Does Entrepreneurial Autonomy Foster SME Growth Under Technological Turbulence? The Empirical Evidence from Indonesia
Tóm tắt
This study aims to determine the impact of technological turbulence on the relationship between autonomy, pricing capability, and firm performance. The structural equation model was proposed to investigating the complex relationship of the observed variables. Hence, this study carried out a survey that involved small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Indonesia context. The results indicate that the pricing capability provides mediating effect on the relationship between autonomy and firm performance. Under moderate technological turbulence, the firms with high autonomy level achieve high performance by enhancing pricing capability. On the other hand, the firms with strong entrepreneurial autonomy suffer under high technological turbulence. This study extends the works on the entrepreneurial behaviors by answering the question on how technological turbulence influences the initiative to promote entrepreneurial autonomy.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Banterle, A., Cavaliere, A., Carraresi, L., & Stranieri, S. (2014). Food SMEs face increasing competition in the EU market: marketing management capability is a tool for becoming a price maker. Agribusiness, 30(2), 113–131.
Block, J., Sandner, P., & Spiegel, F. (2015). How do risk attitudes differ within the group of entrepreneurs? The role of motivation and procedural utility. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 183–206.
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43–53.
Cavanagh, A., Freeman, S., Kalfadellis, P., & Herbert, K. (2017). Assigned versus assumed: towards a contemporary, detailed understanding of subsidiary autonomy. International Business Review, 26, 1168–1183.
Challagalla, G., Murtha, B., & Jaworski, B. (2014). Marketing doctrine: a principle-based approach to guiding marketing decision making in firms. Journal of Marketing, 78, 4–20.
Chen, J., Neubaum, D. O., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2015). The relationship between team autonomy and new product development performance under different levels of technological turbulence. Journal of Operations Management, 33-34, 83–96.
Dedrick, J., Gurbaxani, V., & Kraemer, K. (2003). Information technology and economic performance: a critical review of the empirical evidence. ACM Computing Survey, 35(1), 1–28.
Demir, M., McNeese, J., & Cooke, N. J. (2017). Team situation awareness within the context of human-autonomy teaming. Cognitive System Research, 46, 3–12.
Didonet, S., Simmons, G., Díaz-Villavicencio, G., & Palmer, M. (2012). Firms with capability to leverage substantial technological resources to come up innovation. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(7), 757–779.
Espedal, B. (2017). Understanding how balancing autonomy and power might occur in leading organizational change. European Management Journal, 35, 155–163.
Fowler, S. (2014). What Maslow’s hierarchy won’t tell you about motivation. Harvard Business Review, 92(11).
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A., Compeau, L., & Levy, M. (2012). Retail value-based pricing strategies: new times, new technologies, new customers. Journal of Retailing, 88(1), 1–6.
Hamilton, R., & Chernev, A. (2013). Low prices are just the beginning: price image in retail management. Journal of Marketing, 77, 11), 1–11),20.
Henssen, B., Voordeckers, W., Lambrechts, F., & Koiranen, M. (2014). The CEO autonomy–stewardship behavior relationship in family firms: the mediating role of psychological ownership. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5, 312–322.
Jaworski, B.J., & Kohli, A.K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.
Johanssen, M., Keränen, J., Hinterhuber, L., & Andersson, L. (2015). Value assessment and pricing capabilities—how to profit from value. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 14(3), 178–197.
Kakar, A. K. (2018). Engendering cohesive software development teams: should we focus on interdependence or autonomy? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 111, 1–11, 1.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610.
Llopis, O., & Foss, N. J. (2016). Understanding the climateeknowledge sharing relation: the moderating roles of intrinsic motivation and job autonomy. European Management Journal, 34, 135–144.
Lu, J. G., Brockner, J., Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2017). The dark side of experiencing job autonomy: unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 222–234.
Lumpkin, G. T., Cogliser, C. C., & Schneider, D. R. (2009). Understanding and measuring autonomy: an entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 47–69.
Mankins, M., & Garton, E. (2017). How sportify balances employee autonomy and accountability. Harvard Business Review, 95 (1).
Marquet, D. (2015). 6 myths about empowering employees. Harvard Business Review, 93.
Meyer, J., & Shankar, V. (2016). Pricing strategies for hybrid bundles: analytical model and insights. Journal of Retailing, 92, 133–146.
Morgan, N., Katsikeas, C., & Vorhies, D. (2012). Export marketing strategy implementation, export marketing capabilities, and export venture performance. Journal of the Academic Marketing Science, 40, 271–289.
Murray, J., Gao, G., & Kotabe, M. (2011). Market orientation and performance of export ventures: the process through marketing capabilities and competitive advantage. Journal of Academic Marketing Science, 39, 252–369.
Pratono, A. H. (2016). Strategic orientation and information technological turbulence: contingency perspective in SMEs. Business Process Management Journal, 22(2), 368–382.
Pratono, A. H., & Mahmood, R. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: how can micro, small and medium-sized enterprises survive environmental turbulence? Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(2), 85–91.
Rajesh, R. (2017). Technological capabilities and supply chain resilience of firms: a relational analysis using Total Interpretive Structural Modeling (TISM). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 161–169.
Ray, G., Muhanna, W. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Competing with IT: The role of shared IT-business understanding. Communication of the ACM, 50(12), 87–91.
Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: the nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 179–203.
William, C., Colovic, A., & Zhu, J. (2017). Integration-responsiveness, local hires and subsidiary performance amidst turbulence: insights from a survey of Chinese subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 52, 842–853.
Wu, L., Liu, H., & Zhang, J. (2017). Bricolage effects on new-product development speed and creativity: the moderating role of technological turbulence. Journal of Business Research, 70, 127–135.
Yeo, C. S., Venugopal, S., Chu, X., & Buyya, R. (2010). Autonomic metered pricing for a utility computing service. Future Generation Computer Systems, 26, 1368–1380.
Zhang, J., & Duan, Y. (2010) The impact of different types of market orientation on product innovation performance: Evidence from Chinese manufacturers. Management Decision, 48(6), 849–867.
Zhu, H., Xia, J., & Makino, S. (2015). How do high-technology firms create value in international M&A? Integration, autonomy, and cross-border contingencies. Journal of World Business, 50, 718–728.