Do strategic groups differ in reputation?

Ferguson, Tamela D.; Deephouse, David L.; Ferguson, William L.

doi:10.1002/1097-0266(200012)21:12<1195::aid-smj138>3.0.co;2-r

Cited by 170 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To avoid the limitations of regression analysis for studying configurations, in a considerable number of studies, researchers have instead employed cluster analysis (e.g., Bensaou & Venkatraman, 1995;Cool & Schendel, 1987;Desarbo, Di Benedetto, Song, & Sinha, 2005;Dess & Davis, 1984;Ferguson, Deephouse, & Ferguson, 2000;Fiegenbaum & Thomas, 1990;Hambrick, 1983;Ketchen et al, 1993;Lim, Acito, & Rusetski, 2006;Moores & Yuen, 2001). Typically, these studies use clustering algorithms to identify distinct groups of firms and then employ ANOVA or MANOVA to examine whether the distinct groups show differences in their performance.…”

Section: The Mismatch Between Configurational Theory and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations

Fiss

2007

AMR

1,685

1,530

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I argue that research on organizational configurations has been limited by a mismatch between theory and methods and introduce set-theoretic methods as a viable alternative for overcoming this mismatch. I demonstrate the value of such methods for studying organizational configurations and discuss their applicability for examining equifinality and limited diversity among configurations, as well as their relevance to other research fields such as complementarities theory, complexity theory, and the resource-based view.

show abstract

Section: The Mismatch Between Configurational Theory and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations

Fiss

2007

AMR

1,685

1,530

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nath and Gruca (1997) found performance differences across groups of hospitals in a metropolitan statistical area. Ferguson, Deephouse and Ferguson (2000) found that reputation differed across strategic groups and that better strategic group reputation was related to higher performance. In a study that provided this research stream with methodological diversity, Lee, Lee and Rho's (2002) simulation found that performance differences persist when there are high mobility barriers and strategic interaction among high-performing firms that inhibited further entry into the group.…”

Section: Strategic Groups and Firm Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Competitive Dynamics: Recent Accomplishments and Future Challenges

Ketchen

Snow

Hoover

2004

Journal of Management

252

201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the nature and consequences of the competitive dynamics among firms is a key objective of the strategic management field. We review recent developments in six research streams relevant to competitive dynamics: competitive action and response, first-mover advantage, co-opetition, multipoint competition, strategic groups, and regional clusters. As a first step toward filling gaps in knowledge identified in our review, we provide suggestions for future inquiry within each research stream. We also describe opportunities for conceptual integration across the streams that could significantly advance the understanding of competitive dynamics. © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

show abstract

“…These are based on significant and varied relationships and experiences of stakeholders with the organisation. (Whetten, 1997;Ferguson et al, 2000;Davies et al, 2004;Harvey et al, 2016) …”

Section: Reputation As a Prismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lens or prism? How organisations sustain multiple and competing reputations

Harvey

Tourky

Knight

et al. 2017

EJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to challenge singular definitions, measurements and applications of corporate reputation which tend to be reductionist. The authors rebuff such narrow representations of reputation by showing the multiplicity of reputation in the case of a global management consulting firm and demonstrate how it has sustained such reputations. Design/methodology/approach Using a large cross-country qualitative case study based on interviews, focus groups, non-participant observations, workshops and a fieldwork diary, dimensions of reputation are highlighted by drawing on perceptions from multiple stakeholder groups in different geographies. Findings The authors find significant differences in perceptions of reputation between and within stakeholder groups, with perceptions changing across dimensions and geographies. Originality/value The theoretical implications of the research indicate a plurality of extant reputations, suggesting that a prism is more suited to representing corporate reputation than a singular, lens-like focus which is too narrow to constitute reputation. This paper offers theoretical and practical suggestions for how global firms can build and sustain multiple and competing corporate reputations.

show abstract

Do strategic groups differ in reputation?

Cited by 170 publications

References 72 publications

A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations

A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations

Research on Competitive Dynamics: Recent Accomplishments and Future Challenges

Lens or prism? How organisations sustain multiple and competing reputations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About