Hi,I have attached the assignmnet requirement outline below.
- As they have mentioned in the assignment criteria I found 4 articles referring the Swinburne Library business sources which contains under the ABDC list.
- The 4 articles which i chose are based on the; Contingency and Agency Theory.
- 2 articles for each theory.
- Word Limit: 2000
- The due date: 27th September, but expect it to be completed by 25th September.
I have also attached the 4 articles below as we should relate those articles to the given requirement.
Could i please know what the best price you could given in??
Thank You.
Firm capabilities and growth: the moderating role of market conditions ORIGINAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCH Firm capabilities and growth: the moderating role of market conditions Hui Feng1 & Neil A. Morgan2 & Lopo L. Rego2 Received: 28 March 2015 /Accepted: 20 January 2016 /Published online: 15 February 2016 # Academy of Marketing Science 2016 Abstract Using a contingency theory lens, this study ex- plores the impact of multiple firm-level capabilities and their interactions on firm growth under different market conditions, using panel data from 612 U.S. public firms across 16 years in 60 industries. Specifically, this study empirically examines how three key firm capabilities (marketing, R&D, operations) interact to impact firms’ revenue growth and profit growth over time, and how external boundary conditions (market mu- nificence and competitive dynamism) influence the interactive growth effects of these capabilities. The results indicate that firms’ R&D (operations) capabilities positively (negatively) influence the effects of marketing capabilities on firm growth and that such effects vary across different market conditions. This study provides insights to researchers and managers re- garding how to manage and deploy resources across multiple capabilities simultaneously under different market conditions to drive firm growth. Keywords Marketing capabilities . Research-and-development capabilities . Operations capabilities . Firm growth .Munificence . Competitive dynamism Introduction Capabilities are complex bundles of skills and knowledge em- bedded in organizational processes that a firm performs well relative to rivals and which transform the firm’s available re- sources into valuable outputs (Day 1994; Morgan 2012). Past research on firm capabilities has mainly focused on the impact of individual capabilities (e.g., marketing, R&D or operations) on performance over short time spans (see Krasnikov and Jayachandran 2008). However, in practice, different capabili- ties coexist within a firm and are often intertwined. They are also developed over long time periods and are embedded within the firm (Grewal and Slotegraaf 2007), regardless of what markets and sectors the firm operates in. Thus, investi- gating individual capabilities in isolation over short time frames and ignoring their interrelatedness may lead to an in- complete and potentially inaccurate understanding of firm ca- pabilities (Krasnikov and Jayachandran 2008; Levinthal 2000). In addition, past research has mostly focused on ex- ploring the direct performance impact of firm capabilities, neglecting the likely existence and potential importance of boundary conditions. Therefore, many researchers have called for more context-based explorations of variations in the capa- bility–performance relationship (e.g., Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Krasnikov and Jayachandran 2008). In addition, growth, as one of the primary drivers of a firm’s stock price, is of central importance to both inves- tors and managers (Day et al. 2009). Although revenue and profit growth are important indicators of marketing Satish Jayachandaran served as Area Editor for this article. * Hui Feng
[email protected] Neil A. Morgan
[email protected] Lopo L. Rego
[email protected] 1 College of Business, Iowa State University, 3337 Gerdin Business Building, Ames, IA 50011-1350, USA 2 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 E. Tenth St., Bloomington, IN 47405-1701, USA J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2017) 45:76–92 DOI 10.1007/s11747-016-0472-y http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11747-016-0472-y&domain=pdf effectiveness as well as vital parts of marketers’ require- ments to gain a Bseat at the top table^ (Lehmann and Winer 2009), long-term growth is an infrequently studied performance measure in marketing (Katsikeas et al. 2016).1 We therefore have relatively little knowledge concerning the drivers of firm growth, and in particular the impact of interactions among various firm capabilities on firms’ growth performance (Morgan et al. 2009). To address these important knowledge gaps, this study uses a cross-industry sample of 612 public firms across 60 indus- tries in the U.S. from 1993–2008 to examine two important questions. First, how do different firm capabilities (marketing, R&D, operations) interact and impact firm revenue and profit growth over an extended time? Second, how do external mar- ketplace boundary conditions (e.g., market munificence and competitive dynamism) influence the interactive effects (i.e., complementarity versus substitution) of firm capabilities on growth? In addressing these key questions, this study offers several contributions to the literature on firm capabilities. First, it pro- vides the first comprehensive picture of how the three most important firm-level capabilities identified in the literature in- teract to drive growth, by simultaneously exploring market- ing, R&D, and operations capabilities and their interactions. This is important because in practice all three capabilities co- exist within firms, yet our empirical knowledge of how this coexistence may affect firm performance outcomes has been absent. From this perspective, our results show that marketing and R&D capabilities complement each other in enhancing firms’ revenue and profit growth, whereas operations capabil- ities decrease marketing capabilities’ positive impact on profit growth. Second, this study identifies market munificence and com- petitive dynamism as new boundary conditions that affect capability–performance relationships. This is important be- cause the value of firms’ capabilities has been theorized as being dependent on the characteristics of the marketplace en- vironments in which they are deployed (e.g., Morgan 2012). Empirically we show that this is true, and we identify specific marketplace characteristics that are important factors to con- sider when making resource deployments and capability de- velopment investment decisions, as they have a significant impact on the value of firm capability–performance relationships. Third, using a large, representative panel of U.S. firms over an extended time period, this study provides the strongest, most comprehensive, and most generalizable evidence to date to establish the performance benefits of marketing capabilities in the presence of other key firm- level capabilities. This greatly enhances confidence in the performance-enhancing value of marketing capabilities, and it reveals an important new mechanism by which that value is created and captured—via firms’ ability to grow their top and bottom line performance. As a result, the findings presented in this study provide new guidance for marketing scholars and managers concerning whether and when investments in build- ing firm-level marketing (and other) capabilities are most likely to pay off. Table 1 summarizes the major contributions of this study, relative to representative research on firm capability interactions. In the next section, we present the theoretical basis and conceptual model for our study. This is followed by de- scriptions of the research method adopted, measures of key constructs and variables, dataset assembled, and anal- ysis approach. We then present and discuss the results of the analyses and consider their implications. Finally, we examine the study’s limitations and present ideas for fu- ture research. Conceptual framework Both the resource-based view (RBV) and dynamic capa- bility (DC) theories have pointed to the importance of firm capabilities as they enable firms to effectively and efficiently perform value-creating tasks, and also reside in firm processes and routines that may be difficult to observe and imitate, thereby enabling firms to enjoy sus- tainable competitive advantage and superior performance over time (Teece et al. 1997; Kozlenkova et al. 2014). Prior research examining individual (occasionally two) capabilities generally supports this position and shows that: (1) individual firm capabilities (e.g., marketing, R&D and operations) are generally positively associated with firms’ market performance and efficiency (e.g., Day 1994; Dutta et al. 1999), and (2) marketing and R&D capabilities mainly drive market performance, while oper- ations capability primarily drives efficiency performance (e.g., Krasnikov and Jayachandran 2008). Given these prior findings, it may be expected that marketing, R&D, and operations capabilities should all drive both revenue growth and profits growth. However, we currently know little about the interactive effect of different capabilities. Among the few studies that have examined two-way interactions between different ca- pabilities, some report complementary effects of different capabilities on firm performance (e.g., Dutta et al. 1999; Luo and Donthu 2006; Moorman and Slotegraaf 1999; Song et al. 2005), whereas others find substitutive ef- fects—especially when the capabilities have opposing un- derlying goals (e.g., maximization versus minimization, effectiveness versus efficiency) (Grewal and Slotegraaf 1 We tested our models on revenue and profit levels as well as growth and found a similar pattern of results. However, as the focus of this paper is on firm growth, we do not include these additional results in the paper. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2017) 45:76–92 77 T ab le 1 R ep re se nt at iv e re se ar ch on fi rm ca pa bi lit y in te ra ct io ns S tu dy N um be r of ca pa bi lit y in te ra ct io ns N um be r of bo un da ry co nd iti on s In te ra ct io n ty pe Pa ne l da ta Fi nd in gs ge ne ra liz ab ili ty Pe rf or m an ce m ea su re D ut ta et al .( 19 99 ) Tw o (m ar ke tin g an d R & D ,R & D an d op er at io ns ca pa bi lit ie s) N on e Si ng le :c om pl em en ta ry Y es C on te xt –s pe ci fi c (s em i- co nd uc to r) Se co nd ar y: P ro fi ta bi lit y (T ob in ’s q) M oo rm an an d S lo te gr aa f (1 99 9) Si ng le (m ar ke tin g an d te ch no lo gy ca pa bi lit ie s) S in gl e (e xt er na li nf or m at io n pr es en ce ) Si ng le :c om pl em en ta ry Y es C on te xt –s pe ci fi c (f oo d) Se co nd ar y: L ev el an d sp ee d of pr od uc tq ua lit y in cr ea se S on g et al .( 20 05 ) Si ng le (m ar ke tin g an d te ch no lo gy ca pa bi lit ie s) Si ng le (t ec hn ol og y tu rb ul en ce ) Si ng le :c om pl em en ta ry N o Y es (4 66 fi rm s fr om 7 in du st ri es ) Pr im ar y: P ro fi t, sa le s an d R O I L uo an d D on th u (2 00 6) N on e (m ar ke tin g co m m un ic at io n ca pa bi lit y an d R & D re so ur ce s) S in gl e (c om pe tit iv e in te ns ity ) S in gl e: co m pl em en ta ry Y es C on te xt –s pe ci fi c (8 9 fi rm s) Se co nd ar y: R O A ,T ob in ’s Q an d st oc k