Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anticipated responses: The positive side of elicited reactions to competitive action

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

This study advances the action-oriented perspective on strategy dynamics. Strategy research suggests that a firm’s profit will decrease when facing rival responses, yet anecdotal evidence indicates that countermoves may enhance its performance. What is the interaction effect of simultaneous negative- and positive-side competitive responses on organisational performance? We propose that the answer depends not only on the actor’s characteristics but also the action’s characteristics. Grounded in empirical facts, our formal model of competitive dynamics examines the possibility of anticipated responses that are deliberately elicited by the attacking firm. We show that against attentive rivals, a firm with high attention and low aggressiveness can utilise visible actions to achieve its strategic intention and deployment. Our study offers significant implications for theory and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acemoglu D and Linn J (2004). Market size in innovation: Theory and evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (3): 1049–1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromiley P (2009). A prospect theory model of resource allocation. Decision Analysis 6 (3): 124–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M-J (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review 21 (1): 100–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen M-J and Hambrick DC (1995). Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal 38 (2): 453–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M-J and MacMillan IC (1992). Nonresponse and delayed response to competitive moves: The roles of competitor dependence and action irreversibility. Academy of Management Journal 35 (3): 539–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M-J and Miller D (1994). Competitive attack, retaliation and performance: An expectancy-valence framework. Strategic Management Journal 15 (2): 85–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M-J and Miller D (2012). Competitive dynamics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. Academy of Management Annals 6 (1): 135–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M-J, Smith KG and Grimm CM (1992). Action characteristics as predictors of competitive responses. Management Science 38 (3): 439–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M-J, Venkataraman S, Black SS and MacMillan IC (2002). The role of irreversibilities in competitive interaction: Behavioral considerations from organizational theory. Managerial and Decision Economics 23 (4–5): 187–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M-J, Su K-H and Tsai W (2007). Competitive tension: The awareness-motivation-capability perspective. Academy of Management Journal 50 (1): 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM and Bingham CB (2007). Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy of Management Review 32 (2): 480–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derfus RJ, Maggitti RG, Grimm CM and Smith KG (2008). The red queen effect: Competitive actions and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal 51 (1): 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx I and Cool K (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 35 (12): 1504–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton JE and Duncan RB (1987). The creation of momentum for change through the process of strategic issue diagnosis. Strategic Management Journal 8 (3): 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier WJ, Smith KG and Grimm CM (1999). The role of competitive action in market share erosion and industry dethronement: A study of industry leaders and challengers. Academy of Management Journal 42 (4): 372–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier WJ, Fhionnlaoich CM, Smith KG and Grimm CM (2002). The impact of performance distress on aggressive competitive behavior: A reconciliation of conflicting views. Managerial and Decision Economics 23 (4/5): 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gary MS, Kunc M, Morecroft JDW and Rockart SF (2008). System dynamics and strategy. System Dynamics Review 24 (4): 407–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve HR (1998). Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (1): 58–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve HR (2003). Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm CM, Lee H and Smith K (2006). Strategy as Action: Competitive Dynamics and Competitive Advantages. Oxford University Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison JR, Lin Z, Carroll GR and Carley KM (2007). Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Academy of Management Journal 32 (4): 1229–1245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman AJ and Ocasio W (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science 12 (4): 414–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu S, Blettner D and Bettis RA (2011). Adaptive aspirations: Performance, consequences of risk preferences at extremes and alternative reference groups. Strategic Management Journal 32 (13): 1426–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketchen Jr. DJ, Snow CC and Hoove VL (2004). Research on competitive dynamics: Recent accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management 30 (6): 779–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler S and Sproull L (1982). Managerial response to changing environments: Perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition. Administrative Science Quarterly 27 (4): 548–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunc MH and Morecroft JDW (2007). Competitive dynamics and gaming simulation: Lessons from a fishing industry simulator. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58 (9): 1146–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunc MH and Morecroft JDW (2010). Managerial decision making and firm performance under a resource-based paradigm. Strategic Management Journal 31 (11): 1164–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lant TK (1992). Aspiration level adaptation: An empirical exploration. Management Science 38 (5): 623–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law AM and Kelton DW (1991). Simulation Modeling and Analysis. 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee H, Smith KG, Grimm CM and Schomburg A (2000). Timing, order and durability of new product advantages with imitation. Strategic Management Journal 21 (1): 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lévesque M (2004). Mathematics, theory, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 19 (5): 743–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman MB and Montgomery DB (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal 9 (S1): 4158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livengood RS and Reger RK (2010). That’s our turf! Identify domains and competitive dynamics. Academy of Management Review 35 (1): 48–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomi A, Larsen ER and Wezel FC (2010). Getting there: Exploring the role of expectations and preproduction delays in processes of organizational founding. Organization Science 21 (1): 132–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpkin GT and Dess GG (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21 (1): 135–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan IC, McCaffery ML and Van Wijk G (1985). Competitors’ responses to easily imitated new products: Exploring commercial banking product introductions. Strategic Management Journal 6 (1): 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath R, Chen M-J and MacMillan I (1998). Multimarket maneuvering in uncertain spheres of influence: Resource diversion strategies. Academy of Management Review 23 (4): 724–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcel JJ, Barr PS and Duhaime IM (2010). The influence of executive cognition on competitive dynamics. Strategic Management Journal 32 (2): 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG and Shapira Z (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science 33 (11): 1404–1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles RE and Snow CC (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. McGraw-Hill: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morecroft J (2007). Strategic Modelling and Business Dynamics: A Feedback Systems Approach. Wiley: West Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadkarni S and Barr PS (2008). Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: An integrated view. Strategic Management Journal 29 (13): 1395–1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio W (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 18 (S1): 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahmandad H (2012). Impact of growth opportunities and competition on firm-level capability development trade-offs. Organization Science 23 (1): 138–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sastry MA (1997). Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (2): 237–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith KG, Grimm CM and Gannon MJ (1991). Organizational information processing, competitive responses, and performance in the US domestic airline industry. Academy of Management Journal 34 (1): 60–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith KG, Grimm CM and Gannon MJ (1992). Dynamics of Competitive Strategy. Sage Publications: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith KG, Ferrier WJ and Ndofor H (2001). Competitive dynamics research: Critique and future directions. In: Hitt MA, Freeman RE and Harrison JS (eds). The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management. Blackwell: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2000). Business Dynamics: System Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Irwin McGraw-Hill: Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD, Henderson R, Beinhocker ED and Newman LI (2007). Getting big too fast: Strategic dynamics with increasing returns and bounded rationality. Management Science 53 (4): 683–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai W, Su K-H and Chen M-J (2011). Seeing through the eyes of a rival: Competitor acumen based on rival-centric perceptions. Academy of Management Journal 54 (4): 761–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vancouver JB, Tamanini KB and Yoder RJ (2010). Using dynamic computational models to reconnect theory and research: Socialization by the proactive newcomer as example. Journal of Management 36 (3): 764–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren K (2008). Strategic Management Dynamics. Wiley: West Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang S-J S and Chandra Y (2013). Growing artificial entrepreneurs: Advancing entrepreneurship research using agent-based simulation approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 19 (2): 210–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoffie DB and Kim R (2010). Apple Inc. in 2010. Harvard Business School Case, 9-710-467, pp 1–25.

  • Young G, Smith KG and Grimm CM (1996). ‘Austrian’ and industrial organization perspectives on firm-level competitive activity and performance. Organization Science 7 (3): 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac EJ and Bazerman MH (1991). Blind spots in industry and competitor analysis: Implications of interfirm (mis)perceptions for strategic decisions. Academy of Management Review 16 (1): 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the editor and two anonymous referees for their thoughtful suggestions that help improve the paper. We are grateful to Ming-Jer Chen, Kai-Yu Hsieh, Hao-Chieh Lin, and Tieying Yu for providing feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. The work of the corresponding author was supported in part by Research Committee Award and Development Fund Award, Essex Business School, University of Essex.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Essex Business School, University of Essex, Essex, UK

    Shu-Jung Sunny Yang & Yan Emma Liu

Authors
  1. Shu-Jung Sunny Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yan Emma Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shu-Jung Sunny Yang.

Additional information

Supplementary information accompanies this article on the Journal of the Operational Research Society website (www.palgrave-journals.com/jors)

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sunny Yang, SJ., Emma Liu, Y. Anticipated responses: The positive side of elicited reactions to competitive action. J Oper Res Soc 66, 316–330 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2014.3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2014.3

Keywords

Search

Navigation