Search

Purpose: This article investigates marketing and technology absorptive capacities as distinct types of external knowledge while considering three environmental conditions, namely uncertainty, munificence, and heterogeneity and two distinct outcomes, namely innovation and financial performance. Methodology/approach: Using a quantitative approach, the authors analyze data from 141 Israeli business-to-business high-tech firms. Findings: The data mostly supported the hypotheses. Empirical findings imply that an uncertain environment is a precursor for a strong effort to develop a technological absorptive capacity and, to a lesser extent, a marketing absorptive capacity. Technological and marketing absorptive capacities were found to be distinct constructs with positive impacts on financial and innovation performance. Marketing absorptive capacity had a stronger impact than technological absorptive capacity on financial performance. Surprisingly, marketing absorptive capacity was negatively associated with innovation performance. Originality/value: This study attempts to overcome some limiting assumptions of absorptive capacity theory that have contributed to its reification in order to make three theoretical contributions. First, it distinguishes between marketing and technological absorptive capacities. Second, it tests differential responses of the two absorptive capacities to environmental contingencies. Third, it compares the differential impacts of marketing and technological absorptive capacities on financial and innovation performance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The purpose of this article is to extend and integrate the new strategic reference points theory (SRP), developed in the strategic management area, into the discipline of strategic marketing management. The major new tenets of the theory are the inclusion of cognitive, organizational processes and benchmarking simultaneously. First, the authors describe the impact of the marketing SRP on marketing strategic choice behavior captured in the tradeoff between risk and return (risk avert vs. risk lover) as was proposed by prospect theory. Then, they explore the performance consequences of integrating the newly formed stages while considering organizational process and implementation issues of reference points such as content, configuration, consensus, and change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]