The complementarity of strategic orientations: A meta‐analytic synthesis and theory extension

Abstract

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.

Re‐examining Strategic Flexibility: A Meta‐Analysis of its Antecedents, Consequences and Contingencies

“…Regarding enablers of SF, we find that, consistent with Schweiger et al . (2019), entrepreneurial orientation (β = 0.33, p < 0.01), market orientation (β = 0.22, p < 0.01) and learning orientation (β = 0.30, p < 0.01) all are positively associated with SF, indicating the importance of the strategic orientation of a firm. Turning to aspects of organizational design, we find that decentralization (β = 0.54, p < 0.01) and formal routines (β = 0.28, p < 0.01) are positively associated with SF, while slack resources (β = −0.22, p < 0.01) is negatively associated with SF.…”

The human impact on the emergence of firm supply chain agility: a multilevel framework

“…The emergence of FSCA Strategic orientations. Our framework draws on the central notion that strategic orientations function as an attitudinal basis and direction for managerial decision-making and action (Hakala, 2011;Schweiger et al, 2019). The crux of the word orientation means a lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest that define managerial attitudes (Hakala, 2011;Rauch et al, 2009).…”

“…Firms can have a plethora of different strategic orientations due to different priorities and goals in different times and environments. Some strategic orientations such as EO, MO and learning orientation have a central and universal position within firms (Schweiger et al, 2019); while others such as risk orientation, supply chain orientation, or team orientation represent domain-specific or peripheral strategic orientations. As we are interested in how critical firm strategic orientations lead to FSCA, we posit that EO and MO are distinctly relevant to individual agile capabilities due to the premises of EO (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), MO (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990), and FSCA (Braunscheidel & Suresh, 2009;Gligor et al, 2016).…”

“…For example, managers' sense of belonging and behaviors are unique in Apple (Scott & Lane, 2000) that leads to the successful integration of demand management, supply management, and product management strategies. Firms can have several simultaneous strategic orientations as guiding mindsets and activity systems (Schweiger et al, 2019). Such multiplicity and potential paradox can incite sophistication that could be effective against environmental complexity, if it is coupled with strong individual identification with her firm.…”

“…Drawing on the recent developments on FSCA concept and HRM research and the identified gaps, we aim to bridge HRM and FSCA by emphasizing the human element. In particular, we explore how a firm's entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and market orientation (MO) as two relevant strategic orientations (Hakala, 2011;Schweiger et al, 2019) affect FSCA through individual capabilities and actions within the individual-level and firm-level boundary conditions.…”