Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Industry turbulence is used as a control variable in the structural analysis (i.e., not as part of the conceptual model) as more fully described in the methods section.

  2. See note 1.

  3. Extant research helps a firm see how it can find new competences so it doesn’t have the rigidity problems associated with existing competences (e.g., Atuahene-Gima 2005). The present study, in a separate yet complementary thrust, shows how firms can try to retain the competitive advantage of existing competences in the presence of (often unobserved) problems associated with resource specialization. Thus, at its core, the paper adds to the stream on competence creation a different look at competence retention/renewal.

  4. After the data were collected, three independent raters classified all the reported competences. Approximately two-thirds of the reported competences were marketing focused, one-third were operations focused. We note that a split sample based on competence focus did not have a significant effect.

  5. As to the respondents who did not indicate the name of their company but filled out the questionnaire, we note that analysis of the model using the full dataset of 462 responses shows consistent results—with the exception of Tobin’s q, which could not be calculated for them.

  6. We appreciate this suggestion by one of the anonymous reviewers.

References

  • Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(January), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Mazvancheryl, S. K. (2004). Customer satisfaction and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 68(October), 172–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability—rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(October), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, R. (2010). Marketing and the boardroom. American Marketing Association Winter Educators Conference, New Orleans, LA, February 21 Panel Discussion.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Chin, W. W. (1998b). Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2e). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(October), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(April), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esty, B., & Ghemawat, P. (2002). Airbus vs. Boeing in superjumbos: A case of failed preemption. Harvard Business School Strategy Working Paper Series #02-061.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, D., & Anderson, J. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(May), 186–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM. Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 19(2), 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2000). A general theory of competition: resources, competences, productivity, economic growth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2012). Explaining empirically successful marketing theories: the inductive realist model, approximate truth, and market orientation. AMS Review, 2(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59(April), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(July), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. W., & Zeithaml, C. P. (2001). Competencies and firm performance: examining the causal ambiguity paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1), 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K. (2012). From the editor: reflections on the review process. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(Winter), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohmöller, J. B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Rust, R. (1999). The role of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 180–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A. (2012). Marketing and business performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 102–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. The Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 90(3), 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0 (beta) ed. Hamburg, Germany: SmartPLS.de.

  • 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 

  • Ryall, M. D. (2009). Causal ambiguity, complexity, and capability-based advantage. Management Science, 55(3), 389–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organizational learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning: the key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review, 30(Spring), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D., & Wittenberg, J. (1999). Path dependence, competition, and succession in the dynamics of scientific revolution. Organizational Science, 10(3), 322–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    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 

  • Tobin, J. (1969). A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 1(1), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villavonga, T. (2004). Intangible resources, Tobin’s q, and sustainability of performance differences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(2), 205–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6(3), 280–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wixom, B. H., & Watson, H. J. (2001). An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 17–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. W. (1990). The strategy process, middle management involvement, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 231–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank William Baker, Ruth Bolton, Ajay Kohli, Shelby Hunt, Adelaide King, Michael Levin, James Sinkula, James Wilcox, and the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their insights on prior versions of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Belk College of Business, University of North Carolina Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC, 28223-001, USA

    Jared M. Hansen

  2. Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, Box 42101, Lubbock, TX, 79409-2101, USA

    Robert E. McDonald & Ronald K. Mitchell

Authors
  1. Jared M. Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert E. McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronald K. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jared M. Hansen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hansen, J.M., McDonald, R.E. & Mitchell, R.K. Competence resource specialization, causal ambiguity, and the creation and decay of competitiveness: the role of marketing strategy in new product performance and shareholder value. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 41, 300–319 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0316-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0316-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation