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.importance of industry, corporate, and business unit effects on firm performance. Since the seminal studies of Schmalensee (1985) and Rumelt (1991) on this issue, several scholars have entered the debate (From a practical standpoint, the identification of the factors which most substantially contribute to firm performance would enable managers to focus their attention on influential factors rather than peripheral ones.Despite the vast attention this line of inquiry has received, however, this literature offers varying conclusions about the relative contribution of each effect to firm performance (see Bowman and Helfat, 2001, for a comprehensive review). The

We draw from theories of institutions and collective identities to present a threefold framework of institutional change-involving institutional logics, resources, and social actors-that furthers our understanding of the mitigation of corruption. Those social actors intent on reforming corruption function as institutional entrepreneurs, and their success depends both on articulating an anticorruption institutional logic that incorporates corruption-disabling identities, cognitive schemas, and practices and on having or developing the resources necessary to propagate the new anticorruption institutional logic. We thank Sandra Robinson and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

In a quasi‐experiment of 38 self‐managed undergraduate teams, we examined the effects of team designs that differed with respect to the form of member evaluation and team leadership. Relative to teams that relied on external evaluations, teams with peer evaluations had higher levels of workload sharing, voice, cooperation, performance, and member satisfaction. Relative to teams that relied on leader emergence, teams that rotated leadership among members had higher levels of voice, cooperation, and performance. Overall, results of the study demonstrate the potential importance of team‐design decisions in self‐managed teams.

The authors present qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as a viable method for strategic management research. Specifically, they demonstrate its ability to examine the potential interdependence and complexity among effects through a study of how industry, corporate, and business-unit attributes combine in determining business-unit performance. They present in an accessible manner the consecutive phases of the QCA approach by analyzing a sample of 2,841 cases of business-unit performance, and they examine the insights that the QCA analysis provides for this particular stream of literature. The authors conclude with a discussion of the benefits and limitations QCA poses for strategic management research more generally, including major contingencies under which QCA or linear methods may be more appropriate for strategy research.