Advertisement

The effects of strategic alignment and competitive priorities on operational performance: The role of cultural context

  • Jie G. McCardleEmail author
  • Mary Beth Rousseau
  • Dennis Krumwiede
Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

National culture could enhance or diminish the effectiveness of operational strategies and practices. In this study, we compare the effects of strategic alignment and competitive priorities on operational exploitation and exploration, across three cultural clusters. Our results show that the cultural characteristics of low power distance and high individualism enhance the efficacy of competitive priorities aimed at explorative performance outcomes, and cultures characterized by high power distance and low individualism strengthen the link between strategic alignment and exploitative performance. These findings suggest that different cultural characteristics can have significant impacts on the effectiveness of firm strategies at the local level. A practical implication of our study is that managers need to develop cultural literacy based on their facility locations.

Keywords

Strategic alignment Competitive priorities Cross-culture Power distance Individualism/collectivism Operational performance 

Notes

References

  1. Adler PS, Benner M, Brunner DJ, MacDuffie JP, Osono E, Staats BR, Takeuchi H, Tushman M, Winter SG (2009) Perspectives on the productivity dilemma. J Oper Manag 27:99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad S, Schroeder RG (2002) Dimensions of competitive priorities: Are they clear, communicated, and consistent? J Appl Bus Res 18:77–86Google Scholar
  3. Anand G, Ward PT (2004) Fit, flexibility and performance in manufacturing: coping with dynamic environments. Prod Oper Manag 13:369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103:411–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashkanasy NM, Trevor-Roberts E, Earnshaw L (2002) The Anglo cluster: legacy of the British empire. J World Bus 37:28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakacsi G, Sandor T, Andras K, Viktor I (2002) Eastern European cluster: tradition and transition. J World Bus 37:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28:238–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyer KK, Lewis MW (2002) Competitive priorities: Investigating the need for trade-offs in operations strategy. Prod Oper Manag 11:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyer KK, McDermott C (1999) Strategic consensus in operations strategy. J Oper Manag 17:289–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne BM (2016) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins RS, Cordon C, Julien D (1998) An empirical test of the rigid flexibility model. J Oper Manag 16:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corbett C, Van Wassenhove L (1993) Trade-offs? What trade-offs? Competence and competitiveness in manufacturing strategy. Calif Manag Review 35:107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferdows K, De Meyer A (1990) Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: in search of a new theory. J Oper Manag 9:168–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flynn BB, Flynn EJ (2004) An exploratory study of the nature of cumulative capabilities. J Oper Manag 22:439–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res 18:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, Atinc Y, Babin BJ (2016) Common methods variance detection in business research. J Bus Res 69:3192–3198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes AF (2009) Beyond baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Comm mono 76:408–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes RH, Pisano GP (1996) Manufacturing strategy: At the intersection of two paradigm shifts. Prod Oper Manag 5:25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofstede G (2003) Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. SageGoogle Scholar
  20. House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M, Dorfman PW, Gupta V (2004) Culture, leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies. SageGoogle Scholar
  21. Joshi MP, Kathuria R, Porth SJ (2003) Alignment of strategic priorities and performance: an integration of operations and strategic management perspectives. J Oper Manag 21:353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ketokivi M, Schroeder R (2004) Manufacturing practices, strategic fit and performance: a routine-based view. Int J Oper Prod Manag 24:171–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim YH, Sting FJ, Loch CH (2014) Top-down, bottom-up, or both? Toward an integrative perspective on operations strategy formation. J Oper Manag 32:462–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kortmann S, Gelhard C, Zimmermann C, Piller FT (2014) Linking strategic flexibility and operational efficiency: the mediating role of ambidextrous operational capabilities. J Oper Manag 32:475–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kull TJ, Wacker JG (2010) Quality management effectiveness in Asia: the influence of culture. J Oper Manag 28:223–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kull TJ, Yan T, Liu Z, Wacker JG (2014) The moderation of lean manufacturing effectiveness by dimensions of national culture: testing practice-culture congruence hypotheses. Int J Prod Econ 153:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mom TJ, Van Den Bosch FA, Volberda HW (2007) Investigating managers' exploration and exploitation activities: the influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. J Manag Stud 44:910–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Noble MA (1997) Manufacturing competitive priorities and productivity: an empirical study. Int J Oper Prod Manag 17:85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Leary-Kelly SW, Vokurka RJ (1998) The empirical assessment of construct validity. J Oper Manag 16:387–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future. Acad Manage Perspec 27:324–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pagell M, Katz JP, Sheu C (2005) The importance of national culture in operations management research. Int J Oper Prod Manag 25:371–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patel PC, Terjesen S, Li D (2012) Enhancing effects of manufacturing flexibility through operational absorptive capacity and operational ambidexterity. J Oper Manag 30:201–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paulraj A, Lado AA, Chen IJ (2008) Inter-organizational communication as a relational competency: antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer–supplier relationships. J Oper Manag 26:45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peng DX, Schroeder RG, Shah R (2008) Linking routines to operations capabilities: a new perspective. J Oper Manag 26:730–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peng DX, Schroeder RG, Shah R (2011) Competitive priorities, plant improvement and innovation capabilities, and operational performance: a test of two forms of fit. Int J Oper Prod Manag 31:484–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Power D, Schoenherr T, Samson D (2010) The cultural characteristic of individualism/collectivism: a comparative study of implications for investment in operations between emerging Asian and industrialized Western countries. J Oper Manag 28:206–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Power D, Schoenherr T, Samson D (2011) Assessing the effectiveness of quality management in a global context. IEEE T Eng Man 58:307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Power D, Klassen R, Kull TJ, Simpson D (2015) Competitive goals and plant investment in environment and safety practices: moderating effect of national culture. Decis Sci 46:63–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 40:879–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ralston DA, Holt DH, Terpstra RH, Kai-Cheng Y (2008) The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. J Int Bus Stud 39:8–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosenzweig ED, Easton GS (2010) Tradeoffs in manufacturing? A meta-analysis and critique of the literature. Prod Oper Manag 19:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rungtusanatham M, Miller J, Boyer KK (2014) Theorizing, testing, and concluding for mediation in SCM research: tutorial and procedural recommendations. J Oper Manag 32:99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schoenherr T, Power D, Narasimhan R, Samson D (2012) Competitive capabilities among manufacturing plants in developing, emerging, and industrialized countries: a comparative analysis. Decis Sci 43:37–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Skinner W (1974) The focused factory. Harvard Bus Rev 52:114–121Google Scholar
  47. Sousa R, Voss CA (2008) Contingency research in operations management practices. J Oper Manag 26:697–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Swink M, Narasimhan R, Kim SW (2005) Manufacturing practices and strategy integration: effects on cost efficiency, flexibility, and market-based performance. Decis Sci 36:427–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Assen MF (2018) The moderating effect of management behavior for lean and process improvement. Oper Manag Res 11:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Venkatraman N, Henderson JC, Oldach S (1993) Continuous strategic alignment: exploiting information technology capabilities for competitive success. Eur Manage J 11:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ward PT, Duray R, Leong GK, Sum C-C (1995) Business environment, operations strategy, and performance: an empirical study of Singapore manufacturers. J Oper Manag 13:99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ward PT, McCreery JK, Ritzman LP, Sharma D (1998) Competitive priorities in operations management. Decis Sci 29:1035–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whybark C, Wacker J, Sheu C (2009) The evolution of an international academic manufacturing survey. Decis Line 40:17–19Google Scholar
  54. Wiengarten F, Fynes B, Pagell M, de Búrca S (2011) Exploring the impact of national culture on investments in manufacturing practices and performance: an empirical multi-country study. Int J Oper Prod Manag 31:554–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wiengarten F, Pagell M, Ahmed MU, Gimenez C (2014) Do a country's logistical capabilities moderate the external integration performance relationship? J Oper Manag 32:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. World Bank Group (2014) World development indicators 2014. World Bank PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  57. Yayla-Kullu HM, Tansitpong P, Gnanlet A, McDermott CM, Durgee JF (2015) Impact of national culture on airline operations. Oper Manag Res 8:101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhao X, Lynch JG Jr, Chen Q (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. J Consum Res 37:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Parker College of BusinessGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboroUSA
  2. 2.Langdale College of Business AdministrationValdosta State UniversityValdostaUSA
  3. 3.College of BusinessIdaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA

Personalised recommendations