Strategic capabilities, competitive strategy, and performance among retailers in Argentina, Peru and the United States

John A. Parnell

163 citations0/0 files storedManagement Decision

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Innovation and Knowledge Management Business Strategies and Innovation Management and Organizational Practices

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to assess the influence of strategic capabilities on the business strategy‐performance relationship among retail businesses in Argentina, Peru, and the USA. Design/methodology/approach Zahra and Covin's self‐reported scale was amended and utilized to categorize businesses along Porter's typology. Strategic capability scales were adopted from DeSarbo and associates. Self‐reporting scales to assess relative competitive and objective performance in the present study were adopted from Ramanujam and Venkatraman. A survey containing these scales was administered to 277 attendees at a retail trade show in the USA. The survey – translated into Spanish – was distributed by mail and completed by 136 retailers in Peru and 163 retailers in Argentina. Findings Links were assessed among strategic capabilities, generic business strategies, and performance in retail businesses in Argentina, Peru and the USA. Support was found for links between the focus strategy and both marketing and linking capabilities, between the differentiation strategy and technology capabilities, and between the cost leadership strategy and management capabilities. The low cost‐differentiation combination strategy was associated with high performance in strategic groups whose businesses possess strong management and technology capabilities. These findings highlight the importance of developing strategy‐specific capabilities as a foundation for superior performance. Research limitations/implications This study relied on self‐reported assessments of competitive strategy, organizational capabilities, and performance. It utilized cluster analysis, assessed only retailers, and considered only three nations. Originality/value Extant strategic group research highlights the link between group membership and firm performance. The present study reinforces previous research. In addition, the presence of organization‐specific strategic capabilities helps to explain why some businesses outperform others in the same strategic group.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 163 citations exist upstream.

References

2004Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage 1993The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource‐based view 1991The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation 1995THE IMPACT OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON TURNOVER, PRODUCTIVITY, AND CORPORATE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE.1978Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process 1994The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations 1986Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy 2003The dynamic resource‐based view: capability lifecycles

Cited by

2016Competitive strategies, innovation, and firm performance: an empirical study in a developing economy environment 2016Business strategy and firm performance: a multi-industry analysis 2020SMEs’ dynamic capabilities and value creation: the mediating role of competitive strategy 2014Do Cost Leadership Strategy and Process Innovation Influence the Performance of Malaysia Hotel Industry?2017Quality ambidexterity, competitive strategies, and financial performance

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.