Search results

Research in entrepreneurship is increasingly exploring how archetypes, taxonomies, typologies, and configurations can help scholars understand complex entrepreneurial phenomena. We illustrate the potential for set-theoretic methods to inform this literature by offering best practices regarding how qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) can be used to explore research questions of interest to entrepreneurship scholars. Specifically, we introduce QCA, document how this approach has been used in management research, and provide step-by-step guidance to empower scholars to use this family of methods. We put a particular emphasis on the analytical procedures and offer solutions to dealing with potential pitfalls when using QCA-based methods and highlight opportunities for future entrepreneurship research.

The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm focuses on how firm-level assets and capabilities influence firm performance. Scholars have noted the need for studies grounded in the RBV to account for the role of the strategic group level, but uncertainty remains about how to do so. Random coefficients modeling (RCM) provide an appropriate technique to integrate these two levels of analysis, but its use has been limited in strategic management research to date. I review research integrating firm and strategic group levels and provide a roadmap for future research seeking to integrate these two levels’ influences on firm performance, and use RCM to illustrate the effects of firm resources on performance under three depictions of the strategic group level culled from strategic management research. Findings suggest that interpretations about the efficacy of resources’ influence on performance vary considerably across methodological specification. Next, I use RCM to illustrate how strategic management researchers can further integrate the firm and group levels by demonstrating how variables at the group level of analysis may interact with firm-level characteristics. I conclude with suggestions for future research using RCM to integrate the strategic group into multilevel studies predicting firm performance.

The relationship between knowledge and innovation is well established in the strategy and entrepreneurship literatures. However, little is known about how absorptive capacity – the firm's ability to acquire, assimilate, and use new knowledge – effects innovation in new firms. We build on extant conceptual arguments from scholars who assert that the concept of absorptive capacity can be delineated into a number of individual components, and we test the influences of each component on innovation using a sample of new firms in the Swedish telecom, IT, media, and entertainment sectors. We find that while all of the components of absorptive capacity influence innovation in new ventures, acquiring new technological knowledge and employing mechanisms for exploiting new knowledge have the greatest effects. Our results provide a direct empirical test of the linkage between absorptive capacity and innovation, and suggest that the effects of these components of absorptive capacity on performance are more complex than previously articulated in the literature. We conclude with implications for future research surrounding absorptive capacity.

The commentaries offered by Professors Joyce and Michael on our chapter, “Multilevel influences on firm performance: Implications from the resource-based view and strategic groups research,” provide a number of suggestions for incorporating levels of analysis into studies of firm performance. In this rejoinder to their comments, we note the need to include managers’ cognitions in studies, emphasize the role of theory in studying strategic groups, describe the value of creating conceptual clarity regarding strategic groups, and offer suggestions for studies that might emanate from the ideas in the commentaries in juxtaposition to our original work.

The resource-based view of the firm and strategic groups research are two of the most investigated frameworks in strategic management. Historically, assumptions behind these two views have seemingly put them at odds. The resource-based view of the firm argues that sustained competitive advantage is best attained when firms have unique resources, while strategic groups research argues that a number of firms within the same industry can achieve sustained profitability with strategies that are similar to one another, but distinct from other industry members. The two views focus on different levels of analysis and each largely ignores the other’s focal level. Yet neither offers any propositions that are incompatible with the tenets of the other. Thus, conceptual integration that crosses levels of analysis is possible and potentially fruitful. Indeed, some strategic groups research has begun to bridge the gap between these two theories by suggesting that firm differences exist both within and between strategic groups. This article adopts a multi-level view by developing propositions concerning contingencies when firm differences, group processes, or both may lead to sustained competitive advantage. Implications for practitioners as well as suggestions for future theory building and empirical tests are also discussed.