رهبری تحول گرا و بازار گرایی: مفاهیمی برای پیاده سازی استراتژی های رقابتی و عملکرد واحد کسب و کار

Drawing on the resource-based view of the firm, particularly the competency-based view of strategy making, the authors develop and test an integrated model of the source–positional advantage–firm performance chain. The model postulates transformational leadership and market orientation as managerial-based and transformational-based competencies, respectively. Such competencies should lead to marketplace positional advantages through competitive strategies such as innovation differentiation, marketing differentiation, and low cost. In turn, these positional advantages contribute to different firm performance metrics, specifically, effectiveness and efficiency. The authors discuss some implications for competitive strategy theory using a resource- (competency-) based perspective, along with managerial implications.

Leading firms possess several different types of competencies that enable them to achieve superior firm performance. Academics and practitioners have long believed that firms need to develop and maintain unique competencies that distinguish them from competitors (e.g., Day, 1994). Specifically, the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm underscores the significance of intangible, tacit, complex, and socially embedded resources as major sources of superior and sustainable firm performance (Barney, 1991, Day and Wensley, 1998, Hunt and Morgan, 1995, Srivastava et al., 2001 and Wernerfelt, 1984). Several studies examine the interrelationships among different competencies that firms possess and acknowledge that these intricate relationships lead to competitive strategies, but researchers have not explored the implications of these studies sufficiently. Moreover, the links between different competitive strategies and different metrics of firm performance, such as efficiency and effectiveness, remain uncertain. Specifically, little research examines how resources and competencies affect firm performance ( Han et al., 1998). This article posits that different competitive strategies bridge the gap between competencies and firm performance. Drawing on the conceptual frameworks of Day and Wensley (1998) and Hunt and Morgan (1995), this study develops and tests the source–positional advantage–firm performance (SPP) chain, a conceptual framework that stands in stark contrast with the structure–conduct (strategy)–performance paradigm supported by industrial organizational literature (Bain, 1968). According to the SPP framework, firms develop their strategies internally using resources and competencies rather than on the basis of industry structure. Competitive strategies should enable firms to occupy certain positional advantages, whether through differentiation or cost leadership (Porter, 1980). Therefore, competitive strategies function by showing customers (external constituents) what the firm has to offer in terms of its competencies (internal strengths). This unique study contributes to marketing strategy literature in several ways. First, by drawing on Lado et al. (1992), it conceptualizes transformational leadership as a managerial-based competency and market orientation as a transformational-based competency, then examines the relationship between these two competencies. The term “competency” encompasses both resources and capabilities of organizations, consistent with the definition that appears in marketing and management literature (Fiol, 1991 and Lambe et al., 2002). Second, despite the widespread diffusion of market orientation literature, existing studies overlook whether the market orientation construct influences different types of competitive strategies, such as innovation differentiation, marketing differentiation, and low-cost strategies. This study therefore examines how the two competencies can develop different competitive strategies. Third, rather than using a global metric of firm performance, as is typical in the literature, this research divides firm performance into two facets to reflect the nature of different competitive strategies: effectiveness (pertaining to growth) and efficiency (pertaining to maintaining and lowering costs). This dual-metric approach offers a better understanding of how varying competitive strategies may affect firm performance in different ways (Vorhies and Morgan, 2003 and Walker and Ruekert, 1987).

This article attempts to conceptualize and empirically test the SPP chain and thereby contribute to current knowledge in the field. Using two sources of competencies, namely, transformational leadership as a managerial-based competency and market orientation as a transformational-based competency, this investigation unearths support for the idea that transformational leadership positively affects market orientation, consistent with the widely shared belief that top management support and focus contributes to market orientation (Slater and Narver, 1995). This finding also supports the contention that developing a market orientation entails a top–down rather than bottom–up process. Furthermore, this result implies that one way to build market orientation is to either nurture or hire a transformational leader. Transformational leadership also positively influences marketing differentiation and low-cost strategies but not innovation differentiation. A possible explanation for this result could be that a curvilinear relationship exists between transformational leadership and innovation differentiation, such that a moderate level of transformational leadership is the best choice. Market orientation positively influences marketing differentiation and innovation differentiation but not cost leadership. The positive link between market orientation and an innovation differentiation strategy is consistent with Han et al. (1998) and implies that market orientation fosters a prospector type of organization that competes on the basis of innovation differentiation. Conversely, the lack of a link with low-cost strategies suggests that market orientation is not an ideal culture when a firm's goal is to compete on the basis of low cost. Instead, a production orientation, with its focus on operations and efficiency, may be more successful in this context. This finding also implies that market orientation may not be the appropriate organizational culture for a defender type of organization, whose core competency lies in operational efficiency. Collectively, these findings indicate that marketing differentiation represents the only competitive strategy that is bolstered by both transformational leadership and market orientation. This encouraging information assures marketers investing in transformational leadership and market orientation that these competencies will lead to positional advantage in the marketplace through marketing differentiation. The final link in the SPP chain relates to the associations among the three competitive strategies and the different metrics of firm performance, such as effectiveness and efficiency. The results reveal that an innovation differentiation strategy enhances effective firm performance, whereas cost leadership contributes to efficient firm performance. Only a marketing differentiation strategy strengthens both effective and efficient firm performance. Consequently, if a firm wants to be a well-rounded performer with a balanced output, marketing differentiation seems to be the superior choice. Innovation differentiation and cost leadership provide only unidimensional firm performance benefits, whereas the marketing differentiation satisfies a multidimensional view. Firms that desire to be prospectors and defenders at the same time (i.e., analyzers) may receive handsome rewards if they invest in marketing differentiation strategies. This finding successfully extends the work of Walker and Ruekert (1987) by providing an empirical test of their claim that different performance measures (e.g., effectiveness, efficiency) apply better to different business strategy types (e.g., prospectors, defenders). This study therefore reinforces the importance and benefits of a marketing differentiation strategy. Senior management support and leadership, coupled with a market orientation, lead to superior marketing differentiation strategies. Moreover, such strategies contribute to various business growth metrics and higher ROI and ROA. This study thus also emphasizes the significance of marketing for an organization, as well as how firms can thrive by using marketing as a differentiation strategy to elevate their status in the marketplace. Managers should take advantage of these competitive strategies and will do so if their incentives align with firm performance. For example, if a firm rewards its managers’ performance according to firm growth metrics, managers would benefit by implementing an innovation differentiation strategy. Conversely, if they receive compensation based on their efficient control of business operations, they should affect a low-cost strategy. However, a versatile marketing differentiation strategy offers managers the best of both worlds.