Organizational flexibility and pioneering behavior: the indirect effect of market dynamism in tourism firms

Bernardo Ramón Dante De la Gala-Velasquez, Americo Hurtado-Palomino, Elbia Myreyle Chavez Zirena

International Journal of Tourism Cities

ISSN: 2056-5607

Article publication date: 27 January 2023

Issue publication date: 16 March 2023

1488

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to understand the moderating role of market dynamism in the relationship between organizational flexibility and pioneering behavior in tourism firms in Arequipa, Peru. This study aims to delve into the antecedents of pioneering orientation understood as a strategic stance that favors the creation and launch of new products in the market.

Design/methodology/approach

This empirical study involved the analysis, using partial least squares regression, of 306 surveys administered to mangers of tourism enterprises. Mediation has also been examined using the bootstrapping method.

Findings

The results show that organizational flexibility has a positive impact on pioneering behavior, while market dynamism positively mediates this relationship.

Practical implications

This work provides interesting theoretical and empirical contributions for the management of firms in the tourism sector. Firms should develop capabilities to reconfigure their processes and products to adequately implement and exploit innovations generated in their organizations. In addition, tourism enterprises should improve their performance by creating new products and/or services, aligned with changes in customers' purchasing and consumption habits.

Originality/value

This study aims to elaborate on the background of pioneering orientation understood as a strategic stance that favors the creation and launch of new products in the market. This study also proposes that market dynamism is a factor to be considered in improving this relationship.

Propósito

El objetivo de este trabajo es comprender el papel moderador del dinamismo del mercado en la relación entre la flexibilidad organizacional y el comportamiento pionero en las empresas de turismo de Arequipa, Perú. El estudio pretende profundizar en los antecedentes de la orientación pionera, entendida como una postura estratégica que favorece la creación y lanzamiento de nuevos productos al mercado.

Diseño/metodología/enfoque

El estudio empírico involucró el análisis, mediante regresión de mínimos cuadrados parciales (PLS), de 306 encuestas administradas a gerentes de empresas turísticas. La mediación también se realizó utilizando el método de “bootstrapping”.

Hallazgos

Los resultados muestran que la flexibilidad organizacional tiene un impacto positivo en el comportamiento pionero, mientras que el dinamismo del mercado media positivamente en esta relación.

Implicaciones practices

El trabajo aporta interesantes aportes teóricos y empíricos para la gestión de empresas del sector turístico. Las empresas deben desarrollar capacidades para reconfigurar sus procesos y productos para implementar y explotar adecuadamente las innovaciones generadas en sus organizaciones. Además, las empresas turísticas deben mejorar su desempeño mediante la creación de nuevos productos y/o servicios, alineados con los cambios en los hábitos de compra y consumo de los clientes.

Originalidad/Valor

El estudio pretende profundizar en el trasfondo de la orientación pionera entendida como una postura estratégica que favorece la creación y lanzamiento de nuevos productos en el mercado. También propone que el dinamismo del mercado es un factor a considerar en la mejora de esta relación.

Keywords

Citation

De la Gala-Velasquez, B.R.D., Hurtado-Palomino, A. and Chavez Zirena, E.M. (2023), "Organizational flexibility and pioneering behavior: the indirect effect of market dynamism in tourism firms", International Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-01-2022-0003

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Bernardo Ramón Dante De la Gala-Velasquez, Americo Hurtado-Palomino and Elbia Myreyle Chavez Zirena.

License

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


1. Introduction

In recent years, the tourism industry has undergone a number of changes as a result of market dynamism, technological dynamism and high levels of rivalry, among other factors (). This business environment requires tourism firms to adapt to changes in a timely fashion and develop management strategies that promote their competitiveness and sustainability (). In this sense, the interactions between organizational flexibility and market dynamism may be key determinants of the proactiveness needed for pioneering behavior.

The economic sector of tourism in the region of Arequipa has benefited from the growth in tourism in Peru in recent years. According to the 2019 Regional Report on Tourism in Arequipa, the region welcomed 3.3 million tourists, of whom 7% were from the region and 16.6% were foreign tourists. The growth in tourism in the region is a result of its various tourist attractions, including the historical center (a World Heritage Site), the countryside and the Colca Canyon. The UNESCO has also recognized Arequipa as a city of creative gastronomy, thus complementing the attractiveness of the destination. Also, it is the third city in Peru with the largest number of conglomerate companies in the tourism industry (); likewise, it is considered the second most important city in Peru. In addition, Peru is listed as an important tourist destination in Latin America for its high cultural richness, especially Arequipa, Lima and Cusco, recognized by UNESCO as World Heritage Cities (). This configuration of cities allows us to study the internal and external factors that affect the management of tourism companies, the results of which can be extended to economies with similar characteristics.

The previous literature on organizational flexibility underlines the importance of the capacity to adapt to different business contexts (). Additionally, conclude that organizational flexibility mediates the relationships between business performance and organizational networks, while recommending this be tested in other economic sectors. In addition, the interaction between organizational flexibility and environmental dynamism helps enhance performance (). These antecedents have led to the exploration of organizational flexibility in tourism firms, given the rapid changes occurring in the environment and the benefits for the sector’s sustainability.

The literature on external and internal business factors is scant (; ), although we can highlight the work by , which analyzes the impact of pioneering behavior on firm performance. Additionally, report positive effects of pioneering behavior on new product performance. However, there do exist works on the tourism industry that link market dynamism and behavior. , for example, explain the positive relationship between market dynamism and pioneering behavior, while calling for studies on other countries and different types of tourism.

Given the gap in the literature on the direct and indirect determinants of pioneering behavior in tourism firms in Latin America (; ), the aim of the present research is to analyze the mediating effect of market dynamism on the relationship between organizational flexibility and pioneering behavior. Moreover, the findings help advance the theoretical and empirical literature on the variables in question.

To fulfill this aim, the work is structured as follows. This section has presented the introduction. The following section contains the review of the literature and the study hypotheses. We then describe the methodology of the research before addressing the results, the discussion, conclusions and recommendations.

2. Review of the literature and hypotheses development

2.1 Pioneering behavior

There is no consensus on the definition of pioneering behavior in the literature, with most works focusing on the factors that promote this orientation (; ; ). It has been associated with the performance desired, exploiting the opportunities offered by early market entry (). Furthermore, suggests that when two identical players move sequentially in a game, the first mover (leader) gains higher profits than the second one (follower). Hence, applying this construct to the business world, we find that define a pioneering firm as one that develops a new product, design or model and does not necessarily bring it to the market.

Additionally, describe pioneering firms as first movers in the market, with the process being simpler if they have the required resources and capacities. In the same line, hold that a pioneer is the first firm to sell a new product category, while extend the concept to entail a new way of tackling decision making and tactics.

Various articles have analyzed the determinants of pioneering behavior, focusing primarily on internal factors (), referencing the resource and capability theory () and identifying the resources defined as tangible or intangible assets or inputs used in production (). Although these might be scarce, they should be explored with the aim of capitalizing on them and exploiting them so as to be able to build new resources that can address future opportunities ().

Capabilities are considered to play an enormously important role in pioneering, being defined as abilities, routines, processes and activities that are key at the time of market entry (). In this line highlight the value of marketing capabilities focused on developing the brand and customer trust as higher complementary capacities that foster the adoption of a first-mover strategy, promoting entry to new market segments (). , meanwhile, analyzed the influence of characteristics and conditions on early entry decisions, identifying emerging and developed markets. Furthermore, propose dynamism, level of competition, rivalry, hostility and imitation as environment variables.

Being a first mover allows a firm to position its products and services as market standards, forcing followers to adapt to their rules (). The positive image and reputation garnered by being the first mover in the business leads a firm to gain the loyalty of consumers, achieving a unique and different position (). Moreover, entry barriers are developed that hamper imitation from competitors (; ). It is also worth recalling the disadvantages generated by changes in technology, the evolution of customers’ tastes and needs, among the most noteworthy factors. Meanwhile, stress the advantages of taking a follower stance, suggesting it is even possible to achieve better results by means of late entry.

The number of studies on pioneering behavior in the tourism sector is very limited, with most focusing on the manufacturing industry, such as the work by . Nonetheless, given the importance of this sector in society, it is of interest for research to identify the factors that determine pioneering behavior in enterprises involved in tourism activities. The work by suggests that tourism firms need to be vigilant for significant changes in product demand and trends in tourist flows. The capability to cooperate and compete with local agents is key, without neglecting the global scenario (). Likewise, there are previous studies that analyze pioneering behavior in companies located in Peru's world heritage cities (; ; ), obtaining interesting contributions in the theoretical advancement in the tourism industry.

2.2 Organizational flexibility and pioneering behavior

Flexibility describes a firm’s organizational capability to use and reuse resources, reinforcing their internal competencies to develop diverse strategies and actions that allow strategic objectives to be met (). It also allows a firm to modify its form and system of business to adapt to changes in technology, the market environment and competition, responding to the changing needs of customers (; ). It has also been considered as a dynamic capability given it is able to renew and recreate resources, rapidly and efficiently integrating and configuring them in response to the dynamism in the environment (; ).

In addition, flexibility is seen as involving structural design or redesign, by mans of which firms exhibit their strategic actions (; ). In other words, importance is given to the management of risk and uncertainty. Meanwhile, consider it to be a dynamic capability that is important for dealing with complexity, minimizing uncertainty and assisting management in complicated and turbulent environments.

It also underpins an improved capacity to respond to key competitors, helping firms adjust their strategies and actions by proper handling of their resources and capacities (; ; ). It also helps achieve better operational performance, as it provides knowledge and means of information regarding how and what to change in the market (; ).

Being focused on core activities of a business, flexibility reduces wastage and effort through reconfiguration as a response to new situations requiring adjustment to the environment (). An example is the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, in which many tourism firms have been obliged to be flexible and reinvent themselves, offering products and services that are adapted to the new normality.

Government handling of the COVID-19 pandemic led to the Peruvian tourism sector being submitted to major restrictions, with constraints on the movement of both domestic and international travelers, thereby closing down virtually all activity in the industry. This scenario led to the closure of many firms. Some, however, achieved substantial income by providing accommodation to workers in the mining sector, who were compulsorily quarantined, while others managed to adapt their facilities for the treatment of low-level COVID-19 patients. These can be regarded as examples of organizational flexibility in developing countries.

The literature considers organizational flexibility to be an essential factor in operational and strategic activities. In this sense, argue that flexibility is an antecedent of organizations’ innovation and planning in dynamic environments, that is, flexibility is associated with creating and launching new products in the market. Additionally, underline the importance of structural flexibility in building flexible options into supply chains.

We found no studies analyzing flexibility and pioneering behavior in the tourism sector. Nonetheless, we did encounter studies that touched on the variables in question, with an example being that by , who suggest that flexibility has a mediating effect on the relationship between innovation and competitive advantage. Furthermore, report that flexibility mediates the relationship between network capability and strategic performance, while explain that flexibility leads information technology to enhance destination performance. Finally, the previous literature allows us to reflect on the benefits of flexibility in improving pioneering behavior in tourism sector firms (; ; ). Drawing on the above arguments, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1.

Organizational flexibility has a significant positive effect on pioneering behavior.

2.3 Indirect effect of market dynamism

The new business environment demands greater attention be paid to internal and external factors, especially those that impact firms’ sustainability and competitiveness (). hold that market dynamism is characterized by rapid changes in consumers’ tastes and needs, while also having a significant effect on corporate practice, and hence, it is recommended that greater attention be focused on market variations.

Our review of the literature identified several works on the direct and indirect effects of market dynamism (; ), yet studies linking it to structural adaptation and pioneering behavior are scarce. Furthermore, it has been the subject of limited analysis in the field of tourism firms in developing economies ().

suggest that the current dynamic environment means service enterprises need to create novel and varied products. Additionally, report that market changes necessitate acquiring and assimilating knowledge to identify and develop new products. consider that market dynamism affects how ties drive innovation, while propose that industry dynamism may affect organizational flexibility and market performance. Thus, we posit the following hypothesis:

H2.

Market dynamism has significantly and positively mediate the relationship between organizational flexibility and pioneering behavior in tourism firms.

shows the theoretical model of our research, where H1 (+) represents the effect of organizational flexibility on pioneering behavior and H2 (+) represents the indirect effect of market dynamism on the relationship between organizational flexibility and pioneering behavior.

3. Methodology

To address the aim of our research, we applied a nonexperimental, qualitative approach, which was also cross-sectional and retrospective. Its explanatory power lies in its measurement of the impact of the organizational flexibility variable on pioneering behavior.

3.1 Population and sample

The study population consists of 381 tourism firms in the region of Arequipa, comprising accommodation businesses, restaurants and tourism operators (travel agencies and tourism guides), categorized in accordance with the Regional Authority for Foreign Trade and Tourism. This economic sector is of great importance for the region, recognized by the UNESCO as a cultural tourism and creative gastronomy site. In 2019, it welcomed around 2,000,000 travelers, of whom 400,000 were foreign tourists, generating 1,500 million soles for the regional economy, according to the Peruvian National Chamber of Tourism (CANATUR).

The units of analysis by activity are as follows: accommodation, 39.87%; tourism operators, 35.95%; and restaurants 24.18%. A total of 43.79% of the firms are family owned, and 56.21% are limited companies. Of these firms, 79.41% have only one premises or main business facility, while 20.59% are branch. The sample comprises the 381 firms that participated in the study, with the data being gathered in the early months of 2020, before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We excluded 75 surveys from the study because of linear response behavior, resulting in the final analysis of 306 surveys. A pilot survey was administered to 20 firms to test the instrument reliability, yielding adequate values. This pilot survey also served to verify that respondents were able to understand the questionnaire.

3.2 Measures

Pioneering behavior has been defined as an organization’s ability to introduce a product or changes in procedures before others. Indeed, the literature suggests the importance of establishing certain entry barriers to delay imitation of successful strategies (), with the aim of gaining competitive advantages over followers. The present research uses a three-item instrument adapted from that proposed by . It is scored on a seven-point Likert-type scale and has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.920 and a discriminant validity [average variance extracted (AVE)] of 0.863.

Organizational flexibility has been considered a key element in firms, as it generates changes, reconfiguring resources with direct impacts on costs and operational performance (). We use these authors’ six-item scale, which has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.848 and a discriminant validity (AVE) of 0.552.

Market dynamism is characterized by changes in the market. To measure this, we used the scale proposed by , which is extensively used in the literature (; ; ). The scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.880, and its discriminant validity (AVE) is 0.805. Also, the three measurements can be seen in the of the paper.

3.3 Procedure and analytical techniques

A questionnaire was administered to the managers of tourism firms, the data from which were tabulated and subsequently analyzed using partial least squares (PLS) regression, a technique commonly applied in social sciences (). Additionally, to examine the information, we conducted a descriptive analysis, followed by an inference analysis, based on the measurement mod el. Lastly, the Smart PLS 3.3.4 statistical software was used for the structural equation modeling (SEM), with which we tested the hypotheses ().

4. Results

4.1 Descriptive results

We conducted a descriptive analysis of the mean scores, standard deviations and correlations of the main study variables: flexibility, market dynamism and pioneering behavior. The results reveal significant correlations. The standard deviations show dispersion, and the means are above the average values of the scale, for each dimension, as can be seen in the table below ().

4.2 Measurement model assessment

The measurement models, using SEM, were employed to assess the reliability and validity of the study variables, as were those applying PLS regression. The reliability of our variables was carried out by means of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (). The level of acceptance of both indicators was > 0.7, confirming the internal consistency of the variables.

Convergent validity was assessed using AVE, finding values of >0.5, and for discriminate validity, we used the Fonrell–Larcker criterion () and Hetero Trait Mono Trait ratio (HTMT) (), finding that the diagonal values were higher both for the higher rows and the lower rows in the case of HTMT ().

Furthermore, we analyzed the internal consistency of the indicators, which yielded factor loadings of >0.7, except for Item 6 on the flexibility scale, whose factor loading was 0.663. It was included, however, in the analysis, as it was considered important (), given its factor loading was > 0.4. Collinearity was measured using the variance inflation factor (VIF). This revealed values of ˂3.3 (), showing the indicators presented no collinearity. details this information.

The measurement model was accepted because all the study variables and their indicators were found to be valid and their level of acceptance met those suggested in the literature, as can be seen in and .

4.3 Structural model assessment

The second model to be evaluated by means of structural equations was the structural model, the aim of which was to assess the relationships between the various study variables, testing the acceptance of our proposed theoretical model. According to , a structural model no longer makes sense if the measurement model assessment fails to yield appropriate levels of acceptance, with this being a prior condition for the analysis of the former. Additionally, structural models help the predictive power of the independent variables with respect to the dependent variable, which in this case refers to the effect of organizational flexibility on pioneering behavior.

This study analyzes two structural models. The first measures the direct significant positive effect of organizational flexibility on pioneering behavior, while the second assesses the mediator effect of the market dynamism on the relationship between organizational flexibility and pioneering behavior. summarizes the results of the proposed structural models.

The results of the two structural models help assess which has the greater level of predictive power according to their coefficients of determination and f2. The following sections explain these models.

The first model assessed the impact of organizational flexibility on pioneering behavior. The results reveal a highly significant positive path coefficient of 0.271***. The determination coefficient also has a significant positive effect on pioneering behavior, with R2 = 0.373*** (), which shows that organizational flexibility has an explanatory power of 37.3% for pioneering behavior.

These results suggest our first research hypothesis can be accepted, as organizational flexibility is shown to have a significant positive relationship with pioneering behavior in tourism firms in the Arequipa region. shows the values generated by this first model.

This second model analyzed the indirect mediating effect of market dynamism on the association between organizational flexibility and pioneering behavior. The results suggest a synergistic effect of these two variables on pioneering behavior, as a coefficient of determination of R2 = 0.429*** was found, which is higher than the previous model, showing a considerable increase of 0.056 because of the indirect mediating effect ().

We also found path coefficients of 0.188*** for organizational flexibility and 0.327*** for market dynamism, both of which were positive and significant. Although a decrease in the organizational flexibility path coefficient can be seen, the overall model reveals a substantial effect size, with f2 = 0.131, which, following , can be considered large (). The results thus mean we can accept our second hypothesis, confirming the market dynamism has a positive moderating effect.

5. Discussion

The results of our research support the theory that organizational flexibility boosts a firm’s pioneering behavior. This, in turn, creates sustainable competitive advantages and provides the enterprise with the capability to deal with a shifting environment, which, in the case of the tourism sector, is one where competitiveness has increased over recent years as a result of growing and changing customer demand ().

This study notably advances the literature on the antecedents of pioneering behavior. First, it corroborates the significant positive relationship between organizational flexibility and pioneering behavior, which is consistent with the findings of previous studies reporting the impact of flexibility on both strategic firm performances. Previous organizational flexibility research has not been analyzed with pioneering behavior; however, close studies have been found.

For example, argue that organizational flexibility fosters innovation activities. In turn, state that organizational flexibility is a key antecedent for innovation. In this sense, the research results are in line with the conclusions found in these studies, given that pioneering orientation is considered as a strategic behavior enhanced by organizational flexibility increasing its ability to enter the market first, by creating new products through innovation activities. Also, confirm that organizational flexibility has an effect on strategic performance; in our case, pioneering behavior is valued through the entry of new products, an essential indicator of strategic performance.

Furthermore, we found an indirect effect of market dynamism on the relationship between organizational flexibility and pioneering behavior, where the contingent role of market dynamism on the relationships between several variables and business performance is confirmed (). Additionally, changes in customers’ purchasing and consumption habits have an influence on firms’ pioneering behavior. Our findings show a positive relationship in this respect, whereby the greater the change in customers’ consumption behavior, the greater will be the firm’s pioneering behavior. On the other hand, analyzed pioneer orientation in tourism clusters, concluding the existence of a U-shaped curvilinear relationship between market dynamism and pioneer orientation. Our results find similarities in the positive effect of market dynamism, taking into account that any curvilinear relationship has both negative and positive effects.

6. Conclusions and implications

The primary contribution of our study is that it provides empirical evidence of the significant positive effect of organizational flexibility on pioneering behavior, which, in turn, is driven by market dynamism. The intensity of such dynamism would directly affect the entrepreneurial orientation of cultural tourism firms in Peru. It is also worth noting that we show how a firm’s flexibility in resources and processes has a substantive impact on its response to the environment, by which we contribute to enhancing knowledge on organizational flexibility, pioneering behavior and market dynamism as contingent elements in this association.

Our findings can help tourism firm' managers in their business practices, suggesting that companies should develop capabilities and strategies to reconfigure their processes and products. In addition, they should develop organizational flexibility for better operational performance in the development of new products and/or services demanded by the market. They must also maintain a pioneering behavior to be the first to introduce new products in the market, lead in the development of innovative ideas, anticipate the competition and take advantage of market opportunities. In particular, companies should maintain a more flexible behavior to explore and exploit market opportunities. This confirms previous research findings (; ; ; ).

On the other hand, the interaction between organizational flexibility and pioneering behavior favors business competitiveness and sustainability; in this context, market dynamism is an essential factor of the environment that promotes this interaction, as it is characterized by continuous changes in consumer behaviors in tourists. In addition, companies must develop good relationships with customers, suppliers and competitors, as well as be able to attract new customers by exploring their needs for products and services.

Furthermore, public and university institutions linked to tourism should provide information to improve the decision-making capacity of tourism company managers and develop their managerial potential with greater openness to changes in the environment under the premise of flexibility, pioneering behavior and market dynamism. We also recommend that organizations constantly monitor their customers’ purchasing and consumption habits.

7. Limitations

Despite all the efforts made, the present study is not without its limitations. Regarding the units of analysis, although the surveys were administered to the managers of businesses in the tourism sector, and following and , managing directors are responsible for firms’ strategic behavior, we cannot exclude a potential bias. To avoid common method bias, we selected a subsample of 45 firms, where the survey was answered a second time by different managers, with the results of the two samples yielding no significant differences. Finally, all the measures used had been validated in previous studies (; ; ; ).

8. Future research lines

We propose future lines of research related to the reopening of tourism in many countries following the advances made against the COVD-19 pandemic. This prospect will require greater organizational flexibility in tourism businesses, focused not only on innovation but also on other operational aspects that may drive the recovery of this significant economic sector. A variable that deserves further research is the management and exploration of value in firms in this new scenario, which could be the support for new business strategies. Likewise, the professionalization of the management of the companies deserves to be explored; in addition, it is necessary to investigate the managerial support in the different strategic orientations (pioneering orientation, market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation) in the companies of the tourism sector.

Figures

Theoretical research model

Figure 1

Theoretical research model

Theoretical research model with findings

Figure 2

Theoretical research model with findings

Descriptive analysis of the study variables

Mean SD Asymmetry Correlations
Variables     (1) (2) (3)
(1) Organizational flexibility 5.162 1.079 −0.568
(2) Market dynamism 4.553 1.55 −0.607 0.304***
(3) Pioneering behavior 3.792 1.721 −0.059 0.249*** 0.397***
Notes:

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Source: Own preparation

Analiysis of the realibility, convergent validity and disciminant validity of the constructs

  Reliability internal consistency Convergent validity Discriminant validity
  Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability AVE (1) (2) (3)
Variables >0.7 >0.7 >0.5
(1) Organizational flexibility 0.848 0.888 0.552 0.743 0.261 0.344
(2) Pioneering behavior 0.920 0.950 0.863 0.285 0.929 0.441
(3) Market dynamism 0.880 0.925 0.805 0.327 0.402 0.897

Source: Own preparation

Analysis of the reliability of the indicators, discriminant validity and collinearity

Descriptive statistics Discriminant validity Collinearity
  Descriptive statistics Cross loading Variance inflation factor (VIF)
Variables Mean Standard deviation >0.7 ≤3.3
Organizational flexibility
Item 1 4.618 1.815 0.75 1.44
Item 2 4.961 1.335 0.8 1.896
Item 3 5.124 1.441 0.8 1.94
Item 4 5.484 1.271 0.712 1.997
Item 5 5.359 1.533 0.722 1.73
Item 6 5.425 1.245 0.663 1.798
Market dynamism
Item 1 4.484 1.712 0.913 2.44
Item 2 4.539 1.798 0.893 2.459
Item 3 4.637 1.67 0.885 2.389
Pioneering behavior
Item 1 3.732 1.92 0.915 2.894
Item 2 3.807 1.809 0.948 4.312
Item 3 3.837 1.83 0.923 3.597

Source: Own preparation

Structural models

Variables Model 1 Model 2
Flexibility → Pioneering behavior 0.271*** 0.188***
Market dynamism → Pioneering behavior 0.327***
Mediation: Flexibility → Market dynamism → Pioneering behavior 0.079***
Activity 0.447*** 0.419***
Age −0.172*** −0.178***
Size 0.180*** 0.148**
Adjusted R² 0.373*** 0.429***
Change in R² 0.06
f²   0.131
Notes:

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Source: Own preparation

Variables and indicators

Organizational flexibility
Item Indicator
Item 1 Reduction of customer service time, in the face of market changes
Item 2 Make adjustments to our production processes, in the face of market changes
Item 3 Make inventory rotation adjustments, in the face of market changes
Item 4 Improve the work performance of staff, in the face of market demands
Item 5 Improve the delivery reliability of our products, in the face of market changes
Pioneering orientation
Item Indicator
Item 1 This firm is usually among the first to introduce new products to the market
Item 2 This firm is the industry’s leader in developing innovative ideas
Item 3 This firm is well known for introducing breakthrough products and ideas
Market dynamism
Item Indicator
Item 1 In our business, customer demands and product preferences change quite rapidly
Item 2 New customers tend to have product needs that are considerably different from those of existing customers
Item 3 Our customers tend to constantly look for new products

Appendix

References

Anand, G., & Ward, P. T. (2004). Fit, flexibility and performance in manufacturing: Coping with dynamic environments. Production and Operations Management, 13(4), 369-385.

Anning-Dorson, T., & Nyamekye, M. B. (2020). Be flexible: Turning innovativeness into competitive advantage in hospitality firms. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(2), 605-624.

Atuahene-Gima, K., Li, H., & De Luca, L. M. (2006). The contingent value of marketing strategy innovativeness for product development performance in Chinese new technology ventures. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(3), 359-372.

Azadegan, A., & Dooley, K. J. (2010). Supplier innovativeness, organizational learning styles and manufacturer performance: An empirical assessment. Journal of Operations Management, 28(6), 488-505.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Bryson, J., Wood, P., & Keeble, D. (1993). Business networks, small firm flexibility and regional development in UK business services. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5(3), 265-277.

Buzacott, J. A. (1999). Structure of manufacturing systems: Insights on the impact of variability. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 11(2), 127-146.

Carpenter, S. K., Cepeda, N. J., Rohrer, D., Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2012). Using spacing to enhance diverse forms of learning: Review of recent research and implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 369-378.

Cepeda Carrión, G., Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Roldán, J. L. (2016). Prediction-oriented modeling in business research by means of PLS path modeling: Introduction to a JBR special section. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4545-4551.

Cheraghalizadeh, R., Olya, H., & Tumer, M. (2021). “The effects of external and internal factors on competitive advantage – moderation of market dynamism and mediation of customer relationship building. Sustainability, 13(7), 4066.

Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Heeley, M. B. (2000). Pioneers and followers: Competitive tactics, environment, and firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 175-210.

Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263-282.

Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C., & Henke, M. (2015). The performance impact of supply chain agility and supply chain adaptability: The moderating effect of product complexity. International Journal of Production Research, 53(10), 3028-3046.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

Gal-Or, E. (1987). First mover private with disadvantages information. The Review of Economic Studies, 54(2), 279-292.

García-Villaverde, P. M., Elche, D., & Martínez-Pérez, Á. (2020). Understanding pioneering orientation in tourism clusters: Market dynamism and social capital. Tourism Management, 76, 103966.

García-Villaverde, P. M., Parra-Requena, G., & Ruiz-Ortega, M. J. (2010). “Capital social y pioneering behavior: El papel mediador de las capacidades tecnológicas y de marketing. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa, 13(45), 10-42.

García-Villaverde, P. M., Parra-Requena, G., & Ruiz-Ortega, M. J. (2017). From pioneering orientation to new product performance through competitive tactics in SMEs. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 20(4), 275-290.

García-Villaverde, P. M., Ruiz-Ortega, M. J., & Toledo-Picazo, M. (2019). “Backgrounds of the pioneer orientation: the divergent effect of social capital. European Journal of International Management, 13(2), 247-266.

García-Villaverde, P. M., Ruiz-Ortega, M. J., Hurtado-Palomino, A., De La Gala-Velásquez, B., & Zirena-Bejarano, P. P. (2021). Social capital and innovativeness in firms in cultural tourism destinations: Divergent contingent factors. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 19, 100529.

García-Villaverde, P. M., & Ruiz-Ortega, M. J. (2007). Determinants of entry timing: Firm capabilities and environmental conditions. Management Research, 5(2), 101-112.

Golder, P. N., & Tellis, G. J. (1993). Pioneer advantage: Marketing logic marketing legend? Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 158-170, doi: 10.1177/002224379303000203.

Gómez, J., Pérez-Aradros, B., & Salazar, I. (2019). Does order of entry shape competitive strategies? An analysis of european mobile operators. Long Range Planning, 54(2), 101874.

Guo, C., Wang, Y. J., Hao, A. W., & Saran, A. (2018). Strategic positioning, timing of entry, and new product performance in business-to-business markets: Do market-oriented firms make better decisions?Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 25(1), 51-64.

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24.

Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource - based view: Capability lyfecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997-1010.

Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2-20.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.

Ho-Wai So, S., Chan, A. P., Shiu-Yin Chong, C., Hiu-Mei Wong, M., Tak-Lam Lo, W., Wai-Sau Chung, D., & Chan, S. S. (2015). Metacognitive training for delusions (MCTd): Effectiveness on data-gathering and belief flexibility in a chinese sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(730), 1-15.

Hurtado-Palomino, A., De La Gala-Velásquez, B., & Merma-Valverde, W. F. (2021). The synergistic effects of innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness on performance of tourism firms. Tourism Planning & Development, 18, 1-22, doi: 10.1080/21568316.2021.2001036.

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70.

Jiang, Q., & McCabe, S. (2021). Information technology and destination performance: Examining the role of dynamic capabilities. Annals of Tourism Research, 91, 103292.

Kaličanin, D. (2008). “A question of strategy: to be a pioneer or a follower? Economic Annals, 53(177), 89-102.

Kamasak, R., Yavuz, M., & Altuntas, G. (2016). Is the relationship between innovation performance and knowledge management contingent on environmental dynamism and learning capability? Evidence from a turbulent market. Business Research, 9(2), 229-253.

Klingebiel, R. & Joseph, J. (2016). Entry timing and innovation strategy in feature phones. Strategic Management Journal, 37(6), 1002-1020.

Lee, G. K. (2008). Relevance of organizational capabilities and its dynamics: What to learn from entrants’ product portfolios about the determinants of entry timing. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1-43.

Lévesque, M., & Shepherd, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ choice of entry strategy in emerging and developed markets. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 29-54.

Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1998). First-mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12), 1111-1125.

McEvily, S. K., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Prescott, J. E. (2004). The global acquisition, leverage, and protection of technological competencies. Strategic Management Journal, 25(89), 713-722.

Majid, A., Yasir, M., Yousaf, Z., & Qudratullah, H. (2019). Role of network capability, structural flexibility and management commitment in defining strategic performance in hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(8), 3077-3096, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2018-0277.

Mueller, B. A., Titus, V. K. Jr., Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (2012). Pioneering orientation and firm growth: Knowing when and to what degree pioneering makes sense. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1517-1549.

Pantano, E. (2016). Benefits and risks associated with time choice of innovating in retail settings. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 44(1), 58-70.

Park, H., Yoo, J. Y., Moon, S. H., Yoo, H. S., Lee, H. S., Kwon, T. H., & Hahn, H. (2019). Effect of technology and market dynamism on the business performances of SMEs by supporting services. Science, Technology and Society, 24(1), 144-160.

Parthasarthy, R., & Sethi, S. P. (1992). The impact of flexible automation on business strategy and organizational structure. The Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 86-111.

Ravi Srinivasan, M. S. (2016). An investigation of visibility and flexibility as complements to supply chain analytics: an organizational information processing theory perspective. International Journal of Laboratory Hematology, 38(1), 42-49.

Robinson, W. T., Fornell, C., & Sullivan, M. (1992). Are market pioneers intrinsically stronger than later entrants? Strategic Management Journal, 13(8), 609-624.

Rodrigo-Alarcón, J., García-Villaverde, P. M., Parra-Requena, G., & Ruiz-Ortega, M. J. (2017). Innovativeness in the context of technological and market dynamism the conflicting effects of network density. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(4), 548-568.

Rodrigo-Alarcón, J., García-Villaverde, P. M., Ruiz-Ortega, M. J., & Parra-Requena, G. (2018). From social capital to entrepreneurial orientation: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities. European Management Journal, 36(2), 195-209.

Roldan, J. L., & Sanchez-Franco, M. J. (2012). Variance-based structural equation modeling: Guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research. In M. Mora, (Ed.), Research methodologies, innovations and philosophies in software systems engineering and information systems, IGI Global, pp. 1-490.

Ruiz-Ortega, M. J., García-Villaverde, P. M., De La Gala-Velásquez, B., Hurtado-Palomino, A., & Arredondo-Salas, Á. Y. (2021). Innovation capability and pioneering orientation in Peru’s cultural heritage tourism destinations: Conflicting environmental effects. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48, 441-450, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.07.012.

Ruiz-Ortega, M. J., Molina-Morales, F. X., Parra-Requena, G., & García-Villaverde, P. M. (2020). Strength of ties and pioneering orientation: The moderating role of scanning capabilities. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 1-16, doi: 10.1177/2340944420967954.

Saeed, M. A., Tabassum, H., Zahid, M. M., Jiao, Y., & Nauman, S. (2021). Organizational flexibility and project portfolio performance: The roles of environmental uncertainty and innovation capability. Engineering Management Journal, 14(3), 600-624.

Schilling, M. A., & Steensma, H. K. (2001). The use of modular organizational forms: An industry-level analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1149-1168.

Schoenherr, T., & Speier-Pero, C. (2015). Data science, predictive analytics, and big data in supply chain management: Current state and future potential. Journal of Business Logistics, 36(1), 120-132.

Shukla, S. K., Sushil, & Sharma, M. K. (2019). Managerial paradox toward flexibility: Emergent views using thematic analysis of literature. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20(4), 349-370, doi: 10.1007/s40171-019-00220-x.

Shukor, A. A. A., Newaz, M. S., Rahman, M. K., & Taha, A. Z. (2020). “Supply chain integration and its impact on supply chain agility and organizational flexibility in manufacturing firms. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 16(8), 1721-1744.

Song, M., Zhao, Y. L., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2013). Do perceived pioneering advantages lead to first-mover decisions? Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1143-1152.

Spanos, Y. E., & Lioukas, S. (2001). An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: contrasting porter’s competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), 907-934.

Srinivasan, R., & Swink, M.L. (2016). An investigation of visibility and flexibility as complements to supply chain analytics: An organizational information processing theory perspective. International Journal of Laboratory Hematology, 38(1), 42-49, doi: 10.1111/ijlh.12426.

Superintendencia Nacional de Aduanas y de Administración Tributaria (SUNAT). (2019). Solicitud de acceso a la información Pública – Ley N° 27806. Retrieved from: www.sunat.gob.pe/cuentassunat/informacionContribuyente/index.html

Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Tsai, W. M. H., MacMillan, I. C., & Low, M. B. (1991). Effects of strategy and environment on corporate venture success in industrial markets. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(1), 9-28.

Wu, W. Y., & Nguyen, P. T. (2018). The antecedents of dynamic service innovation capabilities: the moderating roles of market dynamism and market orientation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(7), 1-30.

Yousaf, Z., & Majid, A. (2018). Organizational network and strategic business performance: Does organizational flexibility and entrepreneurial orientation really matter? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(2), 268-285.

Zachary, M. A., Gianiodis, P. T., Payne, G. T., & Markman, G. D. (2015). Entry timing: Enduring lessons and future directions. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1388-1415.

Zahra, S. A. (1996). Technology strategy and new venture performance: a study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(4), 289-321.

Zhang, L., & Zhang, J. (2018). Perception of small tourism enterprises in lao PDR regarding social sustainability under the influence of social network. Tourism Management, 69, 109-120.

Zhang, J. A., Garrett-Jones, S., & Szeto, R. (2013). Innovation capability and market performance: The moderating effect of industry dynamism. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(02), 1-35.

Zhu, X., Dong, M. C., Gu, J., & Dou, W. (2017). How Do informal ties drive open innovation? The contingency role of market dynamism. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 64(2), 208-219.

Further reading

Carpenter, G. S., & Nakamoto, K. (1989). Reflections on consumer preference formation and pioneering advantage. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), 570-573.

Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y Turismo. (2019). Reporte regional de turismo Arequipa. Retrieved from: https://cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/436938/Arequipa_ReporteRegional_Turismo_Nov19.pdf (accessed 15 November 2021).

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa (Peru) [Project: IBA-CS-03-2020-UNSA].

Corresponding author

Bernardo Ramón Dante De la Gala-Velasquez can be contacted at: bdelagala@unsa.edu.pe

About the authors

Bernardo Ramón Dante De la Gala-Velasquez is based at the Department of Administración, Universidad Nacional de San Agustin de Arequipa, Arequipa, Peru

Americo Hurtado-Palomino is based at the Department of Administración, Universidad Nacional de San Agustin de Arequipa, Arequipa, Peru

Elbia Myreyle Chavez Zirena is based at Universidad Nacional de San Agustin de Arequipa, Arequipa, Peru

Related articles