Resource Allocation as an Outcropping of Strategic Consistency: Performance Implications
TL;DR: Similarities in financial resource allocations across the lines of business of diversified firms may indicate corporate strategic consistency, which may lead to superior corporate performance as discussed by the authors. But, as discussed in Section 2.
Abstract: Similarities in financial resource allocations across the lines of business of diversified firms may indicate corporate strategic consistency, which may lead to superior corporate performance. In s...
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The authors examined the relationship between international diversification and performance by matching a sample of 400 U.S. and 400 Korean firms on industry type and testing the relationship over five years (1992-1996).
Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between international diversification and performance by matching a sample of 400 U.S. and 400 Korean firms on industry type and testing the relationship over five years (1992–1996). Results indicate that U.S. firms show a positive association with regard to international diversification and performance, but a negative relationship between product diversification and performance. Korean firms, however, show a positive association with both types of diversification. In addition, Korean firms' strategies were associated more with sales‐based measures, while U.S. firms were associated more closely with profit‐based measures. These results suggest that the two countries do not approach diversification in the same way.
26 citations
TL;DR: It is suggested that directors will make stronger internal attributions about firm performance when the CEO engages in high levels of corporate strategic investment, and that CEOs that invest in firm growth essentially “place their bets,” so the pay‐for‐performance relationship is stronger for them than it is for CEOs who do not invest as much in firms growth.
Abstract: Research Summary A number of studies examine the extent to which boards compensate CEOs for their firm's performance (i.e., pay‐for‐performance), but these studies typically do not incorporate what CEOs actually do to bring about those performance outcomes. We suggest that directors will make stronger internal attributions about firm performance when the CEO engages in high levels of corporate strategic investment. CEOs that invest in firm growth essentially “place their bets,” so the pay‐for‐performance relationship is stronger for them than it is for CEOs who do not invest as much in firm growth. We also theorize and find that directors make internal attributions about firm performance more for prestigious, but not less prestigious, CEOs and more when the directors collectively exhibit conservative, but not liberal, political ideologies. Managerial Summary Shareholders and other stakeholders often demand that CEOs should be paid for performance. In other words, CEOs should be paid well when the company is performing well and paid less when the company is not performing well. We add an additional dimension: boards might also consider what CEOs actually do to bring about performance outcomes. Our findings suggest that when CEOs make heavy corporate investments, they essentially “place their bets.” In this scenario, boards attribute performance to the CEO so that CEO compensation rises and falls with company performance. When CEOs make fewer corporate investments, their compensation is not as strongly associated with company performance. This primary relationship is particularly true when CEOs have high social recognition or when the directors are collectively conservative.
24 citations
21 citations
TL;DR: This article presented new measures of technological and customer-side relatedness constructed from widely available secondary data, which significantly outperform established measures in explaining variation in firm performance across firms and over time, and both sources of relatedness are found to be independent and significant explanations of firm performance.
Abstract: This paper presents new measures of technological and customer-side relatedness constructed from widely available secondary data. Relatedness is a concept central to predicting the existence and nature of a relationship between corporate diversification and firm performance. Yet, finding appropriate measures has been an ongoing struggle. The widely used SIC-based entropy measure has low construct validity, and survey-based measures are hard to replicate across firms and industries and over time. The measures we develop significantly outperform established measures in explaining variation in firm performance across firms and over time, and both sources of relatedness are found to be independent and significant explanations of firm performance.
18 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a theoretical review about the influence of corporate diversification strategy on performance is presented, and explanations for who consent in the literature does not still exist: if differences between the performance of the firms associated with exist the different strategies of diversification, and if the national environment is a determining factor of the performance.
17 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the link between firm resources and sustained competitive advantage and analyzed the potential of several firm resources for generating sustained competitive advantages, including value, rareness, imitability, and substitutability.
46,648 citations
Additional excerpts
...Causal ambiguity exists when the relationship between the resources a firm controls and the profits they create are imperfectly understood (Barney, 1991)....
[...]
...A Resource-based Perspective on Diversification From a resource-based view, business executives should manage diversified resources so as to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991), which should lead to short- and long-term economic profits (Mahoney & Pandian, 1992)....
[...]
...A key issue in determining whether a resource can generate profits is whether it is idiosyncratic (Barney, 1991; Mahoney & Pandian, 1992)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the usefulness of analyzing firms from the resource side rather than from the product side, in analogy to entry barriers and growth-share matrices, the concepts of resource position barrier and resource-product matrices are suggested.
Abstract: Summary The paper explores the usefulness of analysing firms from the resource side rather than from the product side. In analogy to entry barriers and growth-share matrices, the concepts of resource position barrier and resource-product matrices are suggested. These tools are then used to highlight the new strategic options which naturally emerge from the resource perspective.
18,677 citations
Additional excerpts
...The purpose of this article is to present theory and empirical evidence that support a resource-based view of the relationship between diversification and performance (Barney, 1988; Harrison, Hitt, Hoskisson, & Ireland, 1991; Mahoney & Pandian, 1992; Wernerfelt, 1984)....
[...]
...The findings reported herein lend some support to the viability of a resource-based approach to the study of diversity (Harrison et al., 1991; Mahoney & Pandian, 1992; Wernerfelt, 1984)....
[...]
01 Jan 1998
TL;DR: Porter's concept of the value chain disaggregates a company into "activities", or the discrete functions or processes that represent the elemental building blocks of competitive advantage as discussed by the authors, has become an essential part of international business thinking, taking strategy from broad vision to an internally consistent configuration of activities.
Abstract: COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE introduces a whole new way of understanding what a firm does. Porter's groundbreaking concept of the value chain disaggregates a company into 'activities', or the discrete functions or processes that represent the elemental building blocks of competitive advantage. Now an essential part of international business thinking, COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE takes strategy from broad vision to an internally consistent configuration of activities. Its powerful framework provides the tools to understand the drivers of cost and a company's relative cost position. Porter's value chain enables managers to isolate the underlying sources of buyer value that will command a premium price, and the reasons why one product or service substitutes for another. He shows how competitive advantage lies not only in activities themselves but in the way activities relate to each other, to supplier activities, and to customer activities. That the phrases 'competitive advantage' and 'sustainable competitive advantage' have become commonplace is testimony to the power of Porter's ideas. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE has guided countless companies, business school students, and scholars in understanding the roots of competition. Porter's work captures the extraordinary complexity of competition in a way that makes strategy both concrete and actionable.
17,979 citations
"Resource Allocation as an Outcroppi..." refers background in this paper
...For example, it is possible for two companies to produce the same product but have very different perspectives on the usefulness of research and development in the way it is produced (Porter, 1985)....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1959
TL;DR: In this article, the authors studied the role of large and small firms in a growing economy and found that large firms are more likely to acquire and merge smaller firms in order to increase their size.
Abstract: Introduction Preface 1. Introduction 2. The Firm in Theory 3. The Productive Opportunity of the Firm and the 'Entrepreneur' 4. Expansion Without Merger: The Receding Managerial Limit 5. 'Inherited' Resources and the Direction of Expansion 6. The Economies of Size and the Economies of Growth 7. The Economics of Diversification 8. Expansion Through Acquisition and Merger 9. The Rate of Growth of Firms Through Time 10. The Position of Large and Small Firms in a Growing Economy 11. Growing Firms in a Growing Economy: The Process of Industrial Concentration and the Pattern of Dominance
14,137 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1983
13,643 citations
Additional excerpts
...Barney classified firm resources into three types: physical (Williamson, 1975), human (Becker, 1964), and organizational (Tomer, 1987)....
[...]
...From a transaction-cost-economics perspective, the question is whether the advantages related-diversified firms gain can be just as easily obtained by their competitors as they trade goods and services in an open market (Teece, 1984; Williamson, 1975)....
[...]