Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T16:23:29.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How entrepreneurial orientation, environmental dynamism, and resource rareness influence firm performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2013

TingKo Lee  and
Wenyi Chu
TingKo Lee
Affiliation:
Management College, National Defense University, Taipei, Taiwan
Wenyi Chu*
Affiliation:
Department of Business Administration, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
*
Corresponding author: d96741001@ntu.edu.tw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prior studies on strategic management and entrepreneurship have argued that entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is positively associated with performance when firms face certain contingencies, specifically, the dynamism of the external environment and the attributes of resources/capabilities owned by the firm. However, the current empirical evidence is inconclusive. This study advances the argument that the interactive effects of EO, environmental dynamism, and the rareness of resource–capability (rareness) combinations positively influence firm performance. By combining data collected via a secondary database and a questionnaire survey from 237 public firms in Taiwan, this study finds that EO positively influences firm performance. The EO–performance relationship is further moderated by the rareness of resource–capability combinations and environmental dynamism. It is also found that firm performance is collectively determined by the three-way interactions of EO, rareness, and environmental dynamism. That is, when firms own rare resources and are located in a dynamic environment, EO will lead to improved performance.

Keywords

entrepreneurial orientationrarenessresource–capability combinationsenvironmental dynamismperformance
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , March 2013 , pp. 167 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Alvarez, S. A., Busenitz, L. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 27(6), 755–775.Google Scholar
Amit, R., Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategy Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
Bain, J. S. (1968). Industrial organization. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B., Arikan, A. M. (2001). The resource-based view: Origins and implications. In M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, & J. S. Harrison (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of strategic management (pp. 124–188). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B. (1997). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.Google Scholar
Beal, R. M., Yasai-Ardekani, M. (2000). Performance implications of aligning CEO functional experiences with competitive strategies. Journal of Management, 26(4), 733–762.Google Scholar
Bierly, P. E., Daly, P. S. (2007). Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(4), 493–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T. E., Davidsson, P., Wiklund, J. (2001). An operationalization of Stevenson's conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), 953–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busenitz, L. W., Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9–30.Google Scholar
Casillas, J. C., Moreno, A. M. (2010). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and growth: The moderating role of family involvement. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(3/4), 265–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, G. N., Hanks, S. H. (1994). Founder competence, the environment, and venture performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 77–89.Google Scholar
Chang, S. J., Choi, U. (1988). Strategy, structure and performance of Korean business groups: A transactions cost approach. Journal of Industrial Economics, 37(2), 141–158.Google Scholar
Child, J. (1972). Organization structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Chrisman, J. J., Bauerschmidt, A., Hofer, C. W. (1998). The determinants of new venture performance: An extended model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(1), 5–29.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Combs, J. G., Ketchen, D. J. (1999). Explaining interfirm cooperation and performance: Toward a reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based view and organizational economics. Strategic Management Journal, 20(9), 867.Google Scholar
Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P. (1988). The influence of organization structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.Google Scholar
Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covin, J. G., Green, K. M., Slevin, D. P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation–sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(1), 57–81.Google Scholar
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Dau, L. A. (2009). Promarket performs and firm profitability in developing countries. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1348–1368.Google Scholar
Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., Wiklund, J. (2002). Entrepreneurship as growth: Growth as entrepreneurship. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 329–340). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 677–695.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 147–156.Google Scholar
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fitzsimmons, J. R., Douglas, E. J., Antoncic, B., Hisrich, R. D. (2005). Intrapreneurship in Australian firms. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 11(1), 17–27.Google Scholar
Frese, M., Brantjes, A., Hoorn, R. (2002). Psychological success factors of small scale businesses in Namibia: The roles of strategy process, entrepreneurial orientation and the environment. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 259–282.Google Scholar
Galbreath, J., Galvin, P. (2006). Accounting for performance variation: How important are intangible resources? International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 14(2), 150–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hage, J. (1980). Theories of organizations: Form, process, and transformation. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the revolution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T., Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, S. L. (1992). An integrative framework for strategy-making processes. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 327–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hmieleski, K. M., Baron, R. A. (2009). Entrepreneurs’ optimism and new venture performance: A social cognitive perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 473–488.Google Scholar
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963–989.Google Scholar
Jones, G. R. (2007). Organizational theory, design, and change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kreiser, P. M., Davis, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The unique impact of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. Journal of Small Business Entrepreneurship, 23(1), 39–51.Google Scholar
Lee, L. T. S., Sukoco, B. M. (2007). The effects of entrepreneurial orientation and knowledge management capability on organizational effectiveness in Taiwan: The moderating role of social capital. International Journal of Management, 24(3), 549–572.Google Scholar
Li, Y., Guo, H., Liu, Y, Li, M. (2008). Incentive mechanisms, entrepreneurial orientation, and technology commercialization: Evidence from China's transitional economy. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(1), 63–78.Google Scholar
Luke, B., Verreynne, M. -L., Kearins, K. (2007). Measuring the benefits of entrepreneurship at different levels of analysis. Journal of Management and Organization, 13(4), 312–330.Google Scholar
Lumpkin, G. T., Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.Google Scholar
Lumpkin, G. T., Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429–451.Google Scholar
Lumpkin, G. T., Cogliser, C. C., Schneider, D. R. (2009). Understanding and measuring autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 47–69.Google Scholar
Meyer, G. D., Neck, H. M., Meeks, M. D. (2002). The entrepreneurship-strategic management interface. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 19–44). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miller, D., Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.Google Scholar
Miller, D., Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: The third link. Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221–235.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (1988). Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure: Analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 280–308.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (1990). Organizational configurations: Cohesion, change, and prediction. Human Relations, 43(8), 771–790.Google Scholar
Miller, D., Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 519–543.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1973). Strategy-making in three modes. California Management Review, 16(2), 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjöberg, K., Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance in family firms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 33–47.Google Scholar
Newbert, S. L. (2008). Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: A conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 29(7), 745–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(3), 761–787.Google Scholar
Richard, O. C., Wu, P., Chadwick, K. (2009). The impact of entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance: The role of CEO position tenure and industry tenure. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(5), 1078–1095.Google Scholar
Sadler-Smith, E., Hampson, Y., Chaston, I., Badger, B. (2003). Managerial behavior, entrepreneurial style, and small firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1), 47–67.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.Google Scholar
Smart, D. T., Conant, J. S. (1994). Entrepreneurial orientation, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(3), 28–38.Google Scholar
Stam, W., Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role of intra- and extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 97–111.Google Scholar
Stevenson, H. H., Gumpert, D. E. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 85–94.Google Scholar
Tang, A., Tang, Z., Marino, L. D., Zhang, Y., Li, Q. (2008). Exploring inverted U-shape relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance in Chinese ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 219–239.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Tseng, C. Y., Goo, Y. J. J. (2005). Intellectual capital and corporate value in an emerging economy: Empirical study of Taiwanese manufacturers. R&D Management, 35(2), 187–201.Google Scholar
Valliere, D., Peterson, R. (2009). Entrepreneurship and economic growth: Evidence from emerging and developing countries. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 21(5–6), 459–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatraman, N., Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801–814.Google Scholar
Wang, C. L. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 32(4), 635–657.Google Scholar
Wiklund, J. (1999). The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation – performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(1), 37–48.Google Scholar
Wiklund, J., Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307–1314.Google Scholar
Wiklund, J., Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71–91.Google Scholar
Wu, L. Y. (2006). Resources, dynamic capabilities and performance in a dynamic environment: Perceptions in Taiwanese IT enterprises. Information & Management, 43(4), 447–454.Google Scholar
Wu, W. Y., Chang, M. L., Chen, C. W. (2008). Promoting innovation through the accumulation of intellectual capital, social capital, and entrepreneurial orientation. R&D Management, 38(3), 265–277.Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A. (1993). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: A critique and extension. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(4), 5–21.Google Scholar