A review of empirical research on dynamic competitive strategy, страница 11

Another group of studies investigate how strategic actions shape the characteristics of the overall competitive landscape in the next period of strategic interaction. For example, firms’ entry and exit moves will influence the degree of market domain overlap (Baum and Korn 1996) or the degree of strategic similarity (Gimeno and Woo 1996), which will in turn influence future competitive behavior. Other studies under this heading focus on the relationship between competitive strategy and industrial structure (Porter 1980), and find that strategic actions can create mobility barriers (Sudharsan et al. 1991) or change the distance between strategic groups or companies, thus significantly changing the conditions, and the intensity, of rivalry within and between strategic groups (Cool and Diericks 1993).

In summary, progress in this link reveals a similar picture to that in the corresponding antecedent–strategy link. There is substantial coverage of the competitive landscape as an outcome of competitive strategy decisions, with several studies again focusing on the timing of competitive interactions. However, path characteristics of the history of strategic actions seem to have played only a minor role in analyzing competitor response profiles or the general evolution of the competitive setting.

Competitive Strategy→Organizational Performance

Just as we considered organizational performance a separate category in terms of antecedents, so do we consider it separate in terms of outcomes. Performance is often considered the most fundamental issue in strategic management research and, consequently, is the most studied phenomenon. Studies in this link can be further subdivided into several distinct theoretical perspectives.

The first of these takes a contingency perspective on the strategy–performance link, recognizing that performance implications depend on a focal firm's past and present internal and external environments. Findings indicate that significant environmental change will often disturb a firm's alignment with its environment and, if not corrected, will damage subsequent organizational performance. Generally, strategic adaptations seem to be positively associated with performance in turbulent or cyclical environments (Mascarenhas and Aaker 1989; Tushman and Rosenkopf 1996), and to be less desirable if they happen unexpectedly in an environment that is normally stable (Mizik and Jacobson 2003). Researchers have shown that firms that change strategies in response to deregulation will outperform those that do not adjust (Smith and Grimm 1987), and that firms that do not change their strategies following a radical technological change are more likely to experience decreases in performance (Audia et al. 2000). The need for adaptation and the magnitude of the decline in performance depend on the degree to which the change makes existing sources of competitive advantage obsolete (Afuah 2000). A similar need for timely strategic change has also been observed for small companies and new ventures in different settings (e.g. Park and Bae 2004; Pearce II and Michael 1997). Some research suggests that reactions are more beneficial if (1) they are specifically designed to negate detrimental effects of environmental change, e.g. through switching to a new supplier, if environmental change diminishes the capabilities of existing suppliers, or (2) they capitalize from arising opportunities, e.g. through increasing R&D expenses and/or the rate of new product introduction after technological changes (Jones 2003; Nicholls-Nixon and Woo 2003). To survive and perform well in turbulent and uncertain environments, firms should therefore attempt to adapt continuously by developing and trading off different types of flexibility, with the optimal capability profile depending on the factor uncertainty causing the environmental turbulence (Dreyer and Gronhaug 2004).