Personality Traits, Entrepreneur’s Ambidexterity, and Knowledge

Brokerage: Evidence from Technology Firms

Ching Seng Yap

, Rizal Ahmad

, Nurul Afza Hashim

and Farah Waheeda Jalaludin

Faculty of Business, Curtin University, Malaysia, Miri, Malaysia

Graduate School of Business, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Bank Rakyat School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Faculty of Accountancy and Management, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Sungai Long, Malaysia

Keywords: Personality Traits, Entrepreneur’s Ambidexterity, Knowledge Brokerage, Firm Performance, Knowledge

Sources, Technology Entrepreneurs, Malaysia.

Abstract: The study aims to identify the knowledge sources for opportunity recognition and to examine the

relationships between personality traits, ambidexterity, knowledge brokerage, and firm performance. Data

were collected from 132 entrepreneurs in the technology sector using a questionnaire survey. The study

finds that the mostly used knowledge sources for opportunity recognition are Internet/social media, online

media, and customers. The findings reveal that personality traits of entrepreneurs relates with ambidexterity,

specifically, openness to experience relates positively with engagement in exploration activities, and

conscientiousness relates positively with engagement in exploitation activities. Furthermore, entrepreneur’s

ambidexterity and knowledge brokerage have a positive relationship, which in turn, affect firm

performance.

1 INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurs are facing increasingly competitive

global environments which are characterized by

uncertainty, complexity and rapid technological

change. Drawing on the literature on managerial

ambidexterity, entrepreneurs divide their time and

resources to exploit existing knowledge to solve

short-term problems and explore new knowledge for

long-term opportunities. Entrepreneurs tend to

prioritize exploitation to exploration as the returns

from the latter are less certain and take longer time

to accomplish (March, 1991). Entrepreneurs who

could allocate balanced resources to exploration and

exploitation are considered to be ambidextrous

(O'Reilly and Tushman, 2004).

An ambidextrous entrepreneur tends to tap

various sources and gain knowledge in order to

exploit business opportunities and help solve

internal problems. In this connection, knowledge

brokerage is viewed as an essential practice to tackle

the problem. The literature refers to knowledge

broker as an intermediary (an individual or an

organization), who provides links, knowledge

sources and knowledge itself to an organization.

Knowledge brokers may consist of the employees

within the organization or professional knowledge

firms external to the organization (Hargadon, 1998).

Recent literature relates personality traits of

managers with their engagement in exploration and

exploitation activities as the latter represent learning

behavior (Keller and Weibler, 2014; Mom et al.,

2007). Keller and Weibler (2014) claimed that their

study is the first to empirically test the personal

characteristics and engagement in exploration and

exploitation activities, which provides important for

the conceptualization of ambidexterity at the

individual level.

The probable relationships among personality

traits, ambidexterity, knowledge brokerage and firm

performance motivate the conduct of this study.

Ambidexterity research has mainly been conducted

at the organizational, unit, and team levels (Gibson

and Birkinshaw, 2004; Keller and Weibler, 2014),

research at the individual level is still scarce

(Birkinshaw, and Gupta, 2013; Keller and Weibler,

2014; Lee and Lee, 2016). Moreover, knowledge

brokerage is prevalent in science, technology and

innovation fields (Verona, Prandelli, and Sawhney,

2006) as well as environment and sustainable

Yap C., Ahmad R., Hashim N. and Jalaludin F.

Personality Traits, Entrepreneurâ

Zs Ambidexterity, and Knowledge Brokerage: Evidence from Technology Firms.

DOI: 10.5220/0006505000610069

In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (KMIS 2017), pages 61-69

ISBN: 978-989-758-273-8

development policy (Sheate and Partidário, 2010),

research on the role of knowledge brokerage in

entrepreneurial enterprises remains limited.

Therefore, the study attempts to examine the

relationships between personality traits and

entrepreneur’s ambidexterity, and between

entrepreneur’s ambidexterity, knowledge brokerage,

and firm performance. Besides, the study also

attempts to identify knowledge sources for

opportunity recognition among technology

entrepreneurs. Data were collected from 132

entrepreneurs in the technology sector in Malaysia

via a questionnaire survey. Quantitative technique

was adopted in this study as the survey instrument is

available in the literature and the number of

entrepreneurs in the technology sector is sufficient to

generate meaningful quantitative research findings.

Researchers and entrepreneurs are expected to

benefit from this study by gaining insights into

personality traits and its relationship with

ambidextrous entrepreneurs, and specific functions

of knowledge brokerage which lead to enhanced

firm performance.

The paper is structured as follows. The next

section reviews the literature of personality traits,

entrepreneur’s ambidexterity, and knowledge

brokerage and develops research hypotheses.

Research methods about data collection, sampling

procedures, and operationalization of variables are

then presented and that is followed by a report on

research findings. The last section concludes the

study by discussing research implications,

limitations and recommendations for future research.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Personality Traits

The Big Five personality traits – neuroticism,

extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness,

and conscientiousness have been dominant in

studying personality in organization and

management literature as they cover a broad scope

of human personality. Having the similar pattern of

learning behavior, openness to experience and

conscientiousness are aligned to the study of

exploration and exploitation of managers’ activities

(Colquitt and Simmering, 1998; Mom et al., 2007).

Openness to experience is concerned with

curiosity, creativity, intellect, and flexibility in terms

of attitudinal and behavioral. This personality trait is

associated with exploration activities which require

changing the status quo, searching for new ways,

and experimenting new approaches, and innovating.

Further, exploration activities need behavioral

flexibility to disassociate from existing work

practices and routines. On the other hand,

conscientiousness is related to goal-directed

behavior which requires predefined goals coupled

with existing knowledge and competencies, and

previous experience, in order to exploit for goal

attainment.

Therefore,

: Openness to experience relates positively

with entrepreneur’s engagement in exploration

activities.

: Conscientiousness relates positively with

entrepreneur’s engagement in exploitation activities.

2.2 Ambidexterity

The term ambidexterity was first cited in Duncan

(1976) to study dual structure in organizations.

Ambidexterity can be analyzed at the organizational,

unit or individual levels. This study views ambi-

dexterity at the individual level of entrepreneurs or

managers. An ambidextrous organization manages

business activities involving different time horizons

and managerial capabilities. On the other hand,

building on March’s (1991) organizational learning

framework, an ambidextrous entrepreneur or

manager is said to be able to seek a balance between

exploration and exploitation activities and thus

enable them to perform better than others who focus

on either type of activities.

Being one of the few studies that examined

ambidexterity from the individual perspective, Mom,

Van Den Bosch, and Volberda (2009) defined

managerial ambidexterity as “a manager’s

behavioural orientation toward combining

exploration- and exploitation-related activities

within a certain period of time. Exploration activities

involve identification of new market needs and

technological opportunities which require the

development of new knowledge. On the other hand,

exploitation activities are focusing on efficient

production of existing product-market positions

which entail the use of existing knowledge

(Tushman and O'Reilly, 1996).

Both exploration and exploitation activities are

competing for limited resources such as time,

money, and human capital, and require distinctive

sets of skills and capabilities. To be ambidextrous,

organizations trade off short-term productivity for

long-term innovation, as well as stability for

adaptability (Lewin, Long, and Carroll, 1999;

March, 1991). An ambidextrous entrepreneur is

expected to engage in knowledge brokerage

activities to improve both exploration and

exploitation activities in their entrepreneurial

endeavor. Knowledge brokers can be both internal

and external to the firm. In the technology sector, the

engagement with knowledge brokerage activities is

higher as it requires more advanced level of

technical knowledge and know-how, as well as

business acumen and competency to market the

products.

Therefore,

: The higher the level of entrepreneur’s

ambidexterity, the higher the level of knowledge

brokerage activities.

2.3 Knowledge Brokerage

Gould and Fernandez (1989) recognized five

different types of brokers based on their role in

facilitation of knowledge flows within and between

organizations. Brokerage relations involve three

actors. Two actors are the actual parties to the

transactions and the third actor is the intermediary or

broker. The first type of broker is called coordinator

who enhances interaction between members of the

group he belongs to. The second type is called

cosmopolitan or itinerant where the principals

belong to the same group while broker belongs to a

different group (an outsider). The third type of

broker is called gatekeeper who absorbs knowledge

from a group and passes it to the group he belongs

to. The fourth type is called representative who

diffuses the knowledge of the own group to another

group. The last type of broker is called liaison, an

outsider who enhances interaction between two

groups (Kirkels and Duysters, 2010).

On the other hand, knowledge brokerage can be

discussed in terms of the value created in the firm

(Burt, 2004). The first type of knowledge brokerage

is to make individuals at both sides of a structural

hole aware of interests and problems in another

group. The second type of knowledge brokerage is

to transfer best practices from one group to another.

The third type of knowledge brokerage involves

drawing analogies between groups which are seen to

be irrelevant to one another. The final type of

knowledge brokerage is concerned with synthesizing

new belief and behaviors from both groups.

Prior research in knowledge brokerage mainly

focused on science, technology and innovation fields

(Verona, Prandelli, and Sawhney, 2006) as well as

environment and sustainable development policy

(Sheate and Partidário, 2010), research on the role of

knowledge brokerage in entrepreneurial enterprises

remains limited.

Knowledge brokers play an important role to

transfer new and specific knowledge and best

practices to ambidextrous entrepreneurs who may

not possess such knowledge. With the new

knowledge acquired through knowledge brokerage

activities, entrepreneurs are able to improve the

business operations and opportunities exploitation

which lead to enhanced business performance. As

such, this study argues that the level of knowledge

brokerage practice increases with the level of firm

performance.

Therefore,

: The higher the level of knowledge brokerage

activities the higher the level of firm performance.

The conceptual framework is presented in

Figure 1.

Note. OP – Open to Experience; CS – Conscientiousness;

EA – Entrepreneur’s Ambidexterity; KB – Knowledge

Brokerage; FP – Firm Performance.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework.

3 METHOD

This study is non-experimental, cross-sectional and

with individual entrepreneurs as the unit of analysis.

3.1 Data Collection Method

Primary data are collected using an interviewer-

administered questionnaire survey. Interviewers are

present when respondents are filling out the

questionnaire to answer any doubts they might have

about the survey questions.

3.2 Sample and Sampling Procedures

The population of the study consists of business

firms in the technology sector in Malaysia. The

sector is selected based on the basis that a high level

of specific knowledge is needed in research and

development of products and services. The sample

was selected from the business directories such as

Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers. A total of

KB FP

500 firms were randomly selected and 132 firms

participated and returned completed survey forms, a

response rate of 26.4%.

As presented in Table 1, more respondents were

not the owner (58%) than the owner (42%) of the

firm. More than half (56%) of the respondents have

a Bachelor’s degree (56%). About 60% of the

entrepreneurial firms have been established for more

than 5 years. The size of the firm is equally divided

into micro (33%), small (34%) and big (33%).

Slightly less than half (48%) of the firms have an

RandD department/unit.

Table 1: Sample Profile (n=132).

Demographic Variable Per cent

Owner Yes

Highest

Educational

Level

Secondary

Diploma / Advanced Diploma

Bachelor’s Degree /

Professional Certificate

Master’s Degree

Doctorate Degree

Firm Characteristics Per cent

Year Firm

Established

1 year and below

2 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

Above 10 years

No. of

Employees

Micro (1 to 4)

Small (5 to 69)

Big (70 and above)

RandD Unit Yes

3.3 Variables and Measurement

Personality Traits. Two personality traits –

openness to experience and conscientiousness are

chosen as they are closely linked to entrepreneur’s

ambidexterity (Keller and Weibler, 2014). Nine

items are used to measure conscientiousness and ten

items for openness to experience (John, Robins, and

Pervin, 1991). Sample item for conscientiousness is

“I am a reliable worker”, and for openness to

experience is “I have an active imagination”.

Entrepreneur’s Ambidexterity. Entrepreneur’s

ambidexterity is viewed as a personal attribute that

refers to the ability to pursue both exploration and

exploitation activities at the same time.

Ambidexterity is computed by multiplying the score

of both activities. The measures for exploration and

exploitation activities are adopted from Mom, Van

Den Bosch, and Volberda (2009) and consist of

seven items respectively. All items are measured

along the scales of 0: not used at all; 1: low, 2:

medium, and 3: high. Sample item for exploration

activities include “Evaluating diverse option with

respect to products/services, processes, or market”

and for exploitation activities include “Activities

which you carry out as if it were routine”.

Knowledge Brokerage. Knowledge brokerage

activities are measured in terms of its value created.

Four items adopted from Burt (2004) are used to

collect the frequency of knowledge brokerage

activities, measured along the scales of 1: not used at

all, 2: low, 3: medium and 4: high. Sample item

includes “Transferring of best practices from other

firms to my firm”.

Knowledge Sources. To capture the knowledge

sources, 25 items covering knowledge obtained from

five categories – government departments and

agencies, business organizations, social

organizations, print and online media, and personal

contact (Foss et al., 2013). Respondents are asked to

indicate the extent to which they used the knowledge

from each source over the last three years for

opportunities recognition, along the scale of 0: not

used at all, 1: low, 2: medium, and 3: high.

Firm Performance. Firm performance is defined as

the degree to which firms attain all the purposes they

are supposed to (Strasser et al., 1981). Respondents

are asked to indicate their level of agreement on

their firm performance relative to their major

competitors in the past three years in terms of

operating profit, revenue growth, ROA, and ROI

(Dess and Robinson, 1984), measured along the

scale of 1: among the worst, 2: bottom half, 3:

average, 4: top half, and 5: among the best.

4 RESULTS

4.1 Descriptive Analysis

As shown in Table 2, among all sources of

knowledge listed, Internet and social media was

used to the highest extent in recognizing new

business opportunities among the entrepreneurs,

followed by customers, and online media. The

medium usage includes personal friends,

suppliers/vendors, and print media. On the other

hand, social organizations such as sports/leisure

club, NGO/third sector, and religious community

were the least used knowledge sources in

recognizing new business opportunities.

On the other hand, all activities of knowledge

brokerage were practised at a moderate level among

the entrepreneurs, of which “creating awareness of

interests and problems of other firms in the

organization” received the highest score by the

entrepreneurs.

Table 2: Source of Knowledge (in per cent).

Source 0 1 2 3

1. Federal Government

29 27 13

2. State Government 33

24 7

3. Local Council

30 28 8

4. Media – Print 14 27

5. Media – Online 8 18 38

6. Internet/Social Media 6 8 36

7. Chamber of Commerce 31

24 14

8. Conference/Trade Fair/

Exhibition

14 14

9. Industry Association 25

27 18

10. Professional Association 27 29

11. Bank/Financial Inst.

21 25 16

12. Consulting Firm

27 25 10

13. NGO/Third Sector

23 23 5

14. University/College/

Research Institute

30 14

15. Social Community 27 32

16. Religious Community

28 20 4

17. Sports/Leisure Club

25 21 5

18. Family Member/Relative 16 24

19. Personal Friend 11 19

20. Internal Employee 14 25

21. Board Member 25 23

22. Business Partner/Alliance 19 20

23. Customer 4 23 30

24. Competitor 17

30 15

25. Supplier/Vendor 4 22

Note: 0 – Not used at all; 1 – Low; 2 – Medium; 3 – High.

The highest frequency within the source is bolded.

4.2 Hypothesis Testing

Partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM) with

R (Sanchez, 2013) was used in data analysis and

hypothesis testing. PLS-PM is a multivariate

statistical technique that allows simultaneous

evaluation between multiple variables. PLS-PM

involved two stages of analysis – assessment of

measurement model and structural model. The

measurement model evaluates reliability and validity

of the items and constructs while the structural

model evalautes effect size, direction, and

significance of the hypothesized relationships. As

the sample size is considered small at this stage,

additional test was conducted to ensure the data

analysis is sufficient to minimize Type II error

(Statistical power of more than 80%). GPower 3.1

was used to compute a statistical power analysis.

This study chose to detect a population effect size

represented by f

=0.25, based upon the findings of

past research, and is also the moderate effect size

proposed by Cohen (1988). For controlling Type I

error, α is set at the 0.05 significance level, which is

the norm in social science research. For controlling

Type II error, the power of the test is set at 0.80, the

level recommended by (Cohen, 1988) and adopted

generally by researchers. Using G*Power 3.1.9.2 F

tests (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, and Buchner, 2007), the

required number of sample size is 95. As the sample

size for this study is 132 which exceeds the required

number, it can therefore be concluded that the study

has sufficient power to detect the required effect size

of 0.25.

4.3 Assessment of the Measurement

Model

As shown in Table 3, all constructs were deemed

reliable and valid. All scores exceeded the minimum

requirement of Cronbach’s alpha (0.78 – 0.94),

composite reliability (0.86 – 0.96), and average

variance extracted (AVE) (0.50 – 0.84) (Nunally,

1978). The discriminant validity of the items was

evaluated by comparing the squared roots of AVE

and correlation coefficients between constructs. All

the squared roots of AVE on the diagonal line are

higher than the correlation coefficients between

constructs, indicating discriminant validity at the

construct level. All items were loaded higher than

0.60 within the respective constructs – opennes to

experience (0.61 – 0.81), conscientiousness (0.76 –

0.81), knowledge brokerage (0.75 – 0.79), and firm

performance (0.88 – 0.93), and were loaded low

across other constructs, indicating adequate

convergent validity and discriminant validity at the

item level. As the requirements of reliability,

convergent validity, and discriminant validity at both

construct and item levels are met, the data analysis

proceeds to evaluate the structural model.

Table 3: Correlation Matrix.

Variable

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1. OP 3.50 .46

.71

2. CS 3.72 .60 .55

.78

3. ER 4.63 .98 .43 .45

.78

4. EP 4.83 1.00 .29 .49 .65

.77

5. KB 1.78 .63 .23 .40 .37 .39

.77

6. FP 1.81 .74 .13 .28 .18 .11 .24

.92

Note. OP – Open to Experience; CS – Conscientiousness;

ER – Exploration; EP – Exploitation; KB – Knowledge

Brokerage; FP – Firm Performance.

4.4 Assessment of the Structural Model

The structural model as presented in Figure 2 shows

that both openness to experience and

conscientiousness are significantly related to

entrepreneur’s ambidexterity, supporting H

and H

respectively. However, the relationship between

openness to experience and entrepreneur’s

ambidexterity (β = .18, t = 2.02, p = .045) is

relatively weaker than the relationship between

conscientiousness and entrepreneur’s ambidexterity

(β = .37, t = 4.10, p < .001). Both openness to

experience and conscientiousness explain about a

quarter of the variance for entrepreneur’s

ambidexterity (R

= .25). It is also found that

entrepreneur’s ambidexterity is positively and

moderately related to knowledge brokerage (β = .38,

t = 4.61, p < .001), and knowledge brokerage is

positively related to firm performance (β = .24, t =

2.81, p = .006). Knowledge brokerage explains

merely 6% of the variance for firm performance.

Overall, the Goodness of Fit Index stands at 30.3%.

In sum, all the hypotheses tested are supported by

the data.

Note. *** p > .001; ** p > .01; * p > .05; GoF = .303; OP – Open

to Experience; CS – Conscientiousness; EA – Entrepreneur’s

Ambidexterity; KB – Knowledge Brokerage; FP – Firm

Performance.

Figure 2: Structural Model.

A second analysis was conducted to test the

relationship between personality traits and the two

dimensions of ambidexterity. The analysis found

support for the positive relationship between

openness to experience and exploration activities (β

= . 43, t = 5.44, p < .001), and between

conscientiousness and exploitation activities (β =

.49, t = 6.45, p < .001). The Goodness of Fit Index

stands at 31.8%.

4.5 Discussion

The study finds that openness to experience is

weakly but significantly related with exploration

activities of entrepreneurs. Similarly, conscientious-

ness also significantly related with exploitation

activities of entrepreneurs, but with a relatively

stronger effect. The findings confirm the importance

of fitting the personality traits and the dimension of

entrepreneur’s ambidexterity activities which are

consistent with Keller and Weibler (2014).

Furthermore, this study finds that entrepreneur’s

ambidexterity relates positively and moderately with

knowledge brokerage. Lastly, knowledge brokerage

relates positively with firm performance.

5 IMPLICATIONS AND

CONCLUSION

5.1 Implications for Research

Firstly, the study introduced the ambidexterity

concept in the context of individual level of

entrepreneurs, which is lacking in the literature.

Secondly, the study tested the antecedent of

personality traits to entrepreneur’s ambidexterity.

The significant findings of the study confirmed the

managerial ambidexterity literature in the context of

technology entrepreneurs in an emerging economy.

Thirdly, the study introduced knowledge brokerage

activities as the consequence of ambidexterity, and

antecedent to firm performance. The study

underscores the importance of knowledge brokerage

in enhancing business performance. Overall, the

study provides empirical evidence for the conceptual

framework.

5.2 Implications for Practice

Entrepreneurs should attempt to achieve

ambidexterity, which is to seek a balance between

exploration and exploitation activities in their

business operations. Entrepreneurs with personality

trait of openness to experience are more aligned to

exploration activities while with conscientiousness

are closely linked with exploitation activities. As it

is difficult to change these personality traits by

training, entrepreneurs themselves should be aware

of the importance of seeking a balance between the

two types of activities. While ambidexterity would

not directly lead to enhanced firm performance,

knowledge brokerage activities play an important

role to improve business performance. Entrepreneurs

should engage in knowledge brokerage practices to

acquire new knowledge to sustain in an ever

competitive business environment.

.37***

.18*

.38***

.24**

5.3 Limitations and Recommendations

for Future Research

This study suffers from a number of limitations and

further research in this area is recommended.

Firstly, the sample size of this study is

considered small, which reduced its generalizability

to the larger population. Further, the study only

collected responses from technology firms where

knowledge brokerage activities are more prevalent.

Future researchers are recommended to conduct

similar studies on specific groups of technology

firms, such as start-ups or multi-national

corporations, and on other sectors where knowledge

brokerage activities are widely practised.

Secondly, common method bias may be present

as the responses of both independent and dependent

variables are obtained from the same source. Future

researchers may consider collecting data for firm

performance from other sources.

Thirdly, the study generally identified knowledge

sources where new business opportunities are

recognized. Future researchers may examine specific

knowledge sources in relation to specific business

opportunities.

Finally, the practice of knowledge brokerage

activities may not have a direct impact on firm

performance. As such future researchers may

investigate its indirect impact on firm performance

through product innovation.

6 CONCLUSION

The entrepreneur’s ambidexterity is difficult to

achieve as it requires an optimum balance between

two activities that are on the opposite sides.

Meanwhile, it is crucial to identify the antecedents

and consequences of managerial ambidexterity as

well as the potential moderators and mediators

affecting the relationship between managerial

ambidexterity and firm performance. This study

hopes to contribute to the managerial ambidexterity

literature by examining entrepreneur’s personality

traits as the antecedent to ambidexterity and

knowledge brokerage as the consequence. Besides,

entrepreneurs may benefit from this study by

recognizing the roles played by knowledge

brokerage activities in enhancing their business

performance.

Survey Items

Personality Traits

A. Conscientiousness

1. I do a thorough job

2. I can be somewhat careless (R)

3. I am a reliable worker

4. I tend to be disorganized (R)

5. I tend to be lazy (R)

6. I persevere until the task is finished

7. I do things efficiently

8. I make plans and follows through with them

9. I am easily distracted (R)

B. Openness to Experience

10. I am original, come up with new ideas

11. I am curious about many different things

12. I am indigenous, a deep thinker

13. I have an active imagination

14. I am inventive

15. I value artistic, aesthetic experience

16. I prefer work that is routine (R)

17. I like to reflect, play with ideas

18. I have few artistic interests (R)

19. I am sophisticated in art, music, or literature

Entrepreneur’s Ambidexterity

A. Exploration

1. Searching for new possibilities with respect to

products/services, processes, or markets

2. Evaluating diverse options with respect to

products/services, processes, or markets

3. Focusing on strong renewal of products/services

or processes

4. Activities of which the associated yields or costs

are currently unclear

5. Activities requiring quite some adaptability of

you

6. Activities requiring you to learn new skills or

knowledge

7. Activities that are not (yet) clearly existing

company policy

B. Exploitation

8. Activities of which a lot of experience has been

accumulated by yourself

9. Activities which you carry out as if it were

routine

10. Activities which serve existing (internal)

customers with existing services/products

11. Activities of which it is clear to you how to

conduct them

12. Activities primarily focused on achieving short-

term goals

13. Activities which you can properly conduct by

using your present knowledge

14. Activities which clearly fit into existing company

policy

Knowledge Brokerage

1. Creating awareness of interest and problem of

other firms

2. Transferring of best practices from other firms

3. Drawing analogies from other firms that may

seem to be invisible or irrelevant to your firm

4. Creating new beliefs and behaviors in your firm

Firm Performance

1. Operating Profit

2. Revenue Growth

3. ROI

4. ROA

REFERENCES

Birkinshaw, J., and Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the

distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of

organization studies. Academy of Management

Perspectives, 27(4), 287-298.

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas.

American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for

behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Collins, C. J., and Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human

resource practices, top management team social

networks, and firm performance: The role of human

resource practices in creating organizational

competitive advantage. Academy of Management

Journal, 46(6), 740-751.

Colquitt, J. A., and Simmering, M. J. (1998),

Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to

learn during the learning process: A longitudinal

study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 654-665.

Dess, G. G., and Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of

organizational task environments. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52-73.

Dess, G. G., and Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring

organizational performance in the absence of objective

measures: the case of the privatelyheld firm and

conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management

Journal, 5(3), 265-273.

Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization:

Designing dual structures for innovation. The

Management of Organization, 1, 167-188.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., and Buchner, A.

(2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power

analysis program for the social, behavioral, and

biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods,

39(2), 175-191.

Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., and Zahra, S. A. (2013). The role

of external knowledge sources and organizational

design in the process of opportunity exploitation.

Strategic Management Journal, 34(12), 1453-1471.

Gibson, C. B., and Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents,

consequences, and mediating role of organizational

ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal,

47(2), 209-226.

Gould, R. V., and Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of

mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in

transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19,

89-126.

Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers:

Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California

Management Review, 40(3), 209-227.

Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., and Fox, B. C. (2015). Managerial

social networks and ambidexterity of SMEs: The

moderating role of a proactive commitment to

innovation. Human Resource Management, 54(S1),

201-221.

Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., and Volberda, H. W.

(2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive

capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter?.

Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999-1015.

John, O., Robins, R. W., and Pervin, L. A. (1991). The big

five personality inventory. Theoretical Perspectives,

132.

Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., and Tarba, S. Y.

(2013). Organizational ambidexterity and

performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of

Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299-312.

Keller, T., and Weibler, J. (2014). Behind managers’

ambidexterity – Studying personality traits, leadership,

and environmental condition associated with

exploration and exploitation. Schmalenbach Business

Review, 66(3), 309-333.

Kirkels, Y., and Duysters, G. (2010). Brokerage in SME

networks. Research Policy, 39(3), 375-385.

Lee, Y.-J., and Lee, J.-H. (2016). Knowledge workers'

ambidexterity: conceptual separation of competencies

and behavioural dispositions. Asian Journal of

Technology Innovation, 24(1), 22-40.

Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., and Carroll, T. N. (1999). The

coevolution of new organizational forms.

Organization Science, 10(5), 535-550.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in

organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1),

71-87.

Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., and Volberda, H. W.

(2009). Understanding variation in managers'

ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction

effects of formal structural and personal coordination

mechanisms.

Organization Science, 20(4), 812-828.

Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

O'Reilly, C. A., and Tushman, M. L. (2004). The

ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review,

82(4), 74-81.

Raisch, S., and Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational

ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and modera-

tors. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409.

Sanchez, G. (2013). PLS path modeling with R. Berkeley:

Trowchez Editions.

Sheate, W. R., and Partidário, M. R. (2010). Strategic

approaches and assessment techniques—Potential for

knowledge brokerage towards sustainability.

Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(4), 278-

288.

Strasser, S. et al. (1981). Conceptualizing the goal and

system models of organizational effectiveness –

Implications for comparative evaluation research.

Journal of Management Studies, 18(3), 321-340.

Tushman, M. L., and O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). The

ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary

and revolutionary change. California Management

Review, 38(4), 8-30.

Verona, G., Prandelli, E., and Sawhney, M. (2006).

Innovation and virtual environments: Towards virtual

knowledge brokers. Organization Studies, 27(6), 765-

788.