آیا قابلیت های بازاریابی همواره اثرات واسطه ای سرمایه نامشهود شرکت بر عملکرد در سراسر محیط های نهادی می گذارند؟

This study examines whether marketing capabilities consistently mediate intangible capital on performance across institutional environments. A partial test of resource-advantage theory is conducted, examining the relationship between four intangible capital elements on marketing capabilities and consequent firm performance. The results, based upon samples of 239 importers in Japan and the U.S., indicate that human capital and relational capital influenced marketing capabilities, and that marketing capabilities influenced performance similarly across institutional environments. Organizational capital, however, was found to only influence marketing capabilities for U.S. importers. Furthermore, our results indicate full mediation in both samples. Implications for academics and practitioners are presented.

As firms expand into international markets they continually strive to leverage firm resources and capabilities. Nike works to leverage its creative talent to develop new and innovative product offerings to an increasingly demanding global marketplace. Similarly, SAP attempts to leverage its worldwide business relationships to establish its competitive positioning in relation to its marketing/sales efforts to enhance performance globally. While some companies are successful in leveraging firm resources across markets, most firms have struggled to achieve success in differing institutional environments. Given these challenges, it is not surprising that a substantial amount of research has focused on this issue. However, while firm resources and capabilities have been a central focus of the literature (e.g., Ainuddin et al., 2007, Atuahene-Gima and Murray, 2007, Barney, 1991, Day, 1994 and Vorhies and Morgan, 2005), a review of the literature reveals several shortcomings limiting our understanding of the development of marketing capabilities in the global context. First, limited empirical research has focused on the ability of firms to leverage intangible resources into marketing capabilities (Griffith & Harvey, 2001). This is not to suggest that researchers have not explored capabilities. Yalcinkaya, Calantone, and Griffith (2007) specifically examined the influence of technological and marketing resources on the development of exploitation and exploration capabilities. Researchers to date have not focused on intangible firm capital as leveraged as marketing capabilities (viewed in this study as a firm's ability to integrate the collective knowledge, skills, and its resources to effectively respond changing market needs and meet competitive pressure3) under resource-advantage theory (hereafter, R-A theory). This is a critical limitation as researchers (cf., Hitt et al., 2001, Hunt, 2000 and Hunt and Morgan, 1995) argue that it is through the leveraging of intangible resources into capabilities that firms are able to achieve superior performance. By specifically examining the linkage between R-A theory designated intangible resources and marketing capabilities on resulting performance a partial test of R-A theory can be conducted. This is of note as limited empirical testing of R-A theory has been offered in the literature. Second, and more importantly, as firms compete in increasingly diverse global markets, it becomes critical to understand whether or not the influence of intangible firm capital can be leveraged as marketing capabilities to enhance performance consistently across institutional environments. Hunt (2000), when explicating R-A theory, contends that the foundational aspects of R-A theory are broad (within market-based economies4) and have wide-ranging applicability. However, the global marketing research is mixed in relation to generality of business models. For example, some research has demonstrated the importance of institutional environment aspects (Davis and North, 1970, Jackson and Deeg, 2008, Lenartowicz and Balasubramanian, 2009 and Pil and MacDuffie, 1999), such as national culture, as a key influencing factor in different behavioral situations (e.g., Bstieler and Hemmert, 2008, Griffith et al., 2006, Limon et al., 2009, Song et al., 2008 and Steers et al., 2008), while others have found similarities across institutional contexts (e.g., Griffith et al., 2006 and Hult et al., 2007). Building on this research, we empirically investigate whether or not institutional environment influences the relationship between intangible firm capital and marketing capabilities and its resultant performance, or whether these resources are consistent in their influence on marketing capability development, thereby working to identify boundaries of R-A theory. These shortcomings within the international marketing literature create not only a theoretical and empirical gap, but leave international marketing academics and practitioners without a clear understanding of the manner in which a firm can leverage its intangible firm capital as marketing capabilities. Further, as global operations intensify greater understanding of the effect of intangible firm capital utilization across different institutional environments could provide international marketing academics and practitioners with strategic insights for resource investment to enhance firm performance. We begin by presenting the theoretical foundation of R-A theory, followed by development of the hypotheses. Next, we present the method and analysis followed by a discussion of the results and their implications for international marketing academics and practitioners.

While this study contributes to increased understanding of the applicability of R-A theory across institutional environments, greater research efforts are needed given the limitations of this study. First, it is important to note that firm performance is a multi-dimensional variable and may be conceptualized in a number of ways (Hult et al., 2008). While the measure employed in this study captures an aspect of firm performance, it does not capture the multi-dimensional nature of the constructs nor is it objective. It would be useful for future research to explore the complexities of the relationship between firm capital elements and marketing capabilities and various firm performance indicators (e.g., operational efficiencies, sales growth). It would also seem appropriate that differences in such areas as customer markets, industry, or competitive environment may moderate the relationships investigated here. Second, the focus of this manuscript was on the application of R-A theory. However, in the application a number of concerns arose as to the conceptual distinctions among intangible capital elements. Although discriminant testing of the four intangible capital elements indicates these constructs to be interdependent but unique, we contend that further refinement of the capital constructs would aid researchers in more effectively studying R-A theory. Also, one could argue that the conceptualization of capital elements under R-A theory may be too abstract, and therefore finer-grained insights could be gained through the investigation of sub-capital elements. For instance, organizational capital covers a broad spectrum of elements, inclusive of issues of identification. Wieseke, Ahearne, Lam, and van Dick (2009) examine how organizational identification of leaders within the organization has the ability to stimulate organizational identification within others within the firm, thus resulting in stronger firm performance. As such, one could argue that while the abstract organizational resources provided under R-A theory allow for aggregate understanding, research at a sub-capital element level could help provide R-A theory more actionable managerial insights (e.g., will organizational identification enhance organizational capital within the firm?). Third, this study was limited to two institutional environments. While efforts were made within the study to provide distinctive market-based institutional environments in relation to social (e.g., diverse national cultural values (cf., Sivakumar & Nakata, 2001)), legal and political environments, a more expansive investigation across a broader range of institutional environments could provide greater insight into the robustness of R-A theory. As such, one extension of this research should be to explore the applicability of the model in markets of institutional diversity therefore extending the theoretical basis for new insights. Fourth, although R-A theory enumerates seven capital elements, the study only examined the influence of the four intangible capital elements, not addressing the three tangible capital elements (i.e., financial, legal and physical). While the rationale for restricting this study to the intangible resource elements was based upon the extant literature's argument that competitive advantage derives from intangible elements, it can be argued that differences in the level of tangible resources provides a platform for success, thus suggesting some base level necessary for intangible resources to serve as a competitive asset. Further investigations which capture more fully the resources of firms may provide additional insights into not only the value of R-A theory. In conclusion, although this study provides new insights for firm competitiveness across markets and the drivers of firm competitive advantage, it would also appear that there are more questions arising from the study than the study answers. Until international marketing academics and managers can identify and empirically assess firm resources and capabilities, we will be limited in our ability to help advance international marketing knowledge and practice. We believe that the conceptualization and operationalization for the study of firm capital presented here provides a starting point for advancing understanding of the importance of intangible firm resources.