Search results

To introduce macro-behavioral perspective for understanding pro-sustainability actions from the perspective of various stakeholders.

Recent research on sustainability, behavior change, and environmentalism is reviewed to conceptualize a comprehensive macromarketing framework to spawn and diffuse pro-sustainability behaviors.

Provides a comprehensive macromarketing framework that not only explains the behavioral factors from firm’s perspective but also explains these factors from the perspective of various stakeholders who are part of the entire value chain.

The paper adds to the literature on pro-sustainability behaviors by providing a research framework from macro-marketing point of view.

As practical insight, the paper provides some important guidance in terms of better understanding on firm-specific and individual-specific actions which may help in progressing toward sustainability.

The paper integrates past observations on behavioral aspect of sustainability and develops an important framework to understand pro-sustainability actions.

In this chapter, we reexamine the notion that socially responsible behavior by firms will lead to increased financial performance. By identifying the underlying processes, institutional settings, and actors involved, we present a framework that is more attentive to the multiplicity and conditionality of the mechanisms operating in the often tenuous connection between firms’ social behavior and financial performance. Building and expanding upon existing analyses of the CSP–CFP linkage, our model helps to explain the mixed results from a wide range of empirical studies which examine this link. It also provides a novel theoretical account to help guide future researches that are more attentive to conditionalities and contextual contingencies.

The marketing literature indicates that a firm’s organizational culture plays a critical role in determining its market orientation (MO) and thereby the firm’s ability to successfully adapt to its environment to achieve superior business performance. However, our understanding of the organizational culture of market-oriented firms and its relationship with business performance remains limited in a number of important ways. Drawing on the behavioral theory of the firm and the competing values theory perspective on organizational culture, our empirical study addresses important knowledge gaps concerning the relationship between firm MO culture, MO behaviors, innovation, customer satisfaction, and business performance.

We used a survey methodology with Clan Cultural Orientation, Adhocracy Cultural Orientation, Market Cultural Orientation, and Hierarchy Cultural Orientation Clan. Market Orientation Behaviors, Innovation, and Customer Satisfaction and CFROA _t (Net Operating Income + Depreciation and Amortization – Disposal of Assets)/Total Assets.

The overall fit of the first Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) containing the three MO behavior sub-scales, the four organizational culture scales, and the innovation and satisfaction performance measures was good with a χ ² = 760.89, 524 df, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.916 and RMSEA = 0.055. The overall fit of the second CFA containing the business strategy, bureaucracy, and customer expectations control variables was also good with a χ ² = 243.26, 156 df, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.937 and RMSEA = 0.061. We also subsequently ran a third CFA in which the MO behavior construct was modeled as a second-order factor comprising the three first-order sub-scales (generation of market intelligence, dissemination of market intelligence, and responsiveness to market intelligence) each of which in turn arose from the relevant survey indicants. This measurement model also fit well with the data with a χ ² = 84.06, 63 df, p < 0.039; CFI = 0.955 and RMSEA = 0.047. Regressions using seemingly unrelated regressions (SUR) with control variables and with R ² values ranging from 0.28 to 0.54.

MO culture has an important direct effect on firms’ financial performance as well as an indirect effect via MO behaviors and innovations. Importantly, our findings suggest that MO culture facilitates value-creating behaviors above and beyond those identified in the marketing literature as MO behaviors. In contrast to a series of studies by Deshpandé and colleagues (1993, 1999, 2000, 2004), our empirical results suggest the value of the internally oriented Clan and to a lesser degree Hierarchy cultural orientations as well as the more externally oriented Adhocracy and Market cultural orientations. The benchmark ideal MO culture profile we identify is consistent with organization theory conceptualizations of strong balanced organizational cultures in which each of the four competing values orientations is simultaneously exhibited to a significant degree (e.g., Cameron & Freeman, 1991). Our findings indicate that the organizational culture domain of MO appears to be at least as important (if not more so) in explaining firm performance and suggest that researchers need to re-visit the conceptualization, and perhaps more importantly the operationalization, of MO as a central construct in strategic marketing thought.

In building an MO culture, an important first step is to assess the firm’s existing organizational culture profile (e.g., Goodman, Zammuto, & Gifford, 2001). Organization theory researchers have developed competing values theory-based organizational culture assessment tools that can provide managers with an easily accessible mechanism for accomplishing this (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). The profile of the firm’s existing culture and the profile of the ideal culture for MO from our study can then be plotted on a “spider’s web” graphical representation (e.g., Hooijberg & Petrock, 1993). This aids the comparison of the firm’s existing cultural profile with the ideal MO profile, enabling managers to easily diagnose the areas, direction, and magnitude MO culture profile “gaps” in their firm (Cameron, 1997). Specific gap-closing plans and tactics for gaps on each of the four cultural orientations can then be identified as part of the development of a change management program designed to create an MO culture profile (e.g., Chang & Wiebe, 1996). Cameron and Quinn’s (1999) workbook provides managers with an excellent operational resource for planning and undertaking such gap-closing organizational culture change initiatives.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the influences of negative performance feedback on firms' cost behaviors including productive behaviors (i.e. R&D behaviors) and non-productive behaviors (i.e. selling behaviors and business entertainment behaviors), as well as to investigate the roles of ownership types and marketization.

A sample of Chinese manufacturing firms from 2007 to 2018 is analyzed employing multiple regression models.

The results show that negative performance feedback has a positive but not significant effect on R&D behaviors, while its effect on selling behaviors is significantly positive. Meanwhile, there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between negative performance feedback and business entertainment behaviors. Furthermore, when facing a performance dilemma, state-owned enterprises tend to adjust selling behaviors, while nonstate-owned enterprises pay more attention to business entertainment behaviors. In terms of marketization, the firms in high-marketization regions are more likely to adjust their R&D, selling and business entertainment behaviors, while the firms in low-marketization regions are difficult to adjust these cost behaviors.

This study explores the role of negative performance feedback in firms' cost behaviors and provides empirical evidence about the differentiated influences regarding ownership types and marketization.

Integrating insights from existing studies and introducing the behavioral theory of the firm and prospect theory, this study proposes a more inclusive framework that addresses the impacts of negative performance feedback on firms' cost behaviors. This paper deepens the understanding of firms' decision behaviors in the dilemma of performance shortfall.

This study mainly aims to examine whether entrepreneurs’ utilization of political connections is purely egoistic. Addressing this issue could shed light on traditional debate which concerns whether political connections still have strategic value at advanced stage of institutional transition today in China. Here, at the background of Chinese economic transformation, the utilization of political connections is studied, and a double-role model of the pro-self-mechanism and the pro-social mechanism between political connections and performance in China is put forward.

This study uses survey of questionnaires randomly from 363 entrepreneurs in Jiangsu, Anhui and Shandong Provinces of China and adopts the first stage and direct moderation model in examination.

The results show that there exists mediated mechanism of both pro-self and pro-social mechanism in the relationship between political connections and firm performance. The authors conclude that utilization of political connections is not only purely egoistic but also altruistic. So, both dark-side and bright-side mechanisms of political connections in China are of equal importance. In addition, the authors take into consideration of the contingency effects of institution, industry and firm-level factors of this moderation model. The pro-self and pro-social mechanisms have differences in terms of moderator-within and moderator-between comparisons of these three contingency effects. Among these comparisons, the pro-self-mediating mechanism is most sensitive to changes of institutional quality, whereas the pro-social mediating mechanism is most sensitive to the uncertainty of industry competition.

This evidence furthermore verifies that the process of institutional transition is nonlinear and political connections still have strategic value in advanced stage of institutional transition today.

This study combines the dual perspectives of “give” and “take.” The former implies the pro-social motivation, while the latter implies the pro-self-motivation. Based on the framework of “resource-conduct-performance,” this study explores how these two mechanisms mediate the relationship between political ties and firm performance. In addition, the authors adopt the framework of “Strategy Tripod,” which was proposed by Peng et al. (2009) and examine the difference between pro-self and pro-social motivation at different level of institution environment improvement, industry dynamics and firm absorptive capacity.

This paper aims to assess an integrative model of origins and sequences of employee intrapreneurial behaviour in hospitality companies.

The research sample comprises 321 frontline employees in four-star to five-star hotels in Ho Chi Minh City of Vietnam, using a structural equation model (SEM).

The paper shows that employee behavioural factors (subjective norms, attitude towards intrapreneurship and perceived behavioural control) and perception of firm entrepreneurial orientation dimensions (innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking) have a significant impact on the two intrapreneurship activities of employee strategic renewal behaviour and venture behaviour, which in turn, beneficial impact firm performance. The influence of demographic variables is also assessed in the research model, and education level, income level and management level are found to be prestigious.

Hospitality firms need to establish the architecture and system related to entrepreneurship orientation and organisational climate. Additionally, there is a need for providing resources and knowledge, thereof, could provide support employees in appreciation of corporate entrepreneurship and authorisation to conduct intrapreneurial behaviour.

The findings grant influencing mechanisms of employee individuality and dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance through employee strategic renewal behaviour and venture behaviour within the hospitality firms.

Stakeholders often engage in actions aimed at either benefitting or punishing firms for their behaviour. Such behaviours can have very serious implications for various types of firm performance, including financial performance. Though one might expect that the investigation of possible precursors of such “stakeholder action” would be a priority of researchers in stakeholder theory, to date research within the stakeholder literature directed towards understanding stakeholder behaviour has been somewhat scarce. In this chapter, I present common themes and assumptions that prevail in the existing research on stakeholder action, identify certain important questions concerning such assumptions and suggest avenues for future research on stakeholder behaviour.

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has emerged as a core concept in the field of entrepreneurship. Yet, there continue to be questions about the nature of EO and how best to conceptualize and measure it. This chapter makes the case that EO has grown beyond its roots as a firm-level unidimensional strategy construct and that a new multidimensional version of EO is needed to capture the diverse manifestations and venues for entrepreneurial activity that are now evident around the world – global entrepreneurial orientation (GEO). Building on the five-dimension multidimensional view of EO set forth when Lumpkin and Dess (1996) extended the work of Miller (1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989, 1991), the chapter offers an updated definition of EO and a fresh interpretation of why EO matters theoretically. Despite earnest efforts to reconcile the different approaches to EO, in order to move the study of EO and the theoretical conversation about it forward, we maintain that as a group of scholars and a field, we need to acknowledge that two different versions of EO have emerged. Given that, we consider original approaches to measuring EO, evaluate formative measurement models, consider multiple levels of analysis, call for renewed attention to EO configurations, and discuss whether there is a theory of EO.

Environmental uncertainty, turbulence, and heterogeneity create a host of strategic and operational challenges for today’s organizations (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). To cope with the challenge of simultaneously developing and nurturing both today’s and tomorrow’s core competencies, firms increasingly rely on effective use of corporate entrepreneurship (Covin & Miles, 1999). These facts make it imperative that managers at all levels actively participate in designing and implementing a strategy for corporate entrepreneurship actions. The recent literature reveals that there is a general although certainly not a complete consensus around the position that successful corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is linked to improvement in firm performance (Ireland et al., 2001). Covin, Ireland and Kuratko (2003) suggest that corporate entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as a legitimate path to high levels of organizational performance and that the understanding of corporate entrepreneurship as a valid and effective practice with real, tangible benefits is occurring across firm type and managerial levels. Other researchers cite corporate entrepreneurship’s importance as a growth strategy (Kuratko, 1993; Kuratko et al., 1993; Merrifield, 1993; Pinchott, 1985; Zahra, 1991; Zahra & Covin, 1995; Zahra, Kuratko & Jennings, 1999). As an example, Dess, Lumpkin and McGee (1999) note that, “Virtually all organizations – new start-ups, major corporations, and alliances among global partners – are striving to exploit product-market opportunities through innovative and proactive behavior” – the type of behavior that is called for by corporate entrepreneurship. Barringer and Bluedorn (1999) suggested that in light of the dynamism and complexity of today’s environments, “…entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors are necessary for firms of all sizes to prosper and flourish.” Developing an internal environment that cultivates employees’ interest in and commitment to creativity and the innovation that can result from it contributes to successful competition in today’s competitive arenas. A valuable and appropriate internal organizational environment is a product of effective work (often within the context of corporate entrepreneurship) by managers at all levels (Floyd & Lane, 2000).

This study aims to examine the impact of regulatory, normative and cultural cognitive institutions and firm and individual factors on entrepreneurial behavior.

Using the quantitative research method, the authors collected data from 316 micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in Kosovo, a transition economy, through a cross-sectional research design. The authors performed exploratory factor analyses, correlation and regression analyses on the data using SPSS 26 and STATA software.

The research findings indicate that, within transition economies, normative and cultural-cognitive institutions have a positive impact on entrepreneurial behaviors. The authors could not determine the effect of regulatory institutions on entrepreneurial behavior. The authors also discovered that young firms are more inclined toward entrepreneurial behavior than older firms, and micro firms display a stronger entrepreneurial behavior than small firms. Furthermore, family businesses showed a greater tendency for entrepreneurial behavior than nonfamily firms. Interestingly, when the rational decision-making interacts with regulatory institutions, the effect on entrepreneurial behavior is negative.

This study employed a cross-sectional approach to investigate the influence of macro, meso, and micro-level factors on entrepreneurial behavior within a transitioning community across three industries. Future studies could replicate these findings within comparable institutional contexts, employing longitudinal studies that include additional variables beyond those considered in our present study.

Considering the importance of MSMEs for a country’s economic and sustainable development, the authors provide some policy implications. The authors recommend managers carefully evaluate the information gathered while they decide and also increase their capabilities concerning digitalization, which is crucial for their firm’s survival, growth and sustainable competitive advantage.

This paper contributes to the literature and shows and analyses entrepreneurial behavior at institutional (macro), firm-level factors (meso) and managers' rational decision-making (micro), providing evidence from a transition community.