Competence resource specialization, causal ambiguity, and the creation and decay of competitiveness: the role of marketing strategy in new product performance and shareholder value

  • Jared M. Hansen
  • Robert E. McDonald
  • Ronald K. Mitchell
Original Empirical Research


Marketing strategists should create, maintain, and arrest the decay of causally ambiguous resource competences that lead to competitiveness and thus performance. However, competence causal ambiguity, which helps create competitiveness, is also implicated in competitiveness decay. In this study we test a model of specialization-competitiveness-performance using primary and secondary data from 169 public respondents/firms, to examine the effects of negative internal barriers to replication and adaptation. These barriers develop due to resource lock-in arising from the same specialization processes that lead to the positive barriers to imitation that deter competitors. Results suggest that commitment to learning can mitigate resource lock-in problems with internal competence causal ambiguity, competence causal ambiguity among competitors appears more essential to competitiveness in more competitive markets, competitiveness positively relates to both shareholder value and new product performance, and an increased differential focus on marketing versus operations in the organization strengthens the positive bridge between organizational competitiveness and shareholder return.


Competence Organizational competitiveness Marketing strategy Resource specialization Causal ambiguity Resource lock-in Commitment to learning Tobin’s q 


  1. Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(January), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Mazvancheryl, S. K. (2004). Customer satisfaction and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 68(October), 172–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(August), 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability—rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(October), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balasubramanian, S. K., Mathur, I., & Thakur, R. (2005). The impact of high-quality firm achievements on shareholder value: focus on Malcolm Baldrige and J. D. Power and Associates awards. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(4), 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Bolton, R. (2010). Marketing and the boardroom. American Marketing Association Winter Educators Conference, New Orleans, LA, February 21 Panel Discussion.Google Scholar
  10. Chandy, R. K., Prabhu, J. C., & Antia, K. D. (2003). What will the future bring? Dominance, technology expectations, and radical innovation. Journal of Marketing, 67(July), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chin, W. W. (1998a). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling, in Modern methods for business research, G. A. Marcoulides (3e.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  12. Chin, W. W. (1998b). Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7–16.Google Scholar
  13. Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2e). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(October), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(April), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Esty, B., & Ghemawat, P. (2002). Airbus vs. Boeing in superjumbos: A case of failed preemption. Harvard Business School Strategy Working Paper Series #02-061.Google Scholar
  19. Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2008). Effect of service transition strategies on firm value. Journal of Marketing, 72(September), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fornell, C., & Larker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(August), 382–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerbing, D., & Anderson, J. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(May), 186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grewal, R., & Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: the role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65(April), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM. Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 19(2), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Kim, H. B. (2001). Entry barriers: a dull-, one-, or two-edged sword for incumbents? Unraveling the paradox from a contingency perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65(January), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen, J. M., & Mitchell, R. K. (2007). Toward competence retention: A framework for the reconciliation of organization-wide marketing. AMA Winter Marketing Educator Conference Proceedings, 126–127.Google Scholar
  26. Harmancioglu, N., Droge, C., & Calantone, R. J. (2009). Strategic fit to resources versus NPD execution proficiencies: what are their role in determining success? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 266–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.Google Scholar
  28. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), Advances in international marketing (Vol. 20, pp. 277–319). Bingley, UK: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hunt, S. D. (2000). A general theory of competition: resources, competences, productivity, economic growth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Hunt, S. D. (2012). Explaining empirically successful marketing theories: the inductive realist model, approximate truth, and market orientation. AMS Review, 2(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hunt, S. D., & Derozier, C. (2004). The normative imperatives of business and marketing strategy: grounding strategy in resource-advantage theory. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 19(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59(April), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1996). The resource-advantage theory of competition: dynamics, path dependencies, and evolutionary dimensions. Journal of Marketing, 60(October), 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1997). Resource-advantage theory: a snake swallowing its tail or a general theory of competition? Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(July), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. King, A. W. (2007). Disentangling interfirm and intrafirm causal ambiguity: a conceptual model of causal ambiguity and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 156–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. King, A. W., & Zeithaml, C. P. (2001). Competencies and firm performance: examining the causal ambiguity paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1), 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kohli, A. K. (2012). From the editor: reflections on the review process. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 1–4.Google Scholar
  42. Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krasnikov, A., & Jayachandran, S. (2008). The relative impact of marketing, research-and-development, and operations capabilities on firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(Winter), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(October), 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (1995). Path-dependence, lock-in, and history. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 11(1), 205–226.Google Scholar
  47. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lohmöller, J. B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
  49. Madhavaram, S., & Hunt, S. D. (2008). The service-dominant logic and a hierarchy of operant resources: developing masterful operant resources and implications for marketing strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Menguc, B., & Seigyoung, A. (2006). Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizating on market orientation and innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: the financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact on organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moorman, C., & Rust, R. (1999). The role of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 180–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Morgan, N. A. (2012). Marketing and business performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. The Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  59. Pelham, A. M., & Wilson, D. T. (1996). A longitudinal study of the impact of market structure, firm structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on dimensions of small-firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  65. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  66. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 90(3), 79–91.Google Scholar
  67. Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. J. (1990). Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 88–102.Google Scholar
  68. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0 (beta) ed. Hamburg, Germany:
  69. Rumelt, R. P. (1984). Toward a strategic theory of the firm. In R. Lamb (Ed.), Competitive strategic management (pp. 556–570). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren Hall.Google Scholar
  70. Ryall, M. D. (2009). Causal ambiguity, complexity, and capability-based advantage. Management Science, 55(3), 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  72. Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organizational learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W., & Noordewier, T. G. (1997). A framework for market-based organizational learning: linking values, knowledge and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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(13), 1386–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market based assets and shareholder value: a framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, K. (2001). The resource-based view and marketing: the role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 27(6), 777–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning: the key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review, 30(Spring), 63–74.Google Scholar
  80. Sterman, J. D., & Wittenberg, J. (1999). Path dependence, competition, and succession in the dynamics of scientific revolution. Organizational Science, 10(3), 322–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tobin, J. (1969). A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 1(1), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Villavonga, T. (2004). Intangible resources, Tobin’s q, and sustainability of performance differences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(2), 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6(3), 280–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.Google Scholar
  88. Wang, F., Zhang, X. P. S., & Ouyang, M. (2009). Does advertising create sustained firm value? The capitalization of brand intangible. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 130–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  91. Wixom, B. H., & Watson, H. J. (2001). An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. W. (1990). The strategy process, middle management involvement, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jared M. Hansen
    • 1
  • Robert E. McDonald
    • 2
  • Ronald K. Mitchell
    • 2
  1. 1.Belk College of BusinessUniversity of North Carolina CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.Rawls College of BusinessTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations