Steering networked ambidexterity under institutional voids: evidence from Iranian biotechnology SMEs

Authors:
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Purpose: Research on networked ambidexterity still tends to separate structural accounts of alliance networks from micro-foundational accounts of managerial action. This study examines how managers in Iranian biotechnology SMEs sustain exploration and exploitation under institutional voids and how these practices support productive entrepreneurship in a resource-constrained setting. Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative grounded theory design was used. Eighteen in-depth interviews were conducted with senior managers from biotechnology SMEs in Iran, and the material was analyzed iteratively through open, axial and selective coding following Strauss's procedures. Findings: The analysis identifies the core managerial role of the “paradoxical bridge,” through which managers translate between scientific exploration and commercial exploitation. Four steering mechanisms support this role: relational/power governance, pragmatic knowledge governance, situational conflict resolution and proactive network reconfiguration. These mechanisms culminate in six contingent archetypal configurations that sustain ambidexterity and productive entrepreneurship in different ways under institutional constraints. Practical implications: The findings highlight the importance of the bridging role, deliberate network design and context-sensitive steering routines for managers in constrained innovation ecosystems. For policymakers, the study points to the value of strengthening intermediary support, regulatory transparency and coordination mechanisms that enable productive entrepreneurship. Originality/value: The study offers an empirically grounded mechanism-based account of networked ambidexterity in an emerging-economy setting. It shows how cognition is enacted through relational practice, clarifies how institutional voids shape managerial steering and develops a contingent configurational framework rather than a universal model of ambidexterity.

This publication has 96 references indexed in Scilit: