دانلود رایگان مقاله لاتین پیکره بندی گرایش کارآفرینی و راهبرد رقابتی از سایت الزویر
عنوان فارسی مقاله:
پیکره بندی جهت گیری کارآفرینی و استراتژی رقابتی برای عملکرد بالا
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:
Configurations of entrepreneurial orientation and competitive strategy for high performance
سال انتشار : 2016
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:
2. Entrepreneurial orientation, strategy, and configuration theory
The underlying theoretical model in this paper builds on configuration theory (Miller, 1987, 1996) and the concept of contingency fit (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985; Venkatraman, 1989). Configuration theory builds upon the idea that firms fall into a limited number of states of internal coherence among a collection of theoretical attributes. Because only a limited number of states of fit exist, firms need to make quick and fundamental changes (i.e. quantum jumps) to avoid in-between states (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985; Meyer, Tsui, & Hinings, 1993; Miller, 1996). Theoretically derived configurations, also called typologies, can help researchers organize complex relationships into profound explanations (Fiss, 2011). Typologies are in essence neat and memorable while acting in coherence in interesting ways. The interdependencies among the theoretical attributes within a typology are the core of configurations (Boyd, Haynes, Hitt, Bergh, & Ketchen, 2012; Miller, 1996). This study uses the configuration approach on small firms (e.g. Andersén, 2012; Scheepers, Verreynne, & Meyer, 2014) and applies the different dimensions of EO and competitive strategy as attributes in the configuration. Fit between the several different dimensions is assumed to be linked to higher performance in the firms. This study uses the most commonly used dimensions (Wales et al., 2013) of risk-taking, proactiveness and innovativeness for EO (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Miller, 1983). Following Lechner and Gudmundsson (2014), only the horizontal dimension, cost leadership to differentiation strategy, is used for competitive strategy. To conceptualize how the different factors fit together, interrelate, and form configurations, the paper proceeds with a brief review of the literature on EO and competitive strategies, respectively. 2.1. Entrepreneurial orientation The roots of entrepreneurial orientation are related to the fact that entrepreneurial firms are more inclined to take risks than other types of firms (Khandwalla, 1976; Mintzberg, 1973). Miller (1983) and Miller and Friesen (1983) elaborated upon this idea to include risk-taking, proactiveness, and innovativeness in the behavior of entrepreneurial firms. In EO, risk-taking is characterized by venturing into the unfamiliar with bold action, borrowing heavily, and committing substantial resources to ventures in ambiguous settings (Miller, 1983; Mousa, Wales, & Harper, 2015). Proactiveness is characterized by an opportunity-seeking and pioneering outlook that introduces new products and services before competitors and that also acts in anticipation of future demand (Abebe & Angriawan, 2014; Covin & Slevin, 1989). Innovativeness is characterized by strongly focusing on R&D, being a leader in technology, and introducing new products as well as changing existing products or service lines (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Mickiewicz, Sauka, & Stephan, 2014). However, from a configurational view, an important consideration is that the opposite ends of the dimensions can also be beneficial characteristics depending on the context, for example, the competitive strategy (Covin, Slevin, & Covin, 1990). As suggested above, EO has often been seen as a reflective and aggregated measurement (e.g. Covin & Slevin, 1989; Miller, 1983) of the three sub-dimensions. Nevertheless, later research has suggested the importance of also investigating the sub-dimensions of EO from a formative point of view because the individual dimensions may have differentiated relationships with other variables (Kreiser, Marino, Kuratko, & Weaver, 2013; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Similarly, Miller (2011) suggests that the EO sub-components can be more telling than the aggregated measure because the sub-dimensions can play different roles depending on the specific context. For example, innovativeness might be more crucial than risk-taking for a certain strategy and vice versa. Furthermore, EO has been suggested as being contingent upon the context and exhibiting different results depending on the context, for example strategy or environment (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). On this basis, the EO sub-dimensions and these contextual variables are suggested as needing to be aligned (proper fit) to achieve higher firm performance. Thus, EO would have different effects on firm performance depending on the context. In EO studies, the external environment has been a well-researched context; however, less focus has been directed toward the internal context (Rauch et al., 2009; Wales et al., 2013). This paper focuses on the internal context of competitive strategy. 2.2. Competitive strategy Porter's (1980) model of competitive strategy is generally accepted although several other frameworks to classify strategies exist (e.g. Miller & Friesen, 1978; Miles & Snow, 1978). This study uses Porter's typology because of its wide acceptance in the literature (Allen & Helms, 2006; Hernández-Perlines, Moreno-García, & Yañez-Araque, 2016). Similarly to Lechner and Gudmundsson (2014) and Fiss (2011) who also use Porter's typology, the present study uses Porter's two main foundations of competitive advantage: differentiation and cost leadership. Differentiation is engaged in creating additional value by offering the customer a superior product and added value (Brenes, Montoya, & Ciravegna, 2014). Differentiation can meet customer demands in unique ways, such as product design, quality, speed and flexibility. In contrast, cost leadership is engaged in attaining low cost structures that in turn allow products to be offered at lower costs than those of competitors, for example, by achieving economies of scale or improving design for manufacturing (Martinez-Simarro, Devece, & Llopis-Albert, 2015). This allows the cost structure to be lowered, which in turn allows lower prices. Porter (1996) later opened up for the idea that a combination of cost-leadership and differentiation strategy might be possible, which many other authors agree with (e.g. Allen & Helms, 2006; Helms, Dibrell, & Wright, 1997; Jones & Butler, 1988; Miller & Dess, 1993). A mixed strategy has to balance offering traditional products but also offering new products mainly through imitation of the most successful new products offered by competitors (Helms et al., 1997).
Configurations of entrepreneurial orientation and competitive strategy ... www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:899750 by G Linton - 2016 - Cited by 4 - Related articles Feb 2, 2016 - (English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic). National Category. Business Administration. Research subject. Business Studies. Identifiers. [PDF]The Impact of Entrepreneurial Orientation on Competitive Advantage ... https://econjournals.com/index.php/irmm/article/viewFile/3157/pdf Keywords: Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, Entrepreneurial Orientation, Financial Support, ... competitive advantages (CMAs) needed to appropriate value ... Entrepreneurial orientation - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_orientation Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is a firm-level strategic orientation which captures an .... "Configurations of entrepreneurial orientation and competitive strategy for high performance". Journal of Business Research. 70: 168–176 – via ...