Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T22:06:22.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environment, Resource Integration, and New Ventures’ Competitive Advantage in China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2016

Li Cai ,
Sergey Anokhin ,
Miaomiao Yin  and
Donald E. Hatfield
Li Cai
Affiliation:
Jilin University, China
Sergey Anokhin
Affiliation:
Kent State University, USA
Miaomiao Yin*
Affiliation:
Jilin University, China
Donald E. Hatfield
Affiliation:
Virginia Tech, USA
*
Corresponding author: Miaomiao Yin (yinmiaomiao666@126.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chinese new ventures have two principal approaches to resource integration: the stabilizing approach, which makes minor changes to a firm's current resource bundles, or the pioneering approach, which creates new capabilities. Two characteristics of Chinese entrepreneurial environment are distinct: environmental dynamism (uncertain markets, unstable institutions and the rapid technology upgrading) and munificence (the degree of competitive intensity and resource abundance). This study suggests that environmental dynamism and environmental munificence moderate the relationships between resource integration approaches and competitive advantage. Results based on a study of 410 Chinese new ventures show that both stabilizing and pioneering approaches to resource integration positively influence new ventures’ competitive advantage under the condition of low environmental dynamism and either high or low environmental munificence. However, neither stabilizing nor pioneering approaches have a significant effect on new ventures’ competitive advantage under the condition of low environmental munificence and high environmental dynamism. Only the pioneering approach has a positive effect on new ventures’ competitive advantage under the condition of high environmental munificence and high environmental dynamism.

摘要:

摘要:

中国新创企业有两种主要的资源整合方式:稳定方式, 即在公司现有资源包上进行微小的改变༛或开拓方式, 即创造出新的能力。中国创业环境具有两个独特的特征:环境动态性 (不确定的市场, 不稳定的制度, 及快速的技术升级) 和环境包容性 (竞争强度和资源丰富的程度) 。本研究表明:环境动态性及环境包容性调节资源整合方式与竞争优势之间的关系。基于410家中国新创企业的调查结果表明:在低环境动态性、及高或低环境包容性的条件下, 资源整合的稳定方式和开拓方式都正向影响新创企业的竞争优势。然而, 在低环境包容性和高环境动态性的条件下, 稳定方式和开拓方式都不会显著影响新创企业的竞争优势。在高环境包容性和高环境动态性的条件下, 只有开拓方式对新创企业的竞争优势有正向影响。

चीन के नवीन उद्यम वस्तुतः दो प्रकार की संसाधन एकीकरण पद्धति अपनाते हैं: प्रथम, स्थिरतापरक (स्टेबिलाइज़िंग) पद्धति जिसके तहत फर्म के मौजूदा संसाधनों के बंडलों में केवल मामूली परिवर्तन किये जाते हैं और दूसरी अग्रगण्य (पायनियरिंग) पद्धति जिसमें नई क्षमताओं का विकास किया जाता है. साथ ही चीन की उद्यमी परिवेश के दो विशिष्ट पहलू हैं: पर्यावरणीय गतिशीलता (जिसको बाजार की अनिश्चितता, अस्थिर संस्थानों और द्रुत तकनीकी परिवर्तन से जोड़ा जा सकता है) और उदारता/म्यूनिफिसेंस (जो प्रतिस्पर्धात्मक तीव्रता का स्तर और संसाधन विपुलता से सम्बद्ध है). वर्तमान शोध पत्र की विश्लेषण के अनुसार पर्यावरणीय गतिशीलता और पर्यावरणीय उदारता, संसाधन एकीकरण तथा प्रतिस्पर्धात्मक बढ़त के दो तत्वों के बीच परिनियमन करते हैं. इस शोध के अनुसार, जो कि ४१० नवीन चीनी उद्यमों के अध्ययन पर आधारित है, दोनों ही पद्धतियों का, निम्न पर्यावरणीय गतिशीलता एवं निम्न या उच्च उदारता की स्थिति में, नवीन उद्यमों की प्रतिस्पर्धात्मकता पर सकारात्मक प्रभाव होता है. तथापि, दोनों में से किसी भी पद्धति का, निम्न पर्यावरणीय उदारता एवं उच्च पर्यावरणीय गतिशीलता की स्थिति में, नवीन उद्यमों की प्रतिस्पर्धात्मक बढ़त पर कोई विशेष प्रभाव नहीं होता. केवल अग्रगण्य पद्धति का नवीन उद्यमों की प्रतिस्पर्धात्मकता पर, उच्च पर्यावरणीय उदारता एवं उच्च पर्यावरणीय गतिशीलता की स्थिति में, सकारात्मक प्रभाव होता है.

Sumário:

Sumário:

Novos empreendimentos chineses apresentam duas principais abordagens em relação à integração de recursos: a abordagem estabilizante, que faz pequenas alterações no corrente conjunto de recursos, e a abordagem pioneira, que cria novas capacidades. Duas características do ambiente empreendedor chinês são distintas: dinamismo ambiental (mercados com incerteza, instituições instáveis e rápida atualização tecnológica) e munificência (o grau de intensidade competitiva e abundância de recursos). Este estudo sugere que o dinamismo ambiental e a munificência ambiental moderam a relação entre abordagens de integração de recursos e vantagem competitiva. Resultados baseados em um estudo com 410 novos empreendimentos chineses mostram que tanto a abordagem estabilizante quanto a abordagem pioneira para a integração de recursos influenciam positivamente a vantagem competitiva de novos empreendimentos sob a condição de baixo dinamismo ambiental e alta ou baixa munificência ambiental. No entanto, nem a abordagem estabilizante, nem a pioneira, têm um efeito significativo sobre a vantagem competitiva de novos empreendimentos sob a condição de baixa munificência ambiental e elevado dinamismo ambiental. Somente a abordagem pioneira tem um efeito positivo sobre a vantagem competitiva de novos empreendimentos sob a condição de alta munificência ambiental e elevado dinamismo ambiental.

Аннотация:

Аннотация:

Китайские новые предприятия используют два основных способа интеграции ресурсов: способ стабилизации, который предполагает минимальные изменения в существующей структуре ресурсов компании, или радикальный подход, который создает новые способности. Две отличительные особенности характерны для предпринимательской среды в Китае: внешний динамизм (непредсказуемые рынки, нестабильные институты и стремительный технологический прогресс) и многообразие (высокий уровень конкуренции и изобилие ресурсов). Данное исследование предполагает, что динамизм и многообразие внешней среды влияют на соотношение между способом интеграции ресурсов и конкурентным преимуществом. На основании изучения 410 китайских новых предприятий, можно сделать вывод о том, что стабилизационный и радикальный способы интеграции ресурсов положительно влияют на конкурентное преимущество новых предприятий при условии низкого внешнего динамизма, а также высокого или низкого внешнего многообразия. Однако, ни стабилизационный, ни радикальный подход не имеют решающего значения для конкурентного преимущества новых предприятий при условии низкого внешнего многообразия и высокого внешнего динамизма. Только радикальный подход оказывает положительное влияние на конкурентное преимущество новых предприятий при условии высокого внешнего многообразия и высокого внешнего динамизма.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

Las nuevas empresas chinas tienen dos enfoques para la integración de recursos: el enfoque de estabilización, el cual hace cambios menores a los paquetes de recursos de una empresa, o el enfoque precursor, el cual crea nuevas capacidades. Dos características del entorno empresarial chino son distintivas: el dinamismo de entorno (mercados inciertos, instituciones inestables y rápida actualización tecnológica), y la munificencia (el grado de intensidad competitiva y la abundancia de recursos). Este estudio sugiere que el dinamismo de entorno y la munificencia del entorno moderan las relaciones entre los enfoques de integración de recursos y la ventaja competitiva. Los resultados basados en un estudio de 410 nuevas empresas china muestran que tanto el enfoque de estabilización como el precursor de integración de recursos influencian de manera positiva las ventajas competitivas de las nuevas empresas bajo condiciones de dinamismo de entorno bajo e incluso, munificencia alta o baja de entorno. No obstante, ni el enfoque de estabilización ni el precursor tienen un efecto significativo sobre las ventajas competitivas de las nuevas empresas bajo condiciones de baja munificencia entorno y alto dinamismo del entorno. Solamente el enfoque precursor tiene un efecto positivo en las ventajas competitivas de las nuevas empresas bajo condiciones de baja munificencia de entorno y alto dinamismo de entorno.

Keywords

competitive advantageenvironmental dynamismenvironmental munificencenew ventureresource integration
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 333 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2016 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. 1999. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10: 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3): 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adner, R. 2002. When are technologies disruptive? A demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (8): 667–688.Google Scholar
Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. 2003. A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28 (1) 71–88.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (3): 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspelund, A., Berg-Utby, T., & Skjevdal, R. 2005. Initial resources' influence on new venture survival: A longitudinal study of new technology-based firms. Technovation, 25 (11): 1337–1347.Google Scholar
Bamford, C. E., Dean, T. J., & Douglas, T. J. 2004. The temporal nature of growth determinants in new bank foundings: Implications for new venture research design. Journal of Business Venturing, 19 (6): 899–919.Google Scholar
Barney, J. B. 2001. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27 (6): 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. T. 2011. The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26 (1): 49–50.Google Scholar
Bigley, G. A., & Roberts, K. H. 2001. The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. The Academy of Management Journal, 44 (6): 1281–1299.Google Scholar
Bodie, W. M. 1991. The Lockheed P-38 Lightning: The definitive story of Lockheed's P-38 fighter. Hayesville, North Carolina: Widewing Publications.Google Scholar
Boyne, G. A., & Meier, K. J. 2009. Environmental turbulence, organizational stability, and public service performance. Administration & Society January, 40 (8): 799–824.Google Scholar
Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bradley, S. W., Aldrich, H., Shepherd, D. A., & Wiklund, J. 2011. Resources, environmental change, and survival: asymmetric paths of young independent and subsidiary organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 32 (5): 486–509.Google Scholar
Cai, L., Hughes, M., & Yin, M. 2014.The relationship between resource acquisition methods and firm performance in Chinese new ventures: The intermediate effect of learning capability. Journal of Small Business Management, 52 (3): 365–389.Google Scholar
Cai, L., Liu, Q., Zhu, X. M., & Deng, S. L. 2014. Market orientation and technological innovation: the moderating role of entrepreneurial support policies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1–27.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. 2001. Top management teams, global strategic posture and the moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 533–545.Google Scholar
Capron, L., & Chatain, O. 2008. Competitors' resource-oriented strategies: Acting on competitors' resources through interventions in factor markets and political markets. The Academy of Management Review, 33 (1): 97–121.Google Scholar
Carter, C. R., & Carter, J. R. 1998. Interorganizational determinants of environmental purchasing: Initial evidence from the consumer products industry. Decision Sciences, 29 (3): 659–684.Google Scholar
Castrogiovanni, G. J. 1991. Environmental munificence: A theoretical assessment. Academy of Management Review, 16: 542–565.Google Scholar
Castrogiovanni, G. J. 2002. Organization task environments: Have they changed fundamentally over time? Journal of Management, 28 (2): 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. Y., Zou, H., & Wang, D. T. 2009. How do new ventures grow? Firm capabilities, growth strategies and performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26 (4): 294–303.Google Scholar
Chiu, C. K., Chien, C. S., Lin, C. P., & Hsiao, C. Y. 2005. Understanding hospital employee job stress and turnover intentions in a practical setting: The moderating role of locus of control. Journal of Management Development, 24 (10): 837–855.Google Scholar
Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. 2002. An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3): 184–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. 2003. The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 977–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. 2006. The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (3): 217–231.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: Stability and changes as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35 (2): 202–225.Google Scholar
Faulkner, D., & Johnson, G. 1992. The challenge of strategic management. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1): 39–50.Google Scholar
Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. 1983. The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48 (5): 692–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilberta, B. A., McDougall, P. P., & Audretsch, D. B. 2008. Clusters, knowledge spillovers and new venture performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Venturing, 23 (4): 405–422.Google Scholar
Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. A. 2004. The moderating effect of environmental munificence and dynamism on the relationship between discretionary social responsibility and firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49 (1): 41–54.Google Scholar
Grande, J. 2011. New venture creation in the farm sector critical resources and capabilities. Journal of Rural Studies, 27: 220–233.Google Scholar
Grant, R. M. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy. California Management Review, 33 (3): 114–135.Google Scholar
Im, I., Kim, Y., & Han, H. J. 2008. The effects of perceived risk and technology type on users’ acceptance of technologies. Information & Management, 45 (1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. 2006. International entrepreneurship in emerging economies: A resource-based perspective. In Cooper, A., Alvarez, S. A., Carrera, A., Mesquita, L., & Vassolo, R. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies: 47–69. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2006. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52 (11): 1661–1674.Google Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. 2009. Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Leadership and Organizational Learning, 20 (1): 5–18.Google Scholar
Jing, R., McDermott, E. P. (2013). Transformation of state-owned enterprises in China: A strategic action model. Management and Organization Review, 9 (1): 53–86.Google Scholar
Keating, A., & McLoughlin, D. 2010.The entrepreneurial imagination and the impact of context on the development of a new venture. Industrial Marketing Management, 39 (6): 996–1009.Google Scholar
Krug, B., & Hendrischke, H. 2008. Framing China: Transformation and institutional change through co-evolution. Management and Organization Review, 4 (1): 81–108.Google Scholar
Laros, F., & Steenkamp, J. B. 2005. Emotions in consumer behavior: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Business Research, 58: 1437–1445.Google Scholar
Larrañeta, B., Zahra, S. A., & González, J. L. G. 2012. Enriching strategic variety in new ventures through external knowledge. Journal of Business Venturing, 27 (4): 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laslo, Z., & Goldberg, A. I. 2008. Resource allocation under uncertainty in a multi-project matrix environment: Is organizational conflict inevitable? International Journal of Project Management, 26 (8): 773–788.Google Scholar
Lavie, D. 2006. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31 (3): 638–658.Google Scholar
Li, H., & Zhang, Y. 2007. The role of managers' political networking and functional experience in new venture performance: Evidence from China's transition economy. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 791–804.Google Scholar
Li, S., Xia, J., Long, C. X., & Tan, J. 2012. Control modes and outcomes of transformed state-owned enterprises in China: An empirical test. Management and Organization Review, 8 (2): 283–309.Google Scholar
Li, X. B., & Mitchell, R. K. 2009. The pace and stability of small enterprise innovation in highly dynamic economies: A China-based template. Journal of Small Business Management, 47 (3): 370–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, B. M., & Brush, C. G. 2001. How do ‘resource bundles’ develop and change in new ventures? A dynamic model and longitudinal exploration. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25 (3): 37–58.Google Scholar
Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. 2006. Partnering strategies and performance of SMEs' international joint ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 21 (4): 461–486.Google Scholar
Lyles, M., Li, D., & Yan, H. F. 2014. Chinese outward foreign direct investment performance: The role of learning. Management and Organization Review, 10 (3): 411–437.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1987. The structural and environmental correlates of business strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 8 (1): 55–76.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D. P. 2008. The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Morse, E. A., Fowler, S. W., & Lawrence, T. B. 2007. The impact of virtual embeddedness on new venture survival: Overcoming the liabilities of newness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (2): 139–159.Google Scholar
Newbert, S. L. 2008. Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: A conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (7): 745–768.Google Scholar
Newbert, S. L., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Kirchhoff, B. A. 2008. Looking beyond resources: Exploring the importance of entrepreneurship to firm-level competitive advantage in technologically intensive industries. Technovation, 28 (1–2): 6–19.Google Scholar
Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. 2005. Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29 (5): 537–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. D. 2000. Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. The Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 486–501.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12 (4): 531–544.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 879–903.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Qian, Y. Y. 2000. The process of China's market transition (1978–1998): The evolutionary, historical, and comparative perspectives. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 156 (1): 151–171.Google Scholar
Rasheed, H. S. 2005. Entry mode and performance: The moderating effects of environment. Journal of Small Business Management, 43 (1): 41–54.Google Scholar
Roe, E., & Schulman, P. 2008. High reliability management. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelt, R. P. 1987. Theory, strategy, and entrepreneurship. In Teece, D. J. (Ed.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal: 137–158. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. 1996. Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic employees: Is diversity management a luxury or a necessity? Academy of Management Journal, 39 (3): 704–719.Google Scholar
Sanchez, J. I., Korbin, W. P., & Viscarra, D. M. 1995. Corporate support in the aftermath of a natural disaster: Effects on employee strains. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2): 504–521.Google Scholar
Short, J. C., McKelvie, A., Ketchen, Jr., David, J., & Chandler, G. N. 2009. Firm and industry effects on firm performance: A generalization and extension for new ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3 (1): 47–65.Google Scholar
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., & Lubatkin, M. H. 2007. The impact of managerial environmental perceptions on corporate entrepreneurship: Towards understanding discretionary slack's pivotal role. Journal of Management Studies, 44 (8): 1398–1424.Google Scholar
Simpson, M., Taylor, N., & Barker, K. 2004. Environmental responsibility in SMEs: Does it deliver competitive advantage? Business Strategy and the Environment, 13: 156–171.Google Scholar
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. 2007. Managing firm resources in environmental dynamisms to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32 (1): 273–292.Google Scholar
Sirmon, D. G., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. A. 2008. Resource management in dyadic competitive rivalry: The effects of resource bundling and deployment. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (5): 919–935.Google 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: 1386–1409.Google Scholar
Slater, S. F., Olson, E. M., & Hult, G. T. M. 2006. The moderating influence of strategic orientation on the strategy formation capability–performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (12): 1221–1231.Google Scholar
Song, M., Wang, T., & Parry, M. E. 2010. Do market information processes improve new venture performance? Journal of Business Venturing, 25 (6): 556–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., Van Der Bij, H., & Halman, J. I. M. 2008. Success factors in new ventures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25: 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoel, M. D., & Muhanna, W. A. 2009. IT capabilities and firm performance: A contingency analysis of the role of industry and IT capability type. Information & Management, 46 (3): 181–189.Google Scholar
Su, Z., Peng, J., Shen, H., & Xiao, T. 2013. Technological capability, marketing capability, and firm performance in turbulent conditions. Management and Organization Review, 9 (1): 115–137.Google Scholar
Tan, J., & Litsschert, R. J. 1994. Environment-strategy relationship and its performance implications: An empirical study of the Chinese electronics industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Tan, J. 1996. Regulatory environment and strategic orientations in a transitional economy: A study of Chinese private enterprise. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Fall: 31–34.Google Scholar
Tan, J. 2005.Venturing in turbulent water: A historical perspective of economic reform and entrepreneurial transformation. Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 689–704.Google Scholar
Tang, J. 2008. Environmental munificence for entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurial alertness and commitment. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 14 (3): 128–151.Google Scholar
Teng, B. S. 2007. Corporate entrepreneurship activities through strategic alliances: A resource-based approach toward competitive advantage. Journal of Management Studies, 44 (1): 119–142.Google Scholar
Tseng, C. Y., & Goo, Y. J. J. 2005. Intellectual capital and corporate value in an emerging economy: Empirical study of Taiwanese manufacturers. R&D Management, 35 (2): 187–201.Google Scholar
Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. 2008. The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. The Academy of Management Journal, 51 (1): 147–164.Google Scholar
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. 2005. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (1): 71–91.Google Scholar
Wan, W. P., & Hoskisson, R. E. 2003. Home country environments, corporate diversification strategies, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 46 (1): 27–45.Google Scholar
West III, G. P., & Noel, T. W. 2009. The impact of knowledge resources on new venture performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 49 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. B. (1991). The rise of radical egalitarianism. Washington, DC: American University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, L. J., & O'Boyle, E. Jr. 2011. The myth of global fit indices and alternatives for assessing latent variable relations. Organizational Research Methods, 14 (2): 350–369.Google Scholar
Wijbenga, F. H., & Witteloostuijn, A. V. 2007. Entrepreneurial locus of control and competitive strategies: The moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28 (5): 566–589.Google Scholar
Wong, A., & Schal, A. 2002. An examination of the relationship between trust, commitment and relationship quality. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30 (1): 34–50.Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A. 2007. Contextualizing theory building in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22 (3): 443–452.Google Scholar