Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship (벤처창업연구)

The Korean Society of Business Venturing (한국벤처창업학회)
권호 표지

A Study on Startup Entrepreneurs' External Networking Behavior and Competitive Advantage: Sequential Mediation of Dynamic Capabilities, and Product Development Performance

창업자 외부네트워킹행동이 스타트업 경쟁우위성과에 미치는 영향: Process Macro를 이용한 동적역량 및 제품개발성과의 순차적 매개효과 검증

  • 김현 (한일장신대학교 교양교육원) ;
  • 전정구 (충남대학교 LINC3.0사업단)
  • Received : 2024.09.12
  • Accepted : 2024.10.07
  • Published : 2024.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study is intended to examine factors affecting the survival rate of startups. Based on a literature review of previous studies, this study selected competitive advantage as a variable to represent the survival rate of startups, and the following as antecedents thereof: startup entrepreneurs' external networking behavior, dynamic capabilities, and product development performance. Many previous studies have used qualitative approaches that examined the relationship between each of the variables, while few quantitative studies have empirically demonstrated the relationship. An empirical investigation was, therefore, warranted, which this study conducted. A questionnaire survey of 402 startup entrepreneurs was conducted to measure startup entrepreneurs' external networking behavior, dynamic capabilities, product development performances, and competitive advantage. The following results were obtained. First, startup entrepreneurs' external networking behavior had a statistically significant positive effect on fidynamic capabilities. Second, dynamic capabilities had a statistically significant positive effect on pproduct development performances. Fourth, product development performances had a statistically significant positive effect on competitive advantage. Finally, startup entrepreneurs' external networking behavior had a statistically significant positive effect on competitive advantage by sequentially mediating dynamic capabilities, and product development performances. This study has the following implications. First, this study empirically demonstrated the conceptual model proposed by previous studies as a research model. This study's significance is that it actually demonstrated this empirically. Second, startup entrepreneurs can obtain funds through engaging in external networking. Through interviews with successful startup entrepreneurs, Kim & Moon (2021) developed a theoretical framework to reflect the fact that startup entrepreneurs can obtain funds in exchange for trust and reciprocity to funders, which is consistent with this study's empirical findings. Therefore, if startup entrepreneurs engage in networking behavior based on trust and reciprocity to those with whom they have a business partnership outside their startups, they may be effective at raising funds.

스타트업의 생존율은 낮은 편이다. 따라서 어떤 변수가 스타트업의 생존율을 높일 수 있는지 연구할 필요가 있다. 스타트업 경쟁우위성과는 스타트업이 지속적으로 생존할 수 있는지 예측하는 좋은 지표가 된다. 본 연구에서는 스타트업의 경쟁우위성과를 높일 수 있는 선행변수들을 찾아 실증하고자 했다. 스타트업 경쟁우위성과의 선행변수로 동적역량 및 제품개발성과를 도출했고, 동적역량 및 제품개발성과를 효과적으로 나타내게 할 수 있는 선행변수로 스타트업 창업자 외부네트워킹행동을 설정했다. 그리고 본 연구는 스타트업 창업자의 외부네트 워킹행동이 동적역량 및 제품개발성과를 순차적으로 매개해서 스타트업 경쟁우위성과에 유의한 정(+)의 영향을 미치는지 실증하고자 했다. 402명의 스타트업 창업자를 대상으로 조사하여 분석한 결과, 첫째, 스타트업 창업자 외부네트워킹행동은 동적역량에 통계적으로 유의미하게 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 동적역량은 제품개발성과에 통계적으로 유의미하게 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 제품개발성과는 스타트업의 경쟁우위성과에 통계적으로 유의미하게 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로, 스타트업 창업자 외부네트워킹행동은 동적역량, 제품개발성과를 순차적으로 매개해서 스타트업의 경쟁우위성과에 통계적으로 유의미하게 정(+)의 영향을 주었다. 본 연구의 시사점은 스타트업 창업자 외부네트워킹행동은 동적역량과 제품개발성과를 통해 스타트업 경쟁우위성과에 정(+)의 방향으로 유의한 영향을 미친다는 것을 실증했다는 것이고, 따라서 스타트업 창업자는 외부네트워킹행동을 통해 스타트업의 지속적인 생존가능성을 높일 수 있다는 것을 확인했다는 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김현.문재승(2021). 신생기업의 죽음의 계곡 통과: 애자일과 동태적역량 관점의 접근. 대한경영학회지, 34(7), 1183-1206.
  2. 문재승(2014). 네트워킹행동이 직무성과와 이직의도에 미치는 영향과 고용가능성의 매개효과. 인적자원관리연구, 21(3), 289-319.
  3. 장수덕(2010). 벤처기업 실패의 동태적 과정: 실패의 유형, 과정 그리고 그 차이점에 대한 종단적 분석. 기술혁신학회지, 13(1), 140-159.
  4. 전정구.서영욱(2020). 재창업자의 긍정심리자본이 흡수역량을 통해 의사결정의 질에 미치는 영향에 대한 연구. 벤처창업연구, 15(6), 155-166.
  5. Agrawal, J., & Kamakura, W. A.(1999). Country of origin: A competitive advantage?. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16(4), 255-267.
  6. Akgun, A. E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J. C., & Aren, S.(2007). Emotional and learning capability and their impact on product innovativeness and firm performance. Technovation, 27(9), 501-513.
  7. Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W.(2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 27(6), 755-775.
  8. Barney, J. B.(2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643-650.
  9. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A.(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
  10. Coad, A.(2018). Firm age: a survey. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 28(1), 13-43.
  11. Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D.(2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 740-751.
  12. Corallo, A., Errico, F., Latino, M. E., & Menegoli, M.(2019). Dynamic business models: a proposed framework to overcome the death valley. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10, 1248-1271.
  13. Coyne, K. P.(1986). Sustainable competitive advantage-What it is, what it isn't. Business Horizons, 29(1), 54-61.
  14. Cronbach, L. J.(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
  15. Dunk, A. S.(2007). Assessing the effects of product quality and environmental management accounting on the competitive advantage of firms. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 1(1), 28-38.
  16. Ebbers, J. J.(2014). Networking behavior and contracting relationships among entrepreneurs in business incubators. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1-23.
  17. Farrell, A. M.(2010). Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 324-327.
  18. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F.(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  19. Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W.(2001). Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professional employees. Group & Organization Management, 26(3), 283-311.
  20. Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T.(1983). The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48(5), 692-710.
  21. Gimenez-Fernandez, E. M., Sandulli, F. D., & Bogers, M.(2020). Unpacking liabilities of newness and smallness in innovative start-ups: Investigating the differences in innovation performance between new and older small firms. Research Policy, 49(10), 1-13.
  22. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M.(2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
  23. Hayes, A. F.(2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4-40.
  24. Hoe, L. C., & Mansori, S.(2018). The effects of product quality on customer satisfaction and loyalty: Evidence from Malaysian engineering industry. International Journal of Industrial Marketing, 3(1), 20.
  25. Hosseini, A. S., Soltani, S., & Mehdizadeh, M.(2018). Competitive advantage and its impact on new product development strategy (Case study: Toos Nirro technical firm). Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4(2), 17.
  26. Kazanjian, R. K., & Drazin, R.(1989). An empirical test of a stage of growth progression model. Management Science, 35(12), 1489-1503.
  27. Kroll, M., Wright, P., & Heiens, R. A.(1999). The contribution of product quality to competitive advantage: impacts on systematic variance and unexplained variance in returns. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4).
  28. Kump, B., Engelmann, A., Kessler, A., & Schweiger, C.(2019). Toward a dynamic capabilities scale: measuring organizational sensing, seizing, and transforming capacities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 28(5), 1149-1172.
  29. Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M.(2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: a study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6), 615-640.
  30. Michael, J., & Yukl, G.(1993). Managerial level and subunit function as determinants of networking behavior in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 18(3), 328-351.
  31. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H.(1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  32. Maiti, M., Krakovich, V., Shams, S. R., & Vukovic, D. B.(2020). Resource-based model for small innovative enterprises. Management Decision, 58(8), 1525-1541.
  33. Kuo, S. Y., Lin, P. C., & Lu, C. S.(2017). The effects of dynamic capabilities, service capabilities, competitive advantage, and organizational performance in container shipping. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 95(1), 356-371.
  34. Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A.(2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences, 42(1), 239-273.
  35. Pemartin, M., & Rodriguez-Escudero, A. I.(2021). Is the formalization of NPD collaboration productive or counterproductive? Contingent effects of trust between partners. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 24(1), 2-18.
  36. Porter, M. E.(1997). Competitive strategy. Measuring Business Excellence, 1(2), 12-17.
  37. Puthusserry, P., Child, J., & Khan, Z.(2020). Social capital development through the stages of internationalization: Relations between British and Indian SMEs. Global Strategy Journal, 10(2), 282-308.
  38. Ragazou, K., Passas, I., Garefalakis, A., & Dimou, I.(2022). Investigating the research trends on strategic ambidexterity, agility, and open innovation in SMEs: Perceptions from bibliometric analysis. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), 118.
  39. Raza, S., Minai, M. S., Abrar ul Haq, M., & Zain, A. Y. M.(2018). Entrepreneurial network towards small firm performance through dynamic capabilities: the conceptual perspective. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 24(4), 1-9.
  40. Shane, S., & Cable, D.(2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3), 364-381.
  41. Sobel, M. E.(1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological methodology.
  42. Stanko, M. A., Molina-Castillo, F. J., & Munuera-Aleman, J. L.(2012). Speed to market for innovative products: blessing or curse?. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 751-765.
  43. Teece, D. J.(2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
  44. Teece, D. J.(2018). Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(3), 359-368.
  45. Van de Ven, A. H., Hudson, R., & Schroeder, D. M.(1984). Designing new business startups: Entrepreneurial, organizational, and ecological considerations. Journal of Management, 10(1), 87-108.
  46. Vrontis, D., Basile, G., Andreano, M. S., Mazzitelli, A., & Papasolomou, I.(2020). The profile of innovation driven Italian SMEs and the relationship between the firms' networking abilities and dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 114(6), 313-324.
  47. Wilson, N., Wright, M., & Kacer, M.(2018). The equity gap and knowledge-based firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 50(7), 626-649.
  48. Zahra, S. A.(2021). The resource-based view, resourcefulness, and resource management in startup firms: A proposed research agenda. Journal of Management, 47(7).