Search results

The resource-based view of the firm and strategic groups research are two of the most investigated frameworks in strategic management. Historically, assumptions behind these two views have seemingly put them at odds. The resource-based view of the firm argues that sustained competitive advantage is best attained when firms have unique resources, while strategic groups research argues that a number of firms within the same industry can achieve sustained profitability with strategies that are similar to one another, but distinct from other industry members. The two views focus on different levels of analysis and each largely ignores the other’s focal level. Yet neither offers any propositions that are incompatible with the tenets of the other. Thus, conceptual integration that crosses levels of analysis is possible and potentially fruitful. Indeed, some strategic groups research has begun to bridge the gap between these two theories by suggesting that firm differences exist both within and between strategic groups. This article adopts a multi-level view by developing propositions concerning contingencies when firm differences, group processes, or both may lead to sustained competitive advantage. Implications for practitioners as well as suggestions for future theory building and empirical tests are also discussed.

The study here responds to the view that the crucial problem in strategic management (research) is firm heterogeneity – why firms adopt different strategies and structures, why heterogeneity persists, and why competitors perform differently. The present study applies complexity theory tenets and a “neo-configurational perspective” of Misangyi et al. (2016) in proposing complex antecedent conditions affecting complex outcome conditions. Rather than examining variable directional relationships using null hypotheses statistical tests, the study examines case-based conditions using somewhat precise outcome tests (SPOT). The complex outcome conditions include firms with high financial performances in declining markets and firms with low financial performances in growing markets – the study focuses on seemingly paradoxical outcomes. The study here examines firm strategies and outcomes for separate samples of cross-sectional data of manufacturing firms with headquarters in one of two nations: Finland (n = 820) and Hungary (n = 300). The study includes examining the predictive validities of the models. The study contributes conceptual advances of complex firm orientation configurations and complex firm performance capabilities configurations as mediating conditions between firmographics, firm resources, and the two final complex outcome conditions (high performance in declining markets and low performance in growing markets). The study contributes by showing how fuzzy-logic computing with words (Zadeh, 1966) advances strategic management research toward achieving requisite variety to overcome the theory-analytic mismatch pervasive currently in the discipline (Fiss, 2007, 2011) – thus, this study is a useful step toward solving the crucial problem of how to explain firm heterogeneity.

The Resource‐Based View of the Firm (RBV) has become an important stream of literature in strategic management. RDV's main prescription is that strategic assets are crucial determinants of sustainable competitive advantage and thus firm performance. Unfortunately, little empirical research has been occasioned to substantiate that prescription. Part of the difficulty in empirically testing RBV's main prescription lies in identifying resources capable of being strategic assets. This article combines RBV logic, the definition of strategic assets, Hall's studies, and the logic embodied in several streams of management literature to explain why strategic assets are intangible in nature, to show that not all intangible resources are strategic assets, and to demonstrate that company reputation, product reputation, employee knowhow, and organizational culture possess the characteristics of strategic assets. That is the foundation for the proposed hypotheses and proposed conceptual model presented in this paper for testing RBV's main prescription. We also discuss the practical, theoretical and empirical implications of this paper and make suggestions regarding empirical testing.

The purpose of this paper is explore an organizational design that allows firms to invest in transferable strategic human capital. Strategic human capital requires considerable investment in training costs, effective compensation, opportunities for professional development and expectancy of long employment relationship within a firm. A firm can undertake investment in strategic knowledge and workers can engage in learning only in these circumstances. However, there are a number of risks that are associated with investment in strategic human capital within a firm. In this paper, the author argues that providing strategic human capital to other firms within alliances could be a strategy for leveraging resource. Strategic knowledge facilitates transactions between firms possessing co-specialized human capital and tangible resources. Organizational design of an alliance based on co-specialization allows to balance costs and returns for the human capital supplier, as well as for beneficiary and workers. Within an alliance, the human capital supplier provides workers to a beneficiary firm and coordinates their activities. Supplier specialized in human capital investment ensures improved performance, productivity and efficiency of workers. Possibility to form a greater pool of labor force and to centralize training allows optimizing cost and sharing risks associated with investment activity among alliance participants. Human resource practices in an alliance system foster long-term employment relationship. Entering an alliance increases number of job positions, professional development opportunities through horizontal mobility, promotion and learning opportunities for workers. Finally, alliances allow leveraging investment in human capital beyond a single organization.

This paper conceptualizes the use of alliance based on co-specialization as a strategy to optimize investment in strategic human capital resource. It draws upon the resource-based view (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1995) and transaction cost theory (Coase, 1937; Williamson, 1981) to examine an alliance as a strategy for leveraging the human capital resources for accessing new markets, building reputation and sharing the risks across more than one organization.

First, the paper reviews the theoretical literature on human capital as a strategic resource (Becker, 1962; Coff, 1997), its sourcing on internal and external labor markets and respective employment systems (Delery and Doty, 1996; Doeringer and Piore, 1971). Second, it focuses on the features of human capital resource (Barney, 1986; Chi, 1994; Doz and Hamel, 1998). Third, it conceptualizes the use of alliances based on co-specialization as organizational structures for investment in human capital across organizations and examines respective employment system and HR practices (Delery and Doty, 1996; Doeringer and Piore, 1971). As result, the author argues that an alliance can be an alternative mean to optimize returns on investment in human capital with strategic transferable knowledge. By consequence, the author describes an alliance employment system and illustrates the arguments with a case of human capital trading in a co-specialization alliance under a long-term management contract in the luxury hotel industry.

This paper discusses collaborative ventures as a sourcing strategy of the human capital. An alliance strategy is relevant for sourcing the strategic human capital resources. Human capital resource can be accessed by firms through transfer of skills and organizational routines within collaborative agreements, such as alliances based on co-specialization. In this case, alliance is an organizational architecture between organizations that improves the efficiency and productivity, reduces marginal cost on training due to larger scale of operations and reduces risk by splitting investment in human capital and by offering more career and development opportunities for strategic knowledge workers.

The aim of this article is to provide a holistic framework for the acquisition of strategic resources.

The literature dealing with resource creation is reviewed and analyzed from a resource‐based point of view. The major methods of acquiring resources are identified through the literature review and the applicability of the framework proposed is illustrated with an empirical example.

Three ways of acquiring strategic resources are identified – direct investments, organizational processes, and product market positioning. All three ways of acquisition can be intentional or unintentional. Arguments for using this six‐dimension scale are provided through deductive reasoning, literature review, and the empirical example.

The study identifies the six dimensions of strategic resource acquisition. However, integration of these dimensions is not a subject addressed in this study. Cluster analysis of companies according to these dimensions could enhance our understanding of the characteristics of companies regarding resource acquisition.

Whereas previous studies have generally used a single‐theory approach, this study highlights the importance of having a holistic outlook when analyzing resource‐based competitive advantages.

The purpose of this paper is to answer the question: how to extend resource-based theory to take into account the contribution of all kinds of resources (including the less regarded ones) to performance? While recognising the importance of strategic resources in building and sustaining a competitive advantage, the authors contend that a symmetric analysis of more available resources can shed new light on the sources and mechanisms of superior performance. Thus, they aim to contribute to an extended theory of resources.

Based on literature review and theorization process, the authors introduce alongside strategic resources, the concepts of “ordinary resources” and “junk resources”, showing how they may contribute to performance with an appropriate business model. Several illustrative cases are discussed to demonstrate that such resources need to be studied by resource-based theory (RBT).

The authors propose shifting the focus of RBT from the study of strategic resources alone in order to consider other types as well: ordinary and junk resources. Such an approach involves significant implications for strategic management theory and management practices.

The paper describes the conditions under which ordinary and junk resources (more available to most firms than strategic resources) may generate a competitive advantage. The extended resource-based theory can have implications for society as it may influence managers ' and public attitudes towards underestimated resources and lead to new business models.

The approach developed in this article also goes beyond traditional critiques of RBT. Specifically, the authors ' analysis avoids tautological reasoning, distinguishing between: resources; perceptions of their attributes by firms; the services these resources render; the business model implemented to deploy these resources; and the effects in terms of performance. The authors build an extended resource-based theory, allowing the contribution of various kinds of resources to firm performance to be explained.

Despite calls for more theoretical and strategically oriented work in logistics, the resource‐based theory of the firm (RBT), and the related capabilities approach ‐ which represent a dominant stream of research in strategic management over the last decade ‐ have not been prominent in the logistics literature. Provides a critical review of the large literature on the RBT and suggests areas where it can be applied to strategically‐oriented logistics research. Describes the resource‐based theory of the firm, its major assumptions, and its implications for strategic actions. Also discusses other areas of research where the RBT have been applied. Illustrates how the RBT represents the underlying theoretical support for one of the central propositions of strategic logistics: that a distinctive logistics capability is a source of sustainable competitive advantage and superior performance. Suggests that strategic logistics research may benefit from combining the RBT with organizational learning theory and evolutionary approaches to competition.

Strategic flexibility is largely considered a source of competitive advantage, yet strategic flexibility in relation to organizational resources and knowledge management (KM) process capability is not well studied. To address this gap, this study aims to assesses the relationship of organizational resources (technical and social resources) and strategic flexibility through KM process capability.

This paper is built on the assumptions of the resource-based view and the dynamic capability perspective of firm. Two types of organizational resources – technical and social – were identified from relevant literature. Data were collected from 23 small- and medium-sized firms (family owned firms) using a 37-item questionnaire. In addition to descriptive statistics, multiple hierarchical regressions and bootstrapping were used to test the study hypotheses.

Findings suggest that organizational resources are positively and significantly related with strategic flexibility, and KM process capability partially mediates these relationships.

The paper adds to strategic flexibility literature by exploring and assessing the linkage of organizational resources with strategic flexibility through KM process capability.

Findings of this research may help organizations and practitioners in enhancing strategic flexibility of firm.

A central goal of strategic management is to understand why some organizations outperform others. Based on the literature, we test the links among strategic resources, firm’s strategic orientation, and performance using data from 1,201 Spanish small and medium‐sized enterprises. The results can guide managers to invest in the appropriate resources since there is evidence that technology, innovation, quality, and human resource management leads to better company performance. It is also shown how strategic resources varies according to strategic orientation.

Our study proposes a resource environment view (REV) of competitive advantage by unpacking the environmental origins of a firm’s competitive advantage. The key tenet of the REV is that the heterogeneity and imperfect mobility of strategic factor markets and institutions across countries explain how firms based in different countries would likely both create and sustain a competitive advantage. In particular, our study introduces the notion of “the paradox of environmental embeddedness.” The paradox lies in the fact that the same environmental conditions – in terms of strategic factor markets and institutions – that enable firms to create a competitive advantage can paradoxically also create a situation in which it is more difficult for these firms to sustain an advantage. Another important aspect of our study is that, to enhance our understanding of how firms manage the paradox of environmental embeddedness, our study specifies the resource environmental conditions under which firms’ internal and external resource-oriented strategies – that is, the development of dynamic capabilities and interventions in the country resource environment – are more beneficial when managing the environmental paradox. Overall, our theorizing has important implications for strategic management theory and practice.