Strategic repertoire variety and new venture growth: The moderating effects of origin and industry dynamism

Strategic Management Journal

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 761-772

  Larrañeta, Bárbara ^a   Zahra, Shaker A ^b   Galán González, José Luis ^c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD PABLO DE OLAVIDE   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE   (Spain)

Author keywords

growth; industry dynamism; new venture origin; strategic repertoire simplicity; strategic repertoire variety

Indexed keywords

GROWTH (MATERIALS); MANAGEMENT; PLANNING;

DYNAMIC INDUSTRY; MODERATING EFFECT; NEW VENTURES; STRATEGIC REPERTOIRE SIMPLICITY; STRATEGIC REPERTOIRE VARIETY;

INDUSTRY;

EID: 84898903656     PISSN: 01432095     EISSN: 10970266     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smj.2103     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Aldrich HE,. 1979. Organizations and Environments. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
2. Baum JR, Wally S,. 2003. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 24 (11): 1107-1129.
3. Bradley SW, Aldrich H, Shepherd DA, Wiklund J,. 2011. Resources, environmental change, and survival: asymmetric paths of young independent and subsidiary organizations. Strategic Management Journal 32 (5): 486-509.
4. Burgelman RA,. 1983. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (2): 223-245.
5. Carter NM, Stearns TM, Reynolds PD,. 1994. New venture strategies: theory development with an empirical case. Strategic Management Journal 15 (1): 21-41.
6. Chen M-J, Farh J-L, MacMillan IC,. 1993. An exploration of the expertness of outside informants. Academy of Management Journal 36 (6): 1614-1632.
7. Chen M-J, Miller D,. 2012. Competitive dynamics: themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. Academy of Management Annals 6 (1): 135-210.
8. Clayton J, Gambill B, Harned D,. 1999. The curse of too much capital: building new businesses in large corporations. McKinsey Quarterly 3 (1): 49-59.
9. D'Aveni RA, (ed). 1994. Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering. Free Press: New York.
10. Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB,. 2009. Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly 54 (3): 413-452.
11. Dess GG, Beard DW,. 1984. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 29 (1): 52-73.
12. Dess GG, Davis PS,. 1984. Porter's (1980) generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal 27 (3): 467-488.
13. Eisenhardt KM, Furr NR, Bingham CB,. 2010. Microfoundations of performance: balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science 21 (6): 1263-1273.
14. Eisenhardt KM, Sull DN,. 2001. Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review 79 (1): 106-116.
15. Ferrier WJ,. 2001. Navigating the competitive landscape: the drivers and consequences of competitive aggressiveness. Academy of Management Journal 44 (4): 858-877.
16. Ferrier WJ, Lee H,. 2002. Strategic aggressiveness, variation, and surprise: how the sequential pattern of competitive rivalry influences stock market returns. Journal of Managerial Issues 14 (3): 162-180.
17. Ferrier WJ, Lyon DW,. 2004. Competitive repertoire simplicity and firm performance: the moderating role of top management team heterogeneity. Managerial and Decision Economics 25 (3): 317-327. (Pubitemid 40190213)
18. Ferrier WJ, Smith KG, Grimm CM,. 1999. The role of competitive action in market share erosion and industry environment: a study of industry leaders and challengers. Academy of Management Journal 42 (4): 372-388.
19. Gavetti G, Levinthal D, Rivkin JV,. 2005. Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: the power of analogy. Strategic Management Journal 26 (7): 691-712. (Pubitemid 40948524)
20. Hamel G, Prahalad CK,. 1994. Competing for the Future. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
21. wg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 306-310.
22. Khandwalla PN,. 1977. The Design of Organizations. McGill University Press: New York.
23. Larrañeta B, Zahra SA, Galan JL,. 2012. Enriching strategic variety in new ventures through external knowledge. Journal of Business Venturing 27 (4): 401-413.
24. Lindell MK, Whitney DJ,. 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (1): 114-121. (Pubitemid 33404733)
25. Lumpkin GT, Des GG,. 1995. Simplicity as strategy-making process: the effect of the stage of organizational development and environment on performance. Academy of Management Journal 38 (5): 1386-1408.
26. Lumpkin GT, Des GG,. 2006. The effect of "simplicity" on the strategy-performance relationship: a note. Journal of Management Studies 43 (7): 1583-1605.
27. McDougall PP, Robinson RJ, DeNisi AS,. 1992. Modeling new venture performance: an analysis of new venture strategy, industry structure, and venture origin. Journal of Business Venturing 7 (4): 267-290.
28. Miller D,. 1993. The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review 18 (1): 116-138.
29. Miller D, Chen M-J,. 1996. The simplicity of competitive repertoires: an empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal 17 (6): 419-440.
30. Miller D, Friesen PH,. 1983. Strategy-making and environment: the third link. Strategic Management Journal 4 (3): 221-235.
31. Miller D, Lant TK, Milliken FJ, Korn HJ,. 1996. Evolution of strategic simplicity: exploring two models of organizational adaptation. Journal of Management 22 (6): 863-888.
32. Miller D, and, Toulouse J-M,. 1998. Quasi-rational organizational responses: functional and cognitive sources of strategic simplicity. Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration 15 (3): 230-241.
33. Rindova V, Ferrier WJ, Wiltbank R,. 2010. Value from gestalt: how sequences of competitive actions affect the advantage of firms in nascent markets. Strategic Management Journal 31 (13): 1474-1497.
34. Robinson KC, McDougall PP,. 2001. Entry barriers and new venture performance: a comparison of universal and contingency approaches. Strategic Management Journal 22 (6/7): 659-685. (Pubitemid 33612463)
35. Sarasvathy SD,. 2001. Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift form economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review 26 (2): 243-263.
36. Shrader RC, Simon M,. 1997. Corporate versus independent new ventures: resource, strategy, and performance differences. Journal of Business Venturing 12 (1): 20-47.
37. Wiggins RR, Ruefli TW,. 2005. Schumpeter's ghost: is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter? Strategic Management Journal 26 (10): 887-911. (Pubitemid 41337830)
38. Zahra SA,. 1996. Technology strategy and new venture performance: a study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing 11 (4): 289-322.
39. Zahra SA, Bogner WC,. 2000. Technology strategy and software new ventures' performance: exploring the moderating effect of the competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing 15 (2): 135-173.
40. Zahra SA, Ireland DR, Hitt MA,. 2000. International expansion by new venture firms: international diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal 43 (5): 925-950.