The Embeddedness of Productivity and Performance: Towards a Framework Based on Small Firms

Author(s):  
Paul K. Edwards ◽  
Chin-Ju Tsai ◽  
Sukanya Sen Gupta ◽  
Monder Ram
Keyword(s):  
1990 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 535-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sue Birley ◽  
Paul Westhead
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Olivia F. Lee ◽  
Can Uslay ◽  
Matthew L. Meuter

This chapter explores the firm-level technology orientation construct and highlights the importance of a small firm’s dynamic capabilities in knowledge learning and management. Technology orientation (TECHOR) is comprised of three sets of technology-oriented activities: the allocation of technology resources, the development of technology competence, and the ability to sense and respond to technology opportunities that influence technology adoption and utilization. As firms engage in more of these activities, they will have higher levels of technology orientation. Antecedents to TECHOR include external forces (technology policy and industry characteristics) and internal dynamics (role of management, interdepartmental connections, and organizational factors). Consequences include customer outcomes (technology learning, perceived quality, and loyalty), employee outcomes (technology learning, job satisfaction, and performance) and organizational outcomes (firm performance and competitive advantage). Small firms that can deliver the appropriate match between the required technology-oriented activities, technology adoption, and utilization are the ones that are likely to survive and thrive.


2001 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip D. Olson> ◽  
Newell Gough

Sample results indicate that significant relationships exist between export planning values and practices, and between the planning practice of using advisors and export performance.


Author(s):  
Alistair R. Anderson ◽  
Ellina Osseichuk ◽  
Laura Illingworth

This paper explores differences in behaviour and performance between rural and urban small firms during the economic downturn. The authors had anticipated that the ‘thinness’ of the rural environment would have had adverse effects. However, their survey of 6,300 respondents showed that rural small firms were performing marginally better. Both groups were proactively striving to cope with falling demand, not waiting for things to get better, but rural firms had better sales and fewer price reductions. The authors attribute this to local embeddedness, a more stable customer base and less competition. They note too the relative independence of rural businesses.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document