MEDIDAS DE ATENCIÓN A LA DIVERSIDAD

Competitive aggressiveness, for Lumpkin and Dess (1996: 148), “refers to a firm’s propensity to directly and intensely challenge its competitors to achieve entry or improve position”: to outperform industry rivals in the marketplace, this characterised by responsiveness in terms of confrontation or reactive action. Competitive aggressiveness or competitive aggression are terms used interchangeably in this work. Competitive aggression as a dimension of an entrepreneurial orientation refers to “the type of intensity and head-to-head posturing that new entrants often need to compete with existing rivals” (ibid.: 139). In contrast to proactiveness, which relates to market opportunities, competitive aggressiveness (ibid.: 147) refers to how enterprises “relate to competitors” and “respond to trends and demand that already exist in the marketplace” with regard to competitors.

The creation of new demand is considered to not fall within the ambit of competitive aggressiveness, but to be associated with proactiveness (ibid.). Therefore, for the purposes of this study, creation of new demand is considered a measure of proactiveness and not of competitive aggressiveness.

Competitive aggression, as a component of an entrepreneurial orientation, also “reflects a willingness to be unconventional rather than rely on traditional methods of competing” (ibid.: 149), which might extend to changing contexts, how things are done, or expending more resources than the competition. In the following consideration of the literature relating to competitive aggressiveness, different conceptions are considered in terms of their expected or predicted associations. These associations are derived with reference to the potential shaping of competitive aggressiveness by contextual factors, or predicted associations between competitive aggressiveness and entrepreneurial performance.

Competitive aggressiveness represents a process of entrepreneurial behaviour for Lumpkin and Dess (1996). With regard to trait psychology, Maslow (1987: 29) states that:

it might be possible (theoretically if not practically) to analyse a single act of an individual and see in it the expression of physiological needs, safety needs, love needs, esteem needs, and self-actualisation. This contrasts sharply with the more naïve brand of trait psychology in which one trait or one motive accounts for a certain kind of act─for example, an aggressive act is traced solely to a trait of aggressiveness.

Unlike aggressiveness as considered from the perspective of trait theory, competitive aggressiveness is not taken to represent a trait in this work, but a manifestation of entrepreneurial behaviour: a behavioural orientation. Competitive aggressiveness as a behavioural orientation can be underpinned by a range of underlying psychological factors that may contribute the underlying “why” (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). Certain theorists have offered different conceptions of entrepreneurial orientation. An example of this is the original conception of entrepreneurial orientation as developed by Miller (1983).

Lumpkin and Dess (1996: 149) stress that competitive aggressiveness is an important dimension of an entrepreneurial orientation. Miller (1983), however, considers only proactiveness, innovativeness, and risk taking as the dimensions of an entrepreneurial orientation. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) developed the construct further from Miller’s (1983) original theory by incorporating competitive aggressiveness and autonomy. In terms of the original theory of entrepreneurial orientation:

An entrepreneurial firm is one that engages in product-market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky ventures, and is first to come up with “proactive” innovations, beating competitors to the punch. A nonentrepreneurial firm is one that innovates very little, is highly risk averse, and imitates the moves of competitors instead of leading the way. We can tentatively view entrepreneurship as a composite weighting of these three variables. (Miller 1983:771).

Covin and Covin (1990) view competitive aggressiveness of an enterprise to be reflected in attempts to dominate competitors by proactive and innovative measures; by initiating actions that competitors then respond to; by being the first to introduce new techniques or products; and by demonstrating an extremely competitive posture. In terms of the discourse offered by Miller (1983), the concept of beating a competitor to the punch can be taken to represent something more comprehensive than simple proactivity, to be more in line with the concept of competitive aggression according to Lumpkin and Dess (1996). Lumpkin and Dess (1996) argue that this dimension captures an element of the intensity involved in entrepreneurial competition.

Increased competitive hostility may be associated with aggressive behaviour in high performing enterprises yet may be associated with passive behaviour in low performing enterprises according to Covin and Covin (1990). Higher levels of competitive aggressiveness would therefore be expected to be associated with higher performance in environments of increased competitive hostility.

However, the range of enterprises considered by Covin and Covin (1990) extends far beyond the informal sector street trading venture. Therefore it is with caution that this relationship is interpreted. However, larger enterprises are considered in order to provide insight into the differentiation of the effects of entrepreneurial behaviour. It

might seem more reasonable to consider the informal enterprise to fall into a smaller range. It is possible that these informal street trading enterprises all represent low performing enterprises if the range of enterprises considered by Covin and Covin (1990) extends to large firms. Therefore the predicted association of higher performance and higher levels of competitive aggressiveness may not necessarily be found in the specific context of street trading.

For low performing enterprises, however, whether this passivity may be a response to the low level of performance of the enterprise itself, or a cause of it is unclear according to Covin and Covin (1990). This conception would have implications in terms of the potential shaping of competitive aggressiveness by earnings if a low level of competitive aggressiveness was the result of lower performance. If this were so, a significant association would be expected to be found between earnings or continuance satisfaction as predictors of competitive aggressiveness.

However, Covin and Covin (1990) argue that a passive competitive orientation might place lower levels of constraints upon resources than that of an aggressive competitive orientation. According to this a passive competitive orientation might be more appropriate in certain contexts. According to Covin and Covin’s (1990) conception of the possible effect of competitive aggressiveness on resource utilisation, a positive association between competitive aggressiveness and performance is not necessarily expected if competitive aggressiveness is associated with a sub-optimal utilisation of resources in an environment of increased competitive hostility.

If this effect as conceived by Covin and Covin (1990) does occur in the street trading context, and if a lower level of competitive aggressiveness does entail more effective resource utilisation, then this lower level of competitive aggressiveness would represent a level of competitive aggressiveness more suited to this context.

It is argued that entrepreneurial orientation can be learned, according to the “how” of entrepreneurship (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). It is argued that an entrepreneur can learn behaviours, and can learn to manifest a level of entrepreneurial orientation more suited to a specific context. If this were the case, that a lower level of competitive

aggressiveness has been learned, then a negative and significant association between competitive aggressiveness and experience is predicted.

However, this might not be the only relationship captured in terms of the testing. It is reasonably possible that if individuals with higher levels of competitive aggressiveness did leave the sector, for example, in high enough numbers to represent an effect across the population of traders, then this would have the effect of being captured as a negative association between experience and competitive aggressiveness.

Therefore in the absence of theory relating to the exodus of street traders with high levels of competitive aggressiveness from the street trading context, it is argued in terms of this work that competitive aggressiveness, in terms of its level, is learned. In terms of this fundamental argument, it was predicted that experience would be found to be negatively and significantly associated, as a predictor, with competitive aggressiveness.

From the population ecology perspective, populations also have an effect on each other, with attendant implications for enterprise survival or failure within these populations, there being six possible interactions between populations ranging from negative effects to positive effects, these including symbiosis, or win-win scenarios (Aldrich, 1990).

Certain groups within the informal street trading context might be considered to be populations with regard to other groups if these groups were large enough. The effects of these groups in terms of their effects on each other, and specifically according to competitive aggressiveness is considered in the following chapter in greater detail, in terms of the contextual factors that might represent differences between groups or populations. Factors representing large groups within the informal sector street trading context tested in this work included foreign origin and local origin. These factors captured traders of foreign origin, and traders that were not from Johannesburg.

Certain groups of people have been associated with a stronger orientation toward entrepreneurship than other groups (Shapero and Sokol, 1982), which may be a result of historic, regional and ethnic factors in addition to economic factors. For Hagan (1962) the interaction of group cultural values underpins a group, and in terms of certain contexts, there may be a degree of rejection of the values of other perceived groups. An example of this is the rejection of western individualistic values and non collective authority relations, and a negative attitude toward entrepreneurship by certain cultures (ibid.).

Many examples exist historically of cultural and social environments that were hostile to entrepreneurship (Shapero and Sokol, 1982). This might therefore have implications for the testing of competitive aggressiveness in the informal street trading context. There may be a degree of overt competition associated with this behaviour in terms of competing for market share at the expense of others, which might run contrary to individual and group values.

According to these theoretical perspectives, a significant difference would be predicted between variables that capture certain dimensions of different cultural origin and competitive aggressiveness. It was predicted that a significant association between South African origin and competitive aggressiveness would be found in terms of the testing of this theory. This effect was expected to the extent that this variable would capture differences in culture.

In this section, theory was explored in order to lay a theoretical foundation with respect to competitive aggressiveness as a component of entrepreneurial orientation. Theory was considered in terms of the testing of theory relating competitive aggressiveness with contextual factors and with entrepreneurial performance. Risk taking propensity as a dimension of entrepreneurial orientation is considered as follows.