Vol. 14 No. 1 (2026)
March 2026

Articles

Organisational culture, business model design and performance: Does ambidexterity play a role?

Published 2026-03-23

  • Blendi Gerdoçi
    • ,
  • Marco Cucculelli
    • ,
  • Daniela Lena

Blendi Gerdoçi
University of Tirana

Marco Cucculelli
Marche Polytechnic University

Daniela Lena
Marche Polytechnic University

Abstract

Objective: The article aims to explore the relationships between cultural and innovation ambidexterity and novel business model design (NBMD) and trace their influence on business performance in the context of transition economies.

Research Design & Methods: We adopted a cross-sectional survey design using data collected in 2019 from 175 managers and owners of Albanian firms across nine knowledge-intensive sectors. We employed structured questionnaires with validated multi-item Likert scales to measure constructs like ambidexterity, NBMD, and performance, followed by rigorous validity and reliability checks (CFA). The analysis used covariance-based structural equation modelling (SEM) with bootstrapping to test hypothesised relationships and assess indirect effects.

Findings: Our study demonstrates that new business model design can capture the value created by organisational culture and innovation ambidexterity. More specifically, we found a chain relationship between ambidextrous organisational culture, innovation ambidexterity, novel business models, and business performance. These results support the view that, as a dynamic capability, ambidexterity affects performance indirectly through NBMD, while the performance outcomes of cultural ambidexterity are mediated by factors such as innovation ambidexterity and NBMD.

Implications & Recommendations: We identified NBMD as a design theme aligned with contextual ambidexterity that can capture the value-creation potential of this form of innovation ambidexterity. Managers should consider adopting an NBMD when pursuing innovation ambidexterity, while government and development agencies should consider providing grants to start-ups experimenting with novel business models.

Contribution & Value Added: This study represents one of the few attempts to investigate the relationships between organisational culture, capabilities and business models, contributing to the literature that focuses on identifying business models that can support paradoxical strategies, including ambidexterity.

Keywords

innovation, ambidexterity, business model design, organisational culture, business performance, transition economies

(PDF) Save

Author Biography

Blendi Gerdoçi

Associate Professor at the Department of Management, University of Tirana, Albania. His research interests include transaction cost economics, strategic alliances and networks, contracting, and, more recently, education, business modelling, and innovation. He has published several articles in reputed scientific journals such as the Journal of Computers in Education, European Journal of Innovation Management, and other international journals.

Marco Cucculelli

Full Professor at the Department of Economics and Social Science, Marche Polytechnic University, Italy, where he coordinates the PhD program in Economics. His research interests are in the fields of innovation, corporate governance and finance, entrepreneurship and firm performance. He has published in several international journals, such as Research Policy, Journal of Corporate Finance, Small Business Economics, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Journal of Cleaner Production, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, and others. He is an Associate Editor of JSBM, JSBE and the Italian Economic Journal.

Daniela Lena

Post-Doc researcher at the Department of Economics and Social Science, Marche Polytechnic University, Italy. Her research interests include field, business modelling, firm growth and performance, productivity growth, sustainability development, environment regulation, and resilient cities. She has published in the European Journal of Innovation Management, Economia Marche-Journal of Applied Economics, and Technological Forecasting & Social Change.

References

  1. Akbari, M., Baghersad, V., Harandizadeh, M., Giglio, C., & Padash, H. (2025). Absorptive capacity and technological innovation: Ambidexterity and research and development. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2024-1708
  2. Alkaabi, S., Hazzam, J., Wilkins, S., & Dan, S. (2024). The influences of ambidexterity, new public management and innovation on the public service quality of government organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 47(5), 1110-1137. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2024.2367130
  3. Almeida Costa, A., & Zemsky, P. (2021). The choice of value-based strategies under rivalry: Whether to enhance value creation or bargaining capabilities. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3282
  4. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2016). Business model design: A dynamic capability perspective. The Oxford Handbook of Dynamic Capabilities, 52, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199678914.013.29
  5. Asiaei, K., Bontis, N., Askari, M.R., Yaghoubi, M., & Barani, O. (2023). Knowledge assets, innovation ambidexterity and firm performance in knowledge-intensive companies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(8), 2136-2161. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2022-0277
  6. Bell, L., & Hofmeyr, K. (2021). Enabling organisational ambidexterity: A leadership perspective. South African Journal of Business Management, 52(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v52i1.2268
  7. Berraies, S., & Ben Rejeb, W. (2021). Do board of directors’ roles and composition promote exploitative and exploratory innovations? Evidence from Tunisian listed firms. European Journal of International Management, 15(4), 628-656. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2021.114624
  8. Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Raisch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California Management Review, 58(4), 36-58. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.36
  9. Bock, A.J., Opsahl, T., George, G., & Gann, D.M. (2012). The effects of culture and structure on strategic flexibility during business model innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 279-305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01030.x
  10. Božič, K., & Dimovski, V. (2019). Business intelligence and analytics use, innovation ambidexterity, and firm performance: A dynamic capabilities perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(4), 101578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.101578
  11. Brettel, M., Strese, S., & Flatten, T.C. (2012). Improving the performance of business models with relationship marketing efforts—An entrepreneurial perspective. European Management Journal, 30(2), 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011.11.003
  12. Brix, J. (2019). Innovation capacity building: An approach to maintaining balance between exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. The Learning Organization: An International Journal, 26(1), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-08-2018-0143
  13. Buccieri, D., Javalgi, R.G., & Cavusgil, E. (2020). International new venture performance: Role of international entrepreneurial culture, ambidextrous innovation, and dynamic marketing capabilities. International Business Review, 29, 101-639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101639
  14. Carter, W.R. (2015). Ambidexterity deconstructed: A hierarchy of capabilities perspective. Management Research Review, 38(8), 794-812. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2014-0116
  15. Cheng, S., Fan, Q., & Song, Y. (2023). Performance gap and innovation ambidexterity: A moderated mediation model. Sustainability, 15, 3994. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053994
  16. Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529-555. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/11.3.529
  17. Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  18. Delaney, J.T., & Huselid, M.A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 949-969. https://doi.org/10.2307/256718
  19. De Silva, M., Howells, J., Khan, Z., & Meyer, M. (2022). Innovation ambidexterity and public innovation Intermediaries: The mediating role of capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 149, 14-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.013
  20. Duan, Y., Liu, W., Wang, S., Yang, M., & Mu, C. (2022). Innovation ambidexterity and knowledge redundancy: The moderating effects of transactional leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1003601. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1003601
  21. European Commission. (2008). Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community, Rev. 2 (NACE Rev. 2). European Communities. Retrieved from https://books.google.it/books/about/NACE_Rev_2.html?id=QzlAzwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y on January 21, 2022.
  22. Farzaneh, M., Wilden, R., Afshari, L., & Mehralian, G. (2022). Dynamic capabilities and innovation ambidexterity: The roles of intellectual capital and innovation orientation. Journal of Business Research, 148, 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.030
  23. Ferner, A., Almond, P., & Colling, T. (2005). Institutional theory and the cross-national transfer of employment policy: The case of ‘workforce diversity’ in US multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 304-321. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400134
  24. Gerdoçi, B., Bortoluzzi, G., & Dibra, S. (2018). Business model design and firm performance: Evidence of interactive effects from a developing economy. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(2), 315-333. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2017-0012
  25. Gronum, S., Steen, J., & Verreynne, M.-L. (2016). Business model design and innovation: Unlocking the performance benefits of innovation. Australian Journal of Management, 41(3), 585-605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896215587315
  26. Galindo-Rueda, F., & Verger, F. (2016). OECD taxonomy of economic activities based on R&D intensity (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2016/04). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlv73sqqp8r-en
  27. Hair, J.F. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson.
  28. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  29. Iglewicz, B., & Hoaglin, D.C. (1993). How to detect and handle outliers. ASQ Quality Press.
  30. Jansen, J.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A., & Volberda, H.W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
  31. Jansen, J.J.P., George, G., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00775.x
  32. Jin, C., Liu, A., Liu, H., Gu, J., & Shao, M. (2022). How business model design drives innovation performance: The roles of product innovation capabilities and technological turbulence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 178, 121591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121591
  33. Karmeni, K., Uhlaner, L., & Lucianetti, L. (2021). The novelty-centered business model: A transition mechanism between exploration and exploitation in SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 29(4), 574-601. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-06-2021-0221
  34. Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. (2014). Business model renewal and ambidexterity: Structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a cloud business model. R&D Management, 44(3), 322-340. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12070
  35. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
  36. Koufteros, X., Babbar, S., & Kaighobadi, M. (2009). A paradigm for examining second-order factor models employing structural equation modeling. International Journal of Production Economics, 120, 633-652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.04.010
  37. Kousina, E., & Voudouris, I. (2023). The ambidextrous leadership‐innovative work behavior relationship in the public sector: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1478-1495. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13650
  38. Kringelum, L.T.B., & Gjerding, A.N. (2018). Identifying contexts of business model innovation for exploration and exploitation across value networks. Journal of Business Models, 6(3), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.jbm.v6i3.1835
  39. Liao, S., Liu, Z., & Zhang, S. (2018). Technology innovation ambidexterity, business model ambidexterity, and firm performance in Chinese high-tech firms. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 26(3), 325-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2018.1549954
  40. Liu, Y., Wang, W., & Chen, D. (2019). Linking ambidextrous organisational culture to innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model of psychological empowerment and transformational leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02192
  41. Lucena, A., & Roper, S. (2016). Absorptive capacity and ambidexterity in R&D: Linking technology alliance diversity and firm innovation. European Management Review, 13(3), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12074
  42. March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organisational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2634940 on May 2, 2025.
  43. Markides, C.C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach us?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 313-323. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0172
  44. Mura, M., Micheli, P., & Longo, M. (2021), The effects of performance measurement system uses on organizational ambidexterity and firm performance, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(13), 127-151. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2021-0101
  45. Nakandala, D., Tho, N.D., & Lau, H. (2024). Differential effects of external networks and integrative effects of employee integration on innovation ambidexterity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 33(1), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12584
  46. Ochie, C., Nyuur, R.B., Ludwi, G., & Cunningham, J.A. (2022). Dynamic capabilities and organisational ambidexterity: New strategies from emerging market multinational enterprises in Nigeria. Thunderbird International Business Review, 64(5), 493-509. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22266
  47. OECD. (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, 4. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
  48. O’Reilly III, C.A., & Tushman, M.L. (2013). Organisational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
  49. O’Reilly III, C.A., & Tushman, M.L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organisational Behavior, 28, 185-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.01.002
  50. Ossenbrink, J., Hoppmann, J., & Hoffmann, V.H. (2019). Hybrid ambidexterity: How the environment shapes incumbents’ use of structural and contextual approaches. Organization Science, 30(6), 1319-1348. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1309
  51. Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, D.L., & Wallace, A.M. (2005). Validating the organisational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity, and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 379-408. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.312
  52. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  53. Pucci, T., Nosi, C., & Zanni, L. (2017). Firm capabilities, business model design, and performance of SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24, 222-241. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-10-2016-0164
  54. Sinkula, J.M., Baker, W.E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based organisational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894327
  55. Slater, S.F., & Olson, E.M. (2000). Strategy type and performance: The influence of sales force management. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8), 813-829. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200008)21:8<813::AID-SMJ117>3.0.CO;2-0
  56. Smith, W.K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M.L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 448-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.002
  57. Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V. (2017). Collective tacit knowledge generation through play: Integrating socially distributed cognition and transactive memory systems. Management Decision, 55(1), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2015-0367
  58. Stoiber, K., Matzler, K., & Hautz, J. (2022). Ambidextrous structures paving the way for disruptive business models: A conceptual framework. Review of Managerial Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00589-7
  59. Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
  60. Teece, D.J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 172-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003
  61. Teece, D.J., Raspin, P.G., & Cox, D.R. (2020). Plotting strategy in a dynamic world. MIT Sloan Management Review, 62(1), 28-33. Retrieved from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/plotting-strategy-in-a-dynamic-world/ on March 10, 2022.
  62. Tushman, M.L., & O’Reilly III, C.A. (1996). Ambidextrous organisations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-39. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
  63. Vajjhala, R., Narasimha, & Strang, K.D. (2014). Collaboration strategies for a transition economy: Measuring culture in Albania. Cross Cultural Management, 21(1), 78-103. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCM-07-2013-0162
  64. van Lieshout, J.W., Van Der Velden, J.M., Blomme, R.J., & Peters, P. (2021). The interrelatedness of organizational ambidexterity, dynamic capabilities and open innovation: a conceptual model towards a competitive advantage. European Journal of Management Studies, 26(2/3), 39-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMS-01-2021-0007
  65. Wang, C.L., & Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous organisational culture, contextual ambidexterity, and new product innovation: A comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms. British Journal of Management, 25(1), 58-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12010
  66. Wang, H., & Fang, C.-C. (2021). The influence of corporate networks on competitive advantage: The mediating effect of ambidextrous innovation. Technological Analysis and Strategic Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1934436
  67. Wei, Z., Song, X., & Wang, D. (2017). Manufacturing flexibility, business model design, and firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 193, 87-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.06.019
  68. Wilden, R., Hohberger, J., Devinney, T.M., & Lavie, D. (2018). Revisiting James March (1991): Whither exploration and exploitation?. Strategic Organization, 16(3), 352-369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018765031
  69. Wiratmadja, I.I., Bagus Profityo, W., & Rumanti, A.A. (2020). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity on small-medium enterprises (SMEs) performance. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3048139
  70. World Economic Forum. (2019). Global Competitiveness Report. World Economic Forum.
  71. Zang, J., & Li, Y. (2017). Technology capabilities, marketing capabilities, and innovation ambidexterity. Technological Analysis and Strategic Management, 29, 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1194972
  72. Zhang, X., Le, Y., Liu, Y., & Chen, X. (2021). Fostering ambidextrous innovation strategies in large infrastructure projects: A team heterogeneity perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3074431
  73. Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G. Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
  74. Zott, C. (2003). Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intra-industry differential firm performance: Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2), 97-125. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.302
  75. Zott, C., & Raphael, A. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0229
  76. Zott, C., & Raphael, A. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 9(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.630
  77. Zott, C., & Raphael, A. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43, 216-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.