The Strategic Behaviour of SMEs

Vanessa Yanes-Estévez; Ana María García-Pérez; Juan Ramón Oreja-Rodríguez

doi:10.3390/admsci8040061

Yanes-Estévez, Vanessa;García-Pérez, Ana María;Oreja-Rodríguez, Juan Ramón

2018-10-16 00:00:00

administrative sciences Article Vanessa Yanes-Estévez *, Ana María García-Pérez and Juan Ramón Oreja-Rodríguez Departamento de Dirección de Empresa e Historia Económica, IUDE, Universidad de La Laguna, 38200 Tenerife, Spain; angape@ull.es (A.M.G.-P.); joreja@ull.es (J.R.O.-R.) * Correspondence: vayanes@ull.es Received: 18 September 2018; Accepted: 10 October 2018; Published: 16 October 2018 Abstract: This paper analyses the strategic behaviour of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and identiﬁes the entrepreneurial, technological, and administrative problems of the Miles and Snow typology (1978). This typology is applied to a sample of SMEs in the Canary Islands (Spain) by using a multi-item questionnaire. Then, the Rasch Measurement Theory is applied to obtain the results, with the linear continuum as a key tool. By applying the Rasch Measurement, there is a coherency between the data treatment and the new interpretation of the Miles and Snow typology (1978), which lists 4 types that are close to trends than to pure types (for example, Sollosy 2013). There are differences between the administrative and the technological problems, with their technological approach being more prospector and their administrative one, which is more defender. This shows an almost absence of enterprises with purely defender or prospector behaviours. These results show that SMEs do not follow any comprehensive framework in order to develop their strategies. Managers should analyse their strategic situation and consider the alignment of the three problems. Keywords: strategic behaviour; Miles and Snow typology; small and medium-sized enterprises; Rasch Measurement Theory 1. Introduction The typology of Miles and Snow (1978) is one of the most used approaches for the study of the strategic behaviour of organizations (e.g., Anwar and Hasnu 2016; Bouhelal and Mohamm 2016; Frambach et al. 2016; Lin et al. 2014) and one of the most validated typologies (Fiss 2011; Parnell et al. 2015). This typology has been widely applied to large enterprises, and different results could be obtained for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) due to their own characteristics (Akman et al. 2015). Miles and Snow (1978) established four types of strategic behaviours (prospector, defender, analyser, and reactor) based on three different problems faced by organizations: the entrepreneurial, the technological, and the administrative. According to Miles and Snow (1978), prospector companies are constantly looking for opportunities in the market, focusing on innovation (entrepreneurial problem); they have multiple technologies (technological problem), and ﬂexible structures (administrative problem). Defender companies put their emphasis on the efﬁciency with a limited scope of product-market (entrepreneurial problem); they have cost-efﬁcient technologies (technological problem), and highly centralized and formalized structures (administrative problem). Whereas the reactor behaviour is considered not to have a consistent and clear strategy, analyser companies are located between those two extreme strategic behaviours. For almost four decades, researchers have used this typology in order to provide new knowledge on the strategic management of SMEs and overcome some of the difﬁculties related to it, such as the way in which ﬁrms are classiﬁed into one or another type of those proposed by Miles and Snow (1978). The most simple and used way of classiﬁcation is by grouping enterprises in a rather subjective and discretionary manner into pure strategic types. To achieve that, the paragraph method (for instance, Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61; doi:10.3390/admsci8040061 www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 2 of 21 Hult et al. 2006; Shoham and Lev 2015; Ingram et al. 2016), the cluster analysis (for instance, Blackmore and Nesbit 2012; Pinto et al. 2014), or the factorial analysis (Grimmer et al. 2017) have been used. Pure types that have been suggested as conceptual bases that are rather distant from the complex strategic reality of enterprises (Hékis et al. 2013). In practice, only businesses that incorporate facets of two or more strategies are viable (Parnell et al. 2015). In addition to this methodological weakness, we should also consider the attempt to establish cause-effect relations between the dependent and independent variables considered by using regression (for instance, Tang and Tang 2012) or factorial analyses (for instance, Ghezal 2015). Another identiﬁed weakness, and one of the most important, is the lack of explicit consideration of the entrepreneurial, technological, and administrative problems proposed by Miles and Snow (1978) to characterize the different strategic types. On the other hand, the typology of Miles and Snow (1978) has been widely recommended in the case of SMEs, on which this paper is focused (for example, Aragón-Sánchez and Sánchez-Marín 2003; Azyabi et al. 2012; O’Regan and Ghobadian 2006). In this context, the objective of this paper is to widen the knowledge on the strategic behaviour of SMEs by identifying the entrepreneurial, technological and administrative problems of each type according to Miles and Snow (1978) and analysing their ﬁt. In this way, this paper contributes to the existing literature in several senses: Most research on the Miles and Snow typology (1978) uses a single problem (entrepreneurial, technological, or administrative) or does not differentiate among them, as if they were a single global reality (Frambach et al. 2016; Ingram et al. 2016), implicitly assuming that the three are perfectly aligned and have the same characteristics. Even in the case of a detailed analysis of the problems one by one, in the literature, little attention has been paid to the technological and administrative problems, and the majority of research has focused on the entrepreneurial side (Pinto et al. 2014). In this paper, the three problems proposed by the typology are considered explicitly: entrepreneurial, technological, and administrative. This will provide greater richness and detail about the strategic behaviour of SMEs, as well as knowledge on the degree of alignment of each one of the problems From the methodological point of view, this paper introduces new systems of measurement and validation that are more in line with the complex strategic reality of ﬁrms (among others, DeSarbo et al. 2005). The Rasch Measurement Theory (Rasch 1980) presents, through a polytomous scale, the joint measurements of items and ﬁrms along a linear continuum (This theoretical and methodological approach is in line with the new interpretations of the strategic types of Miles and Snow (1978) closer to trends than to pure types (e.g., Anwar and Hasnu 2016; Sollosy 2013; Woodside et al. 1999). Until now, tools and measurement systems have been used to establish clusters of ﬁrms in a somewhat ‘artiﬁcial and manipulated’ way. In addition, this methodology is considered to be one of the most current and appropriate methods in the ﬁeld of Strategic Management (Marcoulides 1998) to improve the measurement of constructs that are not directly observable (Godfrey and Hill 1995). These unobservable constructs are precisely the ones that predominate in business research. This work is structured in six sections. After this introduction, the second section reviews the main characteristics of the Miles and Snow typology (1978) and its application to SMEs. The third section presents the hypothesis to be tested and the fourth section describes how this research was designed. The results are presented in the ﬁfth section and ﬁnally, in the sixth, the conclusions, implications and future research lines are presented. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Strategic Behaviour of SMEs according to the Miles and Snow Typology (1978) The proposal of Miles and Snow (1978) for the study of the strategic behaviour of ﬁrms has had a profound effect on the ﬁeld of Strategic Management (Hambrick 2003; Ingram et al. 2016). Miles and Snow (1978) establish four types of strategic behaviour depending on how ﬁrms decide to address Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 3 of 21 three problems: the product-market (entrepreneurial problem); technology used to obtain products or services (technological problem); and the coordination, organization, and implementation of their strategy (administrative problem). The strategic behaviours proposed by Miles and Snow (1978) are: Prospector strategic behaviour: developed by ﬁrms that constantly seek new market opportunities through innovation processes and new product development. They are characterized, from the organizational point of view, by being ﬂexible and by the absence of a formal structure (Rugman and Verbeke 1987). They are ﬁrms that create change and uncertainty that their competitors must respond to (Blumentritt and Danis 2006). Therefore, capabilities such as technology and IT capabilities are signiﬁcantly and positively related to their success (Song et al. 2007). From these organizations, a more external orientation is expected, focusing on change (Fiss 2011). Defender strategic behaviour: observed in those ﬁrms that concentrate on a narrow and limited scope of the ﬁrm, trying to protect their market share without looking for new opportunities outside their business. To do so, these ﬁrms emphasize cost reduction and increased efﬁciency. From the organizational point of view, they are characterized by the existence of hierarchical elements, such as the centralized decision making and the emphasis on formal ﬁnancial monitoring systems (Rugman and Verbeke 1987). In the case of innovation, defenders focus on business processes rather than on products (Parnell et al. 2015). These types of ﬁrms tend to have a more internal orientation and are focused on stability (Fiss 2011). Analyser strategic behaviour: a combination of the two previous strategic types, although for some authors it is located on a continuum between defenders and prospectors (Zahra and Pearce 1990). They try to balance efﬁciency and cost control with innovation, trying to develop their marketing, R&D and production capacities equally (Lin et al. 2014). Therefore, they are ﬁrms that need to emphasize hierarchical elements at the same time as ﬂexibility and informal decision-making (Rugman and Verbeke 1987). Therefore, they will behave as defenders in more stable areas and as prospectors in the most turbulent times (Blumentritt and Danis 2006). Their organizational structures combine characteristics of organic organizations with characteristics of mechanistic organizations. Reactor strategic behaviour: usually characterized as a type of non-viable strategy (Anwar and Hasnu 2016). In addition, reactors only respond to competitive events when they are forced and do so in an inconsistent or unstable manner (Hughes and Morgan 2008). They are characterized by a lack of congruence between the objectives of the ﬁrm, directive principles and process, which in turn generates a degradation of their performance (Balodi 2014). It would not be clear whether they are ﬁrms in a transitory phase or, on the contrary, in an ‘enduring maladaptive pattern’ (Zahra and Pearce 1990). Hence, doubts about their long-term viability arise (Kumar et al. 2012). Therefore, this strategic type is not generally considered in studies that apply this typology, such as Blumentritt and Danis (2006), Frambach et al. (2016) or Hughes and Morgan (2008). For Miles and Snow (1978), the survival of the ﬁrm will depend on the quality of the alignment that managers achieve among the three problems mentioned, that is, the entrepreneur, the technological, and the organizational structures and processes developed. It is what Miles and Snow (1978) call the ‘adaptive cycle’ (Figure 1). The ﬁrms with the best results will be those with an internal consistency among these three problems (Blumentritt and Danis 2006). However, there are few papers that delve deeper into this analysis, with Blackmore and Nesbit (2012), Sollosy (2013) and Pinto et al. (2014) being among the few who do so. The application of the Miles and Snow typology to SMEs has been specially recommended (for example, Aragón-Sánchez and Sánchez-Marín 2003; Azyabi et al. 2012; O’Regan and Ghobadian 2006). According to Rugman and Verbeke (1987), this typology is even preferable to Porter (1980) proposal when it comes to analysing the strategic behaviour of SMEs. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22 few papers that delve deeper into this analysis, with Blackmore and Nesbit (2012), Sollosy (2013) Pinto et al. (2014) being among the few who do so. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 4 of 21 ENTREPRENEURIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL TECHNOLOGICAL TECHONOLOGICAL ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE DEFENDER ANALIZER PROSPECTOR REACTOR Coherent strategic behaviours Non-coherent strategic behaviours Figure 1. The adaptive cycle of Miles and Snow (1978). Source: adapted from Roca (2004) in Figure 1. The adaptive cycle of Miles and Snow (1978). Source: adapted from Roca (2004) in Román-Cervantes et al. (2018). Román-Cervantes et al. (2018). The application of the Miles and Snow typology to SMEs has been specially recommended (for One of the reference works that analyses the strategic typology of Miles and Snow (1978) in example, Aragón-Sánchez and Sánchez-Marín 2003; Azyabi et al. 2012; O’Regan and Ghobadian SMEs is that of Aragón-Sánchez and Sánchez-Marín (2005). These authors ﬁnd that prospector SMEs 2006). According to Rugman and Verbeke (1987), this typology is even preferable to Porter’s (1980) have a greater technological development, are more innovative, and use more information technology. proposal when it comes to analysing the strategic behaviour of SMEs. In addition, according to the same study, they have a greater number of ﬂexible practices, are more One of the reference works that analyses the strategic typology of Miles and Snow (1978) in concerned with human resources and are characterized by greater organizational development than SMEs is that of Aragón-Sánchez and Sánchez-Marín (2005). These authors find that prospector analyser and defender ﬁrms. In addition, in O’Regan and Ghobadian (2006), another reference work in SMEs have a greater technological development, are more innovative, and use more information this ﬁeld, these authors conﬁrm, in the industrial sector, that prospector SMEs emphasize creativity, technology. In addition, according to the same study, they have a greater number of flexible external orientation and greater interdepartmental cooperation than defenders. The latter, however, practices, are more concerned with human resources and are characterized by greater put more emphasis on internal capabilities and on the control mechanisms of the strategy than the organizational development than analyser and defender firms. In addition, in O’Regan and prospector ones. On the other hand, Tang and Tang (2012) apply the approaches of Miles and Snow Ghobadian (2006), another reference work in this field, these authors confirm, in the industrial (1978) to a sample of SMEs in a changing environment like China. The authors conclude that ‘prospector sector, that prospector SMEs emphasize creativity, external orientation and greater and analyser strategies attenuate the inverted U-shape relationship between entrepreneurial orientation interdepartmental cooperation than defenders. The latter, however, put more emphasis on internal and ﬁrms’ performance while the moderating effect of the defender strategy is insigniﬁcant’. capabilities and on the control mechanisms of the strategy than the prospector ones. On the other Another group of works link this typology with strategic orientation and other aspects of SME hand, Tang and Tang (2012) apply the approaches of Miles and Snow (1978) to a sample of SMEs in management. Among them, Kumar et al. (2012), conclude that these organizations, for the most a changing environment like China. The authors conclude that ‘prospector and analyser strategies part, have a defender or reactor orientation, and Azyabi et al. (2012), propose a typology of strategic attenuate the inverted U-shape relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firms’ orientation based on the direction of knowledge. The latter ﬁnd that SMEs are aggressive, conservative performance while the moderating effect of the defender strategy is insignificant’. and balanced, in the line of the three strategic types of Miles and Snow (1978): prospectors, defenders Another group of works link this typology with strategic orientation and other aspects of SME and analysers. management. Among them, Kumar et al. (2012), conclude that these organizations, for the most For Al-Ansaari et al. (2014), in an emerging market such as Dubai, the strategic orientation is part, have a defender or reactor orientation, and Azyabi et al. (2012), propose a typology of strategic linked to the different organizational determinants (organizational culture, technology orientation, orientation based on the direction of knowledge. The latter find that SMEs are aggressive, alliance and cooperation, and market orientation) of SMEs and has consequences in terms of innovation. conservative and balanced, in the line of the three strategic types of Miles and Snow (1978): Their results show that prospectors put more effort than defenders into developing organizational prospectors, defenders and analysers. cultures, technology orientation, alliance and cooperation, and market orientation. Additionally, For Al-Ansaari et al. (2014), in an emerging market such as Dubai, the strategic orientation is Mendoza Moheno et al. (2014) analyse the innovation developed by a sample of SMEs from the state of linked to the different organizational determinants (organizational culture, technology orientation, Hidalgo (México) and concluded that prospector SMEs are the ones with a better innovative position. alliance and cooperation, and market orientation) of SMEs and has consequences in terms of In this same sense, Chereau (2015) related innovation to the strategic postures proposed by Miles and innovation. Their results show that prospectors put more effort than defenders into developing Snow (1978), being one of the few studies using each dimension of its adaptive cycle. This author organizational cultures, technology orientation, alliance and cooperation, and market orientation. emphasizes in his conclusions the inﬂuence of the hybridization of strategic proﬁles on the predictive validity of the strategy-innovation relationship. Thus, the necessity of leaving the idea of pure strategic Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 5 of 21 types behind and delving deeper into the analysis and conﬁguration of more hybrid strategic types is shown. All in all, beyond the connection between prospector SMEs and the different ways of innovation, the existing literature does not reach unanimous conclusions regarding the most appropriate strategic behaviour to be developed by each ﬁrm. On the contrary, there is a great disparity in the results. Researchers have used very diverse samples in different studies, for example, SME manufacturers of Northern China (Tang and Tang 2012), Australian SMEs (Blackmore and Nesbit 2012), SMEs from manufacturing and service industries in Dubai (Al-Ansaari et al. 2014), manufacturers ﬁrms in Southern Poland (Ingram et al. 2016), manufacturing ﬁrms in Northern Israel (Shoham and Lev 2015), and industrial ﬁrms in France (Chereau 2015), or even military organizations (Pinto et al. 2014). Moreover, the use of different theoretical and operational approaches in each of these works has also contributed to this disparity of results. This wide range makes it difﬁcult to create a common theoretical framework and differences are frequent. They all highlight the need to address new conceptual approaches and systems of measurements closer to the strategic reality of SMEs, which usually do not follow any formal or planned process to develop their strategy (Salles 2006). 2.2. The Strategic Problems of the Miles and Snow Typology in SMEs The lack of attention given by the literature to the different strategic problems of the Miles and Snow typology (1978) and, on the other hand, the notable differences between SMEs and large enterprises when it comes to facing their strategic processes, makes us consider the adaptive cycle of these SMEs, and how adjusted their strategic problems are. The use of pure-type strategies to classify ﬁrms separates studies from the strategic reality, as it has been shown that there are no pure types (Anwar and Hasnu 2016; Chereau 2015; Saraç et al. 2014). In the speciﬁc context of SMEs, a position of hybrid strategies can be a more accurate representation of the Miles and Snow typology (1978), according to Chereau (2015). Moreover, given the dynamic nature of the adaptive cycle of Miles and Snow (1978), it would be very difﬁcult for an isolated empirical study to result in a set of ﬁrms with their strategic problems totally aligned and embedded in a pure type. In this sense, Morais and Graça (2013) also consider that ‘adaptation often occurs by moving sequentially through the entrepreneurial, engineering and administrative phase but in mature organizations, each of these three management problems tends to occur more or less simultaneously’. This means that SMEs generally develop and solve each of the three strategic problems which deﬁne their type of strategic behaviour differently; some of the strategic problems with more defender features (or less prospector) and others with fewer defender features (or more prospector). Delving deeper into the three types of problems that allow us to establish the Miles and Snow typology (1987), Pertusa-Ortega et al. (2010) point out that organizational changes (administrative problem) are slower than changes in strategy (entrepreneurial and technological problems). In addition, Ballina et al. (2015) state that many ﬁrms persist in conservative attitudes, waiting to observe the operability of certain strategies (entrepreneurial and technological problems) before introducing changes in their structures (administrative problem). Thus, the hypothesis of this paper is presented: Hypothesis 1. In general, SMEs will adopt a more defender strategic behaviour (or a less prospector strategic behaviour) in their administrative problem than in their technological and entrepreneurial problems. 3. Methodology 3.1. Population and Sample This study is based on a sample of SMEs located in the Canary Islands (Spain) classiﬁed according to the number of employees established by the European Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 6 of 21 of 6 May 2003 (OJ EU 20.05.2003) . Similar to business structures in other Spanish and European regions, in the Canary Islands, there is a clear predominance of micro-enterprises that represent 95.83% of all ﬁrms, with 54.93% of these not having any salaried employees. Furthermore, 24.72% of the Canarian ﬁrms belong to the retail sector; 60.76% to the rest of the services; and 14.53% to construction and industry (Ministerio de Industria 2016). The information used was obtained through a questionnaire consisting of a set of closed questions about different aspects of the strategic behaviour of SMEs. From March to May 2016, the manager with strategic responsibilities in the ﬁrm was selected to answer the questionnaire. Faced with both economic and time constraints to gain access to the complete population under study, a non-probabilistic and convenient method of sampling was used (Neuman 1997; Zikmund et al. 2010). This method is recommended to obtain a number of questionnaires quickly and economically when other types of sampling are not possible (Zikmund et al. 2010). The resulting sample comprised 90 SMEs of which 3.7% were industrial ﬁrms, 10.71% construction, and 85.51% of ﬁrms belonged to the service sector. This sector distribution is very representative of the Canarian economy and reﬂects a reality shared with all developed countries, where service ﬁrms are the driving force of the economy (Giannakis 2011) since the ‘world economy has grown increasingly-service oriented’ (Wang et al. 2015). In addition, most of the works that apply the Miles and Snow (1978) typology are developed in multi-industry settings (Anwar and Hasnu 2016), and sometimes, for considering sector representativeness, a convenience sample is used (for example, Parnell et al. 2015). From the point of view of the size of the ﬁrms, the sample used is made up of 50% of microenterprises and 50% of small and medium-sized enterprises. Regarding the age of the SMEs in the sample, 37.8% of them are less than 10 years old, 36.7% are between 16 and 25 years old and for the remaining 25.6% of the sample, more than 25 years have passed since their incorporation. 3.2. Rasch Measurement Theory The application of the Rasch Measurement Theory (Rasch 1980) in business administration and management is one the most recent methodological contributions in this ﬁeld, after its growth in other disciplines like psychology, education, and medicine. This paper, therefore, ﬁts within the collection of pioneering studies in applying this methodology to SMEs and to strategic management (for example, Fischer et al. 2006; Salzberger et al. 2014; Oreja-Rodríguez and Yanes-Estévez 2010; Oreja-Rodríguez 2015; Yanes-Estévez et al. 2010; García-Pérez et al. 2014; Martin et al. 2016). In essence, this methodology analyses latent variables, which are not directly observable and happen to be the majority in management, by evaluating a series of items for a group of subjects (individuals, ﬁrms, etc.). When putting such an analysis into practice, it presents a number of advantages and characteristics that make Rasch models preferable to other techniques. Some of these advantages are commented below as a justiﬁcation for their adaptation to our case, and the contribution made with its application. One of the main beneﬁts of the Rasch measurement models (Wright and Mok 2004) is that they are the only methodological way available for building linear measurements (Bond and Fox 2007) from ordinal observations (Fischer 1995; Linacre 2004). The one used in this study is known as the Rasch Rating Scale Model. This model was developed by Andrich (1978, 1988) speciﬁcally to deal with information from ordinal multiple category scales, like the ones used in this work. Another advantage of the Rasch Measurement Theory (Rasch 1980) is that when applied, the researcher does not need to assume that the data follow a normal distribution (Engelhard 1984) as happens with other techniques. It does not attempt to characterize the population of subjects or the group of items together. It focuses on individual analysis. Besides that, there are several commonly accepted assumptions in the use of additive scales. For example, according to Fischer et al. (2006), Micro-enterprise (0–9 employees), small enterprise (10–49 employees), and medium-sized enterprise (50–250 employees). Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 7 of 21 all the items have the same impact on the score of the scale, and all the categories keep the same distance from the next one. These assumptions do not have to be made through the application of the Rasch Measurement Theory (Rasch 1980). The key feature of the Rasch Measurement Theory (Rasch 1980) is the ideal model that the methodology itself designs. From the measurements, a model is constructed with the characteristics required for a joint measurement (Andrich 2004). In contrast to other methodologies, the data ﬁt that ideal model constructed. This feature lets the researcher identify those subjects and items that do not follow the designed ideal model and generates misﬁts. From the analysis point of view, Rasch models are considered to be models of joint probabilistic analysis Perline et al. 1979 , which use a common measurement to analyse items and subjects (individuals, organizations, SMEs . . . ): the logit scale. Thus, this methodology is different from the rest because it uses the same units of measurement for the item parameters (in our study, items of strategic behaviour) and for the subject parameters (in our study, SMEs). This is known as a joint measurement. This advantage is displayed on the representative linear continuum of Rasch measurement models (Rasch 1980). In our study, both items and SMEs are simultaneously located on a linear continuum that represents the latent variable (strategic behaviour), and both can be analysed at the same time. In this way, the linear continuum representing the latent variable ‘strategic behaviour ’, (Figure 1) can position parameters of SMEs (subjects-b ) and parameters of items of strategic behaviour (items-d ) simultaneously. The distances or differences between the parameters of the items (d ) and the parameters of the SMEs (b ) (see Appendix A), allow us to conduct the joint analysis that characterizes and emphasizes this methodology . Thus, the parameters of the items (d ) are placed along this continuum and the distance from the parameters of each SMEs (b ) gives SMEs a strategic behaviour that ranges from more prospector (or less defender) to more defender (or less prospector), depending on the difference between both parameters being positive or negative, respectively. Similarly, the location parameters of SMEs (b ) are also located along the continuum indicating a strategic behaviour that goes from more defender (less prospector) to less defender (more prospector), depending on the difference between both parameters being negative or positive, respectively. In our study, the latent variable ‘strategic behaviour ’ is represented on the linear continuum obtained after applying the Rasch Measurement Theory (Figure 2). Taking the design of the questionnaire into account, the items with smaller measurements would add prospector features to the strategic behaviour of SMEs, while the items closest to the upper end, deﬁned as ‘rare’ (items with larger measurements), would add defender features to the strategic behaviour. On the contrary, SMEs located at the lower end of the continuum, deﬁned as ‘less’ (SMEs with smaller measurements), develop a more defender behaviour, while SMEs located at the upper end, deﬁned as ‘more’ (SMEs with larger measurements), have a more prospector behaviour. If items of strategic behaviour and SMEs are analysed simultaneously (one of the contributions of this methodology), the presence of prospector or defender traits can be observed in the strategic behaviour of all SMEs but with different intensities according to their measurements and their subsequent location on the continuum. This approach ﬁts the interpretation that, like Sollosy (2013), when using the Miles and Snow typology (1978), their types should be understood as organizational trends, rather than as pure postures. To delve deeper into the fundamental and probabilistic mathematical developments of the methodology, see Appendix A and, among others, Wright and Stone Wright and Stone (1999). The parameters are estimated through a method of maximum verisimilitude using the Winsteps program version 3.92.1 (Linacre 2017), which considers the PROX and JMLE algorithms (joint maximum likelihood estimation). Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22 behaviour of all SMEs but with different intensities according to their measurements and their subsequent location on the continuum. This approach fits the interpretation that, like Sollosy (2013), Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 8 of 21 when using the Miles and Snow typology (1978), their types should be understood as organizational trends, rather than as pure postures. Figure 2. The Rasch methodology lineal continuum of the latent variable ‘strategic behaviour ’. Figure 2. The Rasch methodology lineal continuum of the latent variable ‘strategic behaviour’. 3.3. The Scale of Strategic Behaviour 3.3. The Scale of Strategic Behaviour The scales used to obtain the Miles and Snow typology (1978) have ranged from the simplest, The scales used to obtain the Miles and Snow typology (1978) have ranged from the simplest, such as the application of the paragraph method (for example, Frambach et al. 2016; Parnell et al. such as the application of the paragraph method (for example, Frambach et al. 2016; Parnell et al. 2015; Shoham and Lev 2015), to the design of a questionnaire with items of the three problems that 2015; Shoham and Lev 2015), to the design of a questionnaire with items of the three problems that characterize the strategic types (e.g., Ingram et al. 2016). Other studies consider objective measurements characterize the strategic types (e.g., Ingram et al. 2016). Other studies consider objective (e.g., Blackmore and Nesbit 2012). In these latter cases, there is a serious problem, according to measurements (e.g., Blackmore and Nesbit 2012). In these latter cases, there is a serious problem, Zahra and Pearce (1990), which is to consider only one or very few items in order to determine the according to Zahra and Pearce (1990), which is to consider only one or very few items in order to strategic types of ﬁrms. determine the strategic types of firms. In this paper, the strategic behaviour of SMEs will be analysed by using a multi-item scale. Based In this paper, the strategic behaviour of SMEs will be analysed by using a multi-item scale. on the proposals of Aragón (1996) and Conant et al. (1990), ﬁfteen items belonging to the three Based on the proposals of Aragón (1996) and Conant et al. (1990), fifteen items belonging to the problems considered by Miles and Snow (1978) are adapted (Table 1). These items are presented to three problems considered by Miles and Snow (1978) are adapted (Table 1). These items are the managers to position their ﬁrms with respect to a continuum ranging from one to ﬁve. Lower presented to the managers to position their firms with respect to a continuum ranging from one to values on the questionnaire scale correspond to the characteristics of a defender strategy, while higher five. Lower values on the questionnaire scale correspond to the characteristics of a defender values show the behaviour of a prospector ﬁrm. The intermediate values correspond to an analyser strategy, while higher values show the behaviour of a prospector firm. The intermediate values ﬁrm. To avoid a loss of information, the scale was recalibrated, fulﬁlling the requirements proposed by correspond to an analyser firm. To avoid a loss of information, the scale was recalibrated, fulfilling Andrich (1978, 1988). the requirements proposed by Andrich (1978, 1988). To evaluate the quality of the measurements of strategic behaviour, the indicators established by the Rasch Measurement Theory (Rasch 1980) were used. Firstly, the linearity of measurement requirements was checked through several indexes: data fitting, Point-measure correlations (PTMA) and Rasch-residual-based Principal Components Analysis (PCAR) . These indicators showed us that the measurements met such a requirement, obtaining positive correlations, and explaining 30% of the model variance with an unexplained variance eigenvalue of the first contrast of 1.97, and therefore less than 2. Point-measure correlations (PTMEA) are those between the observations of an item and the corresponding measure of the items (Linacre 2009) and must be positive in order to corroborate the adequacy of the measurements. Rasch-residual-based Principal Components Analysis (PCAR) shows the contrast between opposite factors, not the load on a factor (Linacre 2009). It looks for patterns in the data that do not accord with the Rasch measurements, that is, for the unexpected part of the data (Linacre 2018). In order for the measurements to reflect only one dimension of the construct, the unexplained variance of the first contrast must be lower than 2. Adm. Adm. S Sci.c2018 i. 2018 , 8, , 8 61 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 9 of 21 22 Table 1. The scale of strategic behaviour (defender/prospector). Table 1. The scale of strategic behaviour (defender/prospector). DEFENDER Strategic Behaviour PROSPECTOR Strategic Behaviour DEFENDER Strategic Behaviour PROSPECTOR Strategic Behaviour ENTREPRENEURIAL PROBLEM ENTREPRENEURIAL PROBLEM E1. The sector in which your firm currently carries out its activities is… E1. The sector in which your ﬁrm currently carries out its activities is . . . narrow (related areas) and with little chance of being wide (diversification into different areas) and continuously wide (diversiﬁcation into different areas) and continuously 1 2 3 4 5 narrow (related areas) and with little chance of being widened 1 2 3 4 5 widened being developed being developed E2. About the developments in your business environment what you tend to do is… E2. About the developments in your business environment what you tend to do is . . . study the conditions, events and changes of the general study the conditions, events and changes of the general study the changes in the environment in your sector in depth 1 2 3 4 5 study the changes in the environment in your sector in depth 1 2 3 4 5 business environment business environment E3. The best way to face competition in your sector is a… E3. The best way to face competition in your sector is a . . . strong resistance in defence of your current products and continuous development of your range of products making strong resistance in defence of your current products and 1 2 3 4 5 continuous development of your range of products making 1 2 3 4 5 improvements, especially, in prices and/or services. them more attractive to customers (innovative, etc.) improvements, especially, in prices and/or services. them more attractive to customers (innovative, etc.) E4. The way in which your firm proposes to grow is through… E4. The way in which your ﬁrm proposes to grow is through . . . market penetration with your current products and in your 1 2 3 4 5 the development of new products and markets. market penetration with your current products and in your current markets. 1 2 3 4 5 the development of new products and markets. current markets. E5. The reaction of your firm to possible opportunities in its business environment would be… E5. The reaction of your ﬁrm to possible opportunities in its business environment would be . . . to analyse and study them cautiously. 1 2 3 4 5 to take advantage of them quickly. to analyse and study them cautiously. 1 2 3 4 5 to take advantage of them quickly. TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEM TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEM T6. With respect to the technology in your firm, the main concern is to have… T6. With respect to the technology in your ﬁrm, the main concern is to have . . . cost-efficient technology 1 2 3 4 5 flexible and innovative technology cost-ef T7. The ﬁcient kind technology of technology your firm currently has is… 1 2 3 4 5 ﬂexible and innovative technology multiple and not based on any specific core technology, rather T7. The kind of technology your ﬁrm currently has is . . . homogenous and based on a well-developed core technology. 1 2 3 4 5 on the diverse technical skills of personnel. multiple and not based on any speciﬁc core technology, rather homogenous and based on a well-developed core technology. 1 2 3 4 5 T8. The technology that your firm currently has is one of the most advanced in the market as… on the diverse technical skills of personnel. the effort in continually developing it has reduced costs to even if your costs are not low, the technology allows you to do T8. The technology that your ﬁrm currently has is one of the most advanced in the market as . . . 1 2 3 4 5 very competitive levels unique and diverse jobs in the market. the effort in continually developing it has reduced costs to very even if your costs are not low, the technology allows you to do 1 2 3 4 5 ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM competitive levels unique and diverse jobs in the market. A9. The most influential individuals in your firm are found among the experts and managers of… production and finance 1 2 3 4 5 marketing and R&D A10. The individuals who currently hold top positions in the firm come from… promotions from within the firm. 1 2 3 4 5 personnel contracted outside the firm when necessary. A11. Planning in your firm is quite… Adm. Adm. S Sci.c2018 i. 2018 , 8, , 8 61 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 9 of 21 22 Table 1. Cont. Table 1. The scale of strategic behaviour (defender/prospector). DEFENDER Strategic Behaviour PROSPECTOR Strategic Behaviour DEFENDER Strategic Behaviour PROSPECTOR Strategic Behaviour ENTREPRENEURIAL PROBLEM ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM E1. The sector in which your firm currently carries out its activities is… A9. The most inﬂuential individuals in your ﬁrm are found among the experts and managers of . . . narrow (related areas) and with little chance of being wide (diversification into different areas) and continuously production and ﬁnance 1 2 3 4 5 marketing and R&D 1 2 3 4 5 widened being developed A10. The individuals who currently hold top positions in the ﬁrm come from . . . E2. About the developments in your business environment what you tend to do is… promotions from within the ﬁrm. 1 2 3 4 5 personnel contracted outside the ﬁrm when necessary. study the conditions, events and changes of the general study the changes in the environment in your sector in depth 1 2 3 4 5 A11. Planning in your ﬁrm is quite . . . business environment rigorous and a priori (before the action). 1 2 3 4 5 open, impossible to completely carry out before the action. E3. The best way to face competition in your sector is a… strong resistance in defence of your current products and continuous development of your range of products making A12. The ﬁrm is organized by . . . 1 2 3 4 5 improvements, especially, in prices and/or services. them more attractive to customers (innovative, etc.) products/customers with members that participate in functions, with members specialized in their area. 1 2 3 4 5 multiple tasks. E4. The way in which your firm proposes to grow is through… market penetration with your current products and in your A13. The control of your ﬁrm is . . . 1 2 3 4 5 the development of new products and markets. current markets. centralized (mainly the responsibility of senior management) decentralized and participative (encouraging staff to 1 2 3 4 5 E5. The reaction of your firm to possible opportunities in its business environment would be… and supported by vertical information systems. participate) and supported by horizontal information systems. to analyse and study them cautiously. 1 2 3 4 5 to take advantage of them quickly. A14. Coordination among the staff of your ﬁrm is . . . TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEM simple and conﬂict resolution is through hierarchical complex and conﬂict resolution is through personal 1 2 3 4 5 T6. With respect to the technology in your firm, the main concern is to have… relationships. relationships. cost-efficient technology 1 2 3 4 5 flexible and innovative technology A15. When the degree of deviation in performance of your ﬁrm must be determined, the ﬁrm prefers to focus on the average performance . . . T7. The kind of technology your firm currently has is… compared to that of previous years. 1 2 3 4 5 compared to competitors. multiple and not based on any specific core technology, rather Source: adapted from Aragón (1996) and Conant et al. (1990). homogenous and based on a well-developed core technology. 1 2 3 4 5 on the diverse technical skills of personnel. T8. The technology that your firm currently has is one of the most advanced in the market as… the effort in continually developing it has reduced costs to even if your costs are not low, the technology allows you to do 1 2 3 4 5 very competitive levels unique and diverse jobs in the market. ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM A9. The most influential individuals in your firm are found among the experts and managers of… production and finance 1 2 3 4 5 marketing and R&D A10. The individuals who currently hold top positions in the firm come from… promotions from within the firm. 1 2 3 4 5 personnel contracted outside the firm when necessary. A11. Planning in your firm is quite… Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 11 of 21 In a second step, the reliability of the SMEs and the items is analysed using the indicators of the Rasch Measurement Theory (Rasch 1980) . Regarding reliability, the measurements reach satisfactory levels to carry out the study (Nunnally 1987), with the item reliability being 0.93 and the SMEs’ reliability being 0.73 (Table 2). Table 2. The reliability and validity of the measures. INFIT OUTFIT RELIABILITY CORRELATION MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD SMEs 0.99 0.1 1.03 0.0 0.73 10.0 ITEMs 0.99 0.2 1.03 0.2 0.93 10.0 On the other hand, the global validity of the model has been checked through the Inﬁt and Outﬁt statistics provided by the model, each one expressed through the MNSQ and ZSTD , and raw score correlation. The results show the global validity of the measurements used (Table 2). In addition to the global validity of the model, an individual validity analysis of the measurements of each item and each SMEs has been conducted again through the INFIT and OUTFIT indexes, thus, values over 2 generate distortions in the measurement (Linacre 2018). These values are never surpassed in the measurements of this study. 4. Results 4.1. Analysis of the Strategic Behaviour of SMEs To achieve our goal, the Rasch methodology (Rasch 1980) needs to be executed to the data obtained through the questionnaires responded by the SMEs managers. This allows us to obtain the representative linear continuum of such methodology (Figure 2). According to Miles and Snow (1978), it is clear from the joint measurement map (Figure 3) that the items belonging to the technological problem and some characteristics of the entrepreneurial and administrative problems are found in the lower part of the map, showing smaller measurements . In this way, the characteristics related to technological development and some characteristics of the entrepreneurial and administrative problems reveal prospector traits in the SMEs’ strategic behaviour. Thus, based on Rasch’s own methodology (1960/1980), when analysing items and SMEs simultaneously by using the linear continuum, it can be observed that these prospector features of SMEs become more evident and more intense in the SMEs that are placed higher up along the continuum (where b > d ). In this way, it could be said that SMEs, in general, are characterized n i by a strategic behaviour in which special emphasis is given to ﬂexible and innovative technological development (items T6, T7, and T8). In addition, they face competition with a constant innovation of products (item E3) and a wide and diverse ﬁeld of activity (item E1). Furthermore, the planning developed by these organizations is open (item A11) and control is established in a decentralized and participatory manner (item A13). The Rasch Measurement Theory (Rasch 1980) and its application through the Winstep program provides a reliability index of separation for the person, and another for item reliability, which has no equivalent in traditional indices. They are interpreted in a similar manner to Cronbach’s alpha. According to Linacre (2018), the Inﬁt is an information-weighted ﬁt statistic, which is more sensitive to unexpected behaviour affecting responses to items near the person’s measure level, while the Outﬁt is an outlier-sensitive ﬁt statistic, more sensitive to unexpected behaviour by persons on items far from the person’s measure level. MNSQ is the mean-square outﬁt statistic with expectation 1 and the ZSTD is the outﬁt mean-square ﬁt statistic t standardized to approximate a theoretical mean 0. Correlation is the Pearson correlation between raw scores and measures, it is expected to be 1 for SMEs and 1 for items, when the data are complete (Linacre 2018). Due to space considerations, measurements are not included in this paper but are available on request from the authors. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22 administrative problems are found in the lower part of the map, showing smaller measurements . In this way, the characteristics related to technological development and some characteristics of the entrepreneurial and administrative problems reveal prospector traits in the SMEs’ strategic behaviour. Thus, based on Rasch’s own methodology (1960/1980), when analysing items and SMEs simultaneously by using the linear continuum, it can be observed that these prospector features of SMEs become more evident and more intense in the SMEs that are placed higher up along the continuum (where βn > δi). In this way, it could be said that SMEs, in general, are characterized by a strategic behaviour in which special emphasis is given to flexible and innovative technological development (items T6, T7, and T8). In addition, they face competition with a constant innovation of products (item E3) and a wide and diverse field of activity (item E1). Furthermore, the planning Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 12 of 21 developed by these organizations is open (item A11) and control is established in a decentralized and participatory manner (item A13). Figure 3. The strategic behaviour of SMEs. Figure 3. The strategic behaviour of SMEs. On the contrary, as we move up along the linear continuum, the rest of administrative or Due to space considerations, measurements are not included in this paper but are available on request from entrepr the authors. eneurial traits or items start appearing. This means that given the design of the questionnaire, the higher up the items are located on the continuum, the more defender traits are added to the strategic behaviour of SMEs (where d > b ). If items and SMEs are analysed simultaneously by using the linear continuum, it can be observed that these defender traits are present in all SMEs in the sample, although it is true that they are present with different intensities. SMEs located in the lower part of the continuum have a more defender strategic behaviour than those located at the top. Thus, the strategic behaviour of SMEs is characterized as being analyser in a set of traits, such as the type of organization or coordination (items A14 and A12), with the most inﬂuential person of the ﬁrm being in the area of production/ﬁnance and R&D/marketing (item A9). The ﬁrm’s position regarding the growth opportunities offered by the environment (items E4, E5, and E2) is also included in this intermediate block of items. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 13 of 21 Finally, in the upper part of the continuum, there are two items of the administrative problem: how to consider and evaluate the performance of the ﬁrm (item A15) and the origin of the people who occupy the highest positions of the ﬁrm (item A10). In the ﬁrst case, the performance of previous years is considered, and in the second case, the personnel from within the ﬁrm are addressed, which gives the SMEs a marked defender character as far as these aspects are concerned. 4.2. Differences between the Three Problems of the Strategic Behaviour of SMEs Once the strategic behaviour that characterizes the SME sample is presented, the aim is to conﬁrm differences that were initially observed in Figure 2 among the three strategic problems (entrepreneurial, technological, and administrative). To achieve that, the analysis of the subgroups of items provided by the Rasch methodology (1960/1980) is used, taking the three groups of items of each problem. In this way, it can be determined whether there are signiﬁcant differences between the strategic features of the entrepreneurial, technological, and administrative problems of all SMEs in the sample . As can be seen in Tables 3 and 4, the only signiﬁcant difference detected among the three groups of items is found between those that integrate the administrative problem and those that belong to the technological one (Prob. Rasch-Welch 0.31). In this way, the administrative problem has more defender traits and the technological problem has more prospector ones. Therefore, SMEs are characterized mostly by ﬂexible and innovative technology, while their organizational structures and processes are more centralized and bureaucratic. This result allows us to partially validate the hypothesis. Table 3. The descriptive analysis of the strategic problems of SMEs according to the subgroup of items. Items Mean S.E Model Model P.S.D. S.SD Median Code Count Measure Mean Separation Reliability 15 0.00 0.16 0.61 0.64 0.17 3.61 0.93 7 0.35 0.29 0.70 0.75 0.16 4.02 0.94 ADM 5 0.20 0.16 0.32 0.36 0.17 1.72 0.75 ENT 3 0.48 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.42 0.00 0.00 TEC ADM: administrative problem; ENT: entrepreneurial problem; TEC: technological problem; SUBTOTAL RELIABILITY: 0.68; UMEAN = 0; USCALE = 1. Table 4. The analysis of signiﬁcant differences among the problems of the strategic behaviour of SMEs according to the subgroup of items. Item Item Mean Difference 2-Sided t Welch d.f. Code Code Measure S.E. Prob. Rasch-Welch ADM ENT 0.54 0.33 1.67 9 0.130 ADM TEC 0.82 0.29 2.80 6 0.031 ENT TEC 0.28 0.18 1.59 5 0.172 ADM: administrative problem; ENT: entrepreneurial problem; TEC: technological problem 5. Conclusions, Implications, and Future Lines of Research 5.1. Conclusions A ﬁrst general conclusion that can be drawn from this study is the existence of clear differences between the administrative and the technological problem in the strategic behaviour of all the SMEs studied, with the technological approach being more prospector and the administrative one being more defender. Meanwhile, the entrepreneurial problem is situated at a more intermediate point. The Rasch methodology (1960/1980) allows for the analysis of groups of items through the estimate of a Student’s t and the analysis of the signiﬁcance of the differences through a 2-sided t-test using the Welch’s adaptation of Student’s t-test. A statistically signiﬁcant ﬁnding for a single two-sided t-test is Prob. <0.05 (Linacre 2018). Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 14 of 21 The explanation could be related to the type of predominant activity in these SMEs that belong mainly to the service sector (Ministerio de Industria 2016). In this sector, information technologies are the most used and, at times, may represent the only technologies that the ﬁrm uses. These types of technologies are characterized by their continuous evolution and their greater possibility to be assimilated by the ﬁrms of the sector compared to those of the industrial sector. This advantage could increase when it comes to the activity of service SMEs, whose entrepreneurs usually have a proﬁle characterized by a greater capacity to absorb new information technology. Thus, in order to understand the cycle of adaptation of the three problems that define the strategic behaviour of firms, the main sectorial characteristics in the sample need to be taken into account. First, the new information technology (technological problem) is incorporated due to its greater simplicity of implementation compared to other types of technology. Almost simultaneously, firms test new products/services-markets (entrepreneurial problem) in order to finally adapt administrative structures and processes (administrative problem) if the previous initiatives are successful. This is in line with what is presented by various works, such as those of Pertusa-Ortega et al. (2010) or Ballina et al. (2015). Another important conclusion that emerges from this work is the almost total absence of SMEs with purely strategic defender behaviours or prospectors, with a large number of SMEs in the sample with the strategic analyser, reactor, or simply hybrid behaviours. This situation is conﬁrmed by other recent studies in this ﬁeld (e.g., Anwar and Hasnu 2016; Chereau 2015; Saraç et al. 2014). In conclusion, as Woodside et al. (1999) state, not all organizations ﬁt into a pure strategic type. Some of them are identiﬁed as representatives of an ambiguous type or, simply, they are SMEs that innovate within the scope of the ﬁrm and the technology, leaving behind the consequent administrative change. 5.2. Implications The results show that SMEs are following strategic behaviours that, although not pure, can respond to strategies that are deliberate and adjusted to the moments of high uncertainty in which they exist and to the dynamics of their adaptive cycle. The strategies of organizations are complex rather than simple and a mix of strategies is likely to be pursued at the same time. For this reason, it is unrealistic to categorize organizations as pure types (defenders or prospectors) (Boyne and Walker 2004; Meier et al. 2006). Along these lines, the results of recent research recognize the possibility of the coexistence of these strategies in a ﬁrm, which more accurately reﬂects reality (Tang and Tang 2012). This is even more relevant in the case of SMEs since strategic processes are less formal (Salles 2006), less explicit (Azyabi et al. 2012), and much more intuitive. In short, this fact need not necessarily be negative if it is the result of a deliberate strategy and not by chance. Even, for Leitner and Güldenberg (2010), a combination strategy is not only viable for SMEs, but rather a ‘long-term advantageous option’. However, the results obtained could also indicate that SME entrepreneurs do not know how to respond strategically to the difﬁcult times they are going through. They may not be using any comprehensive framework to develop their strategies and assess their competitiveness, implementing their strategies in an unintentional manner (Zubaedah et al. 2013). They simply react when they are forced, just as any reactor would, because their problems are not aligned. In this sense, managers often lack conceptual structures that allow them to capture the complexity of their relationships and understand the processes that develop or could be developed with them, often preferring to stay in the ‘comfort zone’ of what they have always done and know (Yee and Platts 2006), especially in the case of SMEs. In either case, whether they are deliberate strategies or not, the ﬁrst implication of this paper is to highlight the need for managers to analyse their strategic situation and to reﬂect on the alignment of the three strategic problems. This is an important thought, as neither resources nor strategies According to the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism (Perline et al. 1979), in the composition of the services sector in the Canary Islands, the largest percentage of companies is in the hospitality sector, business services, and real estate. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 15 of 21 alone determine the performance of SMEs, but rather the adjustment between them (Edelman et al. 2005) and the environment. Therefore, it is necessary that the executives of SMEs be aware of the fact that their technological problem has features that are signiﬁcantly more prospector (or less defender) than the administrative problem. This situation should respond to a strategic logic that leads SMEs to an improvement in their competitive position. Otherwise, it would not make any sense. Thus, the question that arises here is whether SMEs follow the normal dynamics of the adaptive cycle or, on the contrary, they are mostly analysers or even reactors, as Sollosy (2013) concludes. These results also have important implications for institutions and public administration. The survival of an SME will depend on the quality of the alignment between the three problems in its strategy (Miles and Snow 1978) and the circumstances of each ﬁrm. Therefore, institutions must establish action plans and policies aimed at training and making managers reﬂect on the strategic adjustment between the three problems identiﬁed and the speciﬁc context of each ﬁrm. From the point of view of its academic contribution, this paper also offers conceptual and methodological value to the existing literature as already noted. Thus, the application of the Rasch Measurement Theory (Rasch 1980) has allowed us to face the improvement of the measurement of latent variables: the strategic behaviour of SMEs. The methodological approach applied is linked to the delimitation of constructs that meet the requirements demanded by Boyd et al. (2005) with respect to variables that are not directly observable (Godfrey and Hill 1995), which are the majority in the ﬁeld of business management. In this way, the Rasch Measurement Theory (1960/1980) achieves measurements that are objective and invariant of the subjects and items of the analysed constructs. This contribution is in line with other works presented in the Business Management research literature, such as Salzberger et al. (2014), Oreja-Rodríguez and Yanes-Estévez (2007), García-Pérez et al. (2014) and Martin et al. (2016) within the Rasch Measurement Theory (Rasch 1980), and those of Carroll et al. (2016) within the Item Response Theory (Lord 1980). Finally, the Rasch Measurement Theory (1960/1980) allows us to place the strategic types of Miles and Snow (1978) along a linear continuum and to analyse the different interactions of groups of items with groups of SMEs. This has allowed this paper to go one step further in perfecting the operationalization of the theoretical proposal of Miles and Snow (1978) for the case of SMEs. 5.3. Future Research Lines This study has a series of limitations whose resolution constitutes the priority lines of future research. The ﬁrst limitation is that it is a study referring to a certain moment in time. Therefore, it would be very interesting to incorporate data from other years in order to assess the evolution of these strategic problems, incorporating a more dynamic approach and closer to the adaptive cycle of Miles and Snow (1978). This study could also be extended to other types of samples that would make geographical comparisons possible. In addition, it would also be necessary to incorporate the SMEs’ performance to identify which SMEs are performing better or worse. The analyses of SME characteristics will allow us to know what their strategic behaviour is like and the degree of alignment between the three problems and the link with their size and age. It is also important to delve deeper into the key role of the managers in these types of organizations, namely, their characteristics and perceptions when developing the strategic behaviour of their ﬁrms. Other possible relevant aspects in SME strategic behaviour, such as strategic references points (Fiegenbaum et al. 1996), could be analysed. Given the importance and inﬂuence of the environmental uncertainty in the strategic development of ﬁrms, it would be necessary to incorporate this dimension of the environment to the general approach of this study. In addition, making use of the potential of the Rasch Measurement Theory (Rasch 1980), the analysis of misﬁts could be carried out more thoroughly. This is a valuable tool that could Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 16 of 21 compare the strategic behaviour of each SME to those expected by the Rasch model. This would allow a more in-depth analysis of those SMEs with mismatches, i.e., those not behaving as expected. Author Contributions: The authors contributed equally. Funding: This research was funded by the program ‘Convocatoria de Ayudas para la Incentivación de la Actividad Investigadora de la Universidad de la Laguna´ (Convocatoria 2016, 2017 y 2018). Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. Appendix A The basic model of the Rasch Measurement Models is the dichotomous Rasch model (Rasch 1980; Perline et al. 1979), which lets the transformation of raw scores into measurements of interval by means of the probability of response to dichotomous items. Following the formalization of the transformation by Linacre (2005), the following can be established. Let P be the probability of subject n answering item i successfully. The ﬁeld of variance of that ni probability is: 0 P 1 ni This level does not correspond to the conceptual inﬁnite of the latent variable and, therefore, the probability concept is transformed into the ratio odds concept, ni 1 P ni The ratio odds are deﬁned as the relationship of the two opposing probabilities. The ﬁeld of variation is: ni 0 ¥ 1 P ni If we make the ratio odds transformation, by obtaining its natural logarithm, a ﬁeld of variance is achieved that corresponds to that of an inﬁnite latent variable. ni ¥ ln = +¥ 1 P ni This natural logarithm of ratio odds complies with the rules of concatenation required by Campbell (1919) for objective measurement; therefore, the measurement of social science constructs can be conducted indirectly by means of probabilistic inference, just as the composition of the stars can be inferred from spectral analysis (Linacre 2005). This logarithm serves to reﬂect the difference between the skill of subject n and the difﬁculty of item i. ni ln = b d 1 P ni where: b is the parameter of the skill of subject n, with a ﬁeld of variance of n = {1, . . . , N} d is the parameter of the difﬁculty of item, with a ﬁeld of variance of i = {0, 1} Those parameters are the distances from a local origin, in logits (units of logarithm-odds measurement) on a linear continuum representing the unidimensional latent variable. From the natural logarithm of the ratio odds, the probability of subject n successfully answering item i can be determined as: (b d ) (P = 1/b , d ) = ni n i (b d ) 1 + e (Dichotomous Rasch Model). Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 17 of 21 Linacre (2005) conclusion is that any set of data with a probabilistic structure that ﬁts the Rasch model also complies with the Campbell’s concatenation and, therefore, the estimations of their measurements have the same arithmetical properties of measurement as the length and weight. In the integrated analysis of the strategic choice process, we will study each of the items of the Miles and Snow (1978) typology by means of an extension of the dichotomous Rasch model (Rasch 1980), called the Rasch Rating Scale Model (Andrich 1978, 1988). This model speciﬁes the probability P of a person n with skill b choosing category j on a common scoring scale applied to nij item i of difﬁculty d . Its opposite would be the probability P (j 1) of selecting category (j 1), i ni therefore, the Napierian logarithm of the deﬁned ratio odds would be: ni j ln = b d t n i i j 1 P ni(j1) In which parameters b and d represent the measurements already indicated in the dichotomous n i Rasch model, and t is the Rasch-Andrich threshold or calibration of the stage. It would be the point in the latent variable at which the probability of category j is the same as that of category (j 1), considering the difﬁculty of item i. The expression of that probability would be: " # P = exp j(b d ) t ni j i å ki k=0 where t is 0 and g a normalized/standardized factor that reﬂects the sum of all the possible numerators. The work is undertaken with two facets that interrelate in the Rasch Model (SMEs and strategic behaviour), where b is the parameter of the skill of SMEs n, and whose ﬁeld of variation n = {1, . . . , N} (sample of analysed SMEs), which is speciﬁed in the level of prospector/defender strategic behaviour of the ﬁrms. d is the parameter of the difﬁculty of item i, and whose ﬁeld of variation is i = {1, L} (sample of items considered in the strategic behaviour construct of Miles and Snow (1978), which would be the prospector/defender strategic character of the items. Thus, the items generate a more/less prospector/defender strategic behaviour and the SMEs develop a more/less prospector/defender strategic behaviour. References Akman, Gülsen, ¸ Burcu Özcan, and Tugçen ˘ Hatipoglu. ˘ 2015. Fuzzy multi criteria decision making approach to innovative strategies based on Miles and Snow typology. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 26: 609–28. [CrossRef] Al-Ansaari, Yahya, Simon Pervan, and Jun Xu. 2014. Exploiting innovation in Dubai SMEs: The effect of strategic orientation on organizational determinants. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 11: 1450039. [CrossRef] Andrich, David. 1978. A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 43: 561–73. [CrossRef] Andrich, David. 1988. Rasch Models for Measurement. Newbury Park: Sage, ISBN 0-8039-2741-X. Andrich, David. 2004. Controversy and the Rasch model. A characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Medical Care 42: I 7–I 16. Anwar, Jamil, and S. A. F. Hasnu. 2016. Business strategy and ﬁrm performance: A multi-industry analysis. Journal of Strategy and Management 9: 361–82. [CrossRef] Aragón, Antonio. 1996. La medición de la estrategia empresarial: Propuesta y validación de una escala multi-ítem para la medida de la estrategia de negocio según la tipología de Miles y Snow (1978). Cuadernos de Economía y Empresariales 31: 45–65. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 18 of 21 Aragón-Sánchez, Antonio, and Gregorio Sánchez-Marín. 2003. Orientación estratégica, características de gestión y resultados: Un estudio en las pymes españolas. Información Comercial Española 809: 169–87. Aragón-Sánchez, Antonio, and Gregorio Sánchez-Marín. 2005. Strategic orientation, management characteristics, and performance: A study of Spanish ﬁrms. Journal of Small Business Management 43: 287–308. [CrossRef] Azyabi, Naief, Julie Fisher, Kerry Tanner, and Shijia Gao. 2012. Developing a Theoretical Framework for Knowledge Management Strategic Orientation among SMEs. Paper presented at the Paciﬁc Asian Conference on Information System 2012 Proceedings. Paper 36. Available online: http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2012/36 (accessed on 24 May 2018). Ballina, Francisco, Domingo García Pérez de Lema, and Francisco J. Martínez. 2015. La estrategia, factor determinante del rendimiento de la MIPYMe: Un estudio empírico en México D F. Faedpyme International Review 4: 66–78. [CrossRef] Balodi, K. Chandra. 2014. Strategic orientation and organizational forms: An integrative framework. European Business Review 26: 188–203. [CrossRef] Blackmore, Karen, and Keith Nesbit. 2012. Verifying the Miles and Snow strategy types in Australia small and medium-size enterprise. Australian Journal of Management 38: 171–90. [CrossRef] Blumentritt, Tim, and Wade M. Danis. 2006. Business strategy and innovative practices. Journal of Managerial 18: 274–91. Bond, Trevor G., and Christine M. Fox. 2007. Applying the Rasch Model. Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Mahwah: Erlbaum, ISBN 978-0-415-83341-7. Boyd, Brian K., Steve Gove, and Michael A. Hitt. 2005. Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality? Strategic Management Journal 26: 239–57. [CrossRef] Boyne, George A., and Richard Walker. 2004. Strategy content and public service organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14: 231–52. [CrossRef] Bouhelal, Fátima, and Kerbouche Mohamm. 2016. Why do we consider Miles and Snow’s model’s one of the most important strategic ones? Maghreb Review of Economic and Management 3: 23–34. [CrossRef] Campbell, Norman. 1919. Physics: The Elements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, Robert J., David M. Primo, and Brian K. Richter. 2016. Using item response theory to improve measurement in strategic management: An application to corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal 37: 66–85. [CrossRef] Chereau, Philippe. 2015. Strategic management of innovation in manufacturing SMEs: Exploring the predictive validity of strategy-innovation relationship. International Journal of Innovation Management 19: 1550002. [CrossRef] Conant, Jeffrey S., Michael P. Mokwa, and P. Rajan Varadarajan. 1990. Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance: A multiple measurements-based study. Strategic Management Journal 11: 365–83. [CrossRef] DeSarbo, Wayne S., C. Anthony Di Benedetto, Michael Song, and Indrajit Sinha. 2005. Revisiting the Miles and Snow strategic framework: Uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and ﬁrm performance. Strategic Management Journal 26: 47–74. [CrossRef] Edelman, Lina F., Candida G. Brush, and Tatiana Manolova. 2005. Co-aligment in the resource-performance relationship: Strategy as mediator. Journal of Business Venturing 20: 359–83. [CrossRef] Engelhard, George. 1984. Thorndike, Thurstone and Rasch: A comparison of their methods of scaling psychological and educational test. Applied Psychological Measurement 8: 21–38. [CrossRef] Fiegenbaum, Avi, Stuart Har, and Dan Schendel. 1996. Strategic reference point theory. Strategic Management Journal 17: 219–35. [CrossRef] Fischer, Gerard H. 1995. Derivations of the Rasch model. In Rasch Models. Foundations, Recent Development, and Applications. Edited by Gerard H. Fischer and Ivo W. Molenaar. New York: Springer, pp. 14–38. ISBN 978-1-4612-4230-7. Fischer, Arnout R. H., Lynn J. Rewer, and Maarten J. Nauta. 2006. Toward improving food safety in the domestic environment: A multi-item Rasch scale for the measurement of the safety efﬁcacy of domestic food-handling practices. Risk Analysis 26: 1323–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Fiss, Peer C. 2011. Building better casual theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal 54: 393–420. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 19 of 21 Frambach, Ruud T., Peer C. Fiss, and Paul T. M. Ingenbleek. 2016. How important is customer orientation for ﬁrm performance? A fuzzy set analysis of orientations, strategies and environments. Journal of Business Research 69: 1428–36. [CrossRef] García-Pérez, Ana M., Vanessa Yanes-Estévez, and Juan Ramón Oreja-Rodríguez. 2014. Strategic reference points, risk and strategic choices in small and medium sized enterprises. Journal of Business Economics and Management 15: 562–76. [CrossRef] Ghezal, Said. 2015. Assessing the validity of a small business strategy instrument using conﬁrmatory factor analysis. International Journal of the Academic Business World 9: 79–87. Giannakis, Mihalis. 2011. Management of service supply chains with a service-oriented reference model: The case of management consulting. Supply Chain Management: And International Journal 16: 346–61. [CrossRef] Godfrey, Paul C., and Charles W. L. Hill. 1995. The problem of unobservables in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal 16: 519–33. [CrossRef] Grimmer, Louise, Morgan P. Miles, John Byrom, and Martin Grimmer. 2017. The impact of resources and strategic orientation on small retail ﬁrm performance. Journal of Small Business Management 55: 7–26. [CrossRef] Hambrick, Donald C. 2003. On the staying power of defenders, analyzers, and prospectors. Academy of Management Executive 17: 115–18. [CrossRef] Hékis, Helio R., Marison L. Soares, Ricardo A. de Medeiros Valentim, Omar R. de Paula Teixeira, and Dyogo Felype Neis. 2013. Evaluation of Organizational Behavior—An application of the Typology of Miles and Snow in the Hotel sector Florianópolis—Santa Catarina—Brazil. GGG Georgetown University-Universia 7: 26–43. Hughes, Paul, and Robert E. Morgan. 2008. Fitting strategic resources with product-market strategy: Performance implications. Journal of Business Research 61: 323–31. [CrossRef] Hult, G. Tomas M., David Ketchen Jr., S. Tamer Cavusgil, and Roger J. Calantone. 2006. Knowledge as a strategic resource in supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 24: 458–75. [CrossRef] Ingram, Tomasz, Teresa Krasnicka, Martyna Wronka-Pospiech, Grzegorz Głód, and Wojciech Głód. 2016. Relationships between Miles and Snow strategic types and organizational performance in Polish production ﬁrms. Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe 24: 17–45. [CrossRef] Kumar, Kamalech, Giacomo Boesso, Francesco Favoto, and Andrea Menini. 2012. Strategic orientation, innovation patterns and performances of Smes and large ﬁrms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 19: 132–75. [CrossRef] Leitner, Karl-Heinz, and Stefan Güldenberg. 2010. Generic strategies and ﬁrm performance in Smes: A longitudinal study of Austrian Smes. Small Business Economics 35: 169–89. [CrossRef] Lin, Chincho, Hua-Ling Tsai, and Ju-Chuan Wu. 2014. Collaboration strategy decision-making using Miles and Snow typology. Journal of Business Research 67: 1979–90. [CrossRef] Linacre, John M. 2004. Estimation methods for Rasch measurements. In Introduction to Rasch Measurement. Edited by Everett V. Smith and Richard M. Smith. Maple Grove: JAM Press, pp. 25–47. ISBN 9780975535103. Linacre, John M. 2005. Winsteps. Rasch Measurement Computer Program. Chicago: Winsteps.com, Available online: http://www.winsteps.com/winman/index.htm (accessed on 2 July 2013). Linacre, John M. 2009. Winsteps. Rasch Measurement Computer Program. Chicago: Winsteps.com, Available online: http://www.winsteps.com/winman/index.htm (accessed on 2 July 2013). Linacre, John M. 2017. Winsteps. Rasch Measurement Computer Program. Chicago: Winsteps.com, Available online: http://www.winsteps.com/winman/index.htm (accessed on 14 February 2017). Linacre, John M. 2018. Winsteps. Rasch Measurement Computer Program. Chicago: Winsteps.com, Available online: http://www.winsteps.com/winman/index.htm (accessed on 25 July 2018). Lord, Frederick M. 1980. Application of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hislldale: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, ISBN 089859006X. Marcoulides, George A., ed. 1998. Modern Methods for Business Research. New York: Psychology Press and Taylor and Francis Group, ISBN 0-8058-2677-7. Martin, Wendy L., Alexander McKelvie, and G. Tom Lumpkin. 2016. Centralization and delegation practices in family versus non-family SMEs: A Rasch analysis. Small Business Economics 47: 755–69. [CrossRef] Meier, Kenneth J., Laurence O’Toole Jr., George A. Boyne, and Richard M. Walker. 2006. Strategic management and the performance of public organizations: Testing venerable ideas against recent theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17: 357–77. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 20 of 21 Mendoza Moheno, Jessica, Martin A. Hernández Calzada, and Blanca C. Salazar Hernández. 2014. Implications of strategy in innovation in SMEs. International Journal of Business Environment 6: 161–76. [CrossRef] Miles, Raymond E., and Charles C. Snow. 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Processes. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo. 2016. Estadísticas Pymes. Evolución e Indicadores, 14, Febrero. Secretaría General de Industria de la Pequeña y Mediana Empresa. Madrid: Dirección General de Industria y de la Pequeña y Mediana Empresa. Morais, Luis F., and Luis M. Graça. 2013. A glance at the competing values framework of Quinn and the Miles and Snow models: Case studies in health organizations. Revista Portuguesa de Saúde Pública 31: 129–44. [CrossRef] Neuman, W. Laurence. 1997. Social Research Methods. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, ISBN 0-205-19356-0. Nunnally, Jum C. 1987. Teoría Psicométrica. Mexico: Trillas, ISBN 9701006348. O’Regan, Nicholas, and Abby Ghobadian. 2006. Perceptions of generic strategies of small and medium sized engineering and electronics manufacturers in the UK: The applicability of the Miles and Snow Typology. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 17: 603–20. [CrossRef] Oreja-Rodríguez, Juan Ramón. 2015. Mediciones, Posicionamientos y Diagnósticos Competitivos. IUDE de la Universidad de La Laguna y FYDE-CajaCanarias-Colección E-BOOKS (9). Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Fundación FYDE-CajaCanarias. Oreja-Rodríguez, Juan Ramón, and Vanessa Yanes-Estévez. 2007. Perceived environmental uncertainty in tourism: A new approach using the Rasch model. Tourism Management 28: 1450–63. [CrossRef] Oreja-Rodríguez, Juan Ramón, and Vanessa Yanes-Estévez. 2010. Environmental scanning: Dynamism with rack and stack from Rasch model. Management Decision 48: 260–76. [CrossRef] Parnell, John A., Zhan Long, and Don Lester. 2015. Competitive strategy, capabilities, and uncertainty in small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in China and the United States. Management Decision 53: 402–31. [CrossRef] Pertusa-Ortega, Eva M., José F. Molina-Azorín, and Enrique Claver-Cortés. 2010. Competitive strategy, structure and ﬁrm performance. A comparison of the resource-based view and the contingency approach. Management Decision 48: 1282–303. [CrossRef] Pinto, J. Castro, Nuh Altinsoy, and Nelson S. Antonio. 2014. The organizational alignment-strategy, structure and process: An empirical study regarding the impact on the performance of military organizations. Euro Asia Journal of Management 43: 3–22. Perline, Richard, Benjamin D. Wright, and Howard Wainer. 1979. The Rasch model as additive conjoint measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement 3: 237–55. [CrossRef] Porter, Michael. 1980. Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press, ISBN 9780684841489. Rasch, George. 1980. Probabilistic Models For Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research, First edition in 1960. Roca, Vicente. 2004. El ajuste en las tipologías estratégicas: Análisis de su inﬂuencia en los resultados económicos. Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón de la Plana, Spain. Román-Cervantes, Cándido, Ana María García-Pérez, Enrique González-Dávila, and Vanessa Yanes-Estévez. 2018. Strategic behaviour of agribusiness cooperatives in Canary Islands and its “adaptive cycle”. Paper presented at International Co-Operative Alliance 2018 Research Conference, Wageningen, The Netherlands, July 4–6. Rugman, Alan M., and Alain Verbeke. 1987. Does competitive strategy work for small business? Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 5: 45–50. [CrossRef] Salles, Maryse. 2006. Decision making in SMEs and information requirements for competitive intelligence. Production Planning Control 17: 229–37. [CrossRef] Salzberger, Thomas, Fiona J. Newton, and Michael T. Ewing. 2014. Detecting gender item bias and differential manifest response behavior: A Rasch-based solution. Journal of Business Research 67: 598–607. [CrossRef] Saraç, Mehlika, Yasemin Ertan, and Elif Yücel. 2014. How do business strategies predict ﬁrm performance? An investigation on Borsa Istanbul 100 Index. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi The Journal of Accounting and Finance 61: 121–34. [CrossRef] Shoham, Avi, and Sara Lev. 2015. The Miles and Snow typology and its performance implications. In Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. New York: Springer, pp. 214–20. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 61 21 of 21 Sollosy, Marc D. 2013. A Contemporary Examination of the Miles and Snow Strategic Typology through the Lenses of Dynamic Capabilities and Ambidexterity. Dissertations, Theses and Capstone Projects. Paper 552. College Town: Kennesaw State University. Song, Michael, C. Anthony Di Benedetto, and Robert W. Nason. 2007. Capabilities and ﬁnancial performance: The moderating effect of strategic type. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science 35: 18–34. [CrossRef] Tang, Zhi, and Jintong Tang. 2012. Entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance in China’s changing environment: The moderating effects of strategies. Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Management 29: 409–31. [CrossRef] Wang, Yulan, Stein W. Wallace, Bin Shen, and Tsan-Ming Choi. 2015. Service supply chain management: A review of operational models. European Journal of Operational Research 247: 685–98. [CrossRef] Woodside, Arch G., Daniel P. Sullivan, and Randolph J. Trappey. 1999. Assesing relationships among strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies, and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research 45: 135–46. [CrossRef] Wright, Benjamin D., and Magdalena M. C. Mok. 2004. An overview of the family of Rasch measurement models. In Introduction to Rasch Measurement. Theory, Models and Applications. Edited by Everett V. Smith and Richard M. Smith. Maple Grove: JAM Press, pp. 1–24. ISBN 9780975535103. Wright, Benjamin, and Mark Stone. 1999. Measurement Essentials. Delaware: Wide Range. Yanes-Estévez, Vanessa, Juan Ramón Oreja-Rodríguez, and Ana M. García-Pérez. 2010. Perceived environmental uncertainty in the agrifood supply chain. British Food Journal 112: 688–709. [CrossRef] Yee, Choy L., and Ken W. Platts. 2006. A framework and tool for supply network strategy operationalisation. International Journal of Production Economics 104: 230–48. [CrossRef] Zahra, Shaker A., and John A. Pearce. 1990. Research evidence on the Miles-Snow typology. Journal of Management 16: 751–68. [CrossRef] Zikmund, William G., Barry J. Babin, Jon C. Carr, and Mitch Grifﬁn. 2010. Business Research Methods. Boston: South-Western Cencage Learning. Zubaedah, Siti, Avanti Fontana, and Adi Z. Aﬁff. 2013. Revisiting the Miles y Snow Typology. Strategic path mediating business strategy and resource conﬁguration for innovation. The South East Asian Journal of Management 7: 16–40. [CrossRef] © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Administrative Sciences Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/the-strategic-behaviour-of-smes-EqYtQHfibc

The Strategic Behaviour of SMEs

Loading next page...

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
ISSN: 2076-3387
DOI: 10.3390/admsci8040061
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Strategic Behaviour of SMEs

The Strategic Behaviour of SMEs

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Strategic Behaviour of SMEs

The Strategic Behaviour of SMEs

References

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies