As a potential theory, the elemental resource-based view {RBV) is not currently a theoretical structure. Moreover, RBV proponents have assumed stability in product markets and eschewed determining resources' values. As a perspective for strategic management, imprecise definitions hinder prescription and static approaches relegate causality to a "black box." We outline conceptual challenges for improving this situation, including rigorously formalizing the RBV, answering the causal "how" questions, incorporating the temporal component, and integrating the RBV with demand heterogeneity models.

No abstract

No abstract

Our "stakeholder synergy" perspective identifies new value creation opportunities that are especially effective strategically because a single strategic action (1) increases different types of value for two or more essential stakeholder groups simultaneously, and (2) (Freeman, 2010: 9) INTRODUCTIONValue creation is essential for strategic success. Yet, despite increasing consensus among strategy and stakeholder scholars that more attention to value creation-and especially to "shared" value creation-is warranted (e.g., Adner and Kapoor, 2010;Freeman, 2010;Freeman, Harrison, and Wicks, 2007;Porter and Kramer, 2011;Priem, 2007) improving their firms' value-creation strategies. Indeed, although stakeholder theorists have made progress in describing the "managing for stakeholders" process (Freeman, 2010;Freeman et al., 2007;Harrison, Bosse, and Phillips, 2010), the specific actions necessary for creating shared value remain underspecified. In a clear indicator of this gap in the literature, recent reviews of stakeholder theory have identified key unanswered questions, such as "How can firms create different types of value for different stakeholders?" (Parmar et al., 2010: 432), and "How [can firms] create value simultaneously for multiple stakeholders?" (Freeman et al., 2007: 53). These fundamental research questions motivate our study.This elemental "how" gap for value creation has been limiting stakeholder theory as a tool for strategic management. Any strategy-stakeholder integration also has been restrained by two widespread incommeasurability mindsets about value creation. One, originating from within the stakeholder literature, is that stakeholders have competing goals C. Tantalo and R. L. Priemthat require balancing by top managers, generally through a series of rotating trade-offs (see, e.g., Freeman 2010;Freeman et al., 2007). A second but closely related mindset, this one from outside the stakeholder literature, is that stakeholder theory is counter to shareholder value maximization, insofar as top managers must prioritize shareholders' interests above those of other stakeholders when making decisions (e.g., Jensen, 2001;Stout, 2012).We develop a new theoretical framework for realizing broader value creation for those stakeholder groups that are essential to a firm's survival-i.e., customers, financiers (including shareholders), suppliers, employees, and communities (Clarkson, 1995;Freeman, 2010;Freeman et al., 2007;Phillips, 2003). Our framework addresses the how gap for value creation by detailing ways in which value can be created for multiple essential stakeholder groups simultaneously. This is important for scholars and managers, because it explains one approach to locating and taking advantage of opportunities for shared value creation for two or more essential stakeholder groups, including shareholders, without subtracting value from any other essential stakeholder group. Thus, we offer an alternative paradigm in this article that counters both the stakeholders competing goals' assumption and t...

Venture creation is at the heart of entrepreneurship. Enterprising individuals or groups start new ventures and, thus, we must understand the role of individuals if we are to understand venture creation. In this article, we review and critique the venture creation literature that has examined the role of the individual, with an eye toward identifying under-researched topics and improving research designs. We then highlight individual judgment as a particularly important future direction for research on the role of enterprising individuals in venture creation. We also discuss techniques for accessing entrepreneurs and for evaluating entrepreneurial judgments.

The authors review the progress of three rapidly growing macro management literatures-in technology innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management-that have in common the use of a "demand-side" research perspective. Demand-side research looks downstream from the focal firm, toward product markets and consumers, to explain and predict those managerial decisions that increase value creation within a value system. Typical characteristics of demandside, macro-level management research include clearly distinguishing value creation from value capture, emphasizing product markets as key sources of value-creation strategies for firms, viewing consumer preferences as dynamic and sometimes latent, and recognizing that managers' differing decisions in response to consumer heterogeneity contribute to firm heterogeneity and, ultimately, value creation. The authors review recent demand-side findings showing that strategies based on consumer heterogeneity can result in competitive advantage even if the firm holds only obsolete or mundane resources, these advantages can be sustainable without Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Talya N. Bauer. Our special thanks to the demand-side research authors who allowed us to use their working papers in this review.

Trust plays a fundamental role in facilitating social exchange, yet recent global events have undermined trust in many of society's institutions and organizations. This raises the pertinent question of how trust in organizations and institutions can be restored once it is lost. The emerging literature on trust repair is largely focused at the micro-level, with limited examination of how these processes operate at the macro level and across levels. In this introductory essay, we show how the papers in this special issue each advance our understanding of macro-level trust repair. We draw on these papers, as well as the extant interdisciplinary literature, to propose an integrated conceptual model of six key mechanisms for restoring trust in organizations and institutions, highlighting the merits, limits and paradoxes of each. We conclude that no single mechanism can be relied on to rebuild organizational trust and identify a future research agenda for advancing scholarly understanding of organizational and institutional trust repair.

Chief executives must allocate their scarce time for scanning efforts among relevant domains of their firms' external environment and their firms' internal circumstances. We argue that high‐performing CEOs vary their relative scanning emphases on different domains according to the level of dynamism they perceive in their external environments. The concepts of dominant logic and sector importance were used to develop predictions about which external domains and which internal domains should receive relatively more or less scanning emphasis in external environments that, overall, are more dynamic or more stable. A field survey of 105 single‐business manufacturing firms evaluated CEOs' scanning emphases and firm performance. Results indicated that, for dynamic external environments, relatively more CEO attention to the task sectors of the external environment and to innovation‐related internal functions was associated with high performance. In stable external environments, however, simultaneously increased scanning of the general sectors in the external environment and efficiency‐related internal functions produced higher performance. These relationships were strongest between relative scanning emphases among domains and sales growth. We discuss the implications of these results for researchers and practitioners. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.