Search results

While strategy scholars once thought that the resource-based view could not be tested directly by observing resources, recent work has dispelled this notion. While resources are difficult to measure, many clever scholars have been able to measure resource heterogeneity and performance.

This paper aims to draw from research on culture, stigma and entrepreneurial activity to hypothesize that the relationship of stigma with the level of entrepreneurial activity differs by the dimensions of national culture, i.e. individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance and power distance.

The hypotheses were tested with data from 15 countries spanning over a 15-year period. Poisson regressions were used.

Results from Poisson regressions supported the hypotheses for the differences based on the “individualism,” “masculinity” and “power distance” dimensions of culture on the relationship between stigma of failure and entrepreneurial activity. However, the hypothesis for the differences based on the “uncertainty avoidance” dimension of culture was not supported.

Fostering entrepreneurship has been important for several countries around the world. A number of factors influence the phenomenon of entrepreneurship. In this paper, research in the areas of culture, stigma and entrepreneurship is brought together to explain how the stigma of failure may be intensified or mitigated in different cultural contexts. The results suggest that policies and attempts to alleviate stigma of failure for promoting entrepreneurship need to consider the complex interactions occurring within the cultural contexts in which entrepreneurs operate. Such initiatives should enhance their effectiveness.

This chapter applies arguments advanced by Drnevich and Shanley (this volume) to the strategic leadership literature – an area of work where such multi-level analyses seem likely to be particularly appropriate. In an analysis of the relationship between managerial capabilities and firm performance, this chapter breaks from tradition in the strategic leadership literature by examining the interaction between three levels of analysis. In doing so, this chapter identifies the conditions under which leadership can be a source of competitive advantage for a firm, when labor markets will allocate managerial talent imperfectly across competing firms, and when managers will and will not be able to appropriate the rents their specific managerial talents might generate.

Understanding sources of sustained competitive advantage has become a major area of research in strategic management. Building on the assumptions that strategic resources are heterogeneously distributed across firms and that these differences are stable over time, this article examines the link between firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Four empirical indicators of the potential of firm resources to generate sustained competitive advantage-value, rareness, imitability, and substitutability are discussed. The model is applied by analyzing the potential of several firm resources for generating sustained competitive advantages. The article concludes by examining implications of this firm resource model of sustained competitive advantage for other business disciplines.

This paper aims to help scholars to know the frontiers in the strategic management field. On studying, it was noted that business strategic management originated from America in the 1960s and has experienced more than half a century. However, strategic management development lacks systematical summary in the twenty-first century. The scientometric method was appliedto find out the frontiers and progress of the research of strategic management in the twenty-first century, based on the literature from 2001 to 2012 in the Strategic Management Journal.

In the paper, the authors mainly used the scientometric method and applied keywords, co-occurrence method combined with multistatistical methods and mutation words analysis, author co-citation, literature co-citation and keywords co-occurrence (national).

The findings show that the strategic management research focuses on the following theories and academic thoughts: knowledge-based view, network organization research and dynamic capability are the mainstream; besides, strategy risk, the stakeholders analysis of strategy management, corporate reputation and strategic concept also attract the attention of researchers; Barney, Teece and Porter have made significant contributions to strategy management research since the twenty-first century.

The findings in the paper will help scholars in the field of strategic management to know the main frontiers of the theory, as well as the main contributors.

Aims to discuss the basic strategy taken by a specific manufacturer. States supply chain structures influence, directly, the supply chain inventory as a measure of performance. Examines the difference in the supply chain in relation to the manufacturer’s strategy to the product.

Welcome to the second volume of Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. This book series’ mission is to provide a forum for critique, commentary, and discussion about key research methodology issues in the strategic management field. Strategic management relies on an array of complex methods drawn from various allied disciplines to examine how managers attempt to lead their firms toward success. The field is undergoing a rapid transformation in methodological rigor, and researchers face many new challenges about how to conduct their research and in understanding the implications that are associated with their research choices. For example, as the field progresses, what new methodologies might be best suited for testing the developments in thinking and theorizing? Many long-standing issues remain unresolved as well. What methodological challenges persist as we consider those matters? This book series seeks to bridge the gap between what researchers know and what they need to know about methodology. We seek to provide wisdom, insight, and guidance from some of the best methodologists inside and outside the strategic management field.