اثر مکمل جهت گیری های کارآفرینی و بازارمحور بر موفقیت صادرات محصول جدید تحت سطوح مختلف شدت رقابت و سرمایه مالی

The literature implies that entrepreneurial and market orientations are market-based resources that are essential for securing business success, but their performance impacts are unclear. In the specific field of export research, there is limited information on the interactive effect of these two market-based resources on export new product performance. Accordingly, the current study investigates the joint impacts of these two resources on export new product performance under differing levels of competitive intensity and financial capital. Using a survey of 212 British exporters, the study shows that seeking complementarity between entrepreneurial-oriented and market-oriented behaviors is a useful strategy for export new product success, especially when there is a suitably high level of competitive intensity in the export market environment, and when the export unit has greater access to financial capital. Theoretical and managerial implications of the results are discussed.

Exporting is an important economic activity that is critical for the success of business organizations and nations (Morgan, Kaleka, & Katsikeas, 2004). Given its importance in contemporary world business, exporting has become a major means for entering international markets, sales expansion and profitability (Morgan et al., 2004). In this respect, export researchers have tried to understand key determinants of export success (e.g. Balabanis and Katsikea, 2003, Dimitratos et al., 2004, Katsikeas et al., 2000 and Robertson and Chetty, 2000). Focusing on the determinants of export success, there has been a rise in the number of variables that have been studied in recent years, and among these are export entrepreneurial and market orientations (e.g. Cadogan et al., 2009, Kuivalainen et al., 2007 and Murray et al., 2011). With respect to export entrepreneurial orientation, the broader international business literature recognizes that firm entrepreneurial behavior is a potentially critical determinant of international business success (e.g. Kuivalainen et al., 2007). However, in testing the notion that entrepreneurial orientation is associated with export success among firms operating in turbulent environments relative to firms operating in benign environments, Robertson and Chetty (2000) report that while entrepreneurial exporters outperform conservative1 exporters in turbulent environments, the reverse is true in benign environments. Yet, other researchers (e.g. Balabanis and Katsikea, 2003 and Kropp et al., 2006) have been unable to find evidence to support the view that entrepreneurial posturing is more beneficial in turbulent environments. Thus, it remains unclear what the exact nature of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and export success is. Regarding export market orientation, the traditional view is that the construct is related to export success (e.g. Cadogan et al., 2002 and Kirca and Hult, 2009), although recent evidence suggests a non-linear relationship (e.g. Cadogan et al., 2009), indicating that the true nature of the relationship between export market orientation and export success is still not fully known. Thus, by resolving these deficiencies, we seek to contribute to the literature in three ways. First, we contribute to the international business literature by drawing on organizational ambidexterity logic, the resource-based view and the dynamic capability perspective to theorize that export entrepreneurial-oriented behavior (henceforth export EOB) and export market-oriented behavior (henceforth export MOB) are complementary market-based resources that offer firms a capability to leverage existing competences to explore new possibilities in export markets (Kwon, 2010). To the best of our knowledge, no study has examined the complementarity between the two market-based resources in export markets. In this respect, we define export EOB as a market-driving behavior that gives exporters a capability to differentiate themselves from export competitors by taking calculated risks to proactively and aggressively introduce innovative products using unique knowledge and technology (Lau and Bruton, 2011 and Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). In contrast, export MOB connotes a market-driven adaptive behavior that enables firms to respond to export customer needs and preferences by offering superior value propositions relative to their less market-oriented export market competitors (Jaworski et al., 2000 and Murray et al., 2011). In fact, scholars argue that the value of the two market-based resources must not be viewed in isolation, and that there may be a need for firms to combine the two resources to achieve synergistic outcomes (Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001, Hult and Ketchen, 2001 and Jaworski et al., 2000). The logic backing this suggestion is three fold. Firstly, traditional market-oriented and entrepreneurial-oriented capabilities on their own are not enough for firms to address the continuous challenges of export operations – entrepreneurial capacity is required to build and nurture market-driven capabilities and exploitation of existing market intelligence is required to explore new entrepreneurial capabilities (Hughes, Hughes, & Morgan, 2007). Secondly, entrepreneurial- and market-orientation levels that are too high might be dysfunctional to export success (Cadogan et al., 2009 and Hughes et al., 2007). Under very high levels of entrepreneurial orientation, for example, while firms may become proficient in creativity and proactive activities, they may also chase opportunities that are uncertain and risky and whose failure could disrupt existing competences (He & Wong, 2004). Likewise, under very high levels of market-driven behavior, while firms can harvest existing market knowledge to exploit current market opportunities, they may also develop structural inertia, ultimately reducing their capacity to pursue new and inventive ideas in export markets (Cadogan et al., 2009). Finally, firms may be able to achieve synergy and strategic balance from an integration of the two capabilities (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). Second, we argue that the success of this integrated approach might depend on the nature of the external environment confronting firms. We contend that an export strategy involving an integration of EOB and MOB might not be ideal for new product performance in all export market environment conditions. While some environment conditions might require greater levels of both capabilities, other environments might demand greater levels of one capability and moderate or low levels of the other (Bhuian, Menguc, & Bell, 2005). However, empirical information on the external environment conditions that foster or hinder effective implementation of a dual export strategy involving export EOB and export MOB is limited in the export literature. Yet, one could argue that greater competitive rivalry might force exporters to explore new export market opportunities as a way of leveraging their existing market knowledge base. Thus, a highly competitive environment provides a trigger for firms to harness existing market-driven competences to explore new and emerging market-driving possibilities (such as finding new ways of winning in new markets). Thus, this study contributes to the literature by investigating external environment conditions that are conducive for the implementation of a joint export EOB and export MOB strategy. Third, it is conceivable that firms require greater access to financial capital if they are to be successful in creating an organization that has a strong blend of export EOB and export MOB in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, Levinthal and March (1993, p. 105) suggest that “The basic problem confronting an organization is to engage in sufficient exploitation to ensure its current viability and, at the same time, to devote enough energy to exploration to ensure its future viability”. We argue that the performance outcome of such a dual strategy in a competitive global market environment will depend on the level of finance accessible by export managers (Lin & Liu, 2011). We propose that greater access to financial capital provides firms with the flexibility to explore and support future opportunities without necessarily killing existing products or taking resources away from existing markets that are performing well. Accordingly, we also contribute to the literature by examining the moderating effect of financial capital on the relationship between export EOB and MOB interaction, and export new product performance. In our conceptual model, discussed next, we argue that an interaction between export EOB and export MOB will positively predict export new product performance when implemented in strongly competitive environments and when there is greater access to financial capital. Thus, in our model we address Hult and Ketchen's (2001, p. 905) call for the “need to address the potential intricacies of the relationships among market orientation, entrepreneurship, […] in different market conditions, […] and with varying degrees of resource endowments”. The next section reviews the literature on entrepreneurial and market orientations, and argues why it is important to examine the joint effect of the two orientations on export new product performance under differing levels of competitive intensity and financial capital. We then develop a conceptual model explaining how these constructs are related. Finally, we report on an empirical study and a validation of our conceptual model.

The purpose of this study was to examine the complementary effect of export EOB and export MOB on export new product performance under varying levels of environment turbulence and financial capital. Findings from our empirical study imply that seeking complementarity between EOB and MOB is a useful strategy for export new product success, especially when there is a high level of competitive intensity in the export market environment, and when the export unit has greater access to financial capital. The results have some implications for researchers and managers. For export entrepreneurship and marketing researchers, a large body of research has focused on the role of entrepreneurial and market orientations in securing business success (e.g. Kirca and Hult, 2009 and Robertson and Chetty, 2000). However, Hult and Ketchen (2001, p. 899) posit that although these market-based resources have value for firms to achieve success, their potential benefits “should not be considered in isolation”. Previous empirical studies have shown that the nature of the relationships between EOB and performance, and between MOB and performance is unclear (e.g. Bhuian et al., 2005 and Cadogan et al., 2009). In the specific field of export research, empirical findings regarding the impact of export EOB and export MOB on export success remain equivocal (see Balabanis and Katsikea, 2003, Cadogan et al., 2009, Kropp et al., 2006, Murray et al., 2007 and Murray et al., 2011). Indeed, empirical evidence regarding the joint impacts of the two market-based resources on export new product performance is not well developed. Furthermore, empirical research examining the moderating effects of the competitive environment and financial capital on the relationship between export EOB and export MOB interaction and export new product performance is scarce. This study has draw on organizational ambidexterity logic, dynamic capability theory and the resource-based view to develop and test a model depicting the joint effects of export EOB and export MOB on export new product performance under differing levels of competitive intensity and financial capital. The results reveal that export EOB has a weak direct positive impact on export new product performance. In contrast, export MOB has a significant direct positive impact on export new product performance. Taken together, the results confirm Cadogan et al.’s (2009) contention that a high level of one strategic orientation might imply low attention being paid to other equally important orientations. The results also support Bhuian et al.’s (2005) work that advocates a combination of moderate EOB and high MOB. Furthermore, the findings also support the organizational ambidexterity logic, which suggests that where multiple competing orientations are implemented the behavior that is simple, easily repeated and offering immediate returns will dominate (Hughes et al., 2007 and March, 1991). What is more interesting, however, is the positive effect of export EOB and export MOB interaction on export new product performance. This evidence provides further support for the logic of organizational ambidexterity, which calls for integration of exploratory and exploitative market activities (Hughes et al., 2007 and March, 1991), and also confirms the marketing literature that argues that market-driving and market-driven behaviors are complementary capabilities that might produce synergistic outcomes (Ghauri et al., 2008 and Jaworski et al., 2000). It also confirms contentions from the dynamic capability literature that argue that dynamic capabilities require a blend of different strategic logics to achieve better performance outcomes (Hung et al., 2010 and Makadok, 2001), and extends the export entrepreneurship and marketing literature that has largely examined these two market-based resources separately. The finding that export EOB and export MOB interaction becomes more positive when competitive intensity increases lends support to the view that a firm must maintain a dynamic pool of complementary capabilities in competitively intensive environments to enhance new product success level (He and Wong, 2004, Kocak and Abimbola, 2009 and Prange and Verdier, 2011). Indeed, Jaworski et al.’s (2000) suggestion that firms should leverage market-driving and market-driven capabilities in turbulent and uncertain competitive environments has never been tested empirically. The results of this study therefore provide new insights on the usefulness of seeking synergy between market-driving (i.e. EOB) and market-driven (i.e. MOB) capabilities in highly competitive export market environments. Finally, prior studies have neglected the role of financial capital in fostering the joint effect of EOB and MOB on new product performance in export markets. Findings from this study extend Wiklund and Shepherd's (2005) study by showing that the joint effect of EOB and MOB on export new product performance becomes more pronounced in magnitude as the level of export unit's access to financial capital increases. That is, with greater access to financial resources, the effect of EOB and MOB interaction on export new product success is stronger (and more positive). With limited access to finance, firms find it difficult to simultaneously implement and maintain entrepreneurial and market-oriented strategies in export markets.