Fourth, while we emphasized competitive interdependence in our study, we did not have data on specific competitive actions or dyadic competitive interactions. Instead, we directed attention to the dynamic interdependence among multiple rivals by focusing on their sets of capabilities. Based on prior research, we assume that specific actions are based on the firm’s capability sets, which is consistent with the RBV and competitive dynamics literature (Barney, 1991; Grimm and Smith, 1997). Future research could make a contribution by combining the logics of capabilities and competitive dynamics to investigate how similarity in firms’ strength and weakness sets affects competitive tension (Chen et al., 2007).[12]In fact, using the awareness-motivation-capability framework to specifically contrast how weaknesses affect interfirm dynamics based on multimarket overlap or commonality (Chen, 1996; Gimeno, 1999; Gimeno and Woo, 1996) could be informative. Our results imply that similar capability weaknesses may influence the intensity of competitive tension between rivals differently than do similar capability strengths.
Fifth, our results pertaining to changes in firms’ strength and weakness sets over time suggest that the durability of competitive advantage is limited. However, because the linkage in this study is indirect, research is needed to show how changes in capability sets over time directly affect the firm’s ability to gain or sustain a competitive advantage. Specifically, our aggregation of multiple capability strengths does not allow for fine-grained analyses of the influence each specific capability has on a firm’s outcomes. More direct tests of the effects of changes in the composition of capability strength/weakness sets over time on firm performance are needed.
Finally, our study examined manufacturing firms; research should be extended to examine the capabilities of service firms to determine if the results of this study generalize to other industries.
This work provides several implications for managers. First, configurations of capabilities must be effectively managed. In particular, managers must manage both capability weaknesses and strengths effectively. Developing a temporary advantage is not just about protecting or creating strengths, but also addressing weaknesses. In fact, reducing or eliminating capability weaknesses may be an expedient route to higher firm performance. Theory suggests that achieving parity with rivals is less difficult than surpassing the better competitors in an industry. Thus, to improve performance, managers could, perhaps, first concentrate on reducing weaknesses, which might allow their firm to achieve performance parity. While the results provide partial empirical support for Powell’s (2001, 2002) suggestion that a primary strategic difference among firms is not strength, but weakness, they also suggest that improving capability strength is important. In fact, the highest performers in our sample possessed high levels of strength and these strengths provided an increasingly positive effect on performance.
It is also important for managers to recognize that current strengths could become tomorrow’s weaknesses if investment is not sustained. In dynamic environments, maintaining a relative position requires managers to enhance their firm’s capabilities (Sirmon et al., 2007). Rivals are continuously searching for ways to overcome their competitors’ competitive advantage. As such, all firms must continuously develop their capabilities, requiring ongoing investments (Kor and Mahoney, 2005) and emphasis on effective management (Sirmon et al., 2007).
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.