Organizational Ambidexterity, Digital Transformation, and Strategic Agility for Gaining Competitive Advantage in SMEs

Öz

This study aims to examine the effects of strategic agility and environmental dynamism on the relationship between organizational ambidexterity and digital transformation and competitive advantage in small-scale SMEs. A quantitative research method is used in the study. The research population is the managers of 17451 small-scale SMEs in the wholesale and retail trade sector within the provincial borders of Istanbul, which employ less than 50 employees annually and whose annual net sales revenue or financial balance sheet does not exceed 25 million Turkish Liras according to the data of the end of 2020. An online survey was sent to the managers of 450 small-scale SMEs reached by convenience sampling method and the data obtained from 366 valid surveys were analyzed through the Smart PLS program. According to the research results, organizational ambidexterity and digital transformation are positively related to competitive advantage. In addition, it is determined that digital transformation has a partial mediating role on the relationship between small-scale SMEs’ ambidexterity and competitive advantage, and strategic agility has a moderating role on this relationship. On the other hand, it is concluded that environmental dynamism does not have a moderating role on the relationship between small-scale SMEs’ ambidexterity and competitive advantage.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• organizational ambidexterity
• digital transformation
• competitive advantage
• strategic agility
• environmental dynamism

KOBİ’lerde Rekabet Avantajı Elde Etmek için Örgütsel Çift Yönlülük, Dijital Dönüşüm ve Stratejik Çeviklik

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, stratejik çevikliğin ve çevresel dinamizmin, örgütsel çift yönlülük ve dijital dönüşüm ile rekabet avantajı ilişkisindeki etkilerini KOBİ’lerde irdelemektir. Çalışmada, nicel araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma evreni, 2020 yılı sonu verilerine göre İstanbul il sınırları içerisindeki 50 kişiden az yıllık çalışan istihdam eden ve yıllık net satış hasılatı ya da mali bilançosu 25 Milyon Türk Lirasını aşmayan ve toptan ve perakende ticaret sektöründe yer alan 17451 küçük ölçekli KOBİ’lerin yöneticileridir. Kolayda örnekleme yöntemiyle ulaşılan 450 küçük ölçekli KOBİ’lerin yöneticilerine çevrimiçi anket gönderilmiş ve geçerli sayılan 366 anketten elde edilen veriler Smart PLS programı aracılığıyla analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, örgütsel çift yönlülük ve dijital dönüşüm ile rekabet avantajının pozitif yönde ilişkili olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, dijital dönüşümün, KOBİ’lerin çift yönlülüğü ve rekabet avantajı ilişkisinde kısmi aracı rol üstlendiği ve stratejik çevikliğin ise bu ilişkide düzenleyici rolü olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Buna karşın, çevresel dinamizmin, KOBİ’lerin çift yönlülüğü ve rekabet avantajı ilişkisinde düzenleyici rolünün olmadığı sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• örgütsel çift yönlülük
• dijital dönüşüm
• rekabet avantajı
• stratejik çeviklik
• çevresel dinamizm

Kaynakça

1. Achrol, R. S., & Stern, L. W. (1988). Environmental determinants of decision-making uncertainty in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(1), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378802500104
2. Ahammad, M. F., Glaister, K. W., & Gomes, E. (2020). Strategic agility and human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100700
3. Akdoğan, Ş., Akdoğan, A., & Cingöz, A. (2019). Organizational ambidexterity: An empirical examination of organizational factors as antecedents of organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 3(2), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.20460/JGSM.2009318458
4. Battistella, C., De Toni, A., De Zan, G., & Pessot, E. (2017). Cultivating business model agility through focused capabilities: A multiple case study. Journal of Business Research, 73, 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.12.007
5. Berghaus, S., & Back, A. (2016). Gestaltungsbereiche der digitalen Transformation von Unternehmen: Entwicklung eines Reifegradmodells. DieUnternehmung, 70(2), 98-123. https://doi.org/10.5771/0042-059X-2016-2-98
6. Bodwell, W., & Chermack, T. J. (2010). Organizational ambidexterity: Integrating deliberate and emergent strategy with scenario planning. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77(2), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.004
7. Brannen, M. Y., & Doz, Y. (2012). Corporate languages and strategic agility: Trapped in your jargon or lost in translation?. California Management Review, 54(3), 77-97. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.3.77
8. Bråthen, M., Doan, E., & Breunig, K. J. (2021). Ambidexterity to overcome digital transformation challenges: A bibliometric review. In Proceedings on the 2021 ISPIM innovation conference: Innovating our common future. International Society for Professional Innovation Management, Berlin, Germany.

9. Braunscheidel, M. J., & Suresh, N. C. (2009). The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2), 119-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.09.006
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (9. Baskı). Pegem Yayınları.
11. Chan, A., Ngai, E., & Moon, K. (2017). The effect of strategic and manufacturing flexibilities and supply chain agility on firm performance in the fashion industry. European Journal of Operational Research, 259(2), 486-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.006
12. Chan, H. K., Yee, R. W., Dai, J., & Lim, M. K. (2016). The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on green product innovation and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 181(B), 384-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.12.006
13. Clauss, T., Kraus, S., Kallinger, F. L., Bican, P. M., Brem, A., & Kailer, N. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity and competitive advantage: The role of strategic agility in the exploration-exploitation paradox. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 6(4), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2020.07.003
14. Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. R. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization design: Strategies and implementation (pp. 167-188, Vol. I). North-Holland.
15. Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., & Welch, M. (2014). Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(2), 1-12.
16. Fleisher, C. S., & Bensoussan, B. E. (2003). Strategic and competitive analysis: Methods and techniques for analyzing business competition. Prentice Hall.
17. Fourné, S. P. L., Rosenbusch, N., Heyden, M. L. M., & Jansen, J. J. P. (2019). Structural and contextual approaches to ambidexterity: A meta-analysis of organizational and environmental contingencies. European Management Journal, 37(5), 564-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.04.002
18. 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
19. Gil-Gomez, H., Guerola-Navarro, V., Oltra-Badenes, R., & Lozano-Quilis, J. A. (2020). Customer relationship management: Digital transformation and sustainable business model innovation. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33(1), 2733-2750. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1676283
20. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A Primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd Edition). SAGE.
21. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
22. Henriette, E., Feki, M., & Boughzala, I. (2016). Digital transformation challenges. In Proceedings Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS), Cyprus.
23. Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928
24. Hock, M., Clauss, T., & Schulz, E. (2016). The impact of organizational culture on a firm’s capability to innovate the business model. R&D Management, 46(3), 433-450. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12153
25. Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. West Pub. Co.
26. Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
27. Hughes, M. (2018). Organisational ambidexterity and firm performance: Burning research questions for marketing scholars. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(1-2), 178-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1441175
28. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195-204. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3094025
29. Jiao, H., Alon, I., & Cui, Y. (2011). Environmental dynamism, innovation, and dynamic capabilities: the case of China. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 5(2), 131-144. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506201111131550
30. Junni, P., Sarala, R., Tarba, S., & Weber, Y. (2015). The role of strategic agility in acquisitions. British Journal of Management, 26(4), 596-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12115
31. Kenny, D. A. (2018). Moderation. https://davidakenny.net/cm/moderation.htm (Accessed: 28 September 2022).
32. Kofler, T. (2018). Das digitale Unternehmen. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57617-5
33. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
34. Lavikka, R., Smeds, R., & Jaatinen, M. (2015). A process for building inter-organizational contextual ambidexterity. Business Process Management Journal, 21(5), 1140-1161. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-12-2013-0153
35. Liu, D., Chen, S., & Chou, T. (2011). Resource fit in digital transformation: Lessons learned from the CBC Bank Global e‐banking project. Management Decision, 49(10), 1728-1742. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111183852
36. Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
37. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
38. Morakanyane, R., Grace, A. A., & O'Reilly, P. (2017). Conceptualizing digital transformation in business organizations: A systematic review of the literature. Bled eConference, Bled, Slovenia. https://doi.org/10.18690/978-961-286-043-1.30
39. Moreno-Luzon, M., & Pasola, J. V. (2011). Ambidexterity and total quality management: Towards a research agenda. Management Decision, 49(6), 927-947. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111143612
40. Preda, G. (2014). Organizational ambidexterity and competitive advantage: Toward a research model. Management and Marketing Journal, (1), 67-74.
41. Probst, G., & Raisch, S. (2005). Organizational crisis: The logic of failure. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 90-105. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2005.15841958
42. Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: The duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 694-709. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1238358
43. Scherer, R. F., Wiebe, F. A., Luther, D. C., & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763-770. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.763
44. Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2), 179-203. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2099
45. Schuchmann, D., & Seufert, S. (2015). Corporate learning in times of digital transformation: A conceptual framework and service portfolio for the learning function in banking organisations. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 8(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v8i1.4440
46. Ståhle, P., & Grönroos, M. (2009). Dynamic intellectual capital: Knowledge management in theory and practice. Werner Soderstrom Osakeyhtio, Porvoo.
47. TURKSTAT. (2022). Turkish Statistical Institute. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Turcat (Accessed: 30 October 2022).
48. Ürü Sanı, F. O., Wolff, R. A., & Demir, B. (2016). Çevresel determinizmin stratejik karar alma sürecindeki rolü. Eurasian Academy of Sciences Social Sciences Journal, 1(1), 444-465.
49. Ürü, F. O., & Ünsal, A. A. (2022). KOBİ’lerde örgütsel çift yönlülük, dijital dönüşüm, rekabet avantajı, stratejik çeviklik ve çevresel olumsuzluk arasındaki ilişkiler. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(4), 3238-3258. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2022.1560
50. Ürü, F. O., Çalışkan, S. C., Atan, Ö., & Aksu, M. (2011). How much entrepreneurial characteristics matter in strategic decision-making?. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 538-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.112
51. Westerman, G., Tannou, M., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P., & McAfee, A. (2017). The digital advantage: How digital leaders outperform their peers in every industry. Capgemini Consulting, and MIT Sloan Management Report.
52. Yaşar Uğurlu, Ö., Çolakoğlu, E., & Öztosun, E. (2019). Stratejik çevikliğin firma performansına etkisi: Üretim işletmelerinde bir araştırma. İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 6(1), 93-106.
53. Yazıcıoğlu, Y., & Erdoğan, S. (2004). SPSS uygulamalı bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Detay Yayıncılık.