Firm and industry effects within strategic management :an empirical
Examination
战略管理中的公司和行业效应:一个实证检验
This study brings out the complementarities（互补性、互补） between resource-bad and industrial organization schools within strategic management through an empirical examination of firm and industry effects. A variance component analysis of 264 single-business companies from 69 industries using 5- and 15-year periods suggests that firm effects are more important than industry effects on firm performance, but not on core strategies such as technology and marketing. The findings also point to the need to study core strategies at lower levels of aggregation to understand the sources of competitive advantage.
本研究通过一个实证检验公司和行业对战略管理的影响提出了在资源型产业组织之间和学校战略管理的互补性。使用5 - 15年时间从拍嗝69个行业中采用方差分量分析264个单一业务公司,
表明公司比行业更加影响公司业绩管道工程施工方案,但不是在像技术和营销等核心策略。研究结果还表明十月里番,有必要研究核心策略在低水平的聚合来理解竞争优势的来源。
Introduction
Firm effects and industry effects capture the degree of heterogeneity within an industry .They underlie veral important concepts in strategic managements such as distinctive competence and competitive advantage. Yet two schools with significant influence in strategic management have been at odds with one another regarding the magnitude大小 and persistence持续 of firm effects. The resource-bad view argues that firm heterogeneity is significant and persistent, whereas industrial organization suggests that industry effects dominate over time.
企业效应和行业效应在一个行业中达到了异质性。他们构成战略管理中的几个重要概念如独特的竞争力和竞争优势。然而两个在战略管理上有重大影响力的学校已经不符合另一个关于强度和持久性的公司的影响的要求。资源基础理论认为,公司的非均质性是重要的和持久的,而工业组织表明,产业效应最终占支配地位。
Not only is there conflicting theoretical guidance, but there have also been few empirical studies. The empirical studies have focud on the performance variation among firms and industries, and have reported contradictory findings. None of the prior studies has examined the firm effects on strategies though it would help us understand ‘why firms differ’.
不仅有相互矛盾的理论指导,而且也有一些实证研究。这些实证研究都聚焦在公司和行业之间的性能差异,并且发现对立的调查结果。以前没有研究已经检查了公司战略的影响尽管它将帮助我们理解为什么公司不同的。
T石榴树盆景his study eks to bring out the complementarities between the resource-bad view and industrial organization through an empirical analysis. We estimate the firm and industry effects on core strategies as well as performance using a sample of nondiversified非多样化 companies over 5-year and 15-year periods. The results show the predominance of firm effects on performance but not on core strategies such as technology and marketing.
本研究试图通过实证分析发现资源基础论和产业组织之间的互补性。我们用5到15年的时间通过取样nondiversified大学四级英语词汇公司来估计公司和行业对核心策略的影响以及性能。结果显示的优势公司影响性能但不是技术和营销等核心策略。
Different perspectives （观点）on firm and industry effects
Firm effects capture the unique firm characteristics which influence the variation in strategies and performance outcomes across industries and firms, and industry effects refer to attributes common to an industry. The dominance of firm effects suggests heterogeneity becau of barriers to imitation and the inability of firms to change their resource endowments over time. In contrast, the dominance of industry effects over time shows the similarities in respon to industry conditions and the imitation of successful strategies.
不描写蜗牛的作文同的观点在公司和行业效应
公司效应获得独特的公司特征的效果，在各行业和企业中影响变异策略和性能结果,产业效
应指一个行业的共同属性。异质性在公司效应中占主导地位，因为模仿壁垒,公司没有能力最终改变他们的资源禀赋。【相比之下,在回应行业环境和模仿成功的战略上，产业效应最终占主导地位的结果显示了其相似性。】
The emerging resource-bad view of the firm focus on firm effects as the basis for sustainable competitive advantage. In this perspective, unique resource and idiosyncratic process drive heterogeneity among firms. Such unique resources can provide competitive advantage when protected from imitation and effective isolating mechanisms. Thus, the resource-bad view suggests that firm-specific attributes drive both strategies and performance outcomes, which stands in sharp contrast to the predominance of market structure in the industrial organization literature.
新兴的基于资源观点的公司专注于公司效应作为可持续的竞争优势的基础。从这个角度看,独特的资源和特殊的流程驱动企业之间的异质性。当从模仿和有效隔离机制不等式的概念获得保护时，这种独特的资源可以提供竞争优势。因此,基于资源的观点表明公司特有的属性驱动这两种策略和性能结果,与文学中市场结构在工业组织的优势形成鲜明的对比。
The main proponent of industry effects on strategies and performance is industrial organization. Several schools within industrial organization have propod market structure as the principal explanation for the emergence of common patterns of behavior and similar performance outcomes for firms in the same industry. However, some of its schools differ regarding the dynamics of industry structure as exogenous and stable, while the Schumpeterian and Chicago schools view market structure as dynamic and constantly evolving. The Schumpeterian school focus on revolutionary innovations that make rivals’ positions obsolete and change industry structure. Similarly, the Chicago school believes in the convergence of competitive patterns over the long term when the less successful ones. Despite the differences, the literature in industrial organization treats the industry as the unit of analysis, implicitly assuming that firms within an industry are homogeneous.单身公主相亲记
