Skip to main content

An empirical study on paths to develop dynamic capabilities: From the perspectives of entrepreneurial orientation and organizational learning

Abstract

Dynamic capabilities are regarded as a strategic premise to creating, maintaining and upgrading sustainable competitiveness. Considering organizational learning as a mediator variable, this study tests the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and dynamic capabilities, and identifies paths to develop dynamic capabilities and the components of these capabilities. More specifically, the factor analysis method was employed to verify that dynamic capabilities are comprised of four dimensions, i.e. environmental sensing capabilities, change and renewal capabilities, technological and organizational flexibility capabilities. It was found that dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation have a significantly positive effect on dynamic capabilities to different extents, while organizational learning, which has significantly positive effect on dynamic capabilities, plays a partial mediating role between the two. These findings indicate that companies can build dynamic capabilities through different levels of organizational learning in the context of innovative and proactive atmosphere.

References

  1. Ambrosini V, Bowman C (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1): 29–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andrews K R (1987). The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, Ill: Irwin

    Google Scholar 

  3. Argyris C, Schon D (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baker W B, Sinkula J M (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4): 411–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barclay D, Higgins C, Thompson R (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2:285–309

    Google Scholar 

  6. Belsley D A, Kuh E, Welsch R E (1980). Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York: John Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bontis N (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2): 63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bontis N, Crossan M M, Hulland J (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39(4): 435–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Burgelman R A (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process study. Management Science, 12: 1349–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Calantone R J, Cooper R G (1979). A discriminant model for identifying scenarios of industrial new product failure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 7(3): 163–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Caloghirou Y (2004). Firm-specific effects on performance: Contrasting SMEs and large-sized firms. European Management Journal, 22(2): 231–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carmines E G, Zeller R A (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cepeda G, Vera D (2007). Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: A knowledge management perspective. Journal of Business Research, 60(3): 426–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chandler A D (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chin W W (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides G A (ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

  16. Christensen C M, Raynor M E (2003). The Innovator’s Solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press

    Google Scholar 

  17. Churchill G A, Peter J P (1984). Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 21: 360–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Collis D J (1994). Research note: How valuable are organizational competence. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 143–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Covin J G, Green K M, Slevin D P (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30: 57–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Covin J G, Slevin D P (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1): 75–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Covin J G, Slevin D P (1991). Conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1): 7–25

    Google Scholar 

  22. Crossan M, Lane H W, White R E (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 522–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Crossan M, Nicolini M (2000). Organizational learning: Debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6): 783–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. D’Aveni R A (1994). Hyper-competition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Manoeuvring. New York: The Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dess G G, Ireland R D, Zahra S A, Floyd S W, Janney J J, Lane P J (2003). Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3): 351–378

    Google Scholar 

  26. Eisenhardt K M, Tabriz B N (1995). Accelerating adaptive process: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1): 84–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Eisenhardt K M, Martin M (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10): 1105–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fiol C M, Lyles M (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10:803–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fornell C, Larcker D F (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2): 39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fornell C, Cha J (1994). Partial least squares. In: Bagozzi R P (ed.), Advanced Methods of Marketing Research. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business, 52–78

    Google Scholar 

  31. Goh S, Richards G (1997). Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations. European Management Journal, 15(5): 575–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Griffith D A, Harvey M G (2001). A resource perspective of global dynamic capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 597–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hamel G, Prahalad C K (1994) Competing for the Future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press

    Google Scholar 

  34. Helfat C E, Peteraf M A (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 997–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hult G, Thomas M, Ferrell O C (1997). A global learning organization structure and market information processing. Journal of Business Research, 40: 155–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Iansiti M, Clark K B (1994). Integration and dynamic capability: Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3): 557–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jantunen A, Puumalainen K, Saarenketo S, KylÃheiko K (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, dynamic capabilities and international performance. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 3: 223–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Khandwalla P N (1977). The Design of Organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lawson B, Samson D (2001). Developing innovation capability in organizations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3): 377–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lumpkin G T, Dess G G (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 135–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lumpkin G T, Dess G G (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5): 429–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Miller D (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7): 770–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Miller D, Friesen P H (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1): 1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Morris M H, Kuratko D F (2001). Corporate Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurship Development within Organization. New York: Harcourt Press

    Google Scholar 

  46. Naman J L, Slevin D P (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 137–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nelson R R, Winter S G (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  48. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nunnally J C (1978). Psychometrics Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Company

    Google Scholar 

  50. Penrose E T (1959). The Theory of Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher

    Google Scholar 

  51. Phillips L W (1981). Assessing measurement error in key informant reports: A methodological note on organizational analysis in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(4):395–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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 

  53. Prahalad C K, Hamel G (1990). The core competencies of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 66: 79–91

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sambrook S, Roberts C (2005). Corporate entrepreneurship and organizational learning: A review of the literature and the development of a conceptual framework. Strategic Change, 14(3): 141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shimp T A, Sharma S (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(8): 280–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sinkula W, Baker E, Thonams N (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 

  57. Sirmon D G, Hitt M A (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 27(4): 339–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. SubbaNarasimha P N (2001). Strategy in trubulent environments: The role of dynamic competence. Managerial and Decision Economics, 22: 201–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Teece D J, Piano G (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industry and Corporate Change, 3: 537–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Teece D J, Piano G, Shuen A (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Teece D J (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4): 1319–1350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tsoukas H, Mylonopoulos N (2004). Organizations as Knowledge Systems: Knowledge, Learning and Dynamic Capabilities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  63. Wiklund J (1999) The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation-performance relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24: 37–48

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wiklund J, Shepherd D (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 71–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Winter S G (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 991–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zahra S A, Covin J G (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1): 43–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Zahra S A, Nielsen A P, Bogner W (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence development. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23(3): 169–190

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zahra S A, George G (2002). The net-enabled business innovation cycle and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Information Systems Research, 13(2): 147–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Zahra S A, Sapienza H J, Davidsson P (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4): 917–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Zollo M, Winter S G (1999). From organizational routines to dynamic capabilities. Working Paper of the Reginald H. Jones Center, the Wharton School University of Pennsylvania

  71. Zollo M, Winter S G (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3): 339–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Zott C (2003). Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intra-industry differential firm performance: Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2): 97–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 李 兴旺 (Li Xingwang) (2006). 动态能力理论的操作化研究: 识别、 架构与形成机制 (Dynamic Capabilities Theory: Identification, Construction and Formation Mechanism). 北京: 经济科学出版社, 52–67

    Google Scholar 

  74. 贺 小刚, 李 新春, 方 海鹰 (He Xiaogang, Li Xinchun, Fang Haiying) (2006). 动态能力的测量与功效: 基于中国经验的实证研究 (Measurement and efficiency of dynamic capabilities: An empirical study in China). 管理世界, (3): 94–103, 113

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hao Jiao.

Additional information

Translated and revised from Guanli Shijie 管理世界 (Management World), 2008, (4): 91–106

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jiao, H., Wei, J. & Cui, Y. An empirical study on paths to develop dynamic capabilities: From the perspectives of entrepreneurial orientation and organizational learning. Front. Bus. Res. China 4, 47–72 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11782-010-0003-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • entrepreneurial orientation
  • organizational learning
  • dynamic capabilities
  • mediation effect