The complementarity of strategic orientations: A meta‐analytic synthesis and theory extension

• Author: Artur Baldauf,Simone A. Schweiger,Tatiana R. Stettler,César Zamudio
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3042
• Published date: 01 November 2019
• Date: 01 November 2019

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The complementarity of strategic orientations:

A meta-analytic synthesis and theory extension

Simone A. Schweiger

1

| Tatiana R. Stettler

2

| Artur Baldauf

1

|

César Zamudio

3

1

Department of Management, University of

Bern, Bern, Switzerland

2

Department of Management and

Entrepreneurship, Kent State University,

Kent, Ohio

3

Department of Marketing, Virginia

Commonwealth University, Richmond,

Virginia

Correspondence

Simone A. Schweiger, Department of

Management, University of Bern,

Engehaldenstrasse 4, 3012 Bern,

Switzerland.

Email: simone.schweiger@imu.unibe.ch

Abstract

Research Summary:A firm's strategic orientation has

long been of interest in management and strategy research.

In particular, entrepreneurial, market, and learning orienta-

tions have received thorough theoretical and empirical

research attention. In this meta-analysis, we compare the

direct and combined performance effects of these orienta-

tions, explore their interrelatedness, and provide a theoreti-

cal foundation for complementarity between the three.

Building on prior empirical findings from 210 samples

and using structural equation modeling and seemingly

unrelated regression techniques, we extend the knowledge

base on strategic orientations. Our results provide evi-

dence for interrelatedness and complementarity among

strategic orientations, indicating that superior firm perfor-

mance emerges from its capability to align entrepreneurial,

market, and learning orientations.

Managerial Summary:Managers might be tempted to

divide rather than combine their attention on various

aspects of strategy, such as entrepreneurial, market, and

learning orientations. Similarly, organizational culture

might inhibit or promote collaboration between distinct

organizational functions. We synthesize a vast body of

research on firm-level strategy making and reveal that

while each strategic orientation is beneficial on its own,

together, the three strategic orientations create synergies

that surpass the effects of individual strategic orientations.

Therefore, to achieve superior performance, firms need to

Received: 22 October 2013 Revised: 18 March 2019 Accepted: 25 March 2019 Published on: 22 May 2019

DOI: 10.1002/smj.3042

1822 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat Mgmt J. 2019;40:1822–1851.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/smj

align their strategy making efforts to (a) monitoring

changes in customer needs and competitor moves, (b)

engaging in creative processes, and (c) assimilating the

extensive knowledge gained from these activities.

KEYWORDS

complementarity, firm performance, meta-analytic structural equation

modeling, seemingly unrelated regression, strategic orientations

1|INTRODUCTION

Following the seminal study by Venkatraman (1989), researchers have undertaken immense efforts

to elaborate conceptually on the elements of the strategy construct. Over the past four decades, sev-

eral strategic orientations (SOs) have been suggested, yet entrepreneurial (EO), market (MO), and

learning (LO) orientations still draw most theoretical and empirical attention (e.g., Hakala, 2011).

While EO reflects the degree of a firm's entrepreneurial activity (Covin & Wales, 2012), MO refers

to the orientation toward the expressed and latent needs of customers (Narver & Slater, 1990), and

LO implies a firm's capability to create, acquire, and use knowledge (Calantone, Cavusgil, &

Zhao, 2002).

The extant literature suggests that these strategic modes create a higher-order construct termed

“strategic orientation”(e.g., Mu & Di Benedetto, 2011; Zhou, Yim, & Tse, 2005), “positional advan-

tage”(Hult & Ketchen, 2001; Lonial & Carter, 2015), “culture of competitiveness”(Hult, Ketchen, &

Nichols, 2002) or “proactive learning culture”(Gnizy, Baker, & Grinstein, 2014; Wales, Beliaeva,

Shirokova, Stettler, & Gupta, 2018). Considering several strategic modes simultaneously has “the

potential for fewer blind spots,”whereas a single-mode orientation “may suffer from limitations and

biases”(Hart, 1992, p. 345). Most studies on the combinations of SOs reveal that they are highly

interrelated yet distinct, both conceptually and empirically (Baker & Sinkula, 2009). Acknowledging

high levels of interrelatedness between them, researchers (e.g., Hakala, 2011) have characterized SOs

as complementary, meaning that these strategic modes make each other complete.

We hold that EO, MO, and LO are complementary in the sense that their combination has a

super-additive performance effect (Tanriverdi & Venkatraman, 2005). In line with this perspective,

firms need to align their capabilities to (a) bring new products to the market, (b) actively monitor

changes in consumer demand and competitor moves, and (c) engage in new practices and the discard

old ways to achieve superior performance. While the resource-based view (RBV) (Barney, 1991)

predicts the positive performance effects of market, entrepreneurial, or learning orientations, it does

not explain why their combination should result in an even superior performance outcome. To

address this limitation, we integrate the insights from the RBV extended with the resource orchestra-

tion framework (Barney, Ketchen, & Wright, 2011; Sirmon, Hitt, Ireland, & Gilbert, 2011). We test

this view on complementarity in a meta-analytical setting. Prior meta-analyses focused on the sepa-

rate effects of entrepreneurial (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009), market (Kirca,

Jayachandran, & Bearden, 2005), and learning orientations (Keith & Stephen, 2006), or on the inter-

relationships between SOs (Grinstein, 2008), leaving performance effects of their combinations

unsynthesized.

SCHWEIGER ET AL.1823