KOREASCHOLAR

International business ventures are able to survive and succeed in today’s turbulent global market only by developing dynamic capabilities. The dynamic capabilities paradigm proposes for multinationals to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competencies as well as tangible (e.g. financial) and intangible (e.g. reputational) resources to face environmental volatility (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997; Morgan, Katsikeas & Vorhies, 2012; Leonidou et al., 2015). However, dynamic capability development needs the organizational “capacity to extract economic benefits from current resources and to develop new capabilities” (Luo, 2000). Here the scholars do not offer a unified view. Capacity for dynamic capability is most often linked to knowledge exploitation / innovation capability (e.g. Monferrer et al., 2015), competitor knowledge utilization (e.g. Luo, 2000), or knowledge- sourcing, generative and integrative capabilities (e.g. Michailova & Zhan, 2015). When speaking about global dynamic capabilities, Lawson and Samson (2001) proposed 7-factor model, Chen and Law (2009) 6-factor model, and Leonidou et al. (2015) 5-factor model. New dynamic capabilities were born, e.g. networking capability (Mitrega et al., 2012), international marketing capability (Morgan, Katsikeas & Vorhies, 2012), etc. In spite of various views, scholars agree that dynamic capabilities generate new forms of competitive advantage (Teece, 2014; Leonidou et al., 2015) and offer strategic value to the firm (Morgan, Katsikeas & Vorhies, 2012). Thus, the advancement of the knowledge in this area will significantly contribute to better performance of export ventures in the future. This study addresses the equivocal results of international (business relationship) marketing and international business scholars and closes the gap between the two domains by proposing a structured framework towards global dynamic capabilities understanding. We build on two dynamic capability models (see Table 1): (1) antecedents-processes-outcomes model proposed by Eriksson (2014); and (2) strategy, structure and environment model proposed by Wilden et al. (2013). First, following Fang and Zou (2009) we believe that the magnitude and complementarity of resources deployed to create dynamic capabilities will differ depending on the antecedents or outcomes phases compared to dynamic capabilities creation process. Second, following Wilden et al. (2013) we claim that dynamic capabilities need to be aligned with organizational structure, environmental (competitive) intensity and multinational firm’s strategy to have a positive effect on export performance. In essence, the objective of this study is to offer an extensive literature review and answer the question, which are the key components of the future global dynamic capabilities model. At the end, this multidisciplinary study offers the directions for future research in the dynamic capabilities area. We suspect future studies will focus on the comparison between developed and emerging markets (Khalid & Larimo, 2012), as the level of turbulence in these markets differs leading to unique conditions for multinationals’ dynamic capabilities development. Furthermore, the comparison between headquarters’ and subsidiaries’ dynamic response to cultural, psychic and economic differences (Leonidou et al., 2015) might reveal other factors that equally importantly impact the export marketing strategy implementation effectiveness (Morgan, Katsikeas & Vorhies, 2012). Finally, we may expect more multidisciplinary studies in the future (Teece, 2014), particularly in the overlapping dynamic fields of (international) management, (business relationship) marketing, and humanistic studies.

• Gregor Pfajfar(University of Ljubljana, Slovenia)
• Maciej Mitręga(University of Economics in Katowice, Poland)