The effect of entrepreneural bricolage on the growth performance of start-ups; the mediating role of market ambidexterity and the moderating role of technological turbulence

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of New Business, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Management, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

10.22059/jed.2025.390671.654492

Abstract

Objective: In the process of growth and development, start-ups often face resource constraints. Overcoming resource scarcity is crucial for the survival and development of this type of business. Entrepreneurs can expand their networks and access more resources by using entrepreneurial bricolage, which allows them to explore entrepreneurial opportunities in a timely manner and increases their chances of survival and development. Also, start-ups usually face new needs and uncertain competition in the market. Therefore, to survive and grow in this complex environment, these businesses must use existing experiences and knowledge on the one hand and seek new opportunities on the other. This means that businesses must be ambidextrous and consider the challenges of technological turbulence. In this regard, the present study was formed with the primary aim of investigating the effect of entrepreneurial bricolage on the growth performance of start-ups, and then the mediating role of market ambidexterity and the moderating role of technological turbulence were examined.

Method: The present study is applied in terms of its purpose and seeks solutions to improve growth performance in the business world, especially in the field of tourism start-ups. This study is defined as a quantitative study by nature. Quantitative studies are usually conducted to measure relationships between variables and analyze numerical data, and this method was used in this study to measure the relationships between entrepreneurial bricolage, growth performance, market ambidexterity, and technological turbulence. Also, this study is a descriptive correlational research in terms of the data collection method. In correlational studies, the inherent goal is to examine the relationship between variables and determine the intensity and direction of the effect. The data collection tool in this study was a standard questionnaire. In order to facilitate access, 420 questionnaires were distributed among managers and experts of tourism start-ups in the cities of Isfahan, Shiraz, and Yazd, and 384 acceptable questionnaires were collected. The questionnaire included questions to measure entrepreneurial bricolage, growth performance, market ambidexterity, and technological turbulence. Data analysis was performed using structural equation modeling with the help of SmartPLS software version 3. This software allows researchers to examine complex relationships between latent and manifest variables.

Results: The results of data analysis confirm the main and secondary hypotheses of the study. The first hypothesis of the study, which examined the effect of entrepreneurial bricolage on the growth performance of new businesses, was significantly confirmed. This finding indicates that entrepreneurial bricolage alone cannot have a sufficient effect on the growth performance of new tourism businesses, but market ambidexterity also plays a role in this regard. In addition to confirming the first hypothesis, the results of statistical analyses also indicate the confirmation of the second hypothesis of the study. This hypothesis examines the effect of entrepreneurial bricolage on market ambidexterity. The third hypothesis examined the effect of market ambidexterity on the growth performance of new tourism businesses, which the results of statistical analyses indicate the confirmation of the third hypothesis of the study. The fourth hypothesis of the study examined the mediating role of market ambidexterity in the relationship between entrepreneurial bricolage and the growth performance of new tourism businesses, which the results of statistical analyses indicate the confirmation of the fourth hypothesis of the study. The fifth, sixth, and seventh hypotheses of the research are about the moderating role of technological turbulence in the relationships between the research variables, and the results of statistical analyses indicate confirmation of this hypothesis and proof of the moderating role of technological turbulence in these relationships.

Conclusion: The results of this research can help tourism start-ups to promote their growth performance by considering entrepreneurial bricolage capabilities, market ambidexterity, and technological turbulence. The use of bricolage allows businesses to exploit emerging opportunities despite having very few resources. With the improvement of entrepreneurial bricolage, the growth performance of tourism start-ups also increases, and this relationship is enhanced by market ambidexterity and technological turbulence. Market ambidexterity serves as a crucial theoretical tool for start-ups to navigate the opportunity paradox of simultaneously satisfying an existing market need and exploring a potential market. On the other hand, active companies face a constantly innovative and uncertain environment. This means that companies will constantly change their competitive strategies in the processes of product creation and production because the competitive boundaries are constantly changing. Technology turbulence is characterized by features such as “short product development cycles and rapid technology obsolescence.” These conditions can create opportunities for companies to gain a competitive advantage by changing or improving their products.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abid, N., Dowling, M., Ceci, F., & Aftab, J. (2023). Does resource bricolage foster SMEs' competitive advantage and financial performance? A resource-based perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3451
Chavez, R., Yu, W., Jacobs, M., Fynes, B., Wiengarten, F., & Lecuna, A. (2015). Internal lean practices and performance: The role of technological turbulence. International Journal of Production Economics, 160, 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.10.005
Afuah, A. (2001). Dynamic boundaries of the firm: Are firms better off being vertically integrated in the face of a technological change? Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1211–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069397
Ali, F., Ciftci, O., Nanu, L., Cobanoglu, C., & Ryu, K. (2021). Response rates in hospitality research: An overview of current practice and suggestions for future research. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965520943094
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329
Barkey, K., & Godart, F. C. (2013). Empires, federated arrangements and kingdoms: Using political models of governance to understand firms' creative performance. Organization Studies, 34(1), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612464754
Bhardwaj, R., Bindra, S., Singh, T., & Sahay, A. (2024). Toward a typology of entrepreneurial bricolage and its capabilities. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 16(6), 1453–1480. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-07-2022-0205
Calza, F., Go, F., & Parmentola, A. (2018). European rural entrepreneur and tourism-based diversification: Does national culture matter? International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(5), 671-683. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2215
Cankurtaran, P., Langerak, F., & Griffin, A. (2013). Consequences of new product development speed: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(3), 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12011
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, (4), 781-796. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0426
Cunha, M. P., Rego, A., Oliveira, P., Rosado, P., & Habib, N. (2014). Product innovation in resource-poor environments: Three research streams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12090
Davidsson, P., Baker, T., & Senyard, J. M. (2017). A measure of entrepreneurial bricolage behavior. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 23(1), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2015-0256
de Ruyter, K., Keeling, D. I., & Yu, T. (2020). Service-sales ambidexterity: Evidence, practice, and opportunities for future research. Journal of Service Research, 23(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670519878880
Dost, M., Lee, M., & Umrani, W. A. (2024). Implementing circular economy through bricolage, frugal innovation, and technological turbulence. Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3200
Fenghai, Z., & Fang, W. (2020). Research on entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial bricolage, and performance of IT new venture. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 179, p. 02074). https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202017902074
Ferreras-Méndez, J. L., Llopis, O., & Alegre, J. (2022). Speeding up new product development through entrepreneurial orientation in SMEs: The moderating role of ambidexterity. Industrial Marketing Management, 102(February), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.01.015
Fu, H., Chen, W., Huang, X., Li, M., & Köseoglu, M. A. (2020). Entrepreneurial bricolage, ambidexterity structure, and new venture growth: Evidence from the hospitality and tourism sector. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 85, 102355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102355
Fultz, A. E., & Baker, T. (2017). The day of small beginnings: bricolage as a source of dynamic capabilities in young firms. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2017, No. 1, p. 14798). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.14798abstract
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00100-2
Guo, Z., Zhang, J., & Gao, L. (2018). It is not a panacea! The conditional effect of bricolage in SME opportunity exploitation. R&D Management, 48(5), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12325
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026
Han, Y., & Xie, L. (2023). Platform network ties and enterprise innovation performance: The role of network bricolage and platform empowerment. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 8(4), 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100416
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
Iqbal, Q., Ahmad, N. H., & Halim, H. A. (2021). Insights on entrepreneurial bricolage and frugal innovation for sustainable performance. Business Strategy & Development, 4(3), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.147
Khan, Z., Amankwah-Amoah, J., Lew, Y. K., Puthusserry, P., & Czinkota, M. C. (2020). Strategic ambidexterity and its performance implications for emerging economies multinationals. International Business Review. ISSN 0969-5931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101762
Kyriakopoulos, K., & Christine, M. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation strategies: The overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 219-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.01.001
Lee, J., & Park, T. (2024). Environmental factors, ambidexterity, and performance in SMEs: Does bricolage matter? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 39(3), 521-536. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2022-0336
Li, W., Sun, K., Feng, Z., & Li, Y. (2024). Exploring the effect of entrepreneurial bricolage and new venture growth. South African Journal of Business Management, 55(1), a4730. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v55i1.4730
March JG (2006) Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic Management J. 27(3):201–214 https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.515
Mehrabi, H., Coviello, N., & Ranaweera, C. (2019). Ambidextrous marketing capabilities and performance: How and when entrepreneurial orientation makes a difference. Industrial Marketing Management, 14, 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.11.014
Meng, M., Lei, J., Jiao, J., & Tao, Q. (2020). How does strategic flexibility affect bricolage: The moderating role of environmental turbulence. PLoS One, 15(8), e0238030. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238030
Nor-Aishah, H., Ahmad, N. H., & Thurasamy, R. (2020). Entrepreneurial leadership and sustainable performance of manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia: The contingent role of entrepreneurial bricolage. Sustainability, 12(8), 3100. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083100
O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2016). Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: A study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(4), 1147-1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0387-6
Pati, R., Ghobadian, A., Nandakumar, M. K., Hitt, M. A., & O’Regan, N. (2021). Entrepreneurial behavior and firm performance: The mediating role of business model novelty. R&D Management, 51(5), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12466
Purnamawati, I. G. A., Yuniarta, G. A., & Puah, C.-H. (2022). Entrepreneurial bricolage and improving the capability of women weaving entrepreneurs. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen, 20(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jam.2022.020.01.05
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
Salawu, S., Mohammed, J., & Abdulsalami, D. (2021). Effect of entrepreneurial attributes on performance of small and medium enterprises in Nigeria Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Journal of Management Sciences, 4, 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12466
Sarkar, S. (2018). Grassroots entrepreneurs and social change at the bottom of the pyramid: The role of bricolage. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 30(3-4), 421–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1413773
Sarwar, Z., Khan, M. A., Yang, Z., Khan, A., Haseeb, M., & Sarwar, A. (2021). An investigation of entrepreneurial SMEs’ network capability and social capital to accomplish innovativeness: A dynamic capability perspective. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211036089
Scuotto, A., Cicellin, M., & Consiglio, S. (2023). Social bricolage and business model innovation: A framework for social entrepreneurship organizations. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 30(2), 234–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-02-2022-0094
Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P., & Davidsson, P. (2014). Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for resource-constrained new firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12091
Sheng, S., Zhou, K. Z., & Li, J. J. (2011). The effects of business and political ties on firm performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.75.1.1
Steffens, P. R., Baker, T., Davidsson, P., & Senyard, J. M. (2022). When is less more? Boundary conditions of effective entrepreneurial bricolage. Journal of Management, 49(4), 1277–1311. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221077210
Su, Z., Yang, J., & Wang, Q. (2020). The effects of top management team heterogeneity and shared vision on entrepreneurial bricolage in new ventures: An attention-based view. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(4), 1262–1275. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.2984628
Tajeddini, K., Gamage, T. C., Tajeddini, O., & Kallmuenzer, A. (2023). How entrepreneurial bricolage drives sustained competitive advantage of tourism and hospitality SMEs: The mediating role of differentiation and risk management. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 111, 103480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103480
Tehseen, S., Kayani, U. N., Haider, S. A., Aysan, A. F., Johara, F., Hossain, S. M., & Khalid, S. (2024). Unpacking the mechanisms of entrepreneurial bricolage for new venture growth: The mediating roles of new venture adaptiveness and innovative ambidexterity. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2316357.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2316357
Turturea, R., Jansen, J., & Verheul, I. (2014). The role of bricolage in triggering exploration and exploitation in small and medium-sized enterprises. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 34(11), 1–15. http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol34/iss11/6
Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2013). Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises: Implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market domains. Organization Science, 24(5), 1459-1477.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0790
Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity, and new product innovation: A comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms. British Journal of Management, 25(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00832.x
Wang, X., Yu, X., & Meng, X. (2021). Entrepreneurial bricolage and new product development performance in new ventures: The contingent effects of founding team involvement. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2020-0485
Wu, L., Liu, H., & Zhang, J. (2017). Bricolage effects on new-product development speed and creativity: The moderating role of technological turbulence. Journal of Business Research, 70, 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.027
Wu, S., Luo, Y., Zhang, H., & Cheng, P. (2024). Entrepreneurial bricolage and entrepreneurial performance: The role of business model innovation and market orientation. Heliyon, 10(4). 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26600
Yan, H., & Sun, Y. (2019). Research on the relationship between dual entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurial bricolage and the growth performance of new enterprises. Journal of Management, 32(3), 41–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202017902074
Yu, X., Li, Y., Su, Z., Tao, Y., Nguyen, B., & Xia, F. (2020). Entrepreneurial bricolage and its effects on new venture growth and adaptiveness in an emerging economy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37(4), 1141–1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-019-09657-1
Zhang, H., Wu, F., & Cui, A. (2015). Balancing market exploration and market exploitation in product innovation: A contingency perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(3), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.03.004
Zhou, D., & Liao, C. (2021). An empirical study on Chinese enterprise effectuation, market ambidexterity, and entrepreneurial performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 85(2), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2021.115270
Zhenduo, Z. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial bricolage and new firm performance: empirical research of a moderating effect model. Management Review, 27(11), 57.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110205
Journal of Entrepreneurship Development
Volume 18, Issue 1
May 2025
Pages 119-143

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics