هنگام تاثیر متقابل بازاریابی و نوآوری: مطالعه موردی شرکت های جهانی When marketing and innovation interact: The case of born-global firms

Globalization has grown significantly since the mid-twentieth century, leading to the growing interconnectedness of markets. These changes have resulted in intensified competition leading firms in general and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular to devote more attention to their competitiveness (Carvalho & Costa, 2014) as means of achieving international success (Sok & O’Cass, 2011). The role of innovativeness as a facilitator of firms’ competitiveness (Augusto & Coelho, 2009; Dibrell, Craig, & Neubaum, 2014), as well as of performance (Gebauer, Gustafsson, & Witell, 2011; Hult, Hurley, & Knight, 2004; Rhee, Park & Lee, 2010; Rubera and Kirca, 2012), has long been established. In line with the growing recognition of the role of innovativeness in firms’ success, substantial research attention has been given to the drivers of innovativeness in various types of industries, economies and firms (Hult et al., 2004; Kyrgidou & Spyropoulou, 2013; Radas & Boži
c, 2009; Rhee et al., 2010). When it comes to smaller firms, however, most research has focused on SMEs in general, neglecting to acknowledge a growing subcategory of SMEs known as born-global firms (BGs), which include small, niche-targeted, technology-oriented firms. BGs are considered entrepreneurial by nature and international by orientation. It is reported that in industrial countries they are responsible for a large portion of export growth (Cavusgil & Knight, 2015). Due to the central role of innovativeness in the international arena in general (Dai, Maksimov, Gilbert, & Fernhaber, 2014) and in BGs’ formation in particular (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004), the gap in research regarding the antecedents of innovativeness for BGs calls for further investigation (Cannone & Ughetto, 2014; Kim, Basu, Naidu, & Cavusgil, 2011; Knight & Cavusgil, 2004). Innovativeness in general has been defined as “a firm’s openness to new ideas and new ways of meeting customers’ needs” (Kim et al., 2011, p. 881). Innovativeness has been noted as crucial to the survival of BGs, either from the organizational culture perspective (Freeman & Cavusgil, 2007; Knight & Cavusgil, 2004; Knight, Madsen, & Servais, 2004), or in terms of the end product or solution (Kim et al., 2011; Kocak & Abimbola, 2009;Weerawardena, Mort, Liesch, & Knight, 2007). Innovativeness stems from organizational capabilities (Hurley & Hult, 1998), of which marketing capabilities represent a central element (Perks, 2000; Shang, Yildirim,Tadikamalla. Mittal, & Brown, 2009). This links well with earlier studies on BGs, which characterize marketing-related processes as the core of BGs’ innovativeness (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004). Though marketing capabilities have received substantial research attention, most previous research addressed the impact of these capabilities on BGs’ performance (Efrat & Shoham, 2012; Hallbäck & Gabrielsson, 2013; Ripollés & Blesa, 2012; Zhou, Wu, & Barnes, 2012), leaving uncharted ground when it comes to the impact of such capabilities on innovativeness. Research connecting marketing to BGs’ innovativeness may therefore shed important light on the contributors to BGs’ innovativeness, and hence to their long-term survival. The present study derived from in-depth interviews conducted with 25 senior managers of BGs, followed by survey-based data collection from 127 BGs operating in various industries. The main purpose of both the exploratory (qualitative) and the main (quantitative) stages was to reveal what drives BGs’ innovativeness. In the exploratory stage the managers were given leading questions, but no specific drivers of innovativeness were introduced, in order to avoid possible bias. The exploratory stage outcomes were incorporated into the survey used in the main stage to confirm the relationships between the different factors. This study contributes to BGs’ research in a number of ways. First, we elaborate on Knight and Cavusgil’s (2004) seminal study by addressing innovation-related capabilities, thereby providing a better understanding of the core capabilities that drive innovativeness. Second, we explore the moderating impact of different environmental characteristics on the relationships between the different aspects of marketing adaptability and BGs’ innovativeness, hence confronting the common assumption that BGs tend to use standardization strategy. Finally, we introduce the use of team cohesion in the business context while discussing its linkage to BGs’ organizational culture and innovativeness. In the next section we present the conceptual framework of innovativeness in the BGs’ context, followed by a short description of the qualitative stage and a presentation of its main outcomes. We continue with a literature review of the different capabilities found in the qualitative stage, followed by our hypotheses regarding their direct and moderated impacts. We then present and discuss our findings.