Linking Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: The Drivers of Sustainability in High-Tech Firms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The text is hard going at parts and there are some minor spelling mistakes.
Author Response
Reviewer’s Comment:
The text is hard going at parts and there are some minor spelling mistakes.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We have asked a native editor to improve our communication quality in this revised manuscript based on your suggestions. In addition, we also revised our sentences to be clearer and easier to understand.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper addresses an interesting topic. However, in my opinion there are several aspects that could be revised:
1.- The abstract should be rewritten in order to clarify, from the very beginning, the objective of the paper. This objective should be also clearly explained in the Introduction section.
2.- In the Literature Review section, H4 -the moderating effect of market orientation on the relationship between organizational ambidexterity and performance- needs more justification. Along this line, the sign of this hypothesized effect should be included in H4.
3.- In the Methodology section, the results of the nonresponse bias test should be reported. Also, some tests to evaluate multicollinearity should be carried out and their results should be reported to mitigate concerns with this issue. Finally, within this section some additional information about the database (e.g. industries or number of firms included in the database), as well as about the criteria used to filter the firms should be included.
4.- Organizational learning theory is mentioned in the discussion subsection. The authors should consider use this theoretical framework to reinforce the justification of the hypotheses in the Literature Review Section.
5. The paper should be copy edited to correct some grammar mistakes.
I hope the authors can find useful these comments to improve their paper, and I wish them the best luck in the publication process.
Author Response
Reviewer’s Comment 1:
1.- The abstract should be rewritten in order to clarify, from the very beginning, the objective of the paper. This objective should be also clearly explained in the Introduction section.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. I have rewritten the abstract more clarified and explained objective clearly in the Introduction section.
[To strengthen national competitiveness and sustainability, the high-tech industry has been developed as the center of gravity of industrial development in each country, covering the development of new products and expansion to new customers and markets. Although both aspects are indispensable to high-tech firms’ growth momentum and competitive advantages, it is difficult to develop them at the same time. In recent years, scholars have been paying an increasing amount of attention to the significance of organizational ambidexterity in different management fields. Importantly, transformed high-tech firms are obliged to manage the tensions and conflicts that arise from the exploration of new knowledge and the exploitation of existing knowledge to find an appropriate balance between the two to yield synergistic effects. In this study, an original method was used to measure differences in the degree of ambidexterity. The method establishes a multiplicative term of exploration and exploitation to represent the degree of effect of ambidexterity. The higher is the exploration and exploitation, the higher will be the degree of ambidexterity.] (line 5-17)
[Few studies have attempted to explore how these transformed high-tech firms translate resources/capabilities into competitive advantages and performance (exploration). In addition, many studies ignore the importance of understanding how these high-tech firms use their existing abilities that affect their performance (exploitation). Therefore, the objective of this study is to adequately analyze the dynamic capabilities of transformed high-tech firms.] (line 48-53)
[Therefore, the second objective of this study is to explore the impact of ambidexterity on transformed high-tech firms’ performance.] (line 67-68)
Reviewer’s Comment 2:
2.- In the Literature Review section, H4 -the moderating effect of market orientation on the relationship between organizational ambidexterity and performance- needs more justification. Along this line, the sign of this hypothesized effect should be included in H4.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We further explained H4 and revised the statement of H4 to make it clearer.
[While previous studies suggest that management synergy, in terms of exploration and exploitation, requires different strategies, structures, and cultures [4], this study emphasizes the importance of the role of culture. Successful exploration and exploitation are imperative but challenging because they are associated with paradoxical values [4,13,15,16].] (line 272-275)
[Based on the extant literature, it seems reasonable to infer that an organization that relies on the contradictory values of efficiency and flexibility (related to hierarchy and market cultures) can operate at superior levels and improve its performance.] (line 285-288)
[H4. The positive effect of organizational ambidexterity on performance will be stronger when organizations are characterized by a market orientation culture.] (line 293-294)
Reviewer’s Comment 3:
3.- In the Methodology section, the results of the nonresponse bias test should be reported. Also, some tests to evaluate multicollinearity should be carried out and their results should be reported to mitigate concerns with this issue. Finally, within this section some additional information about the database (e.g. industries or number of firms included in the database), as well as about the criteria used to filter the firms should be included.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We added the results of the nonresponse bias in the Methodology section and carried out the VIF results to evaluate multicollinearity in the Table 2.
[The database of the Taiwan Association of Industries in Science Parks was used to create a sample list of 1200 high-tech firms. The samples were collected from March 2018 to May 2018.] (line 322-324)
[A total of 228 high-tech firms were selected for inclusion in the study.
Tests for nonresponse bias were carried out based on a comparison between the 110 early and the 118 late respondents in terms of the mean values of construct items and descriptive statistics. These tests yielded no significant differences (exploration, t = 0.894, p > 0.1; exploitation, t = 1.126, p > 0.1; market orientation, t = 0.675, p > 0.1; organizational performance, t = 0.744, p > 0.1), suggesting that nonresponse bias played a minor role in this study. When self-report questionnaires are used to collect data at the same time from the same participants, common method variance (CMV) may be a concern. A post hoc Harman one-factor analysis was used to test for CMV [53]. The factor analyses produced neither a single factor nor one general factor that accounted for the majority of the variance. The results show that the tests did not identify CMV as a problem.] (line 328-337)
Reviewer’s Comment 4:
4.- Organizational learning theory is mentioned in the discussion subsection. The authors should consider use this theoretical framework to reinforce the justification of the hypotheses in the Literature Review Section.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We will add the concept and description of the Organizational Learning Theory to the hypothesis according to the recommendations of the review committee to make the hypothesis and the theoretical framework clearer.
[According to organizational learning theory, exploration refers to learning activities beyond the current product–market knowledge base for the creation of new alternatives [4,26]. These learning activities help firms to internalize more new knowledge, such as potential customer demand, new technology, and new market information, which enables firms to enhance their innovation [15,26].] (line 157-161)
[Also, the cost of too much exploration learning tends to integrate more new knowledge, which reduces the development efficiency of new products [13].] (line 172-174)
[Exploitation refers to the learning activities in the neighborhood of a firm’s current product–market knowledge base for the refinement and extension of existing customers, technologies, and routines [4,26]. From organizational learning theory, a high degree of exploitation can act as a learning absorptive capacity and, thus, improve firms’ effectiveness in exploring new knowledge to consolidate existing customers and markets and renew products.] (line 185-189)
Reviewer’s Comment 5:
5. The paper should be copy edited to correct some grammar mistakes.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We have asked a native editor to improve our communication quality in this revised manuscript based on your suggestions. In addition, we also revised our sentences to be clearer and easier to understand.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is dealing with ambidexterity of using both of exploration and exploitation to have better performance. Inverted U-shape effect is also suggested.
The article has meaning but still has some parts to improve.
1. For the sample, the author(s) distributed 1,000 questionnaires but gathered only 228 valid. The response rate is too much low. The authors must defend about it. The characteristics of the non-respondent must be similar with the respondent.
2. The literature review must be strengthened more. I suggest the author(s) can include more related articles from special issue of Sustainability related to Open Innovation, and from other related journals such as Journal of Open Innovation (JOItmC).
I hope the article to be developed more.
Author Response
Reviewer’s Comment 1:
1. For the sample, the author(s) distributed 1,000 questionnaires but gathered only 228 valid. The response rate is too much low. The authors must defend about it. The characteristics of the non-respondent must be similar with the respondent.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. Due to the differences in industrial attributes, the high-tech industry has a small number of firms in Taiwan, and the invested capital is high, which set a higher threshold for firms. Although the study of Liao, S., Liu, Z., & Zhang, S. (2018) took high-tech firms in mainland China as the samples, there were only 201 valid questionnaires. Therefore, the samples of this study are statistically valid and sufficient for this research area.
Liao, S., Liu, Z., & Zhang, S. (2018). Technology innovation ambidexterity, business model ambidexterity, and firm performance in chinese high-tech firms. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 26(5), 1-21.
Reviewer’s Comment 2:
2. The literature review must be strengthened more. I suggest the author(s) can include more related articles from special issue of Sustainability related to Open Innovation, and from other related journals such as Journal of Open Innovation (JOItmC).
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We added several related articles from special issue of Sustainability related to Open Innovation in our literature review section.
SBotella-Carrubi, M.D.; González-Cruz, T.F. Context as a Provider of Key Resources for Succession: A Case Study of Sustainable Family Firms. Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 1873, DOI: 10.3390/su11071873.
Peng, M.Y.P.; Lin, K.H. Impact of ambidexterity and environmental dynamism on dynamic capability development trade-offs. Sustainability 2019, 11(8), 2334, DOI: 1-16. 10.3390/su11082334.
Li, S.; Han, S.; Shen, T. How Can a Firm Innovate When Embedded in a Cluster?—Evidence from the Automobile Industrial Cluster in China. Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 1837, DOI: 10.3390/su11071837.
Zeng, D.; Hu, J.; Ouyang, T. Managing Innovation Paradox in the Sustainable Innovation Ecosystem: A Case Study of Ambidextrous Capability in a Focal Firm. Activities. Sustainability 2017, 9(11), 2091, DOI: 10.3390/su9112091.
Cho, H.; Lee, P.; Shin, C.H. Becoming a Sustainable Organization: Focusing on Process, Administrative Innovation and Human Resource Practices. Sustainability 2019, 11(13), 3554.
Cheah, S.; Ho, Y.P. Coworking and Sustainable Business Model Innovation in Young Firms. Sustainability 2019, 11(10), 2959, DOI: 10.3390/su11102959.
Lee, Y.H.; Seo, Y.W. Strategies for Sustainable Business Development: Utilizing Consulting and Innovation Activities. Sustainability 2018, 10(11), 4122, DOI: 10.3390/su10114122.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The research, based on the title, would like to show the trade-off between exploration (new customers) and exploitation (efficiency gains). But there is no further explanation of the title until page 3 when the definitions are given. Either it needs a more straightforward title, or further definition discussion earlier in the narrative.
Abstract:
Line 12. It would be good to use consistent terminologies.
This study also explores the influence of resource allocation on organizational performance and suggests that incorporating co-existence of exploration and exploitation is important.
As mentioned above, please make the description of the key variables and research questions consistent. Moreover, the uniqueness of measurement of the degree of ambidexterity is mentioned in the abstract; please highlight one or two features.
Background:
Few studies essentially attempt to explore how these transformed high-tech firms operate (exploration?) and many studies ignore the importance of the usage of existing abilities (exploitation?)
H3. Exploration and exploitation have a positive interaction with organizational performance.
Line 229. and Table 2. Combining this hypothesis with the results of Model 3, it would be good to show the average partial effects and to explore how the effects of exploration on performance changes with respect to the level of exploitation, or how the effect of the exploitation on performance changes with respect to the level of exploration. It is not quite useful to interpret the direction of the effect of an interaction variable when individual variables are also included.
Data
Line 276. Is the response rate, 22.8%, a little low, or is it sufficient for this research area? Please inform the reader whether this is statistically valid or not.
What is the year of the data?
Comments on variables:
Line 281 – 289. Other features could be used as controls; such as firm type and firm location.
Since this is an empirical analysis, please attach a table of variable names, data source, and measurement.
Results
Comments on alternative specifications and additional tests:
For each model, there is only one regression. Have any alternative specifications been examined for each model?
The resources allocation of exploration and exploitation may also affected by firms’ past performance. It is necessary to conduct endogeneity tests.
Conclusion
This study has a clear outline of the gaps in the literature and the hypotheses. However, it could not deliver a consistent explanation/definition in the abstract. The data section could be further improved. There are not enough alternative specifications for each model. The endogeneity tests are needed.
Author Response
Reviewer’s Comment 1:
The research, based on the title, would like to show the trade-off between exploration (new customers) and exploitation (efficiency gains). But there is no further explanation of the title until page 3 when the definitions are given. Either it needs a more straightforward title, or further definition discussion earlier in the narrative.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. Based on reviewer’s suggestion, we gave a more straightforward title.
[Linking Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: The Drivers of Sustainability in High-Tech Firms]
Reviewer’s Comment 2:
Line 12. It would be good to use consistent terminologies.
This study also explores the influence of resource allocation on organizational performance and suggests that incorporating co-existence of exploration and exploitation is important.
As mentioned above, please make the description of the key variables and research questions consistent. Moreover, the uniqueness of measurement of the degree of ambidexterity is mentioned in the abstract; please highlight one or two features.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. In this revision, we used consistent terminologies and described the uniqueness of measurement of the degree of ambidexterity in the abstract.
[Importantly, transformed high-tech firms are obliged to manage the tensions and conflicts that arise from the exploration of new knowledge and the exploitation of existing knowledge to find an appropriate balance between the two to yield synergistic effects. In this study, an original method was used to measure differences in the degree of ambidexterity. The method establishes a multiplicative term of exploration and exploitation to represent the degree of effect of ambidexterity. The higher is the exploration and exploitation, the higher will be the degree of ambidexterity.] (line 11-17)
Reviewer’s Comment 3:
Few studies essentially attempt to explore how these transformed high-tech firms operate (exploration?) and many studies ignore the importance of the usage of existing abilities (exploitation?)
H3. Exploration and exploitation have a positive interaction with organizational performance.
Line 229. and Table 2. Combining this hypothesis with the results of Model 3, it would be good to show the average partial effects and to explore how the effects of exploration on performance changes with respect to the level of exploitation, or how the effect of the exploitation on performance changes with respect to the level of exploration. It is not quite useful to interpret the direction of the effect of an interaction variable when individual variables are also included.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment.
As you mentioned, the former part of the sentence describes the exploration and the latter part describes the exploitation. Therefore, we added exploration and exploitation at the end of the sentence. Besides, in “H3 Exploration and exploitation have a positive interaction with organizational performance”, this study aims to infer the impact of ambidexterity to performance, but the statement of this hypothesis may confuse the reviewer and readers. This hypothesis is mainly to verify whether the ambidexterity is positively correlated with organizational performance in model 3. Thus, to make it clearer, we modified H3 as:
[Few studies have attempted to explore how these transformed high-tech firms translate resources/capabilities into competitive advantages and performance (exploration). In addition, many studies ignore the importance of understanding how these high-tech firms use their existing abilities that affect their performance (exploitation).] (line 48-51)
[H3. A combination of exploration and exploitation (ambidexterity) is positively correlated with organizational performance.] (line 259-260)
Reviewer’s Comment 4:
Line 276. Is the response rate, 22.8%, a little low, or is it sufficient for this research area? Please inform the reader whether this is statistically valid or not.
What is the year of the data?
Comments on variables:
Line 281 – 289. Other features could be used as controls; such as firm type and firm location.
Since this is an empirical analysis, please attach a table of variable names, data source, and measurement.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. Due to the differences in industrial attributes, the high-tech industry has a small number of firms in Taiwan, and the invested capital is high, which set a higher threshold for firms. Although the study of Liao, S., Liu, Z., & Zhang, S. (2018) took high-tech firms in mainland China as the samples, there were only 201 valid questionnaires. Therefore, the samples of this study are statistically valid and sufficient for this research area. Furthermore, the samples of this study were collected from March to May 2018, which is added in 3.1. Data source.
Furthermore, this study focuses on the high-tech industry, all firm types are covered in the high-tech industry, so the firm type is not considered as control variables for this study. Although the control variables of this study were included according to the recommendations of Lubatkin et al. (2006), the authors agree with the reviewer’s idea that firm type and firm location may affect the results of the study. Thus, this recommendation is adopted in “5.2. Future research and limitations” to provide directions for future studies.
Finally, this study added a table next to “3.2. Assessment of variable” to illustrate the source and operationalization of the scale of this study.
Liao, S., Liu, Z., & Zhang, S. (2018). Technology innovation ambidexterity, business model ambidexterity, and firm performance in chinese high-tech firms. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 26(5), 1-21.
[The samples were collected from March 2018 to May 2018] (line 324)
[Therefore, future studies may test for differences in specific products from the high-tech industry and control for the effect of firm type and firm location.] (line 532-533)
Reviewer’s Comment 5:
For each model, there is only one regression. Have any alternative specifications been examined for each model?
The resources allocation of exploration and exploitation may also affected by firms’ past performance. It is necessary to conduct endogeneity tests.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. The regression models of this study were verified by hierarchical regression models based on the research framework and hypotheses, so no alternative specifications were tested for each model. However, according to the reviewer's suggestion, this study adds some control variables to test the advantages and disadvantages of models. But all the added control variables are not significant, and R2 is lower than the original models. Thus, the original models are still used for the verification of hypotheses.
Furthermore, since all the data of this study come from self-report scales, the respondents answered the degree of performance of exploration, exploitation, and organizational performance over the past three years. Therefore, this study requires the respondents to evaluate the degree of development at a specific time point; and questions are also designed in the questionnaire in order to avoid the tautology. So this study did not conduct endogeneity tests for the measurement variables. However, the authors agree with the reviewer’s doubts. In addition to examining the size of R2, a new field was added under each model to indicate the Max VIF in the model. In the model of this study, the values from 0.349 to 0.493 indicate a relative small proportion of residual, which means the degree of influence on the research results may be very small even if there are endogeneity problems. Besides, the value of VIF is only up to 2.323, which is below 10, indicating that the regression model does not have multicollinearity.
Reviewer’s Comment 6:
This study has a clear outline of the gaps in the literature and the hypotheses. However, it could not deliver a consistent explanation/definition in the abstract. The data section could be further improved. There are not enough alternative specifications for each model. The endogeneity tests are needed.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We modified the abstract and provided descriptions of several test and measurement variables in the data section. Since this study verified the degree of performance of exploration, exploitation and organizational performance by the self-report scale, alternative specifications and endogeneity tests were not conducted by reference to the previous test methods of scholars.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Review of: Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: Do high-tech firms trade off new customers for efficiency gains?
This paper addresses a very topical issue examining the relationship between organizational ambidexterity and performance. It conducts its empirical study quantitatively in electronics manufacturing firms in Taiwan. The research has been designed well first and last, I only have a few suggestions, most of them is to improve the formatting of the paper:
1) The title seems fine,
2) As the research is based on a survey, it would be good to mention common method bias in few lines.
3) Please check the picture in Figure 1 as it doesn’t look very clear. Also, reformat the titles in Figure 2.
4) Check the typos in line 87, 204, 223, 289, 363.
5) The reference numbers in the text should be active and linked to the bibliography. The author needs to reformat it throughout the paper. Likewise, bibliography is not in its right format (like you have to use the abbreviation of the journal name etc.). Please check the journal requirements and correct it accordingly.
Author Response
Reviewer’s Comment 1:
1) The title seems fine,
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment.
Reviewer’s Comment 2:
2) As the research is based on a survey, it would be good to mention common method bias in few lines.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We described the test of common method bias in “3.1 Data source”, confirming that there is no CMV problem in this study.
[When self-report questionnaires are used to collect data at the same time from the same participants, common method variance (CMV) may be a concern. A post hoc Harman one-factor analysis was used to test for CMV [53]. The factor analyses produced neither a single factor nor one general factor that accounted for the majority of the variance. The results show that the tests did not identify CMV as a problem.] (line 333-337)
Reviewer’s Comment 3:
3) Please check the picture in Figure 1 as it doesn’t look very clear. Also, reformat the titles in Figure 2.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We revised the Figure 1 to be clearer and reformatted the titles in Figure 2.
[Figure 2. The moderating effect of ambidexterity and MO.]
Reviewer’s Comment 4:
4) Check the typos in line 87, 204, 223, 289, 363.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We have asked a native editor to improve our communication quality in this revised manuscript based on your suggestions. In addition, we also revised our sentences to be clearer and easier to understand.
Reviewer’s Comment 5:
5) The reference numbers in the text should be active and linked to the bibliography. The author needs to reformat it throughout the paper. Likewise, bibliography is not in its right format (like you have to use the abbreviation of the journal name etc.). Please check the journal requirements and correct it accordingly.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We authors checked all references to meet journal requirements.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I have revised this new version of the manuscript and I believe the main concerns have been addressed.
Reviewer 4 Report
The latest version has improved considerably and the authors have adequately addressed previous reviewer comments. Would recommend a final grammatical check/run through before final version is submitted.
