What holds a regional cluster together? The role of cluster actors’ identification and citizenship behavior for the effectiveness of a regional cluster

Figures & data

Figure 1. Summary of the theoretical model and hypotheses.

Note: Group formation factors and CCB are both modeled as second-order constructs. Group formation factors have the following five dimensions: similarity, interaction, geographical proximity, perceived benefit, and length. CCB has the following seven dimensions: helping behavior; tolerance of mistakes; cluster loyalty; cluster compliance; cluster-supporting initiative; cluster participation; and relationship management.

Figure 2. Structural model evaluation: path coefficients (t-values) and R²-values.

Table 1. Summary of the predictions and results.

Hypothesis	Path	Predicted sign	Result
H1a	Cluster distinctiveness → Cluster identification	+	✓
H1b	Cluster prestige → Cluster identification	+	✕
H1c	Visible affiliation → Cluster identification	+	✓
H1d	Intra-cluster competition → Cluster identification	-	✕
H1e	Inter-cluster competition → Cluster identification	+	✕
H1f	Group formation factors → Cluster identification	+	✓
H2	Cluster identification → CCB	+	✓
H3	CCB → Willingness to pay	+	✓
H4	CCB → Continuance intentions	+	✓
H5	CCB → Knowledge sharing	+	✓
H6	CCB → Collaborative behavior	+	✓

Table

Latent variables and items	Loading	Mean	SD
Cluster distinctiveness (composite reliability = 0.94, AVE = 0.80)
The cluster has unique characteristics that contrast strongly with other clusters.	0.882	2.71	1.28
When I think about the cluster, the availability of services and offerings seems unique from other clusters.	0.879	3.04	1.30
The cluster’s activities, projects, events, and conferences are unique compared to those available at other clusters.	0.907	3.12	1.31
The cluster is unique compared to other clusters.	0.910	3.01	1.47
Cluster prestige (composite reliability = 0.92, AVE = 0.79)
People in my environment think highly of the cluster.	0.913	3.00	1.12
This cluster is considered one of the best clusters.	0.837	2.86	1.31
The cluster has a good reputation in my environment.	0.917	2.57	1.13
Visible affiliation: (index was built based on bivariate categories)
1. Do you or someone in your organization occupy an official post in the cluster (e.g., in the management or advisory board)? 2. Do you mention the affiliation with the cluster on your website? 3. Is your organization mentioned as a cluster actor on the cluster’s website?	1.000
Inter-cluster competition (single item with bivariate category)
Is your organization an active member in other clusters?	1.000
Intra-cluster competition (Recoded; composite reliability = 0.85, AVE = 0.66)
The competition in the cluster is intense.	0.767	3.33	1.40
Cluster actors do compete with each other.	0.975	3.47	1.50
Cluster actors find it painful when others are getting ahead.	0.664	2.63	1.40
Similarity (composite reliability = 0.93, AVE = 0.78)
The things that my organization values are very similar to the things that the cluster values.	0.857	2.51	0.95
The values of my organization match the cluster’s values and culture.	0.930	2.47	0.99
My organization’s values and culture provide a good fit with the things that are valued in the cluster.	0.939	2.47	0.94
The goals of my organization match the goals of the cluster.	0.798	2.73	1.16
Interaction (composite reliability = 0.94, AVE = 0.76)
I frequently meet with other cluster actors to share resources and exchange new ideas.	0.887	3.81	1.63
I am in close contacts with other cluster actors.	0.927	4.09	1.69
I frequently meet with other cluster actors for informal social activities such as going out for dinner.	0.810	5.07	1.74
I regularly exchange views with other cluster actors.	0.903	4.27	1.77
On average, I talk to other cluster actors (1) weekly or more often, (2) monthly, (3) a few times per year, (4) once a year or less often.	0.820	2.37	0.99
Geographical proximity (single item; categories were built based on answers)
How far is your organization located from the cluster-facilitating agency (in car drive minutes)?	1.000
Perceived benefit (composite reliability = 0.91, AVE = 0.77)
The cluster provides us the opportunity to realize our aspirations.	0.890	2.76	1.20
The cluster provides us the opportunity to make progress.	0.907	2.50	1.11
In my opinion, being affiliated with the cluster comes along with several benefits.	0.841	1.95	1.03
Length (categories (1–11) were built based on answers; composite reliability = 0.88, AVE = 0.79)
For how long have you personally been the boundary spanner between your organization and the cluster? (in months/years)	0.797	7.31	3.10
For how long has your organization been a member of the cluster? (in months/years)	0.973	6.29	3.49
Cluster identification (composite reliability = 0.90, AVE = 0.61)
I am very interested in what others think about the cluster.	0.702	2.62	1.36
When I talk about the cluster, I usually say “we” rather than “they.”	0.797	3.43	1.87
The cluster’s successes feel like our own successes.	0.862	3.62	1.63
When someone praises the cluster, it feels like a personal compliment.	0.850	3.91	1.68
If a story in the media criticized the cluster, I would feel embarrassed.	0.705	3.38	1.66
When someone criticizes the cluster, it feels like a personal insult.	0.765	4.71	1.64
Helping behavior (composite reliability = 0.86, AVE = 0.60)
We go out of our way to help other cluster actors with business related issues if we sense that they are in need.	0.812	2.71	1.53
I intervene and try to mediate when conflicts in the cluster occur.	0.700	4.15	1.76
We provide assistance to other cluster actors if they ever have a problem in an area where we have expertise.	0.792	2.22	1.34
We sometimes volunteer our resources in order to lighten other cluster actors’ workload.	0.792	4.11	1.90
Tolerance (composite reliability = 0.84, AVE = 0.72)
When another cluster actor is unable to fulfill certain responsibilities, we try to be understanding.	0.846	2.46	1.03
We accept the inevitable mistakes that other cluster actors sometimes make without complaining.	0.855	2.61	1.19
Cluster loyalty (composite reliability = 0.88, AVE = 0.66)
I promote the cluster to others.	0.819	2.34	1.37
When someone criticizes the cluster, I defend it.	0.748	2.61	1.29
I speak in positive terms about the cluster if someone asks for it.	0.829	1.80	0.88
We feel allegiance to the cluster.	0.841	2.97	1.51
Cluster compliance (composite reliability = 0.88, AVE = 0.70)
We show respect for the cluster’s business policies and try to abide by them ourselves.	0.800	2.35	1.20
When dealing with other cluster actors, we comply with expected standards of social behavior.	0.897	2.53	1.28
We attempt to meet or exceed any expectations that other cluster actors have from us.	0.812	2.57	1.40
Cluster-supporting initiative (composite reliability = 0.91, AVE = 0.71)
I make innovative proposals to improve the work within the cluster.	0.899	3.75	1.80
I contribute ideas and proposals to the cluster even if it is not required explicitly.	0.857	3.58	1.81
I keep myself informed about the developments in the cluster.	0.791	2.53	1.23
I point out chances and opportunities that could emerge in/for the cluster.	0.818	3.18	1.70
Cluster participation (composite reliability = 0.87, AVE = 0.70)
I regularly and actively participate in the meetings and events organized by the cluster.	0.923	3.30	1.72
I regularly attend meetings and events organized by the cluster.	0.889	3.04	1.66
I read and keep up with the cluster’s publications, invitations, reports, etc.	0.668	1.98	0.99
Relationship management (composite reliability = 0.93, AVE = 0.81)
I maintain contact with other cluster actors even though currently we do not collaborate.	0.885	3.51	1.49
I spend time on maintaining the connection within the cluster	0.922	3.76	1.62
I am in permanent contact with other cluster actors.	0.899	3.65	1.77
Willingness to pay (composite reliability = 0.85, AVE = 0.74)
My organization spends money for the cluster, such as fees for consulting or project management services required by the cluster-facilitating agency.	0.884	5.36	2.69
My organization spends money for the cluster, such as fees for recruiting services, conferences, training, etc.	0.836	4.64	2.95
Continuance intentions (composite reliability = 0.91, AVE = 0.83)
We intend to stay a member of the cluster in the longer term.	0.936	1.84	1.29
We do not think about canceling our membership and collaboration with the cluster.	0.887	2.17	1.66
Knowledge sharing (composite reliability = 0.94, AVE = 0.73)
When I’ve learned something new, I tell other people in the cluster about it.	0.876	3.85	1.65
I share the information I have with other cluster actors.	0.924	3.48	1.56
If I need specific knowledge, I ask cluster actors.	0.808	3.31	1.68
I also share my “know-where” and “know-whom” with other cluster actors.	0.874	3.40	1.54
I exchange knowledge related to new business opportunities (e.g., new technologies, products) with other cluster actors.	0.832	3.68	1.65
I exchange knowledge related to product and/or process improvements with other cluster actors.	0.813	3.83	1.70
Collaborative behavior: (index was built based on bivariate categories)
1. Did you cooperate in any form with another cluster actor during the last three years? 2. Please describe your organization’s current collaborative behavior through selecting one of the following options: My organization has already developed some collaboration projects with cluster actors. My organization expects to engage in some collaboration projects with cluster actors in the near future. My organization has collaborated in the past with cluster actors, but currently does not participate in any collaboration project My organization has no intention of developing a collaborative project with cluster actors. My organization does not collaborate with cluster actors and has never thought about it.	1.000

Note: Participants evaluated each item using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree and 7 = strongly disagree) if not otherwise indicated.

Appendix B. Discriminant validity analysis: Fornell and larcker’s criterion

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22
1	Cluster distinctiveness	0.89
2	Cluster prestige	0.67	0.89
3	Visible affiliation	0.11	0.26	1.00
4	Intra-cluster competition	0.04	−0.07	−0.14	0.81
5	Inter-cluster competition	0.18	0.16	0.05	−0.01	1.00
6	Similarity	0.21	0.28	0.12	−0.06	0.16	0.88
7	Interaction	0.33	0.38	0.38	−0.01	−0.01	0.29	0.87
8	Geographical proximity	0.02	0.05	0.37	−0.07	−0.15	0.15	0.29	1.00
9	Length	0.07	0.18	0.36	0.02	−0.08	0.03	0.34	0.06	0.89
10	Perceived benefit	0.33	0.47	0.24	−0.02	0.19	0.55	0.34	0.23	−0.10	0.88
11	Cluster identification	0.44	0.45	0.34	0.06	0.09	0.34	0.47	0.15	0.19	0.48	0.78
12	Helping behavior	0.26	0.35	0.43	−0.03	−0.01	0.42	0.52	0.38	0.18	0.35	0.47	0.78
13	Tolerance	0.26	0.33	0.20	0.14	0.03	0.37	0.25	0.24	0.08	0.36	0.31	0.55	0.85
14	Cluster loyalty	0.45	0.43	0.32	0.05	0.05	0.57	0.50	0.32	0.22	0.56	0.52	0.63	0.59	0.81
15	Cluster compliance	0.19	0.30	0.37	0.07	−0.01	0.48	0.51	0.37	0.19	0.47	0.38	0.69	0.64	0.74	0.84
16	Cluster-supporting initiative	0.40	0.47	0.35	−0.05	0.04	0.37	0.62	0.28	0.24	0.46	0.49	0.58	0.38	0.67	0.62	0.84
17	Cluster participation	0.30	0.44	0.43	0.03	0.07	0.26	0.52	0.27	0.20	0.58	0.55	0.46	0.36	0.61	0.63	0.71	0.83
18	Relationship management	0.34	0.45	0.41	0.01	−0.02	0.35	0.77	0.25	0.30	0.40	0.51	0.61	0.37	0.66	0.66	0.85	0.72	0.90
19	Willingness to pay	0.13	0.15	0.49	0.16	−0.12	0.17	0.32	0.32	0.21	0.32	0.38	0.33	0.22	0.28	0.29	0.28	0.41	0.34	0.86
20	Continuance intentions	0.15	0.27	0.26	−0.03	−0.04	0.40	0.26	0.24	0.06	0.40	0.25	0.49	0.50	0.60	0.68	0.35	0.48	0.41	0.21	0.91
21	Knowledge sharing	0.37	0.37	0.25	−0.03	0.07	0.43	0.69	0.12	0.24	0.48	0.46	0.58	0.28	0.57	0.61	0.71	0.59	0.73	0.24	0.42	0.86
22	Collaborative behavior	0.25	0.26	0.26	−0.06	−0.09	0.20	0.44	0.18	0.32	0.17	0.21	0.29	0.15	0.36	0.33	0.38	0.34	0.41	0.18	0.39	0.52	1.00

Note: Values on the diagonal show the AVE; values below the diagonal are squared construct correlations. Fornell and Larcker’s criterion requires the AVE of each construct to be greater than the squared correlation between construct pairs, as shown in the table.