A Preliminary Analysis on the Connections between Technology Orientation, Organizational Learning, Market Conditions, and Growth of Small and Medium Size Hotels in Peninsular Malaysia

Abstract

This paper presents a preliminary analysis on the interface of Technology Orientation, Organizational Learning, Market Conditions, and Growth of small and medium size hotels in Peninsular Malaysia. To test the hypotheses, 254 completed questionnaires from hotel representatives at managerial level were analyzed using regression analysis. Regression analysis results indicate that Technology Orientation has significant relationship with growth / performance of small medium hotels while Market Conditions has an enhancing effect on Technology Orientation. The role of Organizational learning as mediator in the relationship between Technology orientation with Growth was also confirmed. Implications of the findings are discussed at the end of the paper.

Keywords: Small and medium size hotelsfirm growthtechnology orientationorganizational learningmarket conditions

Introduction

This study looks at strategic behavior-performance relationship of small and medium size hotels (SME hotels) in a developing economy. However, a new study context is introduced i.e. firms in the service industry. Understanding the strategic orientations of SMEs in the service industry is important because those orientations could influence the extent to which the SMEs would analyze its demand and competitive environments. Strategic orientations are also indicators of the way SMEs attain and exploit information about market opportunities and employ product-market innovations that will bring growth (Aragon-Sanchez & Sanchez-Marin, 2005). This paper presents the results of a preliminary analysis on the following objectives:

• To investigate the influences of Technology Orientation (TO) on Growth of Malaysian SME hotels;

• To explore whether Organizational Learning (OL) mediates the relationships between Technology Orientation (TO) on Growth of Malaysian SME hotels;

• To explore whether Market Conditions (MC) moderate the relationships between Technology Orientation on Growth of Malaysian SME hotels.

The Literature

Unlike “the customer-pull philosophy” of MO, TO reflects the philosophy of “technological push”, which posits that customers prefer technologically superior products and services (Zhou, Yim & Tse, 2005). Accordingly, a technology-oriented Small and Medium size Hotel advocates a commitment to R&D, the acquisition of new technologies, and the application of the latest technology (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997). Although both MO and TO promote openness to new ideas, MO favours ideas that better satisfy customer needs, whereas TO prefers those that employ the latest technologies in the development of new products and day-to-day operations on the grounds of ‘customer appeal’.

OL represents the development of new knowledge that is interpreted and institutionalized into organizational routines (Jones & Macpherson, 2006), facilitating performance-enhancing organizational changes (Slater & Narver, 1995). Sinkula, Baker and Noordewier (1997) conceptualise OL as firm values (e.g., commitment to learning, open mindedness and shared vision) that influence the propensity to create and use knowledge. Such values, in turn, are seen to guide a Small and Medium size Hotel’s behaviour and processes of acquiring diverse information, developing common understanding of information and generating new knowledge or organizational insights (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). OL is consequently viewed as an underpinning internal self-renewal which form an important aspect of Small and Medium size Hotel strategic activities.

In line with Voss and Voss (2000), Market Conditions (MCs) can be broken down into three categories: demand uncertainty, competitive intensity and market growth. Demand uncertainty refers to the notion of market turbulence, which is directly related to instability in consumer preferences. Competition intensity refers to the degree of competition that a firm faces within the industry. This may be characterized by severe price wars, heavy advertising, diverse product alternatives and added services (Porter, 1980). Market growth refers to additional demand for products due to existing customers’ increasing purchasing power, new customers, new products or emerging needs for higher quality products.

Measuring Small and Medium size Hotel growth is a complex area, with no generally accepted definition of firm growth (Naman & Slevin, 1993). A variety of financial measures has been used to assess small business growth such as sales volume (Rue & Ibrahim, 1998; Basu & Goswami, 1999), profit levels (Birley & Westhead, 1990), number of employees (Birley & Westhead, 1990), number of customers and market share (Baldwin, Chandler, Le & Papailiadis, 1994). This project utilises the number of employee as indictor because it is always recorded and have been found to be a good indicator of size and growth (Barkham, Gudgin, Hart & Hanvey, 1996). A new indicator is also proposed i.e. whether or not the hotel has gone through any renovation in recent years. As renovation of premise often requires huge capital, a hotelier’s capability to undertake hotel renovation within recent years is a logical indicator of growth.

Methodology

The study uses quantitative data collected through questionnaires. The instrument was designed in English but the personally-assisted survey was conducted in either Bahasa Malaysia, English and Mandarin or mixed. Translated version was verified by language experts to ensure accuracy of content. The target population of the study sample consists of SME Hotels operating in three of the most famous tourism destinations in Peninsular Malaysia i.e. Penang, Langkawi and Kuala Lumpur. Using cluster technique sample was proportionately drawn using information from business directories, the Department of Statistics Malaysia and any other relevant documentation. Exploratory interviews were conducted to test the face validity of the conceptual model and help design the research instrument. Using expert opinions from both the academic and the industry sides, and pilot testing the instrument on a small group of target respondents also helped determine the validity of the instrument. The instrument was later revised and finalized based on the pilot results. The study used personally assisted questionnaires to collect data from managers and owners of SME hotels in the three selected destinations.

Findings

From the 254 useable questionnaires returned and analysed, 31.9 percent of the hotels were rated as no star, while 39.4 percent were rated as 2 stars, 3 stars (15.0%), 4 stars (3.9%) and others (9.8%). Majority of the hotels were medium hotels in city area (45.7%) and small hotels in city area (33.9%). More than half of the hotels indicated that they have less than 50 rooms (70.1%). Only small number of them has 50 to 100 rooms (20.5%), 101 to 150 rooms (6.3%), 151 to 200 rooms (0.8%) and more than 200 rooms (2.4%), indicating that there were the SME hotels. As the study only considered the small and medium hotels, all of the hotels employed less than 50 employees. 49.6 percent of the hotels were sole proprietorship hotels, while 10.8 percent were General Partnership, Limited Partnership (6.0%), Private Limited (28.8%) and others (4.8%). 88.1 percent of the hotels were independent hotels. 82.1 percent of the hotels were operated less than 10 years. Majority of the hotels did not offer meeting space (75.8%) and considered as family business (60.4%). Only 28.7 percent of the hotels were managed by hotel management company.

Outliers detection using Mahalanobis Chi-square (D2) method found no outliers. Skewness and kurtosis values for each variable shows the variables were normally distributed. Internal consistency confirmation was checked using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and found to be satisfactory. Regression Analysis was performed to establish linear relationships between the variables to predict values of dependent variable from values of the independent variables. This analysis was also attempted to examine the effect of mediating and moderating variables on the relationship between strategic orientation and SME Growth. Results indicated that Technological orientation have the greatest significant effect on SME growth (B=0.359, t=7.142, p<0.01).

Technological orientation explained 42.04 percent of SME Growth (R2=0.420, F=60.365, p<0.01). All three dimensions successfully predicted SME Growth as follows; competition intensity (B=0.098, t=3.188, p<0.01), improvising products and services (B=0.515, t=7.295, p<0.01) and leveraging the green (B=0.208, t=6.076, p<0.01).

Market Condition

To test the hypothesis that the market condition are the function of SME growth, and more specifically whether market condition moderate the relationship between Technological orientation and SME growth, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted. Technological orientation: (B=0.329, p<0.01) was found to be a significant predictor to SME growth. Next, the interaction term between Technological orientation and market condition was added to the regression model (Step 3), which accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in SME growth (R2 change=0.020, F change=4.145, p<0.01). Examination of the interaction plot showed an enhancing effect that as Technological orientation (Figure 11) became larger, so was SME growth. This finding indicated that the moderation effect of market condition occurred in the relationship between Technological orientation and SME growth.

See Full Size >

See Full Size >

Discussions and Conclusion

This study has found that TO have the greatest significant effect on SME growth which is consistent with the literature (Chatzoglou, Diamantidis, Vraimaki & Vranakis, 2011; Miller & Friesen, 1983; Covin & Slevin, 1989; Naman & Slevin, 1993; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Zahra, Kuratko & Jennings, 1999). However, the analysis shows that OL only partially explained the relationship between TO with Firm Growth. This indicates that OL did not mediate the relationship between TO and SMHs Growth within the study context. Therefore the notion that OL improves an organization’s future performance and strengthens staff skills and knowledge (see Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Baker & Sinkula, 2009) cannot be supported. In contrast, regression analysis on whether Market condition moderates the relationship between TO and SMHs Growth has revealed that Market condition has an enhancing effect on TO, indicating that moderation effect of Market condition occurred in the relationship between TO and SMHs Growth. This is consistent with the findings of Solberg and Olsson (2010), Voss and Voss (2000) and Ngamkroeckjoti and Speece (2008).

In terms of theoretical implications, the findings have provided empirical support to the theory on the influence of TO on Firm growth and on the moderating effect of Market conditions on TO-Firm growth relationship. On the other hand, this study could not support the theory on the mediating role of OL. In relations to managerial implication, we can infer that technology can play a significant role in the growth of a service-oriented firm such as hotels. Therefore, it is suggested that perhaps SME hotels could focus on adopting better technology to help grow their businesses. From policy perspective, the government could do more to ensure a positive and supportive market conditions for SMHs to operate in whilst motivating them to become more tech-savvy so that they could become more competitive. Free or subsidsed training workshops, subsidesed adoption of new technology and other initiatives could help more small and medium size hotels adopt more and better technology.

Finally, it is recommended that future research could focus on using qualitative approach to further understand why OL has little influence improving an SMH performance. This crucial information could provide better understanding on how to drive SMH business in Malaysia.

References

1. Ali, A. (1994). Pioneering versus incremental innovation: review and research propositions, Journal of Product Innovation Management Journal, 23(8), 667-688.
2. Aragon-Sanchez, A. & Sanchez-Marin, G. (2005). Strategic orientation, management characteristics, and performance: A study of Spanish SMEs, Journal of Small Business Management, 43(3), 287-308.
3. Baker, W. E. & Sinkula, J. M. (2009). The Complementary Effects of Market Orientation and Entrepreneurial Orientation on Profitability, Small Businesses, 47(4), 443-464.
4. Baldwin, J., Chandler, W., Le, C., & Papailiadis, T., (1994). Strategies for success: a profile of growing small and medium-sized enterprises, Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 61-523RE.
5. Barkham, R., Gudgin, G., Hart, M., & Hanvey, E. (1996). The determinants of small firm growth: an inter-regional study in the UK, 1986-90., London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
6. Basu, A. & Goswami, A., (1999). Determinants of South Asian entrepreneurial growth in Britain: A multivariate analysis, Small Business Economics, 13, 57-70.
7. Birley, S. & Westhead, P., (1990). Growth and performance contrasts between types of small firms, Strategic Management Journal, 11(7), 535-57.
8. Buhalis & H. Murphy (2009). Information communication technologies (ICTs), entrepreneurship and SMTEs. Tourism and Entrepreneurship: International Perspectives, 10(26): 287-300.
9. Chatzoglou, P. D., Diamantidis, A. D., Vraimaki, E., and Vranakis, S. K. (2011). Aligning IT, Strategic Orientation and Organizational Structure, Business Process Management Journal, 17(4), 663-687.
10. Covin, J. & Slevin, D. (1989). Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments, Strategic Management Journal,10 (1), 75-87.
11. Fiol, M. & Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning, Academy of Management Review, 10 (4), 803-813.
12. Gatignon A. & J.M. Xuereb (1997). Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research. 2(1): 77-90.
13. Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the Future, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
14. Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A., (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53-70.
15. Jones, O. & Macpherson, A. (2006). Interorganizational learning and strategic renewal in SMEs Long Range Planning, 39, 356-70.
16. Kohli, A.K. & Jaworski, B.J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research proposition, and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, 54(April), 1-18.
17. Kumarasamy, K.S.N., & Chitale, C.M. (2012). Collaborative knowledge sharing strategy to enhance organizational learning. Journal of Management Development. 31(1), 308-322.
18. Lumpkin, G.T., & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance, Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
19. Miller, D. & Friesen, P.H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: the third link, Strategic Management Journal, 4, 221-35.
20. Naman, J. L. & Slevin, D.P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and empirical tests, Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 137-53.
21. Ngamkroeckjoti, C., & Speece, M. (2008). Technology turbulence and environmental scanning in Thai food new product development. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(4), 413-432.
22. Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy, New York: The Free Press.
23. Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage, New York: The Free Press.
24. Reinartz, W., Jacquelyn, T., & Kumar, V. (2005), Balancing Acquisition and Retention Resources to Maximize Customer Profitability, Journal of Marketing, 69 (January), 63-79.
25. Rue, L.W. and Ibrahim, N.A. (1998). The Relationship Between Planning Sophistication and Performance in Small Businesses, Journal of Small Business Management, 36(4), 24-32.
26. Sinkula, J., Baker, W. & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based organizational learning: linking values, knowledge, and behaviour, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305-319.
27. Slater, S.F. & Narver, J.C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization, Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), 63-74.
28. Solberg, C.A., & Olsson, U.H. (2010). Management orientation and export performance: the case of Norwegian ICT companies. Baltic Journal of Management, 5(1), 28-50.
29. Voss, G.B. & Voss, Z.G. (2000) Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment, Journal of Marketing, 64(January), 67-83.
30. Zahra, S.A., Kuratko, D.F. & Jennings, D.F. (1999) Entrepreneurship and the acquisition of dynamic organizational capabilities, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23 (3), 5-10
31. Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K., & Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology-and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 42-60.