Does Competitive Intensity Moderate the Relationships between Sustainable Capabilities and Sustainable Organizational Performance in New Ventures?
2. Theory and Research Hypotheses
2.1. Capabilities and Sustainable New Venture Performance (H1–H4)
2.2. The Moderating Effect of Competitive Intensity
3.2. Tests for Potential Nonresponse Bias
3.3. Study Measures
3.3.2. Competitive Intensity
3.3.3. Sustainable New Venture Performance
3.3.4. Other Factors as Control Variables
4.1. Hypothesis Testing
+ β5 × COIN + β6 × (MC × COIN) + β7 × (TC × COIN)
+ β8 × (MLC × COIN) + β9 × (ITC × COIN) + β10 × AGE
+ β11 × SIZE + β12 × BPOW + β13 × SPOW + β14 × ENTRY
+ β15 × SUBS + β16 × CONC + β17 × MGRO
+ β18 × (AGE × COIN) + β19 × (SIZE × COIN)
+ β20 × (BPOW × COIN) + β21 × (SPOW × COIN)
+ β22 × (ENTRY × COIN) + β23 × (SUBS × COIN)
+ β24 × (CONC × COIN) + β25 × (MGRO × COIN) + ε,
4.2. Additional Analyses by “Pick-a-Point Approach”
+ β13 × SPOW + β14 × ENTRY + β15 × SUBS + β16 × CONC + β17 × MGRO) + β1 × MC
+ (β5 + β7 × TC + β8 × MLC + β9 × ITC + β18 × AGE + β19 × SIZE + β20 × BPOW
+ β21 × SPOW + β22 × ENTRY + β23 × SUBS + β24 × CONC + β25 × MGRO) × COIN
+ β6 × (MC × COIN) + ε,
+ β13 × SPOW + β14 × ENTRY + β15 × SUBS + β16 × CONC + β17 × MGRO) + β3 × MLC
+ (β5 + β6 × MC + β7 × TC + β9 × ITC + β18 × AGE + β19 × SIZE + β20 × BPOW
+ β21 × SPOW + β22 × ENTRY + β23 × SUBS + β24 × CONC + β25 × MGRO) × COIN
+ β8 × (MLC × COIN) + ε.
− 1.849 × [(MC − 2.283) × (COIN − 3.144)],
+ 1.556 × ((MLC − 2.485) × (COIN − 3.144)) + ε,
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Practice Implications
5.3. Research Limitations and Future Research Directions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Study Measures and Sources
- Knowledge of customers.
- Knowledge of competitors.
- Integration of marketing activities.
- Skill to segment and target markets.
- New product sustainable development capabilities.
- Manufacturing sustainability processes.
- Technology sustainable development capabilities.
- Ability of predicting technological changes in the industry.
- Production facilities.
- Market sensing capabilities.
- Customer–linking (i.e., creating and managing durable customer relationships) capabilities.
- Capabilities of creating durable relationship with our suppliers.
- Ability to retain customers.
- Channel-bonding capabilities (i.e., creating durable relationship with channel members such as whole sellers, retailers, etc.).
- Information technology systems for new product sustainable development projects.
- Information technology systems for facilitating cross-functional integration.
- Information technology systems for facilitating technology knowledge creation.
- Information technology systems for facilitating market knowledge creation.
- Information technology systems for internal communication (i.e., across different departments, across different levels of the organization, etc.).
- Competition in our industry is cutthroat.
- There are many “promotion wars” in our industry.
- Anything that one competitor can offer, others can match readily.
- Price competition is a hallmark of our industry.
- Our competitors are relatively weak.
- Newbert, S.L. Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 121–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 1319–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hao, S.; Song, M. Technology-driven strategy and firm performance: Are strategic capabilities missing links? J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 751–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraaijenbrink, J.; Spender, J.C.; Groen, A.J. The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 349–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klier, H.; Schwens, C.; Zapkau, F.B.; Dikova, D. Which resources matter how and where? A meta-analysis on firms’ foreign establishment mode choice. J. Manag. Stud. 2017, 54, 304–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giménez, J.; Madrid-Guijarro, A.; Duréndez, A. competitive capabilities for the innovation and performance of Spanish construction companies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Di Benedetto, C.A.; DeSarbo, W.S.; Song, M. Strategic capabilities and radical innovation: An empirical study in three countries. IEEE. Trans. Eng. Manag. 2008, 55, 420–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shan, B.; Cai, L.; Hatfield, D.E.; Tang, S. The relationship between resources and capabilities of new ventures in emerging economies. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2014, 15, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenhardt, K.M.; Martin, J.A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 1105–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKee, D.O.; Varadarajan, R.; Pride, W.M. Strategic adaptability and market performance: A market-contingent perspective. J. Mark. 1989, 53, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helfat, C.; Finkelstein, S.; Mitchell, W.; Peteraf, M.A.; Singh, H.; Teece, D.J. Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 30, 203–207. [Google Scholar]
- Drnevich, P.L.; Kriauciunas, A.P. Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2011, 32, 254–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, X.M.; Di Benedetto, C.A.; Parry, M.E. The impact of formal processes for market information acquisition and utilization on the performance of Chinese new ventures. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2009, 26, 314–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parnell, J.A.; Lester, D.L.; Long, Z.; Köseoglu, M.A. How environmental uncertainty affects the link between business strategy and performance in SMEs. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 546–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Nevo, S.; Benitez-Amado, J.; Kou, G. IT capabilities and product innovation performance: The roles of corporate entrepreneurship and competitive intensity. Inf. Manag. 2015, 52, 643–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.H.; Leem, C.S.; Bae, D.J. The impact of technology capability, human resources, internationalization, market resources, and customer satisfaction on annual sales growth rates of Korean software firms. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2018, 19, 171–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Chen, J.; Liu, L. Profiting from green innovation: The moderating effect of competitive strategy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sirmon, D.G.; Hitt, M.A.; Ireland, R.D. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 273–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, G.S. Market Driven Strategy: Processes for Creating Value; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Day, G.S. The capabilities of market-driven organizations. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahoney, J.T.; Pandian, J.R. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1992, 13, 363–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Peteraf, M.A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeSarbo, W.S.; Di Benedetto, C.A.; Song, M.; Sinha, I. Revisiting the miles and snow strategic framework: Uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 47–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, M.; Di Benedetto, C.A.; Nason, R.W. Capabilities and financial performance: The moderating effect of strategic type. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2007, 35, 18–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krasnikov, A.; Jayachandran, S. The relative impact of marketing, research-and-development, and operations capabilities on firm performance. J. Mark. 2008, 72, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.L.; Song, M.; Storm, G.L. Founding team capabilities and new venture performance: The mediating role of strategic positional advantages. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2013, 37, 789–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.-H. The influencing factors of enterprise sustainable innovation: An empirical study. Sustainability 2016, 8, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Lyver, M.J.; Lu, T.J. Sustaining innovation performance in SMEs: Exploring the roles of strategic entrepreneurship and IT capabilities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Park, J.H.; Kook, S.H.; Im, H.; Eum, S.; Lee, C. Fabless semiconductor firms’ financial performance determinant factors: Product platform efficiency and technological capability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Akram, M.S.; Goraya, M.A.S.; Malik, A.; Aljarallah, A.M. Organizational performance and sustainability: Exploring the roles of IT capabilities and knowledge management capabilities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, S.; Zhang, H.; Song, M. Big data, big data analytics capability, and sustainable innovation performance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Zahra, S.A.; Sapienza, H.J.; Davidsson, P. Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. J. Manag. Stud. 2006, 43, 917–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Schreyögg, G.; Kliesch-Eberl, M. How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 913–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Moorman, C.; Slotegraaf, R.J. The contingency value of complementary capabilities in product development. J. Mark. Res. 1999, 36, 239–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nath, P.; Nachiappan, S.; Ramanathan, R. The impact of marketing capability, operations capability and diversification strategy on performance: A resource-based view. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2010, 39, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilden, R.; Gudergan, S.P. The impact of dynamic capabilities on operational marketing and technological capabilities: Investigating the role of environmental turbulence. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Benedetto, C.A.; Song, M. The relationship between strategic type and firm capabilities in Chinese firms. Int. Mark. Rev. 2003, 20, 514–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walter, A.; Auer, M.; Ritter, T. The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 2006, 21, 541–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neirotti, P.; Raguseo, E. On the contingent value of It-based capabilities for the competitive advantage of SMEs: Mechanisms and empirical evidence. Inf. Manag. 2017, 54, 139–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raymond, L.; Uwizeyemungu, S.; Fabi, B.; St-Pierre, J. IT capabilities for product innovation in SMEs: A configurational approach. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2018, 19, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, P.R.; Lorsch, J.W. Organization and Environment; Harvard Business School: Boston, MA, USA, 1967; Volume 2, pp. 314–343. [Google Scholar]
- Schendel, D.; Hofer, C.W. Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning; Little Brown: Boston, MA, USA, 1979; pp. 70–81. [Google Scholar]
- Lumpkin, G.T.; Dess, G.G. Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The Moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. J. Bus. Res. Ventur. 2001, 16, 429–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfeffer, J.; Salancik, G.R. The External Control of Organizations; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Porter, M.E. Competitive Strategy; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Farrell, J.; Saloner, G. Installed Base and compatibility: Innovation, product preannouncements, and predation. Am. Econ. Rev. 1986, 76, 940–956. [Google Scholar]
- Sutcliffe, K.M.; Zaheer, A. Uncertainty in the transaction environment: An empirical test. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, P.; Tushman, M. Organizational environments and industry exit: The effects of uncertainty, munificence and complexity. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2001, 10, 675–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuivalainen, O.; Sundqvist, S.; Puumalainen, K.; Cadogan, J. The effect of environmental turbulence and leader characteristics on international performance: Are knowledge-based firms different? Can. J. Adm. Sci. 2004, 21, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, M.; Dröge, C.; Hanvanich, S.; Calantone, R. Marketing and technology resource complementarity: An analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 259–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afuah, A. Mapping technological capabilities into product markets and competitive advantage: The case of cholesterol drugs. Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Castrogiovanni, G. Organizational task environments: Have they changed fundamentally over time? J. Manag. 2002, 28, 129–150. [Google Scholar]
- Harris, R. Organizational task environments: An evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity. J. Manag. Stud. 2004, 41, 857–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Didonet, S.; Simmons, G.; Villavicencio, G.; Palmer, M. The relationship between small business market orientation and environmental uncertainty. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2012, 30, 757–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Narver, J.C.; Slater, S.F. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaccard, J.; Turrisi, R.; Wan, C.K. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Chatterjee, S.; Hadi, A.S.; Price, B. Regression Analysis by Example, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, A.F.; Matthes, J. Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 924–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Hu, C.; Zhang, H.; Song, M.; Liang, D. Past performance, organizational aspiration, and organizational performance: The moderating effect of environmental jolts. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
|3. TC||0.527 ***||−0.021||1.000|
|4. MLC||0.214 ***||0.162 *||0.034||1.000|
|5. ITC||0.469 ***||−0.391 ***||0.375 ***||−0.103||1.000|
|6. COIN||0.362 ***||0.103||0.407 ***||0.383 ***||0.175 **||1.000|
|7. AGE||0.013||−0.021||−0.023||0.081||0.138 *||−0.028||1.000|
|10. SPOW||−0.072||0.095||−0.120||0.020||−0.170 **||−0.083||0.019||0.110||0.064||1.000|
|11. ENTRY||−0.021||−0.150 *||−0.049||−0.113||0.023||−0.103||0.073||−0.196 **||0.056||−0.170 **||1.000|
|12. SUBS||−0.169 **||0.054||−0.232 ***||−0.104||−0.013||0.006||−0.024||0.010||−0.005||−0.081||0.005||1.000|
|14. MGRO||0.060||−0.015||0.143 *||−0.125||0.129||0.052||−0.040||−0.088||−0.027||−0.104||−0.051||−0.062||−0.132||1.000|
|Market-Linking Capabilities (MLC)||IT Capabilities (ITC)||Competitive Intensity (COIN)|
|Model 1||Model 2|
|Marketing capabilities (MC)||2.350 ***||0.650||0.254||1.993 ***||0.697||0.216|
|Technology Capabilities (TC)||2.420 ***||0.521||0.337||2.143 ***||0.625||0.298|
|Market-linking Capabilities (MLC)||2.263 ***||0.700||0.211||1.602 *||0.840||0.149|
|IT Capabilities (ITC)||5.363 ***||0.867||0.479||4.840 ***||0.972||0.432|
|Firm Age (AGE)||−0.448||0.455||−0.063||−0.382||0.479||−0.054|
|Firm Size (SIZE)||0.513||2.602||0.013||−1.020||2.781||−0.026|
|Buyer Power (BPOW)||0.477||0.424||0.072||0.504||0.449||0.076|
|Supplier Power (SPOW)||0.126||0.441||0.019||0.358||0.471||0.053|
|Ease of Entry (ENTRY)||0.394||0.482||0.054||0.395||0.503||0.054|
|Substitution Threats (SUBS)||−0.486||0.436||−0.073||−0.506||0.456||−0.076|
|Seller Concentration (CONC)||−0.347||0.454||−0.049||−0.532||0.473||−0.075|
|Market Growth (MGRO)||−0.171||0.448||−0.025||−0.276||0.469||−0.040|
|Competitive Intensity (COIN)||1.683 *||1.010||0.145|
|MC × COIN||−1.849 **||0.845||−0.174|
|TC × COIN||0.314||0.789||0.033|
|MLC × COIN||1.556 *||0.908||0.124|
|ITC × COIN||−1.275||1.056||−0.113|
|AGE × COIN||3.148||3.559||0.065|
|SIZE × COIN||−0.137||0.545||−0.017|
|BPOW × COIN||−0.348||0.625||−0.042|
|SPOW × COIN||−0.243||0.559||−0.031|
|ENTRY × COIN||−0.140||0.619||−0.016|
|SUBS × COIN||0.940||0.569||0.116|
|CONC × COIN||−0.467||0.622||−0.053|
|MGRO × COIN||1.161 **||0.580||0.140|
|F-value||10.410 ***||5.710 ***|
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Song, M. Does Competitive Intensity Moderate the Relationships between Sustainable Capabilities and Sustainable Organizational Performance in New Ventures? Sustainability 2020, 12, 253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010253
Zhang H, Wang Y, Song M. Does Competitive Intensity Moderate the Relationships between Sustainable Capabilities and Sustainable Organizational Performance in New Ventures? Sustainability. 2020; 12(1):253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010253Chicago/Turabian Style
Zhang, Haili, Yufan Wang, and Michael Song. 2020. "Does Competitive Intensity Moderate the Relationships between Sustainable Capabilities and Sustainable Organizational Performance in New Ventures?" Sustainability 12, no. 1: 253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010253