ESSAY 1. Title: Strategic orientation and organizational forms: an integrative framework

Transcription

1 ESSAY 1 Title: Strategic orientation and organizational forms: an integrative framework 29

2 Strategic orientation and organizational forms: an integrative framework 1. Abstract Purpose: This paper aims to bring together strategic orientation (SO) and organizational forms literatures by proposing refined SO typologies based on various combinations of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and market orientation (MO); and postulating typical organizational forms (configurations) for proposed SO types relative to each other in terms of parameters identified from organizational forms literature. Design/methodology/approach: This conceptual paper employs selective-intensive review of literature dealing with: 1) both EO and MO to identify extant SO typologies, relevant strategic attributes, and relationships between EO, MO and strategic attributes; and 2) organizational forms to identify parameters. Tabular frameworks are used to compare the proposed and extant SO types, posit strategic attributes for proposed SO types, and compare ideal organizational profiles across SO types. Findings: EO and MO are related constructs that capture distinct aspects of business philosophy. Relationships of EO and MO with each strategic attributes are summarized. To explain differences across all attributes simultaneously, using combinations of EO and MO, five SO types- prospector, analyzer, proactive defender, reactive defender, and reactor- are proposed. Using parameters- strategy, structure, resources, and environment- relative organizational profiles are specified for proposed SO types. Originality/value: This paper brings together sporadic attempts towards developing SO typology and explicitly integrates SO and organizational forms literatures. It 30

3 offers ground work for developing testable propositions and tabular frameworks that may serve as heuristics into nature of firms orientations and their performance implications. Keywords: Strategic orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, organizational forms, configurations 2. Introduction Strategic orientation and organization forms literatures are exemplars of theorizing using typologies (Doty and Glick, 1994; Hakala, 2011; Miles and Snow, 1978; Short et al., 2008; Venkatraman, 1989). Orientations and their contributions to firms performance have been studied in marketing, entrepreneurship, and strategy literatures. Due to different research focus and units of analysis of these disciplines, however, there have been as many constructs- entrepreneurial, learning, innovation, product, customer, market, marketing, selling, production, and technology- as the research needs, indicating a scope of reconciliation of the SO literature (Hakala, 2011). Recent advances (Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001; Hakala, 2011; Schindehutte et al., 2008; Wang, 2008) have purported that entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and market orientation (MO) coexist. So, a natural question is- what configurations of SO emerge from interactions of EO and MO? Classifying EO and MO as dichotomies of high and low values, prior researches have posited typologies based on 2*2 tables (for e.g., Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001). However, these typologies are unable to explain finer differences among some strategic attributes of the firms. This paper proposes more intricate combinatory framework by considering relative mid-range values of EO and MO to explain these key attributes. As the relative combination of orientations shape overall decision 31

4 making framework within an organization and its capabilities (Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001; Baker and Sinkula, 2009), it leads to second question- what is implication of coexistence of EO and MO for organizations strategic attributes and choices? Organizational forms literature studies firms performance by comparing them with ideal types which are specified along some organizational attributes/ parameters (Short et al., 2008). Assessing the proximity of a firm to ideal type coupled with an idea of prevalent context provides heuristics into the firm s performance (Doty and Glick, 1994). To make the connection between these two typologies based approaches more explicit, an extension of the proposal for refined SO typology is- what are the characteristic organizational profiles of proposed SO types? To answer these questions, this conceptual paper utilizes selective-intensive review of SO literature to propose a refined typology of SO based on various combinations of EO and MO, and uses it to explicate key strategic attributes of each type. Then, unlike the past approaches, this paper compares and links the proposed SO typology to extant organizational forms literature by positing characteristic organizational profiles for proposed SO types. 3. Theoretical background Given the vastness of SO literature, objective of the paper, and that thorough literature reviews already exist, it was decided to look for researches concerning study of simultaneity and interaction between EO and MO, and its implications for firms strategic attributes and overall performance. Ebsco Business Source Complete, ABI/ Inform Complete, and Emerald databases were searched for simultaneous mention of key words entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation in the abstract of peer reviewed articles published in scholarly journals up to the year This 32

5 resulted in 17, 18, and 6 articles in Ebsco, ABI/ Inform, and Emerald respectively of which 08 articles were common leaving 33 unique articles. Abstracts of these articles were read, and references from selected articles (for e.g., Baker and Sinkula, 2009; Schindehutte et al., 2008) and earlier reviews (for e.g., Hakala, 2011) were used as source of further scholarly material (for thorough reviews of SO, EO, and MO literatures please refer Hakala, 2011; Kirca et al., 2005; and Rauch et al., 2009). Thus, following selective-intensive approach of literature review, only such references from these articles were explored and selected that provided insights concerning- causal mechanisms between EO and MO; relationship between EO, MO, and strategic attributes; and how this interaction among orientations affects choices of strategic attributes Strategic orientation In this study SO is defined as organizational principles that direct and influence the activities of an organization (Hakala, 2011: 2). Strategic orientation literature posits that SO manifests firms culture and serves as antecedent to organizational practices and decisions related to resources allocation and pursuing opportunities (Deshpande et al., 1993; Narver and Slater, 1990). EO and MO are two prevalent types of strategic orientations (Hakala, 2011; Miles and Arnold, 1991). The proposal for a new SO typology in this paper is based on the observation that none of the three most prevalent typologies, viz., Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001), Jaworski et al. (2000), and Miles and Snow (1978) alone can differentiate among all the relevant strategic attributes identified from the literature review. This paper, however, has the same epistemological underpinning of Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001), Baker and Sinkula (2009), and Miles and Arnold (1991) who argue that it is the relative combination of 33

6 these orientations which determines different tendencies of firms with regard to key strategic attributes (Hakala, 2011). Following paragraphs provide overview of EO, MO, and their complimentary relationship. Then, typologies proposed by Atuahene- Gima and Ko (2001) and Miles and Snow (1978) are used to posit a refined one that better reflects various combinations of entrepreneurial and market orientations Entrepreneurial orientation. EO refers to the processes, practices, and decision making activities towards new entry (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996: 136). EO is an indicator of a firm wide tendency to engage in the pursuit of new market opportunities and the renewal of existing areas of operation (Hult and Ketchen, 2001: 901). High EO connotes values such as seeking market opportunities proactively, undertaking very risk projects, and engaging deeper with technological advancements rather than for purely commercial purpose (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). As per Miller (1983: 771), an entrepreneurial firm engages in product-market innovation, risky ventures, proactive innovations and beating competitors. Covin and Slevin (1989), Miller (1983), and Lumpkin and Dess (1996) have argued that risktaking, innovativeness, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness, and a need for autonomy are dimensions of EO. Risk taking refers to the degree to which managers are willing to make large and risky resource commitments (Miller and Friesen, 1978: 923). Lumpkin and Dess (1996: 142) define innovativeness as a firm s tendency to engage in and support new ideas, novelty, experimentation, and creative processes that may result in new products, services, or technological processes. Proactiveness refers to the extent to which a firm anticipates and acts on future needs by seeking new opportunities which may or may not be related to the present line of operations (Venkatraman, 34

7 1989: 949). Highly proactive firms are first to spot opportunities for value creation and appropriation. Competitive aggressiveness refers to a firm s propensity to challenge its competitors to achieve entry or improve position in the marketplace (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996: 148). Autonomy refers to independent actions aimed at bringing about new ventures. The effect of EO on performance is influenced by firm size, national culture (Rauch et al., 2009); access to financial resources (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005); network capability (Walter et al., 2005); presence of MO (Ruokonen and Saarenketo, 2009); and strategic processes (Covin et al., 2006) Market orientation. Narver and Slater (1990: 21) define MO as an organizational culture that most effectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviours for the creation of superior value for buyers and thus continued superior performance for the business. Market oriented firms accord highest priority to creating and delivering superior customer value. MO is also viewed as representative of organization wide customer and market centred culture and behaviours (Day, 1994; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990) and not a prerogative of marketing departments. MO comprises of customer orientation, competitor orientation, inter functional coordination and a long-term and profit focus (Narver and Slater, 1990). According to Gatignon and Xuereb (1997: 78), competitor orientation is the ability and the will to identify, analyze, and respond to competitors' actions, and customer orientation is the ability and the will to identify, analyze, understand, and answer user needs. Inter functional coordination- level of coordination and communicationis a prerequisite if a progressive firm is to constantly adapt its offering to suit expressed or latent needs of existing or potential customers. Inter functional 35

8 coordination enables firms to pick up warning or opportunity signals, process and convert them into specific departmental deliverables; and ensures congruence of efforts. Previous researches and meta-analysis (Cano et al., 2004; Kirca et al., 2005) found that MO positively affects firm performance, although the strength of the relationship is subject to presence of appropriate mediators, moderators and contingent variables such as level of technology, national culture, type of industry, or types of performance measures used (Kirca et al., 2005) Interrelationship between EO and MO. Do EO and MO represent same underlying business philosophy? This question has been debated in the literature with some arguing in favour (Morris and Paul, 1987) and some finding contradictory results (Miles and Arnold, 1991). The initial organization wide postulation of strategic orientation construct by Venkataraman (1989) got adapted to suit the discipline specific need (for e.g., EO scale by Covin and Slevin, 1989, and MO scale by Narver and Slater, 1990) and led to plethora of close but distinct constructs. Miles and Arnold (1991: 59), however, concluded that market and entrepreneurial orientation do not describe same latent business philosophy, a thought that echoes in the empirical analysis by Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001), and in meta-analytic review by Hakala (2011). Elements of MO- customer orientation, competitor orientation, and inter-functional coordination, long term profit focus- can exist independent of elements of EO- organization wide tendency of risk affinity, proactiveness, autonomy seeking, and innovativeness. Market knowledge is, however, very crucial for the entrepreneurial process (Liu et al., 2002; Luo et al., 2005). Researchers have found that MO and EO are positively related, and firms adopting both achieve superior performance (Atuahene-Gima and 36

9 Ko, 2001; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994; Luo et al., 2005; Slater and Narver, 1995). Firms with MO keep track of both customers and competitors for successful positioning and differentiation indicating a need for greater within market innovativeness (Deshpande et al., 1993; Narver et al., 2004). This greater information access, analysis and use by firms with MO leads to learning and opportunity discovery thus enhancing innovativeness (Atuahene-Gima, 1996; Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001), and EO. 4. Proposed strategic orientation typology Following the researches referring to mutuality between organizations strategic attributes and- 1) strategic orientation (Daft and Weick, 1984; Hamel, 2000; Hamel and Prahalad, 1991; Rogers, 1995; Senge, 1990; Venkataraman, 1989; Zhou et al., 2005); 2) entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Miller, 1983; Wang, 2008); and 3) market orientation (Jaworski et al., 2000; Sinkula et al., 1997; Slater and Narver, 1995), fourteen firm level characteristic attributes were identified as important in understanding fine grained difference among various firm types based on SO typology (Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001; Miles and Snow, 1978; Schindehutte et al., 2008; Slater and Mohr, 2006; Zeithaml and Zeithaml, 1984). These strategic attributes are reported in first column of the figure 1. Figure 1 also summarizes the relationship of each strategic attribute to EO and MO. ================ Figure 1: About here ================ 37

10 It is observed that the existing, three widely used typologies propounded by Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001), Jaworski et al. (2000), and Miles and Snow (1978) are limited in their utility to capture the finer differences across all fourteen strategic attributes simultaneously. Therefore, using various combinations of EO and MO, five SO types- Prospector, Analyzer, Proactive Defender, Reactive Defender and Reactorare proposed in this study. The limitations of extant typologies are reflected in figure 2. For example, Market/ Entrepreneurship type (Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001) is unable to capture finer distinctions in relative emphasis on existing and potential needs of customers, and types of innovation pursued by analyzers and proactive defenders. Defender type (Miles and Snow, 1978) is unable to capture finer distinctions in relative emphasis on types of and commitments towards organizational learning by proactive defenders and reactive defenders. Market driving type (Jaworski et al., 2000) is unable to capture finer distinctions in relative emphasis on commitment and open mindedness towards learning, and basis of innovation by prospectors and analyzers. Market driven type (Jaworski et al., 2000) is unable to capture finer distinctions in relative emphasis on competitive aggressiveness, organizational learning, and types of innovation by proactive defenders and reactive defenders. As compared to past 2*2 typologies, proposal for refined typology in this paper subscribes to the view that firms can have EO and MO in varied amounts. Figure 2 and following paragraphs summarize the proposed typology, and associated attributes: ================ Figure 2: About here ================ 38

11 4.1. Prospector Prospector types have highest EO and minimal MO among all SO types. Accordingly the strategic choices and attributes are based on organization-wide decision making proclivity for new entry which in turn is driven by firms innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness, desire for autonomy, and competitive aggressiveness. Prospectors strive for radical product-market innovation based mainly on breakthrough technological evolution and discovery. Prospectors undertake highly risky ventures often in unrelated areas or industries. Prospectors have little focus on competition, if any, and attempt to make competition redundant. In this sense they are representative of Schumpeterian firm and display high risk tolerance. If successful their venture are most likely to lead to creative destruction. They undertake projects that are mostly new to the industry and world. This orientation is suitable for highly complex and dynamic industries where product life cycles are very short, and most of firms primary customers are early adopters of innovation and willing to pay premium. These firms predominantly thrive in new information and knowledge based economies; pursue proactive and extensive environmental scanning across sectors; and emphasize on acquisition of information from diverse technological breakthroughs, industries, and contexts. For prospectors, organization wide dissemination of knowledge is important, and thus they rely heavily on information technology (IT) systems, informal structure, and employee freedom Analyzer Analyzers have lower EO and higher MO than prospectors. They exhibit relatively more emphasis on customers, competitors, long term focus, and profitability than prospectors. Analyzers aim to manage the dual between exploitation and exploration 39

12 across existing and emerging markets. They display ambidexterity in that they pursue radical product-market innovation opportunities discovered by prospectors or themselves provided there is enough market potential and scope of economies. The innovations pursued by analyzers are based equally on technological evolution and commercialization potential. They display a high risk tolerance which is, however, lower than prospectors. They choose projects that are mostly new to the industry and only some time so to the world. Analyzers attempt to pre-empt competition and be the second but better entrant. This orientation is suitable for highly complex and dynamic industries with scope of creating substantial isolating mechanism to reap the benefits of investments, and for products whose lifecycle can be relatively longer. It is helpful to analyzers if a large untapped market with enough diversity in expected benefits is created due to prospectors efforts. Analyzers thrive in new information and knowledge based economies, emphasize acquisition of information from related industries and contexts. They also benefit from organization-wide dissemination of knowledge and hence using IT, cross-functional integration, and informal structure are important Proactive Defender Proactive defenders have lower EO and higher MO than analyzers, and are usually latest among the early entrants in a new market after prospectors and analyzers. Their innovations are mostly incremental, sequential, and based on latent/ expressed needs of present and potential customer segments. Proactive defenders display moderate risk tolerance lower than prospectors and analyzers. They choose projects that are new to them but have been attempted in their industries. They manage competition by mainly marketing differentiation (for e.g., product/ line/ brand extensions). Proactive 40

13 defenders are suitable for industries where consumers adoption rates of new products are low, prices of technology or base products platforms fall substantially with increase in number of entrants, products lifecycle are long, and consumers are willing to wait for better price-benefit offers. Proactive defenders emphasize information acquisition from mainly with-in industry and key product-market contexts, and its organization-wide dissemination. To have adaptability and responsiveness, it is important for proactive defenders to use IT, and cross-functional integration Reactive Defender Reactive defenders have lowest EO and highest MO among SO types. They are last to cater to an existing market. They strive to satiate expressed needs of present customer segments using relied, tested technologies and products/ services. Reactive defenders score low on competitive aggressiveness, market proactiveness, and innovation. They display very low risk tolerance. Their projects are rarely new and fairly common with most firms in their industry. They rely mainly on product and marketing differentiation, and constantly struggle to manage (differentiate from) competition. This orientation is suitable for industries where consumers adoption rates of new products are very slow; prices of technology or base products platforms fall substantially with increase in number of entrants and passage of time; and products lifecycle are long. Reactive defenders emphasize information acquisition from relatively narrower product-market contexts within industry and regions, and its organization-wide dissemination. They tend to be most bureaucratic and least proactive among the four orientations discussed so far, and use IT and crossfunctional integration in a way that facilitates exploitation of existing opportunities. 41

14 4.5. Reactor Reactors are characterized by lack of shared understanding of principles about how to do things between top management and employees. In other words, there is a persistent mismatch among routines, processes, managerial and HR systems, and the organizational objectives; and between internal factors and external constraints. Reactors lack consistency in the entrepreneurial and market orientations, and thus score poorly on innovativeness and market proactiveness leading to frequent competitive failures. This lack of congruence among firm objectives, directive principles, and processes leads to lower employee morale which in turn results in further degradation of performance. 5. Organizational forms A strong body of literature has shaped our understanding of relationship between organizational orientation and configuration profiles (for e.g., Harms et al., 2007; Ketchen et al., 1997; Miles and Snow, 1978; Miller, 1983; 1988; Miller and Friesen, 1978; Mintzberg, 1979; Short et al., 2008). Following Short et al. (2008: 1057), the term organization forms is used to refer to configuration literature as the term configuration may also connote three more configuration types- strategic groups, archetypes, and generic strategies. As this paper uses multiple organizational features to elaborate generalizable configurations, choice of the term organizational forms seems apt (Short et al., 2008: 1057). Researchers in strategic management discipline traditionally examined the influence of environment, mainly industry level, firms strategy, and organizational structure on firms performance in isolation or collectively (for e.g., Chandler, 1962; Hansen and Wernerfelt, 1989; Porter, 1980; Powell, 1996; Prescott, 1986; Scherer, 1980; 42

15 Venkatraman and Prescott, 1990). Following Miller and Friesen (1978), and Mintzberg (1979) there was an advent of organizational forms approach (also used as configuration approach ) that attempted at simultaneous use of various environmental and organizational elements, especially environment, strategy, structure, and leadership for studying firm performance (Dess et al., 1993; Meyer et al., 1993; Miller, 1986; 1988). Within this approach, environment, broadly defined as composition of external and largely uncontrollable factors, is usually operationalized in terms of nature or structure of industry (for e.g., Hambrick, 1982). Strategy is operationalized as content- low cost, focus, differentiation, asset parsimony, quality, delivery, and pre-post sales services (for e.g., Miller, 1986); or gestalts of strategic decision making process (for e.g., Mintzberg, 1979); or Miles and Snow typology (1978); or dimensions of strategy making (for e.g., Miller and Friesen, 1978). Structure is operationalized by measuring size, age, power distribution, formalization, centralization, and administrative complexity (for e.g., Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). Leadership may be operationalized in terms of founders/ CEO personality or human capital factors (Frank et al., 2007) Configurational profiles of proposed strategic orientation types In this section, the propositions concerning how the SO types (figure 2) differ across key organizational characteristics are advanced. To understand the organizational profiles, following widely used and accepted characteristics from organizational forms literature are chosen (Harms et al., 2007; Ketchen et al., 1997). Following Jaworski and Kohli (1993: 57), environment s three dimensions market dynamism- the rate of change in the composition of customers and their preferences ; technological dynamism- the rate of technological change ; and competitive 43

16 intensity- the nature of competition are used. Following Miller (1988), strategy s four dimensions low cost- extent to which firm uses cost leadership for competitive advantage; product differentiation- degree to the firm develops and introduces new products or services; market differentiation- extent to which firm is pursuing strategy based on unique marketing efforts; and market breadth- variety in customer and customer segments, their geographic range and the number of products are used. Following Jaworski and Kohli (1993: 56), structure s two dimensions formalization- the degree to which rules define roles, authority relations, communications, norms and sanctions, and procedures ; and centralization- the inverse of the amount of delegation of decision-making authority throughout an organization and the extent of participation by organizational members in decision-making are used. Following Braunschiedel and Suresh (2009), internal integration- inter-functional and interdepartmental integration and alignment; and external integration- integration/ alignment with key customers and supplier- are used to represent coordination element of organizational structure. Top managers type of education and prior professional experience; and social capital- resourcefulness provided by firm s membership of strategic networks (Yli-Renko et al., 2000) are used to study the resource profile. Using these characteristics, a typical organizational profile is posited for each SO type relative to one another (figure 3). ================ Figure 3: About here ================ 44

17 5.2. Discussion Figure 3 shows that the way EO and MO combine shapes which choices of parameters best ensure congruence between organizations strategic intent and operational activities (Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001). In terms of strategic choices, as firms become increasingly entrepreneurial their market breadth increases. Prospectors emphasize market breadth, product differentiation, market differentiation, and low cost in that order. Prospectors being highly innovative, risk taker, and proactive, venture into a variety of market and customer segments. Usually prospectors are consultancy firms with highest levels of technical and professional skills employable across multiple verticals. Analyzers have most emphasis on market differentiation to exploit their innovativeness and proactiveness to take on early lead in emerging industries and markets. As they have long-term focus, their next emphasis is on market breadth. Proactive defenders wait to see the early results of efforts of prospector and analyzers. They are last among early entrants and mainly rely on marketing and product differentiation to capture the markets created due to efforts of prospectors and analyzers. Reactive defender are late to realize the market potential and use low cost strategy and product differentiation to capture the lower ends (sometimes me too! segment) of the market. In terms of structural choices, to have high innovativeness, proactiveness, and autonomy, formalization and centralization decrease with increase in EO. Prospectors adopt laissez faire in what their employees do and how they do it, and so the low internal integration. High level of MO requires high inter functional coordination resulting in an increase in internal integration so much so that processes designed for bureaucratic efficiency turn into rigidity in reactive defenders. Reactive defenders 45

18 organizational structure is mired with relatively high levels of formalization, centralization, and internal integration. High external integration with supplier and partners creates processual efficiencies, facilitates flow of resources including information, and enable analyzers and proactive defenders to keep a tab on customer needs and market trends. In terms of leadership resources, top slots in prospectors are mostly populated by highly creative technocrats, engineers, and scientists. For them, joy of creating and bringing to reality hitherto unknown products are primary drivers rather than commercial success. Number of professionally trained managers is higher in analyzers and proactive defenders as compared to prospectors leading to more balanced top teams. In proactive defenders top managers believe in treading around proven paths. Social capital of each SO type depends upon strength and prior experience of top team. Most likely, prospectors top team have more of social capital in technological arena, analyzers and proactive defenders have equal in technological and commercial arena, and reactive defenders in commercial arena. In terms of environmental suitability, prospectors are likely to be found and be successful in environment that is highly dynamic technologically but moderately so with regard to customer expectations and competitors interference. Analyzers and proactive defenders may thrive in an environment that is highly dynamic both with reference to customers requirements and competitors interference but not very much so technologically. Reactive defenders thrive in an environment where customer requirements are dynamic and competitive intensity is moderate. 46

19 6. Conclusion This paper highlights that there is a scope of reconciliation with in SO literature, and to integrate it with organizational forms literature. Literature review reveals several strategic decision attributes, all of which are not simultaneously captured by the prevalent SO typologies. Accordingly, the paper proposes a refined SO typology and postulates organizational profiles for the proposed typology. Tabular frameworks allow for positioning the proposed typology vis-a-vis the existing literature, and help in explaining the fine grained distinctions among strategic choices made by firms. The novelty of the paper lies in explicitly attempting to link the SO and organizational forms literatures, unlike past efforts. As the paper presents relative configurational characteristics, it provides overview of structural, strategic, and resource profiles of firm depending upon the nature of their orientations. Researchers can use the tabular frameworks to advance testable propositions and hypotheses. For example, researchers interested in studying structural patterns across typology may use figure 3 to propose expected structural characteristics, and then test it. These profiles offer a practical benefit by making it easy to benchmark one s firm vis-a-vis competitors and the environmental context. It provides managers a heuristic into firms strategic nature and its performance implications. For example, managers may pick among strategic choices depending upon the prevailing environmental contexts and SO typology followed by designing an enabling organizational structure. References Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996), Market orientation and innovation, Journal of Business Research, 35(2),

20 Atuahene-Gima, K. and Ko, A. (2001), An empirical investigation of the effect of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation, Organization Science 12(1), Baker, W. E. and Sinkula, J. M. (2009), The complementary effects of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses, Journal of Small Business Management, 47, pp Braunscheidel, M. J. and Suresh, N. C. (2009), The organizational antecedents of a firm s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response, Journal of Operations Management, 27: Cano, C. R., Francois A. C. and Fernando J. (2004), A meta-analysis of the relationship between market orientation and business performance: evidence from five continents, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (June), Chandler, Alfred D. (1962), Strategy and Structure, MIT Press. Cambridge. Mass. Covin, J. G. and Slevin, D. P. (1989), Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments, Strategic Management Journal 10(1), 75. Covin, J. G., Green, K. M. and Slevin, D. P. (2006), Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation sales growth rate relationship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), Daft, R. L. and Weick. K. E. (1984), Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems, Academy of Management Review, 9: Day, G. S. (1994), The capabilities of market-driven organization, Journal of Marketing 58(4),

21 Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U. and Webster, F. E. Jr. (1993), Corporate culture, customer orientation and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis, Journal of Marketing, 57: Dess, G. G., Newport, S. and Rasheed, M. A. (1993), Configuration research in strategic management: key issues and suggestions, Journal of Management, 19(4): Doty, D. H. and Glick, W. H. (1994), Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modelling, Academy of Management Review, 19: Frank, H., Lueger, M. and Korunka, C. (2007), The significance of personality in business start-up intentions, start-up realization and business success, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(3): Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J. M. (1997), Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance, Journal of Marketing Research, 34: Hakala, H. (2011), Strategic orientations in management literature: three approaches to understanding the interaction between market, technology, entrepreneurial and learning orientations, International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), Hambrick, D. C. (1982), Environmental scanning and organizational strategy, Strategic Management Journal, 3, Hamel, G. (2000), Leading the Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 49

22 Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1991), Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing, Harvard Business Review, 69(July August), Hamel, G., and Prahalad, C. K. (1994), Competing for the Future. Boston: HBS Press. Hansen, G. S. and Wernerfelt, B. (1989), Determinants of firm performance: the relative importance of economic and organizational factors, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp Harms, R., Kraus, S. and Reschke C. H. (2007), Configurations of new ventures in entrepreneurship research: contributions and research gaps, Management Research News, 30(9): Hult, G. T. M. and Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2001), Does market orientation matter?: A test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance, Strategic Management Journal, 22(9): Jaworski, B. J., and Kohli, A. K. (1993), Market orientation-antecedents and consequences, Journal of Marketing 57(3), Jaworski, B., Kohli, A. K. and Sahay, A. (2000), Market-driven versus driving markets, Academy of Marketing Science 28(1), Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., Russell, C. J., Shook, C., Dean, M. A., Runge, J., Lohrke, F.T., Naumann, S. E., Haptonstahl, D. E., Baker, R., Beckstein, B. A., Handler, C., Honig, H. and Lamoureux, S. (1997), Organizational configurations and performance: a meta-analysis, Academy of Management Journal 40: Kirca A. H., Jayachandran S. and Bearden W. O. (2005), Market orientation: a metaanalytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance, Journal of Marketing, 69 (2):

23 Kohli, A. K., and Jaworski, B. J. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research positions, and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing 54(April), Liu, S.S., Luo, X. and Shi, Y.-Z. (2002), Integrating customer orientation, corporate entrepreneurship, and learning orientation in organizations-in-transition: an empirical study, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.367. Lumpkin, G. T. and Dess, G. G. (1996), Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance, Academy of Management Review, 21: Luo, X., Zhou, L. and Liu, S. S. (2005), Entrepreneurial firms in the context of China s transition economy: An integrative framework and empirical examination, Journal of Business Research, 58, Meyer A. D., Tsui, A. S., and Hinings, C. R. (1993), Configurational approaches to organizational analysis, Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): Miles, M. P. and Arnold, D. R. (1991), The relationship between marketing orientation and entrepreneurial orientation, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 15, pp Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C. (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Miller, D. (1983), The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms, Management Science 29, Miller, D. (1986), Configurations of strategy and structure: towards a synthesis, Strategic Management Journal, 7:

24 Miller, D. (1988), Relating Porter s business strategies to environment and structure: analysis and performance implications, Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1978), Archetypes of strategy formation, Management Science, 24, Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice-Hall, New York. Morris. M. H. and Paul. G. W. (1987), The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in established firms, Journal of Business Venturing. 2(3), Narver, J. C. and Slater, S. F. (1990), The effect of a market orientation on business philosophy, Journal of Marketing, 54:20-35 Narver, J. C., Slater, S. F. and MacLachlan, D. L. (2004), Responsive and proactive market orientation and new-product success, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5): Porter, M. E. (1980), Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press. Powell TC. (1996), How much does industry matter? An alternative empirical test, Strategic Management Journal 17(4): Prescott, J. E. (1986), Environments as moderators of the relationship between strategy and performance, Academy of Management Journal, 29: Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T. and Frese, M. (2009), Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), Rogers, Everett (1995), The Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. New York, Free Press. 52

25 Ruokonen, M. and Saarenketo, S. (2009), The strategic orientations of rapidly internationalizing software companies, European Business Review, 21(1), Scherer, F. M. (1980), Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL Schindehutte, M., Morris, M. H. and Kocak, A. (2008), Understanding market driving behavior: The role of entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management 46:1, Senge, P. M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday Short, J. C., Payne, T. and Ketchen, D. Jr. (2008), Research on organizational configurations: Past accomplishments and future challenges, Journal of Management, 34(6): Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W.E. and Noordewier, T. (1997), A framework for marketbased organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behaviour, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), Slater, S. F. and Mohr, J. J. (2006), Successful development and commercialization of technological innovation: insights based on strategy type, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23: doi: /j x Slater, S. F. and Narver, J. C. (1995), Market orientation and the learning organization, Journal of Marketing, 59(3), Venkatraman, N. (1989), Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality, and measurement, Management Science, 35,

26 Venkatraman N., and Prescott, J. F. (1990), Environment-strategy coalignment: an empirical test of its performance implications, Strategic Management Journal, 11: 1-23 Walter, A., Auer, M., and Ritter, T. (2005), The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance, Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), Wang C. L. (2008), Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation and firm performance, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, July 2008: Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. (2005), Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configuration approach, Journal of Business Venturing, 20, Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., and Sapienza, H. (2000), Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge based competitive advantage in technology-based young firms, Working Paper, London Business School. Zeithaml, C. P., and Zeithaml, V. A. (1984), Environmental management: revising the marketing perspective, The Journal of Marketing, Zhou K. Z., Yim B. C. and Tse D. K. (2005), The effects of strategic orientations on technology- and market-based breakthrough innovations, Journal of Marketing, 9(2):

27 Figure 1: Interaction between strategic attributes and orientations 55

28 Figure 2: Integrative Strategic Orientation Typology 56

29 Figure 3: Configuration properties of proposed SO types 57