The impact of competitive strategies on responsive market orientation, proactive market orientation, learning orientation and organizational performance

Abstract

Drawing on the strategy implementation approach and the resource-based view of the firm, this study examines the relationships among competitive strategies (differentiation and cost leadership), responsive market orientation (RMO), proactive market orientation (PMO), learning orientation (LO) and organizational performance. The study used questionnaire survey of senior managers of 264 manufacturing and service companies in Jordan. The study employed partial least squares to test the hypotheses. Moderate but significant relationships are evident in the links between cost leadership and LO, and RMO and organizational performance. Strong and significant relationships are exhibited in the links between differentiation and RMO; differentiation and PMO; differentiation and LO and between LO and organizational performance. The results show that differentiation strategy is more important than cost leadership strategy and that LO is the most important factor for better organizational performance.

The impact of internal, external, and competitor factors on marketing strategy performance

“…Market Orientation literature acknowledges the importance of competitors, competitive intelligence and tracking competitor actions (Narver & Slater 1990, Joworski & Kohli 1996. The significance of competitors on marketing strategy effectiveness has been noted recently by several authors (Kharabsheh, Jarrar & Simeonova 2014;Sahi, Gupta & Lonial 2016), and competitive effects feature in the recently developed AUTOFLEX scale to measure marketing flexibility (Shalender, Singh & Sushil 2017). Yet, despite the recognition of the importance of competitors, Kumar et al (2011) suggests that much prior research has been conducted independently of the orientation of competitors, and questions whether market orientation can provide a competitive advantage if competitors are also market oriented.…”

Influence of Ambidextrous Learning on Eco-Innovation Performance of Startups: Moderating Effect of Top Management’s Environmental Awareness

“…With limited resources, the return on investment is the primary consideration for organizations' project investment. Given the large amount of resource input for green innovation, high market risks, and significant R&D uncertainty, only when the top management incorporates green innovation into the scope of corporate responsibility will it invest more resources from a strategic height (Kharabsheh et al, 2015;Zhang and Walton, 2016;Huang and Li, 2017;Zhang and Lv, 2018). The top management with a stronger environmental awareness holds an open and supportive attitude toward green innovation, is good at exploratory learning, encodes and integrates the acquired information with corporate resources, absorbs internal and external knowledge of organizations and applies it to green innovation, and proactively responds to environmental issues.…”

“…The organizational learning theory, based on cognitive psychology, believes that organizations can achieve organizational objectives by acquiring and further understanding better knowledge and improving their actions ( Argyris and Schon, 1978 ; Fiol and Lyles, 1985 ; Witkin, 1965 ). Organizational learning is not only creative learning, but also long-term cultivation and the process of shaping corporate value ( Kharabsheh et al, 2015 ; Sikora et al, 2016 ; Huang and Li, 2017 ; Yuan et al, 2019 ; Wu et al, 2020 ). Therefore, organizational learning is a prerequisite for the continuous change and innovation of organizations and also plays a vital role in influencing eco-innovation performance during the process of ecological innovation.…”

Managing Leader Learning Preferences at Work: A Practice-Oriented Approach

“…This important topic of managing leader learning preferences is explored using information gleaned from the "real world" of business practice (Locke, 2007;Locke & Cooper, 2000). The framework is intended to help managerial leaders more effectively understand and manage their unique learning preferences in a way that contributes to their development and effectiveness while helping to advance their organizations' competitiveness and innovation (Leavy, 1999;Tran, 2008;Kharabsheh, Jarrar & Simeonova, 2015). This work also helps contribute to the rather sparse extant literature relating to practice-oriented evidence-based approaches to managing leader learning preferences.…”