Abstract
Purpose
– Research in strategic management has provided a wealth of contributions to the study of competition between firms, yet most strategic management theories were developed and refined for large firm contexts. This suggests the assumed theoretical relationships between strategy preference and performance may break down in the small business setting.
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper uses a data set from the National Federation of Independent Businesses to test hypotheses relating the strategy preferences of 754 small firms with the performance outcomes of survival and expected growth.
Findings
– Small businesses can focus on both survival and growth when they pursue competency-based strategies, but they risk their very survival when pursuing flexibility-based strategies. Virtually all small firms pursue strategies to compete, but some of the strategies they follow to pursue growth endanger their survival.
Research limitations/implications
– Because of life-cycle and resource endowment factors, researchers should carefully parse differences between large and small firms when studying the relationship between strategy preferences and organizational performance.
Practical implications
– Small business owners should be aware that their choices of strategies to pursue growth may lead to unintended consequences, such as the demise of their firms.
Originality/value
– The paper demonstrates to researchers and practitioners how strategic preferences that presumably allow larger firms both to survive and grow do not have the same effects for smaller firms. The paper establishes boundary conditions for the effectiveness of flexibility strategies on performance in terms of firm size.
Subject
Strategy and Management,Business and International Management
Reference109 articles.
1. Acs, Z.J.
and
Audretsch, D.B.
(1989), “Small-firm entry in US manufacturing”, Economica, Vol. 56 No. 222, pp. 255-265.
2. Adner, R.
and
Helfat, C.E.
(2003), “Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1011-1025.
3. Aldrich, H.E.
and
Auster, E.R.
(1986), “Even dwarfs started small: liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 165-198.
4. Alvarez, S.
and
Busenitz, L.
(2001), “The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 755-775.
5. Anderson, C.
and
Zeithaml, C.A.
(1984), “Stage of product life cycle, business strategy, and business performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 5-24.
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献