Towards a Theory for Strategic Posture in New Technology Based Firms
AbstractThis paper elaborates a theory from the existing literature on subjects about entrepreneurship, strategy and innovation. Dubin’s methodology approach is used in order to develop a theory that helps better understand the strategic posture adopted by a New Technology Based Firm in its competitive environment. The theory proposes the competitive context conditions as precedents of the dominant logic and the technology strategy, which, in turn, influence in the competitive behavior adopted by the new firm. An Entrepreneurial Orientation by the new firm, combined with very particular dynamic capabilities, improve the firm’s performance. From the achieved performance, a feedback process to the strategic stance initiates. In addition to the theory, interaction laws, a set of propositions, as well as suggestions for future research projects are presented.
ARAMAND, M., Valliere, D. (2012). Dynamic capabilities in entrepreneurial firms: A case study approach. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 10(2), 142-157. DOI: 10.1007/s10843-012-0088-3
ARDICHVILI, A., Cardozo, R., Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-9026(01)00068-4
ANDERSON, B. S., Eshima, Y. (2013). The influence of firm age and intangible resources on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm growth among Japanese SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3), 413-429. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.10.001
AUTIO, E. (2000). Growth of technology-based new firms. In, Sexton, D. L., Landstrom, H. (eds.) The Blackwell Handbook of entrepreneurship. Blackwell, Oxford.
BARNEY, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-110. DOI: 10.1177/014920639101700108
BETTIS, R. A., Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 5-14. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250160104
BIRLEY, S. (2002). Universities, academics, and spinout companies: Lessons from Imperial. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 1-21.
BONN, I., Pettigrew, A. (2009). Towards a dynamic theory of boards: An organizational life cycle approach. Journal of Management and Organization, 15(1), 2-16.
BOSMA, N., Van Praag, C. M., Thurik, A. R. (2004). The value of human and social capital investments for the business performance of start-ups. Small Business Economics, 23(3), 227-236. DOI: 10.1023/b:sbej.0000032032.21192.72
CARACELLI, V. J., Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. New Directions for Evaluation. 74, 19-32. DOI: 10.1002/ev.1069
CHESBROUGH, H. W. (2006). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
COHEN, W., Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. DOI: 10.2307/2393553
CONBERE, J. P. (2001). Theory building for conflict management system design. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 19(2), 215-236. DOI: 10.1002/crq.3890190206
COVIN; J. G., Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250100107
COVIN, J. G., Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on a needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 855-872. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00482.x
COVIN, J. G., Wales, W. J. (2012). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 677-702. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00432.x
DUBIN, R. (1978). Theory building. 2nd Ed. Free Press, New York.
DURÁN-ENCALADA, J. A., San Martin-Reyna, J. M., Montiel–Campos, H. (2012). A research proposal to examine entrepreneurship in family Business. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 8(3), 58-77.
EISENHARDT, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management Review, 14(4), 532-550. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
EISENHARDT, K. M., Martin, J. A., (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105-1121. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::aid-smj133>3.0.co;2-e
HAGUE, M. T., Oakley, K. (2000). Spin-offs and start-ups in UK universities. CVCP Publication, London.
HINDLE, K., Yencken, J. (2004). Public research commercialization, entrepreneurship and new technology based firms: An integrated model. Technovation, 24(10), 793-803. DOI: 10.1016/s0166-4972(03)00023-3
KHANDWALLA, P. N. (1977). The design of organizations. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
LAMPEL, J., Shamsie, J. (2000). Probing the unobtrusive link: dominant logic and the design of joint ventures at general electric. Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 593-603. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200005)21:5<593::aid-smj100>3.3.co;2-s
LANGLEY, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710. DOI: 10.2307/259349
LIN, Y., Wu, L. Y. (2013). Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 407-413. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.019
LUMPKIN, G. T., Dess, G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-173. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568
LYNHAM, S. A. (2002). Quantitative research and theory building: Dubin´s method. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 242-267. DOI: 10.1177/15222302004003003
MCNAMARA, P., Vaaler, M., Devers, C. (2003). Same as it ever was: The search for evidence of increasing hypercompetition. Strategic Management Journal, 24(3), 261-278. DOI: 10.1002/smj.295
MEYER, G. D., Heppard, K. A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as strategy: Competing on the entrepreneurial edge. Sage Publications, California.
MILLER, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
MILLER, D. (2011). Miller (1983) revisited: A reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 837-894. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00457.x
MONTIEL, C. H., Del Palacio, A. I., Solé, P. F., Nuño, P. J. P. (2009). Technology strategy and New Technology Based Firms. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 4(4), 42-52. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-27242009000400004
NAHAPIET, J., Ghoshal, S., (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1998.533225
PORTER, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. Free Press, New York.
PRAHALAD, C. K., Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485-501. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250070602
RAUCH, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., Freese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: Cumulative empirical evidence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761-788. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x
SOLLEIRO, J. L., Castañon, R. (2005). Competitiveness and innovation systems: The challenges for Mexico´s insertion in the global context. Technovation, 25(9), 1059-1070. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2004.02.005
STEFFENSEN, M., Rogers, E., Speakman, K. (2000). Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(1), 93-111. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-9026(98)00006-8
STOREY, D. J., Tether, B. S. (1998). Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union. Research Policy, 26(9), 1037-1057. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00058-9
SU, Z., Xie, E., Li, Y. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in new ventures and established firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(4), 558-577. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-627x.2011.00336.x
TEECE, D. J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::aid-smj882>3.0.co;2-z
THORBURN, L. (2000). Knowledge management, research spin-offs and commercialization of R&D in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 17(2), 257-275. DOI: 10.1023/A:1015861625956
VON KROGH, G., Erat, P., Macus, M. (2000). Exploring the link between dominant logic and company performance. Creativity and Innovation Management Journal, 9(2), 82-93. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8691.00160
WIKLUND, J., Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001
YIN, R. K. (2002). Case study research. Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Sage, California.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).