LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects:
This thesis explores efforts to conjoin organisational contexts and capabilities in explaining sustainable competitive advantage. Oliver (1997) argued organisations need to balance the need to conform to industry’s requirements to attain legitimization (e.g. DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), and the need for resource optimization (e.g. Barney, 1991). The author hypothesized that such balance can be viewed as movements along the homogeneity-heterogeneity continuum. An organisation in a homogenous industry possesses similar characteristics as its competitors, as opposed to a heterogeneous industry in which organisations within are differentiated and competitively positioned (Oliver, 1997). The movement is influenced by the dynamic environmental conditions that an organisation is experiencing. The author extended Oliver’s (1997) propositions of combining RBV’s focus on capabilities with institutional theory’s focus on organisational context, as well as redefining organisational receptivity towards change (ORC) factors from Butler and Allen’s (2008) findings. The authors contributed to the theoretical development of ORC theory to explain the attainment of sustainable competitive advantage. ORC adopts the assumptions from both institutional and RBV theories, where the receptivity factors include both organisational contexts and capabilities. The thesis employed a mixed method approach in which sequential qualitative quantitative studies were deployed to establish a robust, reliable, and valid ORC scale. The adoption of Hinkin’s (1995) three-phase scale development process was updated, thus items generated from interviews and literature reviews went through numerous exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to achieve convergent, discriminant, and nomological validities. Samples in the first phase (semi structured interviews) were hotel owners and managers. In the second phase, samples were MBA students, and employees of private and public sectors. In the third phase, samples were hotel managers. The final ORC scale is a parsimonious second higher-order latent construct. The first-order constructs comprises four latent receptivity factors which are ideological vision (4 items), leading change (4 items), implementation capacity (4 items), and change orientation (7 items). Hypotheses testing revealed that high levels of perceived environmental uncertainty leads to high levels of receptivity factor. Furthermore, the study found a strong positive correlation between receptivity factors and competitive advantage, and between receptivity factors and organisation performance. Mediation analyses revealed that receptivity factors partially mediate the relationship between perceived environmental uncertainty, competitive advantage and organisational performance.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Tzafrir, S. (2005). The Relationship between Trust, HRM Practices and Firm Performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(9), 1600- 1622.
    • Uhlenbruck, K., Meyer, K.E. and Hitt, M.A. (2003). Organizational Transformation in Transition Economies: Resource-Based and Organizational Learning Perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 257 83.
    • Utterback, J. (1979). The Dynamics of Product and Process Innovation in Industry. In C. Hill and J. Utterback (Eds.), Technological Innovation for a Dynamic Economy, Oxford: Pergamon.
    • Van de Ven, A.H., and Poole, M.S. (1995). Explaining Development and Change in Organisations. Academic Management Review, 20(3), 510-540.
    • ____ and T.J. Hargrave. (2004). Social, Technical, and Institutional Change: A Literature Review and Synthesis. In M.S. Poole and A.H. Van de Ven (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Change (259-303). New York: Oxford University Press.
    • ____ and Poole, M.S. (2005). Alternative Approaches for Studying Organisational Change. First Organisation Studies Summer Workshop on Theorizing Process in Organisational Research, Santorini, Greece, 12 & 13th June.
    • Voelpel, S.C., Leibold, M., & Mahmoud, K.M. (2004). The Organizational Fitness Navigator: Enabling and Measuring Organizational Fitness for Rapid Change. Journal of Change Management, 4 (2), 123-140.
    • Vollman, T. (1996) The Transformation Imperative. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
    • Walter, S.D., Eliasziw, M., and Donner, A. (1998). Sample Size and Optimal Designs for Reliability Studies. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 101-110.
    • Wang C.L., and Ahmed, P.K. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 31-51.
    • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171 180.
    • Westhead, P., Wright, M., and Ucbasaran, D. (2001). The Internationalization of New and Small Firms: A Resource-Based View. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4), 333- 358.
    • Williams, J., and MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and Distribution of the Product Methods for Testing Indirect Effects in Complex Models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15(1), 23-51.
    • Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R.E., and Peng, M.W., (2005). Strategy Research in Emerging Economies: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (1), 1-33.
    • Yeoh P.L, and Roth K. (1999). An Empirical Analysis of Sustained Advantage in the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry: Impact of Firm Resources and Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 637 653.
    • Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J., and Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917-955.
    • Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341-352.
    • Zmud, R. (1984). Design Alternatives for Organising Information Systems Activities. MIS Quarterly, 8(2), 79-93.
    • Zollo, M., & Winter S.G. (2002). Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. Organisation Science, 13, 339-351.
    • Zou, S., Fang, E., & Zhao, S. (2003). The Effect of Export Marketing Capabilities on Export Performance: An Investigation of Chinese Exporters. Journal of International Marketing, 11(4), 32-55.
    • RECEPTIVITY FACTOR 3: INSTITUTIONAL POLITICS SECTION 4.4 SECTION 4.5 SECTION 4:
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article