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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the increasing significance of corporate ethics, few studies have explored the intermediate mechanisms that explain the relationship between corporate ethics and firm financial performance. Drawing on institutional theory and strategic human resource management literature, the authors hypothesize that the internal collective processes based on employees’ collective organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) mediate the ethics–performance relationship at the organizational level. The authors’ hypotheses are tested using data collected from 3,821 employees from 130 Korean companies and the respective companies’ financial performance data. The results indicate that collective organizational commitment and interpersonal OCB are meaningful intervening processes that connect corporate ethics to firm financial performance. To complement prior studies that identify a firm’s reputation and external relations as mediators between corporate ethics and performance, the present study highlights the need to examine microprocesses occurring within the organization to account for the ethics–firm performance relationship. Moreover, the present demonstration of collective organizational commitment and OCB as meaningful predictors of a firm’s objective performance indicates the significance of these employee processes in explaining organizational-level outcomes.
    Journal of Management 05/2013; 39(4):853-877. · 4.59 Impact Factor
  • [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;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper examines if a firm's alliances affect the persistence of its financial performance. The literature suggests two conflicting views concerning this effect. In particular, access to resources and innovation and the risk of imitation from alliances can have different impacts on performance. In our empirical analysis, based on a panel of 509 firms covering the years 1992 to 2002, return on assets was regressed on the number of alliances and other control variables using hierarchical linear modeling. Results support the positive view of alliances as mechanisms to sustain competitive advantage and escape from competitive disadvantage through access to external, valuable resources held by other firms. Alliances also help firms to constantly innovate and buffer themselves from external shocks that erode existing advantages. Our results, however, may be specific to the period and the institutional context under consideration and we do not distinguish between types, purposes and "strength" of alliances. We contribute to the debate about profit persistence by examining one particular factor that has been neglected in the literature: the extent to which firms engage in alliances with other actors. From a managerial perspective, our study shows that alliances can be used as an effective tool to support superior performance or avoid lock-in into inferior performance.
    BAR - Brazilian Administration Review 03/2013; 10(1):1-17.


Available from