SMEs Performance in Malaysia: The Role of Contextual Ambidexterity in Innovation Culture and Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First, I congratulate the authors for the paper. The subject of the study is interesting and important, as it contemplates the effects of the culture of innovation, performance of SMEs and the role of contextual ambidexterity (exploration and exploitation) in this connection. The study objectives are clear, and the structure is coherent. The tables and figure were well used. The same goes for bibliographic references. However, I identified relevant gaps and some suggestions that are detailed below.

Section 1 (Introduction): There is good contextualization about SMEs in Malaysia (representativeness and characteristics in general). The presentation of theoretical concepts and research objectives are well. Nonetheless, I suggest that you present the structure of the article at the end of this section.

Section 2 (Literature review): In general, the section was well developed. Maybe it's a bit fragmented, but I respect the authors' choice. Some of these subsections should be further explored. One of them is the SMEs performance (2.2). Considering that performance is one of the objects of the study, the subsection is superficial. For example, some performance indicators should have been presented, especially those that were used in the study. This same observation is valid for subsections 2.3 and 2.4. Another subsection that deserves attention is 2.5. Although the title mentions Organizational Learning Theory, it is not discussed. This theory is only discussed in subsection 2.8. Furthermore, except for Resource-Based Theory, the others are no longer mentioned throughout the text. Especially in sections 5 and 6 it would be important to recover these contributions.

Section 3 (Research Methodology): In this section I identified important problems. Although the method applied is properly explained, virtually nothing is presented about the survey and the indicators that were used. There is no information about when the survey was applied, nor the total number of surveys sent and the response rate. There is only information that the responses of 277 companies were validated (after excluding 23 outliers), lines 329-337. Furthermore, in subsection 3.2, the only mention made about the indicators used is that they represent a total set of 16, distributed in: performance SMEs (financial performance/5 and non-financial performance/5); innovation culture (6); and contextual ambidexterity (exploration/5 and exploitation/5). Nothing else is known about these measures. I consider the absence of this information to be a serious problem.

Section 4 (Empirical Study): In general, this section is clear. However, due to the limitations already mentioned in the methodology section (particularly, the lack of information on the indicators) the reader finds it difficult to interpret some information. For example, in Table 3, what are the measure parameters that are in parentheses? They are parameters of measures, but which measures?

Sections 5 and 6 (Discussion; Limitations, Future Research and Conclusions): The discussion of the results should be further explored. The results are very interesting and given that all hypotheses were accepted, the discussion should explore insights into the elements linked: innovation culture, performance SMEs and contextual ambidexterity. Here it is evident the lack of presentation of the measurement measures (16 indicators) of the three analysis classes. As a result, the discussion basically repeats the assumptions of the hypotheses and does not advance the discussion of what the results may be revealing.

In summary, I assess that the study has potential and can contribute to discussions on SMEs and innovation. However, greater methodological rigor (specifically in the presentation/explanation of the indicators used) and analytical rigor (exploring the results obtained in more depth) is necessary.

Author Response

Based on all the comments given, we have done the correction. We remarked all the revised comments in the file attached (manuscript).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The article explores a valuable topic, examining the relationship between innovation culture and performance. Basically a well written article that needs some improvement. The authors have chosen SMEs as the target group, as they play a crucial role in economic growth worldwide.
The article is basically well structured and logically organised. The paper has little connection to the journal, it could be placed in the context of sustainability.
The authors approach the concept of performance from several angles, but fail to articulate it in an exact way, which definitely needs to be improved. The definition of performance used in the article is not clear and objective and subjective performance dimensions need to be made consistent. In the methodology chapter, reference is made to measurement scales, but unfortunately the reader is not made aware of this in the content. The specific measurement scales should at least be included in the annex. The situation is also similar with regard to the measurement of the innovation culture, please make this clear.
The authors use Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modelling (CB-SEM). Why this one? Why is this the best method of evaluation? I agree in principle, but these need to be explained in an article.
The authors have summarised Limitations, Future Research, and Conclusions in one chapter, which I do not consider to be a good solution. The conclusions should be formulated in a separate chapter and make theoretical and practical suggestions. It is not clear from the article what is new in the research, what these research results add to the literature. There is a lack of evaluation of the results in the context of existing literature. How are these results different from those of previous research?
The identification of future research directions is also incomplete. In what direction will the authors continue their research? What research questions could they formulate?

I hope that the guidelines will help you in revising the article! 

Author Response

Based on all the comments given, we have done the correction. We remarked all the revised comments in the file attached (manuscript).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments were successfully handled by the authors. Methodological section 3 (Research Methodology, which needed more attention) was changed, and the inclusion of Table 2 was very enlightening.

However, there is a very important information that was not included: the period of application of the survey. The authors explain the option of sending by email due to the Pandemic, but nowhere in the text is there any reference to the date of collection of the information (there is only the information of the three weeks to complete the surveys).

In addition to including this information in section 3, I suggest that it is also mentioned in the introduction to the article.

Author Response

We have added the information accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Tahnk you for reworked article. The Authors have taken most of my suggestions.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback given. We appreciated it.