A review of empirical research on dynamic competitive strategy, страница 15

Research on dynamic competitive strategy began in the early 1980s with a static interpretation of concepts and methodologies. It has greatly benefited since then from longitudinal research. We summarized research done over nearly two decades, highlighting insights on the causes and consequences of competitive strategy and the outcomes of strategic actions. We draw a differentiated conclusion regarding three different levels of analysis. First, we found that, by and large, studies in the field give broad and substantial coverage to relevant links, and we have used those in a framework that organizes the studies along the lines of antecedents, strategic actions and adaptations, and outcomes. We show, too, that headway has been made in understanding the timing of strategic actions. Yet, according to what we have been able to find, this progress is restricted primarily to product market strategy, adaptation to organizational contingencies, and the strategy performance link, and has yet to spread out to other aspects covered in the framework. Finally, we find that path dependencies are the least studied aspect to date. Furthermore, what focus there has been on path dependencies is almost entirely on how past decisions influence future ones. Although this approach is a valid and important contribution, the empirical studies that we have uncovered still fall short in accounting for the performance implications of long-term path characteristics of strategic adaptations.

Progress has been driven by four main theoretical schools of thought (Ketchen et al. 2004): The resource-based view of the firm has had a considerable influence on research on dynamic competitive strategy. Therefore, we look at it from its own category of variables. Researchers who have taken this perspective have contributed most to our understanding of path dependencies in dynamic competitive strategy. Path dependencies arise because (1) resource accumulation processes often involve idiosyncratic situations as well as path-dependent learning or experimentation at the individual or firm level, so the stock of resources and capabilities subsequently limit or expand the firm's portfolio of strategic actions; and (2) firms are inclined to shape paths of strategic development that extend or sustain the existing resources base, and to move toward long-term positions that reflect their organizational resource base. These factors were used in several studies on dynamic competitive strategy to explain significant and enduring heterogeneity between competitors. However, while providing insights into path dependencies is a strength of this theoretical perspective, an understanding of the timing of strategic actions is still lacking.

The strategic group perspective has primarily been used to analyze the relationships between competitive strategy, competitive landscape and competitor actions, and organizational performance. The most important contributions from a dynamic perspective are twofold. First, a firm's strategic actions are different according to whether the firm is in a relatively stable period of competitive rivalry or a highly volatile one. During unstable periods, which are often triggered by significant environmental change (Zúniga-Vicente et al. 2004), nearly all the important characteristics of competitive strategy are potentially subject to change: Performance implications of competitive strategies and strategic group membership can break down (Nair and Kotha 2001), firms adjust their strategies (Olusoga et al. 1995), re-evaluate the importance of their key strategic variables (Baird et al. 1988) or change their rivalry vis-à-vis inter-group or intra-group competitors. Second, the evolution of strategic groups is influenced by the competitive actions of the firms within an industry as they try to set up additional mobility barriers and use strategic group positions as long-term reference points for strategic adjustment. Path dependencies, though often cited as reasons for sustained performance differentials as well as timing issues, are still seldom addressed in research that takes a strategic group perspective.