In order to create a series of temporary competitive advantages, firms need to invest in capabilities that help them maintain/improve their relative positions. The results suggest that in munificent environments, firms are either (1) not aware or (2) not motivated to respond to rivals taking actions to reduce their weakness sets, but that they are (1) aware of, (2) motivated to, and (3) capable of matching investments (because resources are openly available) in order to increase strength sets. Thus, munificent environments allow firms to reduce weaknesses, but are less likely to facilitate strength gains relative to the competitors. As such, a Red Queen effect (Barnett and McKendrick, 2004) exists for strengths, but not for weaknesses, when resources are highly accessible.
Next, the results show that higher performance leads to positive changes in both strength and weakness sets over time. Firm-generated resources help firms avoid the erosion of competitive advantage. Or for firms with a precarious advantage, directing firm-generated resources to the elimination of weaknesses may be most important. Because these firms are vulnerable to rivals’ attacks, reducing weaknesses is important. Missing this opportunity could lead these firms from a precarious advantage to a position where weaknesses undermine their strengths. These results, together with the results pertaining to munificent environments, may help explain why firms get trapped in death spirals (e.g., Arend, 2008; Ferrier et al., 2002; Morrow et al., 2007). Decreasing performance and low munificence eliminate an ability to build strengths or eliminate weaknesses. Firms facing these conditions are unlikely to overcome their competitive disadvantages.
Collectively, these results improve our understanding of factors that influence changes in the bases of competitive advantage and its durability. Moreover, these results offer compelling evidence of the mechanisms that propel an age of temporary advantage.
Similar to most research, this study has limitations, many of which provide direction for future research. First, our data on capabilities are perceptual in nature. Although perceptual measures are commonly used to measure capabilities (e.g., Cool and Henderson, 1998; Danneels, 2008) and prior research has shown that they often demonstrate sufficient validity (Wall et al., 2004) like ours do,[11]we cannot be certain that our results are not influenced by perceptual filters. As such, additional research based on objective measures would be useful. Second, this research represents an extension of prior work that commonly focuses on one or two capabilities. Nonetheless, the six capabilities we measured, while a significant increase, do not represent all firm capabilities. Continued expansion of the capabilities considered would be useful.
Third, our examination of the complementarities embedded in the firm’s strength and weakness sets focused on synergistic relationships. However, it is possible that such relationships could make the firm susceptible to quick erosion of its competitive advantage if a strength becomes obsolete, for example. In fact, such a situation might mimic the results reported in Cell III of Figure 2, where capability weaknesses overwhelm the firm’s strengths and led to poor performance.
In fact, investigating other combinations of strengths and weaknesses in more detail might provide additional contributions to the literature. Specifically, our results demonstrated that combining high strength and high weakness sets is a rewarding, yet risky, option. Future research could help us understand the vulnerability created by this combination. Alternatively, future research could investigate how firm strategy or structure can leverage this particular combination for optimal performance. Specifically, studying the effects of various types of interdependence (pooled, sequential, or reciprocal) among strengths and weaknesses could offer significant contributions to our understanding of how firms optimize performance. Additionally, investigating how capability strengths and weaknesses affect the firm’s alliance strategy could prove useful. Also, future research that examines how the characteristics of the firm’s competitive actions (e.g., aggressiveness, response speed, competitive repertoire simplicity, unpredictability, deviance, etc.) mediate the capability-performance relationship would be very useful. Or, research might examine how a firm’s strength and weakness sets influence the use of these competitive behaviors. These considerations could further our understanding of, for example, mutual forbearance, and how capabilities influence competitive dynamics more generally.
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.