Alternative Definitions of the Strategic Group and Explaining Value of Differences in Results
| Autor(a) principal: | |
|---|---|
| Data de Publicação: | 2010 |
| Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
| Idioma: | por eng spa |
| Título da fonte: | Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) |
| Texto Completo: | https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/496 |
Resumo: | The relationship between strategic groups and firm performance has been recurrently analysed for more than three decades. As can be confirmed by this work, the evidence found supports as well as refutes the significance of belonging to a specific strategic group in order to explain performance differences. Hence, in this work we have tried to review previous literature to provide a reasonable explanation to unevenness found in the empirical findings. This aim obliges us, firstly, to review previous literature taking into account alternative definitions of strategic group proposed by studies rooted in different theoretical traditions, strategic positioning approach, resource-based theory and cognitive psychology. Secondly, we have posed some propositions about the performance differences explaining power of alternative strategic group definitions rooted in these different theories. To contrast these propositions we have carried out an empirical work in the electric lighting equipment producers industry, using different measures of profitability, growth and productivity and their risk adjusted associated measures. First we have conducted ANOVA and post hoc analysis, to assess performance differences, using separately the different strategic group structures identified by cluster analysis. We have also conducted a two-factor ANOVA analysis, using input market positioning and output market positioning as independent variables. Our results show that the explaining power of strategic group structures of the industry is scarce, but the results are quite better when we take into account both, input market positioning and output market positioning. This is consistent with the hypothesis that a particular bundle of resources and capabilities fits better with a particular product-market strategy than with others.Key words: Strategic group. Cognitive group. Competitive group. Explaining power. |
| id |
FECAP-3_8df0b59e51ec6b4904a9ae2377da377b |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.emnuvens.com.br:article/496 |
| network_acronym_str |
FECAP-3 |
| network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) |
| repository_id_str |
|
| spelling |
Alternative Definitions of the Strategic Group and Explaining Value of Differences in ResultsLas Definiciones Alternativas de Grupo Estratégico y su Valor Explicativo de las Diferencias en ResultadosAs Definições Alternativas de Grupo Estratégico e o Valor Explicativo das Diferenças em ResultadosStrategic group. Cognitive group. Competitive group. Explaining power.Grupo estratégico. Grupo cognitivo. Grupo competitivo. Valor explicativo.Grupo estratégico. Grupo cognitivo. Grupo competitivo. Valor explicativo.The relationship between strategic groups and firm performance has been recurrently analysed for more than three decades. As can be confirmed by this work, the evidence found supports as well as refutes the significance of belonging to a specific strategic group in order to explain performance differences. Hence, in this work we have tried to review previous literature to provide a reasonable explanation to unevenness found in the empirical findings. This aim obliges us, firstly, to review previous literature taking into account alternative definitions of strategic group proposed by studies rooted in different theoretical traditions, strategic positioning approach, resource-based theory and cognitive psychology. Secondly, we have posed some propositions about the performance differences explaining power of alternative strategic group definitions rooted in these different theories. To contrast these propositions we have carried out an empirical work in the electric lighting equipment producers industry, using different measures of profitability, growth and productivity and their risk adjusted associated measures. First we have conducted ANOVA and post hoc analysis, to assess performance differences, using separately the different strategic group structures identified by cluster analysis. We have also conducted a two-factor ANOVA analysis, using input market positioning and output market positioning as independent variables. Our results show that the explaining power of strategic group structures of the industry is scarce, but the results are quite better when we take into account both, input market positioning and output market positioning. This is consistent with the hypothesis that a particular bundle of resources and capabilities fits better with a particular product-market strategy than with others.Key words: Strategic group. Cognitive group. Competitive group. Explaining power.La relación grupos estratégicos-resultados ha sido analizada de forma recurrente durante más de tres décadas. Sin embargo, hasta el momento, la evidencia empírica proporcionada ha resultado escasa y conflictiva. El presente trabajo trata de ofrecer una explicación razonable a las inconsistencias observadas en los resultados obtenidos. Para ello, hemos analizado contribuciones que surgen del enfoque del posicionamiento, el enfoque de recursos y capacidades y la psicología cognitiva, lo que nos ha permitido plantear una serie de hipótesis, con relación al valor explicativo de las diferencias en resultados de las concepciones alternativas de grupo estratégico que emanan de estas diferentes tradiciones teóricas. El análisis de las diferencias en resultados entre grupos se ha llevado a cabo en el sector de fabricantes de aparatos de iluminación españoles, utilizando diversas medidas de rentabilidad, crecimiento y productividad, así como sus medidas ajustadas al riesgo. El análisis se ha basado en la realización de diferentes ANOVA, así como pruebas post hoc para valorar las diferencias en resultados, utilizando por separado, las distintas estructuras de grupo identificadas utilizando diversos modelos de análisis de conglomerados. También se utilizó un ANOVA de dos factores, considerando simultáneamente el posicionamiento producto-mercado y el posicionamiento en el mercado de factores para explicar las diferencias en resultados. Los resultados obtenidos nos indicaron que el valor explicativo de los grupos, era escaso, pero mejoraba considerablemente cuando se tenían en cuenta simultáneamente las dos estructuras de grupo señaladas. Ello es coherente con la hipótesis de que una particular dotación de recursos y capacidades puede hacer más efectiva una determinada estrategia producto-mercado.Palabras-clave: Grupo estratégico. Grupo cognitivo. Grupo competitivo. Valor explicativo.A relação grupos estratégicos-resultados tem sido analisada de forma recorrente durante mais de três décadas. Porém, até o momento, a evidência empírica que oferece resulta escassa e conflitante. O presente trabalho busca uma explicação razoável para as inconsistências observadas nos resultados obtidos. Com esta finalidade analisamos contribuições que surgem do enfoque do posicionamento, o enfoque de recursos e capacidades e a psicologia cognitiva, isto nos permitiu expor uma série de hipóteses, com relação ao valor explicativo das diferenças em resultados das concepções alternativas de grupo estratégico que emanam dessas diferentes tradições teóricas. A análise das diferenças em resultados entre grupos se realizou no setor de fabricantes de equipamentos de iluminação espanhóis, utilizando diversas medidas de rentabilidade, crescimento e produtividade, como também suas medidas ajustadas ao risco. Esta análise fundamentou-se na realização de diferentes ANOVA, e também em testes post hoc para avaliar as diferenças em resultados, utilizando separadamente as diferentes estruturas de grupo identificadas por meio de diversos modelos de análise de conglomerados. Também se utilizou uma ANOVA de dois fatores, considerando simultaneamente o posicionamento produto-mercado e o posicionamento no mercado de fatores para explicar as diferenças em resultados. Os resultados obtidos indicaram que o valor explicativo dos grupos era escasso, mas melhorava consideravelmente quando eram levadas em conta simultaneamente as duas estruturas de grupo assinaladas. Isto é coerente com a hipótese de que, uma particular dotação de recursos e capacidades pode tornar mais efetiva uma determinada estratégia produto-mercado.Palavras-chave: Grupo estratégico. Grupo cognitivo. Grupo competitivo. Valor explicativo.FECAP2010-04-05info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionAvaliado por paresapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/49610.7819/rbgn.v12i34.496Review of Business Management; Vol. 12 No. 34 (2010); 73-99RBGN Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios; Vol. 12 Núm. 34 (2010); 73-99RBGN - Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios; v. 12 n. 34 (2010); 73-991983-08071806-4892reponame:Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online)instname:Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (FECAP)instacron:FECAPporengspahttps://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/496/582https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/496/583https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/496/584Copyright (c) 2014 Review of Business Managementinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRevuelto Taboada, Lorenzo2021-07-21T16:41:35Zoai:ojs.emnuvens.com.br:article/496Revistahttp://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/indexhttps://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/oai||jmauricio@fecap.br1983-08071806-4892opendoar:2021-07-21T16:41:35Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) - Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (FECAP)false |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Alternative Definitions of the Strategic Group and Explaining Value of Differences in Results Las Definiciones Alternativas de Grupo Estratégico y su Valor Explicativo de las Diferencias en Resultados As Definições Alternativas de Grupo Estratégico e o Valor Explicativo das Diferenças em Resultados |
| title |
Alternative Definitions of the Strategic Group and Explaining Value of Differences in Results |
| spellingShingle |
Alternative Definitions of the Strategic Group and Explaining Value of Differences in Results Revuelto Taboada, Lorenzo Strategic group. Cognitive group. Competitive group. Explaining power. Grupo estratégico. Grupo cognitivo. Grupo competitivo. Valor explicativo. Grupo estratégico. Grupo cognitivo. Grupo competitivo. Valor explicativo. |
| title_short |
Alternative Definitions of the Strategic Group and Explaining Value of Differences in Results |
| title_full |
Alternative Definitions of the Strategic Group and Explaining Value of Differences in Results |
| title_fullStr |
Alternative Definitions of the Strategic Group and Explaining Value of Differences in Results |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Alternative Definitions of the Strategic Group and Explaining Value of Differences in Results |
| title_sort |
Alternative Definitions of the Strategic Group and Explaining Value of Differences in Results |
| author |
Revuelto Taboada, Lorenzo |
| author_facet |
Revuelto Taboada, Lorenzo |
| author_role |
author |
| dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Revuelto Taboada, Lorenzo |
| dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Strategic group. Cognitive group. Competitive group. Explaining power. Grupo estratégico. Grupo cognitivo. Grupo competitivo. Valor explicativo. Grupo estratégico. Grupo cognitivo. Grupo competitivo. Valor explicativo. |
| topic |
Strategic group. Cognitive group. Competitive group. Explaining power. Grupo estratégico. Grupo cognitivo. Grupo competitivo. Valor explicativo. Grupo estratégico. Grupo cognitivo. Grupo competitivo. Valor explicativo. |
| description |
The relationship between strategic groups and firm performance has been recurrently analysed for more than three decades. As can be confirmed by this work, the evidence found supports as well as refutes the significance of belonging to a specific strategic group in order to explain performance differences. Hence, in this work we have tried to review previous literature to provide a reasonable explanation to unevenness found in the empirical findings. This aim obliges us, firstly, to review previous literature taking into account alternative definitions of strategic group proposed by studies rooted in different theoretical traditions, strategic positioning approach, resource-based theory and cognitive psychology. Secondly, we have posed some propositions about the performance differences explaining power of alternative strategic group definitions rooted in these different theories. To contrast these propositions we have carried out an empirical work in the electric lighting equipment producers industry, using different measures of profitability, growth and productivity and their risk adjusted associated measures. First we have conducted ANOVA and post hoc analysis, to assess performance differences, using separately the different strategic group structures identified by cluster analysis. We have also conducted a two-factor ANOVA analysis, using input market positioning and output market positioning as independent variables. Our results show that the explaining power of strategic group structures of the industry is scarce, but the results are quite better when we take into account both, input market positioning and output market positioning. This is consistent with the hypothesis that a particular bundle of resources and capabilities fits better with a particular product-market strategy than with others.Key words: Strategic group. Cognitive group. Competitive group. Explaining power. |
| publishDate |
2010 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2010-04-05 |
| dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Avaliado por pares |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/496 10.7819/rbgn.v12i34.496 |
| url |
https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/496 |
| identifier_str_mv |
10.7819/rbgn.v12i34.496 |
| dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por eng spa |
| language |
por eng spa |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/496/582 https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/496/583 https://rbgn.fecap.br/RBGN/article/view/496/584 |
| dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2014 Review of Business Management info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2014 Review of Business Management |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
FECAP |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
FECAP |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Review of Business Management; Vol. 12 No. 34 (2010); 73-99 RBGN Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios; Vol. 12 Núm. 34 (2010); 73-99 RBGN - Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios; v. 12 n. 34 (2010); 73-99 1983-0807 1806-4892 reponame:Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) instname:Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (FECAP) instacron:FECAP |
| instname_str |
Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (FECAP) |
| instacron_str |
FECAP |
| institution |
FECAP |
| reponame_str |
Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) |
| collection |
Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios (Online) - Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (FECAP) |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||jmauricio@fecap.br |
| _version_ |
1798942367545294848 |