RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP VISION DEVELOPMENT AND ETHICS

346 RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
tory activities. Literature has amply examined how these solutions apply to large firms, but
there is a gap with regard to this topic specifically for small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs), in particular for techno-starters. SMEs differ from large firms in terms of resource
availability (in the form of human/financial capital), managerial expertise, bureaucracy, structure,
formality, obstacles in knowledge processes and the role of (top) managers in managing
knowledge flows (Chang & Hughes, 2012; Lubatkin et al., 2006). For instance, when it
comes to leadership ambidexterity (see section 2.2), it would appear that the human resources
department can play a vital role. However, SMEs lack the resources, administrative systems,
and diversity of organizational architectures that can help them manage ambidextrous demands
and implement a structural type of ambidexterity (cf. Lubatkin et al., 2006; Tushman, Anderson
& O’Reilly, 1997). This means that approaches to ambidexterity that work for large organizations
may not fully or different apply to SMEs (see also McNamara & Baden-Fuller, 2007),
which is why, in this paper, we look at the various forms of ambidexterity in relation to SMEs.
So, the research objective is to further develop the theory on ambidexterity by focusing on
SMEs, to provide recommendations on how to manage the conflicting demands between operational
and innovation activities, and to make these recommendations specific to Ampelmann
(the case in this paper). To realize this objective, the following research question has been
formulated: How can the conflicting demands between explorative and exploitative activities
be managed in high-growth tech SMEs? We apply this research question in particular to
Ampelmann Operations, an offshore access provider that operates about 28 systems worldwide.
As a young company, Ampelmann faces many of the challenges involved in pursuing
exploration and exploitation in their rapid growth.
Theory
Theoretical framework
When a firm is good at both exploration and exploitation activities, we can say that it is
ambidextrous (He & Wong, 2004), which means that it has the ability to pursue two contradictory
activities, such as exploration and exploitation, efficiency and flexibility, alignment
and adaptability, or global integration and local responsiveness (Simsek, 2009; Gibson &
Birkinshaw, 2004). Organizational Ambidexterity (OA) is the term used in literature to describe
the ambidexterity dilemma facing firms. It is defined by Raisch & Birkinshaw (2008, p. 375)
as “an organization’s ability to be aligned and efficient in its management of today’s business
demands while simultaneously being adaptive to changes in the environment”, while
O’Reilly & Tushman (2004) describe ambidexterity as an important trait for a firm to stay
in business in the long run.
Based on reviewing the main organizational ambidexterity research, Raisch & Birkinshaw
(2008) developed a framework that integrates the antecedents, environmental influences, moderators
and performance outcomes of organizational ambidexterity. The aim of this framework
is to understand research on Organizational Ambidexterity, but in this paper, we use it
as a basis to explore the antecedents to and influences on organizational ambidexterity in the
Ampelmann case study (see figure 1). It shows the organizational forms through which
ambidexterity can be achieved (organizational antecedents) and which factors influence or
trigger ambidexterity (environmental and firm factors). In this paper, we do not use the frame-