SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of dynamic capabilities on operational marketing and technological capabilities: investigating the role of environmental turbulence

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Marketing and technological capabilities are primary drivers of a firm’s performance and thus of central interest to managers. Yet the way in which these two capabilities align with changing environments to secure superior performance remains unclear. Drawing on the dynamic capability view and data from a survey of 228 firms, this study proposes a model of how frequent dynamic capability utilization, assessed through its underlying processes of sensing and reconfiguring, relates to marketing and technological capabilities, as well as how market, technological, and competitor turbulence might affect these relationships. The results show that frequent sensing and reconfiguring have stronger positive effects in environments characterized by high competitor turbulence; however, frequent sensing can have negative relationships with marketing and technological capabilities in stable environments. Furthermore, marketing capabilities are positively associated with firm performance in highly competitive environments, whereas technological capabilities enhance performance in stable competitive environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In their original scale, Jantunen et al. (2005) counted the number of renewals as the sum of the activities performed, ranging from zero to seven. Because we were interested in a more fine-grained assessment, we used a seven-point interval scale, ranging from “rarely” to “very often.”

  2. For reviews of the increasing use of PLS-SEM in marketing, strategy, and management information systems research, see Hair et al. (2012), Hair et al. (2013), and Ringle et al. (2012).

  3. According to Hair et al. (2012), acceptable R2 levels depend on the research context. From a review of similar studies that have investigated capabilities and performance using PLS-SEM (e.g., Lew and Sinkovics 2013; Sarkar et al. 2001), we concluded that our coefficients of determination were acceptable.

  4. Although not the focus of this study, we found that technological capabilities related more positively to performance in stable competitive environments than in turbulent ones. This finding may sound counterintuitive, and previous research is inconclusive too. Song et al. (2005) argue that technological capabilities enable firms to respond to, leverage, and benefit from turbulence. However, knowledge embedded in technological capabilities may lead to inertia in turbulent environments (Lieberman and Montgomery 1988), rendering them inflexible. Turbulence thus might either improve or harm existing technological capabilities. An alternative explanation holds that stable environments reward exploitation. Technological capabilities often rest on established business processes, and firms are more likely to automate appropriate business processes in stable environments. Previous research investigates the moderating role of market and technological turbulence in the relationship between marketing and technological capabilities and performance (e.g., Song et al. 2005); however, no research has investigated the effect of competitive turbulence in these relationships. Thus, further research is needed to clarify the performance implications of technological capabilities in conditions of high environmental turbulence.

References

  • ABS. (2004). Counts of businesses. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afuah, A. (2002). Map** technological capabilities into product markets and competitive advantage: the case of cholesterol drugs. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 171–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthurs, J. D., & Busenitz, L. W. (2006). Dynamic capabilities and venture performance: the effects of venture capitalists. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 195–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: the moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1652–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. R., & Wally, S. (2003). Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1107–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bontis, N., Booker, L. D., & Serenko, A. (2007). The mediating effect of organizational reputation on customer loyalty and service recommendation in the banking industry. Management Decision, 45, 1426–1445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, R., Garcia, R., & Dröge, C. (2003). The effects of environmental turbulence on new product development strategy planning. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, 90–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarthy, B. (1986). Measuring strategic performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 437–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. J., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (1992). Action characteristics as predictors of competitive responses. Management Science, 38, 439–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M.-J., Farh, J.-L., & MacMillan, I. C. (1993). An exploration of the expertness of outside informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1614–1632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., Zou, H., & Wang, D. T. (2009). How do new ventures grow? Firm capabilities, growth strategies and performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 294–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chmielewski, D. A., & Paladino, A. (2007). Driving a resource orientation: reviewing the role of resource and capability characteristics. Management Decision, 45, 462–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collis, D. J. (1994). Research note: how valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic Management Journal, 15, 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cycyota, C. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). What (not) to expect when surveying executives: a meta-analysis of top manager response rates and techniques over time. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 133–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., Sormunen, J., & Parks, D. (1988). Chief executive scanning, environmental characteristics, and company performance: an empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2007). The process of technological competence leveraging. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 511–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2008). Organizational antecedents of second-order competences. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 519–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2010). Trying to become a different type of company: dynamic capability at Smith Corona. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58, 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (2011). Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of Marketing, 75, 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayan, M., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2010). The impact of structural and contextual factors on trust formation in product development teams. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 691–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., Di Benedetto, C. A., Song, M., & Sinha, I. (2005). Revisiting the Miles and Snow strategic framework: uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 47–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G., & Robinson, R., Jr. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: the case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 265–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drnevich, P. L., & Kriauciunas, A. P. (2011). Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 254–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Droge, C., Calantone, R., & Harmancioglu, N. (2008). New product success: is it really controllable by managers in highly turbulent environments? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 272–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 313–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Peteraf, M. A. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: current debates and future directions. British Journal of Management, 20, S1–S8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier, W. J., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. (1999). The role of competitive action in market share erosion and industry dethronement: a study of industry leaders and challengers. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 372–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J., & Galvin, P. (2008). Firm factors, industry structure and performance variation: new empirical evidence to a classic debate. Journal of Business Research, 61, 109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garg, V. K., Walters, B. A., & Priem, R. L. (2003). Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental dynamism, and manufacturing firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 725–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural equation modelling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4, 1–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, G. (2005). Learning to be capable: patenting and licensing at the wisconsin alumni research foundation 1925–2002. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 119–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, R., & Weiss, A. M. (1993). Marketing in turbulent environments: decision processes and the time-sensitivity of information. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 509–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R. (1998). Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 58–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R. (2002). Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 58–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R. (2008). A behavioral theory of firm growth: sequential attention to size and performance goals. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, C., Johnson, M., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2002). Capturing customer heterogeneity using a finite mixture approach. Schmalenbach Business Review, 54, 243–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. E., Black, W. C., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., & Mena, J. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 414–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Jr., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haleblian, J., Kim, J. Y., & Rajagopalan, N. (2006). The influence of acquisition experience and performance on acquisition behavior: evidence from the U.S. commercial banking industry. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 357–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanvanich, S., Sivakumar, K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2006). The relationship of learning and memory with organizational performance: the moderating role of turbulence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 600–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., et al. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organisations. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heneman, H. G. I. (1974). Comparisons of self and superior ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 638–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henri, J.-F. (2006). Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 77–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sinkovics, R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooley, G. J., Greenley, G. E., Cadogan, J. W., & Fahy, J. (2005). The performance impact of marketing resources. Journal of Business Research, 58, 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jantunen, A., Puumalainen, K., Saarenketo, S., & Kyläheiko, K. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, dynamic capabilities and international performance. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 3, 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M., & Zajac, E. (2001). How organizational resources affect strategic change and performance in turbulent environments: theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12, 632–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1633–1651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E., & Lyles, M. A. (2001). Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1139–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lant, T. K., Milliken, F. J., & Batra, B. (1992). The role of managerial learning and interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation: an empirical exploration. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 585–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D. (2006). Capability reconfiguration: an analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Academy of Management Review, 31, 153–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. (1991). Organizational adaptation and environmental selection-interrelated processes of change. Organization Science, 2, 140–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lew, Y. K., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2013). Crossing borders and industry sectors: behavioral governance in strategic alliances and product innovation for competitive advantage. Long Range Planning, 46, 13–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 13–29.

  • Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1992). Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychological Review, 99, 172–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2006). Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on market orientation and innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1987). Strategy making and structure: analysis and implications for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Chen, M.-J. (1994). Sources and consequences of competitive inertia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A. (2012). Marketing and business performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 102–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A., Anderson, E. W., & Mittal, V. (2005). Understanding firms’ customer satisfaction information usage. Journal of Marketing, 69, 131–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Vorhies, D. W. (2009). Linking marketing capabilities with profit growth. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 284–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadkarni, S., & Barr, P. (2008). Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: an integrated view. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1395–1428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagarajan, A., & Mitchell, W. (1998). Evolutionary diffusion: internal and external methods used to acquire encompassing, complementary, and incremental technological changes in the lithotripsy industry. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1063–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narasimhan, O., Rajiv, S., & Dutta, S. (2006). Absorptive capacity in high-technology markets: the competitive advantage of the haves. Marketing Science, 25, 510–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan, V. K., Colwell, K., & Douglas, F. L. (2009). Building organizational and scientific platforms in the pharmaceutical industry: a process perspective on the development of dynamic capabilities. British Journal of Management, 20, S25–S40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54, 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevitt, J., & Hancock, G. R. (2001). Performance of bootstrap** approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 353–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, T. C. (1992). Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasnikar, J., Lisjak, M., Buhovac, A. R., & Stembergar, M. (2008). Identifying and exploiting the inter relationships between technological and marketing capabilities. Long Range Planning, 41, 530–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Protogerou, A., Caloghirou, Y., & Lioukas, S. (2012). Dynamic capabilities and their indirect impact on firm performance. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21, 615–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswami, S., Srivastava, R., & Bhargava, M. (2009). Market-based capabilities and financial performance of firms: insights into marketing’s contribution to firm value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 332–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigdon, E., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2010). Structural modeling of heterogeneous data with partial least squares. In N. K. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research (Vol. 7, pp. 255–296). Armonk: Sharpe.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005a). Customer segmentation with FIMIX-PLS. In T. Aluja, J. Casanovas, V. Esposito Vinzi, A. Morineau, & M. Tenenhaus (Eds.), PLS and related methods: Proceedings of the PLS’05 international symposium (pp. 507–514). Paris: Decisia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005b). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) beta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., & Mooi, E. (2010). Response-based segmentation using finite mixture partial least squares: theoretical foundations and an application to American customer satisfaction index data. Annals of Information Systems, 8, 19–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. [Article]. MIS Quarterly, 36, iiv–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Ortega, M. J., & García-Villaverde, P. M. (2008). Capabilities and competitive tactics influences on performance: implications of the moment of entry. Journal of Business Research, 61, 332–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, M. B., Echambadi, R., & Harrison, J. S. (2001). Alliance entrepreneurship and firm market performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 701–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M. (2008). A review of recent approaches for capturing heterogeneity in partial least squares path modelling. Journal of Modelling in Management, 3, 140–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. (2010). Treating unobserved heterogeneity in PLS path modelling: a comparison of FIMIX-PLS with different data analysis strategies. Journal of Applied Statistics, 37, 1299–1378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., Becker, J.-M., & Ringle, C. (2011). Uncovering and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: which model selection criterion provides an appropriate number of segments? Schmalenbach Business Review, 63, 34–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, H., Völckner, F., Riediger, C., & Ringle, C. (2010). The impact of brand extension success drivers on brand extension price premiums. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 319–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: the nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 179–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Arregle, J.-L., & Campbell, J. T. (2010). The dynamic interplay of capability strengths and weaknesses: investigating the bases of temporary competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1386–1409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (2000). Intelligence generation and superior customer value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 120–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, M., Droge, C., Hanvanich, S., & Calantone, R. (2005). Marketing and technology resource complementarity: an analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanos, Y. E., & Lioukas, S. (2001). An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: contrasting Porter’s competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 907–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: a framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62, 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomke, S., & Kuemmerle, W. (2002). Asset accumulation, interdependence and technological change: evidence from pharmaceutical drug discovery. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 619–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas, M. (1997). Unraveling the process of creative destruction: complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verona, G., & Ravasi, D. (2003). Unbundling dynamic capabilities: an exploratory study of continuous product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 577–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (2005). Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, 69, 80–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D. W., Harker, M., & Rao, C. (1999). The capabilities and performance advantages of market-driven firms. European Journal of Marketing, 33, 1171–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D., Orr, L., & Bush, V. (2011). Improving customer-focused marketing capabilities and firm financial performance via marketing exploration and exploitation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 736–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. A. (2000). Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations. Boston: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilden, R., Gudergan, S., Nielsen, B. B., & Lings, I. (2013). Dynamic capabilities and performance: strategy, structure and environment. Long Range Planning, 46, 72–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 991–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wold, H. (1980). Soft modelling: intermediate between traditional model building and data analysis. Mathematical Statistics, 6, 333–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, L.-Y. (2010). Applicability of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views under environmental volatility. Journal of Business Research, 63, 27–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R. J., & Griffith, D. A. (2007). An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities: implications for product innovation and market performance. Journal of International Marketing, 15, 63–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarbrough, L., Morgan, N. A., & Vorhies, D. W. (2011). The impact of product market strategy-organizational culture fit on business performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 555–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27, 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., Sapienza, H., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 917–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2010). How strategic orientations influence the building of dynamic capability in emerging economies. Journal of Business Research, 63, 224–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., & Wu, F. (2009). Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 547–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Winter, S. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13, 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the four anonymous reviewers as well as the editor for their constructive comments. We particularly acknowledge Ian Lings, Christine Eckert, and Christian Ringle for their valuable and constructive comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council (LP0882944).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Newcastle Business School, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia

    Ralf Wilden & Siegfried P. Gudergan

Authors
  1. Ralf Wilden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siegfried P. Gudergan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralf Wilden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilden, R., Gudergan, S.P. The impact of dynamic capabilities on operational marketing and technological capabilities: investigating the role of environmental turbulence. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 181–199 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0380-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0380-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation