Article

A new perspective on a fundamental debate: a multilevel approach to industry, corporate, and business unit effects

Strategic Management Journal (Impact Factor: 3.78). 05/2006; 27(6):571 - 590. DOI:10.1002/smj.530

ABSTRACT We utilized a multilevel approach to both estimate the relative importance of industry, corporate, and business segment effects on firm performance, as well as to demonstrate how it enables the investigation of specific strategic factors within each class of effects. Our results confirmed previous findings suggesting that although business segment effects carry the most relative importance, industry and corporate effects are also important. Among the findings regarding specific factors, we found that industry concentration and munificence, as well as the resource environment provided by corporate parents, impact performance. These findings suggest that investigators should consider both industry and corporate environments when examining performance. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0 0
 · 
4 Bookmarks
 · 
276 Views
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While the perceptual nature of corporate reputation is rarely contested, the role of governance and firm financial performance does not have the same consensus. As reputation is an embedded capability that cannot be distinctly valued or traded, the ambiguity in reputation generation clouds researchers’ attempts to understand the relative importance of the underlying causal factors, particularly firm-specific attributes like board characteristics, governance and ownership—independent of the firm’s financial performance over time. Utilizing a resource—based view, we develop a theoretically grounded framework that enables us to deconstruct corporate reputation and parse out the impact at multiple levels and the factors therein. We decompose reputation into time, firm and industry level factors, offer hypotheses on the relative importance of the factors at each level, and thereafter we simultaneously assess within and across the temporal, firm and industry levels to quantify the impact of the causal factors. We find that 49.65 % of the variation in corporate reputation is firm-specific, independent of financial performance, while industry-specific variables account for just 5.04 %. The temporal factors including the multi-level interaction terms explain 46.06 % of reputational variation, of which financial performance accounts for only 18.53 % and the “halo effect” of prior financial performance is short-lived. Furthermore, the commonly accepted factors explain only 26.44 % of the total variation in corporate reputation, and some of the governance and ownership indicators contradict generally accepted agency expectations.
    Journal of Management and Governance 11/2013;
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose – This paper seeks to address the following question: What causes firms to choose brand creation vs brand acquisition for brand portfolio expansion? Design/methodology/approach – A multilevel interdisciplinary conceptual model is developed with nine factors at three levels of influence: the market, firm, and brand portfolio. Using 125 brand acquisitions and creations for 22 firms between 2001 and 2007, the model is tested using logistic regression to determine which factors significantly influence brand portfolio expansion strategy and whether they encourage acquisition or creation. Findings – Significant factors were found at the market and firm levels, with competitive intensity of the market having the strongest effect, followed by the firm's financial leverage, market concentration, and market growth. Practical implications – Contrary to prior expectations, external factors at the market and firm levels have an impact on choice of acquisition vs creation. However, internal firm factors may serve as moderators of strategy effectiveness. Originality/value – This is the first study to empirically examine factors affecting the brand portfolio expansion strategy via brand creation versus brand acquisition across a variety of industries. From a methodological standpoint, one of the more serious and persistent problems facing prior brand research is the lack of brand-level data, but this paper's approach overcomes this limitation by using media expenditures in the AdSpender database to represent brands within a category/market.
    Journal of Product &amp Brand Management 07/2011; 20(4):268-281.
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the magnitude of country, industry and firm-specific effects for firms competing in emerging economies and also explore differences between high and low performers. Design/methodology/approach – The authors use ANOVA methodologies on samples from firms competing in Latin America between 1990-2006. Findings – It was found that the firm-specific effect is the most important one, and relatively equivalent in magnitude to the firm-specific effects found in developed countries. Country and industry effects are less important than the firm-specific effect. Contrary to previous studies that indicate that the country effect is relatively more important in emerging economies, the authors found that it is even less important than the industry effect, a result that has important implications for strategic management and international business theory. The source behind the strong firm-specific effects might stem from their resources and capabilities to manage and take advantage of the institutional and macroeconomic environments. Further analysis indicates that the firm-specific effect is relatively more important for firms showing high performance than for those firms showing low performance. Research limitations/implications – Through these findings the authors feel that further research is needed so as to arm future managers with a more clear and comprehensive strategy when doing business in a Latin American country. The paper's findings are specific for large public corporations in Latin America. Practical implications – The paper allows managers to think about sources of competitive advantages in emerging economies. Originality/value – The paper shows that, despite weak institutional contexts and highly volatile macroeconomic environments, managers in the region should be able to obtain substantial differences in economic performances within the region. Activities needed for such differentiation might differ from those carried out in developed countries, with more emphasis on managing institutional voids and periods of economic and political cycles but the result should be the same.
    International Journal of Emerging Markets 06/2012; 7(3):263-288.

Full-text

View
26 Downloads
Available from

Vilmos F. Misangyi