In this addendum we provide further information on our results and findings as well as explanations and suggestions in relation to the low R2. Table 1 provides additional information i.e., the standard error of all estimates, exact p values instead of asterisks as the significance level on the base of Table 3 in the published manuscript.
Table 1. Results of hierarchical regression analysis: standardized estimates (t-value, p-value)
a Treated by adding squared terms of covariates based on Cortina's (Reference Cortina1993) suggestion on interaction terms.
Note: n = 230.
The results support Hypothesis 1a and 1b by showing that Business ties (p = 0.03) and Institutional ties (p = 0.00) are both positively associated with Export performance. That is an increase of one standard unit of business ties and institutional ties will increase export performance by 19.2 percent and 24.9 percent respectively. The results also render support to Hypothesis 2a and 2b by indicating that the two moderation terms are positively linked to Export performance (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02). One standard unit rise of business ties*MO and institutional ties*MO will increase export performance by 14.9 percent and 12.9 percent respectively.
The R2 across models seems to show a relatively high degree of unexplained variance of the dependent variables (export performance) by factors other than those included in the models. This is, however, not very surprising, in relation to prior managerial ties (MT) studies and marketing orientation (MO) studies. For example, for MT and performance link Li, Poppo, and Zhou (Reference Li, Poppo and Zhou2008) report R2 of 0.13, and Li, Zhou, and Shao (Reference Li, Zhou and Shao2009) have an R2 of 0.15; for MO and performance association, Cadogan, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw (Reference Cadogan, Diamantopoulos and Siguaw2002) report R2 of 0.216, and Jaworski and Kohli (Reference Jaworski and Kohli1993) in a seminal work report 0.18. We suggest a few reasons for the low prediction power of models. First, more and more firms become market oriented, and its positive effect on performance reduces over time (Kumar, Jones, Venkatesan, & Leone, Reference Kumar, Jones, Venkatesan and Leone2011). Second, MO shows to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for superior performance – some successful firms have low MO but market-oriented firms tend to have better performance (Frösén, Luoma, Jaakkola, Tikkanen, & Aspara, Reference Frösén, Luoma, Jaakkola, Tikkanen and Aspara2016). Third, MT, as a mechanism to tackle the institutional voids, becomes less important amid China's institutional evolution towards being more market supportive (Peng, Reference Peng2003). Other factors, especially firm capabilities including innovation, learning become more important. Fourth, future studies could consider managerial ties with entities in foreign countries, which may also be helpful in driving exporting firms’ performance by providing access to valuable information and knowledge. Fifth, export performance receives multiple influence from a wide range of factors (Chen, Sousa, & He, Reference Chen, Sousa and He2016). We could consider more complex models to take into consideration moderation effects (e.g., market and technical turbulence, alliance, competitive strategies etc.) and mediation effects (e.g., innovation, learning, marketing capabilities, advantages, etc.).
As indicated in the manuscript, structural equation modelling (SEM) was applied for a robustness analysis, which results in support to H1–2.
