Is My Firm-Specific Investment Protected? Overcoming the Stakeholder Investment Dilemma in the Resource-Based View

Hoskisson, Robert E.; Gambeta, Eni; Green, Colby D.; Li, Toby X.

doi:10.5465/amr.2015.0411

Cited by 89 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 113 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While the changing scenario of higher education world over has forced universities to be more competitive for the competent students, staff as well as other resources (Mainardes et al, 2014;Rutter, Lettice, & Nadeau, 2017) by adopting some sort of market-based approaches for university (performance) excellence (Algarni & Talib, 2014;Hashim & Rahim, 2011;Zebal & Goodwin, 2012) by capitalizing on the organization's intellectual capabilities such as MO (Casidy, 2014a;Niculescu et al, 2013;Pucciarelli & Kaplan, 2016). This notion is particularly consistent with the theory of resource-based view (Barney, 1991;Day, 1994;Hoskisson, Gambeta, Green, & Li, 2018;Wernerfelt, 1984) as well as the organizational learning theory (Aragón-Correa, García-Morales, & Cordón-Pozo, 2007;Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 69%

University Markor: A Context-Specific Scale to Measure Market-Orientation in Universities

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Market-orientation (MO) is not a very untouched research area, yet its application in universities is quite a recent phenomenon to execute marketing concept for a better value proposition. Various popular instruments including MARKOR and MKTOR have been used to assess MO in a variety of enterprise setups, but those measures turned out to be invalid in higher education context due to different goals and objectives of universities. Hence, the aim of this article is to validate a relatively more context-specific scale "UNIVERSITY MARKOR" in the developing countries like Pakistan that was initially developed and tested as relatively a better measure of university MO in some developed countries. Survey method was used in this study through the target population constituted by the university teachers and administrators. The proportionate systematic random sampling method was used to form a total sample of 476 respondents. For data analysis, the partial least squares (PLS) path modeling was utilized. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for this study established three dimensions of "UNIVERSITY-MARKOR" construct. The examination of internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity confirmed adequate psychometric properties for the UNIVERSITY-MARKOR construct. The results of this study are also consistent to the previous studies conducted in different contexts. Additional value may be complemented to this study if the pertinent future research may replicate it either in the private-sector universities. This study is therefore a source of support in developing countries to assist researchers and higher education authorities for better decision making.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 69%

University Markor: A Context-Specific Scale to Measure Market-Orientation in Universities

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The owner-manager's ability to alter or shape strategy, along with her incentives and pronounced bargaining power over rent distribution (Coff, 1999), makes it difficult to provide stakeholders the assurances needed to motivate them to make firm-specific investments in the value-creation process (Hoskisson, Gambeta, Green, & Li, 2018;Klein, Crawford, & Alchian, 1978). Taken together, owner-managers have both the incentive and the power to exercise their property rights of use, appropriation, and transfer, which makes those rights valuable and at the same time contentious for economic value creation.…”

Section: Theoretical Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Property Rights, Owner-Management, and Value Creation

Schulze

Zellweger

2021

AMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on property rights theory, we explore the relationship among property rights, ownermanagement, and value creation in private firms. We suggest that property rights in the hands of owner-managers create strategic, incentive, and commitment benefits that facilitate value creation. However, the self-incentivizing nature of property rights engenders three control hazards-those related to reliability, egocentrism, and succession-that threaten stakeholder welfare. In order to mitigate these hazards, owner-managers must establish credible governance. We discuss four governance mechanisms often found in owner-managed firms: commitment to social control, delegation of authority to managers, submission to the hierarchy of a board, and partial transfer of ownership. Although these mechanisms help mitigate control hazards, they also constrain the value-generating benefits of owner-management. Owner-managers thus face control dilemmas when determining how to best govern their firms. Our theory sheds new light on the relationship between property rights and value creation, and lays a foundation for exploring the benefits and liabilities of owner-management.

show abstract

“…Instead, the competitive business environment is better-suited to the additions made to the resource-based view (see Barney, 2001;Priem and Butler, 2001), which have transferred to more recent studies that have been underpinned by resource-based theory (Hoskisson, Gambeta, Green and Li, 2018;Nason and Wiklund, 2018). It is of interest to explore whether the competitive business environment has any impact on the performance outcomes of coopetition activities (following Chiambaretto and Fernandez, 2016).…”

Section: Competitive Business Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Under the resource-based view, smaller organizations can obtain sustainable competitive advantages, but to a lesser-extent through their resources and capabilities, as they should exploit factors, like their owner-managers' heritage, to develop a strong customer value provision (Westhead, Wright and Ucbasaran, 2001;Morgan, 2012;O'Cass et al, 2015;Nason and Wiklund, 2018). Larger companies have more scope to obtain sustainable competitive advantages, as their management teams have a greater volume of resources and capabilities than smaller firms that cannot afford to lose such assets (Barney, Ketchen Jr. and Wright, 2011;Wernerfelt, 2014;Hoskisson et al, 2018). Thus, it is of interest to explore whether organizational resources and capabilities moderate the coopetition -company performance relationship (following Arslan, 2018;Ranganathan et al, 2018).…”

Section: Organizational Resources and Capabilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moderators affecting the relationship between coopetition and company performance

Crick

2019

JBIM

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine the moderating factors that could affect the relationship between coopetition (the interplay between cooperation and competition) and company performance.Design/methodology/approach -Under the relational view and resource-based theory, key articles surrounding coopetition were reviewed. A conceptual framework (with six research propositions) was developed to understand the nature of the relationship between coopetition and company performance.Findings -While the coopetition -company performance relationship has been wellstudied, this link could be moderated by: the competitive business environment, organizational resources and capabilities, and trust between rivals. Further, most authors have explored the linear relationship between coopetition and company performance; however, in this paper, the non-linear (inverted U-shaped) link is also conceptualized, whereby, firms might experience "too little" and "too much" coopetition in their business strategies.Practical implications -Management teams should engage in an "optimal-level" of coopetition by sharing resources and capabilities with rival firms, but not to the extent where they depend on such competitors. If firms rarely collaborate with their competitors, they risk not being able to achieve their performance objectives. Likewise, if businesses engage in excessive degrees of coopetition, there could be tensions between the rival companies involved. Also, practitioners should be aware of the factors that can improve or reduce their performance when they implement coopetition activities. By taking: the competitive business environment, organizational resources and capabilities, and trust between rivals into consideration, the themes of this paper should be used to help managers to maximize company performance (considered in multiple capacities).Originality/value -This paper is used to help scholars and practitioners to understand the factors that could help or hinder the performance outcomes of coopetition activities. By appreciating the moderating roles of: the competitive business environment, organizational resources and capabilities, and trust between rivals, managers are anticipated to provide themselves with scope to alter their coopetition activities to improve their performance. This article ends with a series of managerial implications, alongside some limitations and avenues for future research.

show abstract

Is My Firm-Specific Investment Protected? Overcoming the Stakeholder Investment Dilemma in the Resource-Based View

Cited by 89 publications

References 113 publications

University Markor: A Context-Specific Scale to Measure Market-Orientation in Universities

University Markor: A Context-Specific Scale to Measure Market-Orientation in Universities

Property Rights, Owner-Management, and Value Creation

Moderators affecting the relationship between coopetition and company performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About