새로운 가능성의 탐험(Exploration)과 기존 확실성의 활용(Exploitation)간 균형은 조직 학습뿐 아니라 전략, 혁신, 연구개발의 중요한 문제다. 기술의 융복합화 트렌드 속에 기업들은 지속적 경쟁 우위를 위해 기술 지식 자산을 가급적 다양하게 보유하려는 동시에 특정 분야에 깊은 기술 역량을 가지려 한다. 기업들은 기술 포트폴리오 전략 고민하지만, 기술 속성에 대한 고려는 제한적이다. 첨단 기술의 대표인 나노기술은 기존의 제품 및 사업 중심 기술과 달리 다양한 분야에 활용되는 일반목적기술 또는 플랫폼 기술 속성을 가지고 있다. 본 연구는 다국적 기업들이 플랫폼 기술로서 나노기술에 대해 탐험과 활용, 즉 다각 화와 특정 기술 우위 관점의 포트폴리오 전략이 혁신 및 재무 성과에 어떤 영향을 미치는지를 패널 데이터 기반으로 다중 회귀 분석을 하였다. 본 연구의 실증 분석결과는 기존의 제품 기술들과 달리, 플랫폼 기술로서의 나노기술은 다각화와 특정 기술 우위가 증가할수록 혁신 성과와 재무 성과에 모두 긍정적인 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 나노기술의 포트폴리오 형태, 즉 다각화와 전문성 기반의 특정 기술 우위 중에, 다각화된 나노기술 포트폴리오가 특정 기술에 우위를 갖는 경우보다 혁신 성과와 재무 성과를 향상시 키는 데 더 많은 기여를 하고 있다는 결과를 얻었다. 이는 기업들이 자원의 제약하에서 일반목적 기술의 경우 포트폴리오 전략에 어떻게 추구하는 것이 효율적인지를 시사한다.

The major paradox in research in marketing: Can the researcher construct models that capture firm heterogeneities and achieve accurate prediction of outcomes for individual cases that also are generalizable across all the cases in the sample? This study presents a way forward for solving the major paradox. The study identifies research advances in theory and analytics that contribute successfully to the primary need to fill to achieve scientific legitimacy: Configurations that include accurate description, explanation, and prediction (i.e., predicting outcomes accurately of cases in samples separate from the samples of cases used to construct models having high fit validity.) The solution here includes philosophical, theoretical, and operational shifts away from variable-based modeling and null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) to case-based modeling and somewhat precise outcome testing (SPOT). The study here provides examples of research contributing to knowledge and theory that advance prediction and control in business-to-business contexts. Shifting beyond linear model construction and symmetric tests (i.e., multiple regression analysis (MRA) and structural equation modeling (SEM)) and embracing complexity theory and asymmetric tests (i.e., constructing and testing algorithms by “computing with words,” Zadeh, (1996, 2010)) includes taking necessary steps away from examining “net effects” of variables to useful screening modeling of case configurations. Researchers embracing this shift in marketing benefit from recognizing that the current dominant logic of performing null hypothesis testing (NHST via MRA and SEM) is “corrupt research” (Hubbard, 2015) and from recognizing that predicting by algorithms via somewhat precise outcome testing (SPOT) advances business-to-business research toward achieving scientific legitimacy.

This study examines when high tech firms are better off specializing in either exploration or exploitation learning strategy. Drawing on the organizational learning literature, we hypothesize that a firm’s imbalance between exploration and exploitation (or specialization strategy) has differential impacts on firm performance depending on its structural characteristics and external environment. A survey data of 180 high tech firms in China shows that firm age and scarcity of R&D resources moderate the relationship between specialization and business performance. Moreover, specialization strategy works better when competitive intensity is low.

최근 이직을 포함한 경력개념이 빠르게 변하고 있다. 과거 이직이란 기존의 조직에서 더 이상 안정적으로 일하기 어려워서 조직을 떠나거나 또는 업무수행에 대한 부정적 평가결과로 인해 조직을 떠나야만 하는 부정적인 측면이 강했다. 그러다보니 이직에 대한 대부분의 연구는 어떻게 하면 이직률을 낮출 수 있는가에 초점을 맞추고 진행되었다. 그러나 더 이상 고용이 안정적으로 보장되지 않는 경영환경에서 하나의 평생직장을 갖는 것이 어려워짐에 따라 평생직업을 추구하는 경향이 강해지고 있다. 평생직장의 심리적 계약관계가 사실상 약화된 상황에서 직장경력은 단절되거나 재형성되기를 반복한다. 고용기회를 획득하거나 경력개발을 위한 직장이동이 잦아짐에 따라 조직 경계를 넘어 경력을 개발해 나가는 무경계 경력태도가 이직의 적극적 요인으로 부각되고 있다. 지금까지 이직관련 연구에서는 이직의 예측변수로써 조직요인이나 직무요인, 작업환경요인 및 개인특성요인들이 주로 연구되었으나, 이제는 적극적으로 직장을 이동하며 경력을 개발하는 이직 양상과 경력태도를 설명할 새로운 관점이 요구되고 있다. 본 연구는 무경계 경력태도를 경력개발전략이라는 적극적 관점에서 직장이동의 변인으로 보고, 무경계 경력태도와 직장이동의 관계를 탐색적으로 고찰하였다.

Adding new attributes is the main strategy firms use to attract consumers in many industries, but the impact of new attributes may be ambiguous, as indicated by the results of several studies (Bertini, Ofek and Ariely, 2009; Griffin and Broniarczyk, 2010; Nam, Wang and Lee, 2012; Sun, Keh and Lee, 2012; Zhang and Fitzimons, 1999; Zhang, Kardes and Cronley, 2002). The demand for innovative, upgraded, and integrated products is higher than ever before, and firms’ ability to meet this demand is tenuous in many cases. Take the example of the iPhone, where the touch pad option is the new feature that overcomes the disadvantages of a regular keypad, and where other options such as SIRI and other convenient software technologies provide good reasons to purchase or upgrade a smart phone. Although the transition from keypad to touch screen is occurring rapidly in the technology market, many consumers still opt to utilize their old phones rather than upgrading. The alignability of the attributes of the smart phone may affect their decision-making. Self-regulatory factors moderate decision-making based on alignable and non-alignable attributes. Promotion and prevention self-regulation systems managed across separate mental accounts are involved consumer information flow process in the sense that alignable attributes engender risk aversion, whereas non-alignable attributes engender risk seeking (Zhou and Pham, 2004). More cognitive effort may be required to evaluate non-alignable attributes due to the absence of inferential references inherent in the newness of features (Nam et al., 2012; Sun et al., 2012). Accordingly, if there is no significant difference in alignable attributes between products, consumers will put more weight on non-alignable attributes (Brown and Carpenter, 2000). For high-technology products, if alignable attributes satisfy consumers’ perceived utility as weighed against the cost incurred, consumers may compare non-alignable attributes in order to justify their purchases. Even if non-alignable attributes are trivial, they may be important to the final decision. Based on evaluations of the latter, consumers can justify the purchase (Brown and Carpenter, 2000). Although non-alignable attributes may seem peripheral and complementary, they may contribute to the success of a product due to their novelty, uniqueness and role in simplifying the purchase choice (Carpenter, Glazer and Nakamoto, 1994). However, if consumers perceive that non-alignable attributes fundamentally affect product quality, they may infer that its alignable attributes are relatively inferior. This thinking process may result in a negative evaluation of the product (Simonson, Nowlis and Simonson, 1993). As mentioned earlier, consumers may associate non-alignable attributes with unnecessary costs (Brown and Carpenter, 2000). In the experiment of Bertini et al. (2009), consumers preferred the MP3 player with the BOSS earphone over the one with no other option, which led to a decrease in the willingness to upgrade the product. They do not evaluate non-alignable attributes in isolation, but may use those instrumentally. In the case of high technology products, when information about non-alignable attributes becomes available, ambiguity arises from the integration of distinctive features and functionalities, which are non-alignable attributes, and moreover from the integration of non-alignable attributes with alignable attributes. Consumer beliefs and attitude resulted from the mediating role of this ambiguity are formed holistically by non-selective attention for integral stimuli (alignable and non-alignable attributes) (Nosofsky, 1986, 1987). When consumers ambiguous towards a bundle of attributes, which is nothing but the product, they are inclined to interpret it positively (Bar-Hill and Budescu, 1995; Goldsmith and Amir, 2010). Consumers are hypothesized to exhibit innate optimism, being biased towards unforeseen benefits. They are even sensitive to the specific types of non-alignable attributes: central vs. peripheral attributes. Thus, in strategizing for product marketing purposes, non-alignable attributes should be positioned as peripheral factors rather than as central factors, especially in the early stages of product introduction. Hypothesis Development Consumers make judgments about the obsolescence of the products they currently use. Various factors influence the decision to upgrade. Obsolescence is a loss in value since the launch of a product, not because the product has become less useful, but because a new product with upgraded features and designs has become available to consumers (Bayus, 1991; Chung, Han and Sohn, 2012; Levinthal and Purohit, 1989). Consumers’ expectations about improvement in the new version are based upon two types of obsolescence that influence their willingness to upgrade (pay) for the new product: technological obsolescence and psychological obsolescence. Much research has been done (Bayus, 1991; Chung et al., 2012; Levinthal and Purohit, 1989); however, consumers’ strategic decision-making has not always been clearly understood. They may not know in advance what product to choose, or they may lack information to utilize during the buying process. In addition, technological progress is so rapid and uncertain that consumers may not be able to keep up with the novelty of new technologies. They may have difficulty selecting among alternatives that will be standard later in the market. Accordingly, although they may perceive the technological obsolescence of the product, they may not replace it until they feel psychologically justified in doing so. They may not intend to replace the product only for reasons of technological obsolescence due to loss of the sunk cost incurred by its replacement (Okada, 2006). While alignable attributes are more likely to be deterministic, functional and important, non-alignable attributes are more likely to be marginal, hedonic and trivial. Accordingly, consumers may form cognitive attitudes toward alignable attributes and expectations as to how these should change to become more useful. In other words, they may develop their own ideal level (point) for each alignable attribute as they become familiar with them. Thus, consumers experience uncertainty within a range unique to each individual. They judge the feasibility of a purchase insofar as it corresponds to their own ideal points. For example, when Microsoft upgraded from MS Office 2002 to MS Office 2007, the text menu-driven UI (user interface) was changed to become ribbon menu-driven (graphic). Many users of MS Office 2002 had difficulty using the upgraded functions of MS Office 2007. Frequently used features and options in the previous version, even such as cut and paste, were suddenly not easy to use, and consumers who upgraded to the next version were puzzled at the fact that they were unable to properly use the function they got used to. Complexity may be detrimental to ease-of-use judgment with inferred learning costs. Although consumers make inferences based upon their ideal points, the uncertainty involved in this process relates to cognitive referral. Since alignable attributes are representative of prevention, these engender risk aversion for consumers. Consumers who are primed with prevention-focus may prefer not to exert effort to find out how to use features which were easy to use in the previous version just for the sake of upgrading to the new product. Accordingly, uncertainty about ease of use of alignable attributes has a negative effect on consumers’ willingness to replace a product As more information on a product’s non-alignable attributes becomes available, consumers’ ambiguity about the updated product will decrease and their likelihood of replacement will decrease (Smith and Amir, 2010; Norton, Frost and Ariely, 2007: Bar-Hillel and Budescu, 1995; Krizan and Windschitl, 2007). In addition to technological obsolescence, curiosity and self-regulation in terms of the newness and novelty of a product may motivate consumers to replace a product. Existing consumers may be very curious about new information and non-alignable attributes, making every effort to process available information (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Maheswaran and Sternthal, 1990; Nam et al., 2012; Sujan, 1985). When non-alignable attributes become available, consumers do not look at them separately from the alignable ones with which the upgraded product is already equipped; instead, they evaluate the product holistically (Bertini et al., 2009). In an identification–classification task, subjects that were able to attend selectively to the relevant dimension and filter the irrelevant one for separable stimuli were unable to do so for integral stimuli. Non-alignable attributes directly affect consumers’ willingness (likelihood) to replace a product. Therefore, a mediating role of ambiguity is evident between non-alignable attributes and consumers’ willingness to replace the product. Thus, we present the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1-1: When information on alignable attributes becomes available, consumers will be primed with prevention-focus. Hypothesis 1-2: When information on non-alignable attributes is available, consumers will be primed with promotion-focus. Hypothesis 2-1: If consumers are uncertain about the alignable attributes of a product, they will less likely purchase the updated version of the product. Hypothesis 2-2: If consumers are uncertain (ambiguous) about the non-alignable attributes of a product, they will more likely purchase the updated version of the product. Each individual tries to minimize the distance from a current state to a desired state by means of self-regulation (Higgins, Kruglanski and Pierro, 2003). The mode of self-regulation may be either locomotive or assessable. Assessment is a self-regulatory mode in which some objects and states are critically and analytically judged relative to desired means and goals in order to select the best among many alternatives (Kluglanski et al., 2000). Assessors intend to minimize the distance from the current state to the desired state by means of comparative processes to measure, construe and evaluate among alternatives (Higgins et al., 2003). Accordingly, they make cognitive efforts to compare and analyze the alternatives prior to the choice behavior. The other self-regulatory mode, locomotion, involves judging of objects and states with reference to a particular goal in the process of selecting alternatives (Kruglanski et al., 2000; Pierro et al., 2006). Because locomotors emphasize behavior and progress, they are quick to analyze the alternatives and direct in their selection. Locomotors are different from assessors, who select the best alternative via comparative processes. Locomotors try to select the best alternative realistically and heuristically to achieve their goals. They may not commit to analytical assessment of all possible problems in the process. In the process of evaluating alternatives, assessors focus on all attributes rather than on some particular attributes. They continuously try to assess both alignable and non-alignable attributes. By contrast, locomotors want to achieve a particular goal rapidly. When they perceive technological obsolescence, they may rely on information about alignable attributes because they are eager to benefit from improved features and functions. In the same vein, when they perceive psychological obsolescence, they may rely on information about non-alignable attributes because of the differences in value of these attributes from those of the existing product. Therefore, we offer the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 3: When assessors evaluate an updated product, they will put more weight on non-alignable attributes than on alignable attributes. Hypothesis 4: When locomotors evaluate an updated product, they will depend upon attribute information corresponding to the two types of obsolescence. EXPERIMENT 1 Method Experiment 1 explores consumers’ regulatory focus which would be differently primed either with alignable attributes or with nonalignable attributes (H1 and H2). And it explores consumers’ purchase intention via the amount of information (low-information vs. high-information) and regulatory modes (locomotion vs. assessment. A pretest was conducted with a separate sample (n=64) to ensure that the product profile used in the experiment matched the situation where participants perceive alignable attributes to be deterministic, functional and salient, and where they perceive nonalignable attributes to be peripheral, hedonic and novel. We picked the external HDD that participants associated with salience and newness. In the main experiment, two hundred seventy one participants read information about the external HDD and then answers on the alignable and nonalignable attributes of this product. The between-subject experimental design consists of information type (alignable vs. nonalignable attributes) x information amount (low-information vs. high-information). Results We examined that consumers will be primed with different regulatory focus (H1 and H2) upon the type of information via a gap analysis and a mediated regression analysis. The test results were that respondents exposed to the information type of alignable attributes would be primed with prevention-focus (4.60) than with promotion-focus (4.20) (t = -3.180, p < .001), and that respondents exposed to the information type of nonalignable attributes would be primed with promotion-focus (4.44) than with prevention-focus (3.99) (t = -2.746, p < .05). Next, the type of information was treated as a dummy variable, where it takes values of “0” for nonalignable attributes and of “1” for alignable attributes. Respondents’ dominant regulatory focus was set to be the value of prevention which was subtracted from the value of promotion. The primed regulatory focus fully mediates between the type of information and purchase intention (Sobel Z-score = -3.827, p < .01). That is, if consumers are exposed to the information type of alignable attributes, they will be primed with prevention-focus, which will negatively affect consumers’ purchase intention. Accordingly, Hypothesis 1-1 and 1-2 were supported. Furthermore, we examined the differential effect on purchase intention via a 2 (type of information) × 2(amount of information) between-subjects ANOVA (H1-2 and H2-2) as in Figure 2. In the case of respondents exposed to alignable attributes, the purchase intention was higher for certain information (3.75) than for uncertain information (3.20) (t = 2.077, p < .05), whereas in the case of respondents exposed to nonalignable attributes, the purchase intention was higher for uncertain information (4.48) than for certain information (3.81) (t = 2.478, p < .05). Prior knowledge and involvement on the stimulus were controlled as covariates, and respondents were divided into groups by means of the information type and the information amount. The interaction between the variables was investigated (F(1, 271) = 13.413, p < .01). Accordingly, H2-1 and 2-2 were supported. Finally, we examined the differential effect on purchase via 2 (regulatory mode) × 2 (type of information) between-subjects ANOVA (H4 and H5) as in Figure 3. Regulatory mode was dichotomized into locomotion and assessment by the median of values of assessment subtracted from those of locomotion. In the assessors’ case, a difference between the purchase intentions by means of the type of information – alignable attributes (3.60) and nonalignable attributes (3.73), was not found (t=-.533, p > .10). Hypothesis 3 was rejected. On the other hand, in the locomotors’ case, the purchase intention of respondents exposed to the information type of nonalignable attributes (4.53) would be higher than that of those exposed to the information type of alignable attributes (3.38) (t = 3.826, p < .01). Accordingly, hypothesis 4 was supported. Prior knowledge and involvement on the stimulus were controlled as covariates, respondents were divided into groups by means of regulatory mode and the information type. The interaction among purchase intention, regulartory mode and the information type (F(1,271) = 7.647, p < 0.01).

This study seeks to understand how the interplay between Market Orientation, Firm strategy and Performance is developed over time. In order to study the interplay, I build a model on industry and company evolution by adopting a Variation, Selection and Retention (VSR) analysis of a telecom company and industry 1980-2010 in Finland market. The evolution of telecom industry and a case company is manifested in innovations and strategy in a company and respectively in the basis of competition in the market. In addition, what capabilities and resources a company can use successfully when innovating and developing products and services, and how those capabilities and resources change over time are of interest. A longitudinal (1980-2010) abductive case study of a telecom company’s offerings and strategy was made. Company’s spearhead innovations, managerial cognition and strategy were studied in a longitudinal setting. The theoretical contributions of the study are to discover Market Orientation payoff is context and industry life-cycle specific. Secondly, Market Orientation has potential adverse effects on Firm Performance, and what is the most important, Market Orientation as a sole source of innovation activity has a permanent influence on company’s comparative advantage in the market.

This paper analyses the importance of innovation for 680 EU multinationals subsidiaries involved in international marketing in China, the period of 1998-2009, using unbalanced panel data analysis. To date, the literature on EU subsidiaries has failed to consider product innovation in the strategy interplay in approaching new markets overseas. Building on the resource-based view of the firm, linked with host economic and political institutions, the authors empirically examine the inferential marketing strategy in an EU-China context, by applying econometric techniques to investigate innovation capabilities and to test the presence of agglomeration effect of past innovation activities. We find that EU innovation in China is influenced by both host country institutions and firm capabilities, rendering support to the theory. Our analysis indicates EU subsidiaries’ innovation is positively related to firm advertisement, labour training and host market size. R&D expenditure has a negative bearing on innovation. However, openness has a negative and significant effect on product innovation in China. The study findings have important implications for research on international marketing, new venture decision making, and overseas innovation expansion strategies.

본 연구는 대구경북의 중소기업을 대상으로 전략유형과 성과관리시스템이 경영성과에 미치는 영향에 대한 연구를 통해 중소기업에 적합한 전략유형을 알아보고 그에 맞는 성과관리시스템의 설계를 통해 기업의 경영성과를 개선하고자 하였다. 연구결과 전략유형 중에서 기술혁신형과 생산중점형은 경영성과에 유의적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 성과관리시스템은 재무적성과와 비재무적성과에 부분적으로 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 전략유형과 성과관리시스템의 상호작용은 기술혁신형 기업의 경영성과에 유의적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 중소기업들이 전략유형에 맞는 성과관리시스템의 구축을 통해 경영성과를 향상 시킬 수 있음을 지지하고, 이를 통해 기업들은 자원의 제약과 무한 경쟁을 이겨내고 지속적인 성장을 할 수 있을 것으로 보인다.

In this paper we attempted to relate firm`s overall organizational strategy to its international strategy and to relate alternative strategies to firm performance. We argued that, although firm`s international strategy was important, it should be evaluated within its overall organizational strategy. The analyses generally supported that there were significant differences in international configuration and coordination among the three alternative overall organizational strategies. The findings suggest that the analysis of firm`s international strategy should be made within a broader framework of its organizational strategy. The analysis results also suggest that the alternative strategies would perform equally well, providing that the strategy was well implemented.

The study aims to answer why the previous studies find the positive or insignificant effect of the CEO's abilities on firm performance. Using 34,285 CEO-firm-year panel data from the U.S. publicly traded firms drawn from the BoardEx and EXECUXOMP database during from 1992 to 2014, the results show that the fit of the CEO‟s generality or specialist ability with firm strategy matters on firm performance and risk. This study computes a discrete STRATEGY composite measure to construct firm strategy types, such as Prospect or Defend and use CEOs‟ résumés to construct an index of general skills that are transferable across firms and industries. The results find that generalist CEOs are more suitable for prospectors than specialist CEOs. Firm performance is much better when specialist CEOs work for Defenders. Although the firm performance is better too for the generalist CEOs who fit for the Prospect strategy, the firm‟s risk is up too. The result suggests that firms need to consider their chosen business strategy to recruit and select CEOs Our findings provide direct evidence that the match between CEO‟s ability and the firm‟s strategy is crucial to firm performance and risk.