Search results

Systemic industries comprise groups of firms making component products that are valued as complements by consumers (PC, automobiles, aircraft, networking). In this study, we investigate the distribution of research effort across the technological system by individual firms as a basis for building competitive advantage. Our empirical setting is a sample of component makers in the personal computer system. We show that even in a sample dominated by focused component manufacturers, diversified research effort in the broader technological system improves R&D productivity in the component technology. Broad scope R&D in the rest of the system also increases the marginal benefits of research efforts in the component technology, though at a diminishing rate. We explore the determinants of this complementarity between the scope of system level research and the focus on component level research, and derive implications for competitive advantage.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the substitutability of corporate hedging and diversification in the real estate investment trusts (REITs) industry. The authors hypothesize that, relative to diversified firms, focused firms are more likely to be associated with hedging. The role of firm size is also analyzed.

The logistic regression approach is utilized to analyze the probability of hedging and the panel regression approach is used to examine the amount of hedging.

The authors find that, relative to diversified firms, firms focused on a single property type are more likely to engage in hedging. However, this finding is significant only for smaller firms, which implies a non-linear relation between hedging and firm size. The evidence is not as strong when firm focus is measured by geographic concentration. In terms of hedging amount, smaller firms’ average hedge ratio is greater than that of larger firms. For either small or large firms group, hedging amounts increase with firm focus measured by either property or geographic concentration and increase with firm sizes.

The results imply that, relative to diversified REITs, REITs focused on a single property type are more likely to engage in hedging. However, this finding is significant only for smaller firms, which implies a non-linear relation between hedging and firm size. The evidence is not as strong when firm focus is measured by geographic concentration, suggesting that geographic concentration is perceived to be less risky than property type concentration. For either small or large firms group, hedging amounts increase with firm focus measured by either property or geographic concentration and increase with firm sizes, which implies that hedging amount does not depend on firm size. The sample period is limited to the years 2010 to 2013 because some data needs to be manually collected.

The results imply that REITs consider both property diversification and hedging in managing their risk.

The research represents an early attempt to investigate the relation between corporate hedging and diversification. The investigation into the REIT industry has several advantages such as a lower likelihood of using derivatives for speculation.

In this paper, the authors draw from the concept of a “focused factory” to examine whether a focused strategy provides superior performance over a non-focused strategy in firms experiencing service disruptions.

The authors test their hypotheses using panel data of the US domestic airline industry from 1998 to 2019.

Overall, the study findings show that a focused strategy provides superior financial performance over a non-focused strategy in both stable environments and unpredictable environments. The authors also find that the effect of service disruptions on profitability is less pronounced for firms following a focused strategy. This shows that focused firms need to grow over time to sustain profitability. Their post hoc analysis shows that for a non-focused strategy (but not for a focused strategy), firm size moderates the effect of service disruptions on profitability. This suggests that a firm pursuing a non-focused strategy can mitigate the negative effect of service disruptions by increasing its size.

This is the first study that examines the effectiveness of the focused strategy in mitigating service disruptions. The results provide further support for the effectiveness of the focused strategy in responding to service disruptions in service organizations.

As large multinational firms are increasingly tasked with developing sustainable supply chains, their role in improving the sustainability performance of their suppliers is critical. This paper examines the dual role of a buyer firm, as a customer and as an important stakeholder, and identifies several attributes of the buyer firm and the dyadic relationship that could help improve the sustainability performance of suppliers.

A dyadic multi-year dataset is created using financial and customer data from the Compustat database and sustainability data from MSCI ESG ratings database. The hypotheses are tested using econometric panel data techniques.

The findings indicate that a buyer's legitimacy is a key factor that affects supplier's sustainability performance. The effect of legitimacy is much higher when the buyer and supplier firms have an aligned focus on similar sustainability dimensions. The market power of the buyer also increases the effect of legitimacy, though power without legitimacy is not effective.

The study expands the understanding of how buyer firms can influence suppliers on sustainability by highlighting the key role played by legitimacy and aligned focus and the supporting role of market power. The study contributes to both the stakeholder salience literature and the buyer–supplier relationship literature by showing evidence for complementarity between market power and legitimacy. Buyer firms can use the results of the study to focus their efforts on suppliers where a significant improvement in sustainability can be expected.

This study examines a moderated moderation model in which the hardiness of chief marketing officers (CMOs) moderates the relationship between CMOs' future focus and firms' sustainability marketing commitment (SMC), and this moderating effect is moderated by CMOs' proactive personality.

A sample of 298 CMOs of firms in Vietnam was surveyed to collect data. Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to validate the measures of the constructs used in the model and structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the model and hypotheses.

The SEM results reveal that CMOs' future focus had a positive relationship with firms' SMC. Furthermore, both CMOs' hardiness and its interaction with CMOs' future focus had positive effects on firms' SMC. Finally, the three-way interaction between CMOs' future focus, hardiness and proactive personality had a positive effect on firms' SMC.

The study findings assist firms in emerging markets in understanding the roles of some key personality-based resources of CMOs in fostering firms' SMC.

This study is among the first to investigate the roles of CMOs' personality-based resources (i.e. future focus, hardiness and proactive personality) in firms' SMC, offering insight into the sustainability marketing literature.

Organizational learning is a critical factor in generating firm innovation. While the firms are working with global business partners, not only does their absorptive learning capacity (ALC) with business partners play an important role in generating innovation from the inter-partner firm relationship, but their joint learning capacity (JLC) does as well. However, little research has simultaneously examined absorptive and JLC on innovation in global supply chain relationships. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Drawing on the knowledge-based view, inter-partner learning theory and resource dependence theory, the current study investigates the effects of two organizational learning capacities on relationship-specific innovation: ALC (firm-level) and JLC (relationship level). In addition, a firm’s focus on exploitation/exploration strategy and supplier dependence is further incorporated into the study as moderators. Moreover, solutions to endogeneity issues are discussed and reported due to the usage of survey data. The model of this study was tested using data collected from 190 electronics firms in Taiwan as an emerging market.

The findings of this research reveal that JLC in the presence of absorptive capacity positively influences relationship-specific innovation. Furthermore, the exploitation focus of a firm positively moderates the effects of both absorptive and JLC on relationship-specific innovation. However, supplier dependence negatively moderates the effect of JLC.

The research provides some theoretical implications for learning and innovation generation in global supply chains.

The paper provides some managerial implications for how to manage innovations in the global supply chain relationships.

This paper fulfills an identified need to study how innovation generation can be better managed in global supply chain contexts.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the differential effect of customer orientation and future market focus on organization inertia and firm innovativeness of small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) in the business‐to‐business service industry. It is motivated by the observation that small and medium‐sized service firms' proxy to customers may lead to incremental service improvement in response to customer requests for customization and improvement, but may derail programs for more innovative services.

A survey among 217 small and medium‐sized service firms is used to test the hypotheses developed. The data are analyzed using a path model and Lisrel software.

The results show that customer orientation breeds inertia, whereas future market focus increases the willingness to cannibalize existing technology, service portfolio and routines, which in turn stimulates firm innovativeness.

The results suggest that it is important to distinguish between customer orientation and future market focus, and that particularly small and medium‐sized firms may require both orientations for sustained firm performance. Future research may be directed at developing tools for monitoring against inertia and helping managers to decide more objectively when to listen to their current customers and when not to.

The results suggest managers should complement customer orientation with activities and management attention geared towards developing future market vision.

This study is one of the first to simultaneously investigate the role of customer orientation and future market focus for small and medium‐sized firms in the service industry.

This study aims to identify and examine the antecedents of attitude toward entrepreneurial behaviors (ATEB) of firms. Additionally, this study also identifies and examines the antecedents of innovativeness and proactiveness. Furthermore, this study explains how factors within and outside the organization affect ATEB, innovativeness and proactiveness.

This study uses the attention-based view (ABV) and examines the effects of long-term focus and industry clockspeed on attitude toward firms’ entrepreneurial behaviors (EB). This study measures ATEB by analyzing the top management team’s words in the earnings conference calls. It applies the two-stage least squares regression with fixed effects and instrumental variables to conduct the empirical analysis.

The results indicate that the direct effects of long-term focus and industry clockspeed on ATEB are not significant. However, the moderating effect of industry clockspeed on the relationship between long-term focus and EB is significant and positive. The results indicate that firms that are operating in fast clockspeed industries exhibiting long-term focus exhibit EB. Furthermore, the results also indicate that long-term focus and industry clockspeed collectively affect innovativeness and proactiveness.

This research helps firms to develop entrepreneurial behavior operating under various task environment conditions.

This study applies the ABV of the firm and contributes to the area of firm-level EB, while prior studies have not implemented this perspective in investigating firm-level EB. Past studies have not applied the ABV of the firm to study EB, innovativeness and proactiveness either independently or collectively.

As family and nonfamily businesses differ in how they do business, the focus of this manuscript is on understanding how strategy-level models can be misinterpreted if family involvement is not considered. Thus, in this manuscript, the focus is on understanding the extent to which strategic orientations (market orientation and technology orientation, which reflect strategic approach), strategic performance metric focus (financial-based, optimization-based and market-based, which reflect strategy evaluations) and strategic audacity (which reflects boldness in envisioning and delivering strategic outcomes) play a role in driving firm performance – in family businesses vs nonfamily businesses. Understanding how these drivers impact performance differently in family vs nonfamily businesses enables companies to better direct their strategic efforts.

After presenting theoretical concepts, authors use regression analysis on a sample of companies in a developing European Union (EU) country (n = 282) to evaluate the impact of strategic orientation, strategic performance metric focus and strategic audacity on firm performance separately in three samples: the full sample (consisting of both family and nonfamily-owned firms), sample of family businesses and the sample of nonfamily businesses.

The role of strategic orientation, strategic audacity and focal goals in driving firm performance differs depending on the company type (family vs nonfamily). In the case of nonfamily businesses, strategic audacity and technology orientation with the focus on efficiencies and markets are driving firm performance. In the case of family businesses, both market and technology orientation are important drivers of performance; the focus on financial and market indicators of performance is positively impacting performance, while the focus on efficiency indicators is diminishing the performance of family businesses. Thus, results show that of the performance drivers for family businesses, some are insignificant (strategic audacity), while some even have a negative impact (focus on optimization-based measures of performance) on family businesses' performance. Moreover, results show that some of the drivers of performance in case of family businesses (market orientation and focus on financial-based measures of performance) are not drivers of outstanding performance in the case of nonfamily businesses.

Best practices differ for family vs nonfamily businesses. In case of family businesses, comparing them to nonfamily businesses, market orientation and the focus on financial-based measures of performance have a greater impact on firm performance, while, at the same time, family businesses should refrain focusing on pursuing optimization-based measures of performance as such pursuit drives down their performance. Understanding the drivers of performance specific to family businesses will enable such firms to better navigate contexts characterized by ambiguity and uncertainty.

The manuscript evaluates how models, generally researched in the overall firm metrics, differ between family businesses and nonfamily businesses, thus delivering new insights into the important marketing concepts.

Leveraging upper echelon theory and knowledge-based view of the firm, this paper aims to explore how chief executive officers’ (CEO) sustainability orientation influences explorative and exploitative knowledge management practices, which in turn influence incremental and radical sustainable innovation under boundary conditions of CEOs’ temporal focus and regional affiliation in the home country.

This study used a nonprobability convenience sampling strategy. Using survey-based research, the authors tested the study hypotheses using partial least squares structural equation modeling on a sample of 298 CEOs from Indian small and medium enterprises. This study also tested the reliability and validity of the study variables by using internal consistency tests and convergent and discriminant validity procedures.

The study finds that CEO sustainability orientation affects incremental and radical sustainable innovation via the mediating effect of explorative and exploitative knowledge management practices. Furthermore, CEOs’ past temporal focus increases the influence of orientation on exploitative knowledge management. In contrast, future temporal focus increases the influence of CEO sustainability orientation on exploratory knowledge management practices. Finally, CEOs from the southwest, west and northwest regions of India increase the influence of exploratory knowledge management on radical sustainable innovation.

This study has significant implications for understanding upper-echelon factors that drive knowledge management practices. CEO temporal focus (time orientation) and demographic aspects (regional affiliation) influence CEOs’ investment in different knowledge management and, hence, sustainable innovation management practices. However, this study does not explore cross-cultural differences and the role of the entire top management team in influencing sustainability values on sustainability innovation via knowledge management practices.

This study comprehends upper-echelon factors that drive investment in knowledge management and sustainable innovation practices. Findings imply that CEOs with past and future temporal focus can influence sustainable innovation, but their investment in knowledge management strategies differs. Past temporal-focused CEOs invest more in exploitative and future temporal focus more in explorative knowledge management for influencing sustainable innovation.

The study provides novel insights into the influence of upper-echelon traits on knowledge management and sustainable innovation practices. Extant literature has largely explored firm-level factors such as organizational culture influencing a firm's knowledge management practices. However, by integrating the upper echelon with the knowledge-based view of the firm, we explain how the traits of the CEO, especially the temporal perspective, influence knowledge management and sustainable innovation practices of firms.