Competition, contingency, and the external structure of markets

Burt, Ronald S.; Guilarte, Miguel; Raider, Holly J.; Yasuda, Yuki

doi:10.1016/s0742-3322(02)19006-1

Cited by 19 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Firms who position themselves optimally in the market place would in fact be positioning themselves for future gains. This is consistent with the literature on CSC which suggests that investments in social capital are both strategic and long term (Burt, 2003;Burt, Guilarte, Raider, & Yasuda, 2002).…”

Section: Hypothesis Test Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Corporate Social Capital and Firm Performance

Lee¹,

Guthrie

Gallery

2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional corporate social capital formulations have been based on a firm's positioning within its network of market place alliances. This paper extends this model by incorporating firm status attributes of intellectual capital and corporate reputation into an integrated model for corporate social capital. An empirical study of some 155 firms in the global Information Technology sector was conducted, exploring the linkage between elements of corporate social capital and firm performance. A key contribution of this research is the specificity of the linkages identified between particular aspects of corporate social capital and firm performance. The results find that money matters, with financial soundness being the most predictive corporate social capital element for firm performance. Beyond financial soundness, a firm's market network centrality and human capital were significant predictors. For large or profitable firms, centrality was found to be a liability and internal capital an asset, in terms of firm performance. In contrast, for small or loss making firms the opposite is true, where centrality is an asset and internal capital a liability. Additionally, the direction of influence of centrality could change depending on which performance measure is used.

show abstract

Section: Hypothesis Test Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Corporate Social Capital and Firm Performance

Lee¹,

Guthrie

Gallery

2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Burt, Guilarte, Raider, and Yasuda (2002) demonstrate if the level of competition is low and the production costs of firms in a network is similar to outsiders, then the focal firms are likely to lock in with other firms in a network to reduce transaction costs. However, when a high level of competition significantly drives down the price quoted by outside suppliers, the incentives to trade with outsiders or strangers via arm's-length transactions are likely to grow.…”

Section: Formal Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relational exchanges versus arm’s-length transactions during institutional transitions

Zhou

Peng

2009

Asia Pac J Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sørensen (2002), for example, theorizes that the negative effects of cultural heterogeneity on firm performance will attenuate in volatile contexts, which ought to favor firms with a greater capacity for adaptation; however, he finds inconsistent support for this contention. Similarly, Kotrba et al (2012) report that the relationship between cultural heterogeneity and firm performance is contingent on various other cultural attributes and varies by performance indicator (e.g., market-to-book ratio versus return on assets), while Burt et al (2000) identify additional network-based market contingencies of strong cultures.…”

Section: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Cultural Heterogeneitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Duality in Diversity: Cultural Heterogeneity, Language, and Firm Performance

Corritore¹,

Goldberg²,

Srivastava³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does cultural heterogeneity in an organization relate to its underlying capacity for execution and innovation? Existing literature often understands cultural diversity as presenting a tradeoff between task coordination and creative problem-solving. This work assumes that diversity arises primarily through cultural differences between individuals. In contrast, we propose that diversity can also exist within persons such that cultural heterogeneity can be unpacked into two distinct forms: interpersonal and intrapersonal. We argue that the former tends to undermine coordination and portends worsening firm profitability, while the latter facilitates creativity and supports greater patenting success and more positive market valuations. To evaluate these propositions, we use unsupervised learning to identify cultural content in employee reviews of nearly 500 publicly traded firms on a leading company review website and then develop novel, time-varying measures of cultural heterogeneity. Our empirical results lend support for our two core propositions, demonstrating that a diversity of cultural beliefs in an organization does not necessarily impose a trade-off between operational efficiency and creativity. * We thank Glassdoor for providing the employee review data and Lee Fleming for sharing the patent data that we used in this study. We also thank seminar participants at University of Illinois School of Labor and Employment Relations; University of Chicago, Booth School of Business; IESE Business School; Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University; Arison School of Business at IDC Herzliya, Israel; and participants at the Lugano Organizations Conference, the Stanford/Berkeley Organizational Behavior Student Conference, the Consortium on Competitiveness and Cooperation Conference for Doctoral Student Research at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, the Carnegie School of Organizational Learning Conference, and the International Conference on Computational Social Science. We are also grateful to Lara Yang for the research support she provided. The usual disclaimer applies. 1Whether deliberatively cultivated or naturally arising, every organization develops a culture-a system of meanings and norms shared by its members. An organization's culture can influence the success of its members and the organization as a whole through its effects on individual motivation and commitment, interpersonal coordination, and group creativity and innovation (Chatman and O'Reilly, 2016). Although organizational scholars often ask how the content or intensity of culture relates to performance-for example, how shared beliefs and norms about the importance of crossfunctional collaboration can boost or diminish firm profitability-a growing literature has focused instead on the consequences of cultural heterogeneity for organizational productivity and vitality.Research in this vein asks: When is a diversity of ideas and beliefs conducive to organizational success and when is it instead detrimental? Different li...

show abstract

Competition, contingency, and the external structure of markets

Cited by 19 publications

References 35 publications

Corporate Social Capital and Firm Performance

Corporate Social Capital and Firm Performance

Relational exchanges versus arm’s-length transactions during institutional transitions

Duality in Diversity: Cultural Heterogeneity, Language, and Firm Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About