Content uploaded by Abdullah Abdulaziz Alkhoraif
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abdullah Abdulaziz Alkhoraif on Feb 09, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Abdullah Abdulaziz Alkhoraif
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abdullah Abdulaziz Alkhoraif on Jan 19, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
The role of organizational learning
and innovative organizational
culture for ambidextrous
innovation
Mohammad Khalid AlSaied
School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing, Cranfield University,
Cranfield, UK, and
Abdullah Abdulaziz Alkhoraif
Business Administration Department, Saudi Electronic University,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Abstract
Purpose –In the era of hyper-competitiveness, firms, especially project-based management structures, have
to focus on ideas for both new and existing sets of products and services, i.e. ambidextrous innovation. The
ambidextrous innovation can be helpful, but achieving such a levelis a problem to be solved.This study aims
to yield ambidextrous innovation by using innovative culture and knowledge that has been gained from
learning.
Design/methodology/approach –The present research collected data from Saudi Arabian public-sector
firms. The data collected is analyzedusing the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Findings –The findings of the study suggest that a range of factors can be operationalized in project-based
firms to establish organizational learning and innovation culture. These factors include agile-based project
management, leveraging existing innovative capabilities and growth mindset in case of innovative
organizational culture and additional factors of agile-basedknowledge management along with others in case
of organizational learning. The PLS-SEM further concluded that both organizational learning and innovative
organizational culture, in turn, help project-based Saudi Arabian public-sector firms to develop their
ambidextrous innovation capability.
Originality/value –The PLS-SEM further concluded that both the organizational learning and innovative
organizational culture, in turn, help project-based Saudi Arabian public-sector firms to develop their
ambidextrous innovation capability.
Keywords Ambidextrous innovation, Organizational learning, Organizational innovative, Agile,
Knowledge management, Project management, Growth mindset
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The ambidextrous innovation has attracted a lot of interest from the scholarly and
managerial community over a period of time (Grover, Purvis, & Segars, 2007).
Ambidextrous innovation can be defined as an innovation that balances the innovating of
new products and services (Grover et al., 2007), referred to as explorative innovation and
develops and improving the existing product and services to meet existing needs, referred to
as exploitative innovation (Martini, Laugen, Gastaldi, & Corso, 2013). The recent literature
suggests that ambidextrous innovation has helped organizations, especially project teams,
gain a competitive advantage by using available in-house and out-house knowledge,
Ambidextrous
innovation
Received 23 June2023
Revised 23 October2023
4 December 2023
6 December 2023
Accepted 6 December2023
The Learning Organization
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-6474
DOI 10.1108/TLO-06-2023-0101
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-6474.htm
competencies and insights (Xie, Gao, Zang, & Meng, 2020). So, it enables the project team to
keep up with the fast-paced market trends and continuously provide value to their
consumers by launching products and services demanded by consumers (Lee, Dwivedi,
Tan, Ooi, & Wong, 2023). Although ambidextrous innovation offers a wide range of
advantages to organizations and project teams, as concluded by recent systematic review
studies conducted by Chakma, Paul and Dhir (2021), it still remains a problem for firms to
achieve the level of ambidexterity in the innovation sphere. Researchers from theoretical
aspects, such as Simsek (2009) and Werder and Heckmann (2019), have been
conceptualizing various antecedents that can help the organization to develop the dynamic
capability of ambidextrous innovation. But, such theoretical conceptualization would need
empirical support from the project level to make a solid contribution to the current literature
on ambidextrous innovation. It is worth mentioning that various empirical studies, such as
Lee et al. (2023), have added critical insight into the current literature.
In recent years, scholars have been focusing on the construct of organizational culture
(Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985) and learning (Levitt & March, 1988). The culture would be defined
as the set of shared rules, norms, values and behavioral patterns (Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985),
while learning would be better defined as “development of insights, knowledge and
associations between past actions, the effectiveness of those actions, and future actions”
(Fiol & Lyles, 1985, p. 811). A culture that is rooted in innovation can be a determining factor
for a project team’s success (Joseph & Kibera, 2019). The literature suggests that innovative
culture can also enhance ambidextrous innovation through the instrument of empowerment
and collaboration, which can push teams to try and experiment with new ideas for products
and services (Ju, Ferreira, & Wang, 2020). Learning is quite a consistent phenomenon within
the project with ambidextrous innovation as both attempts to use the knowledge available
inside and outside organizations for their relative purposes (Guo, Guo, Zhou, & Wu, 2020).
Thus, organizational learning and innovation culture can help the organization achieve its
ambidextrous innovation ambitions. However, despite the importance, complimentary role
and logical consistency of both culture and learning of organization with ambidextrous
innovation, empirical evidence, especially at the project team level, is negligible in the
present literature.
To make the current discussion more impactful from an empirical perspective, we
have to dive deep into the literature and attempt to understand the possible set of
dimensions that can impact ambidextrous. One of the key elements that have really
attracted scholars’attention is the agility of the project team (Lill & Wald, 2021). The
literature suggests that agility can make teams both innovative and help them acquire
and use knowledge for product innovation and improvement (Ju et al., 2020). Second,
knowledge management is also cast as an important driver in learning and making an
organization’s culture innovative through acquiring and using experience and
information (Azeem, Ahmed, Haider, & Sajjad, 2021). Third, the dynamic, innovative
capability is a natural driver of innovative organizational culture (Iranmanesh, Kumar,
Foroughi, Mavi, & Min, 2021) and learning (Bell & Figueiredo, 2012). Finally, the present
research has focused on the novel construct of the growth mindset, which is belief that
individual’s varying natural capabilities can be improved through learning, experiences
and experiments (Yeager & Dweck, 2020). The presence of a growth mindset would
always expedite the process of both learning (Hanson, Bangert, & Ruff, 2016)and
innovation in the organization (Canning et al., 2020). Thus, the purpose of the present
research study is to examine ambidextrous innovation (Xie et al., 2020). Present research
theorizes that organizational learning and innovative culture can play an important role
in achieving ambidexterity. The learning is important as ambidexterity would require a
TLO
high level of knowledge of the product, services and process to reconfigure (Joseph &
Kibera, 2019). Further, an innovative organizational culture that values new ideas and
experiments can complement learning within the organization. Although such
theorization is widely prevalent in the literature, it would need empirical support in
context of project organization. Thus, the purpose of the present research is to collect
empirical evidence and assess the effect of factors organizational learning and innovative
organizational on project organizations’quest for ambidexterity. The rest of the paper
follows the research purpose, literature review, research method, data analysis,
discussion and conclusion.
2. Literature review
2.1 Agile project management
Agile project management can be defined as tools and techniques in which a project is
efficiently managed in situations of both complexity and uncertainty (Dybå, Dingsøyr, &
Moe, 2014). In general, “agile project management ischaracterized by short cycles of iterative
and incremental delivery of product features and continuous integration of code changes”
(Dybå et al., 2014, p. 280). Agile project management encompasses an important element of
up-front planning in which important and essential decisions are being undertaken during
the implementation phase of the project itself (Dybå et al., 2014). Agile project management
can be a very important driver in enhancing both innovative culture (Highsmith, 2009)and
organizational learning (Flumerfelt, Bella Siriban-Manalang, & Kahlen, 2012). Agile project
management heavily relies upon the ideas of an empowered team. The empowered team in
the agile project can makecrucial decisions while executing the projects during the execution
phase. So, it creates a culture in which such ideas are respected and promoted (Highsmith,
2009). The literature suggests that implementing an agile philosophy into the project would
push the project organization to become innovative and gather a wide range of knowledge
that can be continuously used while making the decision as part of upfront project planning
(Flumerfelt et al., 2012). Thus, present research hypothesizes that:
H1. There is a positive and significant impact between agile project management and
the project organization’s innovative culture.
H2. There is a positive and significant impact between agile project management and
project organization’s learning.
2.2 Agile knowledge management
Knowledge management can be defined as the process through which project teams or
organization search, acquire, build the database, share and disseminate and use the
knowledge to improve products, services, productivity and organizational performance
(P
erez-Bustamante, 1999). Although its proper conceptualization is non-existent in the
present literature, agile knowledge management would be better referred to as the usage of
agile philosophy in the knowledge management process (Singh, Singh, & Sharma, 2014).
Agile knowledge management specifically focuses on building and using the stock of
knowledge, which can help project teams enhance their flexibility, adaptability and cross-
functional collaboration to yield better performance (Levy and Hazzan, 2009). Agile
knowledge management makes a project organization’s culture innovative by collecting and
using a stock of information aimed at solving the problem arising from the project’s
unpredictability and complexity (P
erez-Bustamante, 1999). Therefore, the present research
hypothesizes that:
Ambidextrous
innovation
H3. There is a positive and significant impact between agile knowledge management
and the project organization’s innovative culture.
H4. There is a positive and significant impact between agile knowledge management
and project organization’s learning.
To improve knowledge management, absorptive capacity is crucial for making good use of
external knowledge. Organizations must build their “absorptive capacity,”which is the
ability to take in, process and modify external information (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).
Strong absorptive abilities facilitate the assimilation of outside knowledge, which is
essential for investigating novel ideas (Azeem et al., 2021). The connection between
absorptive capacity and ambidextrous invention is essential for creating an atmosphere that
promotes creativity and improves knowledge management (Anderson, Poto
cnik, & Zhou,
2014). Using outside data to gain a sustained competitive edge, absorptive ability aids in
striking a balance between exploratory and exploitative innovation.
2.3 Innovative capability
The innovative capability is referred organization’s dynamic capability, which helps it to
develop and execute new and creative ideas for product, services and business model that is
instrumental in capturing the value from the consumers (Iranmanesh et al., 2021). The
innovative capability has been linked with various positive outcomes such as higher
productivity, financial performance and satisfied customers (Çakar & Ertürk, 2010). The
present research has operationalized the innovative capability of project teams as the
antecedent of organizational culture (Iranmanesh et al., 2021) and learning (Bell &
Figueiredo, 2012). The existing literature, albeit somewhat limited, tends to define
innovative capability as outcomes rather than causes (Çakar & Ertürk, 2010). Moreover,
certain researchers, like Iranmanesh et al. (2021), have used innovative capability as a
moderator, while others, such as Azeem et al. (2021), have considered it an independent
variable in conjunction with organizational culture. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
literature on the operational aspect of innovative capability as a construct in relation to
organizational culture is inconsistent. The present research, by agreeing with the empirical
evidence that innovative capability can be a consequence of organizational culture, argues
such assertion lacks a proper explanation of the process through which organizational
culture would yield innovative capability. Further, the present research argues that a
difference exists between traditional and innovative organizational cultures. The innovative
organizational culture is different with respect to various elements. Therefore, the present
research hypothesizes that:
H5. There exists a positive and significant relationship between innovative capability
and innovative organizational culture.
Further, the present research has also hypothesized that innovative capability can also yield
organizational learning (Bell & Figueiredo, 2012). The project teams acquire innovative
capabilities by acquiring information and knowledge from various sources. Thus, by
developing innovative capabilities, organizational learning can have natural consequences:
H6. There exists a positive and significant relationship between innovative capability
and organizational learning.
TLO
2.4 Growth mindset
The growth mindset can be described as the belief that an individual’s or employee’s
varying nature of capabilities can be improved through learning, experiences and
experiments within and outside of the organization (Yeager & Dweck, 2020). The concept of
a growth mindset further illustrates that employees with a growth mindset always embrace
challenges to go out of their way to achieve something very special and extraordinary in
nature, which also helps the organization in its quest to create higher value for its
stakeholders (Yeager & Dweck, 2020). The view that failure is due to their abilities is not
consistent with their mindset, but it is taken as an opportunity to learn and improve (Dweck,
2016). The present research has conceptualized that a growth mindset can positively affect
organizational culture (Canning et al., 2020) and learning (Hanson et al., 2016). An
innovative organizational culture always requires employees to develop ashared behavioral
pattern in which they continuously seek new information, implement new ideas and
continuously improve themselves (Canning et al., 2020). Thus, the present research
hypothesizes that:
H7. There exists a positive and significant relationship between the growth mindset
and organizational innovative culture.
H8. There exists a positive and significant relationship between the growth mindset
and organizational learning.
2.5 Organizational innovative culture
Organizational culture can generally be defined as a set of values, norms, standards and
behavioral patterns that are commonly shared by the organization’s members (Ouchi &
Wilkins, 1985). The innovative organizational culture can be defined as the values, norms,
standards and behavioral pattern of an organization that promotes activities of pursuing
new ideas for products and services that are aimed at providing higher value to consumers
and performance (Harmancioglu, Sääksjärvi, & Hultink, 2020). For yielding ambidextrous
innovation, innovative organizational culture plays an important role (Wang & Rafiq, 2014).
Ambidextrous innovation requires the project team to successfully balance between
developing new products and services from existing ideas, knowledge and information and
improving existing products from the same kinds of ideas, knowledge and information
(Khan & Mir, 2019). Such a balancing act, which is an inherent requirement of ambidextrous
innovation, cannot be possible without a culture of project empowerment and motivating
them to try and test ideas, look out for new information and implement such kind of
knowledge (Harmancioglu et al., 2020). Therefore, it can be hypothesized that:
H9. Innovative organizational culture has a positive and significant impact on the
ambidextrous innovation of project team.
2.6 Organizational learning
Organizational learning can be better defined as a “process of improving actions through
better knowledge and understanding”(Fiol & Lyles, 1985, p.803). Organizational learning can
be further explicated as it is processed through which organizations successfully obtain,
develop a stock of knowledge and implement such knowledge to develop better quality
products, services and value for the customers. The present research has hypothesized that
ambidextrous innovation can be a natural consequence of the sustained and strategic level
Ambidextrous
innovation
of organizational learning activities (Harmancioglu et al., 2020). Organizational learning
helps the organization build a stock ofknowledge and information on ideas that can beused
to develop new products and improve existing ones (Prieto-Pastor & Martin-Perez, 2015).
The organization tends to develop such kinds of ideas by actively seeking information and
experience and experimenting both inside and outside of the organization (Li, Qiang, Huang,
& Huang, 2022). Thus, it has been hypothesized here that:
H10. Organizational learning has a positive and significant impact on the ambidextrous
innovation of the project team.
2.7 Ambidextrous innovation
Ambidextrous innovation can be defined as the type of innovation that involves balancing
between two types of distinct innovation strategies, which include both exploratory
innovation and exploitative innovation (Hughes, Martin, Morgan, & Robson, 2010).
Exploratory innovation can be defined as a type of ambidextrous innovation that is focused
on meeting new kinds of consumer needs and demands by innovating new products and
services (Grover et al., 2007). In contrast to exploratory, exploitative innovation is defined as
the process of innovation in which the project team develops a product and services to meet
existing needs and uses an existing set of knowledge (Martini et al., 2013). The present
research has conceptualized that organizational learning (Prieto-Pastor & Martin-Perez,
2015) and innovative organizational culture (Khan & Mir, 2019) can play an active role in
helping the firm achieve its ambidextrous innovation capabilities. The organization’s
learning always empowers the project team to collaborate cross-functionally to seek new
insight and experiment with ideas that can develop an environment that may support
explorative innovation (Prieto-Pastor & Martin-Perez, 2015). Further, organizational
learning through the instrument of empowerment allows the project team to use the current
set of information and knowledge while improving the current set of products (Li et al.,
2022). In the end, a company is well positioned to accomplish ambidextrous innovation and
spur long-term success and growth if it values both exploratory and exploitative innovation
and promotes a culture of continual learning and improvement (Wang & Rafiq, 2014).
March (1991) argues that ambidextrous innovation entails resolving the conflict between
exploratory and exploitative innovation techniques. While exploitative innovation
maximizes current resources for operational efficiency, exploratory innovation seeks new
opportunities and fosters creativity in unpredictable marketplaces (Battilana & Lee, 2014;
O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). Businesses operating in dynamic marketplaces must balance
these strategies to foster innovation and stay competitive (Battilana & Lee, 2014).
2.8 Conceptual framework
The present research underpinning the ambidexterity and dynamic capability theory
proposes that the act of balancing between explorative and exploitative innovation can be
fostered through organizational culture (Iranmanesh et al., 2021), which values
experimentation with ideas and organizational learning (Bell & Figueiredo, 2012), which
develops a stock of knowledge that can help in better both experimentation with new ideas
of products and services and improving the existing one. The research further proposes in
its conceptualization that both learning and culture appropriate for achieving ambidexterity
should be based on antecedents such as agile-based project management (Lee et al., 2023),
innovative capabilities (Ju et al., 2020), agile knowledge management (Azeem et al., 2021)
and growth mindset (Yeager & Dweck, 2020). Thus, research proposes that such
TLO
antecedents will help organizations develop culture and learning practices that are highly
suitable for ambidexterity (Chakma et al., 2021). Figure 1 represents the conceptual
framework of the present study.
3. Research method
3.1 Research design
The present research has used the quantitative research design. The current research aims
to understand the impact of organizational learning and innovative organizational culture
on ambidextrous innovation; thus, a quantitative research design can be used here to
achieve such a purpose (Saunders, Lewis, Thornhill, & Wilson, 2009).
3.2 Data collection method
The present research has used the survey questionnaire as a data collection tool. The survey
questionnaire is a popular data collection instrument in the quantitative research design in
management science and organizational behavior (Krosnick, 2018). The survey is an
effective data collection instrument as it helps gauge respondent views, opinions and
thoughts using a five-point Likert scale.
3.3 Data collection instrument
The present research has developed its data collection instrument from previous studies.
The data collection instrument of the current research is divided into three parts. The first
part is used to collect the demographic data of the respondents. The second part is
developed to assess the relative knowledge of respondents on the phenomena of
ambidextrous innovation. The last part consists of items to measure the variables of the
study’s conceptual framework. Table 1 shows the items used to measure each variable and
their source.
3.4 Sampling and population
The present research aims to collect data from Saudi Arabian public-sector firms with an
increasing focus on using project management methodology and ambidextrous innovation
Figure 1.
Conceptual
framework
Innovative
organizational
culture
Organizational
Learning
Growth mindset
Agile knowledge
management
Innovative
capabilities
Agile project
based management
ambidextrous
innovation
Industry
type
Source: Author’s own generated figure
Ambidextrous
innovation
to provide greater value to their stakeholders. Therefore, the population of the present
research is the mid- and senior-level managers handling projects and innovation at public-
sector firms, ranging from small- and medium-level enterprises to large sector corporations.
To select the sample from a defined population, the present research has used the non-
probability purposive sampling strategy (Vehovar, Toepoel, & Steinmetz, 2016). The non-
probability choice of sampling is appropriate as researchers cannot define the population
from both qualitative and quantitative characteristics effectively and reach such population
for data collection (Schreuder, Gregoire, & Weyer, 2001). The purposive sampling is
effective here as the researcher has attempted to collect the data from qualified managers
because such respondents either handle ambidextrous innovation, project management or
both (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). The present research has used the g*power software
to draw the sample size (Kang, 2021), which stands out at 290. Ther current research floated
a questionnaire to 500 respondents into various SMEs firm using project management in
different industries. The 373 respondents returned the questionnaire filled with their
response. While further inspecting, 316 responses were filled fully with due diligence. So, the
number of sample included in ourdata analysis stands at 316.
3.5 Data analysis techniques
The data analysis method used in this study was called partial least square structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM), and it was carried out with SmartPLS 3.40 (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt,
2011). According to Hair et al.’s research from 2020, PLS-SEM is widely acknowledged as the
tool of choice for evaluating complicated conceptual and route models and determining the
nature of cause-and-effect interactions. In the current study, a measurement model and a
structural model were used. The measurement model used a variety of statistical analyses and
tests to evaluate the relative validity and reliability of the data and data collection instruments
(Sarstedt et al., 2020). The structural model used a bootstrapping procedure that involved the
creation of 5,000 subsamples to test the study’s hypotheses.
4. Data analysis
4.1 Demographic analysis
The data on demographic have been presented in Table 2. The results suggest that most of
our respondents have reported the male gender, i.e. 63%, and the respondent who has
reported the female gender is 37%. Further, most respondents have reported having an age
group of 26–35 years (34%) followed by 18–25 years (28%). Further, respondents aged
Table 1.
Data collection
instrument
S. No. Variables No. of items Source
Agile project-based
management 7Sheffield and Lem
etayer (2013)
Growth mindset 4 Mesler, Corbin and Martin (2021)
Agile knowledge management 5 Singh, Kukreja and Kumar (2023)
Innovative capabilities 9 Guan and Ma (2003)
Organizational learning 6 L
opez, Montes Pe
on and Vazquez
Ord
as (2006)
Innovative organizational
culture 8Wallach (1983)
Ambidextrous innovation 8 He and Wong (2004),Jansen, Van
Den Bosch and Volberda (2006)
Source: Author’s own proposed table
TLO
26–45 years have reported 22%, and respondents aged 45 and more are reported to be 16%.
The data on the respondents’experience suggests that most respondents have experience of
4–7 years, i.e. 43%, followed by 0–3 years, i.e. 29%. Moreover, 16% of people have reported
having experience of 8–10 years, and 12% have reported having an experience of 11 years
and more. Finally, the results of the data have suggested that the majority of respondents
belong to the Department of Marketing and Sales (28%), followed by the product developed
(22%) and information technology (20%). The respondents reporting human resource
management are 8%, operation management 6% and finance 4%. The data also shows that
most of the firms in our data belong to the construction industry (53%). Project management
is a widely used tool to provide products and services in the construction industry.
Construction is followed by the IT and technology services industry (35%). IT and
technology companies such as IT services, software houses and others are increasingly
using project management as a tool to achieve their productivity. Finally, we have grouped
different industries using project management into one or more functions as others.
4.2 Construct reliability and validity
The present research, with the help of PLS-SEM, has assessed the construct reliability by using
the test of Cronbach alpha (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011) and composite reliability (Bacon, Sauer,
& Young, 1995), while construct validity is assessed through average variance extracted
(AVE) (dosSantos&Cirillo,2023). The literature suggests that for the construct to achieve its
reliability through both Cronbach alpha and composite reliability, the value of both should be
equal to or higher than 0.70 (Hair et al., 2011). Further, for the construct to achieve its validity
through AVE, the value of AVE should equal or be higher than 0.50 (Hair,Tomas,Hult,Ringle,
& Sarstedt, 2021). The results, which are shown in Table 3, conclude that every construct of the
study has achieved its required threshold values on both construct reliability and validity.
Table 2.
Demographic
analysis
Gender
1 Male 63%
2 Female 37%
Age
118–25 34%
226–35 28%
336–45 22%
4 45 and more 16%
Experience
10–3 years 43%
24–7 years 29%
38–10 years 16%
4 11 and more 12%
Department
1 Marketing and sales 28%
2 Human resources management 8%
3 Product development 22%
4 Information technology 20%
5 Operation management 6%
6 Finance 4%
Source: Author’s own proposed table
Ambidextrous
innovation
4.3 Discriminant validity
The discriminant validity refers to the ability of each construct in the research model to
report its uniqueness and distinguish itself from other constructs (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022). The
discriminant validity is assessed in SEM to confirm the assumption that every construct is
unique and measures its own phenomena (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022). The present research, with
the help of SmartPLS 4.0, has assessed the discriminant validity through the heterotrait-
monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). The research by Henseler, Ringle and Sarstedt
(2015) concludes that an HTMT value of 0.90 or below is considered to be the satisfaction of
the discriminant validity assumption. The results for discriminant validity through HTMT
are shown in Table 4, and it can be observed that HTMT values in the table are lower than
0.90. Thus, it can be concluded that the present research has achieved the discriminant
validity criterion.
4.4 Indictor reliability
While construct reliability measures the reliability of a construct in the research model, item
or indicator reliability measures the internal consistency of each of the items with its
constructs (Hair et al., 2011). The PLS-SEM, through the use ofSmartPLS 4.0, has allowed us
to measure the indicator reliability through the criterion of outer loading. The wider literature
suggests that, for each indictor to be assumed as reliable, it must report a value of 0.70 or
higher. But, literature also suggests that outer loading with values lesser than 0.70 can be
considered as reliable if the construct of the item has achieved its reliability (Hulland, 1999).
Table 3.
Construct reliability
and validity
Constructs
Cronbach’s
alpha
Composite
reliability
Average
variance
extracted (AVE)
Agile knowledge management 0.892 0.920 0.699
Agile project 0.929 0.945 0.742
Ambidextrous innovation 0.927 0.940 0.663
Growth mindset 0.951 0.964 0.871
Innovative capability 0.910 0.921 0.566
Innovative organizational
culture 0.937 0.951 0.713
Organizational learning 0.922 0.945 0.811
Sources: Author’s own proposed Table 2; author’s own proposed table
Table 4.
Discriminant validity
AKM Ap Ai Gm IT Ic IOC
Agile knowledge management
Agile project 0.598
Ambidextrous innovation 0.663 0.628
Growth mindset 0.742 0.511 0.561
Industry type 0.100 0.070 0.080 0.144
Innovative capability 0.670 0.795 0.815 0.612 0.264
Innovative organizational culture 0.687 0.753 0.652 0.739 0.289 0.765
Organizational learning 0.779 0.435 0.557 0.828 0.101 0.605 0.753
Source: Author’s own proposed table
TLO
Thus, the present research based upon the assertion of (Hulland, 1999) has retained items with
outer loading value lower than 0.70. The results of outer loading are shown in Appendix.
4.5 Explanation of variance
The test of variance assessment has been conducted to determine the predictive power of the
research model by understanding the extent to which the variance of each endogenous or
independent variable contributes to the variance of exogenous variables or dependent
variables.The variance assessment in the present research has been undertaken through the
statistical criterion of R-square (Hair et al., 2011). The results, as depicted in Table 5,show
that both innovative organizational culture and organizational learning, being endogenous
variables in relation to ambidextrous innovation combined, contribute 44.4% variance.
While, agile knowledge management, agile project management, innovative capability and
growth mindset contribute a variance of 70% to innovative organizational culture and 69.4%
to organizational learning.
4.6 Model fitness
Model fitness refers to the idea of how well a research model fits with observed data. The
model fitness helps us to determine whether or not the research model is able to adequately
represent the relationships among the variables in the data (Hair et al., 2021). The PLS-SEM
through SmartPLS 4.0 has allowed us to measure the model fitness with the help of square
root mean residual (SRMR). The literature suggests that assuming the research model has
achieved fitness, the SRMR value should be less than 0.10 (Hair et al., 2021). The results
presented in Table 6 show that the present research has achieved the model fitness through
values of SRMR.
4.7 Graphical model
The following Figure 2 represents the measurement model of the present study.
4.8 Structural model
The study used bootstrapping in PLS-SEM to assess hypothesis effects. Most direct
hypotheses were supported with significant values below 0.05, except for the relationship
between agile knowledge management and innovative organizational culture. Additionally,
Table 5.
Explanation of
variance
R-square R-square adjusted
Ambidextrous innovation 0.444 0.435
Innovative organizational culture 0.700 0.696
Organizational learning 0.694 0.690
Source: Author’s own proposed table
Table 6.
Model fitness
Saturated model Estimated model
SRMR 0.913 0.985
Source: Author’s own proposed table
Ambidextrous
innovation
both moderating hypotheses, examining industry type’s impact on relationships, were not
supported. The detailed analysis of these hypotheses is outlined in Table 7.
5. Discussion
Organizations have difficulties in maintaining their competitive advantage through
products, procedures and services in the face of intense rivalry, rapid technological
advancement and environmental concerns (Xie et al., 2020). However, firms may balance
these demands and improve their competitiveness by implementing ambidextrous
innovation (Santoro, Thrassou, Bresciani, & Del Giudice, 2019). Although academics and
managers struggle with its implementation, ithas tremendous potential for organizations as
it requires harmonizing old and new concepts to create distinctive solutions for consumers
(Hughes et al., 2010). In response to this demand, ongoing research attempts to offer a
framework that helps businesses achieve ambidextrous innovation.
5.1 Organizational learning
Organizational learning is an important source of building ambidextrous innovation
capability. The ambidextrous innovation would require to use quality stock of knowledge,
which can be acquired through active engagement in learning activities at organizational
level (Harmancioglu et al., 2020). The current study has hypothesized that innovative
capability (Hanson et al., 2016), agile knowledge management (Morawiec et al., 2022), agile
project management (Flumerfelt et al., 2012) and growth mindset (Hanson et al., 2016) can
play an instrumental role in developing learning capabilities at the organizational level.
The result of PLS-SEM analysis has confirmed all such hypotheses. The results suggest
that agile knowledge management has both a positive and direct effect on organizational
learning (p¼0.000,
b
¼0.331) and an indirect effect on ambidextrous innovation through
learning (p¼0.015). Thus, it can be concluded that organizational learning is directly
affected by knowledge management by 33.1% (
b
¼0.331), which in turn results in
ambidextrous innovation. The idea of agile knowledge management can help organizations
build their organizational capacity for learning by focusing on the acquisition of knowledge,
Figure 2.
Measurement model
TLO
Hypothesis Original sample t-statistics p-values Decision
Agile knowledge management ->Innovative organizational culture 0.058 1.169 0.243 Rejected
Agile knowledge management ->Organizational learning 0.331 5.724 0.000 Accepted
Agile project ->Innovative organizational culture 0.291 4.772 0.000 Accepted
Agile project ->Organizational learning 0.174 2.926 0.003 Accepted
Growth mindset ->Innovative organizational culture 0.324 5.778 0.000 Accepted
Growth mindset ->Organizational learning 0.478 8.823 0.000 Accepted
Industry type ->Ambidextrous innovation 0.234 5.660 0.000 Accepted
Innovative capability ->Innovative organizational culture 0.309 4.962 0.000 Accepted
Innovative capability ->Organizational learning 0.239 3.659 0.000 Accepted
Innovative organizational culture ->Ambidextrous innovation 0.554 9.525 0.000 Accepted
Organizational learning ->Ambidextrous innovation 0.167 2.688 0.007 Accepted
Moderation analysis
Industry type Organizational learning ->Ambidextrous innovation –0.052 0.717 0.473 Rejected
Industry type Innovative organizational culture ->Ambidextrous innovation 0.064 0.880 0.379 Rejected
Specific indirect effect
Innovative capability ->Organizational learning ->Ambidextrous innovation 0.040 2.122 0.034 Accepted
Innovative capability ->Innovative organizational culture ->Ambidextrous innovation 0.171 4.316 0.000 Accepted
Agile project ->Organizational learning ->Ambidextrous innovation 0.029 2.072 0.038 Accepted
Agile project ->Innovative organizational culture ->Ambidextrous innovation 0.161 4.127 0.000 Accepted
Growth mindset ->Organizational learning ->Ambidextrous innovation 0.080 2.550 0.011 Accepted
Growth mindset ->Innovative organizational culture ->Ambidextrous innovation 0.179 5.384 0.000 Accepted
Agile knowledge management ->Organizational learning ->Ambidextrous innovation 0.055 2.429 0.015 Accepted
Agile knowledge management ->Innovative organizational Culture ->Ambidextrous innovation 0.032 1.135 0.256 Rejected
Source: Author’s own proposed table
Table 7.
Assessment of
structural model
Ambidextrous
innovation
which helps them to navigate into an environment of uncertainty (Morawiec et al., 2022).
Thus, this kind of knowledge will help the organization to build the optimum level of
ambidextrous innovation (Li et al., 2022). The results on agile project management have also
confirmed the direct effect on organizational learning (p¼0.003,
b
¼0.174) and the indirect
effect on ambidextrous innovation through learning (p¼0.038). So, it is concluded that
organizational learning is directly affected by agile project management by 17.4% (
b
¼
0.174), which in turn results in ambidextrous innovation. Further, project management, most
importantly along the lines of agility, is becoming a favored management structure because
of its efficiency and effectiveness. Agile project management can also help the firm build a
level of learning capabilities through the experience of managing projects in uncertainty
(Flumerfelt et al., 2012). Such experience can be converted into a stock of knowledge, which
can be helpful in the building of ambidextrous innovation (Wang & Rafiq, 2014).
Finally, our data analysis through PLS-SEM has also shown that a growth mindset
directly affects organizational learning (p¼0.000,
b
¼0.478) and indirectly affects
ambidextrous innovation (p¼0.011). Therefore, it is concluded that the growth mindset
affects organizational learning by 47.8% (
b
¼0.478). The growth mindset entails that
organization continues its growth trajectory by learning, experiencing and experimenting
with the capabilities required for optimal performance. Thus, learning is one of the key
direct effects of a growth mindset (Hanson et al., 2016). Finally, the present research has also
found that innovative capability also has a direct effect on organizational learning
(p¼0.000,
b
¼0.239) and an indirect effect on ambidextrous innovation (p¼0.034). So, it
can be concluded that innovative capability has adequate 23.9% effect on the organizational
learning (
b
¼0.239). The innovative as dynamic capability can continue to be replenished
by actively experimenting with new ideas. Such experiments with new ideas develop the
organizational capability of learning and provide a very significant source of developing
ambidextrous innovation (Çakar & Ertürk, 2010).
5.2 Innovative organizational culture
The present research has proposed that innovative organizational culture is also an
important predictor of ambidextrous innovation capability.The continuing balance between
explorative and exploitative ideas requires favorable culture. The present research theorizes
that innovative capability, agile knowledge management (P
erez-Bustamante, 1999), agile
project management (Highsmith, 2009) and growth mindset (Canning et al., 2020) are
important antecedents of innovative organizational culture.
The result data analysis has confirmed that agile project management (p¼0.000,
b
¼
0.291), growth mindset (p¼0.000,
b
¼0.324) and innovative capability (p¼0.000,
b
¼
0.309) have a direct effect on the innovative organizational culture. The results concluded
that agile project management affect the innovative organizational culture by 29.1% (
b
¼
0.291), and it could be an important source of developing an innovative organizational
culture. The agile project management idea entails that project teams need to be highly agile
by operating in a very volatile and uncertain environment (Highsmith, 2009). Thus,
once the project team starts working on the agile philosophy, the development of innovative
culture in organization in which teams are empowered to explore and work on new ideas can
be the important consequence. Further, agile project management through innovative
culture can also lead to ambidextrous innovation (p¼0.000).
Further, results also entail that innovative capability is a strong predictor of innovative
organizational culture by 30.9% (
b
¼0.309). The strong innovative capabilities exhibit a
culture of adaptability and evolution in the market. Such kind of behavior as part of
innovative capability ignites the passion for generating and experimenting with new ideas.
TLO
Further, innovative capabilities with a strong culture can push members of teams to actively
seek different ways through which exploitative and explorativeideas are balanced. Thus,an
indirect effect of innovative capability on ambidextrous innovation can also be found here
(p¼0.00).
Finally, our data analysis through PLS-SEM has also shown that a growth mindset has a
strong direct effect on innovative organizational culture by 32.4% (
b
¼0.324) and an
indirect effect on ambidextrous innovation (p¼0.000). When teams and individuals within
an organization accept a growth mindset as a way to lead through a hyper-competitive
world, they start to believe that teams’abilities and intelligence can be developed through
learning and development. Such attitude at the organizational level fosters a culture of new
ideas and innovation (Canning et al., 2020).
5.3 Ambidextrous innovation
The present research has further hypothesized that innovative organizational culture
(Khan & Mir, 2019) and organizational learning (Prieto-Pastor & Martin-Perez, 2015)
directly affect ambidextrous innovation (p¼0.007). The results further conclude that
organizational learning affects ambidextrous innovation by 16.7% (
b
¼0.167). The research
finds that for organizations to balance new radical ideas and thoseimproving existing ones,
they need substantial knowledge. This knowledge helps project teams explore new concepts
and crucially, integrate them into enhancing current product and service lines. Further, the
present research also concludes that the innovative culture of an organization that focuses
on innovation also plays an important part in balancing explorative and exploitative ideas
(p¼0.000). The results of PLS-SEM analysis have confirmed that organization with
innovative cultures can enhance their ambidextrous innovation by 55.4% (
b
¼0.554). The
explorative and exploitative ideas cannot be developed in an environment defined by a
traditional management structure. These ideas need a culture in which new ideas are not
just appreciated, but teams are empowered to experiment with those ideas. Thus, it is
concluded that innovative organizational culture can be an important source for developing
ambidextrous innovation capability.
5.4 Moderation effect of industry type
The present research proposed that there is a moderating effect of industry types on
innovative organizational culture, organizational learning and ambidextrous innovation. It
implied that different consequences would be seen in sectors like software and technology,
which are renowned for their agile and project-based organizational structures. In the
meanwhile, thanks to economies of scale, project-based yet resource-constrained businesses
like construction may prosper. However, our analysis did not support the theorization of
moderation analysis of industry types as both hypothesis of moderation analysis of
ambidextrous innovation with organizational learning (p¼0.379) innovative organizational
culture (p¼0.473).
6. Conclusion
In an increasingly hyper-competitive and technologically sophisticated industrial macro-
environment, present research concludes that firms need to develop capabilities in which not
just new ideas for products and services are being increasingly focused, but existing
products and services are also improved through fresh insights and ideas. The
ambidextrous innovation research has taken an interest in the scholarly community. The
present research first theorized and tested the significant impact of both organizational
learning and the innovative culture of the organization. It is concluded here that idea both
Ambidextrous
innovation
for new and existing product and services requires a significant quantity and quality of
knowledge, and such knowledge can be acquired and used through the active process of
learning at organizational level. Further, the present research also concludes that it is also
indeed important to have a stock of knowledge that is significant from qualitative and
quantitative dimensions. Still, a culture of innovation will play a complimentary role in
which knowledge is applied, experimented and tested for new and existing products and
services. Therefore, innovative organizational culture, along with organizational learning,
can play an important role in enhancing the firm’s ability to ambidextrous innovation.
Further, this study also has broadened the conceptual building of ambidextrous innovation
by incorporating factors that can have indirect effects. The research concludes that various
factors can play an important indirect role in yielding ambidextrous innovation through
organizational learning and culture. These can include agile project management, agile
knowledge management, a growth mindset and innovative capabilities.
6.1 Theoretical implications
The current research offers implications for the theory of ambidextrous innovation and
dynamic capability. First, the present research has concluded an important role that
ambidextrous innovation can play in today’s era of competition and technological
sophistication. Thus, it is imperative for firms that navigating into such an environment
would require them to try out new ideas for products and services and seek a way to
improve existing ones. Second, by building upon the dynamic capabilities, our study has
concluded that both learning and culture are important sources of ambidextrous innovation.
Third, important capabilities such as agility in project and knowledge management, general
innovative capability and growth mindset can also have a significant impact on developing
afirm’s capability of ambidextrous innovation. Thus, present research has attempted to
advance the field and theory by deepening our understanding of the role of ambidextrous
innovation and dynamic capabilities. The present research further highlights the important
role of organizational learning and culture that postulates that organizational ambidexterity
as a dynamic capability can be continuously enhanced through learning and experimenting
with explorative and exploitive ideas. The ideas for both exploration and exploitation are a
direct result of active learning that takes place within the organization with an additional
role absorptive capacity plays. Further, present research postulates the additional
capabilities of organizations, such as agility and growth mindset. It enriches the theoretical
landscape by providing a more comprehensive framework for analyzing how firms can
achieve ambidextrous innovation in today’s competitive and complex business
environment.
6.2 Managerial implications
The present research offers numerous implications for managers. First, for developing
ambidextrous innovation, the present study provides managers the opportunity to keep the
focus on developing organizational learning capabilities through actively seeking
knowledge on the philosophy of agility. Second, current research offers project managers to
become more agile in their nature to achieve ambidextrous innovation. Third, the study
offers managers to focus on a growth mindset and unleash their innovative capability to
develop knowledge that will help them achieve ambidexterity. Finally, the present study
offers managers to focus on a culture that fosters innovation. The culture that fosters
innovation should empower employees in seeking and experimenting with ideas for new
and existing products and services. From this study, managers may gain practical insights
to strengthen the ambidextrous innovation initiatives inside their firms. The study
TLO
emphasizes how crucial it is to actively encourage organizational learning, cultivate an
innovative culture and embrace agility in project management. The need to encourage a
growth mentality among teams is also emphasized. This will allow managers to lead their
organizations toward striking a dynamic balance between exploration and exploitation,
which will promote long-term success and flexibility in a market that is changing quickly.
References
Anderson, N., Poto
cnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-the-
science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management,
40(5), 1297–1333.
Azeem, M., Ahmed, M., Haider, S., & Sajjad, M. (2021). Expanding competitive advantage through
organizational culture, knowledge sharing and organizational innovation. Technology in Society,
66, 101635.
Bacon, D. R., Sauer, P. L., & Young, M. (1995). Composite reliability in structural equations modeling.
Educational and Psychological Measurement,55(3), 394-406.
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing–insights from the study of
social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals,8(1), 397-441.
Bell, M., & Figueiredo, P. N. (2012). Innovation capability building and learning mechanisms in
latecomer firms: recent empirical contributions and implications for research. Canadian Journal
of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne D’
etudes du D
eveloppement,33(1), 14-40.
Çakar, N. D., & Ertürk, A. (2010). Comparing innovation capability of small and medium-sized
enterprises: examining the effects of organizational culture and empowerment. Journal of Small
Business Management,48(3), 325-359.
Canning, E. A., Murphy, M. C., Emerson, K. T., Chatman, J. A., Dweck, C. S., & Kray, L. J. (2020).
Cultures of genius at work: organizational mindsets predict cultural norms, trust, and
commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,46(4), 626-642.
Chakma, R., Paul, J., & Dhir, S. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity: a review and research agenda.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,35(1), 128-152.
dos Santos, P. M., & Cirillo, M. Â. (2023). Construction of the average variance extracted index for
construct validation in structural equation models with adaptive regressions. Communications
in Statistics - Simulation and Computation,52(4), 1639-1650.
Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T., & Moe, N. B. (2014). Agile project management. Software project management
in a changing world, 277-300.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive
sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics,5(1), 1-4.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review,10(4),
803-813.
Flumerfelt, S., Bella Siriban-Manalang, A., & Kahlen, F. J. (2012). Are agile and lean manufacturing
systems employing sustainability, complexity and organizational learning? The Learning
Organization,19(3), 238-247.
Grover, V., Purvis, R. L., & Segars, A. H. (2007). Exploring ambidextrous innovation tendencies in the
adoption of telecommunications technologies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
54(2), 268-285.
Guan, J., & Ma, N. (2003). Innovative capability and exportperformance of Chinese firms. Technovation,
23(9), 737-747.
Ambidextrous
innovation
Guo, J., Guo, B., Zhou, J., & Wu, X. (2020). How does the ambidexterity of technological learning routine
affect firm innovation performance within industrial clusters? The moderating effects of
knowledge attributes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,155, 119990.
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.
Hair, J. F., Jr, Tomas, G., Hult, M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M.(2021). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage publications.
Hanson, J., Bangert, A., & Ruff, W. (2016). Exploring the relationship between school growth mindset
and organizational learning variables: implications for multicultural education. Journal of
Educational Issues,2(2), 222-243.
Harmancioglu, N., Sääksjärvi, M., & Hultink, E. J. (2020). Cannibalize and combine? The impact of
ambidextrous innovation on organizational outcomes under market competition. Industrial
Marketing Management,85, 44-57.
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity
hypothesis. Organization Science,15(4), 481-494.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-
based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,43(1), 115-135.
Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile project management: Creating innovative products, Pearson Education.
Hughes, M., Martin, S. L., Morgan, R. E., & Robson, M. J. (2010). Realizing product-market advantage in
high-technology international new ventures: the mediating role of ambidextrous innovation.
Journal of International Marketing,18(4), 1-21.
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.
Iranmanesh, M., Kumar, K. M., Foroughi, B., Mavi, R. K., & Min, N. H. (2021). The impacts of
organizational structure on operational performance through innovation capability: innovative
culture as moderator. Review of Managerial Science,15(7), 1885-1911.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative
innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental
moderators. Management Science,52(11), 1661-1674.
Joseph, O. O., & Kibera, F. (2019). Organizational culture and performance: evidencefrom microfinance
institutions in Kenya. SAGE Open,9(1), 2158244019835934.
Ju, X., Ferreira, F. A. F., & Wang, M. (2020). Innovation, agile project management and firm
performance in a public sector-dominatedeconomy: empiricalevidence from high-tech small and
medium-sized enterprises in China. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,72, 100779.
Kang, H. (2021). Sample size determination and power analysis using the G* power software. Journal of
Educational Evaluation for Health Professions,18(1), 1-7.
Khan, S. J., & Mir, A. A. (2019). Ambidextrous culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product
innovations: the role of organizational slack and environmental factors. Business Strategy and
the Environment,28(4), 652-663.
Krosnick, J. A. (2018). Questionnaire design. The Palgrave handbook of survey research, pp. 439-455.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Lee, V.-H., Dwivedi, Y. K., Tan, G. W.-H., Ooi, K.-B., & Wong, L.-W. (2023). How does information
technology capabilities affect business sustainability? The roles of ambidextrous innovation and
data-driven culture. R&D Management.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology,14(1), 319-338.
Li, X., Qiang, Q., Huang, L., & Huang, C. (2022). How knowledge sharing affects business model
innovation: an empirical study from the perspective of ambidextrous organizational learning.
Sustainability,14(10), 6157.
TLO
Lill, P. A., & Wald, A. (2021). The agility-control-nexus: a levers of control approach on the
consequences of agility in innovation projects. Technovation,107, 102276.
L
opez, S. P., Montes Pe
on, J. M., & Vazquez Ord
as, C. J. (2006). Human resource management as a
determining factor in organizational learning. Management Learning,37(2), 215-239.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,2(1),
71-87.
Martini, A., Laugen, B. T., Gastaldi, L., & Corso, M. (2013). Continuous innovation: towards a
paradoxical, ambidextrous combination of exploration and exploitation. International Journal of
Technology Management,61(1), 1-22.
Mesler, R. M., Corbin, C. M., & Martin, B. H. (2021). Teacher mindset is associated with development of
students’growth mindset. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,76, 101299.
O’Reilly, I. I. I., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future.
Academy of Management Perspectives,27(4), 324-338.
Ouchi, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. (1985). Organizational culture. Annual Review of Sociology,11(1),
457-483.
Prieto-Pastor, I., & Martin-Perez, V. (2015). Does HRM generate ambidextrous employees for
ambidextrous learning? The moderating role of management support. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management,26(5), 589-615.
Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational
Research Methods,25(1), 6-14.
Santoro, G., Thrassou, A., Bresciani, S., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Do knowledge management and
dynamic capabilities affect ambidextrous entrepreneurial intensity and firms’performance?
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,68(2), 378-386.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Moisescu, O. I., & Radomir, L. (2020). Structural model
robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tourism Economics,26(4), 531-554.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., & Wilson, J. (2009). Business research methods, London:
Financial Times, Prentice Hall.
Schreuder, H. T., Gregoire, T. G., & Weyer, J. P. (2001). For what applications can probability and non-
probability sampling be used? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,66(3), 281-291.
Sheffield, J., & Lem
etayer, J. (2013). Factors associated with the software development agility of
successful projects. International Journal of Project Management,31(3), 459-472.
Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of
Management Studies,46(4), 597-624.
Singh, A., Kukreja, V., & Kumar, M. (2023). An empirical study to design an effective agile knowledge
management framework. Multimedia Tools and Applications,82(8), 12191-12209.
Singh, A., Singh, K., & Sharma, N. (2014). Agile knowledge management: a survey of Indian
perceptions. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering,10(4), 297-315.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical
Education,2, 53.
Vehovar, V., Toepoel, V., & Steinmetz, S. (2016). Non-probability sampling. The sage handbook of
survey methods, Vol.1, pp. 329-345.
Wallach, E. J. (1983). Organizations: the cultural match. Training and Development Journal,37(2), 29-36.
Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and
new product innovation: a comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms. British Journal
of Management,25(1), 58-76.
Werder, K., & Heckmann, C. S. (2019). Ambidexterity in information systems research: overview of
conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Information Technology Theory and
Application (JITTA),20(1), 2.
Ambidextrous
innovation
Xie, X., Gao, Y., Zang, Z., & Meng, X. (2020). Collaborative ties and ambidextrous innovation: insights
from internal and external knowledge acquisition. Industry and Innovation,27(3), 285-310.
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies?
American Psychologist,75(9), 1269.
Further reading
Chang, W. J., Liao, S. H., & Wu, T. T. (2017). Relationships among organizational culture, knowledge
sharing, and innovation capability: a case of the automobile industry in Taiwan. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice,15(3), 471-490.
Liubchenko, V. (2016). A review of agile practices for project management. 2016 XIth international
scientific and technical conference computer sciences and information technologies (CSIT),
pp. 168-170. IEEE.
TLO
Appendix. Data collection instrument
Agile project management SA
Do you agree that, top management actively supports the agility into the project from
planning to completion phase? 0.754
The project organization actively supports the entrepreneurial spirit of project teams 0.896
For better result of the project, organization encourage project team to take risk 0.860
In situation of organizational instability, project team is given full control and responsible of
project’s works 0.864
In situations where technology have created various uncertainties, project team is
independent in finding solutions that best fit in solving uncertainty 0.875
The project team is always in the close collaboration with customers to learn about their
requirements and needs 0.908
Agile knowledge management
The knowledge management environment in our organization is highly flexible 0.883
The organization is very active in disseminating and sharing the knowledge with project
team 0.867
The project team and organization always focused upon training and mentoring to develop
new set of skills and knowledge within organization 0.896
The project team and organization actively focused upon knowledge management
technology for the purpose creation and dissemination of knowledge 0.808
The project team and organization actively focused upon knowledge acquisition from
different and various sources 0.713
Growth mindset
The intelligence of people within organization is something that we can change very much 0.928
There is no anything that we are not capable of learning 0.938
The challenging oneself can make them very smarter 0.946
People can still learn anything into which they are not naturally smart 0.921
Organizational learning
Information technology is used to improve the flow of information and to encourage
communication between individuals within the company 0.852
The company has databases to stock its experience and knowledge so as to be able to use
them later on 0.927
There is access to the organization’s databases and documents through some kind of
network (Lotus Notes, Intranet, etc.) 0.905
Current organizational practice encourages employees to solve problems together before
discussing them with a manager 0.916
Innovative organizational culture
My organization culture is challenging 0.910
My organization culture is creative 0.912
My organization culture is enterprising 0.925
My organization culture is stimulating 0.912
My organization culture is driving 0.919
My organization culture is risk-taking 0.907
My organization culture is result-oriented 0.592
My organization culture is pressurized 0.585
Ambidextrous innovation
Our firm introduces generation of products or services 0.838
(continued)
Table A1.
Data collection
instrument
Ambidextrous
innovation
Corresponding author
Mohammad Khalid AlSaied can be contacted at: Mohammad.alsaied@cranfield.ac.uk
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Agile project management SA
Our firm opens up totally new markets of new products or service 0.877
Our firm enters new technology field 0.807
Our firm put heavy R&D investments on product process 0.805
Our firm improves existing product or service quality 0.808
Our firm extends the functions of existing products or services 0.794
Our firm lowers cost of existing products or services 0.799
Our firm improves existing production or reduces material consumption 0.781
Innovative capability
Adjusting organization structure flexibly according to new innovation projects 0.795
Centralizing resources on innovation activity quickly 0.822
Overlap between R&D, marketing and manufacturing functions 0.849
Coordinating multi-product development functions 0.644
Encouragement/punishing system 0.683
Autonomy of low managers 0.741
Adapting and responding to exterior environment 0.745
Information flow and interconnection between different function department 0.703
Communication with dominant customers and suppliers 0.766
Notes: SD ¼Strongly disagree; D¼Disagree; N¼Neutral; A¼Agree; SA ¼Strongly agree
Source: Author’s own generated table
Table A1.
TLO
