No abstract

Significant ambiguity remains in the literature regarding the conceptualization of organizational ambidexterity. We unpack this construct into one with two dimensions we term the balance dimension of ambidexterity (BD) and the combined dimension of ambidexterity (CD). BD corresponds to a firm's orientation to maintain a close relative balance between exploratory and exploitative activities, whereas CD corresponds to their combined magnitude. We reason that these dimensions are conceptually distinct, and rely on different causal mechanisms to enhance firm performance. We find that over and above their independent effects, concurrent high levels of BD and CD yield synergistic benefits. We also find that BD is more beneficial to resource-constrained firms, whereas CD is more beneficial to firms having greater access to internal and/or external resources. These results indicate that managers in resource-constrained contexts may benefit from a focus on managing trade-offs between exploration and exploitation demands, but for firms that have access to sufficient resources, the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation is both possible and desirable.

We argue that the challenges faced by threshold firms are deeply rooted in governance characteristics (i.e. the incentives, authority and legitimacy) which imbue them with characteristic capabilities, disabilities and path dependencies. Whereas Zahra and Filatotchev (2004) reason the principal problem facing threshold firms relates to organizational learning and knowledge management, we posit resource acquisition and utilization to be equally important. Moreover, we argue governance theory is more able than a knowledge-based perspective to explain the "root causes" of the learning and resource issues faced by threshold firms as well as the complex set of processes involved in their effective management. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004.

This introduction to the special issue considers past and current research on "Social Capital and Entrepreneurship" to develop a schema and an associated research agenda. With the general goal of establishing social capital as a foundational theory of entrepreneurship, we discuss how future research can utilize social capital perspectives across levels of analysis and contexts to explain a wide variety of entrepreneurship phenomena.

No abstract