Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T23:03:47.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combining efficiency and innovation to enhance performance: Evidence from firms in emerging economies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2018

Xiaowen Tian Open the ORCID record for Xiaowen Tian [Opens in a new window] ,
Vai Io Lo  and
Xiaoxuan Zhai
Xiaowen Tian*
Affiliation:
Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
Vai Io Lo
Affiliation:
Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia
Xiaoxuan Zhai
Affiliation:
Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper extends the resource-capability-based view in strategic management and discusses the capabilities for the firms to stay competitive in emerging economies. Faced with low levels of efficiency, technology, and skills, firms in emerging economies need to implement best management practices to overcome operational inefficiency while engage in innovation processes to address new opportunities. They have to develop the capabilities to enhance efficiency, the capabilities to undertake innovation, and the synthesis capabilities to combine the two to keep rivals at bay. The paper tests hypotheses against a data set of more than 20,000 firms from 36 emerging economies provided by the World Bank in 2012–2015 and finds strong evidence to support the arguments. The paper finds that the three sets of capabilities are positively related to productivity and, through it, financial performance.

Keywords

efficiencyinnovationsynthesis capabilitiesfirm performanceemerging economies
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , March 2021 , pp. 295 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organizational Science, 20(4), 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41–56.Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, N., Eifert, B., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J. (2013). Does management matter? Evidence from India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, N., Sadun, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2012). Does management really work? Harvard Business Review, 90(11), 123–134.Google ScholarPubMed
Bloom, N., Schweiger, H., & Van Reenen, J. (2012). The land that Lean manufacturing forgot? Management practices in transition countries. Economics of Transition, 20(4), 593–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, P. J. (2009). Internalization thinking: From the multinational enterprise to the global factory. International Business Review, 18, 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, P. J. (2011). International integration and coordination in the global factory. Management International Review, 51, 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, P. J., & Tian, X. W. (2017a). Internalization theory and the performance of emerging-market multinational enterprises. International Business Review. Online version, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, P. J., & Tian, X. W. (2017b). Transnationality and financial performance in the era of the global factory. Management International Review, 57, 501–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. R., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organizational Science, 20(4), 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 354–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coelli, T. J., Rao, D. S. P., O’Donnell, C. J., & Battese, G. E. (2005). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10), 1105–1122.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., & Zhang, Z. Y. (1994). Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. The American Economic Review, 84(1), 66–83.Google Scholar
Foss, N. J., & Knudsen, T. (2003). The resource-based tangle: Towards a sustainable explanation of competitive advantage. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(4), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, N., Flood, P. D., & Morris, T. (2016). Organizational ambidexterity and professional firm performance: The moderating role of organizational capital. Journal of Professions and Organization, 3, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghemawat, P., & Rivkin, J. (1999). Creating competitive advantage. In P. Ghemawat (Ed.), Strategy and the business landscape: Text and cases (pp. 49–74)). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academcy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.Google Scholar
Gulati, R., & Puranam, P. (2009). Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organizational Science, 20(2), 422–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, L., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hill, C. W. L. (2017). International business: Competing in the global marketplace. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed., New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Levinsohn, J., & Petrin, A. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Review of Economic Studies, 70, 317–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, B. (2011). Life lessons from the car guy. Washington Street Journal, June 11. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375790237203556.html.Google Scholar
Mackey, T. B., Barney, J., & Dotson, J. (2017). Corporate diversification and the value of individual firms: A Bayesian approach. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 322–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishimizu, M., & Page, J. M. (1982). Total factor productivity growth, technological progress, and technical efficiency change dimensions of productivity change in Yugoslavia, 1965-78. The Economic Journal, 92, 920–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–83.Google ScholarPubMed
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olley, G. S., & Pakes, A. (1996). The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica, 64, 1263–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. London, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. B. (2003). Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24, 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2016). Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: A study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 12, 1147–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2009). Contingencies within dynamic managerial capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource investment and deployment on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1375–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Arregle, J. L., & Campbell, J. T. (2010). The dynamic interplay of capability strengths and weaknesses: Investigating the bases of temporary competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(13), 1386–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirmon, D., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37, 1390–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(3), 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J. (2010a). Technological innovation and the theory of the firm: The role of enterprise-level knowledge, complementarities, and (dynamic) capabilities. Handbooks in Economics, 1, 680–707.Google Scholar
Teece, D. (2010b). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 172–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J. (2014a). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Academy of Management Perspective, 28(4), 328–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J. (2014b). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1), 8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, L. G. (1986). The economics of strategic planning: A survey of the issues. In L. G. Thomas (Ed.), The economics of strategic planning: Essays in honor of Joel Dean (pp. 1–27). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Tian, X. W. (1996). China’s open door policy in development perspective. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 17(1), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tian, X. W. (2016). Managing international business in China (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, P. (2010). Cost innovation: Preparing for a ‘value-for-money’ revolution. Long Range Planning, 43, 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, P., & Yin, E. (2014). Accelerated innovation: The new challenge from China. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(4), 27–34.Google Scholar
Yasar, M., & Raciborski, R. (2008). Production function estimation in Stata using the Olley and Pakes method. The Stata Journal, 8(2), 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar