Método de Swanepoel

Export performance is one of the most highly studied issues in the marketing literature. Firm capabilities are highlighted by many scholars as a means of gaining an advantage to achieve superior export performance (e.g., Hughes et al., 2010; Hortinha, Lages & Lages, 2011; Vorhies, Orr & Bush, 2010). In more recent times organisational ambidexterity and capability complementarity have risen to prominence as mechanism for explaining firm performance differentials. Ambidexterity theory is premised on the notion that by pursuing both the exploitation of existing capabilities and the exploration of new capabilities, firms can enhance their competitiveness and performance (e.g., Cao, Gedajlovic & Zhang, 2009; He & Wong, 2004; Atuahene-Gima & Murray, 2007; Jansen et al., 2012; Lubatkin et al., 2006; Sarkees, Hulland & Prescott, 2010). Complementarity theory explains the super additive values of capabilities when more of any one of capabilities enhances the returns to other capabilities (Milgrom & Roberts, 1995). For this reason, marketing capability and product innovation capability have received attention in complementarity in their contribution to firm’s success (e.g., Atuahene-Gima & Wei, 2011; O’Cass & Ngo, 2011; O’Cass & Sok, 2012). However, little in the exporting

literature focuses on the role of ambidextrous capability and complementary capability in export venture performance, particularly in developing economies. As such, the purpose of this study is to advance the extant literature by examining the ambidexterity and complementarity roles of marketing capability and product innovation capability in achieving export business success. Drawing upon dynamic capability view, this study offers a new perspective regarding empirical investigations on ambidexterity and complementarity in the export domain. In particular, this study provides several important theoretical implications to the export literature, particularly those in developing economies.

First, despite a significant amount of research on the dynamic capability and firm performance, the extant literature has not been attempted to examine the role of dynamic capability in export context. Previous studies have focused on dynamic capabilities in different industry sectors (i.e., high technology industries, services, and multiple industries) (e.g., Danneels, 2008; Zahra et al., 2000; Rothaermel & Hess, 2007; Kale & Singh, 2007; Olson & Hult, 2006); however, most studies have focused on firms operating in domestic domains and in developed economies. While dynamic capability is perceived as a key firm success factor, the contribution of dynamic capability in exporting literature still remains uncleared. As such, this study sought to focus on the role of dynamic capability and its impact on export performance. This study provides support for the central role that dynamic capability theory ascribes to export venture performance and highlights the importance of ambidexterity and complementary capabilities in export markets. These findings are similar to that of Morgan, Kaleka and Katsikeas (2004), in that capabilities appear to determine export venture positional advantages and performance in export markets. Specifically, this study shows that ambidexterity and complementary capabilities are perceived as a vital role of firm export success.

Second, this study contributes to the current literature which has paid less attention to marketing capability and product innovation capability in the context of ambidexterity in the export domain. Significantly, while previous research on ambidexterity has mainly emphasised in the context of developed countries and largely has focused on domestic firms, this study is among the first to examine ambidexterity and attempt to extend the understanding of the role of exploitative and exploratory capability in the areas of marketing and product innovation in improving

export venture performance. The results show that the complementarities between exploitative and exploratory capabilities pertaining to marketing and product innovation are drivers of export venture performance. Given these findings, the results appear to support the literature which generally argues that an essential level of complementary between marketing capability and product innovation capability is necessary for export venture performance (e.g., Moorman & Slotegraaf, 1999; Song, Hanvanich & Calantone, 2005; O’Cass & Ngo, 2011; O’Cass & Sok, 2012). The congruence from these literatures shows that the complementary between marketing capability and product innovation capability enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of an export venture performance. This will assist to address the present unresolved managerial concern focusing on how some firms are better than others at utilising their ambidextrous capability to drive export performance. Therefore, this study advances the extant literature by showing that exploitative and exploratory capability in marketing and product innovation can indeed benefit from pursuing these seemingly contradictory activities in export domain.

Third, this study contributes to the complementarity literature by highlighting the role of cross-function capability complementarity (i.e. marketing and product innovation) in improving export venture performance. While marketing capability and product innovation capability complementarity have received greater attention more recently, most work in this area is outside the export domain. The study extends the understanding of the complementary capability by showing the significant role of complementarity between marketing and product innovation in export context. Specifically, this study advances complementarity theory by suggesting two domains of complementary cross-functional area (i.e., marketing and product innovation capabilities) in export domain which generally shows that a requisite level of ambidexterity between exploitation and exploration capability is necessary for export venture performance (e.g., Hughes et al., 2010; Hortinha, Lages & Lages, 2011; Vorhies, Orr & Bush, 2010). The consensus from this literature shows that ambidexterity between exploitation capability and exploration capability increases the efficiency and effectiveness of an export venture performance.

Finally, turning to the moderation effect of technological innovation capability and management innovation capability, this study extends the understanding of these two process innovation activities in enhancing the ambidexterity and complementary

of marketing capability and product innovation capabilities as drivers of export business success. This study addresses the role of technological innovation capability and management innovation capability in increasing efficiency and effectiveness within the firm. Thus, firms enable to coordinate and control their collaboration within the firms through technology and management system. In this sense, technological innovation capability and management innovation capability play an important role in complementary ambidexterity as a firm internal driven to achieve export venture performance (Damanpour, Walker & Avellaneda, 2009; Birkinshaw, Hamel & Mol, 2008; Song et al., 2005; Bessant et al., 2005). This study offers a new perspective considering the moderation role of technological innovation capability and management innovation capability on the relationship between the complementary of exploitation and exploration of the marketing capability and product innovation capability, and export performance outcomes. Specifically, this study provides a deeper insight for the role of process innovation activities (technological innovation capability and management innovation capability) in supporting marketing and product innovation capabilities in both exploitation and exploration effectively.

Therefore, this study is among the first attempts to address the understanding of the extent that firms enable to exploit technological innovation capability and management innovation capability in enhancing their complementary activities (marketing capability and product innovation capability) more effectively, which contributes to their export venture performance. As such, the findings of this study echo the conceptualisation of process innovation activities (technological innovation capability and management innovation capability) in enhancing the ambidexterity and complementary of marketing capability and product innovation capability as drivers of export business success. Further, the findings of this study extend the theoretical contention of Damanpour, Walker and Avellaneda (2009), Birkinshaw, Hamel and Mol (2008), Song et al. (2005), Bessant et al. (2005) and others by showing that export firms in developing economies can enhance their complementary activities (marketing and product innovation), more effectively by ensuring they also have supporting process innovation activities (technological innovation capability and management innovation capability) in place.