The Management of Resources and the Resource of Management

Description
The Management of Resources and the Resource of Management

ELSEVIER
The Management of Resources and
the Resource of Management
Joseph T. M a h o n e y
UN~vERs~rr OF I,uNO~S, URBANA
The resource-based approach of deductive economics, the dynamic capabi l i - fundamental cont ri but i ons of the r esour ce- based approach. It
ties approach of strategy process, and organization theory research on is argued that researchers who wi sh to nar r ow the r e s our c e
organizational learning need to be joined in the next generation of resource- approach to a static equilibrium model run the risk of stagnation
based research. This suggested redirection of resource-based research implies wi t h an inability to sustain interest in the conversation about
a return to a "resource-learning" theory of t hef i rm begun by Penrose (pub- r es our ces . Sect i on 2 ma i nt a i ns that the substantial literature on
lished 1959). A synthesis of resource-based theory and learning theory a l l o ws organizational learning pr ovi des some guidance for strategy re-
us to examine how two sources offirm heterogeneity (resources and mental search on cor e competencies and capabilities-based competition.
models) are intertwined, j BUSN aES 1995. 33.91--101 The major thesis of the article is that the combination of
economic, behavioral, and cognitive approaches is the best way
forward in strategy. In particular, economics-based research
(the management of resources) and research on organizational
consensus is beginning to emerge in strategic manage- learning (the resource of management) need to be joined in the
ment that calls for an active attempt to increase the next generation of resource-based research.
dialogue among behavioral, cognitive, and economic
approaches to strategy issues (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993;
Barney, 1992;Eisenhardt, 1989;Mahoney, 1992b;Schoemaker, The Resource-based
1993; Zajac, 1992). In the spirit of this pluralistic and balanced Theory of t he Firm
approach (Bowman, 1990; Rumelt, Schendel and Teece, 1991),
the literature on organizational learning (behavioral and E c o n o m i c R e n t
cognitive literature) can and should be united with the emerging Strategy is constrained by, and dependent on, the firm's resource
resource-based theory of the firm (a more economic approach), profile (Collis, 1991; Tallman, 1991). In the resource-based
Specifically, this study argues that a holistic approach, which view, the concept of strategy is considered as a "continuing
combines behavioral and cognitive logic with economic logic, search for rent" (Bowman, 1974, p. 47) and sustainability of
is necessary for advancing the theory of invisible assets (Itami rent, where rent is defined as return in excess of a resource
and Roehl, 1987) and sustainable competitive advantage, owner' s alternative use costs. Resources are the basic unit of
Williamson (1991) notes the uncertainty of whether the dy- analysis (Grant, 1991b). A resource may be conveniently clas-
namic capabilities approach (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Prahalad sifted under a few headi ngs- f or example, financial, physical,
and Hamel, 1990; Rumelt, 1984; Teece, 1990) - i n which human, organizational, technological, and intangible (Grant,
organizational learning should certainly be a pa r t - a nd the 1991a; Hofer and Schendel, 1978) - but (the key idea is that)
resource-based approach (Barney, 1991; Conner, 1991; Peteraf, the subdivision of resources may proceed as far as is useful
1993; Wernerfelt, 1984) will play out individually or in for the problem at hand (Penrose, 1959).
combination. The argument here is that communication can In contrast to (strong form) efficient market theorists, most
and should flow freely between participants of the two resource-based theorists insist that short-term economic rents are
approaches. In fact, the two approaches naturally blend into possible (Schoemaker, 1990). Rents may be achieved by own-
each other (Mahoney and Pandian, 1992). inga valuable resource that is scarce (Ricardo, 1817). Resources
The logic of the study consists of two sections, with each yielding Ricardian rents i ndude ownership of valuable land,
section supporting an overriding idea. Section 1 presents the locational advantages, and various forms of propert y rights
(Rumdt, 1984). Second, monopol y rents may be achieved by
Address correspondence t o Joseph T. Mahoney, Department of Business Administra- government prot ect i on or by collusive arrangements when bar-
tion, University of Illinois at Urbana, 1206 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820. r i e r s t o pot ent i al compet i t ors are hi gh (Conner, 1991). Thi r d,
Journal of Business Research 33, 91-101 (1995)
© 1995 Elsevier Science Inc. ISSN 0148-2963/95/59.50
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 SSDI 0148-2963(94)00060-R
9 2 J Busn Res J.T. Mahoney
1995:33:91-101
entrepreneurial (Schumpeterian) rent may be achieved by risk- help cultivate a firm' s core competencies (Prahalad and Hamel,
taking and entrepreneurial insight in an uncertain/complex en- 1990). Conversely, core competencies are a catalyst to resource
vi ronment (Rumelt, 1987; Schumpeter, 1934). Fourth, the firm accumulation (Verdin and Wtlliamson, 1992).
may be able to appropri at e rents when resources are firm- Penrose argues that: "It is the heterogeneity ... of the produc-
specific (Aharoni, 1993). The difference between the first-best tive services available or potentially available from its resources
and second-best use value of a r es our ce- t he so-called com- that gives each firm its unique character" (1959, p. 75). The
posite quasi-rent (Klein, Crawford, and Alchian, 1978) - i s pre- relationship between heterogeneity and competitive advantage
cisely the amount that a firm may appropriate to achieve above- may be best underst ood within a pat h-dependency perspec-
normal returns. Composite quasi-rents are appropri abl e from tive (De Leo and Buttingnon, 1992). For example, managerial
idiosyncratic physical capital, humancapi t al and dedicatedas- expertise in a diversified enterprise can be a core (rent-
sets, and these firm-specific assets are regarded as massively generating) resource if it uniquely contributes to the sustained
important in a moder n industrial economy (Mahoney, 1992c; profitability of the enterprise (Castanias and Helfat, 1991).
Williamson, 1985). The key question concerns the empirical Managerial skills in combination with other firm resources can
significance of co-specialized assets (Robins, 1992a; Teece, jointly produce rents. Indeed, the key to the management of
1990) because composite quasi-rents are the outcome of deploy- resources is the resource of management.
ment of compl ement ary (co-specialized) resources and capa-
bilities. The nature of these firm-specific resources and capa- Th e Ma n a g e me n t T e a m
bilities is considered below. The attributes of the management team may satisfy the condi-
tions for achieving and maintaining competitive advantage. The
Res our ces a n d Capabi l i t i es management team is valuable when they exploit opportunities
Heterogeneous firm-specific resources and capabilities are the and/ or neutralize threats in a firm' s environment. The manage-
foundation for the resource-based theory of the firm (Rumelt, ment team may be rare in terms of firm-specific knowledge of
1984; Montgomery and Wernerfelt, 1988). The logic ofgener- individual managers as well as knowledge embedded in the
ating and sustaining rents suggests that rents are derived from team. Relatedly, the accumulation of firm-specific knowledge
services of durable resources that are relatively i mport ant to may lead to imperfectly imitable advantages for firms that have
customers and are simultaneously superior, imperfectly mo- assembled compet ent management teams. Unique historical
bile, imperfectly imitable, specialized, imperfectly substitutable, conditions, causal ambiguity, and social complexity all contrib-
and are not entirely appropriable by others when they are non- ute to the sustainability of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991;
tradeable or traded in imperfect factor-markets (Barney, 1991; Demsetz, 1973; Powell, 1992b). Finally, in many cases manage-
Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Peteraf, 1993). The fundamental nor- ment teams are nonsubstitutable. Other managers and manage-
mative suggestion for firm action is that the firm select its strategy ment teams will simply lack the knowledge of the particular
to generate rents based upon their resource capabilities and circumstances and unique historical context in which actions
a "dynamic fit" with environmental opportunities (e.g., cus- need to be interpreted.
tomers, competitors, and technology). Barney notes that: "managers are important in the resource-
An i mport ant idea that is sometimes overlooked in the based model, for it is managers that are able to underst and and
resource-based literature is that the catalyst for the resource- describe the economic performance potential of a firm' s en-
based theory is the resource of management. As Penrose sug- dowments. Wi t hout such managerial analyses, sustained com-
gests: "the experience of management will affect the productive petitive advantage is not likely" (1991, p. 117). A firm may
services that all its resources are capable of rendering" (1959, achieve rents not because it has better resources, but rather
p. 5). The firm' s managers recombi ne the firm' s resources, the firm' s core competencies involve making better use of its
Managing resources and skills are the key to a sustainable corn- resources (Penrose, 1959, p. 54). The firm may make better
petitive advantage (Aaker, 1989). use of human resources by correcdy assigning workers to where
Distinctive or core competencies and awareness of corporate they have higher productivity in the firm (Prescott and Visscher,
resources have long been a cornerstone of strategy (Andrews, 1980; Tomer, 1987), and the firm may make better allocations
1980, pp. 63-71; Ansoff, 1965, pp. 90-102; Hofer and Schen- of financial resources t oward high-yield uses (Williamson,
del, 1978, pp. 144-153; Selznick, 1957, pp. 42-56). Core com- 1985). Fiol (1991) champi ons this Penrosean theme by con-
petencies and superior organizational routines in one or more sidering how managers of a firm make sense of their stock of
of the firm' s value-chain functions may enable the firm to gener- assets and manage the process by which resources are used
ate rents from a resource advantage (Hitt and Ireland, 1985; and renewed.
Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Core competencies are a function of A rich connection a mong the firm' s resources, core com-
the tacit understanding, skills, and resources that a firm accumu- petencies, and the schemata or "dominant logic" (Prahalad and
lates over time. Core competencies that accumulate over time Bettis, 1986) of the managerial team drives the diversification
must satisfy a customer need better than a competitor (Bogner process (Ginsberg, 1990; Grant, 1988). Penrose argues that un-
and Thomas, 1992). The resource accumulation process may used productive services of resources "shape the scope and
Management of Resources J Busn Res 93
1995:33:91-101
direction of the search for knowledge" (1959, p. 77). Core corn- processes (Penrose, 1959, p. 70). Excess capacity due to in-
petencies involve both resource conversion activities and cog- divisibilities, and cyclical demand, to a large extent drives the
nition (mental models). Furthermore, Penrose (1959, p. 119) diversification process (Chandler, 1962; Farjoun, 1994). An
argues that the intertwining of resources and core competen- optimal growth of the firm involves a balance between exploi-
cies form the basis for sustained competitive advantage: ration of existing resources and development of new resources
and capabilities (Penrose, 1959; Rubin, 1973; Wernerfelt and
Diversification and expansion based primarily on a high de-
gree of competence and technical knowledge in specialized Montgomery, 1988).
Penrose makes a crucial distinction between resources and
areas of manufacture are characteristic of many of the largest
firms in the economy. This type of competence together with capabilities (services of resources): "resources consist of a bundle
the market position it ensures is the strongest and most en- of potential services and can, for the most part, be defined in-
during position a firm can develop, dependently of their use, while services cannot be so defined,
the very word 'service' implying a function, an activity" (1959,
The services and rents that resources will yield depend upon p. 25). In more modern terms, Penrose (1959, 1985) is sug-
the dominant logic of the resource of the management team, gesting that resources are stocks, and capabilities (services) are
but the development of the dominant logic of the resource of flows (Dierickx and Cool, 1989).
the managerial team is partly shaped by the resources with The firms' capabilities lie upstream from the end- pr oduct - i t
which they deal. Mental models of managers are shaped by the resides in skills, capacities, and a dynamic resource mix which
availability of resources (or the lack thereof). Current resources may find a variety of end-uses (Caves, 1984; Teece, 1982). Ex-
and capabilities that the firm possesses now and/ or the firm's cess physical capacity leads to related diversification if the ca-
current commitment to core competence development affect pacity is end-product-specific (Chatterjee and Wernerfelt, 1991;
human cognitive processes for strategy formation within the Ramanujam and Varadarajan, 1989). Product / market portfo-
firm. Current resources and capabilities serve as a "cognitive lio strategy, governance structure choices and resource pro-
driver" for future strategy (Itami and Numagami, 1992). This files are intertwined (Chatterjee, 1990; Itami and Roehl, 1987).
notion that the firm's current resources and capabilities influence At all times there exists within every firm, pools of unused
managerial perceptions and hence the direction of growth seems productive services, and these, together with the changing
to be an underdeveloped idea in the resource-based approach knowledge of management, create unique productive opportu-
and is addressed in section 2. nities for each firm (Chandler, 1992). Companies grow in the
Penrose (1955) considers the growth of the firm as limited directions set by their capabilities and these dynamic firm capa-
only in the long-run by its internal management resources. The bilities slowly expand and change (Montgomery and Hariha-
total managerial services that a firm requires at a point in time ran, 1991; Penrose, 1960).
are partly constrained by the necessity to run the firm at its
current level of operations and is partly required to carry out
expansionary ventures (Hay and Morris, 1991). The training Dynamic Firm Capabilities
of new managers and their integration into the work-force oc- The resource-based approach may be framed in a dynamic con-
cupy some of the time and attention of existing managers, and text (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen, 1993). Schumpeterian compe-
thus reduce the managerial services available for expansion, tition involves carrying out "new combinations" including new
In Penrose's theory "management (is) both the accelerator and methods of product i on as well as organizational innovation.
brake for the growth process" (Starbuck, 1965, p. 490). The This Schumpeterian competition may be translated into the
logic here is similar to Ghemawat's (1991) idea of commitment resource-based framework by considering the firm's "new corn-
(i.e., earlier choices constrain later ones). Thus, there is a binations of resources" (Penrose, 1959, p. 85) as a means to
managerial constraint on the growth rate of the firm, the so- achieving sustained competitive advantage (Ghemawat, 1991;
called "Penrose theorem" (Marris, 1964, p. 114), which sug- Oster, 1990). Penrose (1959), following Schumpeter (1934),
gests that fast-growing firms in one period tend to experience views the competitive process as dynamic involving uncertainty,
slower growth in the next period (Shen, 1970; Slater, 1980a). struggle, and disequilibrium. Firms accumulate knowledge as
Fundamentally, Penrose's analysis is an evolutionary theory a strategic asset (Winter, 1987) through R&D and l earni ng-
where firm action takes place sequentially in historical (real) some of it incidental to the production process.
time (see also Dierickx and Cool, 1989 on "time compression Innovation processes can be viewed as "resource transfor-
diseconomies"), mation processes" (Moenaert, 1992; Nonaka, 1991). Nelson
In addition to analyzing the limits of the growth of the firm, (1991) argues that strategic management should focus on firm-
Penrose (1959) also examines the motives for expansion. Pen- specific dynamic capabilities in a Schumpeterian (evolution-
rose (1959) presents a resource approach arguing that firms are ary) context. Firm-specific dynamic capabilities are a potential
administrative organizations and collections of physical, hu- source of durable, not easily imitable, differences among firms
man, and intangible resources. Unused productive services from (Teece, 1990). To generate economic value the organization must
existing resources present a "jig-saw puzzle" for balancing continually upgrade its core competencies. The firm's core corn-
94 J Busn Res J.T. Mahoney
1995:33:91-101
petencies may be defined by the set of shared value systems, competitive advantage (Ghemawat, 1986). The heart of invisi-
substantive routines, and recipes (Spender, 1989) used by ble resources involves tacit understanding and articulable in-
management. Managers' past decisions, decision rules, and tacit formation both as a stock and as a flow. Information flow may
understandings derived from experience are the basic genetics be of three types: environmental information flow (e.g., learn-
which firms possess. Sustainable advantage is thus a history ing customer preferences), corporate information flow (e.g.,
(path) dependent process (Arthur, 1988; Barney 1991; Kagono, proactively building brand name and reputation), and internal
Nonaka, Sakakibara and Okumura, 1985; Nelson and Winter, information flow (e.g., increasing information-processing capa-
1982). bilities). Clearly, advances in information theory and learning
Arthur (1989) argues that under increasing returns to scale, are critical to resource-based theory.
if one product achieves advantage, its increased probability of In fact, it may be argued that the deductive language game
doing well in the market will further enhance expectations of of the resource-based theory in terms of both conceptual work
its success. Thus, expectations may interact with self-enforcing (Barney, 1991; Dierickx and Cool, 1989) and formal models
mechanisms to further enhance first-mover advantages. Bar- (Lippman and Rumelt, 1982; Slater, 1980b) has lead us toward
ney (1986) extends the idea of path-dependency beyond prod- focusing on learning and "capabilities-based competition" (Stalk,
uct development by considering the idea of corporate culture Evans and Shulman, 1992). Or put differently, the so-called "con-
as a source of sustained competitive advantage. A rare and valu- tent" side of strategy has begun to highlight the importance of
able culture may be imperfectly imitable due to a unique path- "process" research on learning and maintaining organizational
dependent history and may therefore be sustainable (Fiol, 1991). capabilities (Powell, 1992a; Ulrich and Lake, 1990). Process
The essential theoretical concept for explaining the sustain- research on resources follows content research "like the left foot
ability of rents in the resource-based framework is "isolating follows the right" (Mintzberg, 1990). The following section fo-
mechanisms" (Reed and DeFillippi, 1990; Rumelt, 1984). The cuses on the concept of organizational capabilities and suggests
notion of isolating mechanism (at the firm level of analysis) is that the literature on organizational learning should be brought
an analogue of entry barriers (at the industry level) and mobil- to bear on the study of resources.
ity barriers at the strategic group level (Caves and Ghemawat,
1992; McGee and Thomas, 1986). Porter (1991) notes that the
conditions which make a resource valuable and sustainable bear Organizational Learning and
a strong resemblance to the conditions that make an industry Organizational Capabilities
attractive. (In addition to Porter's insightful comment, the in-
tellectual history of"the theory of value" can be brought to bear The focus on organizational capabilities is a dominant theme
of strategy research in the early 1990s. An emphasis is placed
on the question: What makes a resource valuable?) In this sense, on the need to upgrade rent-generating resources in an ongo-
the resource-based theory utilizes a central concept of the ing process (Lado, Boyd, and Wright, 1992). The firm must
structure-strategy-performance paradigm (i.e., barriers to imi-
constantly reinvest to maintain and expand existing capabili-
tation) albeit at a different level of analysis. These isolating mech- ties in order to inhibit imitability. Chandler (1990, p. 36) em-
anisms (barriers to imitation) explain (ex post) a stable stream
of rents and provide a rationale for intra-industry differences phasizes the creation, maintenance and expansion of resources
among firms (Rumelt, 1991). and organizational capabilities as the key to competitive ad-
Examples of isolating mechanisms (both efficiency and mar- vantage:
ket power) are derived from the resource-based theory, main- (O)rganizational capabilities included, in addition to the skills
stream strategy research, organizational economics, and the in- of middle and top management, those of lower management
dustrial organization literature (Mahoney and Pandian, 1992). and the work force. They also included the facilities of
Absent government intervention, isolating mechanisms exist production and distribution acquired to exploit fully the
because of the rich connections between uniqueness and causal economies of scale and scope. Such capabilities provided
ambiguity (Lippman and Rumelt, 1982). Invisible (intangible) the profits that in large part financed the continuing growth
assets and organizational capabilities are the most likely candi- of the enterprise. Highly product-specific and process-
dates for resources that are unique and causally ambiguous (Hall, specific, these organizational capabilities affected, indeed, of_
1992; Itami and Roehl, 1987; Teece, 1990). Invisible assets in- ten determined, the direction and pace of the small num-
dude experience, information, know-how, management skills, bers of first-movers and challengers, and of the industries
brand name, image, reputation, relationships, corporate cul- and even the national economies in which they operated.
ture, customer loyalty, trust, knowledge of customer preferences,
and the ability to process information. Arguably, in an infor- Chandler (1990) provides a wealth of evidence in support of
mation-rich world the most important and scarce economic the Penrosean notion that resources and organizational capa-
resource is capacity for attention and thinking (Simon, 1982, bilities provide an internal dynamic for the growth of the firm.
p. 116). The history of sustained competitive advantage by industrial
The accumulation and deployment of these invisible re- enterprises frequently involved a three-pronged investment of
sources and capabilities are the pri mary source of sustainable manufacturing (i.e., experience in production), marketing (e.g.,
Management of Resources J Busn Res 95
1995: 33: 91-101
knowledge of customers), and management (e.g., knowledge is acquired has implications for how an organization processes,
in training and recruiting workers). Nelson reinforces Chan- stores, and later retrieves knowledge. These processes enable
dler's historical perspective arguing for "an emerging theory the enterprise to continually upgrade their dynamic organiza-
of dynamic firm capabilities" (1991, pp. 67-68). Some practi- tional capabilities.
tioners and academics have gone so far as to suggest that learn-
ing is the only sustainable source of advantage (Stata, 1989; Wil-
liams, 1992). Dy n a mi c Or g a n i z a t i o n a l Ca p a b i l i t i e s and
Creating, constructing, and sustaining competitive advan- Or g a n i z a t i o n a l L e a r n i n g
rage dictates a transformation of core competencies. The most Leonard-Barton (1992) emphasizes the multidimensional
critical core competence is organizational learning, the process aspects of core capabilities. First, an emphasis must be placed
whereby shared understandings change (Senge and Sterman, on employee knowledge and skills. Developing and maintain-
1991). In fact, organizational learning may be usefully consid- ing employee competencies through effective human resource
ered a "meta-competence" or "meta-skill" that directs the re- practice underpins organizational capabilities (Ulrich and Lake,
source conversion activities of the firm and is a source of sus- 1991; Ulrich and Wiersema, 1989). Second, technical systems
tainable competitive advantage (Crossan et al., 1992; Klein, Edge, (e.g., databases, decision rules) should accumulate, structure,
and Kass, 1991; Senge, 1990). Competence in organizational and codify knowledge. This organizational memory (Walsh and
learning may involve both the content of knowledge and the Ungson, 1991) enables the firm to retain knowledge and build
rate of learning. Organizational learning is the process whereby on the accumulated experience of its broad constituency (Bould-
management teams change their shared mental models of their ing, 1988). The knowledge inside human heads in combina-
company, their markets, and their competitors (De Geus, 1988; tion with technical systems are arguably the most fundamental
Stata, 1989). Shared mental models of markets might include of the core capabilities of the firm (Itami and Numagami, 1992).
customer segments served, customer functions served, and tech- Third, managerial systems are required for creating (e.g.,
nologies utilized (Abell, 1980). through structuring of networks) and controlling (e.g., through
Cyert and March suggest that: "organizations change their incentive systems) knowledge. The problem of creating incen-
goals, shift their attention, and revise their procedures for search tives to reduce information asymmetries has been a consum-
as a function of their experience" (1963, p. 123). Organizational ing passion of agency theorists (Eisenhardt, 1989). Prescott and
learning involves the full-learning cycle of the educational phi- Visscher note that: "the firm is a storehouse of information, and
losopher John Dewey- t he process of discovery, invention, within the [effective] firm incentives are crated for the efficient
production, and reflection. The theory-in-use approach of Ar- accumulation and use of that information" (1980, p. 446). Sys-
gyris and Schon (1978) may be used by organizations to over- terns, structures, and individual learning within an organization are
come systematic errors of judgment and choice (Hogarth, 1987; intertwined. Organizational capabilities include not only the hu-
Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky, 1982). Organizational learn- man capital of the firm's employees but also the structure of
ing may be operationalized as a "shift in organizational theory- organizational incentives that enable evaluation and transmis-
in-use mediated by organizational inquiry" (Schon, 1983b, sion of skills and knowledge within the organization (Richard-
p. 128). The process of learning to learn requires that organi- son, 1990). A key ingredient in the relationship between re-
zations keep themselves open to deep and challenging ques- sources and competencies is the ability of an organization to
tions rather than trying to develop fixed foundations for action achieve cooperation and coordination within teams (Grant,
(Morgan, 1986). Top management must accept dissents, inter- 1991b; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Finally, values and norms
pret events as learning opportunities, and view actions as ex- are infused through the first three dimensions (Barney and
periments (Nystrom and Starbuck, 1984). Financial turnarounds Ouchi, 1985; Fiol, 1991; Leonard-Barton, 1992). Norms in-
often require "cognitive turnarounds." fluence the behavioral and cognitive development that an or-
Effective learning depends upon the acquisition, process- ganization can undergo (Fiol and Lyles, 1985).
ing, storage, and retrieval of knowledge (Helleloid and Simo- Whereas Weick (1991) questions whether organizational
nin, 1992). A pragmatic theory of knowledge and learning is systems are conducive for organizational learning, the organiza-
that the content of knowledge (the "known") and process of tional learning literature discussed previously provides some
learning ("knowing") are inextricably intertwined (Dewey and confidence that learning can and does take place. Schon puts
Bentley, 1949). Helleloid and Simonin (1992) provide an im- it better: "Reflection-in-action is essential to the process by which
portant contribution within the research agenda of combining individuals function as agents of significant organizational learn-
content and process research in strategy- a Deweyan perspec- ing, and it is at the same time a threat to organizational stabil-
tive. The process of knowledge acquisition by an organization ity. An organization capable of examining and restructuring its
(i.e., acquiring knowledge by internal development, assisted in- central principles and values demands a learning system capa-
ternal development, open market procurement, inter-firm col- ble of sustaining this tension and converting it to productive
laboration, or merger and acquisition) is intertwined with the public inquiry. An organization conducive to reflective prac-
content of organizational knowledge. The process of "know- tice makes the same revolutionary demand" (1983a, p. 338).
ing" influences the "known." The process by which knowledge In order for the resource-based theory on organizational
96 J Bush Res J. T. Mahoney
1995: 33: 91-101
capabilities to advance, resource-based theorists need to come through scenarios). Causal ambiguity, however, reduces the im-
to grips with the process of organizational learning (Amit and pact of effective imitation and diffusion of knowledge (Lipp-
Schoemaker, 1993; Hansen and Wernerfelt, 1989). The prac- man and Rumelt, 1982; Mahajan, Sharma, and Bettis, 1988).
tical positive consequence of organizational learning means "a It is argued here that isolating mechanisms are not only the
process of improving actions through better knowledge and key explanation for sustaining rents but are also the major source
understanding" (Fiol and Lyles, 1985, p. 803). In discussing of firm heterogeneity. In particular, causal ambiguity is a major
organizational learning, we must be careful about reifying or- source of isolating mechanisms and firm heterogeneity. Relat-
ganizational learning. Learning takes place in individual human edly, firm het erogenei t y- a key premise of the resource-based
heads, and as Cohen (1991) notes, there is renewed interest appr oach- may be due to firms' differential capabilities for or-
by cognitive psychologists on learning and the exercise of skills ganizational learning or their "absorptive capacity" (Cohen and
by individuals (e.g., Singley and Anderson, 1989). Organiza- Levinthal, 1990). The intertwining of heterogeneous resources
tions learn either by the learning of its current members or by and heterogeneous "absorptive capacity" suggests that simul-
"grafting" (i.e., obtaining new members) (Huber, 1991 ; Simon, taneous consideration of resource-based theory and organiza-
1991). tional learning theory is warranted.
Simon (1991) argues for the usefulness of research on "or-
ganizational learning" and contends that: "Employing a more Resource Learning: A Synthesis
aggregate level of discourse is not a declaration of philosophi- Spender (1992) concludes that "resource-learning" (i.e., human
cal anti-reductionism, but simply a recognition that most natu- resources learning about the services of other resources) is the
ral systems do have hierarchical structure and that it is some- key to advancement in resource-based theory. This article con-
times possible to say a great deal about aggregate components curs with Spender's view and argues for a synthesis of the dy-
without specifying the details of the phenomena going on within namic capabilities approach, organizational learning, and the
these components" (1991, p. 126). In fact, both Kogut (1992) deductive resource-based approach. Along these lines, Nelson
and Nelson and Wright (1992) suggest that the collective learn- (1991) suggests that firm dynamic capabilities to generate and
ing process can take on a strikingly national character, or at gain from innovation are the source of durable, not easily ira-
least used to. itable differences among firms. New learning, such as innova-
For better or worse, individual learning in organizations is tions, are the stocks and flows of a firm's "combinative capabil-
very much a social phenomenon (March, 1991; Simon, 1991). ities" (Kogut and Zander, 1992) that generate new ideas and
Although organizational learning occurs through individuals, artifacts from existing knowledge. These combinative capabili-
organizational learning is not simply the sum of current mem- ties are often platforms into new markets.
bers learning. Wisdom is often embedded in organizational rou- In some sense, the argument that learning theory and
tine (Cyert and March, 1963; Nelson and Winter, 1982). resource-based theory should be combined is not a new thesis
Levitt and March (1988) observe that organizational learn- at all. Loasby (1991) notes that Penrose (1959) provides a sub-
ing is routine-based, history-dependent, and target-oriented ( i . e. , jective view in which the possibilities of using the productive
influenced by departures from aspiration levels). Routines or services of resources change with changes in knowledge. Best
"recipes" allow the organization to "remember by doing" (1990) provides detailed documentation that Penrose's (1959)
(Spender, 1989). The firm may be viewed as a separate path- t h e o r y is a l e a r n i n g t h e o r y o f t h e f i r m . However, since Penrose's
dependent entity with an organizational memory including tacit (1959) seminal work, the theory on resources and the theory
knowledge (Eliasson, 1990; Polanyi, 1962). Nonaka (1991)pro- on learning have developed in relative isolation. This study calls
vides some examples how companies like Matsushita Electric for a redirection of the resource-based approach toward corn-
Company and Canon have learned how to go "from tacit to ex- bining resource theory with organizational learning theory; a
plicit" knowledge, and how these enterprises' workforces have direction which Penrose (1959) originally suggested. Table 1
a shared appreciation for the power of metaphor and analogy, provides a list of propositions that synthesize the resource-based
Some organizational learning is planned but more frequently approach and the organizational capabilities app roach.
it is emergent (i.e., acquired unintendedly or unsystematically). The call for dialogue between process and content research
In fact, theories about genuine learning cannot be determinis- has been a two-way street. Whereas content researchers have
tic. In some sense, it is impossible to predict future knowledge, emphasized the need for inquiry on the processes by which
Popper (1979) argues that learning is neither deterministic nor resources are used and renewed (e.g., Barney, 1992; Mahoney
random. Learning in this Popperian sense is evident in the Aus- 1992b), process researchers have recently advocated a focus
trian theory of entrepreneurship as a discovery process (Hayek, on resource-based theory and on how mental models of firm
1978; Kirzner, 1979; Schumpeter, 1934). leaders play a critical role in directing the path of the resource
Some learning (as emphasized by the literature on learning accumulation process (e.g., Barr, Stimpert, and Huff, 1992; Fiol,
curves, Lieberman, 1987) is experiential (i.e., first-hand ex- 1991).
perience) and some learning is vicarious (i.e., second-hand ac- So what? What difference would it make if the resource-based
quisition of knowledge). March, Sproull, and Tamuz (1991) also literature and the organizational literature remained separate
consider learning from "near history" (e.g., simulating experience islands of knowledge? These questions should not be asked in
Management of Resources J Busn Res 97
1995:33:91-101
TABLE 1. A Resource-Learning Theory of the Firm
Resource-based Organizational Capabilities Resource Learning
Theory Theory Theory
Rents are derived from heterogeneous Rents are derived from heterogeneous Rents are derived from heterogeneous
resources skills and mental models resources and mental models that
are intertwined
Rents are achieved by accumulating Rents are achieved by making better Managerial skills in combination with
better resources via information use of productive resources with other firm resources jointly
asymmetry or luck produce rents
Resources should determine a firm's Organizational capabilities should Resources and capabilities should
strategy determine a firm's strategy serve as a driver for strategy
"Managing" involves the accumulation and "Managing" involves enhancing core "Managing" involves a discovery
deployment of resources competencies procedure in which heterogeneous
mental models of managers using
heterogeneous firm-specific
resources are involved in an on-
going competition
a sneering manner, but rather as part of the process of a sin- ceptual lens" for what we mean by "managing." "Managing" in-
cere inquiry concerning the consequences of alternative research volves a "discovery procedure" (Hayek, 1978) in which the het-
agendas. Pragmatically, few better questions can be posed, erogenous mental models of managers and the shared
Resource-based analysis in isolation cannot be sufficient for understandings of management teams are involved in an on-
management science, because it cannot articulate management going competition. Competition between firms involves not only
practices that will enable firms to earn rents. Process-oriented competition between heterogeneous "bundles of resources"
research is not sufficient because it cannot adequately distin- (Rumelt, 1984; Teece, 1982; Wernerfelt, 1984, 1989) but also
guish strategically i mport ant aspects of management from prac- competition between heterogeneous "mental models" (Barr,
tices or processes that have little strategic i mport ance (Robins, Stimpert, and Huff, 1992; Fiol, 1991).
1992b). Whereas this article emphasizes the i mport ance of "inde-
The issue of the creation, maintenance, and sustainability pendent experiments" as a discovery procedure for the eco-
of techniques for accumulating and deploying resources may nomic system, relatedly, Lant, Milliken, and Batra (1992) dem-
become a focal point for research. This focus may involve not onstrate that top management heterogeneity increases the
only process and content research in management science but likelihood of organizational learning. Whereas diverse mental
also other fields such as political science. For example, in polit- models by organizations are healthy for an economic system
ical science, Kennedy (1987) provi des a resource-based view (Nelson, 1991; Nelson and Winter, 1982), diverse mental
of nations. The benefits of accumulating resources via external models by individuals can be healthy for an organization.
expansion have often been outweighed by the great expense This study suggests that the two sources of firm heterogene-
of it all. ity (resources and mental models) are i nt er r el at ed- an i mpor-
The cross-fertilization of process and content research may tant theme in Penrose (1959) that we only now seem ready
bear fruit bot h for the advancement of scholarship and for to explore. Chandler' s (1962) thesis illustrates how resources
management practice. The proposed research agenda demands and mental models of managers interact. Some firms' managers
that scholars in process research and content research, listen, were uniquely positioned to create a significant organizational
really listen, to their colleagues and management practitioners breakthrough (e.g., the multidivisional form; Mahoney, 1992a).
(Mahoney, 1993). The accumulation of resources and the need for change
The resource-based approach has allowed researchers with demanded new mental models for coping with unprecedent ed
economics training to begin a dialogue with researchers trained diversification. The accumulation of resources created a base f or
in the behavioral and cognitive sciences. This is a healthy de- organizational learning. Conversely, organizational learning and new
velopment. Maintaining artificial barriers in the trading of ideas organizational forms allowed firms to increase their rate of resource
has built up tensions that need release. The whole poi nt of spe- accumulation.
cialization, after all, is to be enriched by subsequent trade The i mport ance of combining the resource-based theory of
(McCloskey, 1985). the firm with organizational learning is that we can begin to
Combining the resource-based theory of the firm (the consider one of the mor e relevant managerial questions of our
management of resources) with research on cognitive models time posed by Chandler (1992): Why are American firms in-
of managers (the resource of management) provides a new "con- ternational leaders in industries such as aircraft and aerospace,
98 J Busn Res J.T. Mahoney
1995: 33: 91-101
chemicals, comput ers, food processing, oil refining, and phar - nethJ. Arrow, and David Pines, eds., Addison-Wesley Publishing,
maceuticals, whereas Ameri can firms in automobiles, consumer Redwood City, CA. 1988, pp. 9-31.
electronics, machi ne tools, and semi conduct or s have fallen be- Arthur, W. Brian, Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, arid
hi nd? This st udy argues that one answer to Chandl er' s ques- Lock-in by Historical Events. Economic Journal 99 (March 1989):
116-131.
tion involves further st udy on the evolution of resource accumu-
lation and the evol ut i on of organizational capabilities via Barney, Jay B., Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained
Competitive Advantage? Academy of Management Review 11 (3)
organizational learning. Resource-based t heory can pr ovi de the (1986): 656-665.
resource criteria for a sustainable compet i t i ve advantage, Barney, Jay B., Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.
whereas organi zat i onal l earni ng t heor y can show us preci sel y Journal of Management 17 (1) (1991): 99-120.
how learning processes to utilize resources may be carri ed out. Barney, Jay B., Integrating Organizational Behavior and Strategy For-
Resource-based t heor y may be st rengt hened by addi ng mulation Research: A Resource Based Analysis, inAdvances in Stra-
behavioral and cognitive deci si on-maki ng biases and organiza- tegic Management, vol. 8. Paul Shrivastava, Anne S. Huff, and Jane
tional i mpl ement at i on aspects as furt her i mpedi ment s to imi- Dutton, eds., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. 1992, pp. 39-61.
ration of a firm' s r esour ces and capabilities (Amit and Schoe- Barney, Jay B., and Ouchi, William G. (eds.), Organizational Economics:
maker, 1993). Al t hough bounded rationality may be i nvoked Toward a New Paradigm for Studying and Understanding Organiza-
tions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1986.
to explain the mai nt enance of rents under condi t i ons of hi gh
uncer t ai nt y/ compl exi t y, the bounde d rationality condi t i on is Barr, Pamela S., Stimpert, J. Lawrence, and Huff, Anne S., Cognitive
Change, Strategic Action, and Organizational Renewal. Strategic
also an i mpor t ant concept for a t heor y of the generat i on of rents Management Journal 13 (Summer Special Issue 1992): 15-36.
as well. Indeed, devel opi ng super i or heuristics and i mpr ovi ng Best, Michael H, The New Competition: Institutions of Industrial Restruc-
gr oup deci si on-maki ng and organi zat i onal l earni ng processes turing. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1990.
for the pur pos e of accumul at i ng and depl oyi ng resources may Bogner, William C., and Thomas, Howard, Core Competence and Corn-
arguabl y be the hear t of strategic management , petitive Advantage: A Model and Illustrative Evidence from the Phar-
Barney suggests that "in the analysis of compet i t i ve advan- maceutical Industry. Workingpaper, Champaign, Illinois: Univer-
tage, process issues must always be integrated wi t h cont ent is- sity of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign. Presented at the Strategic
sues" (1992, p. 56). In t he cont ext of r esour ce- based t heory, Management Society, International Workshop in Belgium, (Novem-
ber 1992).
as elsewhere, there is no choi ce bet ween cont ent and process,
Boulding, Kenneth E., Economics as a Science. University Press of
pragmatically speaking. We must choose bot h and at t empt to America, Lanham, MD. 1988.
describe their compl ex relationships. By combi ni ng behavioral, Bowman, Edward H., Epistemology, Corporate Strategy, and Academe.
cognitive, and economi c approaches, we can do bet t er in orga- Sloan Management Review 15 (2) (1974): 35-50.
ni zat i on science research. Bowman, Edward H., Strategy Changes: Possible Worlds and Actual
Minds, in Perspectives on Strategic Management. James W. Fredrick-
son, ed., Harper, New York. 1990, pp. 9-37.
The author thanks Alfred D. Chandler, Moshe Farjoun, Philip Gorman, Ron Castanias, Richard P., and Helfat, Constance E., Managerial Resources
Sanchez, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on this article, and Rents. Journal of Management 17 (1) (1991): 155-171.
Caves, Richard E., Economic Analysis and the Quest for Competitive
Advantage. American Economic Review 74 (May 1984): 127-132.
R~ferences Caves, Richard E., and Ghemawat, Pankaj, Identifying Mobility Bar-
riers. Strate~c Managementdournal 13 (1) (1992): 1-12.
Aaker, David A., Managing Assets and Skills: The Key to a Sustainable Chandler, Alfred D., Strategy and Structure; Chapters in the History of
Competitive Advantage. California Management Review 31 (2)(1989): the Industrial Enterprise, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 1962.
91-106.
Chandler, Alfred D., Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capital-
Abell, Derek F., Defining the Business: The Starting Point of Strategic Plan- ism, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
ning, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1980. MA. 1990.
Aharoni, Yair, In Search for the Unique: Can Firm-Specific Advan- Chandler, Alfred D., Organizational Capabilities and the Economic His-
tages Be Evaluated? Journal of Management Studies 30 (1) (1993): tory of the Industrial Enterprise. Journal of Economic Perspectives
31-49. 6 (3) (1992): 79-100.
Amit, Raphael H., and Schoemaker, PaulJ. H., Strategic Assets and Or- Chatterjee, Sayan, Excess Resources, Utilization Costs, and Mode of
ganizational Rent. Strategic Management Journal 14 (1993): 33-46.
Entry. Academy of Management Journal 33 (4) (1990): 780-800.
Andrews, Kenneth R., The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Richard D. Chatterjee, Sayan, and Wernerfelt, Birger, The Link Between Resources
Irwin, Homewood, IL. 1980. and Type of Diversification: Theory and Evidence. Strategtc Manage-
Ansoff, H. Igor, Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy ment Journal 12 ( 1 ) (1991 ): 33-48.
for Growth and Expansion, McGraw-Hill, New York. 1965. Cohen, Michael D., Individual Learning and Organizational Routine:
Argyris, Chris, and Schon, Donald A., Organizational Learning: A T h e - Emerging Connections. Organization Science 2 (1) (1991): 135-139.
ory of Action Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. 1978. Cohen, Wesley M., and Levinthal, Daniel A., Absorptive Capacity: A
Arthur, W. Brian, Self-Reinforcing Mechanisms in Economics, in The New Persepctive on Learning and Innovation. Administration Science
Economy as an Evolving Complex System. Philip W. Anderson, Ken- Qu a r t e r l y 35 (1) (1990): 128-152.
Management of Resources J Busn Res 99
1995:33:91-101
Collis, DavidJ., A Resource-Based Analysis of Global Competition: The Factors. Strategic Management Journal 10 (5) (1989): 399-411.
Case of the Bearings Industry. Strategtc Management Journal 12 (Sum- Hay, Donald A., and Morris, DerekJ., Industrial Economics and Organi-
mer Special Issue 1991): 49-68. zation: Theory and Evidence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, En-
Conner, Kathleen R., An Historical Comparison of Resource-Based The- gland. 1991.
ory and Five Schools of Thought Within Industrial Organization Hayek, Friedrich A. yon, Competition as a Discovery Procedure, in
Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the Firm? Journal of New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas.
Management 17 (1) (1991): 121-154. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 1978, pp. 179-190.
Crossan, Mary M., Lane, Harry, Rush, James C., and White, Rod E., Helleloid, Duane, and Simonin, Bernard, Organizational Learning and
Organizational Learning: A Meta Competence for Sustainable Corn- a Firm's Core Competence. Working paper, Seattle, WA: Univer-
pefitive Advantage. Working paper, London, Canada: Western Busi- sity of Washington. Presented at the Strategic Management Con-
ness School Presented at the Strategic Management Society, Inter- ference, International Workshop in Belgium (November 1992).
national Workshop in Belgium (November 1992).
Hitt, Michael A., and Ireland, R. Duane. Corporate Distinctive Compe-
Cyert, Richard M., and March, James G., A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, tence, Strategy, Industry, and Performance. Strategic Management
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1963. Journal 6 (3) (1985): 273-293.
De Geus, Arie P., Planning as Learning. Harvard Business Review 66 Hofer, Charles W., and Schendel, Dan, Strategy Formulation: Analytical
(March-April 1988): 70-74. Concepts, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN. 1978.
De Leo, Francesco, and Buttignon, Fabio, Core Competencies, Hem> Hogarth, Robin M,Judgement and Choice. John Wiley, Chichester, NY.
ogeneity and Competitive Advantage. Los Angeles, CA: Anderson 1987.
Graduate School of Management, UCLA. Paper presented at the
Strategic Management Society Conference, International Workshop Huber, George P., Organizational Learning: the Contributing Processes
in Belgium (November 1992). and the Literatures. Organization Science 2 (1) (1991): 88-115.
Demsetz, Harold, Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Pol i cy. Itami, Hiroyuki, and Numagami, Tsuyoshi, Dynamic Interactions Be-
Journal of Law and Economics 16 (April 1973): 1-9. tween Strategy and Technology. Strategic Management Journal 13
(Winter Special Issue 1992): 119-135.
Dewey, John, and Bentley, Arthur F., Knowing and the Known, Beacon
Press, Boston, MA. 1949. Itami, Hiroyuki, and Roehl, Thomas W., Mobili~ng Invisible Assets, Har-
vard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1987.
Dierickx, Ingemar, and Cool, Karel, Asset Stock Accumulation and Sus-
tainability of Competitive Advantage. Management Science 35 (12) Kagono, Tadao, and Nonaka, Ikujiro, Sakakibara, Kiyonori, and
(1989): 1504-1511. Okumura, Akihiro, Strategic vs. Evolutionary Management, North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1985.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review.
Academy of Management Review 14 (1) (1989): 57-74. Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, and Tversky, Amos. Judgment Under
Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
Eliasson, Gunnar, The Firm as a Competent Team.Journal of Economic bridge, MA. 1982.
Behavior and Organization 13 (3) (1990): 275-298.
Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. Random House, New
Farjoun, Moshe, Beyond Industry Boundaries: Human Expertise, Di- York. 1987.
versification and Resource-Related Industry Groups. Organization
Science 5 (2) (1994): 185-199. Klein, Benjamin, Crawford, Robert G., and Alchian, Armen A., Verti-
cal Integration: Appropriable Rents and the Competitive Contract-
Fiol, C. Marlene, Managing Culture as a Competitive Resource: An ing Process. Journal of Law and Economics 21 (October 1978):
Identity-Based View of Sustainable Competitive Advantage. J o u r - 297-326.
nal of Management 17 (1) (1991): 191-211.
Klein, Jeremy A., Edge, Gordon M., and Kass, Tom, Skill-Based Com-
Fiol, C. Marlene, and Lyles, Marjorie A., Organizational Learning. petition. Journal of General Management 16 (4) (1991): 1-15.
Academy of Management Review 10 (40) (1985): 803-813.
Kirzner, Israel M, Perception, Opportunity, and Profit. University of
Ghemawat, Pankaj, Sustainable Advantage. Harvard Business Review 64 Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1979.
(5) (1986): 53-58.
Kogut, Bruce, National Organizing Principles of Work, and the Erst-
Ghemawat, Pankaj, Commitment: The Dynamic of Strategy, Free Press, while Dominance of the American Multinational Corporation. In-
New York. 1991. dustrial and Corporate Change 1 (2) (1992): 285-326.
Ginsberg, Aft, Connecting Diversification to Performance: A Sociocog- Kogut, Bruce, and Zander, Udo, Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative
nitive Approach. Academy of Management Review 145 (3) (1990): Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science
514-535. 3 (3) (1992): 383-397.
Grant, Robert M, On "Dominant Logic" and the Link between Diver- Lado, Augustine A., Boyd, Nancy G., and Wright, Peter, A Competency-
sity and Performance. Strategic Management Journal 9 (6) (1988): Based Model of Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Toward a Con-
639-642. ceptual Integration. Journal of Management 18 (1) (1992): 77-91.
Grant, Robert M., Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts. Techniques, Lant, Theresa K, Milliken, Frances J., and Batra, Bipin, The Role of
Applications, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. 1991 a. Managerial Learning and Interpretation in Strategic Persistence and
Grant, Robert M., The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advan- Reorientation: An Empirical Exploration. Strategic ManagementJour-
tage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management nal 13 (8) (1992): 585-608.
Review 33 (3) (1991b): 119-135. Leonard-Barton, Dorothy, Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Para-
Hall, Richard, The Strategic Analysis of Intangible Resources. Strategic dox in Managing New Product Development. Strategic Management
Management Journal 13 (2)(1992): 135-144. Journal 13 (Summer Special Issue 1992): 111-125.
Hansen, Gary S., and Wernerfelt, Birger, Determinants of Firm Per- Levi t t , Barbara, and March, James G., Organizational Learning. Annual
formance: The Relative Importance of Economic and Organizational Review of Sociology 14 (3) (1988): 319-340.
100 J Busn Res J.T. Mahoney
1995: 33: 91-101
Lieberman, Marvin B., The Learning Curve, Diffusion, and Competi- Technological Leadership: The Postwar Era in Historical Perspec-
tive Strategy. Strate~c Management Journal 8 (5) (1987): 441-452. rive. Journal of Economic Literature 30 (4) (1992): 1931-1964.
Lippman, Stephen A., and Rumelt, Richard P., Uncertain Imitability: Nonaka, Ikujiro, The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business
An Analysis oflnterfirm Differences in Efficiency Under Competi- Review 69 (November-December 1991): 96-104.
tion. Bell Journal of Economics 13 (Autumn 1982): 418-438. Nystrom, Paul C., and Starbuck, William H., To Avoid Organizational
Loasby, Brain J., Equilibrium and Evolution: An Exploration of Connect- Crises, Unlearn. Organizational Dynamics, 12 (Spring 1984): 53-65.
ing Principles in Economics, Manchester University Press, New York. Oster, Sharon M., Modern Competitive Analysis, Oxford University Press,
1991. New York. 1990.
Mahajan, Vijay, Sharma, Subash., and Bettis, Richard A., The Adop- Penrose, Edith T., Limits to the Growth and Size of Firms. American
tion of the M-form Organizational Structure: A Test of Imitation Economic Review 45 (May 1955): 531-543.
Hypothesis. Management Science 34 (10) (1988): 1188-1201.
Penrose, Edith T., The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. John Wiley
Mahoney, Joseph T., The Adoption of the Multidivisional Form of Or- and Sons, New York. 1959.
ganization: A Contingency Model. Journal of Management Studies
29 (1) (1992a): 49-72. Penrose, Edith T., The Growth of the Firm. A Case Study: The Her-
cules Powder Company. Business History Revmw 34 (1) (1960): 1-23.
Mahoney, Joseph T., Organizational Economics Within the Conversa-
tion of Strategic Management, in Advances in Strategic Management, Penrose, Edith T., The Theory of the Growth of the Firm Twenty-five
vol. 8. Paul Shrivastava, Anne S. Huff, and Jane Dutton, eds., JAI Years Later. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala, Sweden, 1985.
Press, Greenwich, CT. 1992b, pp. 103-155. Peteraf, Margaret A., The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A
Resource-Based View. Strate~c Management Journal 14 (3) (1993):
Mahoney, Joseph T., The Choice of Organizational Form: Vertical Finan-
cial Ownership Versus Other Methods of Vertical Integration. Stra- 179-191.
teg~c Management Journal 13 (8) (1992c): 559-584. Polanyi, Michael, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philoso-
Mahoney, Joseph T., Strategic Management and Determinism: Sustaining phy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 1962.
the Conversation. Journal of Management Studies 30 (1) (1993): Popper, Karl E., Objective Knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
173-191. England. 1979.
Mahoney, Joseph T., and Pandian, J. Rajendran, The Resource-Based Porter, Michael E., Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy. Strate~c
View Within the Conversation of Strategic Management. Strate~c Ma n a g e me n t Journal 12 (Winter Special Issue 1991): 95-117.
Management Journal 13 (5) (1992): 363-380. PoweU, Thomas C., Strategy Process Is Strategy Content (But not a Source
March,James G., Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learn- of Competitive Advantage). Best Papers Proceedings of Academy of
ing. Organization Science 2 (1) (1991): 71-87. Management (August 1992a): 32-35.
March, James G., Sproull, Lee S., and Tamuz, Michal, Learning from Powel l , Thomas C., Strategic Planning as Competitive Advantage. Stra-
Samples of One or Fewer. Organization Science 2 (1) (1991): 1-13. te~c Management Journal 13 (7) (1992b): 551-558.
Marris, Robin L., The Economic Theory of"Managerial" Capitalism. Free Prahalad, C. K., and Bettis, Richard A., The Dominant Logic: A New
Press, New York. 1964. Linkage Between Diversity and Performance. Strategzc Management
McCloskey, Donald N., The Rhetoric of Economics. University of Wis- Journal 7 (6) (1986): 485-501.
consin Press, Madison, WI. 1985. Prahalad, C. K., and Hamel, Gary, The Core Competence of the Cor-
McGee, John, and Thomas, Howard, Strategic Groups: Theory of Re- poration. Harvard Business Review 68 (3) (1990): 79-91.
search and Taxonomy. Strate~c Management Journal 7 (2) (1986): Prescott, Edward C., and Visscher, Michael, Organizational Capital.
141-160. Journal of Political Economy 88 (,June 1980): 446-461.
Mintzberg, Henry, Strategy Formation: Schools of Thought, in Perspec- Ramanujam, Vasudevan, and Varadarajan, P. Rajan, Research on Cor-
tives on Strategic Management. James W. Frederickson, ed., Harper, porate Diversification: A Synthesis. Strategic Management Journal
New York. 1990, pp. 105-235. 10 (6) (1989): 523-551.
Moenaert, Rudy K., Firm Resources and the Meaning of Innovation Reed, Richard, and DeFillippi, Robert J., Causal Ambiguity, Barriers
Success. Working paper, Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Academy of
of Technology. Presented at the Strategic Management Society Con- Ma n a g e me n t Review 15 ( 1 ) (1990): 88-102.
ference, International Workshop (November 1992). Ricardo, David, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. J. Murray,
Montgomery, Cynthia A., and Hariharan, Sam, Diversified Entry by London, England. 1817.
Established Firms. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization Richardson, George B., Information and Investment, Clarendon Press,
15 (1) (1991): 71-89. Oxford, England. 1990.
Montgomery, Cynthia A., and Wernerfelt, Birger, Diversification, Ri car - Robins, James A, Organizational Considerations in the Evaluation of
dian Rents, and Tobin's q. Rand Journal of Economics 19 (4) (1988): Capital Assets: Toward a Resource-based View of Strategic Invest-
623-632. ment by Firms. Organization Science 3 (4) (1992a): 522-536.
Morgan, Gareth, Images of Organization. Sage Publication, Beverly Hi l l s, Robins, James A., Bridging the Gap Between the Manager and the Mar-
CA. 1986. ket: Competence-based Management for competitive Performance.
Nelson, Richard R., Why Do Firms Differ, and How Does It Ma t t e r ? Working paper, Irvine, CA: Universiw of California-Irvine.
Strategu: Management Journal 12 (Winter Special Issue 1991): 61-74. Presented at the Strategic Management Society Conference, Inter-
national Workshop in Belgium (November 1992b).
Nelson, Richard R., and Winter, Sidney G., An Evolutionary Theory of
Economic Change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cam- Rubin, Paul H., The Expansion of Firms. Journal of Political Economy
bridge, MA. 1982. 81 (4) (1973): 936-949.
Nelson, Richard R., and Wright, Gavin, The Rise and Fall of American Rumel t , Richard P., Toward a Strategic Theory of the Firm, in Compet-
Management of Resources J Busn Res 101
1995:33:91-101
itive Strategic Management. Robert Lamb, ed., Prentice-Hall, Engle- Stata, Ray, Organizational Learning- The Key to Management Innova-
wood Cliffs, NJ. 1984, pp. 556-570. tion. Sloan Management Review 30 (3) (1989): 63-74.
Rumelt, Richard P., Theory, Strategy, and Enterpreneurship, in The Tallman, Stephen B., Strategic Management Models and Resource-Based
Competitive Challenge. DavidJ. Teece, ed., Ballinger Publishing Com- St r at egi es Among MNEs in a Host Market. Strategic Management
pany, Cambridge, MA. 1987, pp. 137-158. Journal 123 (Summer Special Issue 1991): 69-82.
Rumelt, Richard P., How Much Does Industry Matter? Strategic Manage- Teece, David J., Towards an Economic Theory of the Multi-Product
ment Journal 12 (3) (1991): 167-185. Firm.Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3 (March 1982):
Rumelt, Richard P., Schendel, Dan, and Teece, DavidJ., Strategic Manage- 39-63.
ment and Economics. Strategic Management Journal 12 (Winter Sp e - Teece, David J., Contribution and Impediments of Economic Analysis
cial Issue 1991): 5-29. to the Study of Strategic Management, in Perspectives on Strategic
Schoemaker, Paul J. H., Strategy, Complexity, and Economic R e n t . Management.James W. Fredrickson, ed., Harper, New York. 1990,
Management Science 26 (10) (1990): 1178-1192. pp. 39-80.
Schoemaker, PaulJ. H., Strategic Decisions in Organizations: Rational Teece, David J., Pisano, Gary, and Shuen, Amy, Firm Capabilities, Re-
and Behavioral Views.Journal of Management Studies 30 (1) (1993): sources, and the Concept of Strategy: Four Paradigms of Strategic
107-129. Management. Working paper, University of California at Berkeley.
1993.
Schon, Donald A., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think
in Action. Basic Books, New York. 1983a. Tomer, John F., Organizational Capital: The Path to Higher Productivity
and Well-being. Praeger, New York, 1987.
Schon, Donald A., Organizational Learning, in Beyond Method. Mor-
gan, ed., Sage Publishers, Newbury Park, CA. 1983b, pp. 114-128. Ulrich, David, and Lake, Dale G., Organizational Capability, John Wiley,
New York. 1990.
Schumpeter, Joseph A., The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1934. Ulrich, David, and Lake, Dale G., Organizational Capability: Creating
Selznick, Philip, Leadership in Administration. University of California Competitive Advantage. Academy of Management Executive 5 (1)
Press, Berkeley, CA. 1957. (1991): 77-92.
Senge, Peter M., The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learni ng Ulrich, David, and Wiersema, Margarethe F., Gaining Strategic and
Organizational Capability in a Turbulent Business Environment.
Organization. Doubleday, New York. 1990. Academy of Management Executive 3 (2) (1989): 115-122.
Senge, Peter M., and Sterman,John D., Systems Thinking and Organiza- Verdin, Paul J., and Williamson, Peter J., Core Competence, Competi-
tional Learning: Acting Locally and Thinking Globally in the Orga- rive Advantage and Industry Structure. Working paper, INSEAD,
nization of the Furore. Working paper, Cambridge, MA: Sloan School
of Management at MIT. Presented at the Strategic Management So- France. Presented at the Strategic Management Society, International
ciety Conference, International Workshop in Belgium, (November Workshop in Belgium (November 1992).
1992). Walsh, James P, and Ungson, Gerardo Rivera, Organizational Mem-
Shen, T. Y., Economies of Scale, Penrose-effect, Growth of Plants and ory. Academy of Management Review 16 (1) (1991): 57-91.
their Size Distribution. Journal of Political Economy 78 (4) (1970): Weick, Karl A., The Nontraditional Quality of Organizational Learn-
702-716. ing. Organization Science 2 (1) (1991): 116-124.
Simon, Herbert A., Models of Bounded Rationality: Behavioral Economics Wernerfelt, Birger, A Resource-based View of the Firm. Strategic
and Business Organization, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 1982. Ma n a g e me n t Journal 5 (2) (1984): 171-180.
Simon, Herbert A., Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. Wernerfelt, Birger, From Critical Resources to Corporate Strategy.Jour-
Organization Science 2 (1) (1991): 125-134. nal of General Management 14 (3) (1989): 4-12.
Singley, Mark K., and Anderson,John R., The Transfer of Cognitive Ski l l . Wernerfelt, Birger, and Montgomery, Cynthia A., Tobin's q and the
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1989. Importance of Focus in Firm Performance. American Economic Re-
view 78 (1) (1988): 246-250.
Slater, Martin, Forward, in The Theory of the Growth of the F/rm, ed.,
E.T. Penrose, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England. 1980a, pp. vii-xxx. Williams, Jeffrey R., How Sustainable Is Your Competitive Advantage?
Slater, Martin, The Managerial Limitations to the Growth of Firms. E c o - Cal i f orni a Management Review 34 (3) (1992): 29-51.
nomic Journal 90 (September 1980b): 520-528. Williamson, Oliver E., The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms,
Spender, J.-C., Industry Recipes: An Enquiry into the Nature and Sources Markets, Relational Contracting, Free Press, New York. 1985.
of Managerial Judgment, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England, 1989. Williamson, Oliver E, Strategizing, Economizing, and Economic Or-
Spender, J.-C., Strategy Theorizing: Expanding the Agenda, in Ad v a n c e s ganization. Strategic Management Journal 12 (Winter Special Issue
in Strategic Management, vol. 8. Paul Shrivastava, Anne S. Huff, and 1991): 75-94.
Jane Dutton, eds. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. 1992, pp. 8-32. Winter, Sidney G., Knowledge and Competence as Strategic Assets,
Stalk, George, Evans, Paula, and Shulman, Lawrence E., Competing in The Competitive Challenge. David J. Teece, ed., Ballinger, Cam-
on Capabilities: The New Rules of Corporate Strategy. Harvard Busi- bridge, MA. 1987, pp. 159-184.
ness Review 70 (March-April 1992), 57-69. Zajac, Edward J., Relating Economic and Behavioral Perspectives in
Starbuck, William H., Organizational Growth and Development, in Strategy Research, in Advances in Strategic Management, vol. 8. Paul
Handbook of Organizations. James G. March, ed., Rand Mc Na l l y, Shrivastava, Anne S. Huff, and Jane Dutton, eds. JAI Press, Green-
Chicago, IL. 1965, pp. 451-533. wich, CT. 1992, pp. 69-96.

doc_845580369.pdf