Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Encouraging organizational performance through the influence of technological distinctive competencies on components of corporate entrepreneurship

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Firms’ technological distinctive competencies (TDCs) help CEOs to confront their reality based on technological knowledge to achieve and exploit competitive advantage by encouraging the different dimensions of corporate entrepreneurship (innovation, new business venturing, proactiveness and self-renewal). The main purpose of this paper is thus to highlight how companies that strive to improve technological competencies within the firm achieve higher organizational performance through different components of corporate entrepreneurship and their interrelationships. This study seeks to fill this research gap by analyzing theoretically and empirically how TDCs enhance innovation, new business venturing and proactiveness and their interrelationships to achieve self-renewal and thus improve firms’ organizational performance. The methodology used is LISREL analysis. We test the model with data from 201 Spanish organizations. Our research contributes theoretical and empirical arguments on the value of TDCs to the organization, arguments that are especially important because organizations sometimes fail to achieve sustainable competitive advantage due to their limited understanding of the relationships between these strategic variables.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Technological Distinctive Competencies will be noted as TDCs hereinafter.

References

  • Abetti, P.A. (1997). The birth and growth of Toshiba’s laptop and notebook computers: a case study in Japanese corporate venturing. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 507–529.

  • Alba, M. F., García, J. M., & Mas-Verdú, F. (2013). New firm creation and innovation: industrial patterns and inter-sectoral linkages. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(4), 501–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andries, P., & Debackere, K. (2007). Adaptation and performance in new business: understanding the moderating effects of independence and industry. Small Business Economics, 29, 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2000). Intrapreneurship modeling in transition economies: a comparison of Slovenia and the United States. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R.D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural validation, Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495--527.

  • Archibugi, D., & Iammarino, S. (2002). The globalization of technological innovation: definition and evidence. Review of International Political Economy, 9(1), 98–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects on age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, P. (2003). Some indicators of dynamic technological competencies: understanding of Indian software managers. Technovation, 23, 593–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, P., & Sexton, M. (2006). Innovation in small, project-based construction firms. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 331–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batjargal, B. (2007). Internet entrepreneurship: social capital, human capital, and performance of internet ventures in China. Research Policy, 36, 605–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benitez-Amado, J., Lloréns-Montes, F. J., & Perez-Arostegui, M. N. (2010). Information technology-enabled intrapreneurship culture and firm performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(4), 550–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berends, R., Reymen, I. M., & Stultiëns, R. (2014). Product innovation processes in small firms: combining entrepreneurial effectuation and managerial causation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 616–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolívar Ramos, M. T., García Morales, V. J., & García-Sánchez, E. (2012). Technological distinctive competencies and organisational learning: effects on organisational innovation to improve firm performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 29(3), 331–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equations models. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazeal, D. V., Schenkel, M. T., & Azriel, J. A. (2008). Awakening the entrepreneurial spirit: Exploring the relationship between organizational factors and perceptions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and desirability in a corporate setting. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. (1998). Analyzing foreign market entry strategies: extending the internalization approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(3), 539–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. A., & Fai, F. M. (1999). Firms as the source of innovation and growth: the evolution of technological competence. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9, 331–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. Y., Chen, P. C., & Lu, Y. E. (2013). The coordination processes and dynamics within the inter-organizational context of contract-based outsourced engineering projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30, 113–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Y. R., & Shepherd, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ decisions to exploit opportunities. Journal of Management, 30(3), 377–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, B., Poon, S. K., & Davis, J. G. (2008). Effects of knowledge management strategy on organizational performance: a complementarity theory-based approach. Omega, 36(2), 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clausen, T., & Korneliussen, T. (2012). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and speed to the market: the case of incubator firms in Norway. Technovation, 32(9–10), 560–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell, T., & Nault, B. R. (2004). Product variety and firm survival in the microcomputer software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1005–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (2008). Strategic use of corporate venturing. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(2), 183–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1986). The development and testing of an organizational-level entrepreneurship scale, in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, ed. R. Ronstadt, J.A. Homaday, R. Peterson & K.H. Vespar, 628–639, Wellesley, M.A.: Babson College.

  • Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Cruz, J. R., & Rugman, A. M. (1994). Business network theory and the Canadian telecommunications industry. International Business Review, 3(3), 275–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: a longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 4(4), 650–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competencies. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1095–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2007). The process of technological competence leveraging. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 511–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2008). Organizational antecedents of second-order competences. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 519–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De los Ríos-Carmenado, I., & Rodríguez, F. (2015). Promoting professional project management skills in engineering higher education: Project-based learning (PBL) strategy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1-B), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCarolis, D. M. (2003). Competencies and imitability in the pharmaceutical industry: an analysis of their relationship with firm performance. Journal of Management, 29(1), 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSimone, L. D., Hatsopoulos, G. N., O’Brien, W. F., Harris, B., & Holt, C. P. (1995). How can big companies keep the entrepreneurial spirit alive? Harvard Business Review, 6, 183–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G., & Lumpkin, G. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Tollo, G., Tanev, S., De March, D., & Ma, Z. (2012). Neural networks to model the innovativeness perception of co-creative firms. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 12719–12726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donahoe, J., Schefter, P., & Harding, D. (2001). Corporate Venturing: Management Fad or Lasting Trend? Boston: Brain & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dos Santos, R., & Spann, M. (2011). Collective entrepreneurship at Qualcomm: Combining collective and entrepreneurial practices to turn employee ideas into action. R&D Management, 41(5), 442–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1120–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, T. J., & Judge, W. Q. (2001). Total quality management implementation and competitive advantage: the role of structural control and exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 158–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drejer, A. (2001). How can we define and understand competencies and their development? Technovation, 21(3), 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dun, & Bradstreet España, S. A. (2005). Duns 50.000 Principales Empresas Españolas. Madrid: Publicaciones.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, L., & Mellor, R. (1993). Product innovation strategies and performance of Australian firms. Australian Journal of Management, 18(2), 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fai, F. M., & Von Tunzelmann, G. N. (2001). Industry-specific competencies and converging technological systems: evidence from patents. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 12(2), 141–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayolle, A., & Basso, O. (2010). Entrepreneurial spirit and corporate entrepreneurship in large companies. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 10(3), 307–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Pérez, V., Verdú-Jover, A. J., & Benitez-Amado, J. (2013). Managerial social networks and strategic flexibility: the role of strategic orientation. Personnel Review, 42(2), 134–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García Morales, V. J., Lloréns Montes, F. J., & Verdú Jover, A. J. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning in entrepreneurship. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(1–2), 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Morales, V. J., Bolívar-Ramos, M. T., & Martín-Rojas, R. (2014). Technological variables and absorptive capacity's influence on performance through corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1468–1477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girratana, M. S., & Torrisi, S. (2010). Foreign entry and survival in a knowledge-intensive market: emerging economy countries’ international linkages, technology competences, and firm experience. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1995). Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Applications (2nd Edition) ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

  • Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors’ Introduction: corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1999). Análisis Multivariante. Madrid: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis ( (6th Edition) ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson..

  • Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2013). A never ending story — Interaction patterns and economic development. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidenreich, M. (2005). The renewal of regional capabilities: Experimental regionalism in Germany. Research Policy, 34(5), 739–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hisrich, R. D., & Peters, M. P. (1984). Internal venturing in large corporations. In J. A. Hornaday et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9, 42–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Krohmer, H., & Workman, J. P. (1999). Strategic consensus and performance: the role of strategy type and market-related dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 339–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K. F. (2011). Technology competencies in competitive environment. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 172–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M., & Mortgan, R. E. (2007). Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 651–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). Does market orientation matter? A test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 899–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussinger, K. (2010). On the importance of technological relatedness: SMEs versus large acquisition targets. Technovation, 30, 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. K., Lanctot Jr., A., & Teegen, H. J. (2000). Determinants and performance impacts of external technology acquisition. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 255–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1989). Swimming in newstreams: mastering innovation dilemmas. California Management Review, 31(4), 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M., & Richardson, L. (1991). Engines of progress: designing and running entrepreneurial vehicles in established companies—the enter-prize program at Ohio bell, 1985–1990. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(3), 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazanjian, R. K., Drazin, R., & Glynn, M. A. (2000). Creativity and technological learning: the roles of organization architecture and crisis in large-scale projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17, 273–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, D. (2011). Sustainable corporate entrepreneurship: evolving and connecting with the organization. Business Horizons, 54, 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, G. A. (1997). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practice? Academy of Management Journal, 38, 787–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koufteros, X., Babbar, S., & Kaighobadi, M. (2009). A paradigm for examining second-order factor models employing structural equation modelling. International Journal of Production Economics, 120, 633–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lant, T. K., & Montgomery, D. B. (1987). Learning from strategic success and failure. Journal of Business Research, 15, 503–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, H. H., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Humphries, M. (1991). Technological innovation and the development of managerial competencies. Technovation, 11(7), 419–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., Lee, K. A., & Pennings, J. M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: a study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 615–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (1992). Strategic configurations and designs for corporate entrepreneurship: exploring the relationship between cohesiveness and performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 9, 127–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lokshin, B., Van Gils, B., & Bauer, E. (2009). Crafting firm competencies to improve innovative performance. European Management Journal, 27, 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, I. C., Block, Z., & Narasimha, P. N. S. (1984). ). Obstacles and experience in corporate ventures. In J. A. Hornaday et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Rojas, R., García-Morales, V. J., & García-Sánchez, E. (2011). The influence on corporate entrepreneurship of technological variables. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 111(7), 984–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Rojas, R., García-Morales, V. J., & Bolívar-Ramos, M. T. (2013). Influence of technological support, skills and competencies, and learning on corporate entrepreneurship in European technology firms. Technovation, 33, 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, J. E. (1991). Design principles for an innovating company. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 76–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melander, L., & Tell, F. (2014). Uncertainty in collaborative NPD: effects on the selection of technology and supplier. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 31, 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29, 770–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. Y., & Kotabe, M. (1999). Sourcing strategies of U.S. service companies: a modified transaction-cost analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 791–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muzyka, D., De Konig, A., & Churchill, N. (1995). On transformation and adaptation: Building the entrepreneurial corporation. European Management Journal, 13(4), 346–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadkami, S., & Narayanan, V. K. (2007). Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: the moderating role of industry clockspeed. Strategic Management Journal, 28(3), 243–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjoberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance in family firms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerkar, A., & Roberts, P. W. (2004). Technological and product-market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 779–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nery, F., & Ville, S. (2008). Social capital renewal and the academic performance of international students in Australia. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 1515–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieto, M. (2004). Basic propositions for the study of the technological innovation process in the firm. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 314–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosella, A., Petroni, G., & Verbano, C. (2006). Innovation development in biopharmaceutical start-up firms: an Italian case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23, 202–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olavarrieta, S., & Friedmann, R. (2008). Market orientation, knowledge-related resources and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 61, 623–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy, 26, 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paunovic, B. (2012). The role of corporate entrepreneurship in solving the competitiveness crisis of large companies. Serbian Association of Economists Journal,, 7(8), 343–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organization research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 63(3), 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Real, J. C., Leal, A., & Roldan, J. L. (2006). Information technology as a determinant of organizational learning and technological distinctive competencies. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 505–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, A. T., & Marino, L. D. (2015). Overconfidence and risk perceptions: do they really matter for venture creation decisions? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(1), 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson Jr., R. B., Logan, J. E., & Salen, M. Y. (1986). Strategic versus operational planning in small firms. American Journal of Small Business, 10, 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schollhammer, H. (1982). Internal corporate entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönsleben, P. (2000). With agility and adequate partnership strategies towards effective logistics networks. Computers in Industry, 42, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development (1st Edition) ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B. J., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline Fieldbook. New York: Doubleday Publ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z., & Heavey, C. (2011). The mediating role of knowledge-based capital for corporate entrepreneurship effects on performance: a study of small- to medium-sized firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(1), 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, P. (2008). Job analysis for a changing workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotte-kock, S., & Coviello, N. (2010). Entrepreneurship Research on Network Processes: A Review and Ways Forward. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(1), 31–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, D. T., & Conant, J. S. (1994). Entrepreneurial orientation, Distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(3), 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M., Busi, M., Ball, P., & Van der Meer, R. (2008). Factors influencing an organisations ability to manage innovation: a structured literature review and conceptual model. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(4), 655--676.

  • Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stam, W., & Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: the moderating role of intra- and extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoica, M., & Schindehutte, M. (1999). Understanding adaptation in small firms: links to culture and performance. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Rumelt, R. P., Dosi, G., & Winter, S. (1994). Understanding corporate coherence: theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 23(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thong, J. Y. L., Yap, C. S., & Raman, K. S. (1996). Top management support, external expertise and information systems implementation in small businesses. Information Systems Research, 7(2), 248–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toledano, N., Urbano, D., & Bernadich, M. (2010). Networks and corporate entrepreneurship: a comparative case study on family business in Catalonia. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(4), 396–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrisi, S. (1998). Industrial organization and innovation: an international study of the software industry. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. C. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulhoi, J. (1997). Industry and the environment: a case study of cleaner technologies in selected European countries. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14, 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., Hudson, R., & Schroeder, D. M. (1984). Designing new business startups: entrepreneurial, organizational, and ecological considerations. Journal of Management, 10, 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W., & De Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10, 551–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hemert, P., & Nijkamp, P. (2010). Knowledge investments, business R&D and innovativeness of countries: A qualitative meta-analytic comparison. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801–814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, S. T., & Linton, J. D. (2001). The competence pyramid: A framework for identifying and analyzing firm and industry competence. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(2), 165–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, S. T., & Linton, J. D. (2002). The measurement of technical competencies. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13, 63–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wan, F., Williamson, P.J., & Yin, E. (2015). Antecedents and implications of disruptive innovation: evidence from China. Technovation, 29–40, 94–104.

  • Wang, K. J., & Lestari, Y. D. (2013). Firm competencies on market entry success: evidence from a high-tech industry in an emerging market. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), 2444–2450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Lo, H. P., & Yang, Y. (2004). The constituents of core competencies and firm performance: evidence from high-technology firms in China. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(4), 249–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, J. (2010). Technology emergence through entrepreneurship across multiple industries. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yip, G. S. (1982). Barriers to entry: a corporate-strategy perspective. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: an exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Nielsen, A. P., & Bogner, W. C. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence development. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23(3), 169–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Huse, M. (2000). Entrepreneurship in medium-size companies: exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems. Journal of Management, 26(5), 947–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbeck, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Facultad de Ciencias Economicas y Empresariales, Granada University, Campus de Cartuja s.n, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Rodrigo Martín-Rojas & Virginia Fernández-Pérez

  2. Facultad de Educacion, Economia y Tecnologia de Ceuta, Granada University, C/Cortadura del Valle s/n, Campus de Ceuta, 51001, Ceuta, Spain

    Encarnación García-Sánchez

Authors
  1. Rodrigo Martín-Rojas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Virginia Fernández-Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Encarnación García-Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodrigo Martín-Rojas.

Appendix

Appendix

❖ Technological distinctive competencies

Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding whether the organization has:

  1. 1.

    Capability to obtain information about the status and the progress of science and relevant technologies and advanced technological processes.

  2. 2.

    Capability to assimilate new technologies and useful innovations.

  3. 3.

    Capability to attract and retain qualified scientific-technical staff.

  4. 4.

    Capability to dominate, generate or absorb basic and key business technologies.

❖ Organizational innovation

In the last three years, the organization has significantly increased:

  1. 2.1

    The emphasis on developing new products/services.

  2. 2.2

    The rate of new product/service introduction into the market.

  3. 2.3

    Spending on new product/service development activities.

  4. 2.4

    The number of products/services added by the organization and already existing in the market.

  5. 2.5

    The number of new products/services introduced in the market for the first time by the organization.

  6. 2.6

    Percentage of revenue generated from new businesses/services that did not exist three years ago.

❖ New business venturing

  1. 3.1

    The organization has stimulated new demands for existing products/services in currents markets through aggressive advertising and marketing.

  2. 3.2

    The organization has broadened the business lines in current industries.

  3. 3.3

    The organization has pursued new business in new industries related to its current business.

  4. 3.4

    The organization has found new niches for its products/services in current markets.

  5. 3.5

    The organization has entered new businesses by offering new lines and products/services.

❖ Proactiveness

  1. 4.1.

    In dealing with competitors, the organization is very often the first business to introduce new products/services, administrative techniques, operating technologies, etc.

  2. 4.2.

    In dealing with competitors, our organization typically adopts a very competitive, undo-the-competitors posture.

  3. 4.3.

    In general, the top managers at our firm have a strong propensity for high-risk projects (with chances of very high returns).

  4. 4.4.

    In general, the top managers at our firm believe that, owing to the nature of the environment, bold, wide-ranging actions are necessary to achieve the firm’s objectives.

  5. 4.5.

    When confronted with decision-making situations involving uncertainty, our organization typically adopts a bold, aggressive posture in order to maximize the probability of exploiting potential opportunities.

❖ Self-renewal

  1. 5.1

    The organization has revised the business concept.

  2. 5.2

    The organization has redefined the industries in which the company will compete.

  3. 5.3

    The organization has reorganized units and divisions to increase organizational innovation.

  4. 5.4

    The organization has coordinated activities among units to enhance organizational innovation.

  5. 5.5

    The organization has increased the autonomy (independence) of different units to enhance their innovation.

  6. 5.6

    The organization has adopted flexible organizational structures to increase innovation.

  7. 5.7

    The organization has rewarded employees for creativity and innovation.

  8. 5.8

    The organization has trained and encouraged employees to be creative and innovative.

❖ Organizational performance

Relative to your main competitors, what is your firm’s performance in the last three years in the following areas?

  1. 6.1

    Organizational performance measured by return on assets (economic profitability or ROA).

  2. 6.2

    Organizational performance measured by return on equity (financial profitability or ROE).

  3. 6.3

    Organizational performance measured by return on sales (percentage of profits over billing volume).

  4. 6.4

    Organization’s market share in its main products and markets.

  5. 6.5

    Growth of sales in its main products and markets.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martín-Rojas, R., Fernández-Pérez, V. & García-Sánchez, E. Encouraging organizational performance through the influence of technological distinctive competencies on components of corporate entrepreneurship. Int Entrep Manag J 13, 397–426 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0406-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0406-7

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation