ENTREPRENEURIAL ORIENTATION, STRATEGIC IMPROVISATION, TALENT MANAGEMENT AND FIRM PERFORMANCE

Abstract

 The Malaysian Government has acquired a large shareholding in several Malaysian companies to meet national aspirations, social concerns and global challenges. Known as ‘Government-Linked Companies’ or GLCs, have a part in ensuring Malaysia to achieve its ambition of becoming a developed country by the year of 2020. For the GLCs to sustain in the industry it is operated, it has to find ways to optimize the best practices such as in entrepreneurial orientation, strategic improvisation and talent management that can improve its organization competencies, particularly the performance. The sample includes all of the twenty six (26) public listed companies of the GLCs in Malaysia. The study uses a structured questionnaires to collect the data from the firms meeting the criteria of government linked companies or GLCs, the disproportionate sampling technique employed is to choose 5 executives from each company, making a total of 520 respondents. Results showed all hypotheses were supported; therefore, GLCs should ensure the favorable results to give the right priority to the implementation of the best practices in order to improve organizational performance.

Keywords

• entrepreneurial orientation
• strategic improvisation
• talent management
• performance
• Government-Linked companies

References

1. • Alegre, J., Lapiedra, R., Chiva, R. (2006). A literature-based innovation output analysis: Implications for innovation capacity, International Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4), pp. 385-399.
2. • Armstrong, J., Overton, T. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, pp. 396-402.
3. • Ang, J. S., & Ding, D. K. (2006). Government ownership and the performance of government-linked companies: the case of Singapore, Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 16, pp. 64-88.
4. • Axelrod, B., Handfield-Jones, H. and Michaels, E. (2002) “A new game plan for C players”, Harvard Business Review, January, pp. 81-88.
5. • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, Vol. 17(1), pp. 99−120.
6. • Baker T, Miner A, Eesley D, 2003. Improvising firms: bri-colage, account giving, and improvisational competency in the founding process. Research Policy 32: pp. 255–276.
7. • Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly.
8. • Coates, T., McDermott, C. (2002). An exploratory analysis of new competencies: a resource based view perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 20(5), pp. 435-450.

9. • Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, pp. 75-87.
10. • Crossan, M., Cunha, M. P., Vera, D., and Cunha, J. (2005). Time and organizational improvisation. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), pp. 129-145.
11. • Crossan, M. M., Pina e Cunha, M., Vera, D., Cunha, J. (2005). Time and organizational improvisation. Academy of Management Review.
12. • Cunha, M. P., Cunha, J. V., Kamoche, K. (1999). Organizational improvisation: what, when, how, and why. International Journal of Management Review, 1(3), pp. 299-341.
13. • Dess, G., Robinson, R. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the private-held firm and conglomerate business unit, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5(3), pp. 265- 273.
14. • Fahy, J. (2000). The resource-based view of the firm: some stumbling-blocks on the road to understanding sustainable competitive advantage, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24(2/3/4), pp. 94-104.
15. • Gupta, A., Govindarajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16(4), pp. 768-792.
16. • Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (1986). Relationships among corporate level distinctive competencies, diversification strategy, corporate strategy and performance. Journal of Management Studies.
17. • Hmieleski, K. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2008). The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational behaviour with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and entrepreneur work satisfaction. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4), pp. 482-496.
18. • Hubbard, G. (2009). Managing organizational performance: Beyond the triple bottom line, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19, pp. 177-191.
19. • Jambekar, A., & Pelc, K. (2007). Improvisation model for team performance enhancement in a manufacturing environment. Team Performance Management, 13(7/8), pp. 259-274.
20. • Janney, J. J., & Dess, G. G. (2006). The risk concept for entrepreneurs reconsidered: new challenges to the conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 21.
21. • Kuruppuarachchi, D., & Perera, H. S. C. (2010). Impact of TQM and technology management on operations performance. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23(47).
22. • Kamoche, K., Cunha, M.P. and Cunha, J.V. (2003). Towards a theory of organizational improvisation: Looking beyond jazz metaphor. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), pp. 2023-2051.
23. • Kapelko, M. (2006). Evaluating efficiency in the framework of resource-based view of the firm: evidence from polish and spanish textile and clothing Industry,
24. • Laugen, B. T., Acur, N., Boer, H., & Frick. J. (2005). Best manufacturing practices: What do the best performing companies do? International Journal of Operation & Production Management, 25, pp. 131-150.
25. • Lin, C., Tsai, H., Wu, Y., Kiang, M. (2012). A fuzzy quantitative VRIO-based framework for evaluating organizational activities. Management Decision, Vol. 50(8), pp. 1396-1411.
26. • Lucas, M., Kirillova, O. (2011). Reconciling the resource-based and competitive positioning perspectives on manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 22(2), pp. 189-203.
27. • March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2, pp. 71–87.
28. • McGrath, R.G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), pp. 118–131.
29. • Moorman, C. and Miner, A.S. (1998b). The convergence between planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), pp. 1-20
30. • Mullins J, Komisar R. 2009. Getting to Plan B: Breaking through to a Better Business Model. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
31. • Musa, M. B. (2007). Towards A Competitive Malaysia: Development Changes in the 21st Century. Strategic Information and Research Development Centre.
32. • Oltra, M. J., & Flor, M. L. (2010). The moderating effect of business strategy on the relationship between operations strategy and firm’s results. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30(6), pp. 612-638.
33. • O'Regan, N., Ghobadian, A. (2004). Short- and long-term performance in manufacturing SMEs: different targets, different drivers. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(5), pp. 405-424.
34. • Pruis, E. (1989). The five key principles for talent development. Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 43(4), pp. 206-216.
35. • Runyan, R., Droge, C., Swinney, J., (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation versus small business orientation: what are their relationships to firm performance? Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), pp. 567–588.
36. • Salaman, G., Storey, J., Billsberry, J. (2005). Strategic Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
37. • Singh, K., & Ang, S. H. (1999). Government in business: an empirical analysis of the strategies and success of government linked corporations in Singapore. Academy of Management, pp. 1-6.
38. • Skinner, W. (1969). Manufacturing: the missing link in corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 47, pp. 136–145.
39. • Souchon, A.L., & Hughes, P. (2007). Improvising export decisions: a contingency theory perspective. International and Cross-cultural Marketing, Track 8.
40. • Tansley, C. (2011). What do we mean by the term "talent" in talent management? Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 43(5), pp. 266-274.
41. • Ting, I., Lean, H. (2011). Capital structure of government-linked companies in Malaysia. Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 7(2), pp. 137-156.
42. • Vietor. (2007). How countries compete: strategy, structure, and government in the global economy. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.
43. • Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organization Science, 16(3), pp. 203-224
44. • Wang, C. L. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), pp. 635-656.
45. • Wiklund, J. & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a conŞgurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), pp. 71-89.