|
|
|
| The Choice of Strategic Change Mode of Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises：A Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis Based on Strategy Tripod Framework |
| Bu Lingtong1,Xu Yanan2,Chen Chuanming1,Zhang Jiawei1 |
| （1.School of Business, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China；2.School of Management Science and Engineering, Chongqing 400067, China） |
|
|
|
|
Abstract A new round of scientific and technological revolution has swept the world, and the economic model and business formats have undergone comprehensive changes under the integration of digital technology and the real economy. The improvement of innovation performance by enterprises through strategic transformation is the foothold of industrial transformation, upgrading, the innovation and development of the national economy. In the real economy manufacturing is the basis for the development of all industries, and at the same time, it can continuously and stably accumulate social welfare. In the era of digital economy, digital technology and the real economy are deeply integrated, and Chinese manufacturing enterprises are faced with opportunities and challenges to achieve innovative development through strategic transformation. It is of great practical significance to explore how Chinese manufacturing enterprises achieve innovation performance through strategic change to promote high-quality economic development. #br#Strategic management scholars have been exploring strategic change for a long time, but there are still limitations in theoretical perspectives and research methods. Most of the previous studies are from a single theoretical perspective to explore the impact of environmental, organizational or managerial cognition and actions on strategic change and post-change performance, and the conclusions can’t be applied to general issues. This study draws on the strategic tripod framework to reveal the promoting and restricting effects of the institutional environment on strategic choices. In terms of research methods, most of the existing studies use regression methods to analyze the marginal net effect of antecedent variables on strategic change and corporate performance, while ignoring the combined effects of multiple factors. In fact, strategic change is a complex and dynamic process with a differential impact on organizational performance. s It will undoubtedly lead to a disconnect between theory and practice by only exploring the one-way linear relationship between variable, and cannot effectively explain and guide strategic change. The QCA research method can reveal the complex causal relationship between antecedents such as environmental, organizational and strategic choice factors and innovation performance. #br#Based on the strategy tripod framework, this paper uses the fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) method to explore the impact of the interaction of institutional condition, market condition, organizational condition and strategic changes on innovation performance, and then identify which configuration can lead to high innovation performance. This can help managers adopt a strategic transformation model that is conducive to improving the innovation performance of enterprises according to the external environment of the organization and the characteristics of organizational elements Combined with the research context and research questions, the sample data of China's A-share listed manufacturing enterprises in 2018 was selected to test the configuration of 6 conditions on the innovation performance of government efficiency, innovation and entrepreneurship activity, past performance, nature of controlling shareholders, market competition and the magnitude of strategic change. #br#The research results show that strategic change does not constitute a necessary condition for high innovation performance, and enterprises should choose strategic change modes according to the characteristics of organizational elements under different institutional contexts. Four configurations can bring high innovation performance: high-performance state-owned enterprises should implement evasive strategic changes in the environment of high government efficiency and non-high innovation and entrepreneurial activity; high-performance private enterprises should implement appropriate measures in the environment of high government efficiency and high innovation and entrepreneurial activity. In the environment of high government efficiency and high innovation and entrepreneurship activity, non-high-performance state-owned enterprises should implement shift-type strategic change; in the environment of non-high government efficiency and non-high innovation and entrepreneurship activity, non-high-performance enterprises should carry out revival-type strategic reform. #br#This study deepens the cognition of the basic laws of strategic transformation by incorporates institutional elements into the strategic transformation integration framework, Then through configuration analysis, it provides new explanations and evidences for exploring the contradictions caused by the marginal net effect of factors from a single theoretical perspective. In addition, related research in the field of innovation from the perspective of integration is expanded. Finally, it is proposed that enterprises in different regions of our country should choose the most suitable strategic change mode according to the local system environment and the characteristics of their own organizational elements.#br#
|
|
Received: 10 May 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] 李宏贵,曹迎迎,杜运周.动态制度环境下企业创新的战略反应[J].管理学报,2018,15(6):856-864.[2] 张明,蓝海林,陈伟宏,等.殊途同归不同效：战略变革前因组态及其绩效研究[J].管理世界,2020,36(9):168-186.[3] RAJAGOPALAN N,SPREITZER G M.Toward a theory of strategic change:a multi-lens perspective and integrative framework[J].Academy of Management Review,1997,22(1):48-79.[4] PENG M W,SUN S L,PINKHAM B,et al.Theinstitution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod[J].Academy of Management Perspectives,2009,23(3):63-81.[5] FISS P C.Buildingbetter causal theories:a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research[J].Academy of Management Journal,2011,54(2):393-420.[6] MINTZBERG H,WATERS J A.Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firm[J].Family Business Review,1990,3(3):285-315.[7] 陈传明,刘海建.企业战略变革的理论与研究方法述评[J].经济管理,2005,27(14):58-64.[8] 项国鹏.公司战略变革模式分析:基于知识的结构化框架[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2009,30(5):99-104.[9] MLLER J,KUNISCH S.Central perspectives and debates in strategic change research[J].International Journal of Management Reviews,2018,20(2):457-482.[10] TANG Y,LI J T,YANG H Y.What I see,what I do[J].Journal of Management,2015,41(6):1698-1723.[11] MEYER J W,ROWAN B.Institutionalizedorganizations:formal structure as myth and ceremony[J].American Journal of Sociology,1977,83(2):340-363.[12] NORTH D C.Institutions,institutional change and economic performance[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.[13] KUILMAN J G,LI J T.Grades of membership and legitimacy spillovers:foreign banks in Shanghai,1847-1935[J].Academy of Management Journal,2009,52(2):229-245.[14] LAZZARINI S G.Strategizing by the government:can industrial policy create firm-level competitive advantage[J].Strategic Management Journal,2015,36(1):97-112.[15] RAMASWAMY K.Organizational ownership,competitive intensity,and firm performance:an empirical study of the Indian manufacturing sector[J].Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(10):989-998.[16] PENG M W,WANG D Y L,JIANG Y.An institution-based view of international business strategy:a focus on emerging economies[J].Journal of International Business Studies,2008,39(5):920-936.[17] CHOI S B,LEE S H,WILLIAMS C.Ownership and firm innovation in a transition economy:evidence from China[J].Research Policy,2011,40(3):441-452.[18] SCHUMPETER J A.Capitalism,socialism and democracy[M].New York:Routledge,2013.[19] ARROW K.Economicwelfare and the allocation of resources for invention[M]//The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors. Princeton University Press, 1962: 609-626.[20] 杨若愚.市场竞争、政府行为与区域创新绩效——基于中国省级面板数据的实证研究[J].科研管理,2016,37(12):73-81.[21] ALDRICHH E, RUEF.Organizations evolving [M].London:Sage, 2006.[22] HOFER C, SCHENDEL D.Strategy formulation: analytical concepts [M].MN: West Publishing Company, 1978.[23] CARPENTER M A.Theprice of change:the role of ceo compensation in strategic variation and deviation from industry strategy norms[J].Journal of Management,2000,26(6):1179-1198.[24] 杨艳,陈贻杰,陈收.战略变革对企业绩效的影响:基于货币政策的调节作用[J].管理评论,2015,27(1):66-75.[25] 刘鑫,薛有志.CEO继任、业绩偏离度和公司研发投入:基于战略变革方向的视角[J].南开管理评论,2015,18(3):34-47.[26] TANG JY,CROSSAN M,ROWE W G.Dominant CEO,deviant strategy,and extreme performance:the moderating role of a powerful board[J].Journal of Management Studies,2011,48(7):1479-1503.[27] 叶康涛,张姗姗,张艺馨.企业战略差异与会计信息的价值相关性[J].会计研究,2014(5):44-51,94.[28] FISS P C.Building better causal theories:a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research[J].Academy of Management Journal,2011,54(2):393-420.[29] VIDALE,MITCHELL W.Virtuous or vicious cycles? the role of divestitures as a complementary penrose effect within resource-based theory[J].Strategic Management Journal,2018,39(1):131-154.[30] GRECKHAMERT.CEO compensation in relation to worker compensation across countries:the configurational impact of country-level institutions[J].Strategic Management Journal,2016,37(4):793-815.[31] DELMAS M A,PEKOVIC S.Organizationalconfigurations for sustainability and employee productivity:a qualitative comparative analysis approach[J].Business & Society,2018,57(1):216-251.[32] WAGEMANNC Q.Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences：a guide to qualitative comparative analysis[M].Cambrige：Cambrige University Press,2012.[33] 蔡贵龙,郑国坚,马新啸,等.国有企业的政府放权意愿与混合所有制改革[J].经济研究,2018,53(9):99-115.[34] 黄玖立,李坤望.吃喝、腐败与企业订单[J].经济研究,2013,48(6):71-84. |
|
|
|
