Strategy in emerging economies and the theory of the firm

Indigenous emerging economy (EE) firms are increasingly competing in global markets or against multinational corporations (MNCs) in their home markets. But their institutional context at the national and local levels often suffers from what has been termed “institutional weakness” which is believed to put them at a competitive disadvantage on the global playing field. Yet little is known about how EE institutional weakness at the national level translates into competitive disadvantage at the firm level. In this perspectives paper, we examine this shortcoming in the literature. We utilize three popular theories of the firm—neoclassical economics, the resource-based view, and the nexus of contracts view—to examine how EE institutional weakness at the national level affects strategic choices at the firm level. We then explain how these strategic choices affect firm boundaries, internal organization, and the nature of competitive advantage for firms in EEs.     

Exploring firm characteristics that differentiate leaders from followers in industry merger waves: a competitive dynamics perspective

Research in strategic management has shown that the timing of firm participation in a merger wave matters, as early movers have been shown to outperform later ones. However, while the consequences of the timing of action within a merger wave have been assessed, the causes that drive these timing effects remain unknown. We draw on the competitive dynamics perspective to investigate firm‐level factors that influence the large‐scale strategic behavior of leading or following within industry merger waves. We develop hypotheses based on the competitive dynamics argument that the awareness‐motivation‐capability of firms will influence the timing of competitive action. Consistent with this perspective, we show that a firm's strategic orientation, its structure, and its resource base influence the timing of firm entry in merger waves. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

People and process,suits and innovators: the role of individuals in firm performance

Performance differences between firms are generally attributed to organizational factors rather than to differences among the individuals who make up firms. As a result, little is known about the part that individual firm members play in explaining the variance in performance among firms. This paper employs a multiple membership cross‐classified multilevel model to test the degree to which organizational or individual factors explain firm performance. The analysis also examines whether individual differences among middle managers or innovators best explain firm performance variation. The results indicate that variation among individuals matter far more in organizational performance than is generally assumed. Further, variation among middle managers has a particularly large impact on firm performance, much larger than that of those individuals who are assigned innovative roles. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Asymmetric rivalry within and between strategic groups

Our study examines asymmetric rivalry within and between strategic groups defined according to the size of their members. We hypothesize that, owing to several forms of group‐level effects, including switching costs and efficiency, strategic groups comprising large firms expect to experience a large amount of retaliation from firms within their group and accommodation from the group comprising smaller firms. Small firms, on the other hand, expect to experience a small amount of retaliation from the group comprising large firms and no reaction from the other firms in their group. We estimate the effect of group‐level strategic interactions on firm performance. Our analysis reveals that the rivalry behavior within and between groups is asymmetric, which supports the dominant‐fringe relation between firms, as described in our hypothesis. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

What Makes a Family Firm Innovative? CEO Risk‐Taking Propensity and the Organizational Context of Family Firms

Investigating the new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms connects two important topics that have recently received considerable attention in innovation and family firm research. First, new product portfolio innovativeness has been identified as a critical determinant of firm performance. Second, research on family firms has focused on the questions of if and why family firms are more or less innovative than other organizational forms. Research investigating the innovativeness of family firms has often applied a risk‐oriented perspective by identifying socioemotional wealth (SEW) as the main reference that determines firm behavior. Thus, prior research has mainly focused on the organizational context to predict innovation‐related family firm behavior and neglected the impact of preferences and the behavior of the chief executive officer (CEO), which have both been shown to affect firm outcomes. Hence, this study aims to extend the previous research by introducing the CEO's disposition to organizational context variables to explain the new product portfolio innovativeness of small and medium‐sized family firms. Specifically, this study explores how the organizational context (i.e., ownership by top management team [TMT] family members and generation in charge of the family firm) of family firms interacts with CEO risk‐taking propensity to affect new product portfolio innovativeness. Using a sample of 114 German CEOs of small and medium‐sized family firms operating in manufacturing industries, the results show that CEO risk‐taking propensity has a positive effect on new product portfolio innovativeness. Moreover, the analyses show that the organizational context of family firms impacts the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness. Specifically, the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness is weaker if levels of ownership by TMT family members are high (high SEW). Additionally, the effect of CEO risk‐taking propensity on new product portfolio innovativeness is stronger in family firms at earlier generational stages (high SEW). This result suggests that if SEW is a strong reference, family firm‐specific characteristics can affect individual dispositions and, in turn, the behaviors of executives. Therefore, this study helps extend the knowledge on the determinants of new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms by considering an individual CEO preference and the organizational context variables of family firms simultaneously.     

Strategy,human capital investments,business‐domain capabilities,and performance: a study in the global software services industry

Research summary : In knowledge‐based industries, continuous human capital investments are essential for firms to enhance capabilities and sustain competitive advantage. However, such investments present a dilemma for firms, because human resources are mobile. Using detailed project‐level operational, financial, and human capital data from a leading multinational firm in the global IT services industry, this study finds that deliberate investments in improving general human capital can help firms develop superior capabilities and maintain high profits. This paper identifies two types of capabilities essential for success in this industry—technological and business‐domain capabilities—and provides empirical evidence justifying such investments. Theoretical and practical implications of capability‐seeking general human capital investments are discussed. Managerial summary : The primary managerial implication of this research is that capability‐seeking investments in developing general human capital through strategic learning (training and internal certifications) can enhance firm performance. Although investing in general human capital is risky, the firm considered this a strategic necessity in order to thrive in the fast paced IT services industry. By leveraging general technological skills in combination with business‐domain knowledge to address customer's business problems firms can earn and sustain higher profits. Our study also demonstrates how a developing‐country firm responded to strong competitive challenge from global rivals possessing superior capabilities by upgrading the capabilities of its employees through internal development. In doing so the firm was able to narrow the capability gap vis‐à‐vis its foreign peers and expand its business globally. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do Individual Employees' Learning Goal Orientation and Civic Virtue Matter? A Micro‐Foundations Perspective on Firm Absorptive Capacity

Research summary : In this study, we build on the micro‐foundations perspective and investigate how individual characteristics contribute to the development of firm absorptive capacity. In particular, we assess how individual learning goal orientation affects firm potential and realized absorptive capacity. Furthermore, we study how individuals' civic virtue acts as a micro‐level social integration mechanism that moderates the effect from firm realized absorptive capacity to potential absorptive capacity. Using the multilevel structural equation modeling technique and data from 871 core‐knowledge employees nested in 139 high‐technology firms, we find support to our major hypotheses. Together, this study finds support for the micro‐foundations' perspective and generates novel insights on how individual‐level factors could be linked with firm‐level heterogeneity in absorptive capacity. Managerial summary : We study how employees' characteristics contribute to a firm's absorptive capacity, that is, the ability of a firm to identify, assimilate, and exploit knowledge from the environment. Because firms have increasingly tapped into external resources to foster innovation over the past two decades, absorptive capacity is crucial to firm learning and success. Using data from 871 core‐knowledge employees in 139 high‐technology firms, we find that individual employees' learning goal orientation, the tendency to seek improvements in employees' competence and to understand or master new things advances the development of a firm's potential and realized absorptive capacity. More important, individual employees' civic virtue, the discretionary involvement in company issues, serves as a social integration mechanism that reduces the gap between firm potential and realized absorptive capacity. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Thematic Thinking and Individual Performance in Research and Development

Individuals differ in their preference for processing information on the basis of taxonomic, feature‐based similarity, or thematic, relation‐based similarity. These differences, which have been investigated in a recently emerging research stream in cognitive psychology, affect innovative behavior and thus constitute an important antecedent of individual performance in research and development (R&D) that has been overlooked so far in the literature on innovation management. To fill this research gap, survey and test data from the employees of a multinational information technology services firm are used to examine the relationship between thematic thinking and R&D professionals' individual performance. A moderated mediation model is applied to investigate the proposed relationships of thematic thinking and individual‐level performance indicators. Results show a positive relationship between thematic thinking and innovativeness, as well as individual job performance. While the results do not support the postulated moderation of the innovativeness–job performance relationship by employees' political skill, they show that the relationship between thematic thinking and job performance is fully mediated by R&D professionals' innovativeness. The present study is thus the first to reveal a positive relationship between thematic thinking and innovative performance.     

The relationship between innovation culture and innovation outcomes: exploring the effects of sustainability orientation and firm size

Being sustainability‐oriented has become a key strategy for many firms. Equally, innovation culture and innovation outcomes have long been recognized as important contributors to the growth of firms. However, the literature on sustainability and innovation provides limited understanding of the important relationship between sustainability orientation, innovation culture and innovation outcomes. Given that large firms and small firms differ in building and employing their strategic assets, firm size matters in understanding the relationship. Through the lens of resource‐based view, we develop a theoretical model embedding the four components and test it using data from a global survey: the 2012 Comparative Performance Assessment Study. Our research contributes to sustainability literature and innovation theory by providing an integrated framework to explicate the mechanism through which the innovation culture of the firm impacts on innovative performance through the sustainability orientation of the firm. The findings advance our understanding of the extent to which sustainable orientation can explain the relationship between innovation culture and innovation outcomes. Our evidence shows that the innovation culture of a firm facilitates the sustainability orientation of the firm and that the converse also applies. The research also contributes to our knowledge of the differences between large and small firms in leveraging their strategic assets in terms of innovation culture and sustainability orientation to facilitate superior innovation outcomes. Although firm size moderates the relationship between innovation culture and innovation outcomes, the research shows that this no longer holds when sustainability orientation is included in the relationship. A strong sustainability orientation can be a competitive advantage for firms in the R&D Management delivery of superior innovation outcomes.     

Why top management team characteristics matter when employing a chief operating officer: a strategic contingency perspective

Critics of the CEO/COO duo have stressed that this arrangement burdens the firm with increased costs and decreases the CEO's effectiveness. This study adopts an upper echelon perspective to argue that the presence of a COO may also create TMT‐level information‐processing benefits that can improve firm performance in certain conditions. Data from a sample of 153 firms in five industries highlight a strong positive relationship between the presence of a COO and two established measures of firm performance: return on assets and market‐to‐book ratio. The data also suggest that those relationships are contingent on the broader characteristics of the TMT. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Knowledge complexity and the performance of inter‐unit knowledge replication structures

Research Summary: Intra‐firm replication of complex knowledge is difficult yet critical to firm growth and the exploitation of competitive advantage. Inter‐unit organizational structures can facilitate the replication of complex knowledge between a source unit and a recipient unit. This study examines how inter‐unit organizational structures perform at different levels of knowledge complexity. We dimensionalize the patterns of information‐processing interactions according to three specific factors: the degree of inter‐unit connectivity, the extent of mirroring between the structure and the knowledge configuration, and coordination mechanisms. Simulation analyses offer a set of novel findings on how the information‐processing and bounded‐rationality concerns of organizational design impact the replication performance of the structures. We derive optimal structures for different levels of knowledge complexity, and articulate their theoretical and practical implications. Managerial Summary: The growth of firms often involves redeployment of their complex knowledge to new subunits or markets, in the context of acquisitions, alliances, or the creation of multinational subsidiaries. Complex knowledge is difficult to imitate, and thus, serves as a source of competitive advantage. However, it is also challenging to replicate within a firm, which limits firms’ ability to redeploy their capabilities in pursuit of new opportunities. A proper design of inter‐unit structures can facilitate the replication of complex knowledge between intra‐firm units. This study examines how the design of inter‐unit structures affects the outcome of this replication. Our results suggest that managers in charge of redeployment efforts should be mindful of the connectivity among units, coordination mechanisms, information overload, and the level of knowledge complexity.     

Product Design Innovation and Customer Value: Cross‐Cultural Research in the United States and Korea

Innovation is one of the key drivers of success that a firm must utilize to develop a competitive advantage. The ability to innovate is especially important for a firm's survival in dynamic, changing environments. Customer demands are constantly changing, and more purchases are made when a firm's product design incorporates what customers perceive as cutting‐edge innovations. Satisfying customer demands is a distinct challenge for product designers because firms must develop a clear understanding of what aspects of design the customer wants. Although the importance of design has increased, very little research has been done to explain the relationship between product innovation and product design. Studies indicate that design innovation may create greater customer value through improvements in design value. Previous research has been limited and has not provided a clear concept of design innovation or defined the relationship between design innovation and marketing competencies. This paper seeks to offer a conceptual definition of design innovation, and to define the link between design innovation and marketing competencies. This paper utilizes cross‐cultural research to discover how these concepts differ due to cultural differences between the United States and Korea. This research contributes substantially to our understanding of the relationship between design innovation and customer value.     

利益相关者视角的企业形成逻辑与企业边界分析

本文将企业的形成视为利益相关者集体选择的结果,由两个层次的集体选择决定。第一层次是所有可能的利益相关者对企业契约和交易契约的选择,企业契约的选择者将构建企业并拥有企业所有权。第二层次是拥有企业所有权的利益相关者对企业控制权和合作剩余分享方案的选择。第二层次集体选择的可能集是第一层次集体选择中个体理性的约束条件,本文借助不等式组推导了第二层次集体选择的可行集。在对企业形成逻辑进行分析的基础上,本文结合实例探讨了企业的所有权边界和经营边界。最后,总结提出了"利益相关者集体选择的企业观",并对其应用前景进行了展望。     

Market Orientation and Innovativeness in Supply Chains: Supplier's Impact on Customer Satisfaction

As today's firms increasingly outsource their noncore activities, they not only have to manage their own resources and capabilities, but they are ever more dependent on the resources and capabilities of supplying firms to respond to customer needs. This paper explicitly examines whether and how firms and suppliers, who are both oriented to the same customer market, enable innovativeness in their supply chains and deliver value to their joint customer. We will call this customer of the focal firm the “end user.” The authors take a resource‐dependence perspective to hypothesize how suppliers' end‐user orientation and innovativeness influence downstream activities at the focal firm and end‐user satisfaction. The resource dependence theory looks typically beyond the boundaries of an individual firm for explaining firm success: firms need to satisfy customer demands to survive and depend on other parties such as their suppliers to achieve customer satisfaction. Accordingly, the research design focuses on three parties along a supply chain: the focal firm, a supplier, and a customer of the focal firm (end user). The results drawn from a survey of 88 matched chains suggest the following. First, customer satisfaction is driven by focal firms' innovativeness. A focal firm's innovativeness depends, on the one hand, on a focal firm's market orientation and, on the other hand, on its suppliers’ innovativeness. Second, no relationship could be established between a focal firm's market orientation and a supplier's end‐user orientation. Market orientation typically has within‐firm effects, while innovativeness has impact beyond the boundaries of the firm. These results suggest that firms create value for their customer through internal market orientation efforts and external suppliers' innovativeness.     

Market orientation and performance: an integration of disparate approaches

A series of five Strategic Management Journal articles has debated several issues concerning the role of market orientation in shaping firm performance. This debate has defined market orientation as a cultural emphasis. Yet, a large body of research in the marketing field views market orientation as an emphasis on certain market information‐processing activities. Using data from 217 firms, we test a model that includes both cultural and information‐processing elements. The findings suggest that both approaches to market orientation help explain performance, but their effects are mediated by organizational responsiveness. Thus, researchers should not only account for both definitions of market orientation, but they should also investigate market orientation in combination with other important performance antecedents. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

COMPETITION AND DISCLOSURE*

There are many laws that require sellers to disclose private information about the quality of their products. But the theoretical justification for these laws is not obvious: economic theory predicts that a seller will voluntarily disclose such quality information, however unfavorable, as long as it is costless to do so. Here we show that competitive pressures between firms can undermine this full disclosure result, and explain why it may be the case that only high‐quality firms choose to disclose. In this setting, mandatory disclosure laws can promote competition and raise consumer surplus at the expense of firm profits, potentially increasing the efficiency of the market.     

Married to the firm? A large‐scale investigation of the social context of ownership

Research summary : Using a large sample of private firms across Europe, we examine how the social context of owners affects firm strategy and performance. Drawing on embeddedness theory and the institutional logics perspective, we argue that embeddedness in a family, in particular the nuclear family, can strengthen identification and commitment to the firm, but can also induce owners to behave more conservatively. Consistent with this argument, we find that family‐owned firms have higher profit margins, returns on assets, and survival rates compared to single‐owner or unrelated‐owners' firms, but also invest and grow more slowly, hold greater reserves of cash, and rely less on external debt. These differences are most pronounced when the two largest shareholders are married. Our results highlight the key role of marital ties in explaining differences in behavior and performance among firms. Managerial summary : Despite the prevalence of the married‐couple ownership structure in firms, little research has been dedicated to understanding how these firms are managed and perform. We examine the behavior and performance of firms owned by married couples in a large panel of closely held Western European firms. We find that married‐owner family firms are managed more conservatively relative to firms with unrelated owners and even to other family‐owned firms. In particular, married‐owner family firms invest and grow more slowly and rely less on external finance. However, they also exhibit greater performance stability and higher profitability. Our findings suggest that social relationships among owners have a large impact on firm strategy and performance, and highlight some potential trade‐offs to performance when married couples control firms. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

THE INTERACTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND COMPETITIVE INFLUENCES ON STRATEGY AND PERFORMANCE

Despite much debate in the strategy literatures, there is little consensus as to whether organizational capabilities or market competition are more important in shaping firms’ actions and performance. We suspect that simply comparing firm-level and industry-level influences will continue to prove fruitless for two reasons. In the first place, both organization and competition are clearly important in shaping strategy and performance. In the second place, we suspect that the inconclusive nature of much of the existing research reflects the fact that organizational capabilities, competition, strategy, and performance are fundamentally endogenous. That is, reciprocal interactions at multiple levels of analysis between the environment and the firm shape business strategy and performance, while interactions between strategy and performance, in turn, shape both organizational capabilities and competitive environments. This special issue of the Strategic Management Journal includes papers that focus attention on several dimensions of these interactions. A common theme emerges from the work concerning the sequential nature of the interrelationships. The papers suggest that firms develop organizational capabilities as they act in competitive, institutional, and cognitive environments, where capabilities arise both by design and as the unexpected by-products of firm actions. The capabilities, managers’ understanding of the capabilities, and the historical context that surrounds them then condition firms’ reactions to changes in their environment. The reactions and firm performance in turn affect the structure of the industry, and all these changes generate new information which in turn creates new learning opportunities. Thus, the papers view strategy and performance as an ongoing sequence of capabilities-conditioned adaptations by firms which in turn become exogenous events in the environments of the managers of other firms. For strategy researchers, the important question is not that of which disciplinary perspective or mode of explanation is a more appropriate one, but rather that of the conditions under which a given mode of explanation is most appropriate. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Competitive intensity and collaboration: impact on firm growth across technological environments

This article investigates the impact of competitive intensity and collaboration on firm growth across technological environments. I propose that competitive intensity determines the likelihood of firm collaboration, and that the interaction of competitive intensity and collaboration influences firm growth. These relationships are, in turn, moderated by industry‐level technological intensity. Analyzing 1,004 firms and 378 collaborations from the manufacturing sector in Singapore, I find that firms facing high or low levels of competitive intensity collaborate less often than those facing moderate levels of competitive intensity. Industry technology intensity moderates this relationship, with a stronger inverted‐U‐shaped association between competitive intensity and collaboration in more technology intensive industries. Collaboration leads to higher growth for firms facing lower levels of competitive intensity than for firms facing higher levels of competitive intensity only in more technology intensive industries. In technologically less intensive industries, collaboration leads to higher growth for firms facing higher levels of competitive intensity as compared to those facing lower levels of competitive intensity. These findings have important implications for competitive and collaborative dynamics for firm growth in different technological environments. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Multimarket Contact and Rivalry over Knowledge‐based Resources

Research summary: Research shows that multimarket contact (MMC ) reduces rivalry involving downstream activities. Yet, studies showing that MMC can increase the threat of imitation suggest a need to better understand how MMC affects upstream rivalry over knowledge‐based resources. In this study, we argue that MMC increases rivalry over knowledge‐based resources since the deterrent threat of retaliation that typically leads to mutual forbearance in downstream activities will not be sufficient to restrain firms from protecting their knowledge from imitation in upstream activities. In support of these arguments we find that MMC increases the likelihood that a firm initiates patent litigation against a rival. This study suggests the relationship between MMC and rivalry may depend on the competitive domain and the type of resources over which firms are competing . Managerial Summary: How does market overlap or MMC affect rivalry between two competitors? Prior studies have largely found that an increase in market overlap decreases rivalry in less knowledge‐intensive context because of the deterrent threat of retaliation. However, in this paper, we argue that an increase in market overlap may not reduce rivalry in more knowledge‐intensive context because of heterogeneity in capabilities to protect knowledge. We find that a firm is more likely to initiate patent litigation against a rival as market overlap increases. Our findings suggest that the incentive to protect value across multiple product markets may surpass the motivation to cooperate with rivals and that managers should have a more nuanced view of how market overlap with competitors affects rivalry in more knowledge‐intensive contexts . Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.