The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

OSC as a
Ambidextrous leadership, moderator
entrepreneurial orientation,
and operational performance
Organizational social capital as a moderator 229

Trong Tuan Luu Received 9 September 2015

Revised 10 December 2015
Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, 17 February 2016
Melbourne, Australia Accepted 19 February 2016

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of ambidextrous leadership in fostering
entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and operational performance. The research also seeks an insight into
the moderating role that organizational social capital (OSC) plays on the relationship between ambidextrous
leadership and EO.
Design/methodology/approach – The responses to the questionnaire survey were collected from
427 managers from software companies in Vietnam business context.
Findings – The data analysis verified the positive effect of ambidextrous leadership on EO, which was
positively moderated by OSC. The research results also shed light on the predictive role of EO for the
organization’s operational performance.
Originality/value – This research contributes to literature through identifying the convergence of
entrepreneurship and operations management research streams, and the moderation role of OSC for the
ambidextrous leadership-EO relationship.
Keywords Entrepreneurial orientation, Operational performance, Ambidextrous leadership, Vietnam,
Organizational social capital
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Reflecting an external focus ( Johnson and Sirikit, 2002), sustainable competitive advantage
indicates an organization’s unique position relative to its competitors that enables it to
outperform them consistently (Porter, 1985). Sustainable competitive advantage thus emanates
from competitor-oriented operational performance, rather than from internally oriented
operational performance. Liu et al. (2013) also view operational performance as improvement in
an organization’s response to a changing environment in relation to its competitors. To create
operational performance with high responsiveness to competitive force, an organization should
have higher levels of proactiveness and innovativeness than its competitors in giving rise to
proactively innovative products or services. Entrepreneurial orientation (EO), which comprises
proactiveness, innovativeness, and risk taking (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Saeed et al., 2014), drives
employees to proactively seek novel ways to improve the value chain process, thereby
improving the components of operational performance including process flexibility, cost
efficiency, product or service quality, and delivery effectiveness (Devaraj et al., 2007).
Entrepreneurship literature has reported the relationship between EO and organizational
performance (Buttar and Kocak, 2011), especially financial performance (Poon et al., 2006), but
has not turned to the relationship between EO and competitor-oriented operational performance.
Entrepreneurship research has tended to suggest that managerial practitioners shape
Leadership & Organization
their leadership style into transformational leadership to activate entrepreneurial force in Development Journal
the organization (Ling et al., 2008; Engelen et al., 2014). Nonetheless, such a leadership Vol. 38 No. 2, 2017
pp. 229-253
fosters exploratory force only. Ambidextrous leadership, defined as the interaction between © Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
the two complementary leadership behaviors – opening and closing – can foster both DOI 10.1108/LODJ-09-2015-0191
LODJ exploratory and exploitative forces (Rosing et al., 2011). The ambidexterity in this leadership
38,2 style engenders the emotional balancing of continuity and change (Huy, 2002), thereby
reducing employees’ fear of uncertainty and amplifying their self-efficacy to engage in
innovative and risk-taking actions. Besides, ambidextrous leaders use opening leadership
behaviors to encourage employees to proactively search for novel ideas and solutions,
then switch to closing leadership behaviors to encourage employees to implement them.
230 Therefore, ambidextrous leadership has a propensity to foster proactiveness,
innovativeness, and risk taking among employees.
Since the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and EO has not been
investigated, prior research has just focused on moderators for the relationship between
ambidexterity and performance such as environmental dynamism (Rothaermel and
Alexandre, 2009) and resource endowment (Cao et al., 2009). In an organization that has
sustainable relationships and goal harmony with its employees, employees are more
likely to take supportive actions toward entrepreneurial strategic posture that
ambidextrous leaders build. Organizational social capital (OSC) that reflects such trusting
relationships and goal congruence (Leana and Van Buren, 1999) may thus interact with
ambidextrous leadership in cultivating EO in the organization.
Through the integration of new ambidextrous leadership theory (Rosing et al., 2011) into
entrepreneurship and operational performance streams, the current study fills the following
research gaps. The primary purpose of the study is to examine the predictive role of
ambidextrous leadership for EO (research gap 1). The second purpose of the study is to
assess the extent to which EO contributes to operational performance (research gap 2).
The third purpose of the study is to seek an insight into the moderating mechanism of OSC
for the ambidextrous leadership-EO linkage (research gap 3). The last research gap the
study attempts to fill is to test this research model, which is built on Western theories,
in Vietnam – an emerging market (Nguyen et al., 2015).
Following the depiction of the research aims in this introductory section, the paper
reviews the concepts and builds the hypotheses of the research model through the
discussion of the relationships among the concepts. The data were then analyzed to produce
theoretical and managerial implications.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Ambidextrous leadership and EO
EO alludes to the degree to which an organization is proactive, innovative, and risk taking
(Covin and Slevin, 1989; Frishammar and Åke Hörte, 2007; Saeed et al., 2014). As a strategic
approach to experiment novel ideas, products, services, and markets, branching out from
existing norms and practices (RohiUa, 2011), EO is a driver of an organization’s performance
excellence (Buttar and Kocak, 2011).
Ambidextrous leadership comprises three components: opening leadership behaviors to
cultivate exploration, closing leadership behaviors to cultivate exploitation, and the
flexibility and adaptability to switch between both as the situation demands (Zacher and
Rosing, 2015). Under the ambidextrous leadership, both incremental (i.e. exploitative) and
revolutionary (i.e. exploratory) changes are activated (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996, p. 8).
Ambidextrous leaders both engage employees with high openness to experience in
exploration and experimentation, and engage employees with low openness to experience
in incremental adaptation. Ambidextrous leaders also switch between opening and closing
leadership behaviors to harmonize these two change tendencies in the organization, so that
employees reduce their resistance to change and increase their openness to change,
thereby more likely to develop entrepreneurial values. Moreover, ambidextrous leaders,
through opening behaviors, “unfreeze” old values and activate the transition to
entrepreneurial values, and through closing behaviors “refreeze” such new values. Indeed,
exploration that opening leadership behaviors foster (Zacher and Rosing, 2015) OSC as a
entails experimentation, risk taking, and searching for original solutions. Opening moderator
leadership behaviors encourage employees to do things differently, give them room for
autonomous thinking and acting, and support their endeavors to challenge the status quo
(Rosing et al., 2011). Ambidextrous leaders’ opening behaviors hence promote proactiveness,
innovativeness, and risk taking for revolutionary change. On the other hand,
closing leadership behaviors entail setting specific guidelines, monitoring goal 231
achievement, and taking corrective actions (Rosing et al., 2011), which are related to
effective implementation of novel ideas (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011) as well as refreezing of
entrepreneurial values. In other words, the synergy between exploration and exploitation
that ambidextrous leaders foster (Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1997, p. 151) catalyzes EO.
Duncan (1976) also highlights that innovativeness component of EO (Frishammar and
Åke Hörte, 2007) may emanate from dual structural arrangements such as exploration
and exploitation under the ambidextrous leadership.
Furthermore, ambidextrous leaders lead their organization to remain adaptive and
escape the forces of environmental selection (Floyd and Lane, 2000, p. 155) since
“exploitation refers to learning gained via local search, experiential refinement, and selection
and reuse of existing routines while exploration refers to learning gained through processes
of concerted variation, planned experimentation, and play” (Baum et al., 2000, p. 768).
Exploitation indicates the refinement of existing knowledge, whereas exploration is a search
for new knowledge (March, 1991). Ambidexterity denotes the managerial challenge of not
only synergizing exploitation and exploration but also of integrating external and internal
knowledge (Raisch et al., 2009). Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) underscore the risk of
obsolescence from sourcing all knowledge internally. Externally acquired knowledge may
also reinforce existing knowledge bases. Ambidextrous leadership thus amplifies learning
and organizational knowledge, which are the premises of EO (Krauss et al., 2005).
This stream of discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
H1. Ambidextrous leadership is positively related to EO.

OSC as a moderator between organizational ambidexterity and EO

OSC depicts both the aggregate form and nature of relationships among employees
(Leana and Van Buren, 1999). It indicates organizational members’ levels of collective trust
(relational aspect) and goal congruence or shared goal orientation (cognitive aspect)
(Leana and Van Buren, 1999). Social capital promotes an organization’s internal coordination,
knowledge creation and accumulation, creativity (Leana and Pil, 2006; Han et al., 2014) and
innovation (Maurer et al., 2011). Therefore, under the ambidextrous leadership, employees who
have high social capital further engage in proactively innovative acts.
An organization with high social capital exhibits high levels of trust and goal congruence
between employees and their organization (De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia, 2015). Trusting
relations promote collective and collaborative behaviors even in the absence of explicit
mechanisms to activate and reinforce such behaviors (Onyx and Bullen, 2000). In an
environment with high trust level, employees are inclined to perceive change strategies as
beneficial to the organization and its stakeholders although some of them may have to “lose”
something in order for their organization to change and grow. Employees in such a high trust
context therefore support, rather than resist, change strategies under the ambidextrous
leadership and act proactively and innovatively in their daily operations. Moreover, the
ambidextrous leader provides organizational members with opportunities to contribute to the
organization. With some effective existing capabilities and values, non-change agents can exist
and incrementally learn (March, 1991; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996) from change agents who
pursue the exploratory strategy under the ambidextrous leadership. With high trust level,
LODJ change agents not merely implement the exploratory strategy in the form of entrepreneurial
38,2 deeds, but also help non-change agents engage in entrepreneurial activities. Besides, in a high
trust environment, opportunistic behaviors may not occur (Zaheer et al., 1998) in that
non-change agents do not exploit the exploitative strategy to stay in the old norms, values, and
practices, as well as change agents do not take advantage of the exploratory strategy to
dominate over non-change agents and impede their development. In a word, employees with
232 high trust level support the ambidextrous leader by engaging in entrepreneurial actions.
Furthermore, trusting relationships enable the sharing of knowledge as well as ways to exploit
existing knowledge and explore new knowledge for proactive generation of new products and
services. Thus, under the ambidextrous leadership, employees tend to reach a higher level of
EO in an organization with high rather than low trust level.
Goal congruence – the cognitive aspect of social capital – refers to the extent to which
organizational members’ goals converge to reflect the organization’s vision (Nahapiet and
Ghoshal, 1998). Goal congruence is expected to benefit coordination and build the ground for
synergic action (Curşeu et al., 2014). As employees share the same thoughts about the present
and future directions of their organization, they are more motivated to support actions that the
ambidextrous leader fosters in the expectation that such actions will benefit the well-being of
the organization and the achievement of its goals (Leana and van Buren, 1999). As goals align,
employees are more loyal to the collective organization (Zhang and Chiu, 2012) to which they
belong and more willing to invest their time and effort in exploiting existing practices as well
as exploring proactive novel ways to innovate processes as well as products and services
(Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Goal congruence also produces a common, dominant logic
among employees, including shared understanding of how entrepreneurial posture
proactively innovates processes and products. This understanding further enhances their
motivation to engage in entrepreneurial efforts (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Moreover, when a
community collectively holds a set of goals, the likelihood of free-rider problems diminishes
(Leana and Pil, 2006). Therefore, in an organization with high rather than low goal
congruence, non-change agents, who implement the exploitative strategy, tend not to free-ride
on new capabilities or values created by change agents under the exploratory strategy, but to
incrementally learn and adapt to the exploratory strategy and act entrepreneurially.
Ambidextrous leadership consequently has a propensity to enhance entrepreneurial acts in an
organization with high rather than low OSC:
H2. OSC positively moderates ambidextrous leadership and EO.
H2a. Trust positively moderates ambidextrous leadership and EO.
H2b. Goal congruence positively moderates ambidextrous leadership and EO.

EO and operational performance

Two key facets of organizational performance encompass operational performance and
business performance ( Jung and Hong, 2008). While business performance alludes to an
organization’s financial performance in terms of profitability and investment return,
operational performance indicates improvement in its response to a dynamic environment
in relation to its competitors in terms of process flexibility, cost, product quality,
and delivery reliability (Devaraj et al., 2007; Venus, 2014).
In the context of EO, employees have high motivation to proactively seek and
adopt innovative approaches (RohiUa, 2011) to innovate processes and their resulting
products or services. Organizational innovativeness has been reported to influence
operational performance (Overstreet et al., 2013). Under entrepreneurial strategic posture,
employees even take risks (Lisboa et al., 2016), beyond their assigned roles and duties,
to enhance process flexibility.
 Autonomy also serves as a premise for the relationship between EO and operational OSC as a
performance. Autonomy has reportedly been related to operational performance (Samson and moderator
Terziovski, 1999; Golini et al., 2014). Autonomy – the opportunity to decide for oneself what
and how to do the work – is a precondition for improving operational activities. EO, which
reflects employee autonomy (Moss et al., 2015), provides employees with such an opportunity
to engage in modification and improvement of operational practices.
Furthermore, the relationship between EO and operational performance is underpinned on 233
the resource-based view (RBV) of the organization augmented with the dynamic capabilities
theory (Teece, 2007). The fundamental underpinning of RBV is that if organizational resources
can be characterized as valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable, they can be classified
as capabilities enabling an organization’s competitive edge (Wernerfelt, 1984). As such,
the exploitation of valuable, rare resources and capabilities is the premise for differential
organizational performance (Newbert, 2008). Besides, initial research adopting the RBV
perspective focused on the heterogeneity of resources (Wernerfelt, 1984). EO may produce this
heterogeneity of resources by proactively reconfiguring existing resources as well as
developing new resources (Zahra et al., 2006) including human resources (Frishammar and
Åke Hörte, 2007) for heightening operational performance.
Nonetheless, the mere possession of heterogeneous resources may not be sufficient to
impact competitive differentiation; rather, how these resources are developed, configured and
exploited can make a distinction leading to competitive differentiation (Allred et al., 2011)
in light of the dynamic capabilities theory (Teece, 2007). Helfat et al. (2007) viewed a dynamic
capability as “the capacity of an organization to purposefully create, extend or modify its
resource base” (p. 4). Dynamic capabilities also allude to “the firm’s ability to integrate, build,
and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments”
(Teece et al., 1997, p. 516). Dynamic capabilities can be specific processes or routines that
combine, transform, or renew resources into new competencies as markets change (Eisenhardt
and Martin, 2000). In other words, dynamic capabilities theory revolves around resource
conversion into capabilities (Griffith et al., 2006). EO is viewed as a dynamic capability that
helps discern and seize opportunities in an innovative, market-oriented, and timely manner
(Swoboda and Olejnik, 2014), which are levers of reconfiguration and conversion of resources
into operational performance. The following hypothesis thus emerges:
H3. EO is positively related to operational performance.

Predictive and moderating effects of organizational size, organizational age, and ownership
According to Scherer (1980), smaller organizations were more likely to innovate than larger
ones. Small organizations need product innovation to survive in the market (Chaney et al., 1991).
On the contrary, large organizations may be slow in innovation pace, but when they are
threatened by new product development in the industry, the market expects them to respond to
the challenge (Scherer and Ross, 1990). The literature also indicates that larger organizations
may have the resources and skills necessary for entrepreneurial actions in domestic
(Porter, 1987) as well as international markets (Fujita, 1997b).
Besides the potential influence of organizational size on EO, organizational age has also
been found to be a significant factor in explaining organizational strategic behaviors
such as entrepreneurial strategic posture (Tang and Hull, 2012). The manner in which
younger and older organizations attempt to build new capabilities for EO may also differ
(Sapienza et al., 2006). New organizations are often created to introduce radically new
products or services by exploiting specific technological advances (Acs et al., 1997).
In contrast, the older an organization, the more bureaucratic and the less open it is to EO
(Luo et al., 2005). The older an organization is, normally the more hierarchy and inertia it
has; hence, the less it is motivated to change organizational directions through product or
LODJ service innovation (Huergo and Jaumandreu, 2004). Organizational age is especially
38,2 crucial in a transition economy, since older organizations that have been embedded in
the pre-reformed period are more risk averse and inertial for entrepreneurial strategic
posture (Yiu et al., 2007). Nonetheless, according to Sapienza et al. (2006), younger
organizations may be more willing than older ones to dynamically build the capabilities
required to effectively compete in new markets, but they may not be able to survive the
234 efforts necessary to do so. Fujita (1997a) also reported that older organizations, however,
were more likely to engage in entrepreneurial strategic posture to renew their operations.
Organizational age has been found to be a slightly significant predictor for EO (Wiklund
and Shepherd, 2005).
Moreover, ownership may also engender risk aversion and unwillingness to engage in
strategic change activities such as product or service innovation (George et al., 2005).
Fama and Jensen (1983) found the influence of ownership on the extent of engagement in
risky activities. Managers become risk averse as their ownership in the organization
increases (Denis et al., 1997). The concentrated nature of ownership hence puts state-owned
and domestic private organizations at a disadvantage in terms of risk taking and causes
strategic inertia (Schulze et al., 2002).
In addition, in state-owned organizations, since ownership is concentrated to a limited
group of governmental stakeholders, their owners may be more likely to unite around the
same values, interests and strategic practices (Goodstein and Boeker, 1991). This commitment
to the strategy tends to continue over time, leading to unwillingness to change the original
strategy (Kimberly and Bouchikhi, 1995). “Over time, owners may become insulated
from environmental and performance changes and fail to perceive and react to critical
environmental and organizational changes” (Goodstein and Boeker, 1991, p. 312). In Vietnam
context, while foreign-invested organizations tend to launch new products or new features and
applications of products and shape customer needs, state-owned and domestic private ones
tend to follow their foreign leaders in the market in terms of technological and product
innovations (Tran, 2003; Nguyen, 2015).
Furthermore, organizational size, organizational age, and ownership may further
influence the effectiveness of EO in leveraging operational performance. Organizational size
and organizational age have apparently received little scholarly attention as moderating
effects in previous EO studies (Hamilton, 2012). Organizational size was reported to
influence the relationship between EO and performance (Rauch et al., 2009). Wiklund and
Shepherd (2005) view organizational size and organizational age as levers of the success of
EO. Entrepreneurial strategic posture tends to be more successfully implemented in older
and larger organizations than younger and smaller ones since the former have more
experience (Ismail and Jenatabadi, 2014) and resources (Sapienza et al., 2006; Porter, 1987;
Fujita, 1997b) than the latter. Foreign-invested organizations also may have more resources
and experience in implementing entrepreneurial strategy than state-owned and domestic
private ones in developing countries like Vietnam. Additionally, foreign-invested
organizations tend to have entrepreneurial values in their core values when they have
gone global and to some extent infuse these values into local employees. Thus, when
entrepreneurial strategic posture is built in overseas subsidiaries in local contexts, their
local employees are more likely to support this strategic posture to catalyze the conversion
of EO into operational performance than those in state-owned and domestic private ones.
The above discussion leads to the ensuing hypotheses:
H4a. Organizational size, organizational age, and ownership type are predictors of EO.
H4b. Organizational size, organizational age, and ownership type moderate the
relationship between EO and operational performance.
Figure 1 recaps the relationships among the constructs in the research model.
 Ambidextrous H1 (+) H3 (+)
OSC as a
Operational
leadership
Entrepreneurial
orientation performance moderator
H2a H2b
H4a H4b
Organizational
social capital
Organizational size
Trust 235
Organizational age
Goal congruence Figure 1.
Ownership Research model

Research methodology
Research context
Emerging economies are experiencing unprecedented transition and fundamental
changes in their infrastructures which, combined with their fast growth, engender
challenges to companies operating in such environments (Marino et al., 2008). Companies
operating in emerging economies must thus respond to ongoing changes in market
conditions. As a growing emerging economy, Vietnam is transitioning to a market economy
(Malesky and Taussig, 2009; Nguyen et al., 2015). So as to respond to the shifting
competitive landscape, Vietnam-based companies have been forced to transform, making
Vietnam a natural setting for empirically testing our model of EO and operational
performance. To offset for the unpredictability, volatility, and deficiencies in the external
environment of emerging markets, leaders have a propensity to pay greater heed to their
company’ internal resources (Tan and See, 2004) including leadership (Walker, 2010).

Sampling
Respondents came from software companies in Vietnam business context. Software
companies were selected for the current research as they typify a knowledge-based industry
(Murthy and Abeysekera, 2008), engage in producing innovations, and have a growing
importance to the Vietnamese economy (Nguyen, 2015). Companies in knowledge-based
industries have a propensity to create dynamic capabilities through their knowledge as
unique resources, which produce innovations and heighten operational performance
(Murthy and Abeysekera, 2008). Furthermore, software industry is characterized by a high
competitive intensity, especially market pressure from foreign-invested software
companies (Nguyen, 2015). Meanwhile, domestic software companies tend to be slow in
technological and managerial innovation (Nguyen, 2015). There also remains resistance to
innovations in numerous software companies in Vietnam (Nguyen, 2015). Therefore,
understanding mechanisms promoting operational performance helps software companies,
especially domestic ones, enhance its responsiveness to changes in the environment and
sustain its competitiveness.
Since companies should be sufficiently large to ensure that organizational variables apply
(Miller, 1987), 121 companies which had at least 100 employees working were selected from
the 2014 Vietnam Trade Directory. Yet, the final company sample included 64 companies that
had at least three managers participating in the survey (Coombes et al., 2011). Together with
such criteria, small companies were designated as having 100-249 employees, companies
with 250-499 employees were designated as medium sized, and large companies as those with
500 employees or more (Gulbro et al., 2000). Meanwhile, the mean of organizational age
“21 years” was used as the cut-off point to define older and younger companies (Anderson and
Eshima, 2013). Companies with less than 21 years are dubbed younger companies
LODJ and companies aged 21 years and older are known as higher age companies. The description
38,2 of the company sample in terms of organizational size, organizational age, and ownership is
presented in Table I.

Questionnaire development and data collection

First an English version of the questionnaire was built, basing all constructs on previous
236 studies. Two independent translators rendered the English version of the questionnaire into
Vietnamese, and two other translators subsequently back-translated the Vietnamese version of
the questionnaire into English to ensure instrument equivalence (Brislin, 1980). The research
team, including the translators, discussed and unraveled back-translation ambiguities. Five
in-depth interviews were conducted with Vietnamese senior operations managers, who were
asked to assess the clarity, relevance, and completeness of the questionnaire items to warrant
the content and face validity of the measures. Some modifications were made in light of these
insights. A pilot study was then conducted with 22 Vietnamese middle managers, who were
invited to complete the revised questionnaire and comment on its design and wording.
Following further revision, our final questionnaire was formed.
Respondents consisted of middle-level managers. From an employee list provided by the
human resources department of each company, we identified chief accountants, operations
managers, marketing managers, and sales managers. Middle-level members were selected
as the “qualifying” respondents since they were most likely to have specific knowledge on
the key organizational variables and could provide the most reliable information on them
(Vorhies and Morgan, 2003). Beresford and Michels (2014) also view the meso-level
managers as key enablers in the entrepreneurial process. Furthermore, data on operational
performance are largely unavailable from any source other than company records which are
privy merely to key persons from middle-level upwards (Devaraj et al., 2007).
Through Dillman et al.’s (2009) Tailored Design Method, the self-administered
questionnaire and its cover letter were then e-mailed to each respondent, describing the
study, encouraging participation, and ensuring complete confidentiality. A reminder e-mail
was sent to non-respondents after ten days. This longitudinal research adopting a
three-wave design is valuable for testing assumptions about causality of research variables
(Siu et al., 2015) and reducing common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Three waves of
surveys were conducted at the interval of two months between two surveys. The first-wave
survey (T1) collected demographic data and responses on ambidextrous leadership and
OSC. The second-wave survey (T2) collected data on EO. In the third-wave survey (T3),
responses on operational performance were sought.

No. of companies %

Organizational size
100-249 employees 9 14.06
250-499 employees 34 53.13
500 employees or more 21 32.81
Organizational age
Older organizations (over 21 years) 38 59.38
Younger organizations (21 years or under) 26 40.63
Organizational ownership
State-owned 15 23.44
Table I. Domestic private 22 34.38
Description of the Joint-venture 9 14.06
company sample 100% foreign-invested 18 28.13
In the first-wave survey, out of the 1,805 questionnaires, 647 responses were returned from OSC as a
managers, among which 68 (10.51 percent) contained missing data. From Hair et al.’s moderator
(2006, p. 55) perspective, “missing data under 10% for an individual case or observation
can generally be ignored”; therefore, though the data are missing at random
(Little MCAR test: χ2 ¼ 537.42, df ¼ 162, sig ¼ 0.214), responses with missing data rate
higher than 10 percent were removed, resulting in 579 responses apposite for analysis
(Hair et al., 2006), at a usable response rate of 32.08 percent. The comparison of early and 237
late responses through Armstrong and Overton’s (1977) extrapolation method revealed no
significant divergence, which reduces concerns that the data suffers from non-response
bias and amplifies the credibility to make generalizations about the population.
Since 16 managers left their organizations, T2 survey questionnaires were sent to
563 managers. However, merely 491 responses without missing data (3.16 percent missing
data) were garnered (27.20 percent). In the third-wave survey, due to the further leaving of
nine managers, only 482 questionnaires were relayed to managers. In total, 427 complete
responses (23.66 percent) were returned (4.69 percent missing data), building the
final sample of 427 managers.
Out of the managers, 30.91 percent were female, their average age was 38.6 years
(SD ¼ 9.2), they had an average job tenure of 12.4 years (SD ¼ 2.7), and they were employed
as chief accountants (11.01 percent), operations managers (48.02 percent), marketing
managers (18.03 percent), and sales managers (22.95 percent).

Measures
Respondents indicated their perceptions on scale items measuring ambidextrous leadership,
EO, OSC, and operational performance. Items were gauged on a five-point Likert scale
anchored by “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5) unless otherwise stated.
Ambidextrous leadership. Respondents were invited to assess their supervisors’
ambidextrous leadership through Zacher and Rosing’s (2015) 14-item scale, based on
Rosing et al.’s (2011) ambidextrous leadership theory. The scale comprises seven opening
leadership behaviors (e.g. “My supervisor encourages experimentation with different
ideas,” “My supervisor has motives to take risks”) and seven closing leadership behaviors
e.g. “My supervisor monitors and controls goal attainment,” “My supervisor takes
corrective action”).
EO. This construct was assessed using Covin and Slevin’s (1989) eight-item scale, which
comprises the three dimensions: proactiveness consisting of two items (e.g. “Our organization
is very often the first to introduce new products or services, administrative systems, methods
of production, etc.”); innovativeness consisting of three items (e.g. “Our organization has
introduced a lot of new products or services in the past 5 years”); and risk taking consisting of
three items (e.g. “Our organization has a strong propensity toward getting involved in high
risk projects (with a chance for high yield)”).
OSC. Relational (trust) and cognitive (goal congruence) facets of OSC were gauged
through six items each from Leana and Pil (2006). Respondents assessed OSC of the
organization as a whole instead of individual employees. Sample items for trust and goal
congruence, respectively, are “There is no ‘team spirit’ among employees in this company”
(reverse-coded) and “Employees share the same ambitions and vision for the company.”
Operational performance. Operational performance was assessed along the
dimensions of cost, quality, flexibility, and delivery in Devaraj et al.’s (2004) eight-item
five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ not very good, 5 ¼ very good).
Organizational size was measured by the number of full-time employees and
organizational age in years since foundation (Brettel et al., 2011). Ownership type was
coded as 1 ¼ domestic (state-owned and private) and 2 ¼ foreign invested (Luu, 2012a).
LODJ Results
38,2 Reliability and validity
The data analysis was conducted through LISREL 8.8 ( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2006).
The scales’ reliability was potentially enhanced through the use of multiple-item scales
(Neuman, 2000). The reliability of each construct and its specific dimensions was further
assessed through composite construct reliability coefficients. As Table II exhibits,
238 the composite reliability of each research variable ranged from 0.73 to 0.86, above
0.6 according to Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Bagozzi and Yi (1988). Convergent validity
was also achieved because the resulting average variance extracted for each scale ranged
from 0.532 to 0.657, above 0.5 as Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggest. In addition, as shown
on the diagonal in Table II, the square root of the average variance extracted for each
construct exceeded the standardized correlation between the construct and each of the other
constructs, which denotes the Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) test is met for all pairs of
constructs or discriminant validity was attained.
Construct validity was established on confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Table II
depicts correlations among the latent constructs in the CFA. χ2 statistics and three fit indices
were used to assess the acceptability of the measurement model. Indices such as
non-normed fit index (NNFI), Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI), comparative-fit index (CFI),
and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used to estimate the model.
The fit indices including NNFI ¼ 0.95, TLI ¼ 0.95, CFI ¼ 0.96, which surpassed the 0.90
cut-off value (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001; Hu and Bentler, 1995), indicate that the data
fitted the model. The level of misfit was also tolerable, with RMSEA ¼ 0.04, under the
relevant benchmark of 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Besides, model fit was further reinforced
through χ2/df ¼ 281.58/162 ¼ 1.74, which is below 2 (Carmines and McIver, 1981).

Common method issue

Potential common method variance (CMV) bias was examined through Harmon’s one factor
test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; Podsakoff et al., 2003), in which all of the items for our
latent variables were entered into a single factor using CFA procedure. The poor model fit
( χ2 ¼ 502.49, df ¼ 172, NNFI ¼ 0.63, TLI ¼ 0.65, CFI ¼ 0.63, RMSEA ¼ 0.21) indicated no
general factor accounting for the preponderance of covariance across the variables.
In addition, CMV bias was also tested through the marker variable approach (Lindell and
Whitney, 2001). A marker variable (i.e. the place of birth (1 ¼ the capital area; 0 ¼ other
areas)), which was theoretically unrelated to other variables, was included into the survey.
CMV has a propensity to occur if the significant zero-order correlations for the variables in
the research alleviate their significance levels when partialling out the marker variable from
the correlation matrix. Nonetheless, in the current research, all significant zero-order
correlations remained significant after the marker variable was partialled out, displaying
the low CMV risk in the data set.

Hypothesis tests
The effect of ambidextrous leadership on operational performance through EO.
The hypotheses were tested through hierarchical multiple regression analysis following
Cohen et al.’s (2003) procedures. The testing process commenced with the estimation of a
model with simple effects (without the OSC interaction effects) (Model 1 in Table III).
The hypothesized model (Model 2 in Table III), which incorporated the OSC interaction
effects, was then estimated. The addition of the hypothesized interaction significantly
improved model fit (Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2 difference test (Satorra and Bentler, 2001):
Dw2SB ¼ 14.096, po 0.01). The R2 values also unveiled that the model accounted for large
proportions of variance in the endogenous variables (31.7 percent of variance in EO and
Constructs Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CCR AVE
a
1. Organizational size 5.48 0.65 –
2. Organizational age 21.7 9.3 0.06 –
3. Ownership type 1.42 0.36 0.05 0.03 –
4. Ambidextrous leadership 3.48 0.46 0.12 0.07 0.14* (0.77) 0.81 0.588
5. EO 3.62 0.57 0.16* 0.11 0.18* 0.54*** (0.78) 0.84 0.609
6. Trust 3.27 0.34 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.29** 0.41** (0.73) 0.82 0.532
7. Goal congruence 3.36 0.39 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.15* 0.24* 0.12* (0.81) 0.73 0.657
8. Operational performance 3.47 0.41 0.14* 0.08 0.16* 0.18* 0.48** 0.14* 0.11* (0.79) 0.86 0.624
Notes: CCR, composite construct reliability; AVE, average variance extracted. Values in parentheses display the square root of the average variance extracted. aValue is
the natural logarithm. Standardized correlations reported *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
moderator

239
OSC as a

for the confirmatory

inter-correlations
Construct
Table II.

factor analysis model

LODJ Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
38,2 Model paths (baseline) (hypothesized) (modified)

Operational performance
Ambidextrous leadership – – 0.162*
Entrepreneurial orientation 0.462** 0.459** 0.458**
Entrepreneurial orientation × Organizational size – 0.196* 0.196*
240 Entrepreneurial orientation × Organizational age – 0.139 0.137
Entrepreneurial orientation × Ownership type – 0.208* 0.208*
Entrepreneurial orientation
Ambidextrous leadership 0.674*** 0.672*** 0.672***
Trust 0.405** 0.404** 0.402**
Goal congruence 0.225* 0.225* 0.224*
Organizational size 0.153* 0.152* 0.152*
Organizational age 0.111 0.109 0.110
Ownership type 0.175* 0.175* 0.174*
Ambidextrous leadership × Trust – 0.366** 0.366**
Ambidextrous leadership × Goal congruence – 0.257* 0.257*
Model characteristics
Log-likelihood −10,017.215 −10,021.552 −10,020.636
Table III. Scaling factor 1.248 1.246 1.246
Standardized path Free parameters 165 162 162
coefficients Notes: *po 0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001 (two-tailed)

26.4 percent of variance in operational performance). Model 3 in Table III included a

direct path between ambidextrous leadership and operational performance to test if
ambidextrous leadership might directly influence operational performance. Model fit
improved significantly (Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2 difference test (Satorra and Bentler, 2001):
Dw2SB ¼ 3.718, p o0.05) and ambidextrous leadership displayed a positive and significant
direct effect on operational performance ( β ¼ 0.162, p o0.05).
As depicted in Table III and Figure 2, H1 was confirmed through the positive and
significant coefficient of the path from ambidextrous leadership to EO ( β ¼ 0.672,
p o0.001). H3 on the interconnection between EO and operational performance was also
confirmed on the premise of the positive and significant coefficient ( β ¼ 0.458, po 0.01).
The indirect effect of ambidextrous leadership on operational performance via EO was
estimated through simple mediation analysis using SPSS macros for bootstrapping indirect
effects (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The macro utilizes ordinary least squares regression
to assess the path. The point estimate of the indirect effect and the bias-corrected

Ambidextrous H1 (+) H3 (+)

Entrepreneurial Operational
leadership orientation 0.458** performance
0.672***
H2a H2b
H4a H4b
0.366** 0.257*
Organizational 0.152* 0.196*
social capital
Organizational size
Trust
0.110 0.137
Figure 2. Organizational age
Model estimation Goal congruence 0.174* 0.208*
findings Ownership
confidence interval (CI) are based on 5,000 samples (Preacher and Hayes, 2004). EO mediated OSC as a
the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and operational performance (point moderator
estimate: 0.31, SE: 0.19, 95 percent CI: 0.08-0.27). According to Preacher and Hayes (2008),
a CI that does not contain 0 demonstrates a statistically significant indirect effect and,
thus, mediation. Therefore, the absence of 0 in the CI for the indirect effect of ambidextrous
leadership on operational performance through EO revealed that the mediating effect of
EO was significant. 241
Moderating effect of OSC. The moderating role of OSC (trust and goal congruence) for the
relationship between ambidextrous leadership and EO was corroborated through the test
results of H2a and H2b. The interaction term of ambidextrous leadership × trust was
positive and significant ( β ¼ 0.366, p o0.01). The form of the interaction was further
assessed by the simple slope test in which the relationship between ambidextrous
leadership and EO was examined at high (one SD above the mean) and low (one SD below
the mean) values of trust (Aiken and West, 1991). This analysis revealed that ambidextrous
leadership enhanced EO when trust was high (simple slope ¼ 1.90, p o0.01) vs low
(simple slope ¼ 0.29, p o0.01). The plotted interaction is shown in Figure 3.
Likewise, the interaction term of ambidextrous leadership × goal congruence was
positive and significant ( β ¼ 0.257, p o0.05). The simple slope test also indicated that
ambidextrous leadership increased EO when goal congruence was high (simple slope ¼ 0.90,
p o0.05) vs low (simple slope ¼ 0.26, p o0.05). The plotted interaction is displayed in
Figure 4.
Effects of organizational size, organizational age, and ownership types. Table III presents
the associations between organizational size, ownership, and EO ( β ¼ 0.152, p o0.05;
β ¼ 0.174, p o0.05), but no association between organizational age and EO ( β ¼ 0.110,
p W0.10). Table III also displays the interaction effects of organizational size, organizational
age, ownership, and EO on operational performance. The results confirmed our hypothesis
that organizational size is a moderator for the relationship between EO and operational
performance ( β ¼ 0.196, po 0.05), which denotes that as organizational size increases,
the effect of EO on operational performance will increase. In other words, the effect of EO on
operational performance in organizations that have larger size is stronger than that in

High trust
1.5
Low trust

1.0
Entrepreneurial orientation

0.5

0.0

–0.5

–1.0

Figure 3.
–1.5 Moderating effect
Low ambidextrous High ambidextrous of trust
leadership leadership
LODJ High goal congruence
1.5
38,2 Low goal congruence

1.0

Entrepreneurial orientation
0.5
242
0.0

–0.5

–1.0

Figure 4.
Moderating effect –1.5
of goal congruence Low ambidextrous High ambidextrous
leadership leadership

organizations with smaller size. Likewise, the results supported our hypothesis that
ownership is a moderator for the relationship between EO and operational performance
( β ¼ 0.208, p o0.05), indicating that the effect of EO on operational performance in
organizations that have foreign-invested ownership is stronger than that in organizations
with other ownership types. Nonetheless, the results do not corroborate the
role of organizational age in moderating the EO-operational performance relationship
( β ¼ 0.137, p W0.10).
To test differences in terms of organizational size, organizational age, and ownership
type, the critical ratio (CR) test ( W±1.96, p o0.05) is employed to achieve the CR
statistics for the differences among regression weights of larger- and smaller-size subjects,
higher- and lower-age subjects, and foreign-invested and other ownership subjects
(Ho, 2006). According to Arbuckle (2010), the CR of an estimate pair is utilized to confirm the
equality of the two parameters. As the results in Table IV reflect, there were significant
differences in the relationship between EO and operational performance in larger and
smaller organizational size, and in foreign-invested type and other ownership types, but no
significant difference in the relationship between EO and operational performance in
higher and lower organizational age. Thus, these findings support that organizational
size and ownership act as moderators for the EO-operational performance relationship in
our research model.

Path Overall model Critical ratio (CR)

Organizational size Low High

EO → Operational performance 0.458** 0.124 0.671*** 4.146**
Organizational age Low High
EO → Operational performance 0.458** 0.448** 0.463** 0.102
Table IV. Ownership Foreign-invested Others
Comparison analysis EO → Operational performance 0.458** 0.704*** 0.092 5.038**
for two groups Notes: **p o0.01; ***p o0.001
Discussion OSC as a
Theoretical implications moderator
From the research results, managerial literature has been extended in diverse directions.
First, our research adds to leadership literature a new model of ambidextrous leadership and
operational performance via the mediation mechanism of EO. Leadership literature has
established the predictive role of leadership for EO; yet, scholarly attention has tended to be
paid to transformational leadership (Harsanto and Roelfsema, 2015) due to its change force 243
to activate innovativeness (Overstreet et al., 2013). This research distinguishes itself from
previous leadership-EO models by assessing how the two change forces in ambidextrous
leadership contribute to EO. The synergy of the two change forces – incremental
(exploitative) force under closing leadership behaviors and revolutionary (exploratory) force
under opening leadership behaviors (Rosing et al., 2011) – nurtures all EO components since
incremental change force alone may yield some degree of innovativeness, but may be not
strong enough to engender proactiveness or risk taking. This synergy not only activates
exploratory actions among change agents but also reduces resistance from employees who
can only incrementally adapt to the innovations. Ambidextrous leaders, through their
closing leadership behaviors, offer employees with low adaptability sufficient time to adapt
to a new technology or quality management approach.
Second, operational performance research increases its breadth through the identification
of the effect chain from ambidextrous leadership to EO as precursors to operational
performance. Operational performance research has tended to resort to technological change
or quality management approach (Tarí et al., 2014) as a lever for operational performance
improvement. Yet, change forces such as EO under the ambidextrous leadership, which will
promote the adoption of novel technologies or quality management approaches for higher
operational performance, have not been fully addressed. Without EO as a premise for
technological change, organizational members are less motivated to proactively engage in
technological strategy formulation, as well as innovatively apply new technologies and
transform their capacities into innovative products or services. Furthermore, in the current
research, the effect of EO on operational performance is explained through RBV of the
organization augmented with dynamic capabilities theory (Teece, 2007). Our research
therefore not only extends the application spectrum of RBV and dynamic capabilities theory,
but also suggests that future research should consider dynamic capabilities as a mediator for
the EO-performance linkage.
Third, the concept “organizational social capital” has tended to appear as an antecedent
in entrepreneurship literature (De Clercq et al., 2013). However, the current research can be
viewed among the first to add to entrepreneurship research the moderating role of OSC for
the effect of ambidextrous leadership on EO. This research finding also denotes that the
path from ambidextrous leadership or any leadership of change to employees’
entrepreneurial behaviors necessitates a catalyst such as OSC. Other moderators that
mirror the psychological tie between employees and the organization such as psychological
contract or employee reciprocity (Settoon et al., 1996) should be tested in the future model of
the ambidextrous leadership-EO linkage.
Fourth, the convergence between EO and operational performance research streams also
broadens entrepreneurship literature, which has tended to focus on performance in general
(Buttar and Kocak, 2011), rather than competitor-oriented operational performance
(Devaraj et al., 2007) as an organizational outcome of EO as in the current research. Another
contribution of our research to entrepreneurship literature entails investigating
organizational size and organizational age in their predictive role for EO and moderating
role for the relationship between EO and operational performance, rather than as control
variables as in prior research (e.g. Kunttu, 2013). Our research found no significant
association between organizational age and EO, which is not in line with arguments
LODJ commonly seen in previous EO studies in Western cultures that younger organizations tend
38,2 to be more innovative (Acs et al., 1997), or older organizations need to renew their operations
(Fujita, 1997a; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005). It may be due to uncertainty avoidance under
the influence of remaining central planning values and institutional barriers in Vietnam
(Phan, 2012) that puts both younger and older organizations under cautious investments in
innovation. Meanwhile, the research results unveiled the significant association between
244 organizational size and EO as well as the moderation mechanism of organizational size for
the EO-operational performance. This is consonant with findings from Porter (1987) and
Fujita (1997b) that larger organizations are more likely to successfully implement
entrepreneurial strategy through their dynamic capabilities built from tangible and
intangible resources (e.g. human resources).
Last, our research further extends entrepreneurship theory built in Western cultures by
assessing entrepreneurship in relationships with its antecedent and outcome in the context
of Vietnam – an Asian transition economy (Nguyen et al., 2015). Transitioning toward a
market economy (Nguyen et al., 2015) from a contemporary socialist economy and
traditional Confucian philosophy engenders a set of values that contains both old
(central planning values) and new in a set of market-economic principles in Vietnam
(Ralston et al., 1997), giving rise to a distinct Vietnamese entrepreneurship that is different
from other types (Ralston et al., 1999). The high level of uncertainty avoidance in the
Vietnamese culture renders the preference for innovation comparatively low (Swierczek and
Ha, 2003). Nguyen et al. (2015) also found that though the current setting in Vietnam may
support a transitional entrepreneurship development, more needs to be done to build
favorable socio-cultural setting and effective business support systems in the country.
Besides, EO is an organization-level attribute that displays a frame of mind and a view
about entrepreneurship mirrored in an organization’s culture (Tajeddini and Mueller, 2012;
Muchiri, 2013). The relationship between ownership and EO established in our research can
be traced back to the role of culture in shaping EO in different ownership types (Luu, 2010;
Engelen et al., 2014). Although market reforms have removed the controls over the
production, circulation, and price of products and services, and have created business
opportunities along with these market changes, central planning values have remained in
numerous state-owned organizations in Vietnam (Luu, 2012b), creating barriers for the
entrepreneurial spirit in them (Swierczek and Ha, 2003). With low influence of central
planning values, domestic private organizations in Vietnam, however, lack strong
tradition of entrepreneurship, which poses challenges to new venture creation (Swierczek
and Ha, 2003) within them in comparison with foreign-invested organizations. Research also
reported a higher level of innovative culture in foreign-invested organizations than in
state-owned and domestic private organizations (Luu, 2010). Our research therefore
indicates the role of organizational culture types, which are cultivated in different
ownership types, in shaping EO as well as moderating the effect of EO on performance
in future research paths.

Managerial implications
The research results indicate that the improvement in operational performance may not be
produced without soft change factors such as EO. Organizational leaders therefore should
not build operational performance initiatives through their complete reliance on hard factors
such as technology transfer, but should balance between technology transfer and the
cultivation of entrepreneurial values among employees. This is reflected in Lattuch and
Seifert’s (2015) change management perspective. Leaders should design training programs
that not merely increase employees’ knowledge of new technologies or quality management
approaches to be adopted in the organization, but also infuse entrepreneurial values into
their mindsets. Leaders should not adopt new technologies and coerce their employees to
follow, but rather using opening leadership behaviors to inspire their openness to new OSC as a
technologies or quality management approaches, as well as using closing leadership moderator
behaviors to refreeze entrepreneurial values. In addition, leaders should use
opening behaviors to inspire employees to contribute initiatives to ongoing technological
and managerial improvements of the organization, and engage more employees in its
exploratory change. They should also use closing behaviors to encourage employees
with low adaptability to exploit all their competencies in an incremental operational 245
change process.
Furthermore, since OSC plays a moderating role for the influence of ambidextrous
leadership on EO, leaders should create the harmony between the goals and interests of
employees and the organization by formulating strategies through both top-down and
bottom-up approaches (Pascale and Sternin, 2005). They should elicit the contribution of
ideas to strategies from employees but in the direction of the organizational vision. Leaders
should further communicate and translate entrepreneurial strategic posture into goals and
roles for teams, as well as role-model their commitment to entrepreneurial goals, thereby
fostering goal congruence among employees. As Kotter (1995) suggests, the organization
also needs to establish a guiding coalition, consisting of change agents who role-model their
commitment to team goals and nurture goal congruence among their team members.
Moreover, leaders should be cognizant that trust – a crucial component of OSC,
which strongly interacts with goal congruence (Leana and Van Buren, 1999) – should be
built to reinforce the relationship between ambidextrous leadership and EO. Trust will
augment employees’ response to opening behaviors of the ambidextrous leader as well as
reduce their resistance to exploratory change, thereby catalyzing their shift from
incremental adaptation to exploratory change in operational performance. Trust should be
fostered through fair practices, especially understanding employee resistance to
entrepreneurial posture as a sign of leaders’ ineffective communication and inculcation of
entrepreneurial values into employees as well as avoiding the use of this resistance to isolate
or ostracize them from change activities.

Limitations and future research directions

Future appropriate use of the research findings requires the understanding of their
limitations. The findings, which were collated through perceptual instruments, may not be
observable in the workplace. Changes in EO level that ambidextrous leadership fosters
should be further longitudinally observed. Due to the susceptibility of self-report data to
CMV bias, Harmon’s one factor test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; Podsakoff et al., 2003)
and the marker variable test (Lindell and Whitney, 2001) were conducted to confirm that
CMV bias was not a concern in the current research. In addition, CMV bias was reduced
through data collection at different survey waves (time separation) (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
The findings from only the software industry should be generalized with prudence. Since
proactivity and innovativeness may be inherent to the software industry, a mixed industry
approach may increase the generalizability of the current research model (Fabbe-Costes and
Jahre, 2008). The research model should also be replicated in service industries that
demand employees’ entrepreneurial deeds such as healthcare services where clinicians should
proactively improve treatment process flexibility as well as patient care delivery reliability.
Since EO produces proactive change not only in operational performance but also in
individual employees’ task designs to create more job meanings for them. Job crafting,
as such a task redesign (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001), should be included as a novel
outcome into the future EO model. Besides, the current research model has merely focused
on ambidextrous leadership as a predictor of EO. However, EO also requires external forces
from diverse stakeholders including suppliers, distributors, and customers. Supply chain
integration that underscores the integration of all these external forces (Özdemir et al., 2014)
LODJ may therefore play a predicting role for EO on a new research path. Moreover, in the
38,2 present paper, OSC is a moderator for the effect of ambidextrous leadership on EO.
Hence, organizational factors that reflect the psychological tie between employees and
their organization such as psychological contract (Rousseau, 1990) or organizational
identification (Nakra, 2006) may also serve as moderators for the ambidextrous
leadership-EO linkage.
246
References
Acs, Z.J., Morck, R., Shaver, J.M. and Yeung, B. (1997), “The internationalization of small and
medium-sized enterprises: a policy perspective”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Allred, C.R., Fawcett, S.E., Wallin, C. and Magnan, G.M. (2011), “A dynamic collaboration capability as
a source of competitive advantage”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 129-161.
Anderson, B.S. and Eshima, Y. (2013), “The influence of firm age and intangible resources on the
relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm growth among Japanese SMEs”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 413-429.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2010), IBM SPSS Amos 19 User’s Guide, Amos Development Corporation,
Crawfordville, FL.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponsive bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation for structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Baum, J.A., Li, S.X. and Usher, J.M. (2000), “Making the next move: how experiential and vicarious
learning shape the locations of chains’ acquisitions”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 766-801.
Beresford, R. and Michels, N. (2014), “Embedding change through the entrepreneurial role of middle
managers in the UK further education sector”, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 147-164.
Brettel, M., Engelen, A. and Oswald, D.K.M. (2011), “What is the ‘right’ market orientation for new
entrepreneurial ventures?”, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 83-109.
Brislin, R.W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials”, in Triandis, H.C.
and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology, Vol. 2, Allyn &
Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 389-444.
Buttar, H.M. and Kocak, A. (2011), “The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation dynamic
capabilities and firm performance: an exploratory study of small Turkish firms”, International
Journal of Business and Globalisation, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 351-366.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. and Zhang, H. (2009), “Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions,
contingencies, and synergistic effects”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 781-796.
Carmines, E. and McIver, J. (1981), “Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of
covariance structures”, in Bohrnstedt, G. and Borgatta, E. (Eds), Social Measurement: Current
Issues, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 65-115.
Chaney, P.K., Devinney, T.M. and Winer, R.S. (1991), “The impact of new product introductions on the
market value of firms”, Journal of Business, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 573-610.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis
for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-152.
Coombes, S.M., Morris, M.H., Allen, J.A. and Webb, J.W. (2011), “Behavioural orientations of non‐profit OSC as a
boards as a factor in entrepreneurial performance: does governance matter?”, Journal of moderator
Management Studies, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 829-856.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Curşeu, P.L., Janssen, S.E. and Meeus, M.T. (2014), “Shining lights and bad apples: the effect of
goal-setting on group performance”, Management Learning, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 332-348. 247
De Clercq, D. and Belausteguigoitia, I. (2015), “Intergenerational strategy involvement and family
firms’ innovation pursuits: the critical roles of conflict management and social capital”, Journal
of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 178-189.
De Clercq, D., Dimov, D. and Thongpapanl, N.T. (2013), “Organizational social capital, formalization,
and internal knowledge sharing in entrepreneurial orientation formation”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 505-537.
Denis, D.J., Denis, D.K. and Sarin, A. (1997), “Agency problems, equity ownership, and corporate
diversification”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 135-160.
Devaraj, S., Hollingworth, D. and Schroeder, R. (2004), “Generic manufacturing strategies and plant
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 313-333.
Devaraj, S., Krajewski, L. and Wei, J.C. (2007), “Impact of eBusiness technologies on operational
performance: the role of production information integration in the supply chain”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1199-1216.
Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D. and Christian, L.M. (2009), Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys:
The Tailored Design Method, 3rd ed., Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Duncan, R.B. (1976), “The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation”,
in Kilmann, R.H., Pondy, L.R. and Slevin, D. (Eds), The Management of Organization, Vol. 1,
North-Holland, New York, NY, pp. 167-188.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10-11, pp. 1105-1121.
Engelen, A., Flatten, T.C., Thalmann, J. and Brettel, M. (2014), “The effect of organizational culture on
entrepreneurial orientation: a comparison between Germany and Thailand”, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 732-752.
Fabbe-Costes, N. and Jahre, M. (2008), “Supply chain integration and performance: a review of the
evidence”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 130-154.
Fama, E.F. and Jensen, M.C. (1983), “Separation of ownership and control”, Journal of Law and
Economics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 301-325.
Floyd, S.W. and Lane, P.J. (2000), “Strategizing throughout the organization: managing role conflict in
strategic renewal”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 154-177.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and
measurement errors”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Frishammar, J. and Åke Hörte, S. (2007), “The role of market orientation and entrepreneurial
orientation for new product development performance in manufacturing firms”, Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 765-788.
Fujita, M. (1997a), “Small and medium-sized enterprises in foreign direct investment”, in Buekley, P.J.,
Campos, J., Mirza, H. and White, E. (Eds), International Technology Transfer by Small and
Medium-Sized Enterprises, St Martin’s Press, Inc., New York. NY, pp. 9-69.
Fujita., S. (1997b), “A strategy for corporate innovation”, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.
George, G., Wiklund, J. and Zahra, S.A. (2005), “Ownership and the internationalization of small firms”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 210-233.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1997), The Individualized Corporation, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
LODJ Golini, R., Deflorin, P. and Scherrer-Rathje, M. (2014), “Enhancing operational performance in
38,2 production subsidiaries: balancing autonomy, leveraging embeddedness”, 21st EurOMA
Conference: Operations Management in an Innovation Economy, Palermo, June 20-25.
Goodstein, J. and Boeker, W. (1991), “Turbulence at the top: a new perspective on governance
structure changes and strategic change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 306-330.
248 Griffith, D.A., Noble, S.M. and Chen, Q. (2006), “The performance implications of entrepreneurial
proclivity: a dynamic capabilities approach”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 51-62.
Gulbro, R.D., Shonesy, L. and Dreyfus, P. (2000), “Are small manufacturers failing the quality test?”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 76-80.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hamilton, R.T. (2012), “How firms grow and the influence of size and age”, International Small Business
Journal, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 611-621.
Han, J., Han, J. and Brass, D.J. (2014), “Human capital diversity in the creation of social capital for team
creativity”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 54-71.
Harsanto, B. and Roelfsema, H. (2015), “Asian leadership styles, entrepreneurial firm orientation and
business performance”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 490-499.
Helfat, F.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Sing, H., Teece, D.J., et al. (2007), Dynamic
Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Ho, R. (2006), Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis and Interpretation with SPSS,
Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1995), “Evaluating model fit”, in Doyle, R.H. (Ed.), Structural Equation
Modeling, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 76-99.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Huergo, E. and Jaumandreu, J. (2004), “How does probability of innovation change with firm age?”,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 22 Nos 3-4, pp. 193-207.
Huy, Q.N. (2002), “Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change:
the contribution of middle managers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 1,
pp. 31-69.
Ismail, N.A. and Jenatabadi, H.S. (2014), “The influence of firm age on the relationships of airline
performance, economic situation and internal operation”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 212-224.
Johnson, W.C. and Sirikit, A. (2002), “Service quality in the Thai telecommunication industry: a tool
for achieving a sustainable competitive advantage”, Management Decision, Vol. 40 No. 7,
pp. 693-701.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (2006), “LISREL for windows”, Scientific Software International,
Lincolnwood, IL.
Jung, J.Y. and Hong, S. (2008), “Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), TQM and performance at
the maquiladora”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 8,
pp. 793-808.
Kimberly, J.R. and Bouchikhi, H. (1995), “The dynamics of organizational development and change:
how the past shapes the present and constrains the future”, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 9-18.
Kotter, J.P. (1995), “Leading change: why transformation efforts fail”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73
No. 2, pp. 59-67.
Krauss, S.I., Frese, M., Friedrich, C. and Unger, J.M. (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation: OSC as a
a psychological model of success among southern African small business owners”, European moderator
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 315-344.
Kunttu, A.M. (2013), “Entrepreneurship, service innovation, international expansion and performance
in SMEs: empirical evidence from finnish ICT industry”, unpublished master thesis,
Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta.
Lattuch, F. and Seifert, A. (2015), “Insights from change management consulting: linking the hard and 249
soft side of change with heuristics”, in Albach, H., Meffert, H., Pinkwart, A. and Reichwald, R.
(Eds), Management of Permanent Change, Springer, Wiesbaden, pp. 177-194.
Leana, C.R. and Pil, F.K. (2006), “Social capital and organizational performance: evidence from urban
public schools”, Organization Science, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 353-366.
Leana, C.R. and Van Buren, H.J. (1999), “Organizational social capital and employment practices”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 538-555.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
Ling, Y.A.N., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M.H. and Veiga, J.F. (2008), “Transformational leadership’s role in
promoting corporate entrepreneurship: examining the CEO-TMT interface”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 557-576.
Lisboa, A., Skarmeas, D. and Saridakis, C. (2016), “Entrepreneurial orientation pathways to
performance: a fuzzy-set analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 1319-1324.
Liu, H., Ke, W., Kee Wei, K. and Hua, Z. (2013), “Effects of supply chain integration and market
orientation on firm performance: evidence from China”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 322-346.
Luo, X., Zhou, L. and Liu, S.S. (2005), “Entrepreneurial firms in the context of China’s transition
economy: an integrative framework and empirical examination”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 277-284.
Luu, T.T. (2010), “Organisational culture, leadership and performance measurement integratedness”,
International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 251-275.
Luu, T.T. (2012a), “What trust grows through upward influence?”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 158-181.
Luu, T.T. (2012b), “Behind brand performance”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 42-57.
Malesky, E.J. and Taussig, M. (2009), “Where is credit due? Legal institutions, connections, and the
efficiency of bank lending in Vietnam”, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 535-578.
March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
Marino, L.D., Lohrke, F.T., Hill, J.S., Weaver, K.M. and Tambunan, T. (2008), “Environmental
shocks and SME alliance formation intentions in an emerging economy: evidence from the
Asian financial crisis in Indonesia”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 157-183.
Maurer, I., Bartsch, V. and Ebers, M. (2011), “The value of intra-organizational social capital: how it
fosters knowledge transfer, innovation performance, and growth”, Organization Studies, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 157-185.
Miller, D. (1987), “The structural environmental correlates of business strategy”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 55-76.
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M. and Naveh, E. (2011), “The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail
members on team innovation: reconciling the innovation paradox”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 740-760.
LODJ Moss, T.W., Neubaum, D.O. and Meyskens, M. (2015), “The effect of virtuous and entrepreneurial
38,2 orientations on microfinance lending and repayment: a signaling theory perspective”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 27-52.
Muchiri, M.K. (2013), “Entrepreneurial orientation and leadership: a review, model and research
agenda”, paper accepted for presentation at the Small Enterprise Association of Australia and
New Zealand 26th Annual Conference, Sydney, July 11-12.
250 Murthy, V. and Abeysekera, I. (2008), “Corporate social reporting practices of top Indian software
firms”, Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 36-59.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nakra, R. (2006), “Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational identification:
an empirical study”, Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 41-51.
Neuman, W.L. (2000), Social Research Methods: Qualitative And Quantitative Approaches, 4th ed.,
Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Newbert, S.L. (2008), “Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: a conceptual-level
empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 745-768.
Nguyen, Q.A., Mort, G.S. and D’Souza, C. (2015), “Vietnam in transition: SMEs and the necessitating
environment for entrepreneurship development”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
Vol. 27 Nos 3-4, pp. 154-180.
Nguyen, T. (2015), “Công nghiệp thành phố Hô` Chí Minh: Đâ`u tư đổi mới từ doanh nghiệp [Industries in
Ho Chi Minh City: innovations in enterprises]”, available at: www.sggp.org.vn/khoahoc_
congnghe/2015/10/400977/ (accessed December 2, 2015).
Onyx, J. and Bullen, P. (2000), “Measuring social capital in five communities”, The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
Overstreet, R.E., Hanna, J.B., Byrd, T.A., Cegielski, C.G. and Hazen, B.T. (2013), “Leadership style
and organizational innovativeness drive motor carriers toward sustained performance”,
The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 247-270.
Özdemir, A.İ., Simonetti, B. and Jannelli, R. (2014), “Determining critical success factors related to the
effect of supply chain integration and competition capabilities on business performance”,
Quality & Quantity, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 1621-1632.
Pascale, R.T. and Sternin, J. (2005), “Your company’s secret change agents”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 72-81.
Phan, T.L.H. (2012), “Reforming local government in Vietnam: lesson learned from Japan”, unpublished
doctoral thesis, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1,
pp. 539-569.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Poon, J.M., Ainuddin, R.A. and Junit, S.O.H. (2006), “Effects of self-concept traits and entrepreneurial
orientation on firm performance”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 61-82.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1987), “From competitive advantage to competitive strategy”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 43-59.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in OSC as a
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, Vol. 36 No. 4, moderator
pp. 717-731.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G. and Tushman, M.L. (2009), “Organizational ambidexterity: 251
balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 685-695.
Ralston, D.A., Nguyen, V.T. and Napier, N.K. (1999), “A comparative study of the work values of
North and South Vietnamese managers”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 655-672.
Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Yu, K.-C. (1997), “The impact of national culture and
economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan,
and China”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 177-207.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, T.G. and Frese, M. (2009), “Entrepreneurial orientation and business
performance: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the future”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 761-787.
RohiUa, G. (2011), “Towards a better understanding of the relationship between speed of
internationalization and performance outcomes among young international ventures”, doctoral
dissertation, Faculty of Business, Brock University, ON.
Rosing, K., Frese, M. and Bausch, A. (2011), “Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation
relationship: ambidextrous leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 956-974.
Rothaermel, F.T. and Alexandre, M.T. (2009), “Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: the moderating
role of absorptive capacity”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 759-780.
Rousseau, D.M. (1990), “New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations: a study of
psychological contracts”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 389-400.
Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S.Y. and Engelen, A. (2014), “On cultural and macroeconomic contingencies of the
entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 255-290.
Samson, D. and Terziovski, M. (1999), “The relationship between total quality management practices
and operational performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 393-409.
Sapienza, H.J., Autio, E., George, G. and Zahra, S.A. (2006), “A capabilities perspective on the
effects of early internationalization on firm survival and growth”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 914-933.
Satorra, A. and Bentler, P.M. (2001), “A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure
analysis”, Psychometrika, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 507-514.
Scherer, F. and Ross, D. (1990), Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Scherer, F.M. (1980), Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 2nd ed., Rand McNally
College Publishing Company, Chicago, IL.
Schulze, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H. and Dino, R.N. (2002), “Altruism, agency, and the competitiveness of
family firms”, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 23 Nos 4-5, pp. 247-259.
Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R.C. (1996), “Social exchange in organizations: perceived
organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 219-227.
Siu, O.L., Bakker, A.B., Brough, P., Lu, C.-Q., Wang, H., Kalliath, T., O’Driscoll, M., Lu, J. and Timms, C.
(2015), “A three‐wave study of antecedents of work-family enrichment: the roles of social
resources and affect”, Stress and Health, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 306-310.
LODJ Swierczek, F.W. and Ha, T.T. (2003), “Entrepreneurial orientation, uncertainty avoidance and firm
38,2 performance: an analysis of Thai and Vietnamese SMEs”, The International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 46-58.
Swoboda, B. and Olejnik, E. (2014), “Linking processes and dynamic capabilities of international SMEs:
the mediating effect of international entrepreneurial orientation”, Journal of Small Business
Management (in press).
252 Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, Allyn & Bacon,
Needham Heights, MA.
Tajeddini, K. and Mueller, S.L. (2012), “Corporate entrepreneurship in Switzerland: evidence from a
case study of Swiss watch manufacturers”, International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 355-372.
Tan, H.H. and See, H.H. (2004), “Strategic reorientation and responses to the Asian financial crisis:
the case of the manufacturing industry in Singapore”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
Vol. 21 Nos 1-2, pp. 189-211.
Tang, Z. and Hull, C. (2012), “An investigation of entrepreneurial orientation, perceived environmental
hostility, and strategy application among Chinese SMEs”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 132-158.
Tarí, J.J., Molina-Azorín, J.F., Pereira-Moliner, J., López-Gamero, M.D. and Pertusa-Ortega, E.M. (2014),
“Quality management and performance in the hotel industry: a literature review”, in Peris-Ortiz, M.
and Álvarez-García, J. (Eds), Action-Based Quality Management: Strategy and Tools for
Continuous Improvement, Springer, Geneva, pp. 1-12.
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 1319-1350.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G.P. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Tran, D.D. (2003), “Doanh nghiệp phâ`n mê`m có nguy cơ thua trên sân nhà [Software enterprisesn
may lose in their own stadium]”, available at: http://nld.com.vn/thoi-su-trong-nuoc/dn-phan-
mem-co-nguy-co-thua-tren-san-nha-87544.htm (accessed December 2, 2015).
Tushman, M.L. and O’Reilly, C.A. III (1996), “Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and
revolutionary change”, California management review, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 8-30.
Venus, K. (2014), “Supply chain management – part of strategic management”, Journal of Business and
Economics, Vol. 5 No. 7, pp. 1052-1067.
Vorhies, D.W. and Morgan, N.A. (2003), “A configuration theory assessment of marketing organization
fit with business strategy and its relationship with marketing performance”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 100-115.
Walker, E. (2010), “Strategic leadership, entrepreneurship and organisational change: a case
study of Imperial Holdings Ltd”, unpublished master thesis, University of Stellenbosch,
Stellenbosch.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 272-280.
Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance:
a configurational approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 71-91.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001), “Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 179-201.
Yiu, D.W., Lau, C. and Bruton, G.D. (2007), “International venturing by emerging economy firms:
the effects of firm capabilities, home country networks, and corporate entrepreneurship”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 519-540.
Zacher, H. and Rosing, K. (2015), “Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 54-68.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. and Perrone, V. (1998), “Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of OSC as a
interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 2, moderator
pp. 141-159.
Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J. and Davidsson, P. (2006), “Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities:
a review, model and research agenda”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 917-955.
Zhang, Y. and Chiu, C.Y. (2012), “Goal commitment and alignment of personal goals predict group
identification only when the goals are shared”, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 425-437.
253

Further reading
Schulze, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H. and Dino, R.N. (2003), “Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family
firms”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 473-490.

About the author

Trong Tuan Luu is currently a Business Administration (BA) Lecturer at the Swinburne Business
School, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia. He received his Medical Doctor Degree from the
University of Medicine, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Master Degree from the Victoria University,
Australia, and PhD Degree in Management from the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand.
His research interests include organizational behavior, human resouce management, business ethics,
public management, and healthcare management. He has published in numerous journals such as Journal
of Business Ethics, Public Management Review, Personnel Review, Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, International Journal of Logistics Management, Management Decision, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Journal of Strategic Marketing,
and Marketing Intelligence & Planning. Trong Tuan Luu can be contacted at: luutrongtuan@gmail.com

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