This paper analyzes the influence of ambidexterity on the export performance of Turkish SMEs. Although the relationship between ambidexterity and export performance has often been discussed (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008; Junni *et al*., 2013), we assume that new research directions might be opened up by examining the effect of strategic flexibility (Sanchez, 1995) on this relationship. Strategic flexibility reflects a dynamic capability that enables firms to achieve competitive advantage in uncertain and ambiguous environments (Teece *et al.*, 1997; Zhou and Wu, 2010). This is especially true for exporting firms (Cadogan *et al.*, 2012) and for exporting emerging market firms (Khan *et al.*, 2020; Aymard *et al*., 2020).

The current work in the field has led to three observations. First, some researchers have noted that studies adopting organizational learning theory to investigate export performance have seldom paid attention to the contingent factors that may influence the learning effect (Lages and Montgomery, 2004; Lages *et al.*, 2008; Lisboa *et al.*, 2013; Chung *et al.*, 2019). It therefore seems necessary to clarify the additional effect of strategic flexibility (Sanchez, 1995) on the relationship between ambidexterity and export performance.

Second, organizational learning research has mostly focused on economically or technologically more advanced countries (Colclough *et al.*, 2019), with research on emerging markets remaining limited (Kim and Atuahene-Gima, 2010; Chung *et al.*, 2015). Yet, given the increasing importance of emerging markets to the global economy and certain specificities that are observed in these countries (Keen and Wu, 2011), it is important for researchers to examine the issues of organizational learning and business performance in the context of emerging economies (Chung *et al.*, 2015; Ibarra-Morales *et al.*, 2019). In this regard, Turkey provides a relevant context: it is strategically located and is a rapidly industrializing economy, inspiring its firms to invest abroad with increasing competence and confidence (Yaprak *et al.*, 2018).

Third, most exporting studies have focused on large enterprises, with very little attention given to SMEs (Love and Roper, 2015). The study of SMEs as central players in globalization therefore needs to be developed (Ribau *et al.*, 2018; Hsu *et al.*, 2013; Huett *et al.*, 2014; Brulhart and Favoreu, 2023). Policymakers are investing large amounts of public funds in sustaining the internationalization of SMEs, because it is believed that accessing the global market will enhance regional growth and development (De Noni and Apa, 2015).

This paper thus aims to answer the following question: What are the respective roles of ambidexterity and strategic flexibility in the export performance of Turkish SMEs? To answer this research question, we turned to organizational learning theory (March, 1991; Levinthal and March, 1993) as it provides a relevant framework for defining and studying the core concepts of our study.

According to organizational learning theory, organizations engage in two forms of learning: exploratory and exploitative (March, 1991; Levinthal and March, 1993). As noted by March, exploratory market learning involves the acquisition and use of knowledge from beyond a firm’s previous scope of experience and activities. In contrast, exploitative market learning involves the use of information within the neighborhood of the firm’s current expertise and experience (March, 1991). Further, with regard to ambidexterity, exploitation and exploration are two distinct but complementary perspectives (March, 1991; Benner and Tushman, 2003; He and Wong, 2004; Gupta *et al*., 2006; Hsu *et al*., 2013). Although trade-offs between exploration and exploitation are necessary, firms should engage in exploitation to ensure the organization’s current viability while simultaneously devoting energy to exploration to ensure the firm’s future viability (March, 1991; Levinthal and March, 1993; Hsu *et al*., 2013).

The research design of this research is quantitative. We surveyed a sample of 305 exporting Turkish SMEs and tested specific hypotheses concerning the roles of ambidexterity and strategic flexibility in directly affecting the export performance of these SMEs. We also tested the mediating role of strategic flexibility in the relationship between ambidexterity and export performance. We used structural equation modeling to test our hypotheses.

Our research tested the influence of ambidexterity on the export performance of SMEs by mobilizing three alternative measures of ambidexterity. Our results show that ambidexterity did not directly influence export performance, whatever the measure. Several explanations are proposed to explain these results. In contrast, our results highlight the role of strategic flexibility through its two dimensions: coordination flexibility and decision-making flexibility. Not only does our study show that flexibility positively influences export performance, but it also demonstrates that flexibility (through its two dimensions) constitutes a mediating variable in the relationship between ambidexterity and export performance. In addition, our results show that it is necessary to control for the influence of exploration and exploitation variables (which act positively and directly on export performance) to validly conclude as to the nature of the influence of ambidexterity.

This article offers several theoretical and empirical contributions. First, it extends the existing literature, which has essentially considered the role of exploration practices in the development of strategic flexibility (given that flexibility mainly requires experimentation with new ideas and knowledge), by highlighting the significant influence of ambidexterity on flexibility. Indeed, we show that the development of strategic flexibility benefits from a combination of exploration and exploitation practices.

Second, our article offers a new reading of the link between ambidexterity and performance by proposing a causal path mediated by flexibility, as opposed to almost all studies to date that have highlighted a direct effect without considering the role of flexibility. Furthermore, the robustness of this study is strengthened by the use of several alternative measures of ambidexterity, further confirming our results. Last, our study sheds light on the mechanisms behind the export performance of SMEs in the Turkish area, which is still poorly understood.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section presents our hypotheses within the framework of organizational learning theory. Following this section is a review of the empirical research methodology used to construct and validate the variable measures and test the hypotheses (structural equation modeling). Next, a presentation of the results is given before discussing the empirical findings and limitations to this study.
# Theoretical background

## Organizational ambidexterity, export market ambidexterity and export
        performance

Tushman and O’Reilly (1996), in their seminal work, define ambidexterity as “the ability to simultaneously pursue both incremental and discontinuous innovation and change, resulting from hosting multiple contradictory structures, processes and cultures within the same firm” (p. 24). Ambidextrous organizations must engage in both evolutionary and revolutionary change, succeeding in balancing these tensions. According to March (1991), the ability to exploit existing assets and positions in a profit-producing way (exploitation) and simultaneously to explore new technologies and markets (exploration) - to configure and reconfigure organizational resources to capture existing as well as new opportunities is central to the capacity of a firm to survive over time (March, 1991). In line with organizational learning theory (March, 1991) and resource based theory (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Teece *et al.*, 1997), O’Reilly and Tushman (2011) use the concept of dynamic capabilities (the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments) to embed the notion of ambidexterity. In organizational terms, dynamic capabilities are at the heart of the ability of a business to be ambidextrous - to compete simultaneously in both mature and emerging markets - to explore and exploit (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2011). As a dynamic capability, ambidexterity embodies a complex set of routines including decentralization, differentiation, targeted integration, and the ability of senior leadership to orchestrate the complex trade-offs that the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation requires. That is why developing these dynamic capabilities is a central task of executive leadership.

In a more recent paper, O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) synthesize proposed approaches to resolving the tensions generated by the pursuit of exploitation and exploration: sequential ambidexterity, structural (or simultaneous) ambidexterity and contextual ambidexterity. Sequential ambidexterity refers to some “rhythmics switching” when firms oscillate back and forth between periods of exploitation and exploration. Structural ambidexterity is a way to balance the exploitation/exploration tradeoff through the simultaneous pursuit of both using separate subunits. Contextual ambidexterity attempts to solve the tension at the individual level through an organizational context that encourages individuals to make their own judgment as to how to best divide their time between the conflicting demands for alignment and adaptability.

Researchers have expressed opposed views about the impact of ambidexterity on organizational performance (Kassotaki, 2022). Still firms are mostly expected to focus on the simultaneous use of exploration and exploitation or on the contextual ambidexterity that results in supreme corporate performance. Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) state that ambidexterity was required for long-term firm survival. But, the fundamental challenge facing firms, especially SMEs that have scarce resources, is the balance between exploitation and exploration (Cao *et al.*, 2009).

We define export market ambidexterity as a firm’s ability to refine, develop, and extend its existing overseas market and customer knowledge, skills, and processes while simultaneously acquiring new overseas markets and customer knowledge, skills, and processes (Lisboa *et al.*, 2013). And according to the ambidexterity perspective, a firm should engage in exploitation to ensure the organization’s current viability and simultaneously devote energy to exploration to ensure its future viability (March, 1991; Levinthal and March, 1993; Hsu *et al.*, 2013). This perspective proposes that there is a synergistic effect between exploitation and exploration and that their integration and balance are prerequisites to ensure the firm’s survival and success (Levinthal and March, 1993). Export performance refers to both the degree to which a firm has achieved its export market-based goal (e.g., sales volume) and the profitability it has achieved with its export operations (Vorhies and Morgan, 2005; Skarmeas *et al*., 2016).

Despite considerable research, the empirical evidence of an ambidexterity-performance relationship remains mixed (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008; Voss and Voss, 2013), whatever the unit of analysis. For example, the results of He and Wong (2004) and Lubatkin *et al.* (2006) confirmed the ambidexterity-performance relationship at the organizational level by respectively using emerging firms and SME samples. Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004), who focused on the business-unit level, also verified the relationship. But, contrary to these prior findings, other authors like Venkatraman *et al.* (2007) did not find empirical support for this (sample of 1,005 software firms). Moreover, research has notably been limited in the context of export performance (Lisboa *et al.*, 2013) and emerging economies (Khan *et al.*, 2020), although some authors have noted that the positive effect of ambidexterity is contingent on these contextual factors (international activities and country of origin) (Ireland and Webb, 2007).

Overall, many studies have shown a correlation between ambidexterity and some of the dimensions of firm performance (Junni *et al*., 2013), with some studies showing that ambidexterity fosters a firm’s success in terms of overseas market expansion (Zhan and Chen, 2013; Luo, 2002; Hsu *et al.*, 2013; Xu *et al.*, 2016; Lisboa *et al.*, 2013).

To sum up, we assume that international ambidexterity enables firms to maximize benefits from the opportunities offered by globalization, while minimizing the risks and liabilities associated with international expansion (Luo and Rui, 2009). In the case of exporting firms, the export market exploration activities can be expected to be more carefully focused because of an enhanced market understanding due to export market exploitation, thus enabling these firms to target new overseas markets more wisely (Lisboa *et al.*, 2013). With regard to firms from emerging economies, ambidexterity may be a way to offset late-mover disadvantages (Luo and Rui, 2009). Given these theoretical and empirical development, we suggest that:

```
H1. There is a positive linear relationship between export market ambidexterity
              and export performance.
```

## Strategic flexibility and performance

Strategic flexibility refers to a firm’s ability to reallocate and reconfigure its organizational resources, processes, and strategies to deal with environmental changes (Zhou and Wu, 2010) by choosing timely and appropriate strategic options (Sanchez, 1995; Sanchez and Mahoney, 1997; Johnson *et al.*, 2003; Cadogan *et al.*, 2012). Export flexibility is defined as the firm’s strategic flexibility in its exporting operations (Lee and Makhija, 2009; Cadogan *et al.*, 2012).

In line with Cadogan *et al.* (2012), we focus on two dimensions of export flexibility: decision-making flexibility (DMF) and coordination flexibility (CF). DMF is defined as the distribution of decision-making authority at all levels of the business hierarchy (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Cadogan *et al.*, 2012). CF refers to the ability to redefine product/service strategies, reconfigure resource chains, and redeploy resources effectively (Sanchez, 1995). CF reflects the firm’s ability to use its resources (Grewal and Tansuhaj, 2001).

According to the resource-based view (Barney, 1991; Teece *et al.*, 1997; Helfat and Peteraf, 2003), firm capabilities are the processes that activate and harness the potential of firm resources through combining, renewing, and developing them. In this sense, flexibility reflects a type of dynamic capability that enables firms to achieve a competitive advantage in uncertain and ambiguous environments (Teece *et al.*, 1997; Zhou and Wu, 2010; Chen *et al.*, 2017; Bouhalleb and Smida, 2020).

In the context of exporting firms, CF implies cross-functional agreement on the choice of the export strategy, as well as an opportunity to redeploy internal resources to ensure that the chosen export strategy options are adequately resourced (Diamantopoulos and Cadogan, 1996; Cadogan *et al.*, 2012). Moreover, CF increases the ability of the firm’s functional areas to work in alignment, contributing to the successful implementation of the export strategy (Cadogan *et al.*, 2012). DMF promotes opportunities for export decisions to be made by individuals who are fully immersed in the firm’s day-to-day operations in its export markets (Cadogan *et al.*, 2012). First, as decision-making is quicker and more proactive, the firm can take early advantage of the opportunities that arise (Cadogan *et al.*, 2012). Second, DMF expands the horizon of the strategic options under consideration in the export decision-making process, broadening the scope of export opportunities and empowering people to act on these opportunities (Cadogan *et al.*, 2012).

Some empirical studies have provided evidence that strategic flexibility positively affects organizational performance (Chen *et al.*, 2017; Ahmadi and Osman, 2018; Majid *et al.*, 2020). Indeed, DMF and CF enhance the firm’s ability to respond effectively to future changes that may occur in the business environment. As explained by Cadogan *et al.* (2012, p. 1426), “when firms face adverse export market environments, performance can be protected by choosing among the more ‘benign’ strategic opportunities, that are made available by having export flexibilities.” Firms that have not developed their strategic flexibility will not have options for the future and may not be able to guarantee their performance.

A few other studies, however, have suggested that strategic flexibility also entails certain disadvantages (Guo and Cao, 2013; Nadkarni and Narayanan, 2007). For example, strategic flexibility may lead to high costs, increased stress, and a potential lack of strategic focus (Das and Elango, 1995). In the exporting firm’s context, Cadogan *et al.* (2012) showed partial support for this relationship.

To sum up, we assume that strategic flexibility encourages the development of new processes and products, which has the potential to increase performance. Strategic flexibility also acts as a means of reconfiguring operational routines or capabilities to enable firms to better adjust the quality and cost of their operations, also leading to higher performance (Ahmadi and Osman, 2018). This is especially true for SMEs and firms from developing countries as they face more challenges in competition, are more sensitive to external environments, and confront more pressures induced by environmental changes (Guo and Cao, 2013). The use of strategic flexibility by export emerging SMEs seems particularly important.

Given these theoretical and empirical development, we suggest that:

```
H2. There is a positive linear relationship between strategic flexibility and
              export performance.
```

```
H2a. There is a positive linear relationship between coordination flexibility and
              export performance.
```

```
H2b. There is a positive linear relationship between decision-making flexibility
              and export performance.
```

### Ambidexterity and strategic flexibility

Ambidexterity can help managers achieve flexibility as they redesign existing routines while simultaneously absorbing new competences from other firm departments and the environment (Rojo *et al.*, 2016). Such learning facilitates early recognition of unforeseen changes and market trends and the ability to react quickly to them (Tippins and Sohi, 2003; Brulhart, 2002; Santos Vijande *et al.*, 2012). In this sense, the purpose of the learning process (derived from the combination of exploration and exploitation) leads to adaptation to a new context (Khazanchi *et al.*, 2007; Popadiuk, 2012; Wei *et al.*, 2011).

Previous research has shown that organizational learning in SMEs facilitates strategic flexibility (Santos Vijande *et al.*, 2012). For example, evidence has supported a relationship between ambidexterity and strategic flexibility in the contexts of supply chain management (Rojo *et al.*, 2016) and operation management (Patel *et al.*, 2012). Moreover, Rialti *et al.* (2020) showed that exploitation and exploration innovation significantly influence the achievement of strategic flexibility. Given these theoretical and empirical developments, we suggest that:

```
H3. There is a positive linear relationship between ambidexterity and strategic
              flexibility.
```

```
H3a. There is a positive linear relationship between ambidexterity and
              coordination flexibility.
```

```
H3b. There is a positive linear relationship between ambidexterity and
              decision-making flexibility.
```

From our hypotheses that strategic flexibility positively impacts export performance (H2), and that ambidexterity positively impacts strategic flexibility (H3), we can deduce a new hypothesis:

```
H4. Strategic flexibility is a mediating mechanism in the relationship between
              ambidexterity and export performance.
```

Figure 1 presents a model of the hypotheses.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 — Hypothesis model</figcaption></figure>
# Methodology

## Sample and data collection

This study focuses on exporting Turkish SMEs. Turkey provides a relevant context for this study. First, it is strategically located between Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa and has experienced prosperous trade and investment links with each of these regions for centuries. As a member of the so-called “MIST” states, Turkey is considered one of the four most important emerging economies and can be considered as a proxy for several emerging economies (Nienaber *et al.*, 2019). Second, Turkey has experienced rapid economic growth over the past three decades. Undergirding this growth has been Turkey’s transition from an agriculture-based, import-substitution-pursuing economy to an industrial-production-oriented and international trade-based export-expansion economy. Third, exporting SMEs play a crucial role in the Turkish national economy, facilitating the creation of employment and sustainable economic growth. In addition, Turkish SMEs account for 56.4% of Turkey’s total exports. After liberalization, Turkey’s export activity to Europe and the Middle East increased sharply over 15 years (Altun, 2017). Currently, Turkey has an estimated 3.5 million active SMEs, representing 99.8% of all registered entities in the country. The SMEs account for 62% of the country’s GDP, 55% of the country’s exports, and 73.5% of its workforce.

From the Istanbul Exporters’ Association database, we selected SMEs in the manufacturing sector that had had export activities for at least 10 years. From this sample, we then randomly extracted 1000 companies. Each SME extracted from the list was contacted by email and an electronic questionnaire was sent to the manager/senior executive in charge of export activities. The questionnaire was sent out in early 2020 and by the end of the year, we had received 326 responses after sending telephone reminders. After removing inconsistent and doubtful responses, we processed 305 questionnaires, for a response rate of 30.5%. This response rate raises the issue of nonresponse bias. To evaluate this, we tested for statistically significant differences between late recorded surveys and early recorded surveys (Lambert and Harrington 1990), which is widely done in these situations. The late responses were the proxy for nonrespondents, and the early responses were the proxy for respondents. We used a t-test to assess the differences between the two groups and found no evidence of nonresponse bias as the two groups showed non-significant differences in their responses to survey items. We also separated the 305 questionnaires into two groups: the first comprised the questionnaires validated before 20 February 2020 and the second was composed of those validated after this date. This was done to control for possible effects linked to the Covid crisis. Once again, we used a t-test to assess the differences between the two groups and found non-significant differences in the responses to the survey items.

## Measures

All the items were measured via 5-point scales (agree/disagree or no extent/great extent) except for the control variables. Appendices A and B present these scales in full detail. To ensure their content validity, both a literature review and extensive discussions with academics and practitioners during the pre-test were carried out. Some items were excluded or modified based on the feedback received from these interviews. In order to prevent a halo effect, we deliberately avoided structuring the items according to each variable but instead organized the items into larger subsections. We thus alternated the items of several variables within each sub-part of the questionnaire. In each email sent to respondents, we presented the main explanations as well as the link to access to the online questionnaire: the purpose of the study, the institutional and academic framework for the research, the time required to respond (15 minutes), the themes covered and types of questions, the anonymous nature of the questionnaire and the transmission of the overall results to the respondents, and the obligation to answer all questions on a page before moving on to the next page.

### Export performance

There is still no uniformly implemented operationalization of export performance (Chen *et al.*, 2016; Sozuer *et al.*, 2017). Economic measures are the most frequently utilized and non-economic performance measures are less frequently employed. Using multiple measures is important to capture the different aspects of the export performance construct and enhance the effectiveness of the indicators (Chen *et al.*, 2016; Sozuer *et al.*, 2017). We used multidimensional perceptual measures of export performance, following Toften (2005) and Katsikeas *et al.* (2000) (see Appendix B). In line with Raisch and Birkinshaw (2008) and Auh and Menguc (2006), we took into account multiple performance dimensions. We used an economic measure that focused on both market-based indicators and the profitability aspects of export performance taken at the firm level (Katsikeas *et al*., 2000; Lisboa *et al*., 2013). This measure included seven items dealing with export profits, export sales and foreign market share (Skarmeas *et al*., 2016).

### Strategic flexibility

We considered two separate aspects of the flexibility measure using scales from Cadogan *et al.* (2012): DMF and CF (see Appendix A).

### Ambidexterity

Traditionally, ambidexterity can be operationalized in either of two ways (He and Wong, 2004; Cao *et al.*, 2009). One is additive or interactive, meaning that the organization excels in the dimensions of exploration capacity and exploitation capacity. The other is matching (He and Wong, 2004), meaning that the ambidextrous organization balances the two dimensions, with a small gap between exploration capacity level and exploration capacity level. To construct the ambidexterity variable we therefore needed the dimensions of exploration and exploitation. We retained export market exploitation and export market exploration (Vorhies *et al*., 2011; Lisboa *et al*., 2013) as our variables. Each of these two scales included six items apiece, each derived from previous research by Lisboa *et al*. (2013), who drew on the work of Danneels (2008) and Vorhies *et al*. (2011) (see Appendix A).

Following these insights, we propose three alternative measures of ambidexterity.

The first measure assesses the imbalance between exploitation and exploration; Ambidexterity1 is calculated as:

```
6-|*export market exploration-export market
              exploitation*|
```

The second measure assesses the interaction effect; Ambidexterity2 is calculated as:

```
*export market exploration x export market
              exploitation*
```

The third measure assesses the balance between exploitation and exploration as well as the level of exploitation and exploration capacity; Ambidexterity3 is calculated as:

```
(10-|*exp.m.exploitation-exp.m.exploration*|) x
            (*exp.m.exploitation+exp.m.exploration*)
```

## Control variables

Our study included six control variables: firm size (Lisboa *et al.*, 2013), defined as the number of full-time employees (operationalized by the logarithm of the number of full-time employees); industry to which the firm belongs (Ferreras‑Méndez *et al.*, 2019), with the companies coded into four industry categories and industry dummies created (Sector 1. Forestry, Furniture and Chemical, Sector 2. Automotive, Electrical and Heavy Industry, Sector 3. Textiles, Footwear and Accessories, Sector 4. Agriculture, Plantations, Food and Drink); export experience (Lisboa *et al.*, 2013), defined as the number of years the firm has been involved in exporting (operationalized by the logarithm of years of exporting); export intensity (Li *et al.*, 2020), defined as total export divided by total sales; international experience (Tang, *et al.*, 2020), defined as the number of years of international experience; and general experience, defined as the age of the company (years).
# Results

## Measurement models

To assess the validity of the measures, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal component analysis (PCA) and Varimax rotation was run using SPSS software on independent variables. Eight items were dropped due to cross-loadings or weak loadings (see Appendix A). This stage finally resulted in a 4-factor structure solution. Then an EFA was run on the dependent variable. This analysis resulted in a 1-factor solution (see Appendix B).

Last, the 4-factor and the 1-factor structures were tested through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation modeling (Bryne, 2001; Kline, 1998) in AMOS 18 to assess the construct validity and reliability of the scales. The two models fit the data well (see Appendix A for the 4-factor model, Appendix B for the 1-factor model, and Appendix C for a summary of the goodness-of-fit indicators for the structural equation models<fnref n="1" />). The average variance extracted (AVE) or convergent validity rho from each factor ranged between .50 and .77. This finding is an indication of convergent validity, which is shown by AVEs >.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The reliability of the scale was then assessed by Joreskog’s rho showing composite reliability greater than .75 for each factor (see Appendices A and B).

## Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables are shown in Table I. The significant correlations among them provided initial insight for the study hypotheses.

<table><caption>Table I — Means, standard deviations and correlations<sup>a</sup> — <sup>a</sup> N=184, * *p*<.05, ** *p*<.01</caption><tr><td>MeanSD123456789101. Export performance3.96.71-2. Export market
            exploitation4.23.59.30**-3. Export market exploration4.19.64.34**.47**-4.
            Ambidexterity80.4911.77.37**.84**.87**-5. Coordination
            flexibility4.27.61.28**.33**.34*.39**-6. Decision making flexibility
            3.58.71.42**.21**.26*.27**.19**-7. General experience
            (age)25.8512.3.08-.02.02.01-.04-.01-8. International experience
            (years)20.548.6.07-.01.03.01-.02-.01.82**-9. Size
            141.7260.3.10*-.1-.02-.04.10-.07.27**.19**-10. Export
            intensity60.6622.46-.07-.06-.08-.08.05-.05.05.05-.01-</td></tr></table>

## Hypothesis testing

We used structural equation modeling (Amos 18 software) and the maximum likelihood estimation procedure to test our four hypotheses. We used the aggregate score measuring the different constructs to reduce the model complexity and specification issues (Calantone *et al.*, 1996). We compared several models by combining alternative relationships and variables, with and without control variables, using different measures of ambidexterity (model 1 uses “Ambidexterity 1”; model 2 uses “Ambidexterity 2”; and model 3 uses “Ambidexterity 3”). However, we tested three other models integrating the variables “export market exploration” and “export market exploitation” in order to control for the direct effect of these variables on performance (models 4 to 6: model 4 uses “Ambidexterity 1”; model 5 uses “Ambidexterity 2”; and model 6 uses “Ambidexterity 3”). Indeed, a model that only takes ambidexterity into account in the relationship with performance carries the risk of interpreting ambidexterity as the effect when, in fact, the actual effects are due to exploitation and exploration variables (risk of endogeneity).

We present the six alternative models in Table II. The fit indicators for each model are summarized in Table III.

The analysis of Tables II and III enables us to highlight several elements.

<table><caption>Table II — Structural equation modeling results — * *p* .05, ** *p* .01, *** *p* .001</caption><tr><td>Structural paths Model 1Model 2Model 3Ambidexterity → Export
            performance-.02.23***.20***Ambidexterity → Coordination
            flexibility.12*.39***.37***Ambidexterity →
            Decision‑making flexibility.20***.26***.29***Coordination flexibility → Export
            performance.22***.13*.15**Decision-making flexibility → Export
            performance.39***.33***.33***Model 4Model 5Model 6Export market exploitation → Export
            performance.12*.14*.26**Export market exploration → Export
            performance.20***.15*.36***Ambidexterity → Export performance-.09-.11-.10Ambidexterity →
            Coordination flexibility.20***.39***.37***Ambidexterity → Decision‑making
            flexibility.12*.26***.29***Coordination flexibility → Export
            performance.13*.13*.13*Decision-making flexibility →
            Export performance.34***.33***.34***</td></tr></table>

<table><caption>Table III — Structural equation modeling adjustment indicators (models 1 to 6)</caption><tr><td>Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6Absolute adjustment indicatorsChi²
            /dl9.403.172.9112.491.351.11GFI.985.995.995.945.994.995AGFI.849.948.952.710.969.974RMSEA.167.085.080.195.034.019RMR.026.013.013.044.010.010SRMR.058.029.029.101.022.022Comparison
            indicators
            NFI.907.981.982.834.995.996RFI.444.886.891.379.986.984CFI.912.986.988.840.999.999Parsimony
            indicatorsECVI.09(sm .067).07(sm .067).07(sm .067).27(sm .140).131(sm .140).128(sm
            .140)CAIC69(sm 67)63(sm 67)63(sm 67)164(sm 140)119(sm 140)118(sm 140)</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 — Validated model</figcaption></figure>

We found that ambidexterity had a significant positive influence on performance in models 2 and 3<fnref n="2" />. However, this influence disappeared when we added the variables “export market exploration” and “export market exploitation” to the equation (models 5 and 6<fnref n="3" />). This result points to the conclusion that the positive effect of ambidexterity on performance observed in models 2 and 3 was in fact generated by these two variables. This first result, combined with the observation that the adjustment indicators of models 5 and 6 were overall better than those of models 2 and 3, led us to favor the analysis of models 5 and 6 to test our hypotheses.

Model 5 (see Tables II and III) used an interactive conception of ambidexterity and presented satisfying results for the absolute adjustment indicators, parsimony indicators and comparison indicators. Model 6 (see Tables II and III) used the most complete and complex measure of ambidexterity and presented the most satisfying results for the absolute adjustment indicators (NC = 1.11; GFI = 0.995; AGFI = 0.974; RMSEA = 0.019), comparison indicators (NFI = 0.997; CFI = 0.999), and parsimony indicators (CAIC = 118.5 < 140.9 = sm; ECVI = 0.128 < 0.140 = sm).

H1 assumes the positive influence of ambidexterity on export performance. Neither of the two selected models (models 5 and 6) supports this hypothesis as there is no significant relationship between our different measures of ambidexterity and export performance. H2 assumes, respectively, the positive influence of coordination flexibility and decision-making flexibility on export performance. For all models, our results show a strong positive influence of both variables, especially decision-making flexibility, on export performance, supporting H2a and H2b. H3 assumes the positive influence of ambidexterity on both coordination flexibility and decision-making flexibility. For all models, our results show a strong positive influence of ambidexterity on coordination and decision-making flexibility, supporting H3a and H3b. H4 concerns the positive and indirect influence of ambidexterity on export performance (via flexibility). Our results show that flexibility is a mediating mechanism of the relationship between ambidexterity and export performance. Our results thus validate H4.

Figure 2 shows the validated model retained following our analyses.

<footnote n="1">The quality of the overall fit of a model can be assessed through numerous indices. These indices can be grouped into three categories: absolute adjustment indices, incremental indices and parsimony indices (Roussel *et al*., 2002). These models also need to be tested for reliability and validity.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">Model 1 presented a very poor fit (see Table III) and thus was not relevant for drawing conclusions on the links between the variables.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">As was the case for model 1, the adjustment indicators of model 4 are insufficient and this model was not taken into consideration.</footnote>
# Discussion

With respect to ambidexterity, our findings surprisingly indicate no significant direct effect on export performance, whatever the measure (additive, matching or mixed measure). These results are in opposition to previous studies (Zhan and Chen, 2013; Hsu *et al.*, 2013; Xu *et al.*, 2016) in the field of international business and to some of the findings in the specific contexts of export performance and emerging countries (Lisboa *et al.*, 2013; Khan *et al.*, 2020). Interestingly, some studies point out a negative effect of ambidexterity on performance (Wu *et al.*, 2020; Yan *et al.*, 2021). We propose several interpretations to explain our counterintuitive result.

First, it may take time for ambidextrous routines to affect export performance (Yan *et al.*, 2021). When exploration and exploitation follow each other - sequential ambidexterity - (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013), a learning cycle (exploration-exploitation) might need to be completed before improvements in export performance become noticeable. Furthermore, our three measures of ambidexterity (cross sectional data) are not able to capture this specific approach of ambidexterity. When exploration and exploitation are pursued simultaneously, conflicts may arise that require resolution and integration (Simsek *et al.*, 2009; Yan *et al.*, 2021). In this context, SMEs may not have the capacity to balance the exploitation/exploration tradeoff through the simultaneous pursuit of both using separate subunits (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013). Ultimately, managing the routines that create ambidexterity slows down the process of improving export performance (Yan *et al.*, 2021). Moreover, this result may be related to our study population, consisting of SMEs. Indeed, the complexities of an ambidextrous strategy are particularly problematic for smaller firms (Ebben and Johnson 2005; Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008). Voss and Voss (2013) showed that ambidexterity may positively affect revenue for larger firms but not for smaller ones, due to their limited resources and the complexity of such approaches. This situation of limited resources renders ambidexterity a suboptimal strategy, which may explain our result. Last, this counterintuitive result can be explained by an indirect effect of ambidexterity. Indeed, although we fail to show a direct effect of ambidexterity on export performance, our results show an indirect effect via its positive influence on flexibility (see below). Previous results showing a direct effect of ambidexterity on performance (Zhan and Chen, 2013; Hsu *et al*., 2013; Xu *et al*., 2016) might thus also be explained by the lack of control for the effects of variables linked to exploration and exploitation practices. This result constitutes a methodological and empirical contribution: methodological by the use of a triple measurement of ambidexterity, thereby strengthening the robustness of our results, and empirical by the demonstration that ambidexterity does not seem to directly and positively influence export performance.

As expected, our results show a positive influence of ambidexterity on both dimensions of flexibility (i.e., CF and DMF), extending previous empirical research (Rojo *et al.*, 2016; Rialti *et al.*, 2020). We can therefore say that ambidexterity helps firms achieve flexibility. Ambidextrous firms can more easily adapt their routines and develop new competences, which makes them flexible. For instance, our study suggests that ambidexterity fosters the ability to redefine product/service export strategies and redeploy resources to meet challenges posed by the international environment. Ambidextrous firms can also more easily generate appropriate alternative decision options and consider unfamiliar decisions and risk (Santos Vijande *et al*., 2012), which facilitates the distribution of decision-making authority related to decision-making flexibility.

This result is interesting because the literature has often related exploration practices to flexibility abilities (Miller *et al.*, 2006); our study shows that combining exploration and exploitation increases strategic flexibility. It suggests that flexibility requires not only innovative practices and experimentation with new ideas and knowledge, but also their combination with practices based on existing strategies and knowledge (Majid *et al.*, 2020). This finding is also consistent with recent works (Kilpi *et al.*, 2018) showing that an ambidextrous organization is more capable of adapting and reacting to changes.

Our study also shows that both dimensions of flexibility have direct and positive influences on export performance. Agreement on the link between strategic flexibility and firm performance has not been fully reached (Guo and Coa, 2013; Ahmadi and Osman, 2018). Moreover, few studies have paid attention to the performance implications of strategic flexibility for SMEs, and previous research on strategic flexibility has been mainly limited to developed economies (Guo and Cao, 2013). Based on the resource theory, our study extends the context for strategic flexibility and firm performance research to export performance, considering two dimensions of strategic flexibility: CF and DMF. It shows that export performance depends on the ability to redeploy internal resources and work in alignment for the different functional areas of the firm. It also suggests that export performance depends on promoting opportunities for export decisions to be made by individuals who are fully immersed in the day-to-day operation of the firm in its export markets (Cadogan *et al.*, 2012). Last, the literature on SMEs in developing countries like Turkey is sparse, with little evidence on the role of flexibility with respect to its outcomes. Our study helps to clarify the influence of flexibility in the specific context of Turkish SMEs, providing new evidence for the linkage and insights for SMEs in emerging economies.

Last, our study highlights the mediating role of strategic flexibility in the relationship between ambidexterity and export performance. In that sense, it provides in-depth knowledge on how ambidextrous organizations can attain export performance through strategic flexibility. This situation may explain why we found no significant direct effect of ambidexterity on export performance. Indeed, in this case, the effect of ambidexterity on export performance was significant and positive, but it was mediated by both CF and DMF. This result suggests that firms with ambidexterity can improve their processes, products, and services on existing export markets, while exploring new processes, products, or services on new export markets (Lisboa *et al.*, 2013; Ahmadi and Osman, 2018). Such learning facilitates early recognition of unforeseen changes and market trends and timely reactions to them (Tippins and Sohi, 2003; Santos Vijande *et al.*, 2012), helping firms to remain flexible and able to respond quickly to unexpected changes in the environment (Wei *et al.*, 2011). Strategic flexibility, expressed through both CF and DMF, may enable faster decision-making and make it easier to reallocate resources, allowing firms to take early advantage of international opportunities that arise (Cadogan *et al.*, 2012). With this study, we respond to calls from researchers who have noted that studies adopting organizational learning theory to investigate export performance have seldom paid attention to the factors that may influence the learning effect and the mechanisms behind performance (Lages and Montgomery, 2004; Lages *et al.*, 2008; Lisboa *et al.*, 2013; Chung *et al.*, 2019). From this perspective, this result constitutes an important empirical contribution as it highlights a new causal path linking ambidexterity and export performance through the mediation of flexibility variables. This result is all the more interesting because it offers a new explanation for the dissonance between our results and previous studies showing a direct effect of ambidexterity on performance (Zhan and Chen, 2013; Hsu *et al*., 2013; Xu *et al*., 2016). Thus, these studies highlighting a direct positive effect may have overlooked the alternative intermediate causal pathways that may be at the origin of this link. Our article here offers a new reading of the ambidexterity-performance link.

Finally, as an additional result, our study shows a positive direct influence of export market exploitation and export market exploration on performance. Our study suggests that knowledge of existing foreign markets equips exporting firms to better understand the specificities of its current export market, which reduces risks and improves export performance (Morgan *et al.*, 2009; Lisboa *et al*., 2013). Our results also suggest that export market exploration is a strategic resource that may give firms the ability to foster innovativeness (Li*et al.,*2020; Xiao*et al*., 2020), satisfy customer needs more efficiently (Ferreras‐Méndez*et al.*, 2019), identify novel solutions, and generate value from expansion into untapped market opportunities (Lisboa *et al*., 2013; Li *et al*., 2020). These results expand the existing research as there is still no consensus on the influence of export market exploration and export market exploitation on performance (Tang *et al*., 2020; Xiao *et al*., 2020; Chung *et al*., 2019). Our results further shed light on the effects of export market exploration versus export market exploitation. Indeed, the international business literature mobilized in this article questions whether market exploitation and exploration have the same value in the international market environment (Lisboa *et al*., 2013). Our results show that, whatever model is considered, the positive influence of export market exploration on export performance is stronger than the positive influence of export market exploitation. This result confirms De Noni and Apa’s (2015) findings in this nonconsensual field. Indeed, they point out that a greater firm orientation toward exploration (compared to greater orientation toward exploitation) leads to higher economic and financial performance through support for the development of collaborative relationships with international partners and access to new resources and knowledge. This suggests that proactive exploration enhances the effect of exporting on financial performance and increases SMEs’ competitiveness in global markets.
# Conclusion

To explore the relationships between ambidexterity and firm performance, we built our study on organizational learning theory. A survey sent to exporting Turkish SMEs (305 valid questionnaires) provided us with very meaningful results. We found that ambidexterity has no direct influence on export performance, but that coordination flexibility and decision-making flexibility mediate the relationship between ambidexterity and export performance.

These results make four main contributions.

First, our study makes it possible to highlight new connections between well-known concepts. Indeed, it updates a new reading of the link between ambidexterity and export performance by identifying the mediating role of strategic flexibility in this relationship. Second, our study tests these links by mobilizing three alternative measures of the concept of export ambidexterity in order to strengthen the robustness of our results. In addition, we confirm the positive influences of both exploration and exploitation practices on performance, in line with organizational learning theory. Fourth, our study provides empirical insight specific to a still under-studied context (Turkish SMEs) on these issues. Fifthly, our results (and the absence of any direct effect of ambidexterity on performance) may suggest that SMEs, given their specific structure and limited resources, opt for a sequential implementation of ambidexterity, which we do not measure (cross sectional data).

This study has limitations, which nevertheless open perspectives. The first limitation concerns our study population: future research based on other emerging countries and other firms is needed to generalize our results. For instance, it would be very interesting to test these hypotheses on other MENA countries and compare the results.

The second limitation concerns the cross-sectional design of our study, as it makes it impossible to draw final conclusions about causality. Although we believe we have provided empirical indications and theoretical arguments for the direction of the relationships among ambidexterity, flexibility, and export performance, it is possible that the direction of causality could be reversed. Future studies should replicate our results by applying longitudinal methods in experimental or quasi-experimental research designs (Shadish *et al*., 2005).

Third, we recognize that an understanding of these complex phenomena cannot be completely covered by statistical modeling. A qualitative approach (notably longitudinal) based, for example, on in-depth case studies would provide greater insight into the processes at play in the link between ambidexterity, flexibility and performance, particularly in terms of the mobilization, deployment and redeployment of skills and resources. A qualitative approach could also provide greater understanding as to why ambidexterity showed no direct influence on export performance, whereas export market exploitation and export market exploration seemed to act individually and positively. It would also help us to better understand the differences in the results based on the different measures of ambidexterity.

Last, another perspective for future work on this topic might be to mobilize the trends in technological innovation (Abernathy and Clark, 1985; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996) to deepen our knowledge and understanding around ambidexterity and the innovations effectively developed by SMEs. In line with the work initiated and encouraged by Azar and Ciabuschi (2017), future research might focus on the following questions: (1) What innovations are of interest to Turkish SMEs? (2) How exactly do these companies combine incremental (exploitation) and radical (exploration) innovation? and (3) What are the effects on their export performance?

## Références

W. J. & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. *Research Policy*, *14*(1), 3-22. DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(85)90021-6

M. & Osman, M. H. M. (2018). How can Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Maximize the Benefit Derived from Strategic Flexibility? The Moderating Effect of Contextual Ambidextrous Learning. *Indian Journal of Science Technology*, *11*(11), 1-10. DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i11/118692

C., Brulhart, F., & Vieu, M. (2020). Les facteurs de poursuite de l’implantation internationale des PME au Maghreb: exploration du rôle de l’expérience de la firme et du résultat de la première implantation. *Management international*, 24(3), 46-60. DOI: 10.7202/1072622ar

Altun, I. (2017). Determinants of The Export Performance of SMEs: Comparative Analysis of Turkish SMEs Exporting to Middle East and European Regions. *International Journal of Business and Social Science*, *8*(3), 75-88. DOI:

S. & Menguc, B. (2006). Diversity at the executive suite: A resource-based approach to the customer orientation–organizational performance relationship. *Journal of Business Research*, *59*(5), 564-572. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.10.006

G. & Ciabuschi, F. (2017). Organizational innovation, technological innovation, and export performance: The effects of innovation radicalness and extensiveness. *International Business Review*, *26*(2), 324-336. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.09.002

J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. *Journal of Management*, *17*(1), 99-120. DOI: 10.1177/014920639101700108

M. J. & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. *Academy of Management Review*, *28*(2), 238-256. DOI: 10.2307/30040711

A. & Smida, A. (2020). Exploring the relationship between scenario planning and strategic flexibility and complexity. *European Journal of International Management*, *14*(3), 473-493. DOI: 10.1504/EJIM.2019.10016812

Brulhart F. (2002), Les Facteurs Clés de Réussite des Partenariats Verticaux Logistiques: le Cas de la Relation Chargeur Agro-alimentaire – Prestataire Logistique, Thèse de doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, Université de la Méditerranée (Aix-Marseille II).

Brulhart, F., & Favoreu, C. (2023). *Stratégie-2e éd*. Dunod, Paris.

Bryne, B.M. (2001). *Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming*. Erlbaum, Machwah, NJ*.*

J.W., Sundqvist, S. Puumalainen, K. & Salminen, R.T. (2012). Strategic flexibilities and export performance: The moderating roles of export market‐oriented behavior and the export environment.*European Journal of Marketing*, *46*(10), 1418-1452. DOI: 10.1108/03090561211248107

R. J., Schmidt, J. B., & Song, X. M. (1996). Controllable factors of new product success: A cross-national comparison. *Marketing Science*, *15*(4), 341-358. DOI: 10.1287/mksc.15.4.341

Q., Gedajlovic, E. & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. *Organization Science*, *20*(4), 781-796. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0426

J. Sousa, C. M. P. & Xinming, H. (2016). The determinants of export performance: a review of the literature 2006-2014. *International Marketing Review*, *33*(5), 626-670. DOI: 10.1108/IMR-10-2015-0212

Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S. Benitez, J. & Kou, G. (2017). Improving strategic flexibility with information technologies: insights for firm performance in an emerging economy. *Journal of Information Technology*, *32*(1), 10-25. DOI: 10.1057/jit.201

H. F., Ding, Z. & Ma, X. (2019). Organizational learning and export performance of emerging market entrepreneurial firms. *European Journal of Marketing*, *53*(2), 257-278. DOI:

H.F.L., Yang, Z. & Huang, P.H. (2015). How does organizational learning matter in strategic business performance? The contingency role of guanxi networking. *Journal of Business Research*, *68*(6), 1216-1224. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.016

S. N., Moen, Ø., Sakshaug, N. H. & Chan, A. (2019). SME innovation orientation: Evidence from Norwegian exporting SMEs. *International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship*, *37*(8), 780-803. DOI: 10.1177/0266242619870731

E. (2008). Organizational antecedents of second‐order competences. *Strategic Management Journal*, *29*(5), 519-543. DOI: 10.1002/smj.684

Das, T. K. & Elango, B. (1995). Managing strategic flexibility: key to effective performance. *Journal of General Management*, *20*(3), 60-75. DOI: 10.1177/030630709502000

Noni, I. & Apa, R. (2015). The moderating effect of exploitative and exploratory learning on internationalisation–performance relationship in SMEs. *Journal of International Entrepreneurship*, *13*(2), 96-117. DOI: 10.1007/s10843-015-0148-6

A. & Cadogan, J. W. (1996). Internationalizing the market orientation construct: an in-depth interview approach. *Journal of Strategic Marketing*, *4*(1), 23-52. DOI: 10.1080/09652549600000002

J. J. & Johnson, A. C. (2005). Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. *Strategic Management Journal*, *26*(13), 1249-1259. DOI: 10.1002/smj.503

Eisenhardt, K. M. & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they?. *Strategic Management Journal*, *21*(10‐11), 1105-1121. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21: 10/11&lt;1105: : AID-SMJ133&gt;3.0.CO;2-E

J. L., Fernández-Mesa, A. & Alegre, J. (2019). Export performance in SMEs: the importance of external knowledge search strategies and absorptive capacity. *Management International Review*, *59*(3), 413-437. DOI: 10.1007/s11575-019-00379-6

C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. *Journal of Marketing Research*, *18*(3), 382–388. DOI; 10.2307/3150980

C. B. & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. *Academy of Management Journal*, *47*(2), 209-226. DOI: 10.5465/20159573

R. & Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. *Journal of Marketing*, *65*(2), 67-80. DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.65.2.67.18259

H. & Cao, Z. (2013). Strategic flexibility and SME performance in an emerging economy: a contingency perspective. *Journal of Organizational Change Management*, *27*(2), 273-298. DOI: 10.1108/JOCM-11-2012-0177

A.K., Smith, K.G. & Shalley, C.E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. *Academy of Management Journal*, *49*(4), 693-706. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2006.22083026

Z. & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. *Organization Science*, *15*(4), 481-494. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0078

C. E. & Peteraf, M. A. (2003) The dynamic resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles. *Strategic Management Journal*, *24*(10), 997-1010. DOI: 10.1002/smj.332

C.W., Lien, Y.C. & Chen, H. (2013). International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. *Journal of World Business*, *48*(1), 58-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.06.007

P., Baum, M., Schwens, C. & Kabst, R. (2014). Foreign direct investment location choice of small- and medium-sized enterprises: The risk of value erosion of firm-specific resources. *International Business Review*, *23*(5), 952-965. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.02.007

L.E., Blanco-Jimenez, M. & Hurtado-Bringas, B.A. (2019). Internationalization of industrial small-medium enterprises in an emerging country. *Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración*, *33*(1), 71-94. DOI: 10.1108/ARLA-10-2018-0223

R. D. & Webb, J. W. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through streams of innovation. *Business Horizons*, *50*(1), 49-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2006.06.002

B. J. & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. *Journal of Marketing*, *57*(3), 53-70. DOI: 10.2307/1251854

J.L., Lee, R.P.W., Saini, A. & Grohmann, B. (2003). Market-focused strategic flexibility: conceptual advances and an integrative model. *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science*, *31*(1), 74-89. DOI: 10.1177/0092070302238603

P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V. A. S. & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. *Academy of Management Perspectives*, *27*(4), 299-312. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2012.0015

O. (2022). Review of organizational ambidexterity research. *Sage Open*, *12*(1), 21582440221082127. DOI: 10.1177/21582440221082127

C. S., Leonidou, L. C. & Morgan, N. A. (2000). Firm-level export performance assessment: review, evaluation, and development. *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science*, *28*(4), 493-511. DOI: 10.1177/0092070300284003

C. & Wu, Y. (2011). An ambidextrous learning model for the internationalization of firms from emerging economies. *Journal of International Entrepreneurship*, *9*(4), 316-339. DOI: 10.1007/s10843-011-0081-2

Z., Amankwah-Amoah, A., Lew, Y.K., Puthusserry, P. & Czinkota, M. (2020). Strategic Ambidexterity and Its Performance Implications for Emerging Economies Multinationals. *International Business Review*, *31*(3), 101762. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101762

S., Lewis, M. W. & Boyer, K. K. (2007). Innovation-supportive culture: The impact of organizational values on process innovation. *Journal of Operations Management*, *25*(4), 871-884. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2006.08.003

V., Lorentz, H., Solakivi, T. & Malmsten, J. (2018). The effect of external supply knowledge acquisition, development activities and organizational status on the supply performance on SME’s. *Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management*, *24*(3), 247-259. DOI: 10.1016/j.pursup.2017.08.001

N. & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2010). Using exploratory and exploitative market learning for new product development. *Journal of Product Innovation Management*, *27*(4), 519-536. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00733.x

Kline, R.B. (1998). *Principles and practice of structural equation modeling*. Guilford, New York.

L. & Montgomery, D.B. (2004). Export performance as an antecedent of export commitment and marketing strategy adaptation: evidence from small and medium sized exporters. *European Journal of Marketing*, *38*(9/10), 1186-1214. DOI: 10.1108/03090560410548933

L., Jap, S. & Griffith, D. (2008). The role of past performance in export ventures: a short-term reactive approach. *Journal of International Business Studies*, *39*(2), 304-325. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400339

Lambert, D. M. & Harrington, T. C. (1990). Measuring nonresponse bias in customer service mail surveys. *Journal of Business Logistics*, *11*(2), 5-25. DOI

S. H. & Makhija, M. (2009). Flexibility in internationalization: is it valuable during an economic crisis? *Strategic Management Journal*, *30*(5), 537-555. DOI: 10.1002/smj.742

D.A. & March, J.G. (1993). The myopia of learning. *Strategic Management Journal*, *14*(2), 95-112. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250141009

R.Y., Sousa, C.M. & He, X. (2020). The impact of exploitation and exploration on export sales growth: the moderating role of domestic and international collaborations. *Journal of International Marketing*, *28*(4), 1-20. DOI: 10.1177/1069031X20963617

A., Skarmeas, D. & Lages, C. (2013). Export market exploitation and exploration and performance: Linear, moderated, complementary and non-linear effects. *International Marketing Review*, *30*(3), 211-230. DOI: 10.1108/02651331311321972

J-H. & Roper, S. (2015). SME innovation, exporting and growth: A review of existing evidence. *International Small Business Journal*, *33*(1), 28-48. DOI: 10.1177/0266242614550190

M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. *Journal of Management*, *32*(5), 646-672. DOI: 10.1177/0149206306290712

Y. (2002). Capability exploitation and building in a foreign market: Implications for multinational enterprises. *Organization Science*, *13*(1), 48-63. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.13.1.48.538

Y. & Rui, H. (2009). An ambidexterity perspective toward multinational enterprises from emerging economies. *Academy of Management Perspectives*, *23*(4), 49-70. DOI: 10.5465/amp.23.4.49

A., Yasir, M. & Yousaf, Z. (2020). Network capability and strategic performance in SMEs: the role of strategic flexibility and organizational ambidexterity. *Eurasian Business Review*, *11*(4), 587-610. DOI: 10.1007/s40821-020-00165-7

J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. *Organization Science*, *2*(1), 71-87. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71

K.D., Zhao, M. & Calantone, R. (2006). Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to March’s exploration-exploitation model. *Academy of Management Journal*, *49*(4), 709–722. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083027

N.A., Vorhies, W.D. & Mason, C.H. (2009). Market orientation, marketing capabilities and firm performance. *Strategic Management Journal*, *30*(8), 909-920. DOI: 10.1002/smj.764

S. & Narayanan, V. K. (2007). Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The moderating role of industry clockspeed. *Strategic Management Journal*, *28*(3), 243-270. DOI: 10.1002/smj.576

A-M., Schewe, G., Nayir, D. & Holtgrave, M. (2019). Knowledge comes but wisdom lingers! Learning orientation as the decisive factor for translating social capital into organisational innovativeness and performance in Turkey. *European Journal of International Management*, *13*(2), 127-158. DOI: 10.1504/ejim.2019.098142

C. A. & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. *Academy of Management Perspectives*, *27*(4), 324-338. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2013.0025

C. A. & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. *California Management Review*, *53*(4), 1-18. DOI: 10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5

P. C., Terjesen, S. & Li, D. (2012). Enhancing effects of manufacturing flexibility through operational absorptive capacity and operational ambidexterity. *Journal of Operations Management*, *30*(3), 201-220. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2011.10.004

S. (2012). Scale for classifying organizations as explorers, exploiters or ambidextrous. *International Journal of Information Management*, *32*(1), 75-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.07.001

S. & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. *Journal of Management*, *34*(3), 375-409. DOI: 10.1177/0149206308316058

R., Marzi, G., Caputo, A. & Mayah, K. A. (2020). Achieving strategic flexibility in the era of big data. *Management Decision*, *58*(8), 1585-1600. DOI: 10.1108/MD-09-2019-1237

C.P., Moreira, A.C. & Raposo, M. (2018). SME internationalization research: Mapping the state of the art. *Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences*, *35*(2), 280-303. DOI: 10.1002/cjas.1419

A., Llorens-Montes, J. & Perez-Arostegui, M. N. (2016). The impact of ambidexterity on supply chain flexibility fit. *Supply Chain Management*, *21*(4), 433-452. DOI: 10.1108/SCM-08-2015-0328

Roussel, P., Durrieu, F., Campoy, E. & El Akremi, A. (2002). *Méthodes d’équations structurelles: Recherche et Application en Gestion*, Editions Economica.

Sanchez, R. & Mahoney, J. T. (1997). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. *IEEE Engineering Management Review*, *25*(4), 50-61.

R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. *Strategic Management Journal*, *16*(1), 135-159. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250160921

M. L. López-Sánchez, J. & Trespalacios, J. A. (2012). How organizational learning affects a firm’s flexibility, competitive strategy, and performance. *Journal of Business Research*, *65*(8), 1079-1089. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.002

W. R., Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (2005). *Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference*. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. DOI: 10.1198/jasa.2005.s22

Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F. & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. *Journal of Management Studies*, *46*(5), 864-894. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.x

D., Lisboa, A. & Saridakis, C. (2016). Export performance as a function of market learning capabilities and intrapreneurship: SEM and FsQCA findings. *Journal of Business Research*, *69*(11), 5342-5347. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.135

A., Altuntas, G. & Semercioz, F. (2017). International entrepreneurship of small firms and their export market performance. *European Journal of International Management*, *11*(3), 365-DOI: 10.1504/EJIM.2017.083874

Q., Gu, F.F., Xie, E. & Wu, Z. (2020). Exploratory and exploitative OFDI from emerging markets: Impacts on firm performance. *International Business Review*, *29*(2), 101661. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101661

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. *Strategic Management Journal*, *18*(7), 509-533. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199708)18: 7&lt;509: : aid-smj882&gt;3.0.co;2-z

M. J. & Sohi, R. S. (2003). IT competency and firm performance: is organizational learning a missing link? *Strategic Management Journal*, *24*(8), 745-761. DOI: 10.1002/smj.337

K. (2005). The influence of export information use on export knowledge and performance: Some empirical evidence. *Marketing intelligence & planning*, *23*(2), 200-219. DOI: 10.1108/02634500510589949

M. L. & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change.*California Management Review*, *38*(4), 8-29. DOI: 10.2307/41165852

Venkatraman, N., Lee, G. H. & Iyer, B. (2007). Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: A longitudinal test in the software sector. *Unpublished manuscript, Boston University*.

Vorhies, D. W. & Morgan, N. A. (2005). Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. *Journal of Marketing*, *69*(1), 80-94. DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.69.1.80.5

D.W., Orr, L.M. & Bush, V.D. (2011). Improving customer-focused marketing capabilities and firm performance via marketing exploration and exploitation. *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science*, *39*(5), 736-756. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-010-0228-z

G. B. & Voss, Z. G. (2013). Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises: Implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market domains. *Organization Science*, *24*(5), 1459-1477. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0790

Z., Yi Y. & Yuan C. (2011). Bottom-up learning, organizational formalization, and ambidextrous innovation. *Journal of Organizational Change Management*, *24*(3), 314-329. DOI: 10.1108/09534811111132712

J., Wood, G., Chen, X., Meyer, M. & Liu, Z. (2020). Strategic ambidexterity and innovation in Chinese multinational vs. indigenous firms: The role of managerial capability. *International Business Review*, *29*(6), 54-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101652

S.S., Lew, Y.K. & Park, B.I. (2020). International network searching, learning, and explorative capability: Small and medium-sized enterprises from China. *Management International Review*, *60*(4), 597-621. DOI: 10.1007/s11575-020-00426-7

H., Feng, Y. & Zhou, L. (2016). Market Knowledge Development of Indigenous Chinese Firms for Overseas Expansion: Insights from Marketing Ambidexterity Perspective, *In* T. S. Chan and Geng Cui (Ed.s), *Asian Businesses in a Turbulent Environment*, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 115-141. DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-48887-9_6

J., Tsinopoulos, C. & Xiong, Y. (2021). Unpacking the impact of innovation ambidexterity on export performance: Microfoundations and infrastructure investment. *International Business Review*, 30(1), 125-147. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101766

A., Yosun, T. & Cetindamar, D. (2018). The influence of firm-specific and country-specific advantages in the internationalization of emerging market firms: Evidence from Turkey. *International Business Review*, *27*(1), 198-207. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.07.001

W. & Chen, R. R. (2013). Dynamic capability and IJV performance: The effect of exploitation and exploration capabilities. *Asia Pacific Journal of Management*, *30*(2), 601-632. DOI: 10.1007/s10490-010-9235-3

K. Z. & Wu, F. (2010). Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 547-561. DOI: 10.1002/smj.830