Analysis reveals that organizational change mediates the effect of entrepreneurial defection on exploratory innovation, implying a focus on sustainable development.
Entrepreneurial defection, which leads to the loss of core talents and key resources, poses a severe threat to the innovation capacity and sustainable development of entrepreneurial enterprises. However, the mechanism through which it influences ambidextrous innovation—a key driver of sustainability comprising exploitative (short-term optimization) and exploratory (long-term breakthrough) activities—remains empirically unclear. Grounded in the Conservation of Resources Theory, this study analyzes 553 questionnaires from entrepreneurial enterprises (≤8 years old) to investigate the impact of entrepreneurial defection on ambidextrous innovation, focusing on the chain mediating roles of entrepreneurial learning and organizational change. The findings reveal that (1) Entrepreneurial defection does not directly promote ambidextrous innovation; its positive effect is fully mediated by entrepreneurial learning, organizational change, and their sequential path. (2) Significant heterogeneity exists in this mediating effect: the path via entrepreneurial learning is stronger for exploitative innovation, whereas the path via organizational change exerts a weak negative interference on exploratory innovation, though the positive effect of learning remains dominant. (3) Entrepreneurial learning is the core mediator, accounting for over 70% of the total indirect effect, and facilitates a “learning-change-innovation-sustainability” cycle. This study fills a critical empirical gap and extends the application of Conservation of Resources Theory. It offers practical insights for entrepreneurs: by strengthening learning and guiding organizational change, the pressure of resource loss can be transformed into a driver for dual innovation, enabling a transition from crisis recovery to sustainable development capability upgrading.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: