创业导向、市场导向与组织绩效关系研究
|
摘要
在动态复杂的市场环境中，创业导向和市场导向作为两种重要的战略导向,与企业经营绩效之间的关系，现已成为国内外学者关注的热点问题之一。针对这一问题，形成了大量的相关文献。这些文献都表明，无论是从创业导向到组织绩效，还是从市场导向到组织绩效，中间都需要一定的转化途径。为此，很多学者都试图在创业导向、市场导向、绩效关系间不断追加各种调节或中介变量来进行解释，但由于忽视对关键要素的深入挖掘，至今没有形成较清晰且被普遍认可的理论框架。知识基础观认为，知识是组织达到良好绩效和持续竞争优势的源泉，而知识又是需要通过不断的学习才能获取的，因此，组织学习与组织绩效之间，具有内在的理论逻辑。同时，文献研究表明，在创业导向、市场导向与绩效的关系间，组织学习确实扮演了重要的角色。正如Atuahene-Gima和Ko(2001)所指出的，创业导向与市场导向同属于企业的战略导向，是企业的组织学习和选择机制，能够保证战略层面和执行层面的一致性，都与企业外部环境、组织学习密切相关。因此，基于组织学习视角，深入研究“如何藉由不同组织学习方式的开展，进一步推动创业导向、市场导向对组织绩效的正向影响”，符合创业管理理论、营销管理理论以及组织学习理论内在发展和融合的需要。
但是，基于组织学习视角来研究创业导向、市场导向与绩效之间的关系，至今仍存在一定的瓶颈有待解决。其中，组织学习理论发展的困境尤为突出。组织学习理论发展至今，在组织学习类型上至今没有较为完备且普遍可接受的操作化定义，学者们主要出于各自的研究需要来进行选择。在理论和实证研究过程中学者们大多以Senge(1990)、Sinkula（1994）提出的学习导向构面或者是Garvin,Edmondson和Gino（2008）提出的组织学习过程构面来加以替代。然而，但正如Sinkula(1994)所指出的，即使组织具有高度的学习导向，也不代表组织正在从事高层次的学习，即学习导向与组织学习类型之间并不具备必然的关系；而学习过程构面则主要是将组织学习的过程加以分解，两者都不能从本质上揭示不同组织学习方式下创业导向、市场导向对组织绩效的作用机制，存在进一步研究的必要。
本文按照March(1991)的观点，将组织学习分为利用性学习、探索性学习两种不同的组织学习类型。并且认为，创业导向和市场导向由于所满足的顾客需求的不同、所需要的市场知识层级的不同，在组织学习策略发展和规划上分别具体表现出更多的探索性学习和利用性学习倾向。同时，由于不同的组织学习类型所需要的市场信息与学习过程有所差异，不同的组织学习方式对组织绩效的影响项目也会有所不同。从而将创业导向、市场导向、组织学习、组织绩效这四个看似不同却又颇具联系的概念加以连接，并进一步发展出一个整合性的理论模型。此外，本文也考察了内部创业环境、不确定环境在其中可能产生的调节效应。
本文以我国长三角地区的企业作为实证研究对象，有效分析样本厂商共387家。分别以相关分析、SPSS回归分析、AMOS结构化方程模型、巢状模型分析等方法来实证检验本文所提出的各项假设，并形成了一些新的观点。
本文的主要发现如下：
（1）创业导向是市场导向的前因，它对市场导向具有直接的正向影响，因此，创业导向的实施需要市场导向的进一步落实。至今，国内外有关创业导向和市场导向关系的研究方面，有学者认为两者之间存在着潜在的竞争关系，然而本文的研究结果表明，市场导向不仅不会阻碍企业试图具备创业导向与追求成功，甚至在创业导向与组织绩效间起到了关键的中介作用。因此，当企业试图进行创新性、风险承担与超前行动来追求组织绩效的提升时，必须通过构建顾客导向、竞争者导向、跨部门的协调的落实与执行，才能达到预期的目标。
（2）创业导向是组织学习的前因，它对组织学习（包括利用性学习、探索性学习两种组织学习方式）既存在直接影响，又通过市场导向对组织学习产生间接影响。这一发现的主要涵义在于确认了创业导向是组织学习的前因变量关系。本文将创业导向视为某种层次的组织文化，并且认为，组织重视创新性及超前行动、风险承担的企业文化，一方面会直接推动企业开展利用性学习、探索性学习的开展，另一方面也会通过市场导向实施过程中源自外在市场信息（包括顾客信息、竞争者信息）的刺激，间接推动企业的利用性学习、探索性学习的开展。因此，创业导向对组织学习而言，是一种由内而外的学习驱动力，从而更进一步地证实了学者们所讨论的创业导向对组织学习具有正向影响关系的论点（如Zahra,2006;Dess,2003）。
（3）市场导向是组织学习的前因，它对组织学习具有直接的正向影响。这一发现的主要涵义在于确认了市场导向是组织学习的前因变量关系，也就是说，市场导向程度高的企业，将会在企业中形成一种市场导向的文化，而这种文化将会重视顾客与竞争者的动向，从顾客与竞争者方面所获得的市场信息促使企业开展组织学习。因此，市场导向对组织学习而言，是一种由外而内的学习驱动力。此一发现的主要意义在于更进一步地证实了学者们所讨论的市场导向对组织学习具有正向影响关系的论点（如Slater&Narver,1995）。
（4）从两种战略导向对组织绩效的影响来看，创业导向、市场导向对组织绩效（无论是财务绩效还是非财务绩效）都呈现正相关，这与大部分学者的研究结论相一致，从而再次证明了创业导向、市场导向是两种行之有效的战略导向。但与此同时，本文的研究结果还显示，这两种战略导向对组织绩效影响的具体路径上存在一定的差异。具体来说：市场导向对于组织绩效（无论是财务绩效还是非财务绩效）均不存在直接的影响，必须通过组织学习（利用性学习、探索性学习）才会对组织绩效形成间接影响。而创业导向对于财务绩效不存在直接的影响，必须通过市场导向、组织学习（利用性学习或是探索性学习）才会对财务绩效形成间接影响；而其对非财务绩效则既存在直接影响又可以通过市场导向、组织学习对非财务绩效起到间接影响。这一发现揭开了创业导向、市场导向对组织绩效影响的黑箱，从而从机制上解释了创业导向与组织绩效、市场导向与组织绩效之间结论不一致的现象。同时，也突显出了作为中介变量的组织学习的重要性，提示企业管理人员，创业导向、市场导向的落实离不开组织学习的展开。
（5）利用性学习与探索性学习均具有提升企业永续经营的能力，但两者对组织绩效的不同维度的影响程度存在一定的差异。具体来说：①首先不论利用性学习还是探索性学习，对组织绩效（不论是财务绩效还是非财务绩效）均具有显著的正向影响，这种情形意味着组织只要能进行学习，不论组织学习的类型为何，对于组织绩效的投资回报率、销售增长率、市场占有率等都会有正面的帮助。②其次，相比利用性学习，探索性学习对非财务绩效的影响更大；而相比探索性学习，利用性学习对财务绩效的影响更大。这就意味着组织可以针对各部门的特性来开展进行不同类型和程度的组织学习，例如研发部必须更强调对非财务绩效影响更大的探索性学习，而业务部门则可能更专注于对财务绩效影响更大的利用性学习。③同时，两种组织学习的交互作用对组织绩效（不论是财务绩效还是非财务绩效）都没有能够显示出交互作用影响；而两种组织学习方式的绝对差额对非财务绩效则存在一定的显著负面影响。这就提示企业管理人员在推行组织学习的过程中，需要特别注重避免两者在实施的不平衡对非财务绩效可能造成的负面影响。
（6）关于企业环境在变量间可能存在的调节作用，可以归纳为以下几点：①内部创业环境在创业导向与组织绩效的关系间起到了一定的正向调节作用。这就意味着对于企业来说，仅仅依赖于创业导向对组织绩效的提升是不够的，有必要塑造良好的内部创业环境，从而强化创业导向对组织绩效的提升作用。而这就需要在完善原有的报酬体系的基础上，加大对资源的投入，通过建立一种能激发更多新创意的机制，更多地予以员工在管理上的支持，同时有意识地增加工作的自由度，进一步推动企业的创业导向对组织绩效的提升作用。②不确定性环境在创新与超前行动与财务绩效的关系上具有一定的负向调节作用。这就意味着具有较高创新性和超前行动的企业，在高不确定性的动态环境中其财务绩效表现较好。③不确定性环境在利用性学习与非财务绩效的关系上具有一定的负向调节作用；而在探索性学习与非财务绩效的关系上具有一定的正向调节作用。这就意味着随着环境不确定性的增强，利用性学习对于非财务绩效的促进作用会减弱，而探索性学习对于非财务绩效的促进作用会增强。因此，在高不确定性环境下，企业需要通过开展更多的探索性学习来获得市场占有率和新产品研发上的成功。
根据本文的研究成果，我们认为：创业导向、市场导向、组织学习之间确实存在某种具有一定功能的网状联系，在这一网状联系中存在诸多对组织绩效十分重要的驱动因素。因此，企业管理人员在管理实践中要首先建立创业导向，然后通过市场导向加以落实，同时还应该充分重视不同组织学习方式下创业导向、市场导向对组织绩效的影响。从这个角度看，本文初步探讨了适合我国企业的创业导向、市场导向的实施途径，这既是我国企业界亟待解决的问题，也是将西方管理相关理论和经验本土化的有用尝试，将进一步深化我国理论界对创业导向、市场导向、组织学习及组织绩效相互关系的认识和研究。
Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and market orientation（MO） are both centralcomponents of the strategic orientation for organizational success. More and more scholarsdiscuss the transition paths of the two strategic orientations to organizational performance(OP) in the complex dynamic market environment, but the answer is quite different. Manystudies have found that entrepreneurial orientation has a positive direct impact onperformance, but various other studies have found the impact is no statistical significance,and the same situation occure to the market orientation and performance. In order to servethe problem, scholars begin to add a lot of constructive concepts as mediate or moderatevariables to interpret the phenomina. But due to the neglection of the excavating the keyelements, the theoretical concept framework is still not clear. Knowledge is the source ofgood organizational performance and sustainable competitive advantage from the point ofknowledge-based view. And the knowledge is should be obtained through continouslearning. Therefore, there is logical relationship between organizational learning (OL) andperformance. At the same time, literature studies have shown that organizational learningindeedly plays a very important role among the relationship of entrepreneurial orientation,market orientaton,and performance. As Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001) have been pointedout,both of entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation are belong to the strategicorientations,and they are both the organizational learning’s selection mechanism to ensurethe consistency of the strategic level andimplementation level. In this point of view, is inline with the development and integration of entrepreneurial management theory,marketing management theory and organizational behavior theory.
But there are still some problems haven’t been settled.First and most importantproblem is how to choice the type of the organizational learning.There are no relatively complete and universally acceptable operating definition to mesure the concept oforganizational learning to this day. So scholars are always select different dimensionsaccording to their study requirements.And most of the scholars using the learning-orienteddimensions provised by Senge(1990) and Sinkula(1994),or using the learning processdimesions proposed by Garvin,Edmondson and Gino（2008）in practice.In fact, the formeremphasized the cultural while the latter is the break down of the organizational learningprocess.Neither of them can essentially reveal the mechanism of the topic. In view of this,comes the study.
This paper divided the organizational learning into two different types: exploringlearning and the exploitation learing.Additionally, a series of recent studies have found thatthe entrepreneurial-oriented enterprise will manifest more exploratory learning tendencywhile the market-oriented enterprise will manifest more exploitation tendency in thespecific strategic development and plan. At the same time, the company’s performance willalso be different due the different type of organizational learning the company takesbecause of the different market information and process it correspond to.
In short, this paper presents the reader an integral conceptual framework forincorporating organizational learning as the mediating variable among the entrepreneurialorientation, market orientation and organizational performance.
They key of the conceptual framework shows that the entrepreneurial orientation canbe regarded as the antecedent of the organizational learning. Therefore the implement ofentrepreneurial orientaion depends on market orientation. In addition, the two types oforganizational learning have different impact on performance. The paper also proposedthat the organizations may achieve balance between exploration and exploitation-viaambidexterity or punctuated equilibrium. And the balance may enhance the promotioneffect on performance while the unbalance will weaken the effect.
The sample of this paper has387Chinese companies in the Yangtze River Deltaregion.Many quantitative methods, including SPSS, AMOS analysis and nested-modelapproach anlysis are used to test the hypothesis of this research.
The major valuable findings of this paper can be summarized as following:
(1) Entrepreneurial orientation has a positive direct impact on market orientation.Sothe entrepreneurial orientation can be regarded as the antecedent of the market orientation.The result suggests that the implementation of entrepreneurial orientation depends on the further implementation of market orientation. To this day, some scholars believe that thereis a potential compiteition between entrepreneurial orientaiotion and market orientation.However, the result of this study show that the market oriention does not hinder withentrepreneurial orientation and the pursuit of success, and even plays a key intermediaryrole between entrepreneurial orientation and performance. Therefore,when companies aretrying to be innovative,risk-taking,and proactive to pursuit performance, it is veryimportant to build customer orientation,competitor orientation and enhance thecross-sectoral coordination.
(2) Entrepreneurial orientation has a positive impact on organizational learning(including exploration and exploitation). And the impact consists of two parts: one is adirect impact and the other is an indirect impact through the mediating effect of marketorientation. In this point of view, the entrepreneurial orientation can also be regarded as theantecedent of the organizational learning. The result shows that the entrepreneurialorientation is a kind of organizational culture. Companies which emphasis oninnovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking will encourage the enterprises to carry outexploration learning as well as exploitation.Furthermore the entrepreneurial orientationcompany will stimulate the enterprises to carry out market orientation fulfillment.Therefore, the importance of entrepreneurial orientation in terms of organizational learningis a kind of inside learning driving force. In this way, the positive effect on the relationshipbetween entrepreneurial orientation and organizational learning can also been confirmed.
(3) Market orientation has a direct positive impact on organizational learning.So themarket orientation can be also be regarded as the antecedent of the organizational learning.The result shows that the market orientation is also a kind of organizationalculture.Companies which emphasis on custumer, competitor and cross-sectoralcoordination will encourage the enterprises to focus on market information outside andcarry out organizational learning. Therefore, the importance of market orientation in termsof organizational learning is an outside learning driving force.
(4) Not only entrepreneurial orientation but also market orientation has a positiveimpact on organizational performance, which is consistent with the conclusions of mostsclolars. In this point of view, entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation can be treatedas the two effective strategic orientaton the company should have. At the same time, theresults of study show that the specific path of this two strategic orientation to performance are quite different. Specifically, the Market orientation has no statistically significantimpact on performance, financial performance or nonfinancial performance.But it has aindirect impact on performance by organizational learning as the mediate variable. Andentrepreneurial orientation has no direct impact on financial performance.But it has directpositive impact on nonfinancial performance. Moreover, entrepreneurial has a indirectimpace on performance by market orientation and organizational learning as the mediatevariable. The result reveals the black box of the way entrepreneurial orientation to theorganizational performance, and explained the inconsistency conclusion between them.
(5) The two kinds of organizational learning both have the ability to enhance businesscontinuity, but ther are some differences in different dimensions of performance.In detail:①At first,regardless of the type of organizational learning,they both have a positiveimpact on organizational performance. So it is very import to carry out organizationallearning in order to improve performce no matter on what kind of type it belong to.②Thedirect effect of exploration learning on nonfinancial performance is greater than the directeffect of exploitation learning on performance, while the direct effect of exploitationlearning on financial performance is greater than the effect of exploration learning onfinancial performance. So the organizational learning type and degree can be different indifferent departments. The R&D department should be more emphasis on exploratorylearning while the business units should be more focused on exploritation learning.③Atthe same time, the balance of exploratory learning and exploitation learning do not enhancethe promotion on performance, while the unbalance will weaken the effect. So themanagement personnel should pay special attention to avoid the possible negative impactof the imbalance in the implementation of the two oraganizational learning.
(6) From the moderating effect may exist between the variables, we can the thefollowing result:①The intrapreneruship environment plays a centain positive moderatingrole in the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance.This means that it is not enough to rely on the entrepreneurial orientation to improve theperformance, and it is necessary to creat a good internal entrepreneurial environment tostimulate the employees’ creative.②Uncertain environment has a negative moderatingeffect between the relationship with entrepreneurship orientation and financialperformance. So in the dynamic environment, it is more important to keep creative andrisk-taking.③Uncertain environment has a negative moderating effect between the relationship with exploitation learning and non-financial performance. So the companiesshould carry out more exploritation learning to achieve maket share and new productdevelopment success.
All in all, this paper proposed a comprehensive and systematic study of therelationship between entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, organizationallearning as well as organizational performance with387China’s companies as empiricalsamples. Based on the major findings of this study, the paper try to establish the enterpriseorientation and maket orientation implementation mechanism, which is not only the urgentproblems of China’s companies but also a temp to localized the western managementrelated experience.I will be grateful if it will be useful to our companies.
但是，基于组织学习视角来研究创业导向、市场导向与绩效之间的关系，至今仍存在一定的瓶颈有待解决。其中，组织学习理论发展的困境尤为突出。组织学习理论发展至今，在组织学习类型上至今没有较为完备且普遍可接受的操作化定义，学者们主要出于各自的研究需要来进行选择。在理论和实证研究过程中学者们大多以Senge(1990)、Sinkula（1994）提出的学习导向构面或者是Garvin,Edmondson和Gino（2008）提出的组织学习过程构面来加以替代。然而，但正如Sinkula(1994)所指出的，即使组织具有高度的学习导向，也不代表组织正在从事高层次的学习，即学习导向与组织学习类型之间并不具备必然的关系；而学习过程构面则主要是将组织学习的过程加以分解，两者都不能从本质上揭示不同组织学习方式下创业导向、市场导向对组织绩效的作用机制，存在进一步研究的必要。
本文按照March(1991)的观点，将组织学习分为利用性学习、探索性学习两种不同的组织学习类型。并且认为，创业导向和市场导向由于所满足的顾客需求的不同、所需要的市场知识层级的不同，在组织学习策略发展和规划上分别具体表现出更多的探索性学习和利用性学习倾向。同时，由于不同的组织学习类型所需要的市场信息与学习过程有所差异，不同的组织学习方式对组织绩效的影响项目也会有所不同。从而将创业导向、市场导向、组织学习、组织绩效这四个看似不同却又颇具联系的概念加以连接，并进一步发展出一个整合性的理论模型。此外，本文也考察了内部创业环境、不确定环境在其中可能产生的调节效应。
本文以我国长三角地区的企业作为实证研究对象，有效分析样本厂商共387家。分别以相关分析、SPSS回归分析、AMOS结构化方程模型、巢状模型分析等方法来实证检验本文所提出的各项假设，并形成了一些新的观点。
本文的主要发现如下：
（1）创业导向是市场导向的前因，它对市场导向具有直接的正向影响，因此，创业导向的实施需要市场导向的进一步落实。至今，国内外有关创业导向和市场导向关系的研究方面，有学者认为两者之间存在着潜在的竞争关系，然而本文的研究结果表明，市场导向不仅不会阻碍企业试图具备创业导向与追求成功，甚至在创业导向与组织绩效间起到了关键的中介作用。因此，当企业试图进行创新性、风险承担与超前行动来追求组织绩效的提升时，必须通过构建顾客导向、竞争者导向、跨部门的协调的落实与执行，才能达到预期的目标。
（2）创业导向是组织学习的前因，它对组织学习（包括利用性学习、探索性学习两种组织学习方式）既存在直接影响，又通过市场导向对组织学习产生间接影响。这一发现的主要涵义在于确认了创业导向是组织学习的前因变量关系。本文将创业导向视为某种层次的组织文化，并且认为，组织重视创新性及超前行动、风险承担的企业文化，一方面会直接推动企业开展利用性学习、探索性学习的开展，另一方面也会通过市场导向实施过程中源自外在市场信息（包括顾客信息、竞争者信息）的刺激，间接推动企业的利用性学习、探索性学习的开展。因此，创业导向对组织学习而言，是一种由内而外的学习驱动力，从而更进一步地证实了学者们所讨论的创业导向对组织学习具有正向影响关系的论点（如Zahra,2006;Dess,2003）。
（3）市场导向是组织学习的前因，它对组织学习具有直接的正向影响。这一发现的主要涵义在于确认了市场导向是组织学习的前因变量关系，也就是说，市场导向程度高的企业，将会在企业中形成一种市场导向的文化，而这种文化将会重视顾客与竞争者的动向，从顾客与竞争者方面所获得的市场信息促使企业开展组织学习。因此，市场导向对组织学习而言，是一种由外而内的学习驱动力。此一发现的主要意义在于更进一步地证实了学者们所讨论的市场导向对组织学习具有正向影响关系的论点（如Slater&Narver,1995）。
（4）从两种战略导向对组织绩效的影响来看，创业导向、市场导向对组织绩效（无论是财务绩效还是非财务绩效）都呈现正相关，这与大部分学者的研究结论相一致，从而再次证明了创业导向、市场导向是两种行之有效的战略导向。但与此同时，本文的研究结果还显示，这两种战略导向对组织绩效影响的具体路径上存在一定的差异。具体来说：市场导向对于组织绩效（无论是财务绩效还是非财务绩效）均不存在直接的影响，必须通过组织学习（利用性学习、探索性学习）才会对组织绩效形成间接影响。而创业导向对于财务绩效不存在直接的影响，必须通过市场导向、组织学习（利用性学习或是探索性学习）才会对财务绩效形成间接影响；而其对非财务绩效则既存在直接影响又可以通过市场导向、组织学习对非财务绩效起到间接影响。这一发现揭开了创业导向、市场导向对组织绩效影响的黑箱，从而从机制上解释了创业导向与组织绩效、市场导向与组织绩效之间结论不一致的现象。同时，也突显出了作为中介变量的组织学习的重要性，提示企业管理人员，创业导向、市场导向的落实离不开组织学习的展开。
（5）利用性学习与探索性学习均具有提升企业永续经营的能力，但两者对组织绩效的不同维度的影响程度存在一定的差异。具体来说：①首先不论利用性学习还是探索性学习，对组织绩效（不论是财务绩效还是非财务绩效）均具有显著的正向影响，这种情形意味着组织只要能进行学习，不论组织学习的类型为何，对于组织绩效的投资回报率、销售增长率、市场占有率等都会有正面的帮助。②其次，相比利用性学习，探索性学习对非财务绩效的影响更大；而相比探索性学习，利用性学习对财务绩效的影响更大。这就意味着组织可以针对各部门的特性来开展进行不同类型和程度的组织学习，例如研发部必须更强调对非财务绩效影响更大的探索性学习，而业务部门则可能更专注于对财务绩效影响更大的利用性学习。③同时，两种组织学习的交互作用对组织绩效（不论是财务绩效还是非财务绩效）都没有能够显示出交互作用影响；而两种组织学习方式的绝对差额对非财务绩效则存在一定的显著负面影响。这就提示企业管理人员在推行组织学习的过程中，需要特别注重避免两者在实施的不平衡对非财务绩效可能造成的负面影响。
（6）关于企业环境在变量间可能存在的调节作用，可以归纳为以下几点：①内部创业环境在创业导向与组织绩效的关系间起到了一定的正向调节作用。这就意味着对于企业来说，仅仅依赖于创业导向对组织绩效的提升是不够的，有必要塑造良好的内部创业环境，从而强化创业导向对组织绩效的提升作用。而这就需要在完善原有的报酬体系的基础上，加大对资源的投入，通过建立一种能激发更多新创意的机制，更多地予以员工在管理上的支持，同时有意识地增加工作的自由度，进一步推动企业的创业导向对组织绩效的提升作用。②不确定性环境在创新与超前行动与财务绩效的关系上具有一定的负向调节作用。这就意味着具有较高创新性和超前行动的企业，在高不确定性的动态环境中其财务绩效表现较好。③不确定性环境在利用性学习与非财务绩效的关系上具有一定的负向调节作用；而在探索性学习与非财务绩效的关系上具有一定的正向调节作用。这就意味着随着环境不确定性的增强，利用性学习对于非财务绩效的促进作用会减弱，而探索性学习对于非财务绩效的促进作用会增强。因此，在高不确定性环境下，企业需要通过开展更多的探索性学习来获得市场占有率和新产品研发上的成功。
根据本文的研究成果，我们认为：创业导向、市场导向、组织学习之间确实存在某种具有一定功能的网状联系，在这一网状联系中存在诸多对组织绩效十分重要的驱动因素。因此，企业管理人员在管理实践中要首先建立创业导向，然后通过市场导向加以落实，同时还应该充分重视不同组织学习方式下创业导向、市场导向对组织绩效的影响。从这个角度看，本文初步探讨了适合我国企业的创业导向、市场导向的实施途径，这既是我国企业界亟待解决的问题，也是将西方管理相关理论和经验本土化的有用尝试，将进一步深化我国理论界对创业导向、市场导向、组织学习及组织绩效相互关系的认识和研究。
Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and market orientation（MO） are both centralcomponents of the strategic orientation for organizational success. More and more scholarsdiscuss the transition paths of the two strategic orientations to organizational performance(OP) in the complex dynamic market environment, but the answer is quite different. Manystudies have found that entrepreneurial orientation has a positive direct impact onperformance, but various other studies have found the impact is no statistical significance,and the same situation occure to the market orientation and performance. In order to servethe problem, scholars begin to add a lot of constructive concepts as mediate or moderatevariables to interpret the phenomina. But due to the neglection of the excavating the keyelements, the theoretical concept framework is still not clear. Knowledge is the source ofgood organizational performance and sustainable competitive advantage from the point ofknowledge-based view. And the knowledge is should be obtained through continouslearning. Therefore, there is logical relationship between organizational learning (OL) andperformance. At the same time, literature studies have shown that organizational learningindeedly plays a very important role among the relationship of entrepreneurial orientation,market orientaton,and performance. As Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001) have been pointedout,both of entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation are belong to the strategicorientations,and they are both the organizational learning’s selection mechanism to ensurethe consistency of the strategic level andimplementation level. In this point of view, is inline with the development and integration of entrepreneurial management theory,marketing management theory and organizational behavior theory.
But there are still some problems haven’t been settled.First and most importantproblem is how to choice the type of the organizational learning.There are no relatively complete and universally acceptable operating definition to mesure the concept oforganizational learning to this day. So scholars are always select different dimensionsaccording to their study requirements.And most of the scholars using the learning-orienteddimensions provised by Senge(1990) and Sinkula(1994),or using the learning processdimesions proposed by Garvin,Edmondson and Gino（2008）in practice.In fact, the formeremphasized the cultural while the latter is the break down of the organizational learningprocess.Neither of them can essentially reveal the mechanism of the topic. In view of this,comes the study.
This paper divided the organizational learning into two different types: exploringlearning and the exploitation learing.Additionally, a series of recent studies have found thatthe entrepreneurial-oriented enterprise will manifest more exploratory learning tendencywhile the market-oriented enterprise will manifest more exploitation tendency in thespecific strategic development and plan. At the same time, the company’s performance willalso be different due the different type of organizational learning the company takesbecause of the different market information and process it correspond to.
In short, this paper presents the reader an integral conceptual framework forincorporating organizational learning as the mediating variable among the entrepreneurialorientation, market orientation and organizational performance.
They key of the conceptual framework shows that the entrepreneurial orientation canbe regarded as the antecedent of the organizational learning. Therefore the implement ofentrepreneurial orientaion depends on market orientation. In addition, the two types oforganizational learning have different impact on performance. The paper also proposedthat the organizations may achieve balance between exploration and exploitation-viaambidexterity or punctuated equilibrium. And the balance may enhance the promotioneffect on performance while the unbalance will weaken the effect.
The sample of this paper has387Chinese companies in the Yangtze River Deltaregion.Many quantitative methods, including SPSS, AMOS analysis and nested-modelapproach anlysis are used to test the hypothesis of this research.
The major valuable findings of this paper can be summarized as following:
(1) Entrepreneurial orientation has a positive direct impact on market orientation.Sothe entrepreneurial orientation can be regarded as the antecedent of the market orientation.The result suggests that the implementation of entrepreneurial orientation depends on the further implementation of market orientation. To this day, some scholars believe that thereis a potential compiteition between entrepreneurial orientaiotion and market orientation.However, the result of this study show that the market oriention does not hinder withentrepreneurial orientation and the pursuit of success, and even plays a key intermediaryrole between entrepreneurial orientation and performance. Therefore,when companies aretrying to be innovative,risk-taking,and proactive to pursuit performance, it is veryimportant to build customer orientation,competitor orientation and enhance thecross-sectoral coordination.
(2) Entrepreneurial orientation has a positive impact on organizational learning(including exploration and exploitation). And the impact consists of two parts: one is adirect impact and the other is an indirect impact through the mediating effect of marketorientation. In this point of view, the entrepreneurial orientation can also be regarded as theantecedent of the organizational learning. The result shows that the entrepreneurialorientation is a kind of organizational culture. Companies which emphasis oninnovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking will encourage the enterprises to carry outexploration learning as well as exploitation.Furthermore the entrepreneurial orientationcompany will stimulate the enterprises to carry out market orientation fulfillment.Therefore, the importance of entrepreneurial orientation in terms of organizational learningis a kind of inside learning driving force. In this way, the positive effect on the relationshipbetween entrepreneurial orientation and organizational learning can also been confirmed.
(3) Market orientation has a direct positive impact on organizational learning.So themarket orientation can be also be regarded as the antecedent of the organizational learning.The result shows that the market orientation is also a kind of organizationalculture.Companies which emphasis on custumer, competitor and cross-sectoralcoordination will encourage the enterprises to focus on market information outside andcarry out organizational learning. Therefore, the importance of market orientation in termsof organizational learning is an outside learning driving force.
(4) Not only entrepreneurial orientation but also market orientation has a positiveimpact on organizational performance, which is consistent with the conclusions of mostsclolars. In this point of view, entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation can be treatedas the two effective strategic orientaton the company should have. At the same time, theresults of study show that the specific path of this two strategic orientation to performance are quite different. Specifically, the Market orientation has no statistically significantimpact on performance, financial performance or nonfinancial performance.But it has aindirect impact on performance by organizational learning as the mediate variable. Andentrepreneurial orientation has no direct impact on financial performance.But it has directpositive impact on nonfinancial performance. Moreover, entrepreneurial has a indirectimpace on performance by market orientation and organizational learning as the mediatevariable. The result reveals the black box of the way entrepreneurial orientation to theorganizational performance, and explained the inconsistency conclusion between them.
(5) The two kinds of organizational learning both have the ability to enhance businesscontinuity, but ther are some differences in different dimensions of performance.In detail:①At first,regardless of the type of organizational learning,they both have a positiveimpact on organizational performance. So it is very import to carry out organizationallearning in order to improve performce no matter on what kind of type it belong to.②Thedirect effect of exploration learning on nonfinancial performance is greater than the directeffect of exploitation learning on performance, while the direct effect of exploitationlearning on financial performance is greater than the effect of exploration learning onfinancial performance. So the organizational learning type and degree can be different indifferent departments. The R&D department should be more emphasis on exploratorylearning while the business units should be more focused on exploritation learning.③Atthe same time, the balance of exploratory learning and exploitation learning do not enhancethe promotion on performance, while the unbalance will weaken the effect. So themanagement personnel should pay special attention to avoid the possible negative impactof the imbalance in the implementation of the two oraganizational learning.
(6) From the moderating effect may exist between the variables, we can the thefollowing result:①The intrapreneruship environment plays a centain positive moderatingrole in the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance.This means that it is not enough to rely on the entrepreneurial orientation to improve theperformance, and it is necessary to creat a good internal entrepreneurial environment tostimulate the employees’ creative.②Uncertain environment has a negative moderatingeffect between the relationship with entrepreneurship orientation and financialperformance. So in the dynamic environment, it is more important to keep creative andrisk-taking.③Uncertain environment has a negative moderating effect between the relationship with exploitation learning and non-financial performance. So the companiesshould carry out more exploritation learning to achieve maket share and new productdevelopment success.
All in all, this paper proposed a comprehensive and systematic study of therelationship between entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, organizationallearning as well as organizational performance with387China’s companies as empiricalsamples. Based on the major findings of this study, the paper try to establish the enterpriseorientation and maket orientation implementation mechanism, which is not only the urgentproblems of China’s companies but also a temp to localized the western managementrelated experience.I will be grateful if it will be useful to our companies.
引文
[1] Ahuaja G,Katila R.Technological Acquistitions and the Innovation Performance ofAcquiring Firms:A longitudinal Study[J].Strategic Management Journal,2001,22
[2] Aldrich H E.Organizations and Environments[M].New York:Prentice-Hall,1979
[3] Anderson J, Gerbing D. Structural Equation modeling in Practice: A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approach[J].Psychological Bulletin,1988,(103)
[4] Argyris C,Schon D A.Organizational Learning: A Theory of ActionPerspective,Reading[M].Mass:Addision-Wesley,1978
[5] Atuahene-Gima K, Ko A.An Empirical Investigation of the Effect of MarketOrientation and Entrepreneurship Orientation Alignment on Product Innovation [J].Organization Science,2001,12(1)
[6] Au A K M, Tse A C B. The Effect of Marketing Orientation on Company Performancein the Service Sector：A Comparative Study of the Hotel Industry in Hong Kong andNew Zealand [J]. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,1995,8(2)
[7] Bagozzi R P.Yi Y,Phillip LW.Accesing Construct Validity in OrganizationResearch[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,1991,36
[8] Baird I S,Thomas H.Toward a Contingency Model of StrategicRisk-Taking[J].Academy Management Review,1985,10
[9] Baker,William E,Sinkula J M,The Synergistic Effort of Market Orientation andLearning Orientation on Organizational Performance[J].Academy of MarketingScience,1999,27(4)
[10] Baron R,Kenny D.The Moderater-mediator Variable Distinction in SocialPsychological Research:Conceptual,Strategic,and Statistical Consideration[J].Journalof Personality and Social Psychology,1986,51
[11] Barrett H, Weinstein A. The Effect of Market Orientation and OrganizationalFlexibility on Corporate Entrepreneurship [J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,1998,23(1)
[12] Barringer, Bruce R, Bluedorn A C. The Relationship between Corporate Entreneurshipand Strategic Management [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(5)
[13] Beck T, Demirguc-Kunt A, Levin R.Bank Concentration and Fragility: Impact andMechanics [A].In Mark Carey, and Rene Stulz(Eds.).Risk of Financial Institutions[C].Cambridge：National Bureau of Economic Research,2005
[14] Benner M J,Tushman.Process Management and Technological Innovation:ALongitudinal Study of the Photography and Paint Industries[J].Administrative ScienceQuarterly,2002,47(6)
[15] Benner M J,Tushman M L.Exploitation,Exploration,and Process Management: theProductivity Dilemma Revisited[J].Academy of Management Review,2003,28
[16] Bentz F.Managing Technology Competing through New Ventures,Innovation,andCorporate Research[J].NewYork:Prentice Hall,1987
[17] Bhuian S N.Just entrepreneurial Enough:The Moderating Effect of Entrepreneurshipon the Relationship between Market Orientation and Performance[J].Journal ofBusiness Research,2005,58(1)
[18] Bierly P,Dally P S.Exploration and Exploitation in Small ManufacturingFirms[C].61th Annual Meeting Academy of Management,2001
[19] Bierly P E.Daly P S.Alternative Knowledge Strategies,Competitive Environment,andOrganizational Performance in Small Manufacturing Firms[J]. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice,2007,31(04)
[20] Bourgeois L J.The Effects of Different Organizational Environments Upon Decisionsabout Organizational Structure[J].Academy of Management Journal,1978,21(3)
[21] Blesa A, Ripolles M. The Role of Market Orientation in the Relationship betweenEntrepreneurial Proactiveness and Performance [J]. Journal ofEntrepreneurship,2003,12
[22] Boso N.Complementary Effect of Entrepreneruial and Market Orientations on ExportNew Product Success under Differing Levels of Competitive Intensity and FinancialCapital[J].International Business Review,2011,7(1)
[23] Brady T.Davies A.Building Project Capabilities: From Exploratory to ExploitativeLearning[J].Organization Studies,2004,25(9)
[24] Brownell P,Dunk A S.Task Uncertainty and It’s Interaction with BudgetaryParticipation and Budget Emphasis:Some Methodological Issues and EmpiricalInvestigtion[J].Accounting Organizations and Society,1991,16(8)
[25] Cantillon R.Essay on the Nature of Commence[M].H Higgs translation,London:MacMillan,1755
[26] Caruana A B,Ramaseshan,Ewing M T.Do Universitisties That Are More MarketOrientated Perform Better[J].International Journal of Public SectorManagement,1998,11(1)
[27] Chandler A D.Strategy and Structure:Chapters in the History of the AmericanIndustrial Enterprise[M].Cambridge:MIT Press
[28] Christensen C M. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause GreatFirms to Fail [M]. Harvard Business Press,1997.
[29] Covin J G, Slevin D P.Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and BenignEnvironments [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1989,10(1)
[30] Day,George S.Market Driven Stragtegy, Processes for Creating Value[M].NewYork:The Free Press,1994
[31] Deshpande,Farley J U,Webster F.Coporate Culture,Customer Orientation,andInnovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis[J].Journal ofMarketing,1993,57(1)
[32] Dess G,Beard D.Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments[J].AdministrativeScience Quarterly,1984,29
[33] Dess G G, Lumpkin G T. The Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation in StimulatingEffective Corporate Entrepreneurship [J]. Academy of ManagementExecutive,2005,19(1)
[34] Diamantopoulos A, Hart S. Linking Market Orientation and Company Performance:Preliminary Work on Kohli and Jaworski’s Framework [J]. Journal of StrategicMarketing,1993,1
[35] Drucker P F.The Practice of Management[M].New York:Harper and RowPublishers,1954
[36] Drucker P F.Innovation and Entrepreneurship[M].Rye Field Publishing Co.,1995
[37] Ducan,Robert B.Characteristics of Organizational Envioronments And PerceivedEnvironmental Uncertainties[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,1972,17(3)
[38] Duncan R.Innovation and Entrepreneurship:Practice and Principles[M].HarperTrade,1985
[39] Eisenhardt K M,Martin J A.Dynamic Capabilities:What Are They?[J].StrategicManagement Journal,2000,21
[40] Esslemont D, Lewis T. Some Empirical Tests of the Marketing Concept[J].MarketingBulletin,1991,2
[41] Filiou D.Exploraton and Exploitation in Inter-organsational Learning:Motives forCooperation being Self-Destructive for Some and Vehicles for Growth forOthers,Some Evidence from the Biotechnology Sector in the UK between1991and2001
[42] Fiol C M,Lyles M A.Organizational Learning[J].Academy of ManagementReview,1985,10(4)
[43] Foxall G.The Meaning of Marketing and Leisure:Issues for Research andDevelopment[J].European Journal of Marketing,1984,18(2)
[44] Garcia R,Calantone R,Levine R.The Role of Knowledge in Resource Allocation toExploration verse Exploitation in Technologically Oriented Organizations[J].DecisionSciences,2003,34(2)
[45] Garvin D A, Edmondson A C, Gino F.Gino.Is Yours a LearningOrganization?[M].Division of Reasearch,Harvard Business School,2007
[46] Gibson C B,Birkinshaw J.The Antecedents,Consequences and Mediating Role ofOrganizational Ambidexterity[J].Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(1)
[47] Greenley, Gordon E. Forms of Market Orientation in UK Companies [J]. Journal ofManagement Studies,1995,32(1)
[48] Gurbuz G,Aykol S.Entrepreneurial Management,Entrepreneurial Orientation andTurkish Small Firm Growth[J].Management Research News,2009,32(4)
[49] Gupta A K,Smith K G.Shalley C E.The Interplay between Exploration andExplitation[J].Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4)
[50] Guth W D,Ginsberg A.Guest Editor’s Introduction:CorportateEntrepreneurship[J].Strategic Management Journal,1999,11
[51] Han J K,Namwoon K, Srivastava R K.Market Orientation and OrganizationalPerformance:Is Innovation a Missing Link?[J].Journal of Marketing,1998,62(4)
[52] Hart S.An Integrative Framework for Strategy-Making Processes [J]. Academy ofManagement Review,1992(17)
[53] Hatcher L.A Step-by-step Approach to Using the SAS (r) System for Factor Analysisand Structural Equation Modeling[M].Cary:SAS Institute Inc.,1994
[54] He Zi-Lin, Wong Poh-kam.Exploration VS.Exploitation: An Empirical Test of theAmidexterity Hypothesis [J]. Organizaton Science,2004,15(4)
[55] Hedberg B.How Organizations Learn and Unlearn[H].Handbook of OrganizationalDesign.Nystrom and W H Starbuck(eds.),1981,1.1
[56] Hornsby J,Kuratko D,Zahra S.Middle Managers’ Perception of the InternalEnviroment for Corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing A MeasuremmentScale[J].Journal of Business Venturing,2002(17)
[57] Huber, George P.Organizatinal Leaning: The Contriuting Processes and the Literatures[J]. Organization Science,1991,2
[58] Hughes M, Morgan E R.Deconstructing the Relationship between EntrepreneurialOrientation and Business Performance at the Embryonic Stage of Firm Growth [J].Industrial Marketing Management,2007,36(5)
[59] Hult G T,Ketchen J D.Does Market Orientation Matter?A Test of the Relationshipbetween Positonal Advantage and Performance[J].Strategic ManagementJournal,2001,22(9)
[60] Hunt,Shellby D,Morgan R.The Comparative Advantage Theory ofCompetition[J].Journal of Marketing,1995,59(4)
[61] Hurley,Robert F G,Hult T M.Innoation,Market Orientaiton and OrganizationalLearning:An Integration and Empirical Examination[J].Journal of Marketing,1998,62
[62] Irene Hau-siu Chow. The Relationship Between Entrepreneurial Orientation and FirmPerformance in China[J].S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal,2006,71
[63] Jansen J J P.Van Den Bosch F A,Volberda H W.Managing Potential and RealizedAbsorptive Capacity:How do Organizational Antecedents Matter?Academy ofManagement Journal,2005,(48)
[64] Jansen J J P,Vera D.Crossan M.Strategic Leadership for Eploration andExploitation:The Moderating Role ofEnvironmental Dynamism[J].LeadershipQuarterly,2009,20(1)
[65] Jaworski B J, Kohli A K. Market Orientation: Antecedents andConsequences[J].Journal of Marketing1993,57
[66] Kanter R.The Middle Manager as Innovator[J].Harvard Business Review,1982,(61)
[67] Katila R,Ahuja G.Something Old,Something New：A Longitudinal Study of SearchBehavior and New Product Introduction[J].Academy of ManagementJournal,2002,45(6)
[68] Kleinman A M.Depression,Somatization and the New Cross-CulturalPsychiatry[J].Soc. Sci.Med,1977
[69] Kohli A K,Jaworski B J.Market Orientation: The Construct,Reasearch Proposition,andManaerial Implication[J].Journal of Marketing,1990,54
[70] Kohli A K,Jaworski B J,Kumar A.MARKOR:A Measure of MarketOrientation[J].Journal of Marketing,1993
[71] Kuratko D,Montagno R,Honsby J.Developing and Intrapreneurial AssessmentInstrument for an Effective Corporate Entrepreneurial Environment[J].StrategicManagement Journal,1990,(11)
[72] Kwaku,Appiah-Adu.Market Orientation and Performance:Do the FindingsEstabilished in Large Firms Hold in the Small Business Sector?[J].Journal ofEuro-Marketing,1997,6(3)
[73] Lavie D, Rosenkopf L.Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in AllianceFormation[J].Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4)
[74] Lee J.Lee L,Lee H.Exploration and Exploitation in the Presences of NetworkExternalities[J].Management Science,2003,49
[75] Lewin A,Volberda H W.Beyond Adaptation vs. Selection Research:OrganizingSelf-Renewal in Co-evolving Environments[J].Journal of ManagementStudies,2003,40(8)
[76] Levinthal D A,March J G.The Myopia of Learning[J].Strategic ManagementJournal,1993,14
[77] Lieberman M,Montgomery D.Montgomery.First-mover Advantages[J].StrategicManagement Journal,1988,9
[78] Lumpkin G T, Dess G G. Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct andlinking it to Performance [J]. Academy of Management Review,1996,21(1)
[79] Lumpkin G T,Dess G G. Linking Two Dimension of Entrepreneurial Orientaion toFirm Performance: the Moderating Role of Environment and Industry LifeCycle[J],2001.16(5)
[80] Lundvall B A,Johnson B.The Learning Economy[J].Industry and Innovation,1994,1(2)
[81] Luo.Entrepreneurial Firms in the Context of China’s Transition Economy:AnIntegrative Framework and Empirical Examination[J].Journal of BusinessResearch,2005,58(3)
[82] Lyles M A.Learning among Joint Venture Sophisticated Firms[M].MIR SpecialIssue,1988
[83] March J. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning[J].OrganizationScience,1991,2
[84] Marsh H W, Hocevar D. Application of Confirmatory Factor Analysis to the StudyofSelf-Concept:First-and Higher-Order Factor Models and Their Invariance AcrossGroups[M].Psychological Bulletin,1985,97
[85] Matsuno K, Mentzer J T, Ozsomer A. The Effect of Entrepreneurial Proclivity andMarket Orientation on Business Performance[J].Journal of Marketing,2002,66
[86] McGrath R G.Exploratory Learning,Innovative Capacity,and ManagementOversight[J].Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(1)
[87] Mom T J M,Van den Bosch F A J,Volberda H W.Understanding Variation inManagers’s Ambidexterity:Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of FormalStructural and Personal Coordination Mechanisms[J].OrganizationScience,2009,20(4)
[88] Morgan G,Ramirez R.Action Learing:A Holographic Metaphor for GuidingChange[J].1983,37(1)
[89] Miller D,Friesen P H. Innovation in Conservative and EntrepreneurialFirms[J].Management Science,1982,29(7)[89]
[90] Miller,Danny.The Correlates of Enterpreneurship in Three Types ofForms[J].Management Science,1983,29(7)
[91] Miler A,Camp B.Exploring Determinats of Success in Corporate Ventures[J].Journalof Business Venturing,1985,1(2)
[92] Miles M P,Arnold D R.The Relationship Between Market Orientation andEntrepreneurial Orientation[J].Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,1995,15(4)
[93] Milliken F.Three Type of Perceived Uncertainty about theEnvironment:State,Effect,and Response Uncertainty[J].Academy of ManagementReview,1987,12(1)
[94] Morris M H,Paul G W.The Relationship Between Entrepreneurship and Marketing inEstablished Firms[J].Journal of Business Venturing,1987,2(3)
[95] Morris M H,Ramon A A,Jeffrey A.Individualism and the Modern Corporation:Implications for Innovation and Entrepreneurship[J].Journal ofManagement,1993,19(3)
[96] Morris M,Kuratko D.Corportate Entrepreneurship:Entrepreneurial Developmentwithin Organization[M].FL Orlando:Harcourt College Publishers,2002
[97] Murphy A,Cantillon R.Entrepreneur and Economist[M].Boston:Oxford UniversityPress,1989
[98] Narver J C, Slater F S.The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability [J].Journal of Marketing,1990,54
[99] Noble C H, Sinkula R K, Kumar. Market Orientation and Alternative StrategicOrientations: A Longitudinal Assessment of Performance Implications, A EmipiricalExamination of Contemporary Marketing Practice[J].Journal of Marketing,2002,66(3)
[100] Nonaka I, Takeuchi H.The knowledge Creating Company [M].New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
[101] Nunnally J C.Psychometric Theory[M].NY:McGraw-Hill,1978
[102] Oshri I,Pan S L.Newell S.Trade-offs between Knowledge Exploitation andExploration Activities [J].Knowledge Manaagement Research and Practice,2005,3
[103] Pelham A M.Influence of Environment,Strategy, and Market Orientation onPerformance in Small Manufacturing Firms[J].Journal of Business Research,1999
[104] Peterson R.Small Business Adoption of the Marketing Concept vs Other BusinessStrategies[J].Journal of Small Business Management,1989,1
[105] Quinn J.Managing Innovation: Controlled Chaos[J].Harvard BusinessReview,1985,63(3)
[106] Rosenkophf L,Nekar A.Beyond Local Search:Boundary Spanning,Explorationand Impact in the Optical Disk Industry[J].Strategic Management Journal,2001,22
[107] Ruekert,Robert W. Developing A Market Orientation: An Organizational StrategicPerspective[J].International Journal of Research in Marketing,1992,1(9)
[108] Senge P M. The Fifth Discipline [M]. New York: Doubleday,1990.
[109] Shapiro,Benson P.”What the hell is’Market Oriented‘?”[J].Harvard BusinessReview,1988,
[110] Sinkula J M. Market Information Processing and OrganizationalLearning[J].Journal of Marketing,1994,58:35-34
[111] Sinkula J M,William E B,Noordewier T.A Framework for Market-BasedOrganizational Learning：Linking Values Knowledge,and Behavior[J].Journal fo theAcademy of Marketing Science,1997
[112] Slater S F,Narver J C.Market Orientation and the Learning Organization[J].Journalof Marketing,1995,59(7):63-74
[113] Smart D, Conan J. Entrepreneurial Orientation, Distinctive MarketingCompetencies and Organizational Performance [J]. Journal of Applied BusinessResearch,1994,10(3)
[114] Stopford J M, Banded-Fuller.Creating Corportate Entrepreneurship [J]. StrategicManagement,1994,41
[115] Teece D J.Explicating Dynamic Capabilities:The Nature and Microfoundations of(Sustainable) Enterprise Performance[J].Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(13)
[116] Thompson J D.Organizations in Action[M].New York:McGraw-Hill,1967
[117] Tosi H,Alag R,Storey R G.On the Measurement of the Environment:AnAssessement of the Lawrence and Lorsch Environmental UncertaintyScale[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,1973,18
[118] Tushman M I,O’Reilly C A.Ambidextrous Organizations:Managing Evolutionaryand Revolutionary Change[J].California Management Review,1996,38(4)
[119] Vanhaverbeke W,Beerkens B,Duysters G.Explorative and Exploitative LeaningStrategies in Technology-Based Alliance Networks[N].Ecis(Eindhoven Centre forInnovation Studies) Working Paper,2003
[120] Vassolo R S,Anand J,Rolta T.Non-additivity in Portfolios of Exploration Activities:A Real Options-Based Analysis of Equity Alliances in Biotechnology[J].StrategicManagement Journal,2004,25
[121] Venkatraman N. Measurement of Business Performance in Strategy Research: AComparison of Approaches[J].Academy of Management Review,1986,11
[122] Walker O C,Ruekert R W.Marketing ‘s Role in the Implementation of BusinessStrategies:A Critical Review and Conceptual Framewor[J].Journal ofMarketing,1987,15
[123] Walter A,Auer M,Ritter T.The Impact of Network Capabilities and EntrepreneurialOrientation on University Spin-off Performance[J].Journal of BusinessVenturing,2006,21(4)
[124] Wheelen T L,Hunger J D.Strategic Management and BusinessPolicy[M].NewYork:Mc Graw-Hill,1986
[125] Wiklund J.The Sustainability of the Entrepreneurial Orientation-performanceRelationship[J].1999
[126] Wiklund J.Shepherd D.Entrepreneurial Orientation and Small BusinessPerformance:A Configurational Approach[J].Journal of BusinessVenturing,2005,20(1)
[127] Zahra S,Covin J.Contextual Influences on the Corporate EntrepreneurshipPerformance Relationship: A Longitudinal Analysis[J].Journal of BusinessVenturing,1995,(10)
[128] Zahra S A,Garvis S.International Corporate Entrepreneurship and CompanyPerformance.The Moderating Effect of International EnvironmentalHostility[J].Journal of Business Venturing,2000,15
[129] Zollo M,Winter S G.Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of DynamicCapabilities[J].Organization Science,2002,13(3)
[130]陈国权、王晓辉.组织学习与组织绩效：环境动态性的调节作用[J].研究与发展管理,2012,2
[131]陈江.组织学习、创新和绩效关系的理论研究[J].开发研究,2010,12
[132]陈膺强.应用抽样调查[M].台北：台湾商务印书馆,1994
[133]戈亚群、邹明、谭国华.企业家导向、组织学习与技术创新的关系研究[J].软科学，2010,8
[134]何培旭.创业导向与市场导向对企业绩效的影响差异研究[D].哈尔滨工业大学，2010,6
[135]黄俊英.非营利组织市场导向之研究——组织学习观点[J].台湾“行政院国家科学委员会”研究计划成果报告
[136]黄俊元.台湾传统制造业之开创与尽用：组织学习观点[D].台湾“国立”东华大学企业管理学系硕士论文，1997
[137]焦豪、周江华、谢振东.创业导向与组织绩效间关系的实证研究——基于环境动态性的调节效应[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007,(11)
[138]蒋峦、谢俊、谢卫红.创业导向对组织绩效的影响——以市场导向为中介变量[J].华东经济管理，2010,24（05）
[139]李大元、项保华、陈应龙.企业动态能力及其功效：环境不确定性的影响[J].南开管理评论.2009,6
[140]李剑力.不确定性环境下探索性和开发性创新的平衡与企业绩效关系研究[J].中国科技论坛,2009,7
[141]李璟琰、焦豪.创业导向与组织绩效关系实证研究：基于组织学习的中介效应[J].科研管理,2008,29(5)
[142]李晓峰.江苏省民营企业发展与管理创新困境研究[R].江苏省社会科学基金项目申报书,2011
[143]李正卫.动态环境条件下的组织学习与企业绩效[D].浙江大学博士论文，2003
[144]龙成志.消费品牌形象的绩效路径研究[D].华南理工大学博士论文,2009
[145]林义屏.市场导向、组织学习、组织创新与组织绩效间关系之研究—以科学园区资讯电子产业为例[D].台湾“国立”中山大学博士论文,2000
[146]刘常勇.创业管理的12堂课[M].北京：中信出版社，2002
[147]刘景江.科技型新创企业创业导向：维度、测量和效度[J].自然辩证法通讯，2009（4）
[148]刘景江、陈璐.创业导向、学习模式与新产品开发绩效关系研究[J].浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版[D],2011,(6)
[149]刘亚军、和金生.企业创业导向与组织绩效：从短期到长期的战略选择[J].中国科技论坛,2010,5
[150]罗宾斯.管理学[M].中国人民大学出版社,2012
[151]吕良添.创业导向、管理实务、人际网络与组织绩效关系之研究[D].台湾“国立”中山大学人力资源管理研究所硕士论文,2008
[152]马淑文.家族社会资本、创业导向与初创期企业成长绩效关系研究[J].商业经济与管理,2011,2
[153]毛茜敏.战略导向、组织学习与企业绩效间关系的实证研究[D].浙江大学硕士学位论文,2010
[154]闵雪.基于过程的吸收能力对创新绩效的影响机制研究[D].浙江大学硕士学位论文,2010
[155]彭新敏.企业网络对技术创新绩效的作用机制研究：利用性-探索性学习的中介效应[D].浙江大学博士论文,2009
[156]荣泰生.AMOS与研究方法[M].重庆大学出版社,2009
[157]唐铭聪.创业导向、市场导向与经营绩效之使者研究：社会资本之观点[D].台湾“国立”高雄第一科技大学硕士论文,2003
[158]魏江、焦豪.创业导向、组织学习与动态能力关系研究[J].外国经济与管理,2008(02)
[159]谢洪明.市场导向、组织学习与组织绩效的关系研究[J].科学学研究,2005,8
[160]谢洪明、陈春辉.市场导向、组织学习与组织创新的关系——中国大陆与台湾的比较[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2005,12
[161]谢洪明、韩子天.组织学习与绩效的关系：创新是中介变量吗？——珠三角地区企业的实证研究及其启示[J].科研管理,2005,24(5)
[162]薛红志.试论竞争战略对创业导向-绩效关系的影响[J].外国经济与管理，2005,12
[163]杨宇.企业市场导向度对组织绩效影响的实证研究[D].东北大学硕士论文,2007,7
[164]杨宗儒.市场导向、创业导向、产品创新与组织绩效间关系[D].台湾“国立”东华大学企业管理学系博士论文,2007
[165]杨智.市场导向与营销绩效关系研究[M].中国财政经济出版社,2005
[166]杨智、刘新燕.市场导向与企业绩效：一个基于中介效应的整合模型——以中东部五省市企业为实证样本[J].中国软科学,2006,11
[167]杨智、张茜岚、谢春燕.企业战略导向的选择：市场导向或创新导向——基于湖南省高新技术开发区企业的实证研究[J].科学学研究，2009,2
[168]杨智、邓炼金、方二.市场导向、战略柔性与企业绩效：环境不确定性的调节效应[J].中国软科学,2010,9
[169]于海波、郑晓明、方俐洛、凌文辁.中国企业开发式学习与利用式学习平衡的实证研究[J].科研管理,2008,11
[170]王维元.台湾海外营运环境不确定之认知与因应风险管理策略之研究——以资讯电子业与纺织业赴大陆投资为例[D].“国立”政治大学企业管理研究所博士论文,2001
[171]王伟毅、李乾文.环境不确定性与创业活动关系研究综述[J].外国经济与管理,2007,29(3)
[172]王涛、陈金亮.环境不确定条件下市场导向对价值创造的作用研究[J].南开管理评论,2011,12
[173]王祥彦.探讨组织学习对竞争优势之影响——以动态能力观点[D].台湾“国立”东华大学企业管理学系硕士论文,2007
[174]温忠麟、侯杰泰、张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较与应用[J].心理学报,2005,37(2)
[175]吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务——SPSS操作与应用[M].重庆出版社,2010
[176]赵霞.创业导向、市场导向对企业绩效影响的实证研究[D].西安电子科技大学硕士论文，2011
[177]张宏云、杨乃定、郭雯.创业导向量表发展综述[J].研究与发展管理.2011,23(2)
[178]张婧.市场导向、创新、组织学习和组织绩效的关系研究[J].科技管理研究,2005,4
[179]张骁，胡丽娜.市场导向和创业导向的混合绩效效应研究前沿探析与未来展望[J].外国经济与管理，2012，34（3）
[180]张雪兰.市场导向、竞争优势与组织绩效关系研究[D].武汉大学博士论文,2005,4
[181]张雪兰.市场导向与组织绩效：基于竞争优势的理论建构与实证检验[J].武汉大学出版社,2008
[182]张映红.公司创业战略——基于中国转型经济环境的研究[M].清华大学出版社,2005
[183]张玉利、李乾文.公司创业导向与组织绩效：基于探索能力与开发能力的中介效应研究[J].创业管理研究,2006,12
[184]张玉利、李乾文.创业导向、公司创业与价值创造[M].南开大学出版社,2009
[185]朱瑜、王雁飞、蓝海林.组织学习、组织创新与企业核心能力关系研究[J].科学学研究.2007,3
[186]朱瑜.组织学习与创新视角的企业智力资本与绩效关系研究[M].经济科学出版社,2009
[187]朱朝辉.探索性学习、挖掘性学习和创新绩效[J].科学学研究，2008，26(4)
[188]朱朝辉、陈劲.探索性学习与挖掘性学习及其平衡研究[J].外国经济与管理,2007,1
[2] Aldrich H E.Organizations and Environments[M].New York:Prentice-Hall,1979
[3] Anderson J, Gerbing D. Structural Equation modeling in Practice: A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approach[J].Psychological Bulletin,1988,(103)
[4] Argyris C,Schon D A.Organizational Learning: A Theory of ActionPerspective,Reading[M].Mass:Addision-Wesley,1978
[5] Atuahene-Gima K, Ko A.An Empirical Investigation of the Effect of MarketOrientation and Entrepreneurship Orientation Alignment on Product Innovation [J].Organization Science,2001,12(1)
[6] Au A K M, Tse A C B. The Effect of Marketing Orientation on Company Performancein the Service Sector：A Comparative Study of the Hotel Industry in Hong Kong andNew Zealand [J]. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,1995,8(2)
[7] Bagozzi R P.Yi Y,Phillip LW.Accesing Construct Validity in OrganizationResearch[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,1991,36
[8] Baird I S,Thomas H.Toward a Contingency Model of StrategicRisk-Taking[J].Academy Management Review,1985,10
[9] Baker,William E,Sinkula J M,The Synergistic Effort of Market Orientation andLearning Orientation on Organizational Performance[J].Academy of MarketingScience,1999,27(4)
[10] Baron R,Kenny D.The Moderater-mediator Variable Distinction in SocialPsychological Research:Conceptual,Strategic,and Statistical Consideration[J].Journalof Personality and Social Psychology,1986,51
[11] Barrett H, Weinstein A. The Effect of Market Orientation and OrganizationalFlexibility on Corporate Entrepreneurship [J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,1998,23(1)
[12] Barringer, Bruce R, Bluedorn A C. The Relationship between Corporate Entreneurshipand Strategic Management [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(5)
[13] Beck T, Demirguc-Kunt A, Levin R.Bank Concentration and Fragility: Impact andMechanics [A].In Mark Carey, and Rene Stulz(Eds.).Risk of Financial Institutions[C].Cambridge：National Bureau of Economic Research,2005
[14] Benner M J,Tushman.Process Management and Technological Innovation:ALongitudinal Study of the Photography and Paint Industries[J].Administrative ScienceQuarterly,2002,47(6)
[15] Benner M J,Tushman M L.Exploitation,Exploration,and Process Management: theProductivity Dilemma Revisited[J].Academy of Management Review,2003,28
[16] Bentz F.Managing Technology Competing through New Ventures,Innovation,andCorporate Research[J].NewYork:Prentice Hall,1987
[17] Bhuian S N.Just entrepreneurial Enough:The Moderating Effect of Entrepreneurshipon the Relationship between Market Orientation and Performance[J].Journal ofBusiness Research,2005,58(1)
[18] Bierly P,Dally P S.Exploration and Exploitation in Small ManufacturingFirms[C].61th Annual Meeting Academy of Management,2001
[19] Bierly P E.Daly P S.Alternative Knowledge Strategies,Competitive Environment,andOrganizational Performance in Small Manufacturing Firms[J]. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice,2007,31(04)
[20] Bourgeois L J.The Effects of Different Organizational Environments Upon Decisionsabout Organizational Structure[J].Academy of Management Journal,1978,21(3)
[21] Blesa A, Ripolles M. The Role of Market Orientation in the Relationship betweenEntrepreneurial Proactiveness and Performance [J]. Journal ofEntrepreneurship,2003,12
[22] Boso N.Complementary Effect of Entrepreneruial and Market Orientations on ExportNew Product Success under Differing Levels of Competitive Intensity and FinancialCapital[J].International Business Review,2011,7(1)
[23] Brady T.Davies A.Building Project Capabilities: From Exploratory to ExploitativeLearning[J].Organization Studies,2004,25(9)
[24] Brownell P,Dunk A S.Task Uncertainty and It’s Interaction with BudgetaryParticipation and Budget Emphasis:Some Methodological Issues and EmpiricalInvestigtion[J].Accounting Organizations and Society,1991,16(8)
[25] Cantillon R.Essay on the Nature of Commence[M].H Higgs translation,London:MacMillan,1755
[26] Caruana A B,Ramaseshan,Ewing M T.Do Universitisties That Are More MarketOrientated Perform Better[J].International Journal of Public SectorManagement,1998,11(1)
[27] Chandler A D.Strategy and Structure:Chapters in the History of the AmericanIndustrial Enterprise[M].Cambridge:MIT Press
[28] Christensen C M. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause GreatFirms to Fail [M]. Harvard Business Press,1997.
[29] Covin J G, Slevin D P.Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and BenignEnvironments [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1989,10(1)
[30] Day,George S.Market Driven Stragtegy, Processes for Creating Value[M].NewYork:The Free Press,1994
[31] Deshpande,Farley J U,Webster F.Coporate Culture,Customer Orientation,andInnovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis[J].Journal ofMarketing,1993,57(1)
[32] Dess G,Beard D.Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments[J].AdministrativeScience Quarterly,1984,29
[33] Dess G G, Lumpkin G T. The Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation in StimulatingEffective Corporate Entrepreneurship [J]. Academy of ManagementExecutive,2005,19(1)
[34] Diamantopoulos A, Hart S. Linking Market Orientation and Company Performance:Preliminary Work on Kohli and Jaworski’s Framework [J]. Journal of StrategicMarketing,1993,1
[35] Drucker P F.The Practice of Management[M].New York:Harper and RowPublishers,1954
[36] Drucker P F.Innovation and Entrepreneurship[M].Rye Field Publishing Co.,1995
[37] Ducan,Robert B.Characteristics of Organizational Envioronments And PerceivedEnvironmental Uncertainties[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,1972,17(3)
[38] Duncan R.Innovation and Entrepreneurship:Practice and Principles[M].HarperTrade,1985
[39] Eisenhardt K M,Martin J A.Dynamic Capabilities:What Are They?[J].StrategicManagement Journal,2000,21
[40] Esslemont D, Lewis T. Some Empirical Tests of the Marketing Concept[J].MarketingBulletin,1991,2
[41] Filiou D.Exploraton and Exploitation in Inter-organsational Learning:Motives forCooperation being Self-Destructive for Some and Vehicles for Growth forOthers,Some Evidence from the Biotechnology Sector in the UK between1991and2001
[42] Fiol C M,Lyles M A.Organizational Learning[J].Academy of ManagementReview,1985,10(4)
[43] Foxall G.The Meaning of Marketing and Leisure:Issues for Research andDevelopment[J].European Journal of Marketing,1984,18(2)
[44] Garcia R,Calantone R,Levine R.The Role of Knowledge in Resource Allocation toExploration verse Exploitation in Technologically Oriented Organizations[J].DecisionSciences,2003,34(2)
[45] Garvin D A, Edmondson A C, Gino F.Gino.Is Yours a LearningOrganization?[M].Division of Reasearch,Harvard Business School,2007
[46] Gibson C B,Birkinshaw J.The Antecedents,Consequences and Mediating Role ofOrganizational Ambidexterity[J].Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(1)
[47] Greenley, Gordon E. Forms of Market Orientation in UK Companies [J]. Journal ofManagement Studies,1995,32(1)
[48] Gurbuz G,Aykol S.Entrepreneurial Management,Entrepreneurial Orientation andTurkish Small Firm Growth[J].Management Research News,2009,32(4)
[49] Gupta A K,Smith K G.Shalley C E.The Interplay between Exploration andExplitation[J].Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4)
[50] Guth W D,Ginsberg A.Guest Editor’s Introduction:CorportateEntrepreneurship[J].Strategic Management Journal,1999,11
[51] Han J K,Namwoon K, Srivastava R K.Market Orientation and OrganizationalPerformance:Is Innovation a Missing Link?[J].Journal of Marketing,1998,62(4)
[52] Hart S.An Integrative Framework for Strategy-Making Processes [J]. Academy ofManagement Review,1992(17)
[53] Hatcher L.A Step-by-step Approach to Using the SAS (r) System for Factor Analysisand Structural Equation Modeling[M].Cary:SAS Institute Inc.,1994
[54] He Zi-Lin, Wong Poh-kam.Exploration VS.Exploitation: An Empirical Test of theAmidexterity Hypothesis [J]. Organizaton Science,2004,15(4)
[55] Hedberg B.How Organizations Learn and Unlearn[H].Handbook of OrganizationalDesign.Nystrom and W H Starbuck(eds.),1981,1.1
[56] Hornsby J,Kuratko D,Zahra S.Middle Managers’ Perception of the InternalEnviroment for Corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing A MeasuremmentScale[J].Journal of Business Venturing,2002(17)
[57] Huber, George P.Organizatinal Leaning: The Contriuting Processes and the Literatures[J]. Organization Science,1991,2
[58] Hughes M, Morgan E R.Deconstructing the Relationship between EntrepreneurialOrientation and Business Performance at the Embryonic Stage of Firm Growth [J].Industrial Marketing Management,2007,36(5)
[59] Hult G T,Ketchen J D.Does Market Orientation Matter?A Test of the Relationshipbetween Positonal Advantage and Performance[J].Strategic ManagementJournal,2001,22(9)
[60] Hunt,Shellby D,Morgan R.The Comparative Advantage Theory ofCompetition[J].Journal of Marketing,1995,59(4)
[61] Hurley,Robert F G,Hult T M.Innoation,Market Orientaiton and OrganizationalLearning:An Integration and Empirical Examination[J].Journal of Marketing,1998,62
[62] Irene Hau-siu Chow. The Relationship Between Entrepreneurial Orientation and FirmPerformance in China[J].S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal,2006,71
[63] Jansen J J P.Van Den Bosch F A,Volberda H W.Managing Potential and RealizedAbsorptive Capacity:How do Organizational Antecedents Matter?Academy ofManagement Journal,2005,(48)
[64] Jansen J J P,Vera D.Crossan M.Strategic Leadership for Eploration andExploitation:The Moderating Role ofEnvironmental Dynamism[J].LeadershipQuarterly,2009,20(1)
[65] Jaworski B J, Kohli A K. Market Orientation: Antecedents andConsequences[J].Journal of Marketing1993,57
[66] Kanter R.The Middle Manager as Innovator[J].Harvard Business Review,1982,(61)
[67] Katila R,Ahuja G.Something Old,Something New：A Longitudinal Study of SearchBehavior and New Product Introduction[J].Academy of ManagementJournal,2002,45(6)
[68] Kleinman A M.Depression,Somatization and the New Cross-CulturalPsychiatry[J].Soc. Sci.Med,1977
[69] Kohli A K,Jaworski B J.Market Orientation: The Construct,Reasearch Proposition,andManaerial Implication[J].Journal of Marketing,1990,54
[70] Kohli A K,Jaworski B J,Kumar A.MARKOR:A Measure of MarketOrientation[J].Journal of Marketing,1993
[71] Kuratko D,Montagno R,Honsby J.Developing and Intrapreneurial AssessmentInstrument for an Effective Corporate Entrepreneurial Environment[J].StrategicManagement Journal,1990,(11)
[72] Kwaku,Appiah-Adu.Market Orientation and Performance:Do the FindingsEstabilished in Large Firms Hold in the Small Business Sector?[J].Journal ofEuro-Marketing,1997,6(3)
[73] Lavie D, Rosenkopf L.Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in AllianceFormation[J].Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4)
[74] Lee J.Lee L,Lee H.Exploration and Exploitation in the Presences of NetworkExternalities[J].Management Science,2003,49
[75] Lewin A,Volberda H W.Beyond Adaptation vs. Selection Research:OrganizingSelf-Renewal in Co-evolving Environments[J].Journal of ManagementStudies,2003,40(8)
[76] Levinthal D A,March J G.The Myopia of Learning[J].Strategic ManagementJournal,1993,14
[77] Lieberman M,Montgomery D.Montgomery.First-mover Advantages[J].StrategicManagement Journal,1988,9
[78] Lumpkin G T, Dess G G. Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct andlinking it to Performance [J]. Academy of Management Review,1996,21(1)
[79] Lumpkin G T,Dess G G. Linking Two Dimension of Entrepreneurial Orientaion toFirm Performance: the Moderating Role of Environment and Industry LifeCycle[J],2001.16(5)
[80] Lundvall B A,Johnson B.The Learning Economy[J].Industry and Innovation,1994,1(2)
[81] Luo.Entrepreneurial Firms in the Context of China’s Transition Economy:AnIntegrative Framework and Empirical Examination[J].Journal of BusinessResearch,2005,58(3)
[82] Lyles M A.Learning among Joint Venture Sophisticated Firms[M].MIR SpecialIssue,1988
[83] March J. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning[J].OrganizationScience,1991,2
[84] Marsh H W, Hocevar D. Application of Confirmatory Factor Analysis to the StudyofSelf-Concept:First-and Higher-Order Factor Models and Their Invariance AcrossGroups[M].Psychological Bulletin,1985,97
[85] Matsuno K, Mentzer J T, Ozsomer A. The Effect of Entrepreneurial Proclivity andMarket Orientation on Business Performance[J].Journal of Marketing,2002,66
[86] McGrath R G.Exploratory Learning,Innovative Capacity,and ManagementOversight[J].Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(1)
[87] Mom T J M,Van den Bosch F A J,Volberda H W.Understanding Variation inManagers’s Ambidexterity:Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of FormalStructural and Personal Coordination Mechanisms[J].OrganizationScience,2009,20(4)
[88] Morgan G,Ramirez R.Action Learing:A Holographic Metaphor for GuidingChange[J].1983,37(1)
[89] Miller D,Friesen P H. Innovation in Conservative and EntrepreneurialFirms[J].Management Science,1982,29(7)[89]
[90] Miller,Danny.The Correlates of Enterpreneurship in Three Types ofForms[J].Management Science,1983,29(7)
[91] Miler A,Camp B.Exploring Determinats of Success in Corporate Ventures[J].Journalof Business Venturing,1985,1(2)
[92] Miles M P,Arnold D R.The Relationship Between Market Orientation andEntrepreneurial Orientation[J].Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,1995,15(4)
[93] Milliken F.Three Type of Perceived Uncertainty about theEnvironment:State,Effect,and Response Uncertainty[J].Academy of ManagementReview,1987,12(1)
[94] Morris M H,Paul G W.The Relationship Between Entrepreneurship and Marketing inEstablished Firms[J].Journal of Business Venturing,1987,2(3)
[95] Morris M H,Ramon A A,Jeffrey A.Individualism and the Modern Corporation:Implications for Innovation and Entrepreneurship[J].Journal ofManagement,1993,19(3)
[96] Morris M,Kuratko D.Corportate Entrepreneurship:Entrepreneurial Developmentwithin Organization[M].FL Orlando:Harcourt College Publishers,2002
[97] Murphy A,Cantillon R.Entrepreneur and Economist[M].Boston:Oxford UniversityPress,1989
[98] Narver J C, Slater F S.The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability [J].Journal of Marketing,1990,54
[99] Noble C H, Sinkula R K, Kumar. Market Orientation and Alternative StrategicOrientations: A Longitudinal Assessment of Performance Implications, A EmipiricalExamination of Contemporary Marketing Practice[J].Journal of Marketing,2002,66(3)
[100] Nonaka I, Takeuchi H.The knowledge Creating Company [M].New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
[101] Nunnally J C.Psychometric Theory[M].NY:McGraw-Hill,1978
[102] Oshri I,Pan S L.Newell S.Trade-offs between Knowledge Exploitation andExploration Activities [J].Knowledge Manaagement Research and Practice,2005,3
[103] Pelham A M.Influence of Environment,Strategy, and Market Orientation onPerformance in Small Manufacturing Firms[J].Journal of Business Research,1999
[104] Peterson R.Small Business Adoption of the Marketing Concept vs Other BusinessStrategies[J].Journal of Small Business Management,1989,1
[105] Quinn J.Managing Innovation: Controlled Chaos[J].Harvard BusinessReview,1985,63(3)
[106] Rosenkophf L,Nekar A.Beyond Local Search:Boundary Spanning,Explorationand Impact in the Optical Disk Industry[J].Strategic Management Journal,2001,22
[107] Ruekert,Robert W. Developing A Market Orientation: An Organizational StrategicPerspective[J].International Journal of Research in Marketing,1992,1(9)
[108] Senge P M. The Fifth Discipline [M]. New York: Doubleday,1990.
[109] Shapiro,Benson P.”What the hell is’Market Oriented‘?”[J].Harvard BusinessReview,1988,
[110] Sinkula J M. Market Information Processing and OrganizationalLearning[J].Journal of Marketing,1994,58:35-34
[111] Sinkula J M,William E B,Noordewier T.A Framework for Market-BasedOrganizational Learning：Linking Values Knowledge,and Behavior[J].Journal fo theAcademy of Marketing Science,1997
[112] Slater S F,Narver J C.Market Orientation and the Learning Organization[J].Journalof Marketing,1995,59(7):63-74
[113] Smart D, Conan J. Entrepreneurial Orientation, Distinctive MarketingCompetencies and Organizational Performance [J]. Journal of Applied BusinessResearch,1994,10(3)
[114] Stopford J M, Banded-Fuller.Creating Corportate Entrepreneurship [J]. StrategicManagement,1994,41
[115] Teece D J.Explicating Dynamic Capabilities:The Nature and Microfoundations of(Sustainable) Enterprise Performance[J].Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(13)
[116] Thompson J D.Organizations in Action[M].New York:McGraw-Hill,1967
[117] Tosi H,Alag R,Storey R G.On the Measurement of the Environment:AnAssessement of the Lawrence and Lorsch Environmental UncertaintyScale[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,1973,18
[118] Tushman M I,O’Reilly C A.Ambidextrous Organizations:Managing Evolutionaryand Revolutionary Change[J].California Management Review,1996,38(4)
[119] Vanhaverbeke W,Beerkens B,Duysters G.Explorative and Exploitative LeaningStrategies in Technology-Based Alliance Networks[N].Ecis(Eindhoven Centre forInnovation Studies) Working Paper,2003
[120] Vassolo R S,Anand J,Rolta T.Non-additivity in Portfolios of Exploration Activities:A Real Options-Based Analysis of Equity Alliances in Biotechnology[J].StrategicManagement Journal,2004,25
[121] Venkatraman N. Measurement of Business Performance in Strategy Research: AComparison of Approaches[J].Academy of Management Review,1986,11
[122] Walker O C,Ruekert R W.Marketing ‘s Role in the Implementation of BusinessStrategies:A Critical Review and Conceptual Framewor[J].Journal ofMarketing,1987,15
[123] Walter A,Auer M,Ritter T.The Impact of Network Capabilities and EntrepreneurialOrientation on University Spin-off Performance[J].Journal of BusinessVenturing,2006,21(4)
[124] Wheelen T L,Hunger J D.Strategic Management and BusinessPolicy[M].NewYork:Mc Graw-Hill,1986
[125] Wiklund J.The Sustainability of the Entrepreneurial Orientation-performanceRelationship[J].1999
[126] Wiklund J.Shepherd D.Entrepreneurial Orientation and Small BusinessPerformance:A Configurational Approach[J].Journal of BusinessVenturing,2005,20(1)
[127] Zahra S,Covin J.Contextual Influences on the Corporate EntrepreneurshipPerformance Relationship: A Longitudinal Analysis[J].Journal of BusinessVenturing,1995,(10)
[128] Zahra S A,Garvis S.International Corporate Entrepreneurship and CompanyPerformance.The Moderating Effect of International EnvironmentalHostility[J].Journal of Business Venturing,2000,15
[129] Zollo M,Winter S G.Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of DynamicCapabilities[J].Organization Science,2002,13(3)
[130]陈国权、王晓辉.组织学习与组织绩效：环境动态性的调节作用[J].研究与发展管理,2012,2
[131]陈江.组织学习、创新和绩效关系的理论研究[J].开发研究,2010,12
[132]陈膺强.应用抽样调查[M].台北：台湾商务印书馆,1994
[133]戈亚群、邹明、谭国华.企业家导向、组织学习与技术创新的关系研究[J].软科学，2010,8
[134]何培旭.创业导向与市场导向对企业绩效的影响差异研究[D].哈尔滨工业大学，2010,6
[135]黄俊英.非营利组织市场导向之研究——组织学习观点[J].台湾“行政院国家科学委员会”研究计划成果报告
[136]黄俊元.台湾传统制造业之开创与尽用：组织学习观点[D].台湾“国立”东华大学企业管理学系硕士论文，1997
[137]焦豪、周江华、谢振东.创业导向与组织绩效间关系的实证研究——基于环境动态性的调节效应[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007,(11)
[138]蒋峦、谢俊、谢卫红.创业导向对组织绩效的影响——以市场导向为中介变量[J].华东经济管理，2010,24（05）
[139]李大元、项保华、陈应龙.企业动态能力及其功效：环境不确定性的影响[J].南开管理评论.2009,6
[140]李剑力.不确定性环境下探索性和开发性创新的平衡与企业绩效关系研究[J].中国科技论坛,2009,7
[141]李璟琰、焦豪.创业导向与组织绩效关系实证研究：基于组织学习的中介效应[J].科研管理,2008,29(5)
[142]李晓峰.江苏省民营企业发展与管理创新困境研究[R].江苏省社会科学基金项目申报书,2011
[143]李正卫.动态环境条件下的组织学习与企业绩效[D].浙江大学博士论文，2003
[144]龙成志.消费品牌形象的绩效路径研究[D].华南理工大学博士论文,2009
[145]林义屏.市场导向、组织学习、组织创新与组织绩效间关系之研究—以科学园区资讯电子产业为例[D].台湾“国立”中山大学博士论文,2000
[146]刘常勇.创业管理的12堂课[M].北京：中信出版社，2002
[147]刘景江.科技型新创企业创业导向：维度、测量和效度[J].自然辩证法通讯，2009（4）
[148]刘景江、陈璐.创业导向、学习模式与新产品开发绩效关系研究[J].浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版[D],2011,(6)
[149]刘亚军、和金生.企业创业导向与组织绩效：从短期到长期的战略选择[J].中国科技论坛,2010,5
[150]罗宾斯.管理学[M].中国人民大学出版社,2012
[151]吕良添.创业导向、管理实务、人际网络与组织绩效关系之研究[D].台湾“国立”中山大学人力资源管理研究所硕士论文,2008
[152]马淑文.家族社会资本、创业导向与初创期企业成长绩效关系研究[J].商业经济与管理,2011,2
[153]毛茜敏.战略导向、组织学习与企业绩效间关系的实证研究[D].浙江大学硕士学位论文,2010
[154]闵雪.基于过程的吸收能力对创新绩效的影响机制研究[D].浙江大学硕士学位论文,2010
[155]彭新敏.企业网络对技术创新绩效的作用机制研究：利用性-探索性学习的中介效应[D].浙江大学博士论文,2009
[156]荣泰生.AMOS与研究方法[M].重庆大学出版社,2009
[157]唐铭聪.创业导向、市场导向与经营绩效之使者研究：社会资本之观点[D].台湾“国立”高雄第一科技大学硕士论文,2003
[158]魏江、焦豪.创业导向、组织学习与动态能力关系研究[J].外国经济与管理,2008(02)
[159]谢洪明.市场导向、组织学习与组织绩效的关系研究[J].科学学研究,2005,8
[160]谢洪明、陈春辉.市场导向、组织学习与组织创新的关系——中国大陆与台湾的比较[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2005,12
[161]谢洪明、韩子天.组织学习与绩效的关系：创新是中介变量吗？——珠三角地区企业的实证研究及其启示[J].科研管理,2005,24(5)
[162]薛红志.试论竞争战略对创业导向-绩效关系的影响[J].外国经济与管理，2005,12
[163]杨宇.企业市场导向度对组织绩效影响的实证研究[D].东北大学硕士论文,2007,7
[164]杨宗儒.市场导向、创业导向、产品创新与组织绩效间关系[D].台湾“国立”东华大学企业管理学系博士论文,2007
[165]杨智.市场导向与营销绩效关系研究[M].中国财政经济出版社,2005
[166]杨智、刘新燕.市场导向与企业绩效：一个基于中介效应的整合模型——以中东部五省市企业为实证样本[J].中国软科学,2006,11
[167]杨智、张茜岚、谢春燕.企业战略导向的选择：市场导向或创新导向——基于湖南省高新技术开发区企业的实证研究[J].科学学研究，2009,2
[168]杨智、邓炼金、方二.市场导向、战略柔性与企业绩效：环境不确定性的调节效应[J].中国软科学,2010,9
[169]于海波、郑晓明、方俐洛、凌文辁.中国企业开发式学习与利用式学习平衡的实证研究[J].科研管理,2008,11
[170]王维元.台湾海外营运环境不确定之认知与因应风险管理策略之研究——以资讯电子业与纺织业赴大陆投资为例[D].“国立”政治大学企业管理研究所博士论文,2001
[171]王伟毅、李乾文.环境不确定性与创业活动关系研究综述[J].外国经济与管理,2007,29(3)
[172]王涛、陈金亮.环境不确定条件下市场导向对价值创造的作用研究[J].南开管理评论,2011,12
[173]王祥彦.探讨组织学习对竞争优势之影响——以动态能力观点[D].台湾“国立”东华大学企业管理学系硕士论文,2007
[174]温忠麟、侯杰泰、张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较与应用[J].心理学报,2005,37(2)
[175]吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务——SPSS操作与应用[M].重庆出版社,2010
[176]赵霞.创业导向、市场导向对企业绩效影响的实证研究[D].西安电子科技大学硕士论文，2011
[177]张宏云、杨乃定、郭雯.创业导向量表发展综述[J].研究与发展管理.2011,23(2)
[178]张婧.市场导向、创新、组织学习和组织绩效的关系研究[J].科技管理研究,2005,4
[179]张骁，胡丽娜.市场导向和创业导向的混合绩效效应研究前沿探析与未来展望[J].外国经济与管理，2012，34（3）
[180]张雪兰.市场导向、竞争优势与组织绩效关系研究[D].武汉大学博士论文,2005,4
[181]张雪兰.市场导向与组织绩效：基于竞争优势的理论建构与实证检验[J].武汉大学出版社,2008
[182]张映红.公司创业战略——基于中国转型经济环境的研究[M].清华大学出版社,2005
[183]张玉利、李乾文.公司创业导向与组织绩效：基于探索能力与开发能力的中介效应研究[J].创业管理研究,2006,12
[184]张玉利、李乾文.创业导向、公司创业与价值创造[M].南开大学出版社,2009
[185]朱瑜、王雁飞、蓝海林.组织学习、组织创新与企业核心能力关系研究[J].科学学研究.2007,3
[186]朱瑜.组织学习与创新视角的企业智力资本与绩效关系研究[M].经济科学出版社,2009
[187]朱朝辉.探索性学习、挖掘性学习和创新绩效[J].科学学研究，2008，26(4)
[188]朱朝辉、陈劲.探索性学习与挖掘性学习及其平衡研究[J].外国经济与管理,2007,1
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |