A review of empirical research on dynamic competitive strategy, страница 17

This question is particularly relevant for the linkage between technology strategy and technological context. First, it would be interesting to analyze how fast different firms incorporate technological changes in their competitive strategy. Second, research on technology entrepreneurship could provide an interesting angle to understand how technology strategy can be used as an active (instead of reactive) tool to shape the technological and competitive development of an industry.

Organizational performance→Competitive strategy. The majority of empirical findings suggest that a history of good performance reduces the likelihood of strategic change (Audia et al. 2000), as good performance can lead to organizational inertia (Reuf 1997). However, none of the studies we identified attempt to extend the idea of strategic inertia, or to build on the notion that managers have a tendency to stick to tried and true routines to derive hypotheses regarding timing and pace of strategic actions. One fruitful avenue of research could be to address whether successful firms that do in fact change their strategy might be expected to react more slowly, but then more drastically, as they face higher barriers to change and so strive to create additional momentum through intensifying their path of strategic adaptation.

Furthermore, while we found in the review that several researchers have focused on historically positive or negative performance levels, we did not find them extending their inquiries to other path characteristics of historical performance. A study that looks at a firm that has had a highly volatile performance history, perhaps a firm in an industry where there are rapid fluctuations in demand, would be particularly interesting. Would such a history make it more difficult to interpret the significance of performance declines? Would it make it difficult to convince managers of the need for change, and would such reluctance to change be manifested in slow reaction times?

Organizational contingencies→Competitive strategy. We believe that the trend to include resource-based arguments in research on dynamic competitive strategy should be continued. First, additional progress could be made by merging resource-based arguments and other schools of thought. For example, resource-based arguments could be used in studies of strategic groups to derive ex ante predictions of their stability.

Second, there is room for studies of the implications that a firm's resource base holds for the timing of strategic actions. Young et al. (2000) show that resource dissimilarities influence reaction speed in multipoint competition. It would be interesting to extend those results to other competitive settings or to characteristics of a firm's stock of resources. For instance, under what conditions does an advantageous resource position prompt a firm to react more quickly to competitive actions or new opportunities? Do superior resources give a firm a competitive edge and so allow it to move more quickly, or does a relatively safe position lull firms into maintaining their status quo? Does a difference in the ability of a firm to create or acquire new resources influence the timing of its strategic actions?

A significant number of studies have focused on top management team characteristics and changes in their composition as important antecedents to competitive strategy. However, we have found that many of these studies have been limited primarily to various aspects of either the likelihood or the type of subsequent changes in competitive strategy. One opportunity for future research would be to extend the findings to date by seeing strategic change as an activity that creates complexity (Boisot and Child 1999) and also necessitates adaptation of a firm's organizations routines and governance mechanisms, and hence requires considerable managerial resources (Gilbert 2005). The managerial resources of firms are limited by the ability of its team members to absorb and apply new information (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000), and to cope with increasing complexity (Mishina et al. 2004). They cannot be expanded easily, as most managerial tasks require firm-specific knowledge that is normally accumulated over time (Castanias and Helfat 1991; Dierickx and Cool 1989; Penrose 1959; Tan and Mahoney 2005). These arguments suggest that there is a limit to the amount of strategic change that a firm can handle successfully per period, implying that firms would have difficulty sustaining extensive strategic adaptation over longer time periods. Therefore, does extensive change in one period slow down strategic activity and adaptations in subsequent periods? Does a history of frequent strategic adaptations generate dynamic capabilities that increase a firm's ability to handle strategic changes?