Ambidextrous Bureaucracies in Turbulent Policy Environ‎ments: How Dynamic Capabilities Drive Public Service Per‎formance

  • Authors

    https://doi.org/10.14419/1ss4jx93

    Received date: October 1, 2025

    Accepted date: November 14, 2025

    Published date: November 28, 2025

  • Dynamic Capabilities; Organizational Ambidexterity; Public Service Performance; Policy Turbulence; Public Administration; Bureau-Centric Innovation

  • Abstract

    This work explores how dynamic capabilities enable public sector organizations to develop ambidextrous capabilities and enhance their ‎performance despite turbulent policy environments. Applying dynamic capability theory and prevailing work on organizational ambidexterity-‎ty, we explore relationships between dynamic capabilities, organizational ambidexterity, public service performance, and policy turbulence ‎as a moderating variable. Our research adopts data from 286 respondents employed by three separate public service units from SAMSAT ‎settings in Kepulauan Riau Province, Indonesia, and partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to assess relationships. ‎We find strong empirical support for all relationships proposed. Somewhat surprisingly, dynamic capabilities strongly enhance organizational ambidexterity and public service performance such that organizational ambidexterity itself serves as a partial mediator between dynamic-‎ic capability and performance (accounting for 34.7% of all effects). Also, policy turbulence emerges as both a direct antecedent to performance and a strong moderator that strengthens the dynamic capabilities-performance relationship under uncertain environments. The model ‎demonstrates high explanatory ability, explaining 64.4% of the variance in organizational performance. Our findings supplement dynamic capability theory in public sector contexts, situate organizational ambidexterity as a mediating mechanism rather than a separate capability, and pro-‎vide support for the contingent value proposition enjoyed by dynamic capabilities. Our work offers actionable implications for public managers ‎in highly interactive policy environments and augments public administration scholarship, synthesizing theory on bureaucratic settings, incorporating ambidexterity theory‎.

  • References

    1. Afshan, N., Mandal, P., Gunasekaran, A., & Motwani, J. (2022). Mediating role of immediate performance outcomes between supply chain integra-tion and firm performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34(4), 669–687. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-11-2020-0841.
    2. Alamsjah, F., & Yunus, E. N. (2022). Achieving Supply Chain 4.0 and the Importance of Agility, Ambidexterity, and Organizational Culture: A Case of Indonesia. In Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (Vol. 8, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8020083.
    3. Aljanabi, A. R. A. (2022). The role of innovation capability in the relationship between marketing capability and new product development: evi-dence from the telecommunication sector. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2020-0146.
    4. Alyoussef, I. Y., & Omer, O. M. A. (2023). Investigating Student Satisfaction and Adoption of Technology-Enhanced Learning to Improve Edu-cational Outcomes in Saudi Higher Education. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914617.
    5. Ansell, C., & Trondal, J. (2018). Governing Turbulence: An Organizational- Institutional Agenda. Perspectives on Public Management and Govern-ance, 1(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvx013.
    6. Ashill, N., Williams, P., Khan, M. S., & Naumann, E. (2022). Dynamic and Ordinary Capabilities: A Project Management Perspective. IEEE Trans-actions on Engineering Management, 69(5), 2173–2186. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.3005534.
    7. Belik, I., & Knudsen, E. S. (2023). Link on, Link off: Data-driven management of organizational networks for ambidexterity. Journal of Business Research, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113555.
    8. Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Sonnentag, S., & Stride, C. B. (2022). Managing your feelings at work, for a reason: The role of individual motives in affect regulation for performance-related outcomes at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(7), 1251–1270. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2628.
    9. Birkinshaw, J. (2022). Move fast and break things: Reassessing IB research in the light of the digital revolution. Global Strategy Journal, 12(4), 619–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1427.
    10. Cancela, B. L., Coelho, A., & Duarte Neves, M. E. (2023). Greening the business: How ambidextrous companies succeed in green innovation through to sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(6), 3073–3087. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3287.
    11. Cannaerts, N., Segers, J., & Warsen, R. (2020). Ambidexterity and Public Organizations: A Configurational Perspective. Public Performance and Management Review, 43(3), 688–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1676272.
    12. Choi, Y. R., Ha, S., & Kim, Y. (2022). Innovation ambidexterity, resource configuration and firm growth: is smallness a liability or an asset? Small Business Economics, 58(4), 2183–2209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00507-3.
    13. Churchill, G. A., & Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110.
    14. Cindrakasih, R. R., Mu'min, H., Jumui, J., Utami, E. Y., & Agus Tapaningsih, W. I. D. (2024). The Effect of Digital Marketing Strategy, Brand Trust, and Customer Expectations on Online Purchasing Decisions on E-Commerce in West Java. West Science Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(03), 552–562. https://doi.org/10.58812/wsis.v2i03.726.
    15. Coen, D., Kreienkamp, J., Tokhi, A., & Pegram, T. (2022). Making global public policy work: A survey of international organization effectiveness. Global Policy, 13(5), 656–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13125.
    16. Cohen, A. D. (2023). In conversation with Andrew D. Cohen. System, 118(September), 103153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103153.
    17. Cohen, J. (1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12(4), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168801200410.
    18. Connell, A., St Denny, E., & Martin, S. (2022). How can subnational governments develop and deliver distinctive policy agendas? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(4), 1159–1175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852321996429.
    19. De Silva, M., Howells, J., Khan, Z., & Meyer, M. (2022). Innovation ambidexterity and public innovation Intermediaries: The mediating role of ca-pabilities. Journal of Business Research, 149, 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.013.
    20. Downs, G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(4), 700. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391725.
    21. Dwikat, S. Y., Arshad, D., & Mohd Shariff, M. N. (2023). Effect of Competent Human Capital, Strategic Flexibility and Turbulent Environment on Sustainable Performance of SMEs in Manufacturing Industries in Palestine. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064781.
    22. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557.
    23. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Mar-keting Research, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313.
    24. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1994). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing research‏. Advances Methods of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313.
    25. Gieske, H., Duijn, M., & van Buuren, A. (2020). Ambidextrous practices in public service organizations: innovation and optimization tensions in Dutch water authorities. Public Management Review, 22(3), 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1588354.
    26. Gray, D. B. J., Greenley, P. G. E., Matear, D. S. M., & Matheson, M. P. K. (1999). Thriving on Turbulence. Journal of Market-Focused Manage-ment, 4(3), 231–257. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009827103329.
    27. Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2018). Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 16(4), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018786487.
    28. Hair, J., & Alamer, A. (2022). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guide-lines using an applied example. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100027.
    29. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., Black, W., Hair J, R, A., Babin B, Black W, Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis.pdf. In Australia : Cengage: Vol. 7 edition (p. 758).
    30. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Rigorous Applications, Better Results and Higher Acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001.
    31. Hair, J. F., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Factors versus Composites: Guidelines for Choosing the Right Structural Equation Modeling Method. Project Management Journal, 50(6), 619–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819882132.
    32. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I – method. European Business Review, 28(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2015-0094.
    33. Han, X., Yue, B., & He, Z. (2023). Thriving in uncertainty: examining the relationship between perceived environmental uncertainty and corporate eco-innovation through the lens of dynamic capabilities. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1196997.
    34. Henseler, J. (2017). Partial least squares path modeling. Advanced Methods for Modeling Markets, 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53469-5_12.
    35. Hoekstra, J. C., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2023). Thriving through turbulence: Lessons from marketing academia and marketing practice. European Management Journal, 41(5), 730–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.04.007.
    36. Ilmudeen, A. (2022). Leveraging IT-enabled dynamic capabilities to shape business process agility and firm innovative capability: moderating role of turbulent environment. Review of Managerial Science, 16(8), 2341–2379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00501-9.
    37. Jemmy, J., Mokodenseho, S., Yanti, D., Arifannisa, A., & Mu'min, H. (2024). The Influence of Multicultural Education, Cultural Identity, and Po-litical Participation on Minority Rights Awareness in Jakarta. West Science Social and Humanities Studies, 2(01), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.58812/wsshs.v2i01.573.
    38. Jiang, Q., Wang, D., Wang, Y., & Wu, B. (2022). Innovation Elements, Incubation Capacity, and Incubation Performance in Biomedical Incuba-tion Platforms: Moderating Role of Customized Services. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.873875.
    39. Kassotaki, O. (2022). Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research. SAGE Open, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221082127.
    40. Katou, A. A., Kafetzopoulos, D., & Vayona, A. (2023). Investigating the Serially Mediating Mechanisms of Organizational Ambidexterity and the Circular Economy in the Relationship between Ambidextrous Leadership and Sustainability Performance. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107937.
    41. Keller, A., Konlechner, S., Güttel, W. H., & Reischauer, G. (2025). Overcoming path-dependent dynamic capabilities. Strategic Organization, 23(2), 195–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270221125807.
    42. Kim, K., Seo, E.-H. H., & Kim, C. Y. (2025). The Relationships Between Environmental Dynamism, Absorptive Capacity, Organizational Ambi-dexterity, and Innovation Performance from the Dynamic Capabilities Perspective. Sustainability (Switzerland), 17(2), 449. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020449.
    43. Kiss, A. N., Libaers, D., Barr, P. S., Wang, T., & Zachary, M. A. (2020). CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidex-terity. Strategic Management Journal, 41(12), 2200–2233. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3192.
    44. Kline, B. (2011). The Bayesian and frequentist approaches to testing a one-sided hypothesis about a multivariate mean. Journal of Statistical Plan-ning and Inference, 141(9), 3131–3141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2011.03.034.
    45. Kline, R. B. (1999). Nunnally, jc, & bernstein, ih (1994). Psychometric Theory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17, 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299901700307.
    46. Liu, F., Yang, G., & Singhdong, P. (2024). A Moderated Mediation Model of Entrepreneurship Education, Competence, and Environmental Dy-namics on Entrepreneurial Performance. Sustainability, 16(19), 8502. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198502.
    47. Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Golant, B. D., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2021). The role of innovation narratives in accomplishing organizational ambidexterity. Strategic Organization, 19(4), 693–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127019897234.
    48. Mohaghegh, M., Åhlström, P., & Blasi, S. (2024). Agile manufacturing and transformational capabilities for sustainable business performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective. Production Planning and Control, 35(16), 2273–2285. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2023.2229264.
    49. Mu'min, H., Bernardus, D., & Kaihatu, T. S. (2025). Unlocking Digital Success: A TOE Framework Analysis of Digital Marketing Adoption for Enhanced SMEs Competitiveness. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(5), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.14419/n81qcx19.
    50. Mu'min, H., Kaihatu, T. S., & Bernardus, D. (2025). Dynamic Capabilities, Technological Capability, and Green Innovation Performance in Indo-nesian Manufacturing Industries. Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen Kesatuan, 13(5), 3803–3814. https://doi.org/10.37641/jimkes.v13i5.3736.
    51. Mu'min, H., & Wyhardes. (2024). Penerapan Konseling Individu Menggunakan Pendekatan Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy ( REBT ) Dengan teknik ABCD ( Studi Kasus Rasa Kurang Percaya Diri Pada Siswa ) The Implementation of Individual Counseling Using the Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (. JICN: Jurnal Intelek Dan Cendekiawan Nusantara, 1(1), 127–141.
    52. Myeong, S., Ahn, M. J., Kim, Y., Chu, S., & Suh, W. (2021). Government Data Performance: The Roles of Technology, Government Capacity, and Globalization through the Effects of National Innovativeness. In Sustainability (Vol. 13, Issue 22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212589.
    53. Nafari, E., & Rezaei, B. (2022). Relationship between human resources strategies and organizational performance based on the balanced scorecard in a public hospital in Iran: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07767-z.
    54. Ochie, C., Nyuur, R. B., Ludwig, G., & Cunningham, J. A. (2022). Dynamic capabilities and organizational ambidexterity: New strategies from emerging market multinational enterprises in Nigeria. Thunderbird International Business Review, 64(5), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22266.
    55. Pramono, R., Kaihatu, T. S., Bernardus, D., Mu'Min, H., & Darmanto. (2025). Entrepreneurial Marketing and Business Performance in System In-tegrator Start-Ups: A Serial Mediation Analysis Through Technology Customization and Innovation Capability. International Journal of Account-ing and Economics Studies, 12(6), 475–486. https://doi.org/10.14419/vsfs3065.
    56. Purnawan, M. P., Rachbini, W., Mu'min, H., & Darmanto. (2025). Digital Entrepreneurial Orientation and Organizational Performance: The Mediat-ing Role of Digital Innovation Competence and The Moderating Effect of Digital Technology Preparedness. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(5), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.14419/n6q13j78.
    57. Sam, T. H., Mu'min, H., Kaihatu, T. S., Prihanisetyo, A., & Pramono, R. (2025). Dynamic Capabilities in Volatile Markets: ‎Leveraging Strategic Flexibility and Customer ‎Insights to Drive Product Innovation and ‎Market Performance. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Stud-ies, 12(5), 1144–1163. https://doi.org/10.14419/6z107704.
    58. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2017). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Handbook of Market Research, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-1.
    59. Sharma, P. N., Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N., & Ray, S. (2021). Prediction-Oriented Model Selection in Partial Least Squares Path Model-ing. Decision Sciences, 52(3), 567–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12329.
    60. Stoiber, K., Matzler, K., & Hautz, J. (2023). Ambidextrous structures paving the way for disruptive business models: a conceptual framework. Re-view of Managerial Science, 17(4), 1439–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00589-7.
    61. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics (Subscription). Pearson: New York, NY, USA.
    62. Taghizadeh, S. K., Rahman, S. A., Nikbin, D., Radomska, M., & Maleki Far, S. (2023). Dynamic capabilities of the SMEs for sustainable innova-tion performance: role of environmental turbulence. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness.
    63. Teece, D. J. (1996). Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 31(2), 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(96)00895-5.
    64. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640.
    65. Teece, D. J. (2012). Dynamic Capabilities: Routines versus Entrepreneurial Action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395–1401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01080.x.
    66. Teece, D. J. (2020). Hand in glove: Open innovation and the dynamic capabilities framework. Strategic Management Review, 1(2), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1561/111.00000010.
    67. Trieu, H. D. X., Nguyen, P. Van, Nguyen, T. T. M., Vu, H. T. M., & Tran, K. T. (2023). Information technology capabilities and organizational am-bidexterity facilitating organizational resilience and firm performance of SMEs. Asia Pacific Management Review, 28(4), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2023.03.004.
    68. Troiville, J., Hair, J. F., & Cliquet, G. (2019). Definition, conceptualization and measurement of consumer-based retailer brand equity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.04.022.
    69. Tworek, K., Bienkowska, A., Hawrysz, L., & Maj, J. (2023). The Model of Organizational Performance Based on Employees' Dynamic Capabili-ties-Verification During Crisis Caused by Black Swan Event. IEEE Access, 11, 45039–45055. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3273608.
    70. Valdez-Juárez, L. E., & Castillo-Vergara, M. (2021). Technological capabilities, open innovation, and eco-innovation: Dynamic capabilities to in-crease corporate performance of smes. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010008.
    71. Wijayanto, G., Mu'min, H., Waangsir, F. W., & Ardhiyansyah, A. (2024). The Effect of Environmental Education, Consumer Awareness, and En-vironmentally Friendly Practices on Plastic Waste Reduction in Indonesia. West Science Social and Humanities Studies, 2(03), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.58812/wsshs.v2i03.708.
    72. Wijetunge, W. (2016). Service quality, competitive advantage and business performance in service providing SMEs in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 6(7), 720–728.
    73. Wiryawan, B. A., & Otchia, C. (2022). The legacy of the reformasi: the role of local government spending on industrial development in a decentral-ized Indonesia. Journal of Economic Structures, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-022-00262-y.
    74. Wong Villanueva, J. L., Kidokoro, T., & Seta, F. (2022). Cross-Border Integration, Cooperation and Governance: A Systems Approach for Evalu-ating "Good" Governance in Cross-Border Regions. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 37(5), 1047–1070. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2020.1855227.
    75. Xia, J., Zhang, M. M., Zhu, J. C., & Fan, D. (2024). Reconciling multiple institutional logics for ambidexterity: human resource management re-forms in Chinese public universities. Higher Education, 87(3), 611–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01027-7.
    76. Yu, J., & Zhu, L. (2022). Corporate ambidexterity: Uncovering the antecedents of enduring sustainable performance. Journal of Cleaner Produc-tion, 365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132740.
    77. Zelli, F., & van Asselt, H. (2013). The institutional fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, consequences, and responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00180.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Nababan, P. M. L. W., Murwani, F. D., & Efrata, T. C. (2025). Ambidextrous Bureaucracies in Turbulent Policy Environ‎ments: How Dynamic Capabilities Drive Public Service Per‎formance. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(7), 757-768. https://doi.org/10.14419/1ss4jx93