Structural Ambidexterity and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Dynamic Capabilities in Chartered Private Universities in Kenya

In the contemporary Kenyan higher education landscape, institutions are increasingly challenged by technological shifts and the implementation of the 2025 New Funding Model. These pressures necessitate a strategic shift toward organizational ambidexterity as the ability to balance operational efficiency with innovative exploration. The study examined the relationship between structural ambidexterity (SA) and institutional performance in chartered private universities in Kenya, while assessing the moderating role of dynamic capabilities (DC). Grounded in the Resource-Based View (RBV) and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT), the research employed a cross-sectional survey design. Data were collected from 195 senior management respondents across 27 chartered private universities. The analysis utilized partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) via Advanced Analysis of Network Composites (ADANCO 2.3.2) software. SA was modeled as a higher-order formative composite, and moderation was tested using the product indicator approach. The results indicated a significant positive relationship between SA and perceived institutional performance (p < 0.001), supporting H1. Moreover, DC significantly moderated the relationship between SA and perceived performance (p < 0.001) of private universities, supporting H2. The moderation effect demonstrated a significant medium effect size (f² = 0.1926), indicating that the interaction term contributed meaningfully to performance over and above the direct effects of the predictor variables. The moderated model explains 29.21% of perceived university performance. It is concluded that, balancing exploration and exploitation, supported by strong DC, appears essential for enhancing performance in Kenyan chartered private universities. Accordingly, university governing boards should strengthen DC among senior management and adopt structural designs that support innovation alongside traditional academic functions, while policymakers create a regulatory environment that promotes institutional agility and diversification.

Structural ambidexterity, Dynamic Capabilities, Institutional Performance, PLS-SEM, Private Universities

1. Alshaketheep, K., Al-Ahmed, H., Zraqat, O., & Deeb, A. (2026). How organizational ambidexterity converts intellectual capital and digital knowledge management into strategic performance in universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1–25. https://www.emerald.com/jic/article/doi/10.1108/JIC-09-2025-0391/1349408 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Baía, E. P., & Ferreira, J. J. (2024). Dynamic capabilities and performance: How has the relationship been assessed? Journal of Management & Organization, 30(1), 188–217. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-management-and-organization/article/dynamic-capabilities-and-performance-how-has-the-relationship-been-assessed/0358B6321818FA9A6B5EE160F94BC55E [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Barreto, I. (2010), “Dynamic capabilities: a review of past research and an agenda for the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 256-280. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Barney, J. (1991a). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barney, J. (1991b). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Becker, J.-M., Cheah, J.-H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2023). PLS-SEM’s most wanted guidance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(1), 321–346. https://www.emerald.com/ijchm/article/35/1/321/127124 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bibi, G., Padhi, M., & Dash, S. S. (2021). Theoretical necessity for rethinking knowledge in knowledge management literature. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 19(3), 396–407. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Becker, J.-M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2018). Estimating Moterating effects in PLS-SEM andPLSc-SEM: Interaction term gerneration* data treatment. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, (2), 1–21. https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/96102/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ceptureanu, S. I., Ferraro, G., Ceptureanu, E. G., & Georgescu, B. (2025). Individual learning ambidexterity behavior and individual job performance in services: The role of organizational structure. Review of Managerial Science, 19(8), 2457–2492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00819-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (No Title). https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1370285712602755592 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Corchuelo Martínez-Azúa, B., Dias, A., & Sama-Berrocal, C. (2025). Exploring the importance of innovation ambidexterity on performance: Insights from NCA and IPMA analysis. International Journal of Innovation Science, 17(5), 1278–1300. https://www.emerald.com/ijis/article/17/5/1278/1250347 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Clauss, T., Kraus, S., Kallinger, F. L., Bican, P. M., Brem, A., & Kailer, N. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity and competitive advantage: The role of strategic agility in the exploration-exploitation paradox. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6(4), 203-213. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling1. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 297–316. https://misq.umn.edu/misq/article/39/2/297/428 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Dranev, Y., Izosimova, A., & Meissner, D. (2020). Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: Assessment Approaches and Empirical Evidence. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11(2), 676–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0560-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Dynamic Capabilities—An overview | ScienceDirect Topics. (n.d.). Retrieved April 7, 2026, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/dynamic-capabilities [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Ferreira, J., Cardim, S., & Coelho, A. (2021). Dynamic capabilities and Mediating Effects of Innovation on the Competitive Advantage and Firm’s Performance: The Moderating Role of Organizational Learning Capability. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(2), 620–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00655-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Finn, A., & Wang, L. (2014). Formative vs. reflective measures: Facets of variation. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2821–2826. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296312002147 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Freeze, R., & Raschke, R. L. (2007). An assessment of formative and reflective constructs in IS research. https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=ecis2007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. García-Hurtado, D., Devece, C., Zegarra-Saldaña, P. E., & Crisanto-Pantoja, M. (2024). Ambidexterity in entrepreneurial universities and performance measurement systems. A literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 20(1), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-022-00795-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ghina, A., Herliana, S., Eka Kiswardani, W., & Indiyati, D. (2025). Entrepreneurial mindset and ambidextrous capabilities in university start-ups: Exploratory study of business model innovation paths. Journal of the International Council for Small Business, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/26437015.2025.2562186 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Guerrero, M., & Menter, M. (2024). Driving change in higher education: The role of Dynamic capability in strengthening universities’ third mission. Small Business Economics, 63(3), 1321–1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-024-00869-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Hair Jr, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296319307441 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Harland, T. A., & Heller, R. S. (2026). Cross-sectional study: Design, measures, classic example. In Translational Neurosurgery (pp. 139–142). Elsevier. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/edited-volume/pii/B9780323905091000400 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Heaton, S., Teece, D., & Agronin, E. (2023). and governance: An empirical investigation of financial performance of the higher education sector. Strategic Management Journal, 44(2), 520–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3444 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Henseler, J. (2020). Composite-based structural equation modeling: Analyzing latent and emergent variables. Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Henseler, J., & Chin, W. W. (2010). A Comparison of Approaches for the Analysis of Interaction Effects Between Latent Variables Using Partial Least Squares Path Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(1), 82–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903439003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Hunziker, S., & Blankenagel, M. (2024). Cross-Sectional Research Design. In S. Hunziker & M. Blankenagel, Research Design in Business and Management (pp. 187–199). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42739-9_10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Jhantasana, C. (2023). Reviewing ADANCO 2.3. 1 for a modern partial least squares structural equation model to be used in online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asia Social Issues, 16(4), e255152–e255152. https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/asi/article/view/255152 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kafetzopoulos, D. (2020). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, performance and environmental uncertainty. Business Process Management Journal, 27(3), 922–940. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Jurksiene, L., & Pundziene, A. (2016). The relationship between Dynamic capability and firm competitive advantage: The mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. European Business Review, 28(4), 431–448. https://www.emerald.com/ebr/article-abstract/28/4/431/91077 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Kafetzopoulos, D. (2021). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, performance and environmental uncertainty. Business Process Management Journal, 27(3), 922–940. https://www.emerald.com/bpmj/article/27/3/922/257400 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Kolster, R. (2021). Structural ambidexterity in higher education: Excellence education as a testing ground for educational innovations. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1850312 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Koufteros, X., Babbar, S., & Kaighobadi, M. (2009). A paradigm for examining second-order factor models employing structural equation modeling. International Journal of Production Economics, 120(2), 633–652. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527309001236 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Kump, B., Engelmann, A., Kessler, A., & Schweiger, C. (2019). Toward a Dynamic capability scale: Measuring organizational sensing, seizing, and transforming capacities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 28(5), 1149–1172. https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/28/5/1149/5245299 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Lucena, A. and Roper, S. (2016), “Absorptive capacity and ambidexterity in R&D: linking technology alliance diversity and firm innovation”, European Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 159-178. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Lavie, D., Kang, J. and Rosenkopf, L. (2011), “Balance within and across domains: the performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances”, Organization Science, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1517-1538. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Rosenkopf, L. and Nerkar, A. (2001), “Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 287-306. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Leih, S., & Teece, D. (2016). Campus Leadership and the Entrepreneurial University: A Dynamic capability Perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(2), 182–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0022 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Maier, C., Thatcher, J. B., Grover, V., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023). Cross-sectional research: A critical perspective, use cases, and recommendations for IS research. In International Journal of Information Management (Vol. 70, p. 102625). Elsevier. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401223000063 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Martínez‐Falcó, J., Marco‐Lajara, B., Zaragoza‐Sáez, P., & Sánchez‐García, E. (2024). The effect of organizational ambidexterity on sustainable performance: A structural equation analysis applied to the Spanish wine industry. Agribusiness, 40(4), 773–803. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21846 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Mbithi, M. N. (2024). Operational Capabilities, Sponsorship and Performance of Private Chartered Universities in Kenya [PhD Thesis, KeMU]. http://41.89.31.5:8080/handle/123456789/1833 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Mele, G., Capaldo, G., Secundo, G., & Corvello, V. (2024). Revisiting the idea of knowledge-based Dynamic capability for digital transformation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(2), 532–563. https://www.emerald.com/jkm/article/28/2/532/1238333 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2008), “Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 185-206. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Philbin, S. P. (2012). Resource-based view of university-industry research collaboration. 2012 Proceedings of PICMET’12: Technology Management for Emerging Technologies, 400–411. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6304061/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Purba, J. T., Gumulya, D., Hariandja, E., & Pramono, R. (2023). Valuable, Rare, Inimitable, Non-Substitutable of Resources in Building Innovation Capability for Sustainable Development: Evidence from Creative Social Enterprises. International Journal of Sustainable Development & Planning, 18(2). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Evo-Hariandja-2/publication/370442095_Valuable_Rare_Inimitable_Non-Substitutable_of_Resources_in_Building_Innovation_Capability_for_Sustainable_Development_Evidence_from_Creative_Social_Enterprises/links/645073d75762c95ac3677bb8/Valuable-Rare-Inimitable-Non-Substitutable-of-Resources-in-Building-Innovation-Capability-for-Sustainable-Development-Evidence-from-Creative-Social-Enterprises.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008), “Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 375-409. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008), “Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 375-409. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Samartha, V. (2020). Measuring the effect size of coefficient of determination and predictive relevance of exogenous latent variables on endogenous latent variables through PLS-SEM. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Sarta, A., Durand, R., & Vergne, J.-P. (2021). Organizational Adaptation. Journal of Management, 47(1), 43–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320929088 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Sarangee, K., Schmidt, J. B., Srinath, P. B., & Wallace, A. (2022). Agile transformation in dynamic, high-technology markets: Drivers, inhibitors, and execution. Industrial Marketing Management, 102, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Schulze, J. H., & Pinkow, F. (2020). Leadership for Organisational Adaptability: How Enabling Leaders Create Adaptive Space. Administrative Sciences, 10(3), Article 3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Smith, W.K. and Tushman, M.L. (2005), “Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 522-536. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Souza, C. P. da S., & Takahashi, A. R. W. (2019). Dynamic capability , organizational learning and ambidexterity in a higher education institution. The Learning Organization, 26(4), 397–411. https://www.emerald.com/tlo/article/26/4/397/381470 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Úbeda-García, M., Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., & Zaragoza-Sáez, P. (2020). Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations. Journal of Business Research, 112, 363–372. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014829631930637X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Utkirov, A. (2024). Enhancing alumni employability: Aligning higher education quality with workforce expectations. Available at SSRN 4948534. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4948534 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Venturini, S., Mehmetoglu, M., & Latan, H. (2023). Software Packages for Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: An Updated Review. In H. Latan, J. F. Hair, & R. Noonan (Eds.), Partial Least Squares Path Modeling (pp. 113–152). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37772-3_5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capability : A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00201.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Weiss, L., & K. Kanbach, D. (2022). Toward an integrated framework of corporate venturing for organizational ambidexterity as a dynamic capability. Management Review Quarterly, 72(4), 1129–1170. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Zimmermann, A., Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2015), “How is ambidexterity initiated? The emergent charter definition process”, Organization Science, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 1119-1139. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria