Keywords

Entrepreneurial Marketing, Organizational Ambidexterity, Exploitation, Exploration, Drink and Food Manufacturing.

Introduction

In today's dynamic and competitive business environment, organizations face the challenge of finding a balance between exploration and exploitation activities in order to achieve sustainable growth and maintain a competitive advantage. This balance is known as organizational ambidexterity, which has become a focal point in management research. Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization's ability to effectively pursue both exploratory activities, such as innovation and adaptation, and exploitative activities, such as efficiency and resource optimization, at the same time (Peng et al., 2019; Chakma et al., 2021; Kassotaki, 2022; Kumkale, 2022). On the other hand, entrepreneurial marketing, a relatively new concept in the marketing field, has garnered significant attention from both researchers and practitioners. Several studies (Guerola-Navarro et al., 2022; Crick et al., 2021; Hidayatullah, et al., 2019; Sarwoko & Nurfarida, 2021; Lopes et al., 2021; Bachmann et al., 2021) have examined this concept. Initially introduced in 1982, entrepreneurial marketing (EM) has been defined by various scholars (Hills & Hultman, 2011; Morris et al., 2002). It involves the development and implementation of innovative marketing strategies and tactics by entrepreneurial firms to achieve sustainable growth and a competitive advantage. However, the impact of entrepreneurial marketing on organizational ambidexterity has not been extensively explored in the existing literature.

The food and beverage manufacturing sector in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) provides a unique context for studying the impact of entrepreneurial marketing on organizational ambidexterity. Entrepreneurial marketing, a relatively new concept in the marketing field, involves the development and implementation of innovative marketing strategies and tactics by entrepreneurial firms to achieve sustainable growth and gain a competitive advantage. While entrepreneurial marketing has garnered attention from researchers and practitioners, its relationship with organizational ambidexterity has not been extensively explored in the literature.

The KRI has experienced significant economic growth and an increase in the number of food and beverage factories, contributing to the overall development of the region. However, the dynamic nature of the industry, with evolving consumer preferences, changing market conditions, and emerging trends, requires an examination of how entrepreneurial marketing practices can help organizations navigate these challenges while maintaining a balance between exploration and exploitation activities. This study aims to contribute to the existing literature by filling the knowledge gap and examining the impact of entrepreneurial marketing on organizational ambidexterity in the food and beverage manufacturing sector in the KRI.

Literature Review

Entrepreneurial Marketing

Concept of entrepreneurial marketing

The concept of entrepreneurial marketing incorporates elements from both the marketing and entrepreneurship fields, although there is no universally accepted definition in the literature (Sadiku-Dushi et al., 2019). IONITA (2012) presents four distinct approaches to defining entrepreneurial marketing, each highlighting different aspects of its nature.

The first approach emphasizes the similarities between marketing and entrepreneurship. One widely recognized definition of entrepreneurial marketing involves the proactive identification and exploitation of opportunities to attract and retain profitable customers through innovative methods of risk management, resource utilization, and value creation (Morris et al., 2002). This definition combines elements of entrepreneurship, such as proactivity, opportunity, risk-taking, and innovation, with marketing elements like customer focus, resource utilization, guerrilla marketing, and value creation.

The second approach, referred to as "Entrepreneurship in marketing" views entrepreneurial marketing as a set of techniques for creating opportunities. This includes customer intimacy-based product development, adaptive resource allocation, and establishing legitimacy for emerging companies and their products (Mort et al., 2012).

The third approach, known as "marketing in entrepreneurship" considers entrepreneurial marketing as both an organizational function and a collection of processes aimed at creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers. It involves effectively managing customer relationships for the benefit of the company and its stakeholders. This approach is characterized by inventiveness, risk-taking, and proactiveness and can be implemented without solely relying on existing resources (Kraus et al., 2010).

The fourth approach combines marketing and entrepreneurship to create something unique and innovative. Several definitions fall under this approach, including one that defines entrepreneurial marketing as a set of value creation, communication, and delivery procedures guided by effective reasoning and applied in highly unpredictable business environments (IONITA, 2012).

Based on a comprehensive analysis and examination of evolving definitions and conceptualizations, this study proposes a new definition of entrepreneurial marketing as the activity and innovative processes of identifying opportunities or unmet needs, allocating resources, and managing risks to create, communicate, and deliver value for customers, partners, and society.

Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Marketing

To examine the impact of entrepreneurial marketing on creating shared value, this study utilized six dimensions identified by Morris et al. (2002): Proactiveness, innovativeness, risk management, opportunity focus, resource leveraging, and customer intensity.

Proactiveness

Proactiveness can be defined as strategic approaches of action implemented by entrepreneurs to anticipate and influence upcoming problems, requirements, needs, changes and environment of an organization. Sambudi (2015) claimed that entrepreneurs use proactiveness as a strategic technique to seize the initiative in seeking entrepreneurial opportunity. Thus, entrepreneurial proactiveness is an opportunistic-driven strategy for launching new goods, services, or tactics to stay ahead of market competition (Uchena et al., 2021).

Opportunity Focus

Opportunity focus in entrepreneurial marketing involves identifying hidden market positions that offer a competitive advantage and sustainable profits. Recognizing and capitalizing on opportunities is critical for the success of SMEs and startup ventures (Chu et al., 2011; Garcia-Cabrera, 2018). Entrepreneurial marketing distinguishes itself from traditional marketing by placing emphasis on opportunity recognition skills and a firm's dedication to pursuing opportunities (Hills et al., 2008).

Innovativeness

Innovativeness refers to the willingness to support creativity and experimentation in introducing new products/services, as well as the pursuit of novelty, technological leadership, and research and development (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). The OECD Oslo Manual (2005) defines innovation as the implementation of novel and significantly improved goods, services, procedures, processes, unique marketing methods, or novel organizational methods in the workplace. Firms' innovativeness involves skilfully leveraging their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to discover new entrepreneurial opportunities (Hacioglu et al., 2012). This highlights that being creative as an entrepreneur involves developing and implementing innovative entrepreneurial methods that can be transformed into new competitive goods or services (Uchena et al., 2021).

Risk Management

Risk and its management are critical concerns in both entrepreneurship and marketing, as they significantly impact the productivity and effectiveness of organizations. Morris et al. (2004) define risk as the potential occurrence of uncertain outcomes when organizations strive to exploit opportunities and allocate substantial resources towards achieving those opportunities. This ambiguity inherent in pursuing opportunities gives rise to risks. Morris et al. (2002) argue that risks manifest in various aspects of organizational decision-making, including the allocation of resources and prioritization of goods, services, and target markets.

Resource Leveraging

Resource leveraging is essential for small and startup businesses with limited resources (Hunt & Madhavaram, 2006; Ostendorf et al., 2014). Large companies also need to practice resource frugality (Eggers et al., 2020). Leveraging resources involves achieving more with less by identifying underutilized resources and making the most of available ones (Morris et al., 2002). It requires knowledge, experience, and talent to employ innovative techniques and access additional resources to accomplish goals (Collinson & Shaw, 2001).

Customer Intensity

Entrepreneurial marketing emphasizes a creative approach to attracting, retaining, and growing customers (Morris et al., 2002). It fosters a passion for customers and highlights the company's values (Hisrich & Ramadani, 2017). Customer intensity, as a dimension of entrepreneurial marketing, plays a crucial role in establishing and maintaining customer relationships (Hills et al., 2012). Customer orientation is considered a fundamental aspect of marketing, and customer-focused employees are indicators of quality for firms (Jones & Rowley, 2011). Customer satisfaction contributes to customer loyalty, trust, and long-term success (Voigt et al., 2010).

Concept of Organizational Ambidextrously

The term "ambidextrous" has its roots in Latin, where "ambi-" means "both" and "dexter" means "right" or "favorable". In English, being ambidextrous refers to the ability to use both hands, the right and left, equally well simultaneously (Maier, 2015). The concept of organizational ambidexterity was introduced by Duncan in 1976, who defined it as the organization's capability to effectively cope with current business demands (exploitation) while also adapting to changes in the business environment (exploration) (Duncan, 1976).

The concept of organizational ambidexterity is closely associated with the notions of exploitation and exploration. Professor James March was the first to unite these two concepts under the framework of ambidexterity in 1991. March emphasized the need for organizations to allocate resources effectively to two distinct types of activities that require different approaches (March, 1991; Devins & Kahr, 2010). Similarly, Tushman and O'Reilly (1996) defined ambidexterity as the ability to pursue both incremental and discontinuous innovations and change simultaneously (Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). Scholars studying organizational ambidexterity consistently highlight the importance of combining both exploitation and exploration in organizational practices (Devins & Kahr, 2010).

Dimensions of Organizational Ambidexterity

This study focuses on the two primary dimensions of organizational ambidexterity: exploitation and exploration, which are widely recognized by numerous researchers (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Simsek, 2009; Bierly et al., 2009; Donate & Guadamillas, 2011; O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2013; Wei et al., 2014; Guisado-Gonzalez et al., 2017; Caniels et al., 2017; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2017; Severgnini et al., 2018; Husien et al., 2020; Guerra, & Camargo, 2021; Katou, 2021; Darawsha et al., 2022; Shlaka & Jassem, 2022). Although there are various dimensions of organizational ambidexterity based on different objectives and philosophies, this study specifically focuses on exploitation and exploration as the most commonly utilized dimensions.

Exploitation

The exploitation dimension refers to the organizational function that enables effective use and dissemination of available resources, particularly knowledge, in order to promote the organization's existence (March, 1991; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2008). Exploitation, as previously mentioned, refers to an organization's ability to align and effectively address current business demands (Maier, 2015). It is based on the idea that the organization is fully aware of its internal capabilities and external opportunities. Organizations emphasizing exploitation focus on their current tasks, business model, near-term objectives, and maintaining their market position (Gozen, 2018).

Exploitation activities, also known as incremental innovations, seek to implement and encourage change in order to achieve continuous improvement. This can involve qualitative improvements in existing products, process improvements, entering new markets for current goods, or finding new sources for raw materials (Soares, dos Reis, da Cunha, and Neto, 2018). Organizations with a high level of exploitation are able to gain efficiency in selecting, implementing, and enhancing operations and procedures (March, 1991).

For a company to thrive, exploitation actions are crucial as they allow the organization to continuously develop, improve operations and products, and work more efficiently (O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2004). However, organizations that solely focuses on exploitation face the challenge of being unable to adapt to environmental changes, as seen with companies like Blackberry and Nokia in the emergence of the smartphone market (Soares et al., 2018).

In a brief, organizations focused on exploitation activities make progressive advancements in existing goods or processes to enhance the company's value. This leads to improved efficiency, technical effectiveness, accuracy, and quality of goods, while reducing costs or increasing profit margins (Soares et al., 2018).

Exploration

The exploration dimension refers to the activities of innovation that go beyond an organization's core competencies. This includes the exploration of new technologies or markets. According to Maier (2015), exploration involves research, investigation, and innovation of new technologies within an organization. It allows the business to grow domestically and internationally and make investments for the future, as mentioned by March (1991) and O'Reilly and Tushman (2008). Exploration actions are crucial for organizational development as they lead to significant technological advancements and changes in products, services, and processes (Tushman & O'Reilly III, 2004). These actions involve search, research, study, survey, experimentation, observation, discovery, entrepreneurship, and prospecting for new knowledge from both internal and external environments. The outcomes of exploration actions are new or different products, services, or processes that are not yet available in the market (Maier, 2015).

It is important to note that the strategies implemented by organizations tend to direct them towards a particular type of innovation. However, some organizations with advanced administration models are capable of balancing and coordinating exploitation and exploration actions. These organizations are known as organizational ambidexterity (Soares et al., 2018).

The allocation of resources plays a crucial role in effectively managing exploitation and exploration activities. If too many resources are diverted to exploratory activities, the speed of exploitation activities may be slowed down, leading to increased service costs. Conversely, a strong focus on exploitation may hinder the organization's awareness of new opportunities and lead to a stagnant routine. By engaging in exploration activities, organizations can foster the development of new knowledge, prioritize innovation, and create an environment conducive to long-term performance and sustainability (Raisch et al., 2009; Lin & McDonough, 2011). While immediate results may not be obtained, effectively managing exploration and exploitation contributes positively to an organization's overall success.

The concept of the exploitation dimension revolves around production, efficiency, and utilization, while the concept of exploration is centred on innovation, investigation of new prospects, and change (March, 1991). It is crucial for organizations to effectively manage both dimensions simultaneously (Chaharmahali & Siadat, 2010). This ability to balance and coordinate exploitation and exploration is what enables organizational ambidexterity.

The impact of Entrepreneurial marketing on organizational ambidexterity

The relationship between entrepreneurial marketing and organizational ambidexterity is an underexplored area in the literature. However, a study by Kowalik and Ple?niak (2022) titled "Marketing determinants of innovation ambidexterity in small and medium?sized manufacturers" sheds light on this topic. The study focused on SMEs in the post-transition Polish market and identified marketing factors that influence innovation ambidexterity. The findings highlighted the importance of market sensing, opportunity focus, proactive orientation, and adaptation strategy for enhancing innovation ambidexterity in manufacturing SMEs operating in B2B markets.

In a recent study by Kowalik and Plesniak (2022), the authors explored the marketing factors that influence ambidextrous innovation in SMEs. The findings indicated that aspects of entrepreneurial marketing, such as systematic market sensing, a focus on market possibilities, and product adaptability, strongly influence the engagement of small and medium-sized businesses in the exploration and exploitation of new products. The study recommended that entrepreneurial marketing should accompany innovation ambidexterity, and it highlighted the importance of including workers in the sensing process and focusing on market prospects to stimulate exploratory and exploitation-focused innovations.

Song and Jing (2017) claimed that two components of entrepreneurship are crucial for organizational success and growth. The first component involves activities related to exploring and discovering new goods, services, markets, and raw materials, while the second component encompasses techniques and actions that satisfy market needs or address market gaps. These exploratory and exploitation activities align wi"th the concepts of exploration and exploitation in organizational ambidexterity theory, thus establishing a link between entrepreneurship activities and organizational ambidexterity.

Furthermore, in organizational ambidexterity theory, exploitation aims to improve current business lines, competitiveness, and capability, which aligns with the concept of market orientation. Market orientation emphasizes focusing on consumers and the market, meeting current and future customer needs through innovation and improvement, and aligning marketing efforts with long-term profit objectives. This alignment between market orientation and organizational ambidexterity's connection with exploitation highlights the relationship between the two concepts (Kyriakopoulos & Moorman 2004; Panigyrakis & Theodoridis 2007).

The link between entrepreneurial marketing and organizational ambidexterity can be further explored through their dimensions. The dimensions of entrepreneurial marketing, including proactiveness, innovativeness, risk management, opportunity focus, resource leveraging, and customer intensity, can influence organizational ambidexterity. Tuan (2016) argued that proactiveness, innovativeness, and risk management in a company's activities indicate active engagement in ambidextrous operations to seize market opportunities and respond to external challenges. Proactiveness contributes to the company's capacity for exploitation and exploration, fostering exploratory, radical innovation. Risk management, including mitigation and perception, can serve as explanatory elements for ambidextrous positioning, enabling the allocation of resources between exploitation and exploration based on risk considerations.

The dimensions of innovation, proactiveness, and risk-taking, which are connected to the concept of exploration in organizational ambidexterity theory, are aspects of entrepreneurial orientation that actively pursue market opportunities despite risks (Song and Jing 2017). Innovativeness supports novelty and the development of new ideas, experimentation, and processes, while risk-taking involves investing resources in potential ventures despite potential failure or uncertain success. These dimensions naturally align with the exploration aspect of organizational ambidexterity (Lumpkin & Dess 1996; Wiklund & Shepherd 2005; March 1991).

Moreover, other dimensions of entrepreneurial marketing, such as opportunity focus, resource leveraging, and customer intensity, also impact organizational ambidexterity. Opportunity focus plays a crucial role in identifying market niches and encouraging various forms of innovation. Resource leveraging influences organizational ambidexterity and can be influenced by it as well. Resource availability positively affects exploitation capacity, which, in turn, positively influences exploration capacity and ultimately enhances resource availability. Customer responsiveness, as a feature of customer intensity, encourages innovative exploitation by adapting to changing customer requirements (Kowalik & Ple?niak 2022; Gayed & El Ebrashi 2022).

Research Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

This study developed a conceptual framework (Figure 1) and hypotheses based on a literature review. Based on the conceptual research framework, a number of hypotheses will be tested.

First Main Hypothesis: Entrepreneurial marketing (EM) will positively influence Organizational Ambidexterity (OA) in food and drink industry in KRI (Table 1).

Table 1 Sub Hypotheses of Second Main Hypotheses
H1a	There is a positive and significant influence of Proactiveness (PR) dimension on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA).
H1b	There is a positive and significant influence of Opportunity Focus (OF) dimension on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA).
H1c	There is a positive and significant influence of Innovativeness (IN) dimension on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA).
H1d	There is a positive and significant influence of Risk Management (RM) dimension on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA).
H1e	There is a positive and significant influence of Resource Leveraging (RL) dimension on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA).
H1f	There is a positive and significant influence of Customer Intensity (CI) dimension on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA).
H1g	Entrepreneurial marketing (EM) will positively impact exploitation (EXT).
H1h	Proactiveness (PR) will positively influence exploitation (EXT).
H1i	Opportunity Focus (OF) will positively influence exploitation (EXT).
H1j	Innovativeness (IN) will positively influence exploitation (EXT).
H1k	Risk Management (RM) will positively influence exploitation v
H1l	Resource Leveraging (RL) will positively influence exploitation (EXT).
H1m	Customer Intensity (CI) will positively influence exploitation (EXT).
H1n	Entrepreneurial marketing (EM) will positively impact Exploration (EXR).
H1o	Proactiveness (PR) will positively influence Exploration (EXR).
H1p	Opportunity Focus (OF) will positively influence Exploration (EXR).
H1q	Innovativeness (IN) will positively influence Exploration (EXR).
H1r	Risk Management (RM) will positively influence Exploration (EXR)
H1s	Resource Leveraging (RL) will positively influence Exploration (EXR).
H1t	Customer Intensity (CI) will positively influence Exploration (EXR).

Research Method

The present study adopts a deductive approach and employs a quantitative methodology to investigate the impact of organizational ambidexterity on creating shared value in the food and beverage sector of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). Data gathering involved the distribution of a questionnaire form to owners and top managers of factories, which was made available in three languages: Kurdish, Arabic, and English. Entrepreneurial marketing was measured through six latent variables (Becherer et al., 2012; Eggers et al., 2020): proactiveness (four indicators), opportunity focus (four indicators), innovativeness (five indicators), risk management (five indicators), resource leveraging (four indicators) and Customer intensity (four indicators). Organizational ambidexterity was measured using two latent variables: Exploration (six indicators) and Exploitation (six indicators). The initial questionnaire form was validated on 38 respondents from food and drink factories and corrected item-total correlations showed construct validity of the indicators used in the scale. Cronbach’s alpha statistics have also shown a reliable scale.

This study is concerned with food and drinking manufacturing in KRI. In order to obtain accurate data on the exact number of food and beverage factories in Kurdistan which will be the Total Population Sampling for this study, the researcher contacted the Ministry of Statistics and Planning and visited the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. In the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, researcher interviewed the general director of Companies Registration in Kurdistan. Finally, the researcher found out that the most appropriate and best source to determine the number of factories in Kurdistan is a list of factory names which currently is available on the website of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Therefore, the sampling size for this study is a list of food and drinking factories registered in (https://gov.krd/) databases which sells products to retail businesses. According to GOV.KRD (2023), there were 189, 71 and 68 drink and food factories which sell their products to retailers in Erbil, Suleimani and Duhok respectively. In addition, this study decided to contact the owner-managers and directors of factories due to the fact that they have considerable influence over the commercial operations of their factories and access to all of its resources.

Researcher attempted to approach all of the 328 chosen factories from 10/7/2022 until 15/12/2022 to participate them in the questionnaire. It was tried to distribute the questionnaire to them via interviewing them and sending them by email. Therefore, in Erbil, 97 respondents from 97 factories availed themselves for this current study. In Sulymani, 50 respondents from 50 factories consented. In Duhok, 54 participants availed themselves for this current study. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used for data analysis using AMOS.

Data Finding and Analyse

Analysing the Impact of Entrepreneurial Marketing (CRSV) on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA)

The first main hypothesis states that there is a positive and significant influence of Entrepreneurial Marketing on Organizational Ambidexterity. Figure 2 shows that there is a positive and significant influence of Entrepreneurial Marketing variable on Organizational Ambidexterity. The model is fully consistent with the Goodness of Fit Index. The indicators extracted for this model were as follows: CMIN/DF value (2.066), RMSEA value (0.073), level of significance (0.000), the value of (Chi-square) calculated is (1355.594), which is greater than its tabular value of (124.342).

As well, the value of the Standardized Regression Weight (S.R.W.) is (0.860), and this means that the Organizational Ambidexterity variable will increase by (86.0%) if interest in Entrepreneurial Marketing variable increases by one unit at the level of the study sample. As shown in figure 3, the value of the Squared Multiple Correlations (R²) amounted to (.740), and this means that the Entrepreneurial Marketing variable is able to explain (74.0%) of the changes that occur in achieving Organizational Ambidexterity variable. This value is considered significant, because the value of the Critical Ratio (C.R) shown in Table 2 of (5.141) is a significant value at the level of significance (0.000) shown in the same table. As a result, the first main hypothesis accepted that states there is a positive and significant influence of Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) variable on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA) variable.

Table 2 Paths and Parameters Influence of Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) Variable on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA) Variable
Paths			R2	S.R.W.	S.E.	C.R.	P
EM	--->	OA.	0.740	0.860	0.138	5.141	0.000

Furthermore, Figure 3 shows the outcomes of influence of Entrepreneurial Marketing dimensions through: Proactiveness (PR) Opportunity Focus (OF) Innovativeness (IN) Risk Management (RM) Resource Leveraging (RL), and Customer Intensity (CI) on Organizational Ambidexterity. The model is fully consistent with the Goodness of Fit Index. The indicators extracted for this model were as follows: CMIN/DF value (2.631), RMSEA value (0.078), level of significance (0.000), the value of (Chi-square) calculated is (1728.327), which is greater than its tabular value of (124.342).

The value of the Standardized Regression Weight (S.R.W.) are (.145), (.428), (.141), (.133), (.325), and (.547). It means that the Organizational Ambidexterity variable will increase by (14.5%), (42.8%), (14.1%), (13.3%), (32.5%), and (54.7%) respectively if interest in Entrepreneurial Marketing dimensions increases by one unit at the level of the study sample.

Some of these values considered significant at the level of significant (0.01). For instance, Opportunity Focus (OF), Resource Leveraging (RL) and Customer Intensity (CI) because their value of the Critical Ratio (C.R.) as shown in table 3 are (3.078), (2.770) and (3.759) these values are significant value at the level of significance (0.002), (0.006) and (0.000) shown in the same table since they are greater than (2.56).

Table 3 Table Paths and Parameters Influence of Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) Dimensions on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA) Variable
Paths			S.R.W.	S.E.	C.R.	P
PR	--->	OA	0.145	0.059	1.587	0.113
OF	--->	OA	0.428	0.098	3.078	0.002
IN	--->	OA	0.141	0.049	1.632	0.103
RM	--->	OA	0.133	0.042	1.508	0.132
RL	--->	OA	0.325	0.063	2.770	0.006
CI	--->	OA	0.547	0.072	3.759	0.000

However, some others of these values considered not significant at the level of significant (0.01) or (0.05). Such as, Proactiveness (PR), Innovativeness (IN) and Risk Management (RM) because their value of the Critical Ratio (C.R) as shown in Table 3 are (1.587), (1.632) and (1.508) these values are not significant values as shown in the same table since they are less than (1.96) and (2.56). Besides, the P values reached (.113), (.103), (.132) which they are considered not significant at the level of significant (0.01) or (0.05).

Figure 4 shows that there is a positive and significant influence of Entrepreneurial Marketing variable on Exploitation (EXT). The model is fully consistent with the Goodness of Fit Index. The indicators extracted for this model were as follows: CMIN/DF value (2.070), RMSEA value (0.073), level of significance (0.000), the value of (Chi-square) calculated is (945.828), which is greater than its tabular value of (124.342).

Furthermore, Figure 5 shows the outcomes of influence of Entrepreneurial Marketing dimensions through: Proactiveness (PR) Opportunity Focus (OF) Innovativeness (IN) Risk Management (RM) Resource Leveraging (RL), and Customer Intensity (CI) on Exploitation (EXT) dimension. The model is fully consistent with the Goodness of Fit Index. The indicators extracted for this model were as follows: CMIN/DF value (2.867), RMSEA value (0.077), level of significance (0.000), the value of (Chi-square) calculated is (1313.195), which is greater than its tabular value of (124.342).

The Standardized Regression Weight (S.R.W.) values in the study indicate the impact of increasing interest in Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) dimensions on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA). Significant effects were observed for certain EM dimensions: Opportunity Focus (OF), Risk Management (RM), Customer Intensity (CI), and Resource Leveraging (RL). The S.R.W. values showed that OA would increase by 42.8%, 14.1%, 13.3%, and 32.5% respectively when the corresponding EM dimensions increased by one unit. However, Proactiveness (PR) and Innovativeness (IN) did not demonstrate significant effects on OA, as their Critical Ratio (C.R.) values were not above the threshold for significance. The P-values for PR and IN were .848 and .131, respectively, indicating their lack of significance at the chosen levels (0.01 or 0.05) as shown in table 4. These findings suggest that certain dimensions of EM, such as Opportunity Focus, Risk Management, Customer Intensity, and Resource Leveraging, have a significant positive impact on OA in the studied context, while Proactiveness and Innovativeness do not show significant effects.

Table 4 Paths and Parameters Influence of Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) Dimensions on Exploitation (EXT)
Paths			S.R.W.	S.E.	C.R.	P
PR	--->	EXT	-0.016	0.058	-0.191	0.848
OF	--->	EXT	0.306	0.090	2.568	0.010
IN	--->	EXT	0.130	0.053	1.511	0.131
RM	--->	EXT	0.377	0.063	3.206	0.001
RL	--->	EXT	0.254	0.063	2.358	0.018
CI	--->	EXT	0.371	0.062	3.147	0.002

Furthermore, figure 6 shows the outcomes of influence of Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) dimensions through: Proactiveness (PR) Opportunity Focus (OF) Innovativeness (IN) Risk Management (RM) Resource Leveraging (RL), and Customer Intensity (CI) on Exploration (EXR) dimension. The model is fully consistent with the Goodness of Fit Index. The indicators extracted for this model were as follows: CMIN/DF value (2.744), RMSEA value (0.079), level of significance (0.000), the value of (Chi-square) calculated is (1256.752), which is greater than its tabular value of (124.342).

The Standardized Regression Weights (S.R.W.) for the Organizational Ambidexterity (OA) variable in relation to the dimensions of Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) is as follows: 0.219, 0.363, 0.107, -0.077, 0.269, and 0.371495. These values indicate that an increase of one unit in interest in the EM dimensions will result in a respective increase of 21.9%, 36.3%, 10.7%, -7.7%, 26.9%, and 49.5% in the OA variable for the study sample. Some of these values hold significance at the 0.01 level. Specifically, Opportunity Focus (OF), Resource Leveraging (RL), and Customer Intensity (CI) exhibit Critical Ratio (C.R.) values of 3.221, 2.711, and 4.357, respectively, as shown in (Appendix 1). These values are significant at the 0.001, 0.007, and 0.000 levels, respectively, as they exceed the threshold of 2.56. Similarly, at the 0.05 level, Proactiveness (PR) shows a Critical Ratio (C.R.) value of 2.407, as shown in the same table. This value is significant at the 0.016 level, as it surpasses the threshold of 1.96.

However, some values do not hold significance at the 0.01 or 0.05 levels. These include Innovativeness (IN) and Risk Management (RM), with Critical Ratio (C.R.) values of 1.359 and -0.952, respectively, as shown in the same table. These values are not significant, as they are below the thresholds of 1.96 and 2.56. Furthermore, their corresponding P values are 0.174 and 0.341, also indicating a lack of significance at the 0.01 or 0.05 levels.

Consequently, Table 5 and Table 6 shows the results of sub-hypotheses derived from first main hypothesis

Table 5 Results of Sub-Hypotheses Derived from Six Main Hypothesis
H1a	There is a positive and significant influence of Proactiveness (PR) dimension on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA).	Reject
H1b	There is a positive and significant influence of Opportunity Focus (OF) dimension on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA).	Accept
H1c	There is a positive and significant influence of Innovativeness (IN) dimension on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA).	Reject
H1d	There is a positive and significant influence of Risk Management (RM) dimension on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA).	Reject
H1e	There is a positive and significant influence of Resource Leveraging (RL) dimension on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA).	Accept
H1f	There is a positive and significant influence of Customer Intensity (CI) dimension on Organizational Ambidexterity (OA).	Accept
H1g	Entrepreneurial marketing (EM) will positively impact exploitation (EXT).	Accept
H1h	Proactiveness (PR) will positively influence exploitation (EXT).	Reject
H1i	Opportunity Focus (OF) will positively influence exploitation (EXT).	Accept
H1j	Innovativeness (IN) will positively influence exploitation (EXT).	Reject
H1k	Risk Management (RM) will positively influence exploitation v	Accept
H1l	Resource Leveraging (RL) will positively influence exploitation (EXT).	Accept
H1m	Customer Intensity (CI) will positively influence exploitation (EXT).	Accept
H1n	Entrepreneurial marketing (EM) will positively impact Exploration (EXR).	Accept
H1o	Proactiveness (PR) will positively influence Exploration (EXR).	Accept
H1p	Opportunity Focus (OF) will positively influence Exploration (EXR).	Accept
H1q	Innovativeness (IN) will positively influence Exploration (EXR).	Reject
H1r	Risk Management (RM) will positively influence Exploration (EXR)	Reject
H1s	Resource Leveraging (RL) will positively influence Exploration (EXR).	Accept
H1t	Customer Intensity (CI) will positively influence Exploration (EXR).	Accept

Table 6 Paths and Parameters Influence of Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) Dimensions on Exploration (EXR)
Paths			S.R.W.	S.E.	C.R.	P
PR	--->	EXR	0.219	0.080	2.407	0.016
OF	--->	EXR	0.363	0.106	3.221	0.001
IN	--->	EXR	0.107	0.059	1.359	0.174
RM	--->	EXR	-0.077	0.051	-0.952	0.341
RL	--->	EXR	0.269	0.070	2.711	0.007
CI	--->	EXR	0.495	0.077	4.357	0.000

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study aimed to examine the impact of entrepreneurial marketing on organizational ambidexterity in the context of the food and beverage manufacturing sector in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). Through a quantitative research approach and a questionnaire-based survey, data were collected from top managers and owners of food and beverage factories in the region. The findings of this study shed light on the relationship between entrepreneurial marketing practices and organizational ambidexterity, providing valuable insights for both academia and industry.

The results of this study indicate that entrepreneurial marketing plays a significant role in facilitating organizational ambidexterity in the food and beverage manufacturing sector of the KRI. By actively engaging in innovative marketing strategies and tactics, organizations can effectively balance exploration and exploitation activities. This balance allows them to adapt to changing market conditions, seize new opportunities, and optimize their existing resources, leading to sustainable growth and a competitive advantage. The study revealed that entrepreneurial marketing practices such as proactiveness, opportunity focus, innovativeness, risk management, resource leveraging, and customer intensity positively contribute to organizational ambidexterity. These practices empower organizations to continuously explore new avenues, experiment with novel approaches, and adapt to emerging trends while simultaneously leveraging their existing resources and optimizing operational efficiency.

The findings of this study hold several theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, this research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on the intersection of entrepreneurial marketing and organizational ambidexterity. It provides empirical evidence that supports the understanding of how entrepreneurial marketing practices can foster organizational ambidexterity, particularly in the food and beverage manufacturing sector of the KRI. Practically, the insights derived from this study offer valuable guidance for managers and owners in the food and beverage industry of the KRI. Implementing entrepreneurial marketing strategies can help organizations in the KRI's food and beverage sector achieve sustainable growth, maintain a competitive edge, and contribute to the economic development of the region.

Based on these findings, several recommendations can be made to guide managers and owner of the factories in the food and drink industry in the KRI. First, encouraging a culture that values and promotes innovation within the organization. Create an environment that supports experimentation, encourages new ideas, and rewards entrepreneurial thinking. Second, promote a learning culture within the organization by providing opportunities for employees to acquire new knowledge, skills, and competencies. Offer training programs, workshops, and seminars that focus on entrepreneurial marketing, innovation management, and ambidextrous organizational practices. By investing in continuous learning and development, organizations can enhance their capabilities in entrepreneurial marketing and organizational ambidexterity. Third, Promote collaboration and teamwork among various departments and functions in food and beverage manufacturing organizations. Encourage cross-functional teams to collaborate on innovation projects, leveraging their diverse perspectives and expertise. This collaborative approach will enhance the integration of exploration and exploitation activities, ultimately improving organizational ambidexterity. Fourth, it is crucial to prioritize market sensing and comprehending customer needs and preferences. Allocate resources towards market research and customer insights to detect upcoming trends, predict shifts in consumer demands, and uncover fresh market possibilities. By adopting this customer-centric approach, organizations can align their entrepreneurial marketing endeavors with the ever-changing market requirements.

References

Bachmann, J.T., Ohlies, I., & Flatten, T. (2021). Effects of entrepreneurial marketing on new ventures' exploitative and exploratory innovation: The moderating role of competitive intensity and firm size. Industrial Marketing Management, 92, 87-100.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Becherer, R.C., Helms, M.M., & McDonald, J.P. (2012). The effect of entrepreneurial marketing on outcome goals in SMEs. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 7-18.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bierly, P.E., Damanpour, F. & Santoro, M.D. (2009). The application of external knowledge: organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 481-509.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Caniëls, M.C., Caniëls, M.C., Neghina, C., & Schaetsaert, N. (2017). Ambidexterity of employees: the role of empowerment and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1098-1119.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Chakma, R., Paul, J., & Dhir, S. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Chu, H. M., Kara, O., Zhu, X., & Gok, K. (2011). Chinese entrepreneurs. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 84-111.

Collinson, E., & Shaw, E. (2001). Entrepreneurial marketing–a historical perspective on development and practice. Management decision.

Crick, J. M., Karami, M., & Crick, D. (2021). The impact of the interaction between an entrepreneurial marketing orientation and coopetition on business performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(6), 1423-1447.

Darawsha, N., Tamara, A.D., Harahsheh, A.A., Al-Zoubi, Z.H., & Rana, M. (2022). The Degree of Practicing Spiritual Leadership Among Academic Leaders in Jordanian Universities and Its Relationship to Organizational Ambidexterity. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(2), 3964-3980.

Google Scholar

de Almeida Guerra, R.M., & Camargo, M.E. (2021). Understanding the logic of organizational ambidexterity. Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração, 15(1), 90-106.

Google Scholar

Devins, G. & Kähr, C.N. (2010). Structuring ambidextrous organizations: Exploitation and exploration as a key for long-term success. In More than bricks in the wall: Organizational perspectives for sustainable success, 60-67.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Donate, M.J. & Guadamillas, F. (2011). Organizational factors to support knowledge management and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 159(6), 890-914.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The management of organization, 1(1), 167-188.

Google Scholar

Eggers, F., Niemand, T., Kraus, S., & Breier, M. (2020). Developing a scale for entrepreneurial marketing: Revealing its inner frame and prediction of performance. Journal of Business Research, 113, 72-82.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Garcia-Cabrera, A.M., Garcia-Soto, M.G., & Dias-Furtado, J. (2018). The individual's perception of institutional environments and entrepreneurial motivation in developing economies: Evidence from Cape Verde. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 27(1), 1-18.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Gayed, S., & El Ebrashi, R. (2022). Fostering firm resilience through organizational ambidexterity capability and resource availability: amid the COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, (ahead-of-print).

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

GOV.KRD, (2023). List of factories established in the Kurdistan Region. Publication of GOV.KRD.

Gözen, A. (2018). The relationship between organizational ambidexterity and family business performance. International Journal of Commerce and Finance, 4(2), 94-107.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Guerola-Navarro, V., Gil-Gomez, H., Oltra-Badenes, R., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2022). Customer relationship management and its impact on entrepreneurial marketing: A literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1-41.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Guisado-González, M., González-Blanco, J. and Coca-Pérez, J.L. (2017). Analyzing the relationship between exploration, exploitation and organizational innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1142-1162.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hacioglu, G., Eren, S. S., Eren, M. S., & Celikkan, H. (2012). The effect of entrepreneurial marketing on firms’ innovative performance in Turkish SMEs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 871-878.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hidayatullah, S., Firdiansjah, A., Patalo, R. G., & Waris, A. (2019). The effect of entrepreneurial marketing and competitive advantage on marketing performance. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 8(1), 297-1301.

Google Scholar

Hills, G. E., Hultman, C. M., & Miles, M. P. (2008). The evolution and development of entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of small business management, 46(1), 99-112.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hills, G. (2012). Entrepreneurial Marketing for Your Business? InterBusiness Issues [Online]. Retrieved 3 August 2021, from http://www.peoriamagazines.com/ibi/2012/feb/entrepreneurial-marketing-your-business.

Hisrich, R., & Ramadani, V. (2017). Effective Entrepreneurial Management. New York: Springer.

Hult, G. T. M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). Does market orientation matter?:a test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 899–906.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hunt, S. D., & Madhavaram, S. (2006). The service-dominant logic of marketing. The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions.

Cross Ref

Husien, W. A., ALhamdany, S. N., & Kataa, I. A. (2020). The Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity in the Relationship between Business Intelligence Systems and the Learning Organization Exploratory study at the Ramadi's Hospitals. In 2020 2nd Annual International Conference on Information and Sciences (AiCIS), 213-221.

Ionita, D. (2012). Entrepreneurial marketing: A new approach for challenging times. Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 7(1), 131-150.

Google Scholar

Jones, R. & Rowley, J. (2011). Entrepreneurial marketing in small businesses: A conceptual explorational. International Small Business Journal, 29(1), 25-36.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Kafetzopoulos, D. (2020). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, performance and environmental uncertainty. Business Process Management Journal.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Kassotaki, O. (2022). Review of organizational ambidexterity research. SAGE Open, 12(1), 21582440221082127.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Katou, A. (2021). Building a multilevel integrated framework of ambidexterity: The role of dynamically changing environment and human capital management in the performance of Greek firms. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 40(6), 17-27.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Kowalik, I., & Plesniak, A. (2022). Marketing determinants of innovation ambidexterity in small and medium-sized manufacturers. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(2), 163-185.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Kraus, S., Harms, R., & Fink, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial marketing: Moving beyond marketing in new ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 11(1), 19-34.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Kumkale, I. (2022). Organizational Ambidexterity. In Organizational Mastery: The Impact of Strategic Leadership and Organizational Ambidexterity on Organizational Agility, 1-22.

Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: the overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 219–240.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Lin, H.E. & McDonough III,E.F. (2011). Investigating the role of leadership and organizational culture in fostering innovation ambidexterity. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(3), 497-509.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Lopes, J.M., Laurett, R., Antunes, H., & Oliveira, J. (2021). Entrepreneurial marketing: A bibliometric analysis of the second decade of the 21st century and future agenda. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 23(2), 295-317.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Lumpkin, G.T., & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

Google Scholar

Lumpkin, G.T., & Dess, G.G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of business venturing, 16(5), 429-451.

Google Scholar

Maier, J. (2015). The Ambidextrous Organization: Exploring the New While Exploiting the Now. Springer.

March, J.G., (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.

Mirzataghi Chaharmahali, S., & Amir Siadat, S. (2010). Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity: Understanding and explaining ambidextrous organizations.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Morris, M.H., Schindehutte, M. & La Forge, R.W. (2004). The emergence of entrepreneurial marketing: nature and meaning. Entrepreneurship: The Way Ahead, 91-115.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Morris, M.H., Schindehutte, M., & LaForge, R.W. (2002). Entrepreneurial marketing: A construct for integrating emerging entrepreneurship and marketing perspectives. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 10(4), 1-19.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Mort, G.S., Weerawardena, J., & Liesch, P. (2012). Advancing entrepreneurial marketing: Evidence from born global firms. European Journal of marketing.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

O’Reilly III, C.A. & Tushman, M.L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185-206.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

O’Reilly III, C.A., & Tushman, M.L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. 3rd ed. Paris: OECD Publishing & Eurostat.

Ostendorf, J., Mouzas, S., & Chakrabarti, R. (2014). Innovation in business networks: The role of leveraging resources. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 504-511.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Panigyrakis, G., & Theodoridis, P.K. (2007). Market orientation and performance: an empirical investigation in the retail industry in Greece. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14(2), 137–149.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Peng, M.Y.P., Lin, K.H., Peng, D.L., & Chen, P. (2019). Linking organizational ambidexterity and performance: The drivers of sustainability in high-tech firms. Sustainability, 11(14), 3931.

Indexed at, Google Scholar,Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409. DOI: 10.1177/0149206308316058

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

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.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Sadiku-Dushi, N., Dana, L.P., & Ramadani, V. (2019). Entrepreneurial marketing dimensions and SMEs performance. Journal of Business Research, 100, 86-99.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Sambudi, H. (2015). The effect of entrepreneurial marketing on business performance, small garment industry in Bandung City, Indonesia. Developing Country Studies, 5(1).

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Sarwoko, E., & Nurfarida, I.N. (2021). Entrepreneurial marketing: Between entrepreneurial personality traits and business performance. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 9(2), 105-118.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Severgnini, E., Takahashi, A.R.W., & Abib, G. (2019). Risk and Organizational ambidexterity: a meta-synthesis of a case study and a framework. BBR. Brazilian Business Review, 16, 470-499.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Severgnini, E., Vieira, V.A., & Galdamez, E.V.C. (2018). The indirect effects of performance measurement system and organizational ambidexterity on performance. Business Process Management Journal.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Shlaka, T. K., & Jassem, A. K. (2022). Effect of dynamic capabilities in promotion Organizational Ambidexterity: analytical research at the University of Baghdad. Zien Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 8, 120-126.

Google Scholar

Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597–624.

Cross Ref

Soares, J.L., dos Reis, D.R., da Cunha, J.C. and Neto, P.J.S. (2018). Organizational ambidexterity: a study in brazilian higher education institutions. Journal of technology management & innovation, 13(3), 36-46.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Song, L., & Jing, L. (2017). Strategic orientation and performance of new ventures: empirical studies based on entrepreneurial activities in China. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(4), 989-1012.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Tuan, L.T. (2016). Organizational ambidexterity, entrepreneurial orientation, and I-deals: The moderating role of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 145–159.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Tushman, M.L. & O'Reilly III, C.A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-29.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Uchena, A.C., Audu, S.J., Nneka, O.M., & Chinwe, O.V. (2021). Entrepreneurial Marketing Practices and Performance of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises in Nigeria. Journal of International Relations Security and Economic Studies, 1(2), 46-59.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Voigt, K., Lane, S., Severin, K., Turner, D., & Marcum, C. (2010). The Importance of Successful Customer Service for New and Existing Ventures. Academies International Conference. Academy of Information and Management Sciences: 1, 79-83.

Google Scholar

Wei, Z., Yi, Y., & Guo, H. (2014). Organizational learning ambidexterity, strategic flexibility, and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 832–847.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of business venturing, 20(1), 71-91.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 02-May-2023, Manuscript No. AEJ-23-13725; Editor assigned: 04-May-2023, PreQC No. AEJ-23 13725(PQ); Reviewed: 24-May-2023, QC No. AEJ-23-13725; Revised: 27-May-2023, Manuscript No. AEJ-23- 13725(R); Published: 05-June-2023