Seeing The Big Picture: The Influence Of Industry, Diversification, And Business Strategy On Performance

Stimpert, J. L.; Duhaime, Irene M.

doi:10.5465/257053

Cited by 59 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Rapid change in technology and the rise of the information age means that the nature and pace of firm competition are likely to be different (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995;Hitt, Keats, & DeMarie, 1998;Stimpert & Duhaime, 1997). Oftentimes, competitors strive to overcome others' technological capabilities, rendering the current technological standard obsolete.…”

Section: Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theory and research in strategic management: swings of a pendulum

Hoskisson

1999

Journal of Management

330

441

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theory and research in strategic management: swings of a pendulum

Hoskisson

1999

Journal of Management

330

441

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Amit & Livnat, 1989;Davis & Duhaime, 1992;Davis & Thomas, 1993) and used them in different ways, such as calculating the measures based on line of business data versus segment data (e.g. Farjoun, 1994;Montgomery & Hariharan, 1991;; longitudinal versus cross sectional (Bergh, 1995); and different levels of analysis (Stimpert & Duhaime, 1997).…”

Section: Insert Table 2 Here ----------------------------------The Mementioning

confidence: 99%

Redirecting Research Efforts on the Diversification–Performance Linkage: The Search for Synergy

Ahuja

Novelli

2017

ANNALS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their very constructive and insightful comments through the review process. Elena Novelli also gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the ESRC Future Research Leaders Scheme (Grant ES/K001388/1) and Cass Business School. Gautam Ahuja would like to thank the University of Michigan for support. 2 AbstractWe review the literature on the diversification-performance (D-P) relationship to a) propose that the time is ripe for a renewed attack on understanding the relationship between diversification and firm performance, and b) outline a new approach to attacking the question.Our paper makes four main contributions. First, through a review of the literature we establish the inherent complexities in the D-P relationship and the methodological challenges confronted by the literature in reaching its current conclusion of a non-linear relationship between diversification and performance. Second, we argue that to better guide managers the literature needs to develop along a complementary path -whereas past research has often focused on answering the big question of does diversification affect firm performance, this second path would focus more on identifying the precise micro-mechanisms through which diversification adds or subtracts value. Third, we outline a new approach to the investigation of this topic, based on (a) identifying the precise underlying mechanisms through which diversification affects performance; (b) identifying performance outcomes that are "proximate" to the mechanism that the researcher is studying, and (c) identifying an appropriate research design that can enable a causal claim. Finally, we outline a set of directions for future research.3

show abstract

“…As such, the concept applies best to a corporation's or business unit's perceived relationships to its externaland often also internal-environment. For instance, the belief of the synergistic relatedness of the business units to each other (Stimpert, & Duhaime, 1997) is a part of the industry/corporate recipe as well as the perceived legitimacy of sustaining a certain set of multiple units or a certain level of diversification (Benner, 2007;Berger, & Ofek, 1995;Comment, & Jarrell, 1995;Kose, & Ofek, 1995;Lang, & Stulz, 1994;LeBaron, & Speindell, 1987;Porter, 1987;Zuckerman, 2000).…”

Section: Cognitive Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic management of business model transformation: lessons from Nokia

Aspara

Lamberg

Laukia

et al. 2011

Management Decision

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:We offer a conceptualization of how and why corporate level strategic change may build on historical differentiation at business unit level.Design/methodology/approach: Methodologically, we report an historical case study of Nokia Practical implications:Our results highlight the importance of corporate level 'market mechanisms' that allow promising strategic alternatives to emerge and select out inferior options.In this process, a key mechanism is the exchange of executives and cognitive mindsets between business units and corporate headquarters (CHQ). Originality/value:The reported research offers an original contribution by (a) showing the dynamic interplay of cognitive and organizational change processes, and (b) highlighting the importance on building on existing capabilities and competencies despite the pressure to demonstrate strong turnaround activities.

show abstract

Seeing The Big Picture: The Influence Of Industry, Diversification, And Business Strategy On Performance

Cited by 59 publications

References 49 publications

Theory and research in strategic management: swings of a pendulum

Theory and research in strategic management: swings of a pendulum

Redirecting Research Efforts on the Diversification–Performance Linkage: The Search for Synergy

Strategic management of business model transformation: lessons from Nokia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About