Competitive Aggressiveness, Environmental Context, and Small Firm Performance

This study examined relationships between firm performance, the degree of aggressiveness a firm exhibits in its competitive orientation, and the environmental dimensions of technological sophistication and hostility. Subgroup (correlation) analysis was used to analyze data collected from 143 small manufacturing-based firms. The findings suggest that high-performing firms often exhibit an aggressive competitive orientation when faced with environmental hostility, while low-performing firms tend to be more passive when operating in hostile environments. No overall difference was observed in the correlations between competitive aggressiveness and environmental technological sophistication for the high- and low-performing subgroups. However, younger firms generally performed better when they were not highly aggressive in technologically sophisticated environments.

[1]  V. Mahajan,et al.  Profitable Small Business Strategies under Different Types of Competition , 1989 .

[2]  H. Bahrami,et al.  Strategy Making in High-Technology Firms: The Empiricist Mode , 1989 .

[3]  D. Slevin,et al.  Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments , 1989 .

[4]  M. Lambkin Order of entry and performance in new markets , 1988 .

[5]  D. B. Montgomery,et al.  First‐mover advantages , 1988 .

[6]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  Using Subjective Evaluations of Organizational Performance in Small Business Research , 1988 .

[7]  Elaine Romanelli,et al.  New Venture Strategies in the Minicomputer Industry , 1987 .

[8]  Anil K. Gupta SBU Strategies, Corporate-SBU Relations, and SBU Effectiveness in Strategy Implementation , 1987 .

[9]  Raymond W. LaForge,et al.  A Marketing Strategy Analysis of Small Retailers , 1986 .

[10]  Danny Miller,et al.  Strategy, Structure, CEO Personality and Performance in Small Firms , 1985 .

[11]  Anil K. Gupta,et al.  Business Unit Strategy, Managerial Characteristics, and Business Unit Effectiveness at Strategy Implementation , 1984 .

[12]  William E. Rothschild SURPRISE AND THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE , 1984 .

[13]  P. H. Friesen,et al.  Strategy‐making and environment: The third link , 1983 .

[14]  Ian C. MacMillan,et al.  SEIZING COMPETITIVE INITIATIVE , 1982 .

[15]  Donald C. Hambrick,et al.  Strategic awareness within top management teams , 1981 .

[16]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Task Differences as Moderators of Aptitude Test Validity in Selection: A Red Herring , 1981 .

[17]  Philip Kotler,et al.  Marketing Warfare in the 1980s , 1981 .

[18]  E. Miller Labor Productivity in Large and Small Enterprises * , 1980 .