2. Posición frente a los argumentos que se oponen a la implementación del sistema de daños
2.2. Enriquecimiento indebido
2.2.1. Del enriquecimiento sin causa
The extant EO research conceptualises the EO construct in many different ways. The conceptual lenses are adopted in the literature can be explained using the organisational culture concept (Homburg and Pflesser 2000; Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). The literature suggests different definitions of organisational culture (e.g. Trice and Beyer 1993; Schein 1992). However, one of the widely accepted definitions and one that is often used by export researchers is Deshpande and Webster‟s (1989) view of organisational culture. According to Deshpande and Webster (1989, p. 4), organisational culture defines "the pattern of shared values and beliefs that help individuals understand organizational functioning and thus provide them norms for behavior in the organization." Research shows that organisational culture consists of conceptually distinct but causally linked layers: values, norms, artefacts, attitudes and behaviours (Homburg and Pflesser 2000; Trice and Beyer 1993). When conceptualising EO, researchers often adopt one (or more) of these organisational culture components by viewing EO as: (1) an organisation-wide set of shared basic values, norms and artefacts (e.g. Lee and Peterson 1990); (2) organisation-wide attitudes (e.g., Knight 1997; Miller 1983); and (3) EO as observable organisation-wide behaviours (e.g., Covin and Slevin 1991; Morgan and Strong 2003).
First, an organisational-wide EO value is defined as the fundamental principles that legitimise any future EO action. According to Dess and Lumpkin (2005), entrepreneurial values underscore the philosophical mindsets of top managers and as such it determines the basis for which decision is taken to act
entrepreneurially. Consequently, some EO researchers argue that EO‟s cultural values should be the focus of EO research (e.g. Lee and Peterson 2000). These researchers also believe that EO‟s cultural artefacts should be the considered in EO research.
44
Table 2.1: Non-export EO Studies that Linked Firm-wide EO with Firm Performance
Author (s) How EO is conceptualised EO dimensions used Aggregate versus independent approach Level of Study EO – Firm Performance
Relationships Key Findings Aragon-Correa
1998
Attitudes Proactiveness independent Firm-wide Proactiveness → Performance
Proactiveness is positively associated with overall firm performance.
Becherer-Maurer 1997
Attitudes Innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO is responsible for positive changes in profits.
Deeds et al. 1998 Behaviours Innovativeness independent Firm-wide Innovativeness → Performance
Innovativeness is positively associated with performance satisfaction and overall performance
Dess et al. 1997 Attitudes Innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO positively drives Sales, profit and growth
Hundler et al. 1996 Behaviours Innovativeness Independent Firm-wide Innovativeness → Performance
Organisational innovativeness is negatively related to Profitability in both samples.
Knight 1997 Attitudes Innovativeness, proactiveness
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO drives overall performance positively.
Lerner et al (1997) Attitudes Autonomy Independent Individual Manager
Autonomy → Performance
The autonomous behaviour of owner managers negatively affects sales revenue.
Sapeinza and Grimm 1997
Attitudes Innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance No significant relationship exists between EO and overall firm performance.
Smith et al. 1997 Attitudes Competitive aggressiveness, proactiveness
Independent Firm-wide Competitive aggressiveness → performance Proactiveness → performance
Both competitive aggressiveness and proactiveness positively drive firm Competitiveness.
Zahra and Covin 1995
Attitudes Innovativeness, competitive aggressiveness, risk-taking
aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO is reported to positively affect organisational effectiveness.
45
Table 2.1: Non-export EO Studies that Linked Firm-wide EO with Firm Performance (continued)
Author (s) How EO is conceptualised EO dimensions used Aggregate versus independent approach Level of Study EO – Firm Performance
Relationships Key Findings Miller and Friesen
1982
Attitudes Risk taking, prospecting and product innovation
aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO is positively related to overall firm performance.
Miller and Friesen 1983
Attitudes Risk taking, prospecting and innovativeness
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO – overall firm performance relationship is positive
Lumpkin and Dess 2001
Attitudes Proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness
Independent Firm-wide Proactiveness → Performance Competitive aggressiveness → Performance
Proactiveness positively affects
performance among firms in early stage of industry development while competitive aggressiveness affects performance positively in mature stage of industry development.
Covin and Slevin 1989
Attitudes Risk taking, prospecting and innovativeness
aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO is positively associated with satisfaction with performance. Morris and Sexton 1996 Mix of attitudes and behaviors Innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking
aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO positively drives revenues, profits, employee satisfaction, the size of customer base, and Growth.
Covin et al. 1999 Attitudes proactiveness Independent Firm-wide Proactiveness → Performance
Proactiveness is positively related to Sales growth.
Hult et al. 2004 Attitudes Innovation independent Firm-wide Product Innovation → Performance
Product innovation is positively association with overall business performance.
Zahra 1995 Attitudes Innovation, risk- taking and proactiveness
aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO drives firm growth positively.
Miller 1987 Attitudes Innovation, risk- taking,
proactiveness
46
Table 2.1: Non-export EO Studies that Linked Firm-wide EO with Firm Performance (continued)
Author (s) How EO is conceptualised EO dimensions used Aggregate versus independent approach Level of Study EO – Firm Performance
Relationships Key Findings Naman and
Slevin 1993
Attitudes Innovation, risk- taking,
proactiveness
aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO is positively associated with satisfaction with financial performance.
Matsuno et al. 2002
Attitudes Innovation, risk- taking,
proactiveness
aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO is positively related to satisfaction with financial performance. Kreiser et al. 2002 Attitudes Innovativeness, risk-taking Proactiveness,
Independent Firm-wide innovativeness → Performance risk-taking → Performance proactiveness → Performance
Each of the three EO dimensions individually drives overall performance positively.
Miller 1983 Attitudes Risk taking, proactiveness and innovativeness
aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO positively influences firm success.
Stetz et al. 2000 Attitudes Risk-taking, innovativeness, proactiveness
Independent Firm-wide Risk-taking → Performance innovativeness → Performance proactiveness → Performance
Each EO dimension is positively related to overall performance. Wiklund and Shepherd 2005 Attitudes Risk-taking, innovativeness, proactiveness
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO positively affects gross margin, sales, profits compared with competitors.
Venkatraman 1989 Attitudes Risk-taking, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness
Independent Firm-wide Risk-taking → Performance proactiveness → Performance competitive aggressiveness → Performance
Risk-taking, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness positively drive profitability but only proactiveness is positively associated with growth.
47
Table 2.1: Non-export EO Studies that Linked Firm-wide EO with Firm Performance (Continued)
Author (s) How EO is conceptualised EO dimensions used Aggregate versus independent approach Level of Study EO – Firm Performance
Relationships Key Findings Keh et al. 2007 Attitudes Risk-taking,
innovativeness, proactiveness
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO is positively related to satisfaction with performance.
Covin and Covin 1990
Attitudes Competitive aggressiveness
Independent Firm-wide Competitive aggressiveness → Performance
Competitive aggressiveness drives profitability positively.
Wang 2008 Attitudes Proactiveness, risk- taking,
aggressiveness, innovativeness
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO is moderately related to firm performance (mediated by learning orientation). Jambulingam et al. 2005 Mix of attitudes and behaviours Innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, autonomy, competitive aggressiveness, and motivation
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance Firms with high level of EO (i.e. true entrepreneurs) are more customer-oriented and more effective than those with less EO attitudes and behaviours.
Renko et al. 2009
Attitudes Innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness
Aggregation Firm-wide EO → Performance While EO is related negatively with capital investment, no relationship is found for EO‟s association with product innovation success. Song and Montoya-Weiss 1998 Behaviours Product innovativeness Independent Product- market Product innovativeness → Performance
Productiveness is positively related to successful new product commercialisation.
Tellis et al. 2007 Attitudes Radical innovation Independent Firm-wide Radical
innovativeness v → Performance
Radical (or novel) product innovation drives financial performance positively.
Augusto and Coelho 2009
Attitude Innovativeness Independent Firm-wide innovativeness → Performance
Organizational innovativeness is found to be weakly (but positively) associated with new product success.
48
Table 2.1: Non-export EO Studies that Linked Firm-wide EO with Firm Performance (Continued)
Author (s) How EO is conceptualised EO dimensions used Aggregate versus independent approach Level of Study EO – Firm Performance
Relationships Key Findings Frishammar and
Horte 2007
Attitude Innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness
Independent Firm-wide innovativeness → Performance risk-taking → Performance proactiveness → Performance
Innovativeness is positively related to performance in new product development, while proactiveness and risk taking show no such relationship. Hughes and Morgan 2007 Mix of attitudes and behaviours Innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness, autonomy
independent Firm-wide innovativeness → Performance Risk-taking → Performance proactiveness → Performance Competitive aggressiveness → Performance autonomy → Performance
Innovativeness and proactiveness positively influence business performance while risk-taking negatively drives business performance. Competitive aggressiveness and autonomy have no association with business performance. Morgan and Strong 2003 Behaviours Competitive aggressiveness, proactiveness, risk- taking
Independent Firm-wide Competitive aggressiveness → Performance Proactiveness → Performance Risk-taking → Performance
Competitive aggressiveness, proactiveness and risk-taking are not related to business performance Smart and Conant 1994 Attitudes Innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness
aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO is positively and significantly related to distinctive marketing competencies and to organisational performance.
Bhuian et al. 2005 Attitudes Risk-taking, innovativeness, proactiveness
aggregate Firm-wide EO → Performance EO is a key driver of satisfaction with performance.
Covin et al. 2006 Attitudes Risk-taking, innovativeness, proactiveness
49 Table 2.2: Export EO Studies that Linked EO to Export Performance
Author (s) How EO is Conceptualised EO Dimensions used Aggregate versus Independent Approach Level at Which EO was Studied EO – Export Performance
Relationships Key Findings Knight & Kim 2009 Behaviour International
innovativeness
Independent Firm-wide International innovativeness → Export performance
International innovativeness is positively related to international business performance.
Clercq et al. 2005 Attitudes Innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness Aggregate Firm-wide EO → internationalization intention EO is moderately related to internationalization intention Jantunen et al. 2008 Mix of attitudes and behaviours Innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → International performance
EO has significant positive impact on international financial performance
Knight and Cavusgil 2004 Mix of values, attitudes and behaviours Innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness
Aggregate Export venture Unique product development → International performance
Unique product development has positive effect on international business
performance.
Knight 2000 Values Innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness
Aggregate Firm-wide International EO → International performance
Entrepreneurial value is positively related to globalization responses and quality leadership.
Knight 2001 Attitudes Risk-taking and innovativeness
Aggregate Firm-wide International EO → International performance
International EO is found to be positively associated with international financial performance. Balabanis and Katsikea 2003 Attitudes Innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → Export performance
EO has a positive effect on export performance.
Walters and Samiee 1990
Behaviour Product innovation
Independent Firm-wide Product
Innovativeness → Export performance
High export product line technology and export product modification strategies predict export profit margin positively.
Jantunen et al. 2005
Attitudes Innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → Export performance
EO is positively related international financial performance.
50
Table 2.2: Export EO Studies that Linked EO to Export Performance (Continued)
Author (s) How EO is Conceptualised EO Dimensions used Aggregate versus Independent Approach Level at Which EO was Studied EO – Export Performance
Relationships Key Findings Cooper and
Kleinschmidt 1985
Behaviour Product innovativeness
Independent Firm –wide Product innovativeness → Export performance
Product strategies have positive impact on export sales and export growth.
Beamish et al 1993 Behaviours Product innovativeness
Independent Firm-wide Product innovativeness → Export performance
Products with unique characteristics positively drive export intensity in UK firms but not in Canadian firms.
Robertson and Chetty 2000
Attitudes Innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness
Aggregate Firm-wide EO → Export performance
EO and export performance have only moderate positive relationship.
Cavusgil 1984 Attitudes Risk-taking Independent Firm-wide Risk-taking → Export market entry
A willingness to commit large firm resources to export operations (i.e. export risk-taking) is positively related to successful export market entry.
Zahra and Garvis 2000
Attitudes Innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness
Aggregate Firm – wide International EO → International performance
International EO has a weak positive relationship with international financial performance.
Shoham et al 2002 Attitudes Product innovation strategy
Independent Export venture Export product innovation strategy → Export performance
For prospectors, product innovativeness positively drives export success, but for analyzers, it drives export success negatively.
Ibeh 2003 Attitudes Innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness
Aggregate Firm-wide Export EO → Export intensity
Export EO positively drives a firm‟s propensity to export.
Kuivalainen et al. 2007
Attitudes Proactiveness, risk taking and competitive aggressiveness
Independent Export venture Proactiveness, risk- taking and competitive aggressiveness → True global performance
While proactiveness has no effect, risk- taking has negative effect, and
competitive aggressiveness has positive effect on the performance of true global firms.
51
Second, EO attitude refers to the extent to which a firm is willing to undertake actual entrepreneurial actions (Covin and Slevin 1989). Researchers examining EO attitudes argue, for example, that entrepreneurial organisations are
characterised by their willingness to "innovate boldly and regularly while taking considerable risks in their product-market strategies" (Miller and Friesen 1982, p. 5). Thus, the focus is on attitudinal dispositions to act in entrepreneurial ways.
Third, EO behaviours can be defined as actual organisational behavioural patterns with an instrumental function. According to Covin and Slevin (1991), EO behavioural patterns are reflective of firms‟ commitment to entrepreneurial acts. Researchers in the behavioural stream maintain that EO is the sum total of the radical innovative, proactive and risk-taking activities as manifested in firm‟s support for projects with uncertain outcomes (Zahra and Neubaum 1998). Indeed, Covin and Slevin (1991, p.8) maintains that “the fact that organizational- level behavior is a predictor of the key entrepreneurial effectiveness criterion of firm performance would seem an independently noteworthy reason for adopting an organizational-level perspective on the entrepreneurial process”. These authors believe that behaviours, therefore, give meaning to the entrepreneurial process. Hence, in this context, specific attention is given to actual and
observable EO behaviours (or EOBs). Existing measures of the EO construct have reflected these different conceptual lenses. The result is that a consistent and generally accepted measure of EO does not exist.
However, some researchers (e.g. Homburg and Pflesser 2000; Cadogan et al. 2001; Ajzen and Fishbein 1980) argue that behaviours are more closely linked to performance than values and attitudes. For example, in building on the works of Katz and Kahn (1978) and Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) in the market
orientation literature, Homburg and Pflesser (2000) contend that there is a causal link between values, norms, artefacts and behaviours, and that “only behaviors have a direct performance impact” (p. 452). Entrepreneurship scholars believe that entrepreneurial-oriented firms undertake organisational- wide behaviours that are directed towards the identification and exploitation of new market opportunities (Covin and Slevin 1991; Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Shane and Venkatraman 2000). Therefore, in developing a theory of EO‟s
52
relationship with export performance it is important to consider EO‟s behavioural dimensions.
For example, in export operations, it can be argued that an export
entrepreneurially-oriented firm is one that focuses on identifying and exploiting new export market opportunities to create superior value propositions for export customers. Such export function entrepreneurial efforts could begin from the stimulation of positive entrepreneurial values and attitudes among export employees so that, ultimately, those positive values and attitudes might influence observable entrepreneurial behaviours in export operations. In this sense, entrepreneurial values and attitudes can be theorised as antecedents to entrepreneurial behaviour, and entrepreneurial behaviour can be viewed as the variable that should be linked to performance. Yet, the export performance impact of a comprehensive entrepreneurial-oriented behaviour (or EOB)
construct is currently unknown. Unfortunately, export researchers have relied on mixtures of values, attitudes and behaviours, often borrowed from non-export firm-wide studies, to measure EO.
In short, it can be argued that export context specific EO research is sparse. On top of this, no study has examined the potential impacts of all five dimensions of EOB, as defined by Lumpkin and Dess (1996), on export success. Indeed, research in the export literature tends to focus on a limited set of EOB dimensions, usually measured at non-export functional level, and mainly examining attitudes or managerial values and beliefs. By studying the export performance impact of EOB as measured in export functional level, researchers can ensure that confounds from non-export functional activities are minimised.