Min Thu Yein 

The Impact of Contextual Ambidexterity on the 
Internationalisation of Born Global Firms 

 
 
 
 
 
  

Vaasa 2025 

School of Management 
Major in International Business 

Master of Science in Economics and Business 
Administration 



2 

 

   

 

UNIVERSITY OF VAASA 
School of Management 

Author: Min Thu Yein 
Title of the thesis:  The Impact of Contextual Ambidexterity on Internationalisation of 

Born Global Firms 
Degree: Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration 
Degree Programme: International Business  
Supervisor: Anisur Faroque  
Year: 2025 Pages: 80 

ABSTRACT:  
Born global firms (BGFs) have accelerated their international expansion even earlier than was 
anticipated. That unprecedented acceleration has occasioned a reconsideration of traditional 
internationalisation theories. Why are certain companies able to accelerate their international 
expansion so rapidly? What are the dynamic organisational capabilities that are successfully 
under highly volatile global economic conditions? 
Organisational ambidexterity is defined as the ability to balance exploration and exploitation, 
and it has been recognised increasingly as a critical determinant of firm performance. The 
specific mechanisms and micro-foundations through which contextual ambidexterity is achieved 
within BGFs that are resource constraints as well as the gaps while the speed of international 
expansion still needs to be examined. The goal of this article is to investigate the components 
and origins of contextual ambidexterity, which is operationalised as Dual Network Capability 
(DNC), and to examine its relationship with the internationalisation speed characteristic of BGFs. 
The research is conceptually grounded in the Dynamic Capabilities View (DCV) and utilise micro-
foundations perspective to clarify the individual level characteristics underpinning these 
organisational capabilities. A qualitative research design was implemented in the form of 
multiple case studies. This method was chosen as it is well aligned to investigating complex, 
environment specific phenomena and could help to open “the black box” of organisational 
ambidexterity. Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews of Top 
Management Team (TMT) members from two BGFs from emerging economies. The data 
collected has been analysed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s method. The 
results of the study indicate that TMT human capital and managerial cognition serve as critical 
micro-foundations and influencing factors, directly affecting the strategic capacity for 
ambidextrous activities. The case companies combine structural elements with individual-level 
flexibility to manage contradictory demands which reflects a hybrid ambidexterity model. The 
theoretical proposition that the beneficial effect of contextual ambidexterity on international 
success is indirect, manifested in intermediate outcomes such as increased international 
opportunity after recognition and closing deals, rather than directly related to overall firm 
performance was confirmed. Crucially, the effectiveness of ambidexterity development also 
depends primarily to external conditions and institutional environments, and cultural norms 
determine first and foremost the dynamic balance needed between exploration and exploitation. 
This research provides a rare empirical basis for capability and reinforces the need for hybrid 
models for emerging market firms operating in turbulent environments. 
 
 

KEYWORDS: Born global firms, Internationalisation, Organisational ambidexterity, Dynamic 
capability, Micro-foundations, Small-medium enterprises, Network. 



3 

 

   

 

 

Contents 

1 Introduction 7 

1.1 Background 7 

1.2 Research gaps, questions, and objectives 8 

1.3 Definitions and Scope of the Study 9 

1.4 Thesis Structure 11 

2 Literature Review 13 

2.1 Internationalisation of Born Global Firms 13 

2.2 Organisational Ambidexterity 16 

2.3 Dynamic Ambidexterity 18 

2.4 Structural Ambidexterity 20 

2.5 Temporal Ambidexterity 21 

2.6 Contextual Ambidexterity 22 

2.7 Definition and Conceptual Foundations of Contextual Ambidexterity 23 

2.7.1 Alignment and Adaptability as Dual Dimension 24 

2.7.2 Focusing on the Micro-level origins 25 

2.7.3 Micro-foundations of Organisational Ambidexterity 26 

2.7.4 Empirical Findings in Born Global Firms 28 

2.8 Internationalisation Speed 29 

2.8.1 Uppsala Model 31 

2.8.2 Enhancing Research Gaps 32 

2.9 Theoretical Framework 34 

2.9.1 The Ambidexterity Imperative and the Contextual Approach 34 

2.9.2 Dynamic Capabilities and the Need for Micro-Foundation 35 

2.9.3 The Micro-Foundations Perspective 36 

2.9.4 Dual Network Capability as the Operational Dynamic Capability 37 

2.9.5 Linking Capability to Internationalisation Speed 38 

2.9.6 Integrated Theoretical Framework 40 

3 Methodology 43 



4 

 

   

 

3.1 Research Design 43 

3.1.1 Research Philosophy and Approach 43 

3.1.2 The Micro-foundational Perspective 44 

3.2 Sample Selection 44 

3.2.1 Case Selection Criteria 44 

3.2.2 Case Firms 45 

3.3 Data Collection Methods 46 

3.3.1 Primary Data: Semi-Structured Interview 46 

3.3.2 Secondary Data 46 

3.4 Data Analysis Techniques 47 

3.4.1 Qualitative Analysis Strategy 47 

3.4.2 Coding 48 

3.5 Validity, Reliability, and Ethical Considerations 48 

3.5.1 Limitation 48 

3.5.2 Ethical Compliance 49 

4 Findings 50 

4.1 Micro-Foundations Underpinning Contextual Capability 50 

4.1.1 Top Management Team Human Capital and Managerial Cognition 50 

4.2 Contextual Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability 51 

4.2.1 Exploration Practices 52 

4.2.2 Exploitation Practices 52 

4.3 Internationalisation Outcomes and Contextual Influences 53 

4.3.1 Internationalisation Speed and Perceived Performance Outcomes 53 

4.3.2 Contextual Influence: Culture and Institutional Environment 54 

4.4 Synthesis of Cross-Case Findings 55 

4.4.1 Foundational Micro-Level Factors 55 

4.4.2 Enactment of Hybrid Ambidexterity 56 

4.4.3 The Influence of Contextual Conditions 56 

4.4.4 Accelerated Outcomes and the Intermediate Performance Pathway 57 

5 Conclusion and Discussion 59 



5 

 

   

 

5.1 Synthesis and Substantiation of the Core Framework 59 

5.2 Theoretical Contributions to Ambidexterity Literature 60 

5.2.1 Micro-Foundations and Managerial Cognition 60 

5.2.2 Evidence for Hybrid Ambidexterity 60 

5.3 Contextual Influences and Performance Pathways 61 

5.3.1 The Process Through Which Ambidexterity Shapes Performance 61 

5.3.2 Environmental Contingency 62 

5.4 Managerial Implications 63 

5.5 Limitations and Future Research Directions 63 

5.6 Conclusion 64 

References 65 

Appendices 79 

Appendix 1. Interview Questions 79 

 

  



6 

 

   

 

Figures 
 
Figure 1 Thesis structure. 11 

Figure 2 Dimensions of Organisational Ambidexterity (Adapted from Reyes‐Parga et al., 

2025). 17 

Figure 3 Integrated Theoretical Framework (Adapted from Faroque et al., 2021; Baia & 

Ferreira, 2019; and Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). 42 

 

Tables 
 
Table 1 Key Characteristics of Born Global Firms (Braunerhjelm & Halldin, 2019). 14 

Table 2 Additional Characteristics of Born Global Firms (Reyes-Parga et al., 2025). 16 

Table 3 Different Types of Organisational Ambidexterity (Kassotaki, 2022; O’Reilly & 

Tushman, 2013). 18 

Table 4 Dynamic Ambidexterity Building on Organisational Ambidexterity Types (Chen, 

2017; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2008). 19 

 
 
 
 
  



7 

 

   

 

1 Introduction 

 

1.1 Background 

 

Since 1990s, born global firms have attracted growing attention from researchers due to 

their rapid and early internationalisation patterns (Lin & Si, 2019; Braunerhjelm & Halldin, 

2019; Prange & Bruyaka, 2016). It is also known as the international new ventures, they 

adopt a global strategy since the start point (Braunerhjelm & Halldin, 2019). Lin & Si 

(2019) stated that through the lens of ambidexterity, the pattern of how born global 

firms (BGFs) internationalise can be understood. 

 

Ambidextrous behaviour is defined as maintaining a balance between exploration and 

exploitation (Presutti et al., 2024). Studies explain that the exploration involves 

innovation and experimentation, while exploitation focuses on productivity and 

adaptation (Presutti et al., 2024). In this context, ambidexterity is defined as the term 

organisational ambidexterity and a strategy that enables organisations to thrive by 

managing the tension between the exploration and exploitation (Lô & Fatien Diochon, 

2020).  

 

Several studies have focused on the ambidextrous behaviour and internationalisation 

strategies implemented by multinational enterprises (MNEs) (Xiao et al., 2022). However, 

there are limited number of studies on the specific types of ambidexterity within born 

global firms. There are three types of organisational ambidexterity which are the 

contextual, structural, and temporal ambidexterity (Lô & Fatien Diochon, 2020). The 

foundation of organisational ambidexterity started as structural ambidexterity (Lo & 

Fatien Diochon, 2020; Zaidi & Othman, 2015). This type is known as teams of 

organisational groups that prioritise efficiency and exploitation, and others that focus 

innovation and exploration (Lô & Fatien Diochon, 2020). On the other hand, research 

studies demonstrated that contextual ambidexterity has provided a more natural and 

positive perspective for organisational ambidexterity (Gunsel et al., 2018; Lo & Fatien 



8 

 

   

 

Diochon, 2020). It defines as balancing exploration and exploitation of a business unit or 

individuals at the same time (Vettorello et al., 2020). It further states that individuals 

respond with their own decision and makes flexible choices (Sinha et al., 2020). 

 

Most studies have focused on analysing the results of ambidexterity rather than the 

development. As one of the types of organisational ambidexterity, contextual 

ambidexterity is particularly important for assisting businesses in navigating the 

difficulties related to the dynamic business environment that guide organisations 

through transformation and generating shared value for all parties (Schlosser et al., 2023; 

O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). Research on the factors that enable born global firms to 

achieve contextual ambidexterity is limited and therefore require further investigation 

to clarify these as well as their relationship to the speed of internationalisation. This 

highlights the need for an in-depth investigation into how contextual ambidexterity 

functions within born global firms.  

 

1.2 Research gaps, questions, and objectives 

 

Several scholars have advocated the significant role of top management teams (TMTs) in 

shaping organisational ambidexterity, particularly through their ambidextrous 

orientation and capabilities that support internationalisation strategy (Sinha, 2019). 

However, there is limited understanding of how born global firms can effectively manage 

contextual ambidexterity in ways that may accelerate their internationalisation speed 

(Figueiredo et al., 2024). Moreover, little is known about the specific factors of 

contextual ambidexterity that may influence the internationalisation and speed of the 

born global firms. Turner et al. (2012) discussed the three types of organisational 

ambidexterity, which are structural, temporal, and contextual. Despite the popularity of 

organisational ambidexterity among researchers, it is still unclear how organisations 

such as born global firms manage this balance of exploration and exploitation, and how 

it affects the rapid internationalisation. By examining factors that enable contextual 



9 

 

   

 

ambidexterity in BGFs and its direct impact on their pace of internationalisation process, 

research gaps can be found.  

 

This study aims to identify the key factors that enable born global firms to connect 

contextual ambidexterity and to examine how it directly affects the internationalisation 

speed of born global firms. This helps us see how contextual ambidexterity shapes global 

growth strategies and the speed of internationalisation. BGFs use their ability to adapt 

to different situations to handle the challenges of foreign markets and the 

internationalisation speed.  

 

The research question for this paper is “What are the main components and factors of 

contextual ambidexterity on the internationalisation speed of born global firms?”. 

 

The following three research objectives below will help better understand the research 

question. 

 

• To investigate the components of contextual ambidexterity within born global 

firms. 

 

• To determine the relationship between contextual ambidexterity and the 

internationalisation speed of born global firms. 

 

• To explore the influencing factors that influence the relationship between 

contextual ambidexterity and the speed of internationalisation.  

 

1.3 Definitions and Scope of the Study 

 

Sharma and Blomstermo (2003) explain that born global firm internationalise differently 

unlike the usual internationalisation patterns of established businesses. It finds itself in 

competition with multinational enterprises (MNEs) and is actively seeking for new 



10 

 

   

 

opportunities in international markets while adopting a global perspective right from the 

start (Masroor et al., 2020). Organisations that rapidly grow internationally right from 

the start are often referred to as born global firms (Sharma & Blomstermo, 2003; Knight 

& Liesch, 2015; Lin & Si, 2019; Braunerhjelm & Halldin, 2019; Prange & Bruyaka, 2016). 

Cesinger et al. (2012) pointed out that these companies often possess unique 

competitive edges, like innovative products or specialised knowledge and skill. 

 

The speed at which born global firms venture into and grow in foreign markets is known 

as their internationalisation speed (Demir et al., 2021). This involves not only the time it 

takes for these firms to make their first expansion internationally but also how 

extensively and quickly they expand their operations abroad within a given period 

(Cabral et al., 2020; Aygoren & Kadakal, 2018). Earlier research shows that the method 

of expanding internationally have changed over time, becoming more varied and rapid 

(Zander, 2015; Vahlne & Jonsson, 2017). Quintas et al. (2009) noted that 

internationalisation is accelerating due to technological advancements, fewer trade 

barriers, and have global market connection. These changes have transformed the global 

business scene, allowing born global firms to overcome geographical limitations and 

enter international markets rapidly. 

 

O’Reilly and Tushman (2013) and Sinha (2019) explain that as businesses adapt to new 

technologies and markets, organisational ambidexterity helps them stay competitive in 

mature markets. This approach demands a balance of efficiency and control, alongside 

flexibility. According to Baloni et al. (2019), there are three types of organisational 

ambidexterity that are structural, temporal, and contextual. This study highlights how 

being adaptable in different contexts can help born global firms expand international 

rapidly. Contextual ambidexterity refers to an organisation’s capability to balance both 

exploration and exploitation across various situations (Ngo & Igwe, 2019). This concept 

involves creating a workplace atmosphere that motivates and allow employees to make 

decisions on whether to implement exploratory or exploitative activities, depending on 

what the situation presents. This category covers how businesses can use their 



11 

 

   

 

organisational structures, procedures, and cultures to encourage creativity and 

adaptability. By doing so, they can seize new opportunities and respond effectively to 

changing market conditions (Lin et al., 2020).  

 

This study explores how born global firms work across different industries and countries. 

In the context of contextual ambidexterity, it will investigate on how organisations 

balance exploring new opportunities and exploiting existing ones. This paper also discuss 

how contextual ambidexterity impact born global firms to expand quickly into 

international markets. This will explore various contextual factors including industry 

trends, competitive intensity, technological advancements, that influence how quickly 

organisations can internationalise while balancing different strategic priorities (Mana Ay 

et al., 2020). 

 

1.4 Thesis Structure 

 

This study is structured into five chapters, each offering a unique and carefully examined 

perspective on the main research question. These chapters are introduction, literature 

review, methodology, findings, and conclusion and discussion. 

 

 

Figure 1 Thesis structure. 

 

Chapter 1 -
Introduction

Chapter 2 -
Literature 

Review

Chapter 3 -
Methodology

Chapter 4 -
Findings and 
Discussion

Chapter 5 -
Conclusion



12 

 

   

 

Chapter 1 shows a comprehensive overview of the thesis topic, exploring the research 

question, objectives, scope, and definitions. This set the stage for our further analysis. 

 

In the literature review, second part of the study, existing studies on born global firms, 

how quickly they internationalise, and their ability to adapt to different contexts will be 

examined. This chapter will also highlight important ideas, theories, and areas where 

more research is needed. 

 

The research methodology chapter 3 will state how the study collect data, research 

design, and how the data will be analysed, while ensuring the process is thorough and 

reliable. 

 

Chapter 3 on the findings and discussion, it explores the study’s evidence, analyse how 

contextual ambidexterity affects the speed of internationalisation, and examine what 

the data mean for both theory and practice. 

 

The final chapter 5 summarises the study by highlighting main findings, acknowledging 

the research’s limitations, and proposing future research directions, offering a well-

rounded conclusion to the study. 



13 

 

   

 

2 Literature Review 

 

This chapter discuss the literature on born global firms, one specific type of 

organisational ambidexterity, and how it affects the internationalisation speed. To build 

a theoretical framework, this brings together important ideas, theories, and identifies 

where more research is needed. In this section, the theoretical foundations, contextual 

ambidexterity, and focusing on how born global firms expand internationally are 

carefully examined. Understanding how these things interrelate between these 

constructs is essential. 

 

The literature review process follows a clear structure. It begins by finding the correct 

databases and search terms and then progress towards analysing articles based on 

predefined exclusion and inclusion criteria (Rajwani & Liedong, 2015). 

 

2.1 Internationalisation of Born Global Firms 

 

Earlier research has focused on how born global companies quickly expand 

internationally that gained popularity in international business studies. However, the 

importance of what a company can do in helping born global firms internationalise is not 

yet well understood. Especially being able to imply the organisational ambidexterity. 

Previous studies have provided the foundation for understanding the traits and 

behaviours of born global firms. Recent studies are exploring the organisational factors 

that enable these companies to expand internationally at a rapid pace. 

 

Born global firms are defined by their unique traits, such as entrepreneurial orientation 

and innovative business model unlike the traditional businesses (Kaur & Sandhu, 2013). 

These organisations often leverage their international orientation and innovative 

capabilities to gain a competitive edge in foreign market (Escandon-Barbosa et la., 2019). 

Born global firms, which are international small and medium-sized enterprises, have 

become increasingly attractive due to the globalisation trends over the past two decades 



14 

 

   

 

(Knight, 2015). According to Gabrielsson et al. (2008), these companies are known for 

their global outlook, offering specialised products and rapidly expanding internationally 

right from the start. To successfully compete with larger and well-established companies, 

these businesses focus on niche markets and leverage technology to overcome barriers 

of entry. 

 

Table 1 Key Characteristics of Born Global Firms (Braunerhjelm & Halldin, 2019). 

 

Aspect Description 

Definition New firms achieving international sales 
within 2 years of founding, targeting global 
niches 

Internationalisation Rapid entry into foreign markets (≤2 years), 
often leveraging digital platforms. 

Market Focus Niche markets with specialised, high-quality 
products (non-commodity). 

Core Drivers Entrepreneurial vision, global mindset, and 
technological innovation. 

Strategic Emphasis Differentiation through product uniqueness 
and customer loyalty. 

Operational Model Reliance on external intermediaries (e.g., 
distributors) and ICT for global coordination 

 

Srivastava et al. (2020) pointed out that born global firms often face challenges like 

limited resources, lack of market knowledge, and weak networks, which can delay their 

international expansion. To tackle these issues, born global firms need to build a 

structure and culture that promotes both exploration and exploitation (Srivastava et al., 

2020). This approach helps them adjust to changing market conditions, seize new 

opportunities and effectively manage risks. Taking exploratory and exploitative actions 

is not just beneficial for these firms, it is an essential for competitive edge and fostering 

global growth (Popadiuk et al., 2018). According to Freeman et al. (2006) and 

Weerawardena et al. (2007), born global firms need to explore new markets and exploit 



15 

 

   

 

what they already have, to succeed internationally. This means that born globals can use 

a flexible strategy to grow while dealing with global market challenges. Bahar and Akhtar 

(2020) and Prange and Bruyaka (2016) argue that organisations that promote flexibility 

are in a better position to manage the conflicting demands, adaptability to new 

circumstances, and perform better in the global context. 

 

It has been discovered that organisations using ambidexterity is beneficial in dynamic 

foreign markets (Kassotaki, 2022). It demonstrates greater adaptability, resiliency and 

creative ability (Kassotaki, 2022). Further, born global firms embrace the ambidextrous 

strategy to respond their competitive disadvantages (Luo and Rui, 2009). This assists 

them in overcoming the limitations they have because of their size, resources, and a lack 

of legitimacy, as they struggle to compete in the international market. Studies indicate 

that born globals may leverage ambidextrous capabilities, which are their ability to 

exploit the uncertain requirements of venturing into new opportunities and exploit the 

available capabilities (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2008). This allows them to work on 

innovation and efficiency simultaneously, change the economic climates and avoid risks 

effectively. 

 

Akinbola et al. (2020) also stated that born global firms tend to be characterised by 

entrepreneurial orientation, proactive behaviour, and a risk taking nature. That allow 

them to internationalise rapidly as born global firms must be fast and flexible enough to 

succeed in the international market (Akinbola et al., 2020; Escandon-Barbosa et al., 

2019). It is at this phase that organisational ambidexterity comes into play as it is 

essential to the born global firms that require adequate innovation and efficiency in their 

internationalisation activities (Kassotaki, 2022). 

 

 

 

 



16 

 

   

 

Table 2 Additional Characteristics of Born Global Firms (Reyes-Parga et al., 2025). 

 

Aspect Description 

Organisational Ambidexterity Capacity to balance and integrate exploitation 
(efficiency, new markets) with exploration 
(innovation, new markets) to facilitate quick 
internationalisation and expansion. 

 

2.2 Organisational Ambidexterity 

 

Organisational ambidexterity enhances innovation, efficiency, and competitiveness by 

enabling organisations to standardise and adapt their business strategies (Silva et al., 

2021; Kassotaki, 2022). Based on Andripoulos and Lewis (2009), ambidextrous 

organisations excel at using their current products to foster gradual innovation while also 

exploring new opportunities for more innovation. Adopting an ambidextrous approach 

is crucial, as it allows them to adapt to changes while efficiently navigating dynamic and 

competitive environments (Silva et al., 2021). 

 

According to Rosing et al. (2011), finding a balance between exploitation and exploration 

can offer a lasting competitive advantage. Exploration involves seeking out new 

knowledge and fostering innovation, often through activities like experimenting and 

creating new ideas (Vahlne & Jonsson, 2017). On the other hand, exploitation focuses 

on enhancing current skills, boosting efficiency, and following established practices 

(Vahlne & Jonsson, 2017; Ahmadi & Osman, 2020). Further, it involves activities such as 

refining processes, making choices, producing outcomes, improving efficiency, selecting 

options, and implementing strategies (Ahmadi & Osman, 2020). Balancing exploitation 

and exploration are crucial for firms, as these two strategic orientations often vie for 

limited resources (Rosing et al., 2011). 



17 

 

   

 

 

 

Figure 2 Dimensions of Organisational Ambidexterity (Adapted from Reyes‐Parga et al., 2025). 

 

It has been pointed out that if either exploitation or exploration is focused, performance 

will decrease (Reyes-Parga et al., 2025). To discuss further, a company that only explores 

may find that it has many ideas but cannot commercialise them effectively, resulting in 

wasted resources and unrealised potential (Marín-Idárraga et al., 2020; Cao & Jiang, 

2022; Jöhnk et al., 2022). On the other hand, if a company focuses only on exploitation, 

it might see some quick benefits. However, it could also find itself left behind as new 

innovations and changes emerge (Falahat et al., 2023). 

 

Organisational ambidexterity can be understood through its various forms, such as 

structural, contextual, and temporal ambidexterity. Each of these forms provides distinct 

strategies for achieving a balance between exploration and exploitation, as discussed by 

several scholars (Boronat-Navarro & García-Joerger, 2019; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; 

Stelzl et al., 2020; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013; Mana-Ay et al., 2020). The ambidextrous 

approach enables companies to respond quickly to industry changes, securing long-term 

market success by using both innovation modes in a complementary manner rather than 

restricting themselves to one (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Chen, 2017). The table below 

shows the different dimensions of ambidexterity. 

 

•Innovation, risk-taking

•Searching for new opportunities

•Experimentation

•Entering new markets

Exploration

•Efficiency, refinement

•Leveraging existing capabilities

•Implementation and execution

•Cost control, process improvement

Exploitation



18 

 

   

 

Table 3 Different Types of Organisational Ambidexterity (Kassotaki, 2022; O’Reilly & Tushman, 

2013). 

 

Type Description Balance Key Context 

Structural 
Ambidexterity 

The 
organisational 
creates separate 
units or structures 
for exploration 
and exploitation 
activities. 

One part of the organisation 
focusses on efficiency and 
incremental improvement, 
while another pursues 
innovation and new 
opportunities. Each unit has 
clear mandates and processes, 
with integration at the senior 
management level. This is 
known as the spatial 
separation. 

Common in 
large firms of 
those with 
resources to 
maintain dual 
structures. 

Contextual 
Ambidexterity 

Individuals and 
teams within the 
same unit are 
empowered to 
divide their time 
and resources 
between 
exploration and 
exploitation. 

Employees rely on their 
personal judgement to find a 
balance between staying with 
established methods 
(exploitation) and being open 
to new approaches 
(exploration) in their daily 
tasks, all within a flexible and 
supportive work environment  

Favoured in 
dynamic, 
resource-
constrained, or 
fast-changing 
environments. 

Sequential 
(Temporal) 
Ambidexterity 

The alternatives 
overtime 
between the 
stages of 
exploration and 
exploitation. 

This concept is often referred 
to as ‘time-based cycling’, a 
strategy that involves adjusting 
organisational focus over time. 

Useful in 
environments 
where change 
is less 
frequent, 
allowing for 
strategic shifts 
over time. 

 

2.3 Dynamic Ambidexterity 

 

Dynamic ambidexterity is known to be adeptly switching between exploring new 

opportunities and optimising current resources over time in response to their changing 

external environment (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). Organisations possess a dynamic 

capability that allows them to flexibly adjust their strategies and operations in response 

to changing market conditions (Chen, 2017). To provide a solution to the innovator’s 



19 

 

   

 

dilemma, this dynamic ambidexterity is built on the foundation of three types of 

organisational ambidexterity (Chen, 2017). Dynamic capabilities allow organisations to 

reshape their structures to explore new opportunities while leveraging existing strengths. 

This process helps align their goals, structures, and methods with the ideas of exploring 

new avenues and making the most of current resources (Chen, 2017; Zhou et al., 2021). 

Dynamic ambidexterity highlights how an organisation can swiftly switch between 

exploring new opportunities and exploiting existing ones. As discussed previously, this 

concept builds on organisational ambidexterity, especially as it reacts to changes in the 

environment (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Chen, 2017).  

 

Dynamic ambidexterity helps organisations adapt by allowing them to systematically 

adjust their exploration and exploitation activities as conditions change. This system 

enables organisations to effectively manage the challenges posted by changing 

conditions, helping them maintain their performance levels and fostering innovation. 

Being dynamically ambidextrous is key to keeping up the pace of internationalisation and 

ensuring long-term success in global markets (Teece & Pisano, 1994; Zhou et al., 2021; 

Chen, 2017). Further, structural and temporal ambidexterity can be seen as pathways 

through which dynamic ambidexterity manifests. However, this study specifically focuses 

on contextual ambidexterity, as it is considered the most effective method for adapting 

to swift changes brought about by internationalisation (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). The 

table below illustrates how dynamic ambidexterity serves as a comprehensive and 

flexible strategy, expanding upon the three established types of organisational 

ambidexterity. 

 

Table 4 Dynamic Ambidexterity Building on Organisational Ambidexterity Types (Chen, 2017; 
O’Reilly and Tushman, 2008). 

 

Type Key Features Mechanism Relevance 

Dynamic 
ambidexterity 

Adaptive integration 
and reconfiguration 
of all ambidexterity 
types. 

Combines structural, 
contextual, and 
sequential 
approaches as 
needed. 

Enable firms to shift 
seamlessly between 
exploration and 
exploitation in 
response to 
environmental 



20 

 

   

 

Type Key Features Mechanism Relevance 

changes, ensuring 
sustained 
competitiveness. 

Contextual 
Ambidexterity 

Behavioural 
integration of 
exploration and 
exploitation within 
the same unit 

Social or behavioural 
alignment (e.g. 
employee 
autonomy, cultural 
support). 

Real-time balancing 
of exploration or 
exploitation, critical 
for dynamic 
adaptability in fast-
paced environments. 

Structural 
Ambidexterity 

Separate units for 
exploration (e.g. 
R&D) and 
exploitation (e.g. 
operations). 

Spatial separation of 
activities into 
distinct structures. 

Provides foundation 
for dynamic shifts by 
enabling 
simultaneous focus 
on exploration and 
exploitation in 
parallel structures 

Sequential 
Ambidexterity 

Alternating phrases 
of exploration and 
exploitation overtime 

Time-based cycling 
between strategic 
priorities 

Offers a temporal 
framework for 
dynamic 
ambidexterity, 
allowing periodic 
reconfiguration as 
environments evolve 

 

2.4 Structural Ambidexterity 

 

Structural ambidexterity is a type of organisational ambidexterity that involves setting 

up separate divisions within a company to handle both exploration and exploitation 

activities (Zhou et al., 2019). This method helps companies to distribute resources and 

develop specific skills tailored to different roles (Sun et al., 2020). Companies can 

effectively manage the challenging demands of using existing resources and exploring 

new opportunities by establishing clear guidelines. Therefore, this encourage both 

innovation and efficiency simultaneously. 

 

The start of implementing different activities of exploration and exploitation can be 

observed as companies grow. This growth necessitates the development of various 



21 

 

   

 

organisational structures and processes (Callegari & Rai, 2021). Organisations can 

develop and utilise diverse individuals while benefitting from collaboration and shared 

knowledge across the organisation. At the same time, this approach allows the company 

to create effective integration processes that boost information flow between various 

parts (Dutta & Guha, 2015). By doing so, it improves performance (Dutta & Guha, 2015). 

This approach also helps to distribute control by establishing independent units across 

various architectural levels. Structural ambidexterity often faces coordination challenges 

despite the frequent distance between divisions (Callegari and Rai, 2021). 

 

2.5 Temporal Ambidexterity 

 

Another form of organisational ambidexterity is known as temporal or sequential 

ambidexterity. This concept explains how companies alternate between exploring new 

ideas and exploiting existing ones over time. Temporal ambidexterity enables companies 

to shift between phases of exploring new ideas and technologies, and utilising existing 

resources (Mavroudi et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2018). 

 

Organisations can successfully handle the challenges of being innovative and efficient, 

while keeping a long-term perspective in mind (Şimşek et al., 2009). When it comes to 

managing resources, structuring their teams, and guiding their leaders, companies 

should consider adopting a flexible strategy. While some research highlights the 

advantages of sequential ambidexterity, others argue that implementing this approach 

can be challenging due to organisational inflexibility (Popadiuk et al., 2018). 

 

A key challenge in managing temporal ambidexterity is determining the possibility to 

shift focus between exploring new opportunities and exploiting existing ones during the 

correct situation. This shows the importance of requiring the contextual ambidexterity 

approach, where it needs to explore new ideas and exploit at the same time (Geerts et 

al., 2010). 

 



22 

 

   

 

2.6 Contextual Ambidexterity 

 

The third type of organisational ambidexterity is contextual ambidexterity. This type 

helps individuals find a balance between exploration and exploitation within their role 

(Zaidi & Othman, 2015). This encourages a workplace where employees are motivated 

to find and take advantage of opportunities for creativity and efficiency (Dutta & Guha, 

2015). Integrating a balanced mix of exploration and exploitation, contextual 

ambidexterity highlights the importance of aligning individual decisions with the 

organisation’s goals by integrating a balance between the activities of exploration and 

exploitation (Dutta & Guha, 2015). Born globals can utilise contextual ambidexterity to 

innovation, enhance productivity, and maintain a competitive advantage. By 

encouraging adaptable mindset and inspiring individuals to think both critically and 

strategically, companies can survive long-term (Chen, 2017; O’Reilly & Tushman).  

 

As organisations strive to adapt swiftly to changing market conditions and optimise their 

ongoing operations, the importance of being ambidextrous has gained significant 

attention along with a rapid technological advancement and increased global 

competition (Gibson & Birknshaw, 2004). Zhou et al. (2021) explained that contextual 

ambidexterity is a strategy that can be successful when there are strict social control and 

common culture bonding the exploration and exploitation. Therefore, this type of 

organisational ambidexterity emphasises the importance of leaders encouraging 

adaptive behaviour (Zaidi & Othman, 2015) and developing a clear picture of the plan. 

Regarding resource constraints in born global companies, contextual ambidexterity 

leverages the same resources for exploration and exploitation, thereby potentially 

creating synergies and efficiencies (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). Even with the expanding 

literature on contextual ambidexterity, our understanding of how it affects certain 

organisational outcomes is still constrained. 

 

 



23 

 

   

 

2.7 Definition and Conceptual Foundations of Contextual Ambidexterity 

 

Introduced by Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004), contextual ambidexterity is the 

organisational ability to simultaneously engage in investigation and exploitation efforts 

across all levels (Schnellbaecher et al., 2015). This type of organisational ambidexterity 

promotes individuals to make their own decisions through behaviour and social systems 

(Schlosser et al., 2023). On the contrary to the other types of organisational 

ambidexterity, contextual ambidexterity focuses on individuals and teams that can 

independently manage the conflict between alignment and adaptation (Schlosser et al., 

2023). With this type, it enables organisations to adapt and respond swiftly to any 

potential changes (Schnellbaecher et al., 2015). 

 

Based on the theory of organisational ambidexterity, companies that manage to balance 

the demands of exploring new opportunities and exploiting existing ones tend to 

perform better and adapt more easily to changing environments (Vahlne & Jonsson, 

2017). Born global firms that is known for its rapid and active international expansion 

thrives unpredictable and competitive global markets. This environment makes it crucial 

for them to be adaptable and flexible to succeed (Knight, 2015). This method assists 

individuals in balancing the challenges of entering new international markets and 

leveraging current market positions by fostering a flexible and adaptive organisational 

culture (Ossenbrink et al., 2019). Contextual ambidexterity helps born global firms speed 

up their international expansion by giving individuals the ability to decide when to seek 

new opportunities and when to exploit what they already have (Vahlne & Jonsson, 2017; 

Knight, 2015). By implementing it, born global firms that balances exploration and 

exploitation are able to explore international opportunities more quickly and efficiently 

(Freeman et al., 2006). The speed of internationalisation of born global firms can be 

explained by understanding three areas of the effects that contextual ambidexterity 

brings, the organisation’s culture and leadership, and resource management. 

 



24 

 

   

 

To utilise contextual ambidexterity successfully, organisation should implement a culture 

that values both exploration and exploitation. This approach encourages individuals to 

innovate, experiment, and continuously improve processes (Bruyaka & Prange, 2020). 

Some experts believe that adopting strategic ambidexterity could be the best approach 

to excel in international markets (Han, 2007; Mana-Ay et al., 2020; O’Reilly & Tushman, 

2011). In today’s rapidly changing world, organisations face growing complexity and 

uncertainty, requiring them to continuously adapt and innovate to stay ahead. 

 

2.7.1 Alignment and Adaptability as Dual Dimension 

 

Contextual ambidexterity shows that alignment and adaptability are essential in 

successful companies in the changing environments (Kosasih et al., 2020). These two 

variables are applied as dual dimensions for this study. 

 

The process of ensuring that operations and resources are aligned with the company’s 

goal is defined as alignment in the context of this study (Kosasih et al., 2020). In contrast, 

adaptability is referred as the capacity of an organisation to react to the altering 

situations and seize new opportunities (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). These two variables 

enable born global firms to respond to changes in the market quickly. This approach 

modifies the business models to suit local markets and exploit the local trends without 

breaking the cultural and behavioural standards (Monferrer et al., 2015). Organisations 

that apply contextual ambidexterity enable employees to develop the skills and decision-

making to do what is required. This also helps the organisation to overcome the 

difficulties in the international markets as it strengthens its strategic alignment as well 

as its adaptability (Monferrer et al., 2015). This dual dimension shows that it is a 

complementary ability that must be developed simultaneously (Zimmermann & 

Birkinshaw, 2015). 

 

 



25 

 

   

 

2.7.2 Focusing on the Micro-level origins 

 

Contextual ambidexterity is not just a phenomenon that occurs within organisations. It 

is also seen at the individual and team levels that affect how employees work and 

communicate with each other (Knight & Harvey, 2015). To support this, employees who 

show the ability to utilise contextual ambidexterity can effectively manage the 

challenges of exploring new market opportunities while also enhancing current 

operations. 

 

Kassotaki et al. (2019) pointed out that implementing contextual ambidexterity allow 

teams to apply their own perspectives and skills to tackle challenging issues. This 

develops team coordination and knowledge. Individually, being ambidextrous can 

explain the basic challenges of the dilemma between exploring new opportunities or 

exploiting existing ones (Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2020; Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016). 

Further, ambidexterity helps understand how organisations can achieve this balance 

(Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2020). Studies stated that the organisational structure and its 

context play a role in shaping individual behaviours (Schnellbacher et al., 2019; Kassotaki 

et al., 2019). Moreover, these individuals can adapt their behaviour to changing 

circumstances by switching between exploring new ideas and exploiting existing ones as 

needed (Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016). To explain further, the belief in one’s ability to 

succeed which is known as general self-efficacy helps act as a link that connect a desire 

to learn with the ability to perform multiple tasks effectively (Kauppila & Tempelaar, 

2016). This shows that individuals with ambidexterity help to improve the organisation’s 

innovation performance by balancing exploration and exploitation.  

 

This balanced approach is shaped by various elements like the culture within an 

organisation, how leaders manage, and the systems of rewards (Alghamdi, 2018). 

Alignment happens through established structures and processes that guide how people 

and teams act. Moreover, teams working in environments that require both innovation 



26 

 

   

 

and efficiency tend to find a good balance between exploring new ideas and exploiting 

existing ones. They often work well together and handle disagreements in a positive way. 

 

2.7.3 Micro-foundations of Organisational Ambidexterity 

 

Contextual ambidexterity analyses the problem between exploration and exploitation 

within the same department by developing a constant set of processes, practices, and 

incentives (Bui et al., 2021; Silva et al., 2021; Martini et al., 2015; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 

2004). This enables organisations to develop new knowledge rapidly without requiring 

structural ambidexterity (Bui et al., 2021). However, the popularity of organisational 

ambidexterity creates theoretical conflicts on the connection between contextual 

ambidexterity and in other areas of dynamic capabilities (Bahar & Akhtar, 2020; Vahlne 

& Jonsson, 2017; O’Reilly et al., 2013). It is necessary to move toward empirically studies 

by defining a clear process and antecedents that emphasise this capability (Vettorello et 

al., 2020; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). 

 

In micro-foundation of organisational ambidexterity, individual ambidexterity is critical 

for connecting the theoretical gap between the micro and macro levels. In the field of 

international entrepreneurship, individual ambidexterity proposes an integrated 

conceptual framework connecting the speed of internationalisation of born globals to 

dynamic capabilities rooted in individual factors (Zhang & Van, 2019; Ying Huang & Huei 

Hsieh, 2013; Weerawardena et al., 2007). These factors are seen as the manager’s 

human capital, experiences, cognition, and intuition (Zhang & Van, 2019). 

 

Leadership is known to be part of the key component at the micro level where the 

concept of ambidextrous leadership examines how leaders foster innovative 

ambidexterity (Schlosser et al., 2023). In this context, top management team (TMT) is 

used for “leadership”. Further, the role that leadership TMT is highlighted for is risk 

propensity, where it contributes to determine organisational results (Schlosser et al., 

2023; Rosing et al., 2011; Uhl-Bien, 2018). 



27 

 

   

 

 

According to Faroque (2021), founder’s prior experience is a crucial micro-foundation 

when developing dual network capabilities for born global firms (Faroque, 2021). Further, 

experience with previous managerial, industry, and functional strengthens network 

exploitation and exploration capabilities (Faroque, 2021). By providing managerial 

relevance to the development process of capabilities, understanding these various 

sources shows that capabilities are developed, managed, and extended (Freeman et 

al.,2006; Chen, 2017; Prange & Bruyaka, 2016). 

 

Faroque (2021) has pointed out that the utility of these dual network capabilities in 

generating outcomes, such as international opportunity recognition (OR), is contingent 

upon environmental factors, such as market change. It further explains that the utility of 

these dual network capabilities in generating outcomes, such as international 

opportunity recognition (IOR), is contingent upon environmental factors, such as market 

change. Additionally, it claims that the post-hoc analysis reveals higher rates of market 

change, mature organisations are more able to take advantage of network exploitation, 

while younger companies take the opposite turn even though both skills are positively 

associated with recognising international opportunities. 

 

The framework illustrates the contextual ambidexterity as a dynamic capability on the 

basis of individual backgrounds. This capability is essential for a competitive advantage 

in the long run for international success as it balance exploration and exploitation (Hsu 

et al., 2013). In this context, international opportunity recognition is known to be the 

outcome of balancing exploration and exploitation capabilities successfully. For 

supporting the relationship between dynamic capability and performance, this approach 

is considered the most promising method (O’Reilly, 2008; Popadiuk & Kretschmer, 2018; 

Weerawardena et al., 2007). Zhang et al. (2019) and Schnellbacher et al. (2019) 

suggested to integrate micro and macro theories if more in-depth research is required 

for organisational ambidexterity (Zhang et al., 2019; Schnellbacher et al., 2019). 

 



28 

 

   

 

2.7.4 Empirical Findings in Born Global Firms 

 

Studies shows that internationalisation speed is achieved by balancing between 

exploration and exploitation (Chandrasekaran et al., 2011; Hsu et al., 2013). Furthermore, 

organisations that implement contextual ambidexterity can achieve high performance in 

dynamic and competitive industries. However, born global firms often rely on contextual 

ambidexterity rather than structural and temporal ambidexterity due to resource 

constrains and dynamic environment (Rodriguez-Serrano & Martin-Armario, 2017; 

Popadiuk et al., 2018; Ahmadi et al., 2018). Peng & Lin (2019) states that contextual 

ambidexterity enables born global firms to tackle the challenges of foreign market entry, 

business model adaptation, and foreign partners relationships. Sinha (2019) further adds 

that contextual ambidexterity helps by implementing an emergent strategy process that 

initiate through the ambidextrous orientation and abilities of the top management team. 

 

To discuss further, contextual ambidexterity is significantly interrelated with the quantity 

of countries that a company had business activities are present (Chebbi et al., 2016). This 

was found when research conducted on startup tech companies was revealed. 

Specifically, when comparing to structural ambidextrous firms, it is found that 

organisations with higher contextual ambidexterity is able to enter more international 

market in a shorter time (Balboni et al., 2019); Martini et al., 2015). Additionally, cross-

functional teams, knowledge sharing platforms, and decentralised decision making are 

identified as specific organisational practices that promotes contextual ambidexterity 

(Sinha, 2019). By catering to specialised customer needs in international markets and 

capitalising on niche markets, born global firms are able to succeed (Sinha, 2019). 

Moreover, it has been shown that organisations encourage this use of approach by 

implementing a set of processes, contexts and leadership behaviours in terms of 

managing and developing contextual ambidexterity (Alghamdi, 2018; Balboni et al., 2019; 

Rosing et al., 2011). 

 



29 

 

   

 

2.8 Internationalisation Speed 

 

The speed of internationalisation is defined as the pace at which an organisation expands 

its operations across international borders (Weerawardena et al., 2007; Ying Huang & 

Huei Hsieh, 2013). This rapid internationalisation is known to be a critical factor of 

success in today’s global marketplace. Further, studies states that contextual 

ambidexterity influences the internationalisation speed in born global firms 

(Weerawardena et al., 2007). It rapidly adapts to changing market conditions and 

capitalise new opportunities. The interplay of contextual ambidexterity with other 

organisational capabilities becomes essential in shaping the internationalisation process 

of born global firms (Sharma & Blomstermo, 2003). These organisational capabilities 

include entrepreneurial orientation, absorptive capacity, and network competence. 

 

According to Mana-Ay et al. (2020), this type of organisational ambidexterity emerged 

as a critical enabler for organisations to achieve internationalisation speed and 

consistent with the systems approach across multiple dimensions. By promoting a 

culture of creativity and flexibility, this contextual ambidexterity type enables individuals 

to make decisions, manage risks, and being proactive to new threats and opportunities 

(Heavey et al., 2015). To accelerate internationalisation, born global firms utilise 

internationalisation knowledge in individual employees into organisational strategies 

and operational procedures (Ying Huang & Huei Hsieh, 2013). 

 

Firms can enhance their capacity to identify and exploit international opportunities by 

combining contextual ambidexterity with a strong entrepreneurial orientation 

(Rodríguez‐Serrano & Martín‐Armario, 2017). Additionally, born global companies can 

use external networks and partnerships to get access to crucial resources, information, 

and market intelligence that help them grow quickly in the international market (Hsu et 

al., 2013; Ren et al., 2020). 

 



30 

 

   

 

Deng et al. (2020) explained when competing in underdeveloped countries, born global 

firms could initially apply strategies that take advantage of foreign resources, leveraging 

the specialised knowledge they have gained. To clarify further, a born global firm may 

first enter a less developed market with an exploitative strategy and later enter a 

developed market with an explorative strategy. Research shows that the more developed 

the market, the more innovation is required for its product to be accepted by customers 

(Zhou et al., 2019; Sinha, 2019; Prange & Bruyaka, 2016). In these cases, performance is 

better when international orientation is complemented by innovative capacity and the 

dynamism and favourability of the environment (Escandón‐Barbosa et al., 2019).  

 

To further discuss the interrelationship between contextual ambidexterity and the 

Internationalisation speed, there is an argument that organisational ambidexterity plays 

a crucial role in determining the Internationalisation speed of SMEs (Silva et al., 2020). 

When it comes to a rapidly internationalising, studies pointed out that contextual 

ambidexterity fosters rapid feedback loops and knowledge transfer between foreign 

markets and internal teams (Rosenzweig & Shaner, 2004). Individual employees use real-

time insights from international customers to exploit while exploring new partnerships 

or regions. To explain, Scandinavian born global firms reduced time-to-market by 50% 

by implanting cross-functional teams that shared market-specific knowledge across 

departments. This further emphasise the importance of ambidexterity at the individual 

employee level in driving organisational agility and accelerating Internationalisation 

speed (Gerschewski et al., 2014). Contextual ambidexterity relies on a culture of 

individuality and trust, enabling employees to build relationships with local partners 

while standardizing processes for cross-border consistency. 

 

Firms that can reconfigure resources and routines in response to unpredictable 

environments are able to internationalise rapidly (Ahmadi & Osman, 2018). Those firms 

require organisational agility and cluster of competences that integrate adaptability, 

speed, innovation, sustainability and organisational resilience (Shams et al., 2020). Born 

globals demonstrating superior dynamic capabilities, for example, expanded into three 



31 

 

   

 

new continents within the first five years by rapidly modifying their offerings for local 

market (Bui et al., 2021). 

 

2.8.1 Uppsala Model 

 

The Uppsala model, also known as the U-model of internationalisation theory, is a theory 

based on the concept of experiential learning. This theory shows that firms acquire 

knowledge about foreign markets through direct experience and gradually increase their 

involvement as their knowledge and confidence grow (Bruyaka & Prange, 2020). 

 

This traditional internationalisation theory is different with the rapid internationalisation 

strategies employed by born global firms, which often enter multiple foreign markets 

simultaneously or within a short period (Tabares et al., 2015). While the U-model 

emphasises a gradual approach to internationalisation, born global firms typically adopt 

a more aggressive and proactive strategy that seek to capitalise on global opportunities 

from the outset. 

 

Despite these differences, the U-model provides valuable insights into the 

internationalisation process, particularly regarding the importance of knowledge 

acquisition and commitment building. Sharma & Blomstermo (2003) argues that the 

longer a firm waits to initiate international activities, the more difficult it will be to grow 

internationally. This is when the organisational ambidexterity theory can be utilised to 

fill the gap. 

 

It is crucial to have resources and skills for firms that go international right from the start. 

These help them deal with the challenges that come from being new and unfamiliar as 

they grow rapidly in other countries (Guili, 2018). Born global firms often do not have 

the same resources and skills that traditional international firms have built over time. To 

overcome this, they must either draw on the diverse experiences of their founding team 

or seek support from both local and international networks (Bengtsson, 2004). In other 



32 

 

   

 

words, born global firms need to leverage innovation, and create newness in 

international markets to overcome barriers (Neuber, 2016). 

 

Recently, studies have challenged the applicability of the U-model to born global firms, 

arguing that different factors and motivations drive their internationalisation process. 

Several studies have emphasised the relevance of an entrepreneurial mindset, 

connection with other parties, and innovative technology as elements that propel the 

swift global expansion of companies that are born with an international focus (Rossato 

et al., 2020; Laanti et al., 2006). The entrepreneurial spirit that exists within the founders 

or leadership is a critical aspect that drives the internationalisation of these born global 

firms (Kaur & Sandhu, 2013). While the U-model provides a useful framework for 

understanding the internationalisation process of traditional firms, it may not fully 

capture the unique characteristics and dynamics of born global firms, which often 

pursue more rapid and aggressive internationalisation strategies from their inception 

(Rani, 2021). 

 

This has led to integrating the U-model and the organisational ambidexterity theory by 

looking at how entrepreneurs create opportunities with network partners (Andersson, 

2011). That way, born global companies can enter many markets in a short period of 

time. 

 

2.8.2 Enhancing Research Gaps 

 

Existing research on born global firms has extensively explored their rapid 

internationalisation, strategic orientations, and resource constraints, but the specific 

role of contextual ambidexterity in shaping their internationalisation speed remains 

relatively under-explored (Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019). While previous studies have 

acknowledged the importance of ambidexterity in fostering innovation and adaptability, 

there are still critical gaps remain in our understanding of how contextual ambidexterity 

influences the internationalisation speed of born global firms.  



33 

 

   

 

Firstly, limited empirical focus on contextual ambidexterity in born global firms. Extant 

literature predominantly focusses on structural and temporal ambidexterity, neglecting 

contextual ambidexterity’s nuances, and future studies can address how this specific 

ambidexterity form uniquely impacts internationalisation speed (Turner et al., 2012). 

Secondly, existing literature exhibits a limited understanding of the micro-foundations 

and underlying processes through which contextual ambidexterity and related dynamic 

capabilities influence internationalisation speed. Despite the recognition that 

capabilities need micro-foundations, the antecedents of network exploration and 

exploitation capabilities remain under-developed and under-theorised in international 

Entrepreneurship (IE) research (Faroque et al., 2021).  

 

Furthermore, literature calls for exploring the micro-foundations of capability 

development to uncover the origins and processes of exploration and exploitation, 

extending these notions to new domains (Ren et al., 2020; Turner et al., 2012; Faroque 

et al., 2021). Specifically, there is limited empirical work explaining how firms develop 

capabilities from experience. Research suggests that individual-level origins, such as the 

founder’s prior experience (Faroque et al., 2021), serve as essential micro-foundations 

for dual network capability, providing a deeper understanding of how these capabilities 

influence firm outcomes like international opportunity recognition. A deeper 

examination is crucial to understand these individual level factors of the “human side” is 

critical for advancing the collective understanding of networking and capability evolution 

in international context (Faroque et al., 2021). Thirdly, the environmental uncertainty, 

cultural differences, and resource constraints are acknowledged as challenges for born 

global firms’ Internationalisation speed, but their moderating role in the contextual 

ambidexterity relationship remains untested. 

 

For instance, organisational ambidexterity affects how managers approach markets, 

including domestic and international markets (Silva et al., 2020). International business 

theories characterize the Internationalisation of firms as the ability to exploit 

competitive advantages and the desire to explore resources that strengthen corporate 



34 

 

   

 

global competitiveness and long-term performance (Silva et al., 2020). This study 

addresses these gaps mentioned above to advance understanding of the 

internationalisation of born global firms (Hsu et al., 2013). 

 

2.9 Theoretical Framework 

 

The development of a theoretical framework for understanding the accelerated 

internationalisation of born global firms requires the synthesis of fragmented literature. 

Particularly drawing upon the theory of organisational ambidexterity (OA), the dynamic 

capabilities view (DCV), and international entrepreneurship. Despite its growth, 

ambidexterity research, remains a fragmented field (Yunita et al., 2023; Popadiuk et al., 

2018; Monferrer et al., 2015; Rosing et al., 2011; Alghamdi, 2018) that often suffer from 

a limit of consensus on conceptualisation (Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2021). 

Consequently, the framework must explicitly address the core theoretical tensions. 

Specifically, regarding the blurred boundaries between contextual ambidexterity and 

dynamic capabilities (Popadiuk et al., 2018). This section establishes a clear fundamental 

flow from individual antecedents to organisational capability that connect the specific 

mechanism of dual network capability to accelerate international outcomes. 

 

2.9.1 The Ambidexterity Imperative and the Contextual Approach 

 

Organisational ambidexterity is defined as the firm’s capacity to engage in the 

simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation (O’Reilly et al., 2013; Kassotaki, 

2022). This duality is essential for firms to maintain short-term profitability while 

ensuring long-term competitiveness (Kassotaki, 2022). 

 

The literature primarily identifies two approaches to achieving ambidexterity of 

structural and contextual (O’Reilly et al., 2013; Kassotaki, 2022; Zaidi & Othman, 2015). 

Structural ambidexterity separates exploratory and exploitative activities into distinct 

units or teams (Zaidi & Othman, 2015). Conversely, contextual ambidexterity relies on 



35 

 

   

 

the firm’s internal organisational context, such as supportive systems and management 

behaviour, to enable individuals to perform contradictory activities with alignment as 

exploitation focus and adaptability as exploration focus within the same unit (Dutta & 

Guha, 2015; Vettorello et al., 2020; Zaidi & Othman, 2015). Contextual ambidexterity 

necessitates that employees resolve these tensions at the task level by applying their 

own decision-making (Lo & Fatien, 2020; Dutta & Guha, 2015). The success of contextual 

ambidexterity relies on achieving knowledge ambidexterity which, in turn, strongly 

affects the degree of innovation ambidexterity (Bandeira-de-Mello et al., 2016; Gibson 

& Birkinshaw, 2004). This framework adopts the contextual perspective, which is highly 

pertinent for lean born global firms that often lack the resources to implement large-

scale structural separation. 

 

2.9.2 Dynamic Capabilities and the Need for Micro-Foundation 

 

The dynamic capabilities view (DCV) is a prominent strategic framework aimed at 

identifying drivers of long-term firm growth and survival (Teece & Pisano, 1994; Teece, 

2007; Weerawardena et al., 2007). Popadiuk et al. (2018) and Deng et al. (2020) 

discussed the fundamental of dynamic capabilities that defined as the firm’s ability to 

incorporate, build, and reorganise the competences of internal and external that 

addresses rapid changing environments. Given that ambidexterity involves the 

organisational capacity to integrate and reconfigure resources for innovation, it is widely 

classified as a dynamic capability (Zimmermann & Birkinshaw, 2015; Popadiuk et al., 

2018; Pertussa-Ortega et al., 2020; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). 

 

However, the dynamic capability literature remains limited and unclear with 

inconsistencies prevalent in definitions and conceptualisations (Popadiuk et al., 2018; 

Weerawardena et al., 2007). A core problem arises when researchers confuse potential 

dynamic capabilities with possible outcomes, failing to distinguish the capability of the 

process of changing from the operational routines of the resulting change (Teece, 2007). 

This lack of conceptual clarity means researchers must be consistent about the level of 



36 

 

   

 

analysis even if focusing on individual managers or the organisational (Teece, 2007). The 

framework addresses this by following the conceptual necessity of identifying the 

antecedents, mediators, and intermediate outcomes that precede and enable the 

dynamic capability itself (Teece, 2007; Monferrer & Ripolles, 2015; Deng et al., 2020). 

 

2.9.3 The Micro-Foundations Perspective 

 

To resolve the conceptual entanglement between contextual ambidexterity and dynamic 

capability, this framework adopts the micro-foundations perspective (Pertusa-Ortega et 

al., 2020; Ying & Huei, 2013; Weerawardena et al., 2007; Faroque et al., 2021). This 

approach directly addresses the critical need to tackle the micro and macro division in 

the field of management (Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2020; Zhang & Van Horne, 2019) by 

rooting organisational phenomena in individual-level origins (Pertusa-Ortega et al., 

2020). The micro-foundational lens shows that the evolution of organisational 

capabilities is rooted in the characteristics of key entrepreneurial figures (Weerawardena 

et al., 2007).  

 

To pursue conflicting demands, organisational individuals influencing the firm’s 

capabilities have been ignored (Pertusa-Ortega et al. 2020; Schnellbacher et al., 2019; 

Zhang & Van Horne, 2019). Furthermore, Pertusa-Ortega et al. (2020) and O’Reilly & 

Tushman (2013) stated that the organisational ambidexterity literature has historically 

concentrated on organisational design and consequences. At an individual level, 

analysing ambidexterity helps opening the black box of organisational ambidexterity and 

addresses the root of the dilemma of exploration or exploitation (Pertusa-Ortega et al., 

2020). 

 

The specific micro-foundation antecedent identified for early internationalising firms, 

such as born globals, is the founder’s prior experience, which serves as an essential 

micro-foundation for the dual network capability (Faroque et al., 2021). According to 

Faroque et al. (2021), researchers have emphasized that micro-level origins play an 



37 

 

   

 

important role in the evolution of organisational capabilities. However, the micro-

foundations perspective and prior experience in international entrepreneurship (IE) are 

often under-developed and under-theorised. Further, the founder brings human capital, 

knowledge, and experience, including prior managerial, industry, and technical 

experience that constitutes an individual model affecting the firm’s operations (Faroque 

et al., 2021). Empirical evidence demonstrates that the delivery of the knowledge-based 

stemming from this earlier experience is a significant micro-foundation of dual network 

capability (DNC). By utilising founder expertise, firms can overcome partner ambiguity 

and rely on this experience to reduce the costs associated with developing new 

capabilities. Thus, the micro-foundations approach provides the essential individual-

level mechanism through which contextual ambidexterity is developed and 

operationalised as a dual network capability (Faroque et al., 2021). 

 

2.9.4 Dual Network Capability as the Operational Dynamic Capability 

 

In the international context, contextual ambidexterity is operationalised through Dual 

Network Capability (DNC). Network capability is the dynamic capability through which 

born global firms systematically identify, build, and leverage international network 

relationships (Heavey et al., 2015; Kassotaki et al., 2019; Monferrer et al., 2015). 

The dual network capability is composed of two strategic building blocks which are 

network exploration capability and network exploitation capability (Faroque et al., 2021; 

O’Reilly et al., 2008; Vahlne & Jonsson, 2017). Starting with the network exploration 

capability, it refers to as the capacity to search and form new international ties, which is 

vital for sensing new opportunities and addressing the liability of smallness inherent to 

SMEs (Baia & Ferreira, 2019). The network exploitation capability leverages existing 

network resources and relationships for efficiency and short-term gains, critical for 

seizing established opportunities and transferring existing capabilities abroad (Baia & 

Ferreira, 2019). 

 



38 

 

   

 

According to Zahoor et al (2023), firms frequently move beyond their organisational 

boundaries to form alliances or networks to explore new technologies and markets while 

exploiting complementary resources of partners due to their limited resources. 

Analysing ambidexterity in strategic alliances and networks, therefore, often uses the 

micro-foundations perspective to explore antecedents of knowledge, supply chain, and 

governance ambidexterity (Zahoor et al., 2023). By linking founder experience to the 

development of dual network capability, the framework establishes the necessary 

theoretical clarity. 

 

2.9.5 Linking Capability to Internationalisation Speed 

 

The efficacy of Dual Network Capability (DNC) is assessed by its impact on two crucial 

internationalisation outcomes which are International Opportunity Recognition and 

Internationalisation Speed (Faroque et al., 2021). The international opportunity 

recognition is recognised as a central activity in international entrepreneurship, 

underpinned by the notion that opportunities are often network-driven and network 

assisted (Faroque et al., 2021).  

 

Network capabilities influence international opportunity recognition due to the 

identification and development of opportunities require the mobilisation of relevant 

resources both within the focal firm and from external network partners (Faroque et al., 

2021). In recent research, it has been discussed that network exploitation supports 

international opportunity recognition by capitalising on the privileged knowledge 

developed during on-going business relationships, while network exploration is 

necessary to overcome network rigidity and identify opportunities that lie outside 

current network boundaries (Faroque et al., 2021). The effective and simultaneous 

execution of both network capabilities is expected to lead to increased degrees of 

internationalisation in both scale and scope. 

 



39 

 

   

 

However, the effectiveness of dual network capability is strongly context-dependent, 

necessitating the inclusion of contingency factors to understand the true impact of 

ambidexterity (Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2020; Faroque et al., 2021; Hsu et al., 2013; Ruano-

Arcos et al., 2024). The influence of organisational capabilities and performance is 

context specific, and firms must adjust their strategic postures to match the market 

change rate (Faroque et al., 2021). This theoretical effect is grounded in the fact that 

born global firms and other early ventures suffer from the liability of newness and often 

rely heavily on network capability for success (Faroque et al., 2021). 

 

In recent research, Faroque et al (2021) pointed out that to match the change rate of the 

market, adjustments in firms’ strategic postures must be considered. The external 

contingency known as the market change, the market environment defined by its change 

rate and dynamism, has a prevalent influence on organisational behaviour (Faroque et 

al., 2021). While both exploration and exploitation capabilities may contribute new 

opportunities in relatively stable markets, in a highly changing market environment, the 

recipes for capturing international opportunities differ (Faroque et al., 2021). A post-hoc 

analysis confirmed that when market change is high, younger firms benefit more from 

network exploration, while older firms achieve greater success when leveraging benefits 

from network exploitation (Faroque et al., 2021). 

 

This finding emphasises that capabilities must fit environmental conditions to realise 

superior performance abroad (Faroque et al., 2021). For the internal contingency known 

as the firm attributes or top management team (TMT), the framework also considers the 

moderating role of internal factors, specifically the attributes of the Top Management 

Team (TMT) and the Firm Age. Top management team characteristics, such as business 

ties and political ties, are critical in shaping the international dynamic capabilities of 

performance relationship, particularly in emerging markets (Prange & Bruyaka, 2016; 

Bruyaka & Prange, 2020). Executives’ networks are crucial for accumulating external 

resources, mitigating risks, and strengthening risk-taking capacity in foreign operations, 

thereby strengthening the positive effect of dynamic capabilities like international 



40 

 

   

 

ambidexterity on performance (Prange & Bruyaka, 2016; Bruyaka & Prange, 2020; Hsu 

et al., 2013). 

 

2.9.6 Integrated Theoretical Framework 

 

The integrated theoretical framework provides the comprehensive model that addresses 

the research questions and resolves the conceptual ambiguity regarding the relationship 

between contextual ambidexterity and dynamic capabilities. This framework shows that 

contextual ambidexterity is operationalised as a specific dynamic capability, dual 

network capability, whose development is contingent upon micro-foundations and 

whose success is mediated by international opportunity recognition (Pertusa-Ortega et 

al., 2020; Ying Huang & Huei Hsieh, 2013; Faroque et al., 2021; Ren et al., 2020; Prange 

& Bruyaka, 2016; Bruyaka & Prange, 2020).  The framework organises the constructs into 

a clear casual flow across three levels of analysis. 

 

The first level shows that the model begins at the individual level, reflecting the 

consensus that the underlying origins of capabilities must be addressed to open the 

black box of organisational ambidexterity (Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2020). This study 

identifies the founder’s prior experience or top management team human capital as an 

essential micro-foundation for the firm’s dual network capability (Faroque et al., 2021; 

Prange & Bruyaka, 2016; Bruyaka & Prange, 2020). This human capital, comprising 

managerial, industry, and technical experiences, directly facilitates the managerial 

processes and cognitions required to develop organisational ambidexterity (Gerschewski 

et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2021; Deng et al., 2020; Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2020; O’Reilly & 

Tushman, 2013). Focusing on these antecedents ensures the framework avoids the 

tautological problem of asserting that a capability simply influences another capability, 

by instead showing what enables the emergence of that dynamic capability (Ren et al., 

2020; Baia & Ferreira, 2019). 

 



41 

 

   

 

At the second stage, the micro-foundations enable the firm to deploy dual network 

capability, which serves as the organisational mechanism of contextual ambidexterity. To 

engage in ambidextrous learning and resolve exploration and exploitation tensions 

simultaneously, contextual ambidexterity relies on organisational context to encourage 

individuals (Chebbi et al., 2022; Martini et al., 2015; Zahoor et al., 2023; Hsu et al., 2013; 

Ruano-Arcos et al., 2024). Dual Network Capability, defined by its components of 

network exploration capability and network exploitation capability, is classified as a 

dynamic capability essential for born global firms, embodying the exploration or 

exploitation duality necessary for generating innovative and adaptation (Ruano-Arcos et 

al., 2024; Faroque et al., 2021).  

 

At the third level of the outcomes, the framework hypothesises an indirect effect of the 

dynamic capability on final performance, a methodological approach considered the 

most promising in dynamic capability research (Baia & Ferreira, 2019). Dual network 

capability influences performance by first driving international opportunity recognition, 

an organisational ability defined as a dynamic capability to identify opportunities and 

mobilise relevant resources in international markets (Faroque et al., 2021). The 

effectiveness of dynamic capabilities is known to be context-dependent, thus requiring 

the inclusion of both internal and external factors to account for performance 

heterogeneity (Baia & Ferreira, 2019). 



42 

 

   

 

 

 

 

Figure 3 Integrated Theoretical Framework (Adapted from Faroque et al., 2021; Baia & Ferreira, 
2019; and Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). 

 

Furthermore, the dashed lines shown in figure 3 illustrate that the relationships within 

the framework are not static but are influenced by contingencies, such as external 

moderation and internal moderation. The external moderation refers as environmental 

factors such as market change rate significantly affect the capability-outcome link. As 

discussed previously, research shows that the optimal strategy depends on context: at a 

higher level of market change, younger firms benefit more from network exploration, 

while older firms leverage network exploitation (Faroque et al., 2021). Therefore, 

external dynamism dictates how effectively dual network capability translates into 

opportunity recognition (Ruano-Arcos et al., 2024; Baia & Ferreira, 2019).  

 

Internal moderation, here, define internal firm and top management team attributes 

also govern the effectiveness of dual network capability. The characteristics of top 

management team and firm age modify the deployment of capabilities (Baia & Ferreira, 

2019). This ensures that the framework achieves both external and internal fit, providing 

a theoretical basis for explaining observed differences in born global firms performance 

(Baia & Ferreira, 2019). 



43 

 

   

 

3 Methodology 

 

This chapter is dedicated to detailing the methodological approach employed to 

investigate the impact of contextual ambidexterity on the internationalisation speed of 

born global firms. The methodology is structured to provide a rigorous and transparent 

framework for data collection, analysis, and interpretation, ensuring the validity and 

reliability of the research findings. 

 

3.1 Research Design 

 

3.1.1 Research Philosophy and Approach 

 

Given the complex nature of contextual ambidexterity, which requires balancing the 

paradoxical demands of exploration and exploitation, and its implementation through 

individual behaviours (Ren et al., 2020), an interpretative philosophical paradigm is 

adopted (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). This focus allows for an in-depth understanding of 

how managers perceive and enact ambidextrous practices in their specific international 

contexts. 

 

The study uses a qualitative research design employing a multiple case study approach. 

This design is highly appropriate because the relationship between contextual 

ambidexterity and internationalisation speed in born global firms from emerging 

economies is an under-research topic (Ruano-Arcos et al., 2024), often lacking a clear 

definition or measurement consensus (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013; Cao & Jiang, 2022). 

Qualitative methodology, particularly case study research, enables the researcher for in-

depth response and capture the nuances and contextual factors that influence the 

internationalisation process, providing rich insights that quantitative methods may 

overlook. 

 



44 

 

   

 

3.1.2 The Micro-foundational Perspective 

 

The selection of a qualitative case study design is essential for addressing the 

contemporary theoretical obligation to open the black box of organisational 

ambidexterity (Ren et al., 2020; Faroque et al., 2021). Specifically, this study aims to 

investigate the individual-level characteristics that underpin firm capabilities, aligning 

with the focus on micro-foundations (Ying Huang & Huei Hsieh, 2013; Ren et al., 2020). 

Qualitative data collection through in-depth interviews is particularly suited for studying 

how individual actions, characteristics, and managerial cognition aggregate to create 

collective organisational phenomena, such as ambidexterity (Pertusa-Ortega et al., 2020; 

Ren et al., 2020; Ruano-Arcos et al., 2024; Faroque et al., 2021). 

 

3.2 Sample Selection 

 

The selection of case firms utilised purposive sampling to ensure the chosen firms are 

relevant and representative of the phenomenon of born global firm internationalisation, 

allowing for targeted analysis of contextual ambidexterity. 

 

3.2.1 Case Selection Criteria 

 

The firms selected meet the established criteria for born global firms (BGFs), 

characterised by rapid and early internationalisation within the first three years of 

operation. Key selection criteria focused on the followings: 

 

1) Born global firm status which demonstrated significant international activity 

shortly after inception. 

 

2) Industry diversity representing different sectors to broaden the understanding of 

the phenomenon. 



45 

 

   

 

3) Contextual diversity where headquartered in different emerging economy 

contexts to account for institutional and cultural differences, which are critical 

factors shaping ambidexterity. 

 

4) Informant expertise with key informants holds top management positions 

(Founders, CEOs, or Managing Directors) with strategic decision-making 

authority regarding internalisation and capability development. 

 

3.2.2 Case Firms 

 

Based on the criteria above, two born global firms were selected for in-depth qualitative 

analysis. 

 

Firm A 

Company A 

Interviewee A 

Role: Managing Director 

Sector: Manufacturing Industry, Recycled Glass Cullet 

 

Firm B 

Company B 

Interviewee B 

Role: Founder 

Sector: IoT Solutions, ESG focus digitally 

 

The selected interviewees occupy top management positions, one as Managing Director 

and one Founder. Confirming their strategic decision-making authority and in-depth 

knowledge of the firm’s internationalisation history and ambidexterity related activities. 

 



46 

 

   

 

3.3 Data Collection Methods 

 

To ensure data triangulation and enhance the credibility and validity of the research 

findings, multiple data sources were utilised. 

 

3.3.1 Primary Data: Semi-Structured Interview 

 

Data was primarily collected through semi-structured, in-depth interviews with the key 

informants. This method allows for flexibility in exploring emerging avenues of inquiry, 

helping to elaborate on the why and how of complex ambidextrous behaviour. The 

interviews were designed to gain detailed insights across five key areas of exploration 

and exploitation practices, strategic decision making, cultural and regulatory adaptation, 

internationalisation processes, and contextual factors shaping ambidexterity. 

 

All interviews were conducted via phone, online, recorded, and subsequently 

transcribed to facilitate rigorous data analysis. The overall interview duration ranged 

between 45 to 60 minutes. Prior to conducting the interviews, participants were fully 

briefed on the study’s intent, provided informed consent, and were assured of the 

confidentiality and anonymous use of the contents discussed. 

 

3.3.2 Secondary Data 

 

Secondary data sources, including company documents, public reports, and press 

releases, were consulted to enhance data triangulation and support the findings derived 

from the primary interviews. This process helps to situate the firm’s reported strategies 

within a broader contextual framework. 

 

 

 



47 

 

   

 

3.4 Data Analysis Techniques 

 

The qualitative data collected from the interviews and secondary sources were analysed 

using techniques aimed at structuring textual data into meaningful theoretical 

contributions. 

 

3.4.1 Qualitative Analysis Strategy 

 

The data analysis utilises a combination of qualitative data analysis techniques, including 

thematic analysis, within-case analysis, and cross-case analysis. The core analysis relies 

on thematic analysis, a method advocated as highly flexible and appropriate for 

pragmatic research. 

 

This study follows Braun and Clarke (2006) six-phase framework for thematic analysis. 

 

a) Familiarising oneself with the data which involved reviewing interview transcripts 

and organising secondary materials. 

 

b) Generating initial codes, an inductive approach was employed, coding actions, 

interactions, and statements specific to the firms’ behaviours concerning 

exploration and exploitation. 

 

c) Searching for themes, grouping initial codes based on conceptual similarities, 

aiming to move from raw data to theoretical insight. 

 

d) Reviewing themes by refining and checking if the themes adequately reflect the 

data set. 

 

e) Defining and naming themes, systematising the final themes. 

 



48 

 

   

 

f) Producing the report by integrating the finding with the theoretical concepts. 

 

3.4.2 Coding 

 

The process of analysis involved systematically moving from first-order concepts to 

second-order themes and ultimately structuring these into aggregate dimensions. The 

coding and categorisation process utilised thematic matrices to systematically compare 

patterns and themes across the two case studies. 

 

This approach ensures that the findings are grounded directly in the empirical evidence 

provided by the key informants, enhancing the transparency and trustworthiness of the 

research findings. 

 

3.5 Validity, Reliability, and Ethical Considerations 

 

To ensure the quality and trustworthiness of the qualitative findings, several measures 

were employed. 

 

Firstly, data triangulation is employed using multiple data sources, including interviews, 

company reports, and industry publications, to enhance the credibility of the findings. 

Purposive sampling is conducted by sharing the findings with the case study participants 

to ensure accuracy and relevance. Additionally, the qualitative method allows for a 

“deeper, broader, and more descriptive illustration of the phenomenon” (Gerschewski 

et al., 2015), capturing the essential context-dependent nature of dynamic capabilities. 

 

3.5.1 Limitation 

 

It is acknowledged that this study is based on relatively small sample size of two case 

studies. This choice is inherent to the exploratory and qualitative nature of the research, 

which prioritises depth over quantity. However, the small sample may limit the 



49 

 

   

 

generalisability of the findings to a broader population of born global firms. Therefore, 

the results are intended for analytic generalisation, as such theoretical contribution, 

rather than statistical generalisation. 

 

3.5.2 Ethical Compliance 

 

All research was conducted in compliance with ethical guidelines, which included fully 

informing all participants of the study’s purpose and their rights. Participation was 

strictly voluntary, and informed consent was obtained prior to conducting each interview. 

Anonymity and confidentiality were rigorously maintained throughout the data 

collection and analysis stages, ensuring all data is securely stored.  



50 

 

   

 

4 Findings 

 

The primary objective of this chapter is to present the empirical findings gathered 

through in-depth, qualitative interviews, analysing how the two selected born global 

firms operationalise contextual ambidexterity in their rapid international expansion. This 

qualitative analysis employs a multiple-case study approach, which is particularly suited 

for studying the micro-foundations underlying capabilities in underexplored contexts, 

such as born global firms from emerging economies (Chebbi et al., 2022; Faroque et al., 

2021). The ensuing discussion is structured in alignment with the integrated theoretical 

framework, progressing from the antecedents of capability to the core mechanisms of 

ambidexterity, and finally, to the resultant performance outcomes as moderated by 

specific contextual variables. 

 

4.1 Micro-Foundations Underpinning Contextual Capability 

 

Recent literatures stresses that organisational capabilities, including ambidexterity, must 

be understood by scrutinising their origins at the individual or group level, often referred 

to as micro-foundations (Faroque et al., 2021; Chebbi et al., 2022; Pertusa-Ortega et al., 

2020). This approach aims to open the black box of organisational ambidexterity by 

focusing on the behaviours and cognition of the top management team (Chebbi et al., 

2022). The small organisational size and resource constraints typical of born global firms 

mean that the top management team’s strategic choices directly translate into firm-level 

ambidextrous activities (Chebbi et al., 2022). 

 

4.1.1 Top Management Team Human Capital and Managerial Cognition 

 

The case study findings illustrate how the personal orientation, cognition, and 

experience of the key informants, both occupying top decision-making roles, serve as 

critical antecedents of the firm’s dynamic capabilities (Chebbi et al., 2022). The challenge 



51 

 

   

 

of balancing exploration and exploitation is often first discussed at the individual stage 

(Ren et al., 2020). 

 

For Company B, the founder’s role as the single owner and source of capital inherently 

defined the strategic constraints and subsequent management of exploration and 

exploitation. This required an acute level of managerial cognition focused on adaptive 

learning and resource control. The Interviewee B demonstrated a deliberate, 

ambidextrous search strategy for new market knowledge to overcome the liability of 

foreignness, seeking varied perspectives. 

 

This individual-level effort to synthesise local and foreign knowledge directly enabled the 

firm’s ambidextrous opportunity identification, international opportunity recognition 

(Ren et al., 2020). Similarly, the managing director of Company A exercised top 

management team human capital by making strategic resource allocation decisions 

necessary to achieve international compliance, demonstrating how leadership and top 

management processes influence innovation ambidexterity (Interviewee A, personal 

conversation, 2024). 

 

4.2 Contextual Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability 

 

Contextual ambidexterity is recognised as a suitable approach for organisations, 

including born global firms, to successfully manage the dual demands of efficiency and 

innovation (Martini et al., 2015). By integrating contradictory activities within the same 

unit, these firms operationalise contextual ambidexterity as a dynamic capability 

essential for accelerated internationalisation (Chebbi et al., 2022). The findings provide 

strong evidence for the adoption of hybrid ambidexterity, where firms utilise a 

combination of contextual and structural mechanisms to respond to environmental 

turbulence (Ossenbrink & Hoffmann, 2019). 

 



52 

 

   

 

4.2.1 Exploration Practices 

 

Exploration involves sensing new opportunities, developing new knowledge, and 

adapting to novel environments (Schnellbacher et al., 2019). For these born global firms, 

exploration was inextricably linked to overcoming the challenges imposed by foreign 

contexts. 

 

For Company A, exploration was driven by the necessity of institutional adaptation to 

achieve legitimacy in developed markets (Interviewee A, personal conversation, 2024). 

The firm was compelled to engage in resource exploration and re-configuration when 

facing regulatory gaps between the home and host countries. 

 

This forced resource allocation towards external learning demonstrates a critical 

dynamic capability in response to institutional voids. 

 

As for the Company B, exploration manifested as deep product localisation and market 

sensing. The exploration process focused on understanding client behavioural needs and 

market characteristics before adapting the core IoT solutions to fit localised demands. 

 

4.2.2 Exploitation Practices 

 

Exploitation centres on maintaining operational efficiency, refining existing processes, 

and utilising current resources (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). For both firms, exploitation 

strategies were fundamental for achieving the necessary alignment to fund rapid 

expansion. 

 

Company A focused exploitation on leveraging established intangible resources, 

specifically business networks, for rapid and low-cost entry into new markets. The 

managing director affirmed the centrality of efficient resource use in their international 

processes (Interviewee A, personal conversation, 2024). 



53 

 

   

 

Company B’s exploitation was dominated by the strategic decision to operate solely via 

self-funding (Interviewee B, personal conversation, 2025). This financial constraint 

resulted in a necessary reliance on the efficiency of its core technological offering and 

careful management of existing, profitable client relationships, ensuring that core 

capabilities were fully leveraged (Schnellbacher et al., 2019). 

 

4.3 Internationalisation Outcomes and Contextual Influences 

 

The effectiveness of ambidexterity in accelerating international growth and performance 

is not universally linear. However, the relationship is often indirect, relying on achieving 

intermediate outcomes and is heavily moderated by external contextual factors (Baia & 

Ferreira, 2019; Hsu et al., 2013). 

 

4.3.1 Internationalisation Speed and Perceived Performance Outcomes 

 

Both case studies confirmed their status as born global firms characterised by a rapid 

and early international trajectory (Chebbi et al., 2022; Gerschewski et al., 2015). 

Company A explicitly stated that it was “founded on an internationalisation model” 

(Interviewee A, personal conversation, 2024). Contextual ambidexterity, by allowing 

rapid adaptation and efficient leveraging of capabilities, acts as the dynamic mechanism 

enabling this accelerated speed. 

 

Performance was judged by both efficiency and strategic foresight. Interviewee A 

articulated the link between efficiency and accuracy. The profitability of distributing 

goods indicates that the company produced an accurate market estimate. In contrast, 

each of the divisions has their own KPIs, and everything must be synergised for the 

company to confront the global environment (Interviewee A, personal conversation, 

2024). 



54 

 

   

 

The successful application of exploration was seen as directly leading to the desired 

intermediate outcome of deal realisation, demonstrating how ambidexterity precedes 

performance success (Baia & Ferreira, 2019).  

 

4.3.2 Contextual Influence: Culture and Institutional Environment 

 

Operating from emerging economies, these born global firms face unique challenges 

where institutional and cultural environments serve as strong moderators of their 

ambidextrous efforts (Leidi Ruano-Arcos et al., 2024; Zahoor et al., 2023; Hsu et al., 

2013). 

 

The necessity of cultural adaptation profoundly affected the exploration and exploitation 

efforts of Company B, influencing their fundamental sales and relationship building 

practices (Interviewee B, personal conversation, 2025). 

 

This difference in required relationship depth necessitated specific exploration, such as 

friendship building, to secure exploitation, sales, confirming that the alignment or 

adaptability tasks within contextual ambidexterity are contextually shaped (Zahoor et al., 

2023). 

 

Furthermore, institutional instability, such as the currency devaluation experienced by 

the Company A, following political upheaval, forced a redirection of ambidextrous efforts. 

The firm had to shift focus from exploring new markets to prioritising internal efficiency 

(Interviewee A, personal conversation, 2024). This demonstrates that high 

environmental turbulence acts as a strong external factor that dictates the dynamic 

balance between exploration and exploitation (Ossenbrink & Hoffmann, 2019). 

 

 

 



55 

 

   

 

4.4 Synthesis of Cross-Case Findings 

 

The cross-case analysis of Company A and Company B provides a rigorous empirical 

validation of the integrated theoretical framework, specifically illuminating the 

processes through which contextual ambidexterity is enacted in born global firms 

originating from emerging economies. The comparison confirms that contextual 

ambidexterity functions as a crucial dynamic capability that mediates the relationship 

between individual-level antecedents and accelerated international performance, with 

the process being significantly moderated by external contextual factors. 

 

4.4.1 Foundational Micro-Level Factors 

 

The findings strongly support the theoretical focus on micro-foundations, the underlying 

individual and group actions that shape dynamic capabilities (Faroque et al., 2021). As 

small-medium sized enterprises (SMEs), both case firms demonstrated that the 

behaviours and cognition of the top management team exert a highly proximate 

influence on organisational outcomes (Chakman & Dhir, 2021; Ren et al., 2020; Hughes 

et al., 2020). The owner of Company B, operating as the single founder, provides rich 

evidence that managerial cognition and characteristics are essential antecedents, 

directly influencing the firm’s strategic planning and resource allocation in the pursuit of 

ambidexterity (Zahoor et al., 2023; Ren et al., 2020). For instance, the founder’s 

necessary reliance on self-funding dictated a cautious approach to market expansion, 

thereby balancing core capability exploitation with localised knowledge exploration. This 

proves as a key micro-foundation of organisation ambidexterity for literature to study