Journal of Business Environment, 10(1), 14-34. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBE.2018.10014424
  13. Vijay Pereira., Yama Temouri, Ahmad Arslan, William Y. Degbey., & Shlomo Tarba.(2022). Ambidextrous organizations in and from emerging markets-Editors' special issue introduction. Thunderbird International Business Review, 64 (5),  369-378.https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22306
  14. Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (2005). Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 80-94.

https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.1.80.55505

  1. Wang, C., & Ahmed, P. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: A Review and Research Agenda. The International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31-51.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00201.x

  1.  Weber, Y., & Tarba, S. Y. (2014). Strategic Agility: A State-of-the-Art Introduction to the Special Section on Strategic Agility. California Management Review, 56(3), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.5
  2.  Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2015). The Habitual Entrepreneur Phenomenon. International Small Business Journal, Virtual , 1-16.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315316123

  1. Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2003). Differences between private firms owned by novice, serial and portfolio entrepreneurs: Impications for policy makers and practitioners. Regional Studies, 37(2), 187-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340022000057488
  2.  Whalen, P. S., & Holloway, S. S. (2012). Effectual marketing planning for new ventures. AMS Review, 2(1), 34-43.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-012-0026-5

  1. Whalen, S. P., & Holloway, S. S. (2012). Traditional marketing planning is wrong for your new venture.
  2.  Wright, M., Robbie, K., & Ennew, C. (1997). Venture capitalists and serial entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 12 (3), 227-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(96)06115-0
  3.  Wu, H. (2017). Exploring the Origin, Definition and Measurement of Organizational Ambidexterity. https://doi.org/10.2991/icmesd-17.2017.1
  4. . Xing, Y., Liu, Y., Tarba, S., & Wood, G. (2020). A cultural inquiry into ambidexterity in supervisor-subordinate relationship. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(2), 203-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1137619
  5.  Yusuf, Y. Y., Sarhadi, M., & Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: The drivers, concepts and attributes. Int. J. Production Economics,  6( 62), 33-43.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00219-9

  1.  Zeki, S. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597-624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.x
  2.  Zhou, J., Bi, G., Liu, H., Fang, Y., & Hua, Z. (2018). Understanding employee competence, operational IS alignment, and organizational agility - An ambidexterity perspective. Information and Management, 55(6), 695-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.02.002

 

  • Receive Date 14 May 2023
  • Revise Date 21 June 2023
  • Accept Date 13 September 2023