Analysis Resources on Performance by Size & Age in Small Service/Retail Firms

BUSINESSES WITHOUT GLAMOUR?

 AN ANALYSIS OF RESOURCES ON PERFORMANCE BY SIZE AND AGE IN SMALL SERVICEANDRETAIL FIRMS

Author：CANDIDA G. BRUSH(Boston University)、RADHA CHAGANTI(Rider University)

Source：Journal of Business Venturing 14, 233–257(1998)

十多年前的舊文，亦非環安領域的文獻，但可以觀摩其分析手法和流程

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research on factors influencing performance in new and small companies is extensive. Earlier work found that strategies (e.g. cost, quality, differentiation, etc.) affected performance contingent on industry conditions, the environment, and the entrepreneur’s background. Although this work provides a solid basis for understanding differences in entrepreneurial performance, some firms are limited in their choices of strategy due to size, age, or industry.

Often these firms are in industries where entry barriers are low and competitive advantages are easily imitated.

Small service and retail businesses operate in sectors where these conditions are apparent. Comprising more than 50% of all small firms, they require minimal start-up investments but face intense competition.

Lacking the “glamour” of high innovation/high growth firms, service and retail companies are at the “end” of the value chain, their fortunes rising and falling as a result of the direct influence of the owner-founder. Hence, performance variation may be better explained by the capabilities of the firm or individual competencies of the owner-founder, that is the resource-base and resource combinations, rather than strategy.

策略定位往往影響公司績效，然而在一些完全競爭或進入障礙小的市場(例如本研究的中小零售公司)，公司資源與資源組合來解釋獲利的變異性，其解釋力大於用策略來解釋。

The strategic importance of an organization’s resources and capabilities is the foundation of resource-based theory. Resources are tangible and intangible assets tied to the firm in a relatively permanent fashion. Their combinations are heterogeneous and form the basis for product/market strategies. Studies of resources, strategies, and performance are emerging in the entrepreneurial area. Research shows that various resources in concert with different strategy types can lead to above average performance over the business life cycle, and that combinations of resources are related to survival. Yet the vast majority of work focuses on high growth, high tech, or manufacturing businesses. Less is known about the relationships of resources to performance in less “glamorous” sectors. In these small service and retail businesses, we speculate that resources, in particular human and organizational resources, may play a greater role in explaining performance than strategy. Further, as other authors have suggested, it is expected that the combinations of these resources will vary across age and size.

樣本/方法

This study examines the influence of human and organizational resources on performance in a sample of 195 service and retail firms operating in central New Jersey, using a structured questionnaire.

All companies utilized a focus strategy (either focused cost or focused differentiation) and employed a minimum of 3 to a maximum of 100 employees. All measures had theoretical and/or empirical precedent and were tested statistically for reliability. We used factor analysis to reduce the independent variables to:

two human resource variables (owner resources and commitment), one organizational resource variable (comprised of planning, systems, and staff skills), and one strategy variable (focused cost and focused differentiation). Control variables were business age, business size, environmental benignness, and industry growth. The dependent variable performance was measured in two ways: net cash flow and log of growth in employees over 3 years.

結果

The study first examined whether strategy or resources had a greater influence on performance.

Results showed that strategy influenced performance less than human and organizational resources both individually and interactively. The influence of owner resources (background and attitudes) on net cash flow was stronger than on growth, where the only significant variable was industry (market) growth.

To analyze effects of resources on performance by size, we divided the sample by size groupings, selecting the smallest (maximum five employees) and largest quartiles (minimum 16 employees), which were comprised of 55 and 50 companies, respectively. These analyses showed that owner resources, commitment, and organizational resources contributed positively to net cash flow in very small firms; however, interactive effects of these resource combinations were negative. For instance, owner resources and organizational resources together, and organizational resources and commitment together, resulted in less positive cash flow than when analyzed separately. This implies that different resource combinations can have negative influences in these very small firms.（不知該如何解釋此一結果/現象）

We examined age effects in the same manner as size—dividing the sample into age group quartiles and conducting an analysis only for very young (fewer than 5 years) and very old (minimum 19 years) groups, which comprised 54 and 52 companies, respectively. These analyses showed that although growth was more rapid among the youngest firms, there were no distinctive resource-based correlates to growth in either age group. Substantive increases in formalized systems and procedures were not apparent among the oldest of these companies compared with the youngest, contrary to previous work showing the evolution of these over business life cycles.

研究限制

Results of this study are applicable only in the context of service and retail firms, and, readers should note this sample was nonrandom and geographically concentrated. Our purpose was not to predict, but describe associations between resources and performance.

研究結論

This study shows that, for firms in competitive industries at the end of the value chain, type of strategy is less important than resource combinations for certain types of performance. Human and organizational resources are associated with more positive cash flow, whereas industry and market factors are related to growth.

在競爭市場與產業環境中，資源比策略定位重要

在此一情境和前提下，人力與組織資源較能解釋現金流(賺錢與否)

產業環境和市場因素，較能解釋公司成長率

管理意涵

These results imply that firms seeking growth are best served by selecting and entering growth markets and industries. On the other hand, if strong positive cash flows are the primary objective, attention to combinations of resources is more important.  For instance, owner-founders having a strong business and managerial background, and industry experience will need less formalized systems, whereas those owner-founders with weaker managerial resources might benefit from more formalized procedures and skilled staff.

愛上這份期刊了，理由=>看完執行摘要就已經可以掌握七八成了。

以下只要再放上研究架構圖、結果圖表即可

一些變數的測量方式可以參考（策略竟然可以用五點尺度來衡量）

Strategies

Two types of focus strategy variables were included: (1) focused cost leadership, which was measured by respondents rating four items: i.e., prices of product/service, labor costs, productivity, and material costs relative to those of key competitors (Cronbach a50.64); (2) focused differentiation was ascertained by owner-managers of firms rating six items: product/service quality, product/service innovation, customer service, product/service variety, product/service image, and advertising expenditures relative to their key competitors (Cronbacha50.86). Both strategies were measured on a 5-point scale (5 = much higher, 1= much lower).

Statistical Procedure

As a first step, we ran separate multiple regressions for each of the two performance criteria to explore relationships of the selected human and organizational resources, and strategies to performance in the 195 service and retail firms. Next, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) investigated whether there were significant differences in resources, strategies, and performance across firm size and age groups. We used quartile-based groupings rather than median splits because we expected that more distant groups would bring out contrasts in resources and performance more sharply than comparisons among proximate groups.

奇怪的是：假如資料不是常態分配，作者還是照跑多元回歸，那按作者的研究架構，如果樣本數夠，不知道是否可以跑SEM？！

其他的結果(摘錄，還是多元回歸係數的比較與存在是否顯著，不知作者是否為財會背景)