استراتژی های رقابتی و عملکرد شرکت : نقش تعدیل قابلیت های فن آوری

This article evaluates the role of technological capabilities in moderating the relationship between competitive strategies and firm performance using a sample of 253 companies from the information and communications technology industry in Spain. The study tests the hypotheses that technological capabilities have a positive influence on performance. However, unlike previous research, the study gives specific consideration to how the relationship between competitive strategies and performance is moderated by technological capabilities. The findings indicate that technological capabilities enhance the relationships between quality orientation and performance, and cost orientation and performance, respectively. The obtained results suggest that the theoretical prescriptions of RBV and competitive strategy must be strategically combined within the firm for maximum effect.

The resource-based view (RBV) provides a theoretical framework for determining which resources and capabilities generate sustainable competitive advantages and lead to above-normal rates of return (Barney, 1991 and Wernerfelt, 1984). Resources and capabilities enable sustainable competitive advantages only if they are rare, valuable, inimitable, and non-substitutable (Barney, 1991). In this sense, technological capabilities are viewable as one of the most important, if not the most important, sources of sustainable competitive advantage (Coombs and Bierly, 2001 and Coombs and Bierly, 2006) and different studies highlight the direct effect of technological capabilities on firm performance (Acha, 2000, Etemad and Lee, 2001, Lee et al., 2001, Afuah, 2002, Schoenecker and Swanson, 2002, Vanhaverbeke et al., 2002, Tsai, 2004 and Zahra et al., 2007). On the other hand, the competitive strategy perspective (Porter, 1980 and Porter, 1985) recognizes the importance of an attractive strategic position (competitive advantage) derived from the strategic activities of the company. With the development of strategic activities, firms can achieve one of two basic types of competitive advantage that stem from industry structure, namely, low cost or differentiation (Porter, 1985: 12). Competitive strategies in general and, competitive tactics in particular, exercise a great influence on firm performance (Ansoff, 1965, Andrews, 1971 and Spanos et al., 2004). “Competitive tactics” refers to the actions that are developed by a firm to establish its strategy (Barney, 2002:13). These tactics therefore reflect its strategic orientation and form the basis of competition (Covin et al., 2000). The present study focuses on the justification of different competitive tactics orientated towards differentiation and cost leadership (Dess and Davis, 1984 and Robinson and Pearce, 1988). This study is in accordance with Mahoney and Pandian, 1992 and Spanos and Lioukas, 2001, that the competitive strategy and resource-based perspectives complement each other in explaining firm performance. However, unlike earlier studies (Spanos and Lioukas, 2001), which focus on the mediating effect of capabilities, analyzing the moderating role of technological capabilities on the relationship between competitive tactics and firm performance is important because the characteristics of this kind of capabilities (that promote improvement and innovation) can enhance the positive effect of the competitive tactics on firm performance. This study highlights the need for a complementary interaction between these technological capabilities and the competitive tactics developed by the firm. The main aim of this study consists in corroborating the positive influence of technological capabilities and competitive strategies on firm performance and determining the moderator role of technological capabilities on the relationship between competitive strategies and firm performance. In this way, notwithstanding the apparently conflicting views between Porter's framework of competitive strategy and the resource-based view, both can co-exist and shape a solid base to explain firm performance. Previous studies only analyse the direct effect of technological capabilities on firm performance. This study adds the complementary analysis of competitive strategy and resource-based perspectives to the study of the influence of technological capabilities on firm performance, incorporating different competitive factors in a coherent model. Thus, one of the main contributions is that this study analyses different aspects of the differentiation and low cost strategies, thereby obtaining significant implications for the moderating role of technological capabilities. The paper is organized as follows: the next two sections offer the theoretical foundation for five hypotheses regarding the connection between technological capabilities, competitive strategies, and firm performance. In the methodology section, the study includes the procedures used to test the hypotheses and, in the section thereafter, reports the results of the analysis. In the discussion section, the study reports the results in some detail and considers the theoretical and practical implications of the findings. The paper ends with the conclusions developed from the results obtained.

This paper examines the interaction between technological capabilities and competitive strategies and their combined relationship to firm performance. Specifically, the results indicate that in dynamic and hostile environments, technological capabilities have a positive influence on firm performance. Differentiation and cost-leadership strategies relate positively to firm performance are key findings of this study. Technological capabilities moderate the positive relationship between competitive strategies and firm performance. This study makes a contribution to two separate bodies of literature. First, this study contributes to RBV by providing evidence in support of a positive influence of technological capabilities on firm performance (Duysters and Hagedoorn, 2000, McEvily et al., 2004, Tsai, 2004 and Zahra et al., 2007). Second, this study contributes to the competitive strategy literature by corroborating the positive influence of cost leadership strategy and differentiation strategy on performance (Dess and Davis, 1984 and Porter, 1990). Most importantly, the main contribution of the paper is that this study documents the relevance of technological capabilities as a moderator of the influence of both cost leadership and differentiation strategies on firm performance. As hypothesized, the results show that technological capabilities moderate the relationship between a differentiation strategy — as indicated by a marketing orientation — and firm performance. Specifically, firm performance increases with marketing orientation, but at a greater rate for those with fewer technological capabilities. This suggests that technological capabilities compensate for, rather than enhance, a differentiation strategy via marketing orientation. The failure of both variables to fit is a possible explanation of this joint negative influence of technological capabilities and marketing orientation on firm performance. Thus, in an industry characterized by high levels of dynamism and rivalry, technological capabilities will allow firms to develop improvements in their products and processes and to be innovative. In this situation, the development of a differentiation strategy via marketing, oriented to promoting the firm's products, is not able to take advantage of these technological resources. Therefore, the joint effect of technological capabilities and marketing orientation result in both the lack of exploitation of these technological resources and an unsuccessful implementation of the differentiation strategy. These outcomes result in a joint negative effect on firm performance. However, in the case of quality orientation, the results show that technological capabilities enhance the positive relationship between quality orientation and performance. In this case, the firm will be able to take advantage of its technological capabilities to develop improvements in order to increase the quality of its products. This will reinforce the effect of the differentiation strategy via quality orientation. Therefore, the availability of technological capabilities will reinforce the positive influence of the differentiation strategy via quality, which results in a positive influence on firm performance. Similarly, for the cost leadership strategy, the results show that technological capabilities enhance the positive relationship between a cost orientation and performance. This is because technological capabilities will allow firms to obtain cost advantages that will reinforce the development of a low-cost strategy. However, in the case of the improvement orientation, the interaction effect is also positive but not significant. In this case, technological capabilities have a moderating role on the relationship between low-cost strategy via improvement orientation and firm performance. Indeed, the direct effect of improvement orientation on performance is negative and turns out positive, albeit not significant, when the improvement orientation is combined with technological capabilities. The effect of technological capabilities is not enough to compensate the negative influence of this strategy, which, as the results show, is not viable in this industry (Hambrick, 1981). Several conclusions follow from the empirical results. After controlling for size, moment of entry, market potential, dynamism, imitation and hostility, the results show that those firms with greater technological capabilities, as well as those that place greater emphasis on quality and cost orientation in their competitive strategies, have the highest performance. These results are generally consistent with Hambrick's (1981) findings that not all competitive strategies or orientations are equally viable in the information and communications technology sector. In fact, this study finds a greater emphasis on cost-leadership orientation rather than improvement orientation in this industry. This study investigates whether or not technological capabilities moderate the relationship between competitive strategies — as measured by marketing, quality, cost and improvement orientations — and performance. Some of the factors for firm performance in either the resource-based view or competitive strategy enhance one another. In this sense, one of the main theoretical and practical implications of this study is that technological capabilities are a fundamental enhancer of the effect of competitive strategy on firm performance, so, this suggests that the theoretical prescriptions of RBV and competitive strategy must be strategically combined within the firm for maximum effect. In the development of the present study, several limitations can concern, in part, the extension of the results obtained. The most important of these is the cross-sectional and non-longitudinal approach of the study. Nevertheless, because of the detailed information required to achieve the study's research aims, a longitudinal study would be excessively complex. In any case, the cross-sectional approach of the study suffices for the aims, having already been put to good use in other studies on technological capabilities (Zahra et al., 2007). The limitations of any of the studies that use a single method include common method bias. In this sense, the study controls the potential common method bias for the use of self-report questionnaires for a single respondent conducting a Harman's ex-post-one factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results show that common method bias is not a problem in this study. The perceptions of the CEOs with regard to the main aspects of this study would not necessarily be objective, which might lead to possible limitations in the results obtained. First, the limitation might appear from the implicit trend of people who answer a questionnaire to rationalise the behaviour of the companies in which they work, basing this rationalization on their knowledge of what constitutes a form of effective management. Secondly, the subjective opinion of this group about the limits of the competition and the market might affect comparisons with competitors in the area of company capability, competitive tactics and performance. In agreement with the approaches of Spanos and Lioukas (2001), managerial perceptions are very important in shaping the extension of the company's strategic behaviour. Finally, consider the possible limitation of the study with regard to the generalization of the results. In this sense, the role that technological capabilities play in a dynamic and hostile industry, such as the TIC industry, may be different from the role that they play in other mature industries. In any case, the study tries to minimize this limitation including in the regression analysis several variables related to the environmental conditions. The conclusions in this study lead to several managerial implications. Managers must evaluate if they have the suitable capabilities to develop a competitive strategy. In this sense, managers will be able to enhance the positive effect of a differentiation strategy via quality and a low cost strategy on firm performance if they have technological capabilities. On the other hand, managers should analyze the convenience of modifying the competitive strategy if the available capabilities are not coherent with its orientation. The conclusions of this paper lead to a series of proposals for future studies. In light of the limitation exposed above, consider developing new studies on other mature industries in order to compare the most significant effects. In this sense, the development of a similar study in a mature sector would allow developing a greater generalization from the results obtained. Consider developing a complete analysis of the joint effect of a firm's capabilities and competitive strategies on firm performance. Analyzing the influence of managerial and marketing resources and how these resources moderate the relationship between competitive strategies and firm performance may be worthwhile. Also consider analyzing not only the effect of pure strategies on firm performance but also the effect of hybrid strategies. These strategies are a modification of the typology that Porter (1980) proposes and would allow examination of the implications of the factors on a firm's performance (Spanos et al., 2004).