This study reveals how resource bricolage and ambidextrous learning enhance micro-innovation in new ventures, indicating the critical roles of customer participation and government support.
Resource bricolage, centered on breaking through resource constraints, emphasizes providing innovation momentum for new ventures by creatively reorganizing existing resources at hand. Existing studies have confirmed that resource bricolage exerts an impact on corporate innovation, yet explorations into this approach’s mechanism of action remain insufficient. Based on resource bricolage theory and organizational ambidexterity theory, this study constructs a theoretical framework of “resource bricolage–ambidextrous learning–micro-innovation”. Using 319 new ventures as samples, hierarchical regression analysis is adopted to empirically test the mediating effect of ambidextrous learning and the moderating effects of government support and customer participation. The results show that resource bricolage has a significant positive impact on micro-innovation, with ambidextrous learning playing a partial mediating role. The research conclusions indicate that under resource-constrained contexts, new ventures can activate idle resources and improve resource efficiency through resource bricolage, thereby reducing reliance on new resource inputs. Under this method, new ventures can also rely on ambidextrous learning to accumulate knowledge and capabilities, laying the foundation for the continuous improvement of micro-innovation and further leverage government support to stabilize resource supply and absorb customer participation to align with market demand. This mechanism ultimately enables the achievement of micro-innovation while enhancing its sustainability. This study enriches resource bricolage theory by unpacking the “resource–learning–innovation” mechanism and provides practical guidance for new ventures to leverage resource bricolage and external support for micro-innovation under resource constraints, which is of reference value for sustainable entrepreneurial practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: