Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Operations Management Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 27:99–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad S, Schroeder RG (2002) Dimensions of competitive priorities: Are they clear, communicated, and consistent? J Appl Bus Res 18:77–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand G, Ward PT (2004) Fit, flexibility and performance in manufacturing: coping with dynamic environments. Prod Oper Manag 13:369–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103:411–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashkanasy NM, Trevor-Roberts E, Earnshaw L (2002) The Anglo cluster: legacy of the British empire. J World Bus 37:28–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakacsi G, Sandor T, Andras K, Viktor I (2002) Eastern European cluster: tradition and transition. J World Bus 37:69–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28:238–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer KK, Lewis MW (2002) Competitive priorities: Investigating the need for trade-offs in operations strategy. Prod Oper Manag 11:9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer KK, McDermott C (1999) Strategic consensus in operations strategy. J Oper Manag 17:289–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne BM (2016) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins RS, Cordon C, Julien D (1998) An empirical test of the rigid flexibility model. J Oper Manag 16:133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett C, Van Wassenhove L (1993) Trade-offs? What trade-offs? Competence and competitiveness in manufacturing strategy. Calif Manag Review 35:107–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferdows K, De Meyer A (1990) Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: in search of a new theory. J Oper Manag 9:168–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn BB, Flynn EJ (2004) An exploratory study of the nature of cumulative capabilities. J Oper Manag 22:439–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res 18:39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, Atinc Y, Babin BJ (2016) Common methods variance detection in business research. J Bus Res 69:3192–3198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes AF (2009) Beyond baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Comm mono 76:408–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes RH, Pisano GP (1996) Manufacturing strategy: At the intersection of two paradigm shifts. Prod Oper Manag 5:25–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede G (2003) Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage

  • House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M, Dorfman PW, Gupta V (2004) Culture, leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage

  • Joshi MP, Kathuria R, Porth SJ (2003) Alignment of strategic priorities and performance: an integration of operations and strategic management perspectives. J Oper Manag 21:353–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketokivi M, Schroeder R (2004) Manufacturing practices, strategic fit and performance: a routine-based view. Int J Oper Prod Manag 24:171–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim YH, Sting FJ, Loch CH (2014) Top-down, bottom-up, or both? Toward an integrative perspective on operations strategy formation. J Oper Manag 32:462–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 32:475–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull TJ, Wacker JG (2010) Quality management effectiveness in Asia: the influence of culture. J Oper Manag 28:223–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 153:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 44:910–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble MA (1997) Manufacturing competitive priorities and productivity: an empirical study. Int J Oper Prod Manag 17:85–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary-Kelly SW, Vokurka RJ (1998) The empirical assessment of construct validity. J Oper Manag 16:387–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future. Acad Manage Perspec 27:324–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagell M, Katz JP, Sheu C (2005) The importance of national culture in operations management research. Int J Oper Prod Manag 25:371–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel PC, Terjesen S, Li D (2012) Enhancing effects of manufacturing flexibility through operational absorptive capacity and operational ambidexterity. J Oper Manag 30:201–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:45–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng DX, Schroeder RG, Shah R (2008) Linking routines to operations capabilities: a new perspective. J Oper Manag 26:730–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 31:484–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 88:879–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 28:206–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power D, Schoenherr T, Samson D (2011) Assessing the effectiveness of quality management in a global context. IEEE T Eng Man 58:307–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 46:63–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 40:879–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 39:8–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ED, Easton GS (2010) Tradeoffs in manufacturing? A meta-analysis and critique of the literature. Prod Oper Manag 19:127–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rungtusanatham M, Miller J, Boyer KK (2014) Theorizing, testing, and concluding for mediation in SCM research: tutorial and procedural recommendations. J Oper Manag 32:99–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 43:37–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner W (1974) The focused factory. Harvard Bus Rev 52:114–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa R, Voss CA (2008) Contingency research in operations management practices. J Oper Manag 26:697–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swink M, Narasimhan R, Kim SW (2005) Manufacturing practices and strategy integration: effects on cost efficiency, flexibility, and market-based performance. Decis Sci 36:427–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Assen MF (2018) The moderating effect of management behavior for lean and process improvement. Oper Manag Res 11:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman N, Henderson JC, Oldach S (1993) Continuous strategic alignment: exploiting information technology capabilities for competitive success. Eur Manage J 11:139–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:99–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward PT, McCreery JK, Ritzman LP, Sharma D (1998) Competitive priorities in operations management. Decis Sci 29:1035–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whybark C, Wacker J, Sheu C (2009) The evolution of an international academic manufacturing survey. Decis Line 40:17–19

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 31:554–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiengarten F, Pagell M, Ahmed MU, Gimenez C (2014) Do a country's logistical capabilities moderate the external integration performance relationship? J Oper Manag 32:51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank Group (2014) World development indicators 2014. World Bank Publications

  • Yayla-Kullu HM, Tansitpong P, Gnanlet A, McDermott CM, Durgee JF (2015) Impact of national culture on airline operations. Oper Manag Res 8:101–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao X, Lynch JG Jr, Chen Q (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. J Consum Res 37:197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Parker College of Business, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, 30458, USA

    Jie G. McCardle

  2. Langdale College of Business Administration, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, 31698, USA

    Mary Beth Rousseau

  3. College of Business, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, 83209, USA

    Dennis Krumwiede

Authors
  1. Jie G. McCardle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary Beth Rousseau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dennis Krumwiede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jie G. McCardle.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Survey instrument

1.1 Competitive Priority (CP)

Please indicate the importance given to each of the following competitive goals by senior management (total number should be 100%)

  • CP1: Cost

  • CP2: Quality (Conformance to specifications)

  • CP3: Delivery timeliness

  • CP4: Flexibility (e.g., product variety/volume)b

  • CP5: New product or process design/innovation

  • CP6: Environment/safety

1.2 Strategic Alignment (SA)

Please indicate your level of agreement with these statements on strategic alignment.

(1 = not at all, 7 = great extent)

  • SA1: Manufacturing strategy is aligned with corporate strategy

  • SA2: Manufacturing has clearly defined strategic objectives

  • SA3: Manufacturing strategy leverages existing capabilities

  • SA4: Manufacturing strategy is clearly communicated to all staff

  • SA5: Manufacturing strategy is frequently reviewed and revised

1.3 Plant Performance

Please indicate your plant’s performance compared to your major competitor(s)?

(1 = far better, 7 = far worse)

1.3.1 Cost (C)

  • C1: Labor unit costs

  • C2: Total product unit costs

  • C3: Raw material unit costs

1.3.2 Quality (Q)

  • Q1: Product performance

  • Q2: Product conformance to customer specifications

1.3.3 Delivery (D)

  • D1: Delivery speed

  • D2: Delivery reliability

  • D3: Response to changes in delivery due dates

1.3.4 Innovation (I)

  • I1: Number of new products introduced each year

  • I2: Lead time to introduce new products

  • I3: Lead time to implement new or change existing processes

1.3.5 Environment and Safety (ES)

  • ES1: Lost time accidents

  • ES2: Consumption of scarce resources

  • ES3: Discharge of hazardous materials

1.4 Plant size

  • Approximately how many employees work at the plant in total?

1.5 International Ownership

  • What percentage of plant ownership is international?

Appendix 2

Table 5 Test for the validity of flexibility: Comparison of factor loadings and model fit
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McCardle, J.G., Rousseau, M.B. & Krumwiede, D. The effects of strategic alignment and competitive priorities on operational performance: The role of cultural context. Oper Manag Res 12, 4–18 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-019-00139-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-019-00139-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation