1 / 6

Good Firms vs Bad Firm

Good Firms vs Bad Firm

phineasupham
Télécharger la présentation

Good Firms vs Bad Firm

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Good Firm vs. Bad FirmBy PhineasUpham

  2. What is the Meaning of Corporate Effect? • Authors analyze, reinterpret, and retest Rumelt’s essay • Rumelt’s argument • Argument’s Implication • Brush and Bromiley’s point of view • He did not interpret statistical metrics well enough • What he found was not as telling as he believed • Authors construct simulation

  3. Rumelt’s Results • Caused stir, provoked rebuttal • Rumelt’s finding • 46 percent of variance explained by business unit effects • 8 percent by industry effects • 1 percent by corporate effects. • Rumelt’s claim • firms do not have ability to transfer success between product lines • firms have few resources (in the RBV view) which can be applied internally to help them survive

  4. Authors’ Counter Arguments • Counter argument: What results appeared to say was not what they meant • Tact to establish rebuttals • Construct a Simulation • Test for two questions • how does the size of the corporate effect pan out in the variance component? • what might happen to the variance component if we don’t assume homogeneous corporate effects over business units?

  5. Authors’ Findings • When scale is 1: similar variance component measures • When scale is .6: the variance component under represents this at .38 • When the scale is .2: the component variance is essentially zero at .03. • A scale of .20: relevant importance of the corporation is 20 percent • Conclusion: • Variance component magnitudes do not reflect importance in a linear manner • Variance components appear to be the square of importance. • Size of industry variance components is 1/6 size of the business unit variance does not imply that the importance of the first is 1/6th the importance of the second. • The results vary significantly over simulations. • Rumelt’s findings should be interpreted to mean: • corporate effect is not overwhelming • corporate effect is smaller than business unit effect (but not unimportant).

  6. Final Words • Authors critique methods of a past scholar, whom they respect. • I question the use of “scale” as measures • I admire the care and rigor of the authors • Whether right or wrong, I would love to see Rumelt’s response • Liven the debate in strategy and challenge an erroneous study • Field would benefit from this challenging of theories in order to synthesis and test results.

More Related