Research Summary A firm's strategic orientation has long been of interest in management and strategy research. In particular, entrepreneurial, market, and learning orientations have received thorough theoretical and empirical research attention. In this meta‐analysis, we compare the direct and combined performance effects of these orientations, explore their interrelatedness, and provide a theoretical foundation for complementarity between the three. Building on prior empirical findings from 210 samples and using structural equation modeling and seemingly unrelated regression techniques, we extend the knowledge base on strategic orientations. Our results provide evidence for interrelatedness and complementarity among strategic orientations, indicating that superior firm performance emerges from its capability to align entrepreneurial, market, and learning orientations. Managerial Summary Managers might be tempted to divide rather than combine their attention on various aspects of strategy, such as entrepreneurial, market, and learning orientations. Similarly, organizational culture might inhibit or promote collaboration between distinct organizational functions. We synthesize a vast body of research on firm‐level strategy making and reveal that while each strategic orientation is beneficial on its own, together, the three strategic orientations create synergies that surpass the effects of individual strategic orientations. Therefore, to achieve superior performance, firms need to align their strategy making efforts to (a) monitoring changes in customer needs and competitor moves, (b) engaging in creative processes, and (c) assimilating the extensive knowledge gained from these activities.

This article contributes to the practice of coding in meta-analyses by offering direction and advice for experienced and novice meta-analysts on the “how” of coding. The coding process, the invisible architecture of any meta-analysis, has received comparably little attention in methodological resources, leaving the research community with insufficient guidance on “how” it should be rigorously planned (i.e., cohere with the research objective), conducted (i.e., make reliable and valid coding decisions), and reported (i.e., in a sufficiently transparent manner for readers to comprehend the authors’ decision-making). A lack of rigor in these areas can lead to erroneous results, which is problematic for entire research communities who build their future knowledge upon meta-analyses. Along four steps, the guidelines presented here elucidate “how” the coding process can be performed in a coherent, efficient, and credible manner that enables connectivity with future research, thereby enhancing the reliability and validity of meta-analytic findings. Our recommendations also support editors and reviewers in advising authors on how to improve the rigor of their coding and ultimately establish higher quality standards in meta-analytic research.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract