Impact of Ambidexterity and Environmental Dynamism on Dynamic Capability Development Trade-Offs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I enjoyed reviewing the paper entitled Impact of ambidexterity and environmental dynamism on dynamic capability development trade-offs.
The paper is both conceptually and methodologically balanced, based on relevant literature. The authors appropriately used statistical tools in a competent manner.
There are a few minor changes which has to be done:
the paper does not comply with the journal formatting requirements;
small English language errors, for instance when using the short version of versus, the correct form is vs not v.s.
the authors should include the measurement scales of the variables, since it seems some of them are dichotomist, while others seems Likert related (like in Table 1).
Author Response
Reviewer’s Comment 1: The paper does not comply with the journal formatting requirements;
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the valuable comments. We have improved our format to match journal formatting requirements in this revised manuscript based on your suggestions.
Reviewer’s Comment 2:
small English language errors, for instance when using the short version of versus, the correct form is vs not v.s.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the valuable comments. We have improved our communication quality in this revised manuscript based on your suggestions.
Reviewer’s Comment 3: the authors should include the measurement scales of the variables, since it seems some of them are dichotomist, while others seems Likert related (like in Table 1).
Author’s response:
Thanks for the carefulness of the reviewer. Measurement of organizational tensions is differing from other variables. We have made explanations on the Assessment of variables section. Based on your confusing, we revised the Table 1 and putted on all construct and variables.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper addresses a very interesting topic, that is, the relationship between ambidexterity and organizational tension, moderated by environmental dynamism. It is very well funded and supported in the established and recent literature review, although I think it could be improved by integrating the knowledge-based view of the firm and also several references of your target journal. In addition, it is suggested to build a necessary bridge between organizational ambidexterity and business sustainability. My main concerns are focused on the empirical approach since it comprises 163 firms without using sub-samples for example manufacturing vs. service firms or high-tech vs. low-tech firms. Nevertheless, the author(s) state that it was used the database of the Taiwan Association of Industries in Science Parks for creating a sample list, which can produce a biased sample. Additional arguments are required for better justifying and explaining the scale in use for measuring organizational tension, that is, «when the score is closer to 1 or 7, the internal organizational tension is higher; relatively, when the score is closer to the median value of 4, the tension is lower», since it seems a two-tailed and symmetrical scale. Here, I would expect an increasing value representing the direction from lower organizational tension (1) to a higher one (7). In formal terms, the manuscript is not respecting the submission guidelines concerning the required task of formatting references according to what is established along (references under [XX]) and at the end of the manuscript. Considering the previous comments, I recommend a major revision.
Author Response
Reviewer’s Comment 1: It is very well funded and supported in the established and recent literature review, although I think it could be improved by integrating the knowledge-based view of the firm and also several references of your target journal.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the valuable comments. This study added recent literatures on knowledge-based view and showing how this study has made theoretical contributions and provided insights. We also added several references of my target journal.
[According to knowledge-based view, knowledge, which is abstract, can only be transferred via the active involvement of knowledge disseminators; in the process of learning, capability, far from being improved in the form of non-standardized specific knowledge in any subject, provides an integration mechanism [74,76,78]. Zollo and Winter [5] stated that the organizational capability should be emphasized when the integration of external knowledge and information is discussed.]
[There are several studies dealing with capabilities in the knowledge-based development and especially in complementarity of various knowledge [74,75,76]. They reveal dynamic nature of capabilities in knowledge-based development, and emphasize that the combination of knowledge and capabilities generate competitive advantages [78].]
Chen, J.; Jiao, H.; Zhao, X. A knowledge-based theory of the firm: managing innovation in biotechnology. Chinese Management Studies 2016, 10(1), 41-58, DOI: 10.1108/cms-11-2015-0273.
Laasonen, V.; Kolehmainen, J. Capabilities in knowledge-based regional development – towards a dynamic framework. European Planning Studies 2017, 25(10), 1-20, DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1337727.\
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
Oláh, J.; Kovács, S.; Virglerova, Z.; Lakner, Z.; Kovacova, M.; Popp, J. Analysis and Comparison of Economic and Financial Risk Sources in SMEs of the Visegrad Group and Serbia. Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 1853, DOI: 10.3390/su11071853.
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.
Reviewer’s Comment 2: In addition, it is suggested to build a necessary bridge between organizational ambidexterity and business sustainability.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the valuable comments. We authors agreed reviewer’s suggestion. We added several sentences about relationship between organizational ambidexterity and business sustainability in Introduction and Discussion sections.
[While the firm performance is discussed, the discussion on issues related to enterprise growth and survival is also required. When the enterprise has different opinions on the use of resources, the sustainability of enterprise growth and survival may be affected. Organizational ambidexterity creates a context in which different perspectives are combined and produce the complementarity. In addition to strengthening the sustainability of enterprise growth, it also generates sustainable competitive advantages.]
[Moreover, the organizational ambidexterity not only can reduce internal tensions, but also maintains the mutual support of internal capabilities, thus providing a kinetic energy with sustainable and stable development.]
Reviewer’s Comment 3: My main concerns are focused on the empirical approach since it comprises 163 firms without using sub-samples for example manufacturing vs. service firms or high-tech vs. low-tech firms. Nevertheless, the author(s) state that it was used the database of the Taiwan Association of Industries in Science Parks for creating a sample list, which can produce a biased sample.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the valuable comments. The samples of this study are collected from high-tech firms. We authors agreed reviewer’s concerns, which can produce a biased sample. Therefore, we used firm size to divide our sample into two groups and conduct a non-response deviation test to confirm whether there were differences in the responses between two firm sizes. We also added analysis results in this revision.
[To confirm whether there were differences in the responses between two firm sizes, the present study conducted a non-response deviation test. Several independent-samples T test were conducted to test the null hypothesis that the means of the answers across these two firm sizes were the same. The results of this test show that there were no significant differences in the basic data of the main aspects, which means that there were no significant differences between the sample data of two firm sizes.]
Reviewer’s Comment 4: Additional arguments are required for better justifying and explaining the scale in use for measuring organizational tension, that is, «when the score is closer to 1 or 7, the internal organizational tension is higher; relatively, when the score is closer to the median value of 4, the tension is lower, since it seems a two-tailed and symmetrical scale. Here, I would expect an increasing value representing the direction from lower organizational tension (1) to a higher one (7).
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the valuable comments. This study used a binominal scale to understand whether the tensions within organizations were balanced or unbalanced. The previous literature pointed out that when the value from 1 to 7 is closer to the median, the tension effect tends to be more balanced (lower), otherwise it goes more unbalanced (higher) when the value is closer to 1 or 7.
Reviewer’s Comment 5: In formal terms, the manuscript is not respecting the submission guidelines concerning the required task of formatting references according to what is established along (references under [XX]) and at the end of the manuscript. Considering the previous comments, I recommend a major revision.
Author’s response:
Many thanks for the valuable comments. We have improved our format to match journal formatting requirements in this revised manuscript based on your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The changes introduced are fine. I recommend the acceptance of the paper.
