Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 183–193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Social media strategic capability, organizational unlearning, and disruptive

innovation of SMEs: The moderating roles of TMT heterogeneity and
environmental dynamism
Feng Zhang a, Lei Zhu b, *
a
South China University of Technology, School of Business Administration, China
b
Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, School of Business Administration, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper provides an investigation into how social media can be used to promote disruptive innovation in small
Small and medium enterprises and medium enterprises (SMEs) from a capability perspective. Based on the strategic capability literature, this
Social media strategic capability study examines the influence of social media strategic capability (SMSC) on disruptive innovation, the mediation
Disruptive innovation
role of organizational unlearning, and the moderating effects of top management team (TMT) heterogeneity and
Organizational unlearning
Top management team heterogeneity
environmental dynamism. The empirical results from a sample of 198 Chinese manufacturing firms, each with
Environmental dynamism paired respondents, show a significant association between SMSC and disruptive innovation, which is mediated
by organizational unlearning. Furthermore, the effect of SMSC on unlearning is enhanced when SMEs have
heterogeneous TMTs, and the influence of unlearning on disruptive innovation is strengthened in dynamic
market and regulatory environments but weakened in dynamic technological environments. These findings
contribute new knowledge to the literature on both social media and disruptive innovation.

1. Introduction strategic perspective (Barlatier & Josserand, 2018; Chan & Guillet,
2011). Although current research has emphasized that the use of social
The booming development of social media has significantly altered media allows firms to access more data and encourages internal and
the business landscape, creating new challenges and opportunities for external communications in innovation activities (Alalwan et al., 2017;
corporate innovation and entrepreneurship (Aral, Dellarocas, & Godes, Bhimani et al., 2019), there is still a lack of understanding of the best or
2013; Leonardi & Vaast, 2017). Most Chinese firms have established most effective ways to manage social media (Bashir, Papamichail, &
business accounts on social media platforms (e.g., WeChat and Sina Malik, 2017; Roberts & Piller, 2016), prompting calls for research into a
Weibo). Social media are increasingly being used by firms to connect to capability perspective of social media (Benitez, Castillo, Llorens, &
the market more closely and integrate internal and external information Braojos, 2018; Muninger, Hammedi, & Mahr, 2019). Second, most
more effectively (Alalwan, Rana, Dwivedi, & Algharabat, 2017). For studies have investigated the roles of social media in innovation based
example, firms can use social media to promote new products and share on data collection from the developed western regions (e.g., European
information with their customers and suppliers in time (Järvinen & and USA) (Bhimani et al., 2019). Experts predict that by 2030, the
Taiminen, 2016). economy of Asia (i.e., the eastern region) will be larger than that of the
Recent research has begun to examine the relationship between so­ United States and the European nations combined (Burrows, 2012).
cial media and innovation (see Bhimani, Mention, & Barlatier, 2019 for Thus, it is important to explore the relationship between social media
a systematic review). However, empirical evidence shows that the and innovation in Asian countries (e.g., China) in order to enrich the
impact of social media on innovation is still inconclusive (de Zubielqui, contextual understanding of whether and how social media influence
Fryges, & Jones, 2019). It is therefore necessary to explore further how corporate innovation strategies.
social media influences innovation. First, limited research has looked at To address the research gaps, this study seeks to provide a relatively
the effectiveness of social media in innovation from an organizational integrated perspective on the role of social media in corporate

Abbreviations: SMEs, small and medium enterprises; SMSC, social media strategic capability; TMT, top management team.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (F. Zhang), [email protected] (L. Zhu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.071
Received 27 May 2020; Received in revised form 25 April 2021; Accepted 28 April 2021
Available online 8 May 2021
0148-2963/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
F. Zhang and L. Zhu Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 183–193

innovation strategies. From a capability perspective, we focus on social disruptive innovation by expanding previous findings on the capability
media strategic capability (SMSC) and investigate how and under what antecedents of disruptive innovation and demonstrating how firms
conditions SMSC influences disruptive innovation of small and medium- promote disruptive innovation through the development of SMSC.
sized enterprises (SMEs) in China. According to the strategic capa­
bility literature (Teece, 2007; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), SMSC is 2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
defined as a firm’s ability to acquire and integrate information from
social media into its knowledge base in alignment with its strategic di­ Social media are highly interactive platforms that allows individuals,
rections (Nguyen, Yu, Melewar, & Chen, 2015). Disruptive innovation groups, or businesses to interact and communicate on an ongoing basis
refers to a new product with a different set of performance attributes for sharing, co-creating, exploiting, and exploring user-generated con­
that are initially attractive to new and emerging market segments who tent (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Piller, Vossen, & Ihl, 2012). WeChat and
are not the current focal point of the business (Govindarajan & Kopalle, Sina Weibo are two popular Chinese social media platforms, with 1.112
2006a; Govindarajan, Kopalle, & Danneels, 2011). This innovation has billion and 486 million users worldwide in 2019, respectively. The use of
the potential to create a new market because it outperforms existing social media in business activities has become a widespread phenome­
products in some ways (e.g., easier to use and lower price) (Schmidt & non (Bhimani et al., 2019; de Zubielqui et al., 2019). Based on the
Druehl, 2008). Technology Acceptance Model (Davis et al., 1989), scholars have
Since disruptive innovation contains attributes that are quite distinct explained the adoption or acceptance of social media technologies (e.g.,
from those of existing products and mainly serves emerging customers Pentina et al., 2012; Rauniar et al., 2014). Social media platforms offer
(Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006a; Govindarajan et al., 2011), firms may an instrument for firms to achieve their business goals, such as knowl­
need to engage in organizational unlearning, defined as organizational edge search, communication, and cooperation within and across orga­
practices to change or discard traditional or obsolete beliefs and routines nizations (Wang, Pauleen, & Zhang, 2016). However, our understanding
within organizations (Akgün, Lynn, & Byrne, 2003; Akgün, Lynn, & of its influence on innovation is still in the early stages (Barlatier &
Byrne, 2006). By changing or discarding previous beliefs and routines Josserand, 2018; Benitez et al., 2018).
regarding new product development (Akgün et al., 2003; Akgün et al., Despite the benefits of social media for innovation, some scholars
2006), organizational unlearning helps firms to renew their knowledge argue that employees may spend unproductive time on social media,
base, overcome competency traps, and create new competitive advan­ which would harm knowledge management and innovation efforts
tages (Fiol & O’Connor, 2017). In addition, significant changes in (Glassman, Prosch, & Shao, 2015). Empirical studies have also produced
organizational learning behaviors caused by social media have been mixed results on the impact of social media on innovation outcomes (de
identified (Aral et al., 2013). As a result, this study proposes that orga­ Zubielqui et al., 2019). While most findings show the positive role of
nizational unlearning may play a mediating role in the SMSC–disruptive social media in firm innovation activities (e.g., Benitez et al., 2018; de
innovation relationship. Zubielqui et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2015; Roberts, Piller, & Lüttgens,
Furthermore, according to the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 2016), Roberts and Candi (2014) find that the use of social network sites
Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989), user characteristics and environmental negatively relates to market growth and financial performance. Marion,
features are important factors that influence the decision of social media Barczak, and Hultink (2014) find that social media such as weblogs and
usage (e.g., Pentina, Koh, & Le, 2012; Rauniar, Rawski, Yang, & John­ Twitter have no impact on the collaboration and ideas generation in new
son, 2014). Resource dependence theory also argues that managers are product development teams. Therefore, issues concerning the impact of
responsible for interpreting demands and dependencies in their envi­ social media on innovation need to be further investigated.
ronments before making decisions to adjust current strategies (Hrebi­ Researchers suggest that if firms can manage social media properly
niak & Joyce, 1985; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Taking these perspectives and develop the best ways to leverage social media, which can provide
into consideration, we argue that the effectiveness of SMSC in organi­ firms with an excellent complement for knowledge acquisition, explo­
zational unlearning and disruptive innovation cannot be fully under­ ration, and exploitation to improve innovation performance (Benitez
stood without understanding the characteristics of the top management et al., 2018). Some authors call for further studies to explore the role of
team (TMT) and the environments in which a firm operates. A hetero­ social media in innovation from a capability perspective (Benitez et al.,
geneous TMT, which often has diverse cognitive and information pro­ 2018; Muninger et al., 2019). Our study complements previous research
cessing capabilities (Pegels, Song, & Yang, 2000), will be capable of on social media management by focusing on the strategic capability
handling the simultaneous and conflicting needs of strategic reor­ perspective to develop a specific social media management capability (i.
ientation (Naranjo-Gil, Hartmann, & Maas, 2008). Besides, in highly e., SMSC). Strategic capability reflects a firm’s ability to integrate firm
dynamic environments, firms often face more opportunities and threats, resources and skills to align with its strategic directions (Teece, 2007;
and therefore the outcomes of whether their resources and capabilities Teece et al., 1997). Accordingly, SMSC signifies that firms’ ability to
will be deployed to pursue disruptive innovation would be uncertain integrate information and resources derived from social media to make
(Pandit, Joshi, Sahay, & Gupta, 2018). Therefore, this study further better strategic decisions. Such a capability is rather important in the
considers the moderating roles of TMT heterogeneity and environmental rapidly growing social media environment, as it enables firms to gain
dynamism. access to new market insights and innovative technical solutions, thus
Taken together, this paper presents findings on how and in what improving the performance of innovation projects (Roberts et al., 2016).
situations social media can be used to promote disruptive innovation in Firms with a high SMSC are more likely to identify radical ideas and
SMEs. As a result, it adds to the literature on both social media and revolutionize their innovation activities, especially for SMEs (Hitchen,
disruptive innovation in the following ways. First, this study contributes Nylund, Ferràs, & Mussons, 2017). For example, Nivea, a global
to a better understanding of the strategic effectiveness of social media in cosmetic brand owned by Beiersdorf, obtained radical new customer
corporate innovation from a strategic capability perspective. An inves­ insights by analyzing user content in social media applications, which in
tigation of the impact of SMSC allows us to identify the best ways to turn helped them to successfully develop a new product (Bilgram, Bartl,
manage or leverage social media instruments in order to make better & Biel, 2011). Therefore, to enhance understanding of the influence of
strategic decisions about firm innovation activities. Second, it provides a social media on innovation, we intend to examine whether and how
contingency approach for understanding the complex relationship be­ SMSC influences disruptive innovation of SMEs in China.
tween SMSC and disruptive innovation by investigating the moderators The main reason for paying attention to disruptive innovation of
of TMT heterogeneity and environmental dynamism, which helps to Chinese SMEs lies in the following points. First, there is much evidence
explain the mixed results regarding the impact of social media on suggesting that Chinese SMEs have become a significant source of
innovation outcomes. Third, the study contributes to the literature on disruptive innovation (e.g., Hart & Christensen, 2002; Wan, Williamson,

184
F. Zhang and L. Zhu Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 183–193

& Yin, 2015). The transitional and fast-changing nature of China’s passive recipients of information to active creators of information and
economic environment provides many opportunities for SMEs to ideas (Kadam & Ayarekar, 2014). A firm with strong SMSC may have a
perform disruptive innovations that allow them to survive when high potential to transform the exchange of expertise and knowledge
competing with their larger counterparts (Wan et al., 2015). Many and thus to expedite innovation and new product development (Zwass,
Chinese consumers have a relatively low level of income, encouraging 2010). Moreover, most consumers now use social media to share their
firms to offer products that are “good enough” in terms of key attributes experiences and opinions of products, which allows firms to learn about
(Zeng & Williamson, 2007). It is because that such consumers often lack consumers’ authentic needs and preferences with respect to products or
mature preferences and expectations, which result in faster and cheaper services (Kotler, Kartajaya, & Setiawan, 2010; Wang et al., 2016).
introduction, testing, and improvement of disruptive innovation than in Through social media, SMEs can disseminate information about their
developed markets (Wan et al., 2015). Galanz, a Chinese company, new products to reach a wide range of audiences (Michaelidou, Sia­
launched a simple but energy-efficient microwave oven, which was an magka, & Christodoulides, 2011) and continuously update the latest
example of disruptive innovation. It was initially offered at lower cost information to present it to customers, and acquire prospective cus­
and was quickly accepted by customers who valued its lower price and tomers. Given these roles of social media, SMSC can help firms to expand
convenience. Second, compared to larger firms, SMEs typically have their visions of industrial development and resource acquisition,
fewer knowledge resources to develop new technologies than larger enhance their willingness to accept novel thoughts and ideas, and widen
firms (Brunswicker & Vanhaverbeke, 2015). Researchers suggest that their knowledge bases that may go beyond what they knew previously so
smaller firms may be more capable than larger firms when it comes to that they can seize new disruptive innovation opportunities (Nguyen
disruptive innovation because of their greater flexibility (Hitchen et al., et al., 2015).
2017; Wan et al., 2015). Social media are particularly important for H1: SMSC is positively related to disruptive innovation in SMEs.
SMEs to obtain information or knowledge and then to find innovation
opportunities (Hitchen et al., 2017; Papa, Santoro, Tirabeni, & Monge, 2.2. Social media strategic capability, organizational unlearning, and
2018). It is therefore necessary to focus on SMEs to examine whether disruptive innovation
SMSC facilitates their disruptive innovation.
Social media has revolutionized the way firms operate in the
2.1. Social media strategic capability and disruptive innovation marketplace and created various possibilities and challenges for new
types of organizational learning (Aral et al., 2013). The use of social
The idea of disruptive innovation has been around for a long time (e. media has been viewed as an important approach to improving the in­
g., Mensch, 1985; Schumpeter, 1942). Christensen and his colleagues flows and outflows of knowledge (Mount & Martinez, 2014). Since most
initially develop a comprehensive conceptual foundation for disruptive SMEs suffer from liability of newness and lack sufficient capital and
innovation (e.g., Christensen, 1997; Christensen & Raynor, 2003). On knowledge resources (Bos-Brouwers, 2010), learning from external en­
the basis of previous studies (e.g., Christensen, 1997; Christensen & vironments via social media has become an essential way to renew the
Raynor, 2003; Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006a; Markides, 2012; capabilities that enable them to survive in dynamic environments.
Schmidt & Druehl, 2008), the essence of a disruptive innovation can be Scholars suggest that changing existing ideas and beliefs and relearning
described as follows: at the initial stage, disruptive innovation may be is of great importance in the quickly changing social media environment
inferior to existing products in terms of the attributes (e.g., quality, (Nguyen et al., 2015). Therefore, this study proposes that SMSC may
stability, reliability) valued by mainstream customers, but it can often promote organizational unlearning that aims to change existing beliefs
attract new and emerging customers with lower prices and convenience; and routines within organizations (Akgün et al., 2003; Akgün et al.,
and over time, such innovations will promote the primary performance 2006).
features and eventually be accepted by mainstream customers. For Social media has fundamentally changed the way firms interact with
example, when Galanz’s microwave oven dominated the domestic consumers and employees, leading to changing norms of behavior at
market, its quality and other features were constantly improved to meet various levels (Aral et al., 2013). Old ways of operating may not produce
the demands of the mainstream markets. It began to disrupt the mi­ the desired results, making firms face the need for change (Teece, 2007).
crowave oven markets in developed countries, and by 2002, it held 35% Marketing researchers point out that social media offers multiple ways
of global market (Hart & Christensen, 2002). Research indicates that for customers to get involved, which leads firms to obtain clear insights
large or incumbent firms usually fail to realize the threat posed by into customer needs (Wang et al., 2016). Firms with higher SMSC are
disruptive innovation (Christensen & Raynor, 2003). Despite the more capable of identifying and addressing customer complaints and
popularity of the term of disruptive innovation, it is often difficult for negative publicity, as well as accurately finding out which methods,
managers to identify disruptive innovation due to cognitive limitations processes, and routines are less effective, and then creating new ones to
(Schmidt & Druehl, 2008). It is therefore important for SMEs not only to satisfy customers better. Within firms, social media also transforms the
recognize disruptive innovation but also to identify opportunities to ways organizations are connected to employees by developing a more
develop disruptive innovation. flexible relationship with remote talent, drawing on new ideas generated
Firms increasingly realize the significance of building SMSC to by the public, or engaging in micro-outsourcing (Aral et al., 2013).
benefit from today’s fast-growing social media environments. As Aral Therefore, SMSC enables firms to identify potential opportunities to
et al. (2013, p. 3) have argued, “Social media have disrupted entire in­ unlearn obsolete routines and competencies.
dustries (e.g., news and publishing) and are redefining others (e.g., H2: SMSC is positively related to organizational unlearning.
retail).” SMSC enables firms to rely on a wider range of information to Adherence to previous beliefs and routines may cause firms to fail to
make effective strategic decisions in a timely manner. By utilizing social interpret changes in the environment, and thus to miss opportunities to
media, firms are more likely to recognize new opportunities and threats develop innovative products (Akgün et al., 2006). Research suggests
in external environments and quickly commit resources to find solutions that large firms usually rely on fixed norms, beliefs, processes, and
for innovative activities (Nguyen et al., 2015). Scholars find that social routines that entrench their ways of business operations in order to
media can be used by SMEs to recognize new product ideas and facilitate maintain their size effects (Josefy, Kuban, Ireland, & Hitt, 2015),
new product development (Jussila, Kärkkäinen, & Aramo-Immonen, resulting in a reduced possibility for them to change those norms, be­
2014). Accordingly, we expect that SMSC is positively associated with liefs, processes, and routines that may be in conflict with the changing
disruptive innovation. environment. Using a case study, Pandit et al. (2018) found that
Social media allows employees to communicate with one another changing existing capability bases and developing new ones is crucial
frequently and in real-time within firms, which transforms them from for SMEs in emerging economies to pursue disruptive innovation. Hence,

185
F. Zhang and L. Zhu Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 183–193

organizational unlearning can promote disruptive innovation in SMEs that a TMT will have strong cognitive and information processing ca­
by enhancing their flexibility and increasing their degree of adaptability pabilities (Pegels et al., 2000). Heterogeneity enables firms to collect
to the changing environment. and interpret information and find solutions to problems from broad and
Given that disruptive products often differ dramatically from exist­ diverse managerial perspectives (Knight et al., 1999). Heterogeneous
ing products in terms of primary performance features (Schmidt & TMTs are, therefore, more likely to identify unique or novel information
Druehl, 2008; Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006a; Govindarajan et al., that helps them advance or change existing organizational structures or
2011), the creation of disruptive innovation is rather difficult and risky processes. Therefore, these effects of TMT heterogeneity may strengthen
for most SMEs (Schmidt & Druehl, 2008; Yu & Hang, 2011). Firms are firms’ tendency to unlearn or change existing beliefs, knowledge, pro­
often required to change their established organizational structures, cesses, or routines when performing social media strategies.
behavior patterns, routines, and knowledge bases to embrace new ideas H5: TMT heterogeneity positively moderates the relationship be­
of the latest market trends, which consequently enhances their ability to tween SMSC and organizational unlearning.
innovate and react to the turbulent environment (Akgün et al., 2006;
Lyu, Yang, Zhang, Teo, & Guo, 2020). In this case, organizational 2.4. The moderating role of environmental dynamism
unlearning enables firms to become more open-minded and devote
increased efforts to keeping pace with the latest demands in the market As firms’ behaviors are embedded in a certain external environment,
(Cepeda-Carrión, Leal-Millán, Ortega-Gutierrez, & Leal-Rodriguez, the implementation of unlearning is inevitably influenced by changes in
2015), which increases the possibility of developing and launching the external environment (Lyu et al., 2020). Environmental dynamism
new disruptive products. Changes in beliefs and routines by unlearning reflects the rate of change and degree of instability of the environment
practices may, therefore, be imperative for the success of disruptive (Dess & Beard, 1984). In highly dynamic environments, firms face more
innovation. opportunities and threats, and therefore the outcome of deploying their
H3: Organizational unlearning is positively related to disruptive resources and capabilities to pursue disruptive innovation would be
innovation in SMEs. uncertain (Pandit et al., 2018). Extending previous research on envi­
Organizational unlearning reflects a flexible learning process that ronmental dynamism and focusing mainly on the market and technology
may act as a medium to link the relationship between SMSC and aspects, and considering the research context of China, we add the
disruptive innovation. Trainor, Andzulis, Rapp, and Agnihotri (2014) additional aspect of the regulatory environment, which also has an
suggest that if social media usage can be transformed into certain kinds important influence on disruptive innovation. This is because, unlike
of managerial capabilities (e.g., a customer relationship management developed economic environments with relatively stable regulatory
capability), it will influence performance outcomes. As hypothesized environments, the regulatory environments of transitional economies
before, SMSC significantly influences organizational unlearning, which such as China are usually rather dynamic (Peng, Sun, Pinkham, & Chen,
in turn affects disruptive innovation in SMEs. Hence, this study proposes 2009). Thus, this study proposes that the three distinct elements of
that organizational unlearning may play a mediation role in the rela­ environmental dynamism, market, technological, and regulatory, mod­
tionship between SMSC and disruptive innovation; that is, knowledge or erate the effect of organizational unlearning on disruptive innovation.
information acquired by SMSC needs to first influence organizational Market dynamism “is characterized by continuous changes in cus­
unlearning, and then changed beliefs and routines may support and lead tomers’ preferences/demands, in price/cost structures, and in the
to more disruptive innovation. composition of competitors” (Calantone, Garcia, & Dröge, 2003: 92). In
H4: Organizational unlearning mediates the association between a highly dynamic environment, both customers’ preferences and de­
SMSC and disruptive innovation in SMEs. mands change quickly (Jaworski & Kohli, 1996), which may lead to a
high possibility of the entry of an increasing number of emerging cus­
2.3. The moderating role of top management team heterogeneity tomers into the market. Govindarajan et al. (2011) argue that emerging
customers are the major motivation for firms to engage in disruptive
The Technology Acceptance Model has suggested that user charac­ innovation. These customers’ preferences and demands are rather
teristics are important factors that influence the use of social media different from what firms already know; therefore, unlearning may
(Davis et al., 1989). Considering the focus on the strategic perspective, enable firms to discard existing resource and capability bases and then
we emphasize these people in TMT and propose that TMT heterogeneity develop new ones for achieving disruptive innovation (Pandit et al.,
can positively moderate the effect of SMSC on organizational unlearn­ 2018). In the context of high market dynamism, organizational
ing. As Aral et al. (2013) has argued, making full use of the positive unlearning not only helps SMEs to question current assumptions about
potential of social media to corporate strategic development needs who should be their customers (Slater & Narver, 1998), but also allows
diversified perspectives to analyze, interpret, transform, and utilize in­ them to better identify potential customers, establish relationships and
formation acquired from social media. communication channels with these customers, and create knowledge
The attention-based view emphasizes the influence of managerial about them (Danneels, 2004). Hence, we expect that, compared with
attention on organizational change and adaptation (Ocasio, 1997). It those operating in less dynamic markets, SMEs operating in more dy­
holds that bounded rationality, which is the result of human cognitive namic markets may be more likely to perform unlearning to pursue
limitations, determines the formation of organizational structures and disruptive innovation.
processes (Koryak, Lockett, Hayton, Nicolaou, & Mole, 2018). Due to H6a: Market dynamism positively moderates the relationship be­
bounded rationality, managers often rely on simplified representations tween organizational unlearning and disruptive innovation in SMEs.
of their business environments to interpret information about emerging Technological dynamism refers to the rate and unpredictability or
events (Simon, 1955), thus shaping the mental models and strategic volatility of technical changes in the firm’s environment (Dess & Beard,
beliefs drawn on when making strategic decisions (Vecchiato, 2017). For 1984; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). The emergence of various new tech­
example, managers may not understand the novel information or ideas nologies accelerates the rate of technological change and increases
acquired from social media because their perspectives tend to be deeply technological dynamism (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). In a highly dynamic
entrenched and largely based on their prior experience of the market technological environment, firms will face trade-offs to allocate re­
(Danneels, 2004; Vecchiato, 2017). sources and capabilities to seize technology-based innovation opportu­
TMT heterogeneity may mitigate bounded rationality or human nities (Pandit et al., 2018). Research suggests that firms often rely on a
cognitive limitations because a diverse leadership team brings with it a large amount of internal and external resources to adapt to rapid
great variety of knowledge, decision-making styles, and professional changes in their technological environment (Cruz-González, López-Sáez,
perspectives (Koryak et al., 2018). A high level of heterogeneity means Navas-López, & Delgado-Verde, 2015). Previous research also argues

186
F. Zhang and L. Zhu Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 183–193

that the development of technology-based disruptive innovation is competitive advantages by changing the competitive rules and patterns
extremely costly and challenging, especially when a new scientific dis­ of the industry, and to invest more resources and energy in imple­
covery is needed (Yu & Hang, 2011). Therefore, although technological menting organizational unlearning to achieve the goal of disruptive
dynamism may provide opportunities to disrupt current technology innovation.
markets, SMEs are less likely to choose these opportunities to perform H6c: Regulatory dynamism positively moderates the relationship
technology-based disruptive innovation. This is because most SMEs between organizational unlearning and disruptive innovation in SMEs.
suffer from lack of adequate capital and resources (Bos-Brouwers, 2010; Based on the above analyses, the research model for this study is
Brunswicker & Vanhaverbeke, 2015), which, especially for SMEs in shown in Fig. 1.
emerging economies like China, leads to less willingness to invest in
researching and developing disruptive technologies. Hence, we expect 3. Method
that, compared with those operating in a less dynamic technological
environment, SMEs operating in a more dynamic technological envi­ 3.1. Sample and data collection
ronment may be less likely to perform unlearning to pursue disruptive
innovation. A sample of Chinese SMEs in the manufacturing industries was
H6b: Technological dynamism negatively moderates the relation­ selected to test the research model. China, as a major transitional
ship between organizational unlearning and disruptive innovation in economy, offers an interesting empirical setting to explore the rela­
SMEs. tionship between SMSC and disruptive innovation. The use of social
Regulatory dynamism captures the rapid and unexpected changes in media as an important communication channel is widespread in China.
laws and government policies that lead to uncertainty in the institu­ According to a report by iiMedia Research (a platform publishing data of
tional environment (Chelariu, Bello, & Gilliland, 2006). It reflects the global mobile Internet industries), as of June 2019, China’s Internet
changing rule systems and execution mechanisms that implement pun­ penetration rate has reached 61.2%, and the number of Internet users
ishments and rewards to regularize the future behaviors of firms (Che­ has exceeded 850 million. Its overall development has entered the
lariu et al., 2006). The institutional-based view posits that regulatory mature stage. Moreover, China’s per capita gross domestic product was
dynamism has a significant influence on the outcomes of a firm’s stra­ ranked 74th out of the 189 countries surveyed in a 2017 World Bank
tegic innovation choices (Sheng, Zhou, & Lessassy, 2013). Given that report. Most Chinese consumers have relatively low levels of disposable
SMEs typically have low visibility, suffer less from public criticism income, making disruptive innovations feasible since they tend to offer
(Lardon & Deloof, 2014; Bos-Brouwers, 2010), and are under great products at a lower price relative to existing products (Pandit et al.,
pressure to survive (Van Praag, 2003), this study proposes that regula­ 2018; Wan et al., 2015; Zeng & Williamson, 2007). Given that SMEs
tory dynamism generates both opportunities and challenges that contribute more than 70% of industrial innovations and over 60% of
encourage SMEs to engage in disruptive innovation. China’s GDP, it is surprising that little research attention has been
At a high level of regulatory dynamism, business regulations and devoted, so far, to studying whether social media has a significant in­
governmental policies change rapidly, which produces multiple oppor­ fluence on SMEs’ disruptive innovation strategies.
tunities for SMEs to accelerate their development (Chelariu et al., 2006). We conducted a survey of the Chinese manufacturing industries to
Rapid changes in regulations or policies may shake the current rankings collect the data used in this study from July 2019 to October 2019. A
and industrial positions of large or leading firms in an industry, and back-translation strategy was used to develop the questionnaire in order
encourage SMEs to formulate innovative strategies to accelerate their to ensure conceptual accuracy and equivalence. To increase the ques­
development and eventually catch up with their large counterparts. tionnaire’s validity and clarity in the Chinese context, a pre-survey was
Meanwhile, SEMs’ resource scarcity in terms of capital and capabilities conducted on the top managers of 15 local firms in Guangzhou,
severely limits their ability to conduct conventional research and Shenzhen, and Foshan, three major cities in the Pearl River Delta of
development activities – which often require abundant resource in­ China. The respondents were required to answer all the questionnaire
vestments (Bos-Brouwers, 2010) – leading to considerable pressure in items and provide feedback on the wording and design of the ques­
dynamic regulatory environments as their very survival can be at risk tionnaire. Based on the feedback, we modified several items and then
(Van Praag, 2003). To address this pressure, SMEs are motivated to finalized the questionnaire.
adopt disruptive innovation that need not rely on advanced technologies To make our sample sufficiently representative, the geographical
(Govindarajan et al., 2011; Zeng & Williamson, 2007). Therefore, SMEs sampling frame included the Pearl River Delta and the Yangtze River
are likely to view regulatory dynamism as an opportunity to build new Delta, two major economic regions of China. From the manufacturing

Fig. 1. The conceptual model.

187
F. Zhang and L. Zhu Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 183–193

business directory of each area, we randomly chose 1,000 SMEs that marketplace changes. Similarly, another four-item scale (α = 0.91) was
employ 20 to 500 persons (Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006) and adapted to measure technological dynamism (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993),
then contacted them by telephone to introduce our intended research which included the assessment of technological change, the difficulty of
and invite them to participate in our survey. In total, 546 firms accepted technological forecasting, and other aspects of technological trends. To
our request to interview their top managers. Then, eight research as­ measure regulatory dynamism, a three-item scale (α = 0.93) was adapted
sistants were sent to the companies to conduct face-to-face interviews. from Chelariu et al. (2006) to assess the changes and uncertainties
Where face-to-face interviews were unfeasible, the questionnaires were perceived by participants in their regulatory environments.
sent by Email. In each company, we distributed two questionnaires: Controls. In order to evaluate precisely the factors related to
questionnaire A was administered to chief executive officers or members disruptive innovation, several controls, such as firm age, firm size, firm
of TMTs, and questionnaire B was administered to members of TMTs and ownership, firm development stage, profit rank, and policy support,
middle-level managers (department managers of strategic planning, were considered. Firm age was measured by the years the firm has
marketing, and research and development), in order to settle common established: “1′′ as<3 years, “2” as 3–8 years, “3” as 9–15 years, “4” as
method bias. In answering the questions, participants were asked to look 16–25 years, and “5” as more than 25 years. Firm size was represented by
back at their firm’s decision-making processes over the past three years the average annual sales of the last three years: “1” as less than RMB10
and to complete the questionnaires accordingly. To minimize social million, “2” as RMB10 to 20 million, “3” as RMB20 to 30 million, “4” as
desirability bias, participants were also guaranteed that there were no RMB30 to 50 million, and “5” as more than RMB50 million. Firm
correct or incorrect answers, and were promised strict confidentiality. ownership was measured by two dummy variables reflecting privately
After removing invalid responses with missing or incomplete infor­ owned and state-owned firms, with foreign-owned firms as the refer­
mation, the returned valid responses (19.8%) comprised 396 re­ ence. Firm development stage was measured by asking respondents to
spondents from 198 firms in the machinery, energy, equipment, describe the stage of development of their firm by selecting from four
electronics, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and other manufacturing in­ stages (i.e., introduction, growth, maturity, and decline). To measure
dustries. Inter-rater reliability was checked to ensure that each pair of profit rank, a 7-point Likert-type scale was used to rate the extent of the
questionnaires represented a similar understanding of the key de­ firms’ profitability in the industries in which they operated. Policy sup­
scriptions. Of these, 77.3% were from privately owned firms, and 7.6% port was measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale to represent the
were from state-owned firms. T-tests indicated that there were no sta­ extent to which the firms obtain support from the government.
tistically significant differences between responses to face-to-face and
Email surveys in terms of firm age, firm size, firm ownership, or firm 4. Analysis and results
development stage. The following final data set for testing the research
model was selected: data for SMSC, TMT heterogeneity, and control 4.1. Construct reliability and validity
variables were taken from questionnaire A, while data for other vari­
ables were taken from questionnaire B. As shown in Table 1, the null model fitted the data well (χ 2/df = 2.65,
The nonresponse bias was checked in two ways. First, the t-tests CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06). Reliability
yielded no significant differences by comparing the participating and analysis (see Appendix 1) indicated that most variables possessed
nonparticipating firms in terms of major attributes such as firm age, firm adequate Cronbach’s α coefficients and composite reliabilities (CR), well
size, firm ownership, or firm development stage. Second, we compared above the 0.70 cutoff. Taken together, the measures of the constructs
early and late responses in terms of the above attribute variables, also showed satisfactory convergent validity.
yielding no statistically significant differences. These showed that the In tests of the discriminant validity of the measures, results showed
nonresponse bias was not a serious problem in our dataset. that the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) from each
construct were larger than the correlation coefficients across all the
3.2. Measures theoretically related constructs (see Table 2), thus supporting the
discriminant validity of each construct. In addition, the discriminant
The measures of the constructs were adapted from the maturity validity of the constructs was further assessed by comparing the baseline
scales of existing studies (see Appendix 1). A 7-point Likert scale, from 1, model with alternative models (see Table 1). Model comparison results
“disagree extremely,” to 7, “agree extremely,” was used to evaluate the indicated that the seven-factor model fitted the data considerably better
multi-item constructs. than did any of the alternative models. Overall, the measures of the
Disruptive innovation was measured by five items (α = 0.95) that were constructs showed adequate discriminant validity.
adapted from studies by Govindarajan and colleagues (Govindarajan &
Kopalle, 2006a; Govindarajan et al., 2011). The respondents were 4.2. Hypotheses testing
offered definitions and several examples of disruptive innovation, and
then were asked to rate each of the items. Table 2 included the descriptive statistics and correlations for all
SMSC was measured by four items (α = 0.94) that were adapted from variables. SMSC was significantly related to organizational unlearning
Nguyen et al. (2015). This captures the extent to which firms use social and disruptive innovation (r = 0.59, p < .01; r = 0.54, p < .01,
media to acquire and integrate information and identify opportunities respectively). Organizational unlearning was significantly related to
for corporate strategic development. disruptive innovation (r = 0.52, p < .01). These findings suggested that
Organizational unlearning was operationalized as conscious and hypothesis 1, 2 and 3 were reasonable.
deliberate changes in organizations’ beliefs and routines. It was We tested our hypotheses using ordinary least squares (OLS)
measured by eight items (α = 0.95) adapted from Akgün et al. (2006) to regression analysis. Table 3 showed our empirical results. We found a
evaluate the extent to which firms endeavor to change existing routines positive relationship between SMSC and disruptive innovation (β =
and beliefs to make room for new ones. 0.49, p < .001, Model 2), SMSC and organizational unlearning (β = 0.59,
TMT heterogeneity was measured by four items (α = 0.94) that were p < .001, Model 7), and organizational unlearning and disruptive
adapted from Koryak et al. (2018). This is related to heterogeneity in innovation (β = 0.47, p < .001, Model 4), in support of H1, H2, and H3.
expertise, backgrounds, competencies, and professional experience H4 predicted the mediation role of organizational unlearning in the
among members of the TMT. relationship between SMSC and disruptive innovation. As shown in
Based on Jaworski and Kohli (1993), a four-item scale (α = 0.93) was Model 3, when organizational unlearning was entered, the effect of
adapted to measure market dynamism, which was built on changes in SMSC on disruptive innovation decreased while remaining significant (β
customer preferences, customer product needs, and ease of forecasting = 0.32, p < .001); this suggested that organizational unlearning partially

188
F. Zhang and L. Zhu Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 183–193

Table 1
Results of confirmatory factor analyses.
Model χ2 df χ2/df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

Seven factors: 803.53 303 2.65 0.92 0.90 0.08 0.06

Null model
Six factors: 1238.11 309 4.01 0.84 0.82 0.12 0.07
SMSC + Organizational unlearning
Five factors 1327.47 314 4.23 0.83 0.81 0.13 0.06
Market + Technological + Regulatory
dynamism
One factor: 3830.33 324 11.82 0.41 0.36 0.23 0.15
All variables combined

Table 2
Correlations and discriminant validity.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Firm age —
2. Firm size 0.34** —
3. State-owned firms 0.28** 0.24** —
4. Private-owned firms -0.10 -0.17* -0.43** —
5. Development stage 0.50** 0.22** 0.19** -0.12 —
6. Sales -0.06 0.27** 0.02 0.08 -0.25** —
7. Profit rank -0.06 -0.18* -0.03 0.07 -0.13 -0.35** —
8. Governmental support 0.12 0.17* 0.04 -0.05 0.09 0.23** -0.06 —
9. SMSC -0.07 -0.01 -0.10 0.02 -0.13 0.17* -0.15* 0.18* 0.92
10. Organizational 0.04 0.05 -0.04 -0.01 0.02 0.12 -0.15* 0.14* 0.59** 0.87
unlearning
11. TMT heterogeneity 0.20** 0.31** 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.29** -0.24** 0.14* 0.45** 0.47** 0.93
12. Market dynamism -0.04 -0.02 -0.02 0.02 -0.13 0.13 -0.09 -0.05 0.39** 0.35** 0.32** 0.92
13. Technological 0.07 -0.07 0.09 0.00 -0.04 0.04 -0.07 0.09 0.45** 0.50** 0.32** 0.72** 0.89
dynamism
14. Regulatory dynamism 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.00 -0.01 0.05 -0.05 0.08 0.38** 0.42** 0.29** 0.54** 0.78** 0.93
15. Disruptive innovation 0.06 0.03 -0.03 0.06 -0.05 0.29** -0.19** 0.27** 0.54** 0.52** 0.44** 0.31** 0.42** 0.28** 0.92
Mean 2.76 2.38 0.08 0.70 2.43 4.52 3.80 3.13 4.94 4.91 5.08 5.07 4.99 5.06 4.54
S.D. 1.21 1.91 0.27 0.46 0.67 1.58 1.45 1.51 1.18 1.09 1.10 1.26 1.24 1.32 1.24
**
Note: * p < 0.05; p < 0.01; two-tailed test; Diagonal elements (in bold) are square roots of the AVE values

Table 3
Regression results.
Disruptive innovation Organizational unlearning

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Control variables
Firm age 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.00
Firm size -0.10 -0.08 -0.08 -0.09 -0.06 -0.01 0.01 -0.04
State-owned firms -0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 -0.02 -0.06 -0.01 -0.02
Private-owned firms 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 -0.02 -0.01 -0.08
Development stage -0.06 -0.01 -0.02 -0.06 -0.05 -0.01 0.06 0.06
Sales 0.20* 0.17* 0.16* 0.18* 0.18** 0.06 0.02 -0.04
Profit rank -0.13 -0.06 -0.05 -0.07 -0.06 -0.12 -0.04 0.00
Governmental support 0.23*** 0.15* 0.14* 0.18** 0.23*** 0.12 0.02 0.02
Main effect
SMSC 0.49*** 0.32*** 0.59*** 0.44***
Mediation effect
Organizational unlearning (OU) 0.29*** 0.47*** 0.35***
Moderation effects
TMT heterogeneity 0.29***
SMSC * TMT heterogeneity 0.17**
Market dynamism (MD) 0.20*
Technological dynamism (TD) 0.03
Regulatory dynamism (RD) -0.04
OU * MD 0.24*
OU * TD -0.49***
OU * RD 0.31**
R2 0.16 0.37 0.42 0.36 0.45 0.05 0.33 0.44
△R2 0.16*** 0.22*** 0.053*** 0.21*** 0.09*** 0.05 0.31*** 0.08***
F-value 4.37 12.33 13.78 11.88*** 9.81*** 1.14 11.67*** 13.14***

Note: Standardized coefficients are reported; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; two-tailed tests.

189
F. Zhang and L. Zhu Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 183–193

mediated the effect of SMSC on disruptive innovation (Baron & Kenny,

1986). We further tested the mediation effects using path analysis and
bootstrapping method (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). The indirect effects
of SMSC on disruptive innovation through organizational unlearning
(Indirect effect = 0.18, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.31]) were positive and sig­
nificant, further supporting H4.
In order to test H5 and H6, we followed the procedure recommended
by Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) to test the moderation effects.
Before generating the interaction terms, we mean-centered all the var­
iables involved. Model 8 showed that the interaction term between
SMSC and TMT heterogeneity was positively and significantly related to
unlearning (β = 0.17, p < .01), and the graph of this moderating effect
was shown in Fig. 2, thus H5 was supported. Model 5 showed that the
interaction term between organizational unlearning and market dyna­
mism positively affected disruptive innovation (β = 0.24, p < .05) and
the graph of this moderating effect was shown in Fig. 3, supporting H6a.
The interaction term between organizational unlearning and techno­
logical dynamism negatively affected disruptive innovation (β = -0.49, Fig. 3. The moderation effect of market dynamism.
p < .001, Model 5) and the graph of this moderating effect was shown in
Fig. 4, supporting H6b. The interaction term between organizational
unlearning and regulatory dynamism positively affected disruptive
innovation (β = 0.31, p < .01, Model 5) and the graph of this moderating
effect was shown in Fig. 5, supporting H6c.

4.3. Additional analysis

We also conducted an additional analysis to ensure the overall val­

idity of the findings. To test whether there was a bidirectional rela­
tionship between SMSC and disruptive innovation, we developed a
nonrecursive cross-sectional model recommended by Wong and Law
(1999). It contains links from SMSC to disruptive innovation, as well as
from disruptive innovation to SMSC. The results showed that SMSC
positively and significantly affect disruptive innovation (β = 0.40, p <
.01), but disruptive innovation does not affect SMSC (β = -0.06, p > .05).
These findings demonstrated that there was no bidirectional relation­
Fig. 4. The moderation effect of technological dynamism.
ship between SMSC and disruptive innovation, supporting our original
model specification that SMSC has a positive effect on disruptive
innovation.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical contributions

This study contributes to the literature on social media and disrup­

tive innovation in several ways. First, it contributes to social media
literature by enhancing the understanding of the impact of social media

Fig. 5. The moderation effect of regulatory dynamism.

in innovation from a strategic capability perspective. Previous research

emphasizes that the use of social media allows firms to access and gain
more information and improve internal and external communications
and interactions in innovation activities (Alalwan et al., 2017; Bhimani
et al., 2019). However, the understanding of effective ways to leverage
social media remains under-explored (Bashir et al., 2017; Roberts &
Piller, 2016) and the potential of social media for innovation is not fully
realized (Barlatier & Josserand, 2018). Our study complements earlier
Fig. 2. The moderation effect of TMT heterogeneity. studies that advocate the capability perspective of social media (e.g.,

190
F. Zhang and L. Zhu Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 183–193

Benitez et al., 2018; Muninger et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2015) by helps them to identify the demands of emerging customers and take
exploring the influence of SMSC on disruptive innovation. The focus on advantage of new opportunities for disruptive innovation. In the
SMSC allows us to identify the effective ways in which firms can meantime, they should also be aware that it is critical to unlearn or
leverage social media to make better strategic decisions on corporate adjust current thinking or capabilities that hinder disruptive innovation
innovations. In addition, we also enrich the current state of research on in the implementation of social media strategies. Second, we find that to
the relationship between SMSC and disruptive innovation by discov­ make full use of the positive potential of social media in SMEs’ strategic
ering a specific mechanism (i.e., unlearning) through which firms can development, the importance of diverse perspectives to analyze, inter­
transform information or knowledge acquired from the use of SMSC into pret, transform, and utilize information acquired from social media
disruptive innovation outcomes. Therefore, this study is a starting point, should also be noted. Hence, we recommend that the chief executive
offering new insights into social media research to further examine officers of SMEs should seek potential managers with diverse knowledge
whether and how social media can be organized to facilitate firms’ and experience to assemble their TMTs. Finally, our study explains to
strategic processes and outcomes. managers that the different types of environmental dynamism have
Second, this study further contributes to the literature on the impact differential effects on the organizational unlearning–disruptive innova­
of social media by providing a contingency approach for understanding tion link. The market and regulatory aspects of environmental dyna­
the complex relationship between SMSC and disruptive innovation. We mism are more likely to contain opportunities for SMEs to perform
find the moderators of TMT heterogeneity and environmental dynamism disruptive innovation; when facing highly technological dynamism, it
in the relationships among SMSC, unlearning, and disruptive innova­ may be risky for them to conduct technology-based disruptive
tion, providing an alternative explanation to the mixed results about the innovation.
impact of social media on innovation outcomes (de Zubielqui et al.,
2019). We also contribute to existing literature on how to tap into the
potential of social media in innovation by identifying a more positive 5.3. Limitations and future research
relationship between SMSC and unlearning in firms with high TMT
heterogeneity and better disruptive innovation performance from Our study has some limitations that may be addressed by future
practicing unlearning in higher dynamic market and regulatory envi­ studies. The first limitation is the restricted generalizability of our
ronments or in lower dynamic technological environments. In addition, findings. Although they may be applicable to SMEs in a major emerging
we extend the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis et al., 1989) by economy (China), readers should exercise prudence when extending
these findings to SMEs in other emerging or developed economies.
indicating that user characteristics and environmental factors influence
not only the acceptance of social media, but also the implementation of Research is encouraged to test our hypotheses in other contexts with
different samples, such as large firms. Second, we only collected cross-
social media in innovation activities. In addition, while we provide the
insight for future research in this area that it may be necessary to sectional data that were short of showing causality in the relation­
ships. Further studies may apply longitudinal data to enhance the un­
consider TMT characteristics when investigating the strategic values of
social media, future researchers should also note the different roles of derstanding of the complex relationships between SMSC, organizational
distinct dimensions of environmental dynamism when conducting unlearning, and disruptive innovation. Third, research suggests that
studies of SMEs performing unlearning to facilitate disruptive disruptive innovation can be divided into two types: low-end disruption
innovation. and high-end disruption (Sampere, 2016). Because of the research
Third, our study contributes to the literature on the antecedents of context of Chinese SMEs, this study focuses primarily on low-end
disruptive innovation by showing how and when SMEs in China could disruption; however, future research should consider high-end disrup­
pursue disruptive innovation strategies by fully integrating information tion in other contexts, particularly developed markets. Finally, there
and resources derived from social media to make better strategic de­ may be other mediating or moderating factors in the relationship be­
cisions. Because investigations are still in the early stage, previous tween SMSC and disruptive innovation. Therefore, future studies may
research on disruptive innovation mainly applied case studies to build consider other mediating (e.g., absorptive capacity) or moderating fac­
theories, while limited attention has been paid to testing these theories tors (e.g., environmental competition and governmental support) to
(Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006a; Yu & Hang, 2010). Existing literature enrich our understanding of why or how social media influences
focuses primarily on organizational capabilities or cultures that drive corporate strategic outcomes.
disruptive innovation (Govindarajan et al., 2011; Govindarajan &
Kopalle, 2006b; Yu & Hang, 2010). Extending the findings regarding the Acknowledgements
capability antecedents of disruptive innovation, we identify a new type
of capability, SMSC, which enables SMEs to acquire and integrate in­ This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
formation and knowledge in order to observe the demands of emerging of China [grant number 71704056]; the Natural Science Foundation of
customers and identify and utilize disruptive innovation opportunities Guangdong Province (CN) (Grant No. 2019A1515011023); and the
in the rapidly growing social media environment. In addition, this study Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [grant number
shows that social media platforms are helpful for complementing the x2gsC2181500].
shortages of knowledge or intelligence in SMEs, providing an alternative
explanation for the long-standing puzzle that disruptive innovation Appendix A. Measurements
usually occurs in SMEs (Hitchen et al., 2017; Wan et al., 2015).
Furthermore, we provide a reference point for future research that Disruptive innovation (AVE = 0.84; α = 0.95; CR = 0.96).
would explore how other aspects of social media influence disruptive
innovation in SMEs. Before filling in questionnaires, the respondents were offered
definitions and several examples of disruptive innovation, and
5.2. Managerial implications then were asked to rate each of the items.

This study has some significant implications for firm social media (1) We introduce highly disruptive new products (0.92)
and innovation practices. First, our findings inform SME managers that (2) We lag behind in introducing disruptive product innovations
it is important to consider social media in their strategies and build (Reverse) (0.94)
capabilities related to social media such as SMSC. Such a capability can (3) Our new products are very attractive to a different customer
compensate for their firms’ lack of knowledge and experience, and thus segment at the time of product introduction (0.91)

191
F. Zhang and L. Zhu Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 183–193

(4) Our new products are those where the mainstream customers (2) Unpredictability of laws and regulations present problems for
found the innovations attractive over time as they were able to many business operations (0.94)
satisfy the requirements of the mainstream market (0.92) (3) Our legal system is volatile and unstable (0.94)
(5) The introduction of our new products helps us open up a new
market (0.88) Note: AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability;
Following each measurement item, the figure in parenthesis is factor
Social media strategic capability (SMSC) (AVE = 0.84; α = 0.94; CR loading.
= 0.96).
References
(1) Our company owns future competitive flexibility in social media
(0.89) Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Byrne, J. C. (2003). Organizational learning: A socio-
cognitive framework. Human Relations, 56(7), 839–868.
(2) Our company has the ability to cohesively garner employee Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Byrne, J. C. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of
knowledge through social media (0.91) unlearning in new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation
(3) In our company, top managers have entrepreneurship charac­ Management, 23(1), 73–88.
Alalwan, A. A., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Algharabat, R. (2017). Social media in
teristics on social media (0.94) marketing: A review and analysis of the existing literature. Telematics and
(4) Our company has the ability to use social media to quickly Informatics, 34(7), 1177–1190.
become aware of new opportunities or threat possibilities (0.93) Aral, S., Dellarocas, C., & Godes, D. (2013). Introduction to the special issue—social
media and business transformation: A framework for research. Information Systems
Research, 24(1), 3–13.
Organization unlearning (AVE = 0.75; α = 0.95; CR = 0.96). Barlatier, P. J., & Josserand, E. (2018). Delivering open innovation promises through
Our company try to change beliefs regarding: social media. Journal of Business Strategy, 39(6), 21–28.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
(1) ideas of product development (0.86) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
(2) the features that were technically possible (0.86) Bashir, N., Papamichail, K. N., & Malik, K. (2017). Use of social media applications for
(3) the rate of market acceptance (0.87) supporting new product development processes in multinational corporations.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 176–183.
(4) the rate of technological improvements (0.84) Benitez, J., Castillo, A., Llorens, J., & Braojos, J. (2018). IT-enabled knowledge
ambidexterity and innovation performance in small US firms: The moderator role of
Our company try to change routines regarding: social media capability. Information & Management, 55(1), 131–143.
Bhimani, H., Mention, A. L., & Barlatier, P. J. (2019). Social media and innovation: A
systematic literature review and future research directions. Technological Forecasting
(5) product development procedures (0.79) and Social Change, 144, 251–269.
(6) ongoing project plans (0.90) Bilgram, V., Bartl, M., & Biel, S. (2011). Getting closer to the consumer–how Nivea co-
creates new products. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 28(1), 34–40.
(7) information-sharing mechanisms (e.g., e-mail, WeChat, Sina Bos-Brouwers, H. E. J. (2010). Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs:
microblog) (0.90) Evidence of themes and activities in practice. Business Strategy and the Environment,
(8) decision-making processes (0.88) 19(7), 417–435.
Brunswicker, S., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2015). Open innovation in small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs): External knowledge sourcing strategies and internal
TMT heterogeneity (AVE = 0.86; α = 0.94; CR = 0.96). organizational facilitators. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 1241–1263.
Burrows, M. (2012). Global trends 2030: Alternative worlds. US National Intelligence
Council.
(1) TMT members vary widely in their areas of expertise (0.91)
Calantone, R., Garcia, R., & Dröge, C. (2003). The effects of environmental turbulence on
(2) TMT members have a variety of different backgrounds (0.94) new product development strategy planning. Journal of Product Innovation
(3) TMT members have skills and abilities that complement each Management, 20(2), 90–103.
other (0.94) Cepeda-Carrión, I., Leal-Millán, A. G., Ortega-Gutierrez, J., & Leal-Rodriguez, A. L.
(2015). Linking unlearning with service quality through learning processes in the
(4) TMT members are diverse in terms of their professional experi­ Spanish banking industry. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1450–1457.
ence (0.92) Chan, N. L., & Guillet, B. D. (2011). Investigation of social media marketing: How does
the hotel industry in Hong Kong perform in marketing on social media websites?
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(4), 345–368.
Market dynamism (AVE = 0.84; α = 0.93; CR = 0.95). Chelariu, C., Bello, D. C., & Gilliland, D. I. (2006). Institutional antecedents and
performance consequences of influence strategies in export channels to Eastern
(1) Customers’ product preferences change quite a bit over time in European transitional economies. Journal of Business Research, 59(5), 525–534.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
our main business (0.93) Press.
(2) Customers’ demands and preferences change frequently (0.95) Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). Innovator’s solution. Boston, MA: Harvard
(3) Our customers tend to look for new product all the time (0.90) Business School Press.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/
(4) It is very difficult to predict any changes in this marketplace correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences ((3rd ed.)”.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(0.86) Cruz-González, J., López-Sáez, P., Navas-López, J. E., & Delgado-Verde, M. (2015). Open
search strategies and firm performance: The different moderating role of
technological environmental dynamism. Technovation, 35, 32–45.
Technological dynamism (AVE = 0.79; α = 0.91; CR = 0.94).
Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(4), 246–258.
(1) The technology in our industry is changing rapidly (0.93) Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
(2) Technological developments in our industry are rather major technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8),
982–1003.
(0.93) de Zubielqui, G. C., Fryges, H., & Jones, J. (2019). Social media, open innovation &
(3) It is very difficult to forecast where the technology in our industry HRM: Implications for performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144,
will be in the next two to three years (0.88) 334–347.
Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments.
(4) A large number of new product ideas have been made possible Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52–73.
through technological breakthroughs in our industry (0.82) Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and
mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis.
Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.
Regulatory dynamism (AVE = 0.87; α = 0.93; CR = 0.95). Fiol, M., & O’Connor, E. (2017). Unlearning established organizational routines–part I.
The Learning Organization, 24(1), 13–29.
(1) We often have to cope with unexpected changes in laws, rules or
policies (0.92)

192
F. Zhang and L. Zhu Journal of Business Research 133 (2021) 183–193

Glassman, J., Prosch, M., & Shao, B. B. (2015). To monitor or not to monitor: Pegels, C. C., Song, Y. I., & Yang, B. (2000). Management heterogeneity, competitive
Effectiveness of a cyberloafing countermeasure. Information & Management, 52(2), interaction groups, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 21(9),
170–182. 911–923.
Govindarajan, V., & Kopalle, P. K. (2006a). Disruptiveness of innovations: Measurement Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The institution–based view as a
and an assessment of reliability and validity. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 63–81.
189–199. Pentina, I., Koh, A. C., & Le, T. T. (2012). Adoption of social networks marketing by
Govindarajan, V., & Kopalle, P. K. (2006b). The usefulness of measuring disruptiveness of SMEs: Exploring the role of social influences and experience in technology
innovations ex post in making ex ante predictions. Journal of Product Innovation acceptance. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 7(1), 65–82.
Management, 23(1), 12–18. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, C. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
Govindarajan, V., Kopalle, P. K., & Danneels, E. (2011). The effects of mainstream and dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
emerging customer orientations on radical and disruptive innovations. Journal of Piller, F. T., Vossen, A., & Ihl, C. (2012). From social media to social product
Product Innovation Management, 28(s1), 121–132. development: The impact of social media on co-creation of innovation. Die
Hart, S. L., & Christensen, C. M. (2002). The great leap: Driving innovation from the base Unternehmung, 65(1), 7–27.
of the pyramid. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(1), 51–56. Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J., & Johnson, B. (2014). Technology acceptance model
Hitchen, E. L., Nylund, P. A., Ferràs, X., & Mussons, S. (2017). Social media: Open (TAM) and social media usage: An empirical study on Facebook. Journal of Enterprise
innovation in SMEs finds new support. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(3), 21–29. Information Management, 27(1), 6–30.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Joyce, W. F. (1985). Organizational adaptation: Strategic choice and Roberts, D. L., & Candi, M. (2014). Leveraging social network sites in new product
environmental determinism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 336–349. development: Opportunity or hype? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31
Järvinen, J., & Taiminen, H. (2016). Harnessing marketing automation for B2B content (S1), 105–117.
marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 54, 164–175. Roberts, D. L., & Piller, F. T. (2016). Finding the right role for social media in innovation.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1996). Market orientation: Review, refinement, and MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(3), 41–47.
roadmap. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 1(2), 119–135. Roberts, D. L., Piller, F. T., & Lüttgens, D. (2016). Mapping the impact of social media for
Josefy, M., Kuban, S., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2015). All things great and small: innovation: The role of social media in explaining innovation performance in the
Organizational size, boundaries of the firm, and a changing environment. Academy of PDMA comparative performance assessment study. Journal of Product Innovation
Management Annals, 9(1), 715–802. Management, 33(S1), 117–135.
Jussila, J. J., Kärkkäinen, H., & Aramo-Immonen, H. (2014). Social media utilization in Sampere, J. P. V. (2016). Why platform disruption is so much bigger than product
business–to-business relationships of technology industry firms. Computers in Human disruption. Harvard Business Review, 4(08), 1–6.
Behavior, 30, 606–613. Schmidt, G. M., & Druehl, C. T. (2008). When is a disruptive innovation disruptive?
Kadam, A., & Ayarekar, S. (2014). Impact of social media on entrepreneurship and Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(4), 347–369.
entrepreneurial performance: Special reference to small and medium scale Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Creative Destruction - Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New
enterprises. SIES Journal of Management, 10(1), 3–11. York, NY: Harper.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and Sheng, S., Zhou, K. Z., & Lessassy, L. (2013). NPD speed vs. innovativeness: The
opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59–68. contingent impact of institutional and market environments. Journal of Business
Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., & Flood, P. Research, 66(11), 2355–2362.
(1999). Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of
Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 445–465. Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2010). Marketing 3.0: From products to customers Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1998). Customer-led and market-oriented: Let’s not confuse
to the human spirit. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. the two. Strategic Management Journal, 19(10), 1001–1006.
Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N., & Mole, K. (2018). Disentangling the Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations
antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 47(2), of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13),
413–427. 1319–1350.
Lardon, A., & Deloof, M. (2014). Financial disclosure by SMEs listed on a semi–regulated Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
market: Evidence from the Euronext Free Market. Small Business Economics, 42(2), management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
361–385. Trainor, K. J., Andzulis, J. M., Rapp, A., & Agnihotri, R. (2014). Social media technology
Leonardi, P. M., & Vaast, E. (2017). Social media and their affordances for organizing: A usage and customer relationship performance: A capabilities-based examination of
review and agenda for research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 150–188. social CRM. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1201–1208.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and Van Praag, C. M. (2003). Business survival and success of young small business owners.
performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management Small Business Economics, 21(1), 1–17.
team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672. Vecchiato, R. (2017). Disruptive innovation, managerial cognition, and technology
Lyu, C., Yang, J., Zhang, F., Teo, T. S., & Guo, W. (2020). Antecedents and consequence competition outcomes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 116–128.
of organizational unlearning: Evidence from China. Industrial Marketing Management, Wan, F., Williamson, P. J., & Yin, E. (2015). Antecedents and implications of disruptive
84, 261–270. innovation: Evidence from China. Technovation, 39, 94–104.
Markides, C. C. (2012). How disruptive will innovations from emerging markets be? MIT Wang, W. Y., Pauleen, D. J., & Zhang, T. (2016). How social media applications affect
Sloan Management Review, 54(1), 23–25. B2B communication and improve business performance in SMEs. Industrial Marketing
Marion, T. J., Barczak, G., & Hultink, E. J. (2014). Do social media tools impact the Management, 54, 4–14.
development phase? An exploratory study. Journal of Product Innovation Yu, D., & Hang, C. C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory.
Management, 31(S1), 18–29. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 435–452.
Mensch, G. O. (1985). Perspective get ready for innovation by invasion. Journal of Yu, D., & Hang, C. C. (2011). Creating technology candidates for disruptive innovation:
Product Innovation Management, 2(4), 259–265. Generally applicable R&D strategies. Technovation, 31(8), 401–410.
Michaelidou, N., Siamagka, N. T., & Christodoulides, G. (2011). Usage, barriers and Zeng, M., & Williamson, P. J. (2007). Dragons at your door: How Chinese cost innovation is
measurement of social media marketing: An exploratory investigation of small and disrupting global competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
medium B2B brands. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(7), 1153–1159. Zwass, V. (2010). Co-creation: Toward a taxonomy and an integrated research
Mount, M., & Martinez, M. G. (2014). Social media: A tool for open innovation. California perspective. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(1), 11–48.
Management Review, 56(4), 124–143.
Muninger, M. I., Hammedi, W., & Mahr, D. (2019). The value of social media for
Feng Zhang is an associate researcher in School of Business Administration, South China
innovation: A capability perspective. Journal of Business Research, 95, 116–127.
University of Technology. His research interests include strategy, innovation, green
Naranjo-Gil, D., Hartmann, F., & Maas, V. S. (2008). Top management team
management, and others. His work has appeared in Journal of Product Innovation Man­
heterogeneity, strategic change and operational performance. British Journal of
agement, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Management, 19(3), 222–234.
Journal of Business Research, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Environmental
Nguyen, B., Yu, X., Melewar, T. C., & Chen, J. (2015). Brand innovation and social media:
Management, Innovation: Organization & Management, Journal of Management & Organiza­
Knowledge acquisition from social media, market orientation, and the moderating
tion and others.
role of social media strategic capability. Industrial Marketing Management, 51, 11–25.
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 18(S1), 187–206. Lei Zhu is an assistant professor in Business Administration, Guangdong University of
Pandit, D., Joshi, M. P., Sahay, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2018). Disruptive innovation and Finance & Economics. Her research interests focus on organizational trust and organiza­
dynamic capabilities in emerging economies: Evidence from the Indian automotive tional socialization. Her work has appeared in Journal of Product Innovation Management,
sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 323–329. Business Strategy and the Environment, Innovation: Organization & Management, Chinese
Papa, A., Santoro, G., Tirabeni, L., & Monge, F. (2018). Social media as tool for Management Studies and others.
facilitating knowledge creation and innovation in small and medium enterprises.
Baltic Journal of Management, 13(3), 329–344.

193