Knowledge effect on firm performance in manufacturing and service firms

This thesis seeks to examine the difference between manufacturing and service firms with respect to the effects of knowledge on performance, and the influence of market turbulence in this relationship. Empirical data, resulting from a survey, was collected from more than 1,206 firms, involving several sectors. Two samples were analyzed, one with 334 manufacturing and other with 509 service firms. The findings indicate no significant difference in the importance of knowledge on performance between these sectors in the absence of market turbulence: knowledge development (KD) has a stronger effect than culture of competitiveness (CC) on firm performance. However, under market turbulence, manufacturers differ from service providers. The positive effect of KD is enhanced, while the positive effect of CC remains the same for manufacturing firms. On the other hand, the positive effect of KD is diminished, while the positive effect of CC is enhanced for service firms. This supports the argument concerning differences in the nature of manufacturing and service industries. From a managerial point of view, results confirm the importance of knowledge, irrespective of firm sector or market turbulence. However, while industrial firms should center efforts on KD, service firms must find a balance where knowledge development (e.g. norms, processes, routines) does not impair their culture of competitiveness (e.g. learning, innovation, action). The thesis contributes to existing literature by proposing that: (1) the positive effect of knowledge on performance is confirmed; (2) under turbulent markets manufacturing and service firms have different responses concerning the influence of knowledge on performance; (3) a multidimensional performance construct based on cost, profitability, and growth is an interesting way to evaluate firm sustained competitive advantage, rather than one-dimensional constructs; (4) the CC x KD interaction, found relevant for supply chains in previous studies, is not supported for firms; (5) differences in unit of analysis, e.g. from supply chains to firms, result in different effects of KD and CC on firm performance; (6) existing scales can be improved with the addition of more diverse indicators, capturing a wider range of concepts (e.g. information transfer measurement); and (7) results from previous studies are supported for Brazilian firms, contributing for theory generalization.

The best are never normal : exploring the distribution of firm performance

Competitive Strategy literature predicts three different mechanisms of performance generation, thus distinguishing between firms that have competitive advantage, firms that have competitive disadvantage or firms that have neither. Nonetheless, previous works in the field have fitted a single normal distribution to model firm performance. Here, we develop a new approach that distinguishes among performance generating mechanisms and allows the identification of firms with competitive advantage or disadvantage. Theorizing on the positive feedback loops by which firms with competitive advantage have facilitated access to acquire new resources, we proposed a distribution we believe data on firm performance should follow. We illustrate our model by assessing its fit to data on firm performance, addressing its theoretical implications and comparing it to previous works.

Diversificação e performance - uma análise das estratégias de diversificação em empresas brasileiras

Este trabalho visa explorar, com base em dados brasileiros, a relação entre diversificação e performance. Como medida de performance serão utilizados valores correspondentes ao índice q de Tobin para empresas de capital aberto. Para o cálculo do índice de diversificação de uma firma serão utilizados índices compostos a partir da codificação americana SIC (Standard Industry Code). A verificação da relação estatística entre diversificação e performance será então aferida através da aplicação de modelos de regressão linear e sistemas de equações estruturais simultâneas.

O impacto da orientação empreendedora na performance das empresas brasileiras: evidências de um estudo híbrido

The subject entrepreneurship has been gaining strength within the area of strategy, as the entrepreneurial activity represents one of the gears of economic growth and a political social and economic response of the entrepreneur¿s capital. Nevertheless, there are not many studies that investigated if entrepreneurial orientation influences firm performance in Brazil. The objective of the research is to understand and conclude on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. To achieve this objective, qualitative research through in-depth interviews with 14 managers was followed by quantitative research through data collection involving 104 managers in a heterogeneous sample of 104 companies. The research used the model of Lumpkin; Dess (1996) for entrepreneurial orientation in five dimensions (autonomy, innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness), to which two more dimensions were added: strategic alliances and market orientation ¿ that emerged during the qualitative phase of the study. As a result a generic model was obtained ¿ composed of one variable (proactiveness) which positively impacts the firm performance. Proactiveness was also the key factor that positively impacted the firm performance for the service sector and small businesses. For the commercial sector, the model was composed by three dimensions (innovativeness, risk taking and market orientation). While the industry / construction sectors showed no linear relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. Competitive aggressiveness is the key factor that impacts positively on firm performance for big companies, whereas for mediumsized companies it is the market orientation which relates positively to firm performance. Finally, there are no significant differences depending on the sector in which the firm operates or its size.

Powerful CEOs and their impact on corporate performance

We argue in this paper that executives can only impact firm outcomes if they have influence over crucial decisions. Based on this idea we develop and test a hypothesis about how CEOs’ power to influence decisions will affect firm performance: since managers’ opinions may differ, firms whose CEOs have more decision-making power should experience more variability in firm performance. Thus performance depends on the interaction between executive characteristics and organizational variables. By focusing on this interaction we are able to use firm-level characteristics to test predictions that are related to unobservable managerial characteristics. Using such firmlevel characteristics of the Executive Office we develop a proxy for the CEO’s power to influence decisions and provide evidence consistent with our hypothesis. Firm performance (measured by Tobin’s Q, stock returns and ROA) is significantly more variable for firms with greater values of our proxy for CEO influence power. The results are robust across various tests designed to detect differences in variability.

Valuation and performance of firms in complex ownership structures : an application to Korean chaebols

We propose several new metrics to describe the complex ownership structure of business groups, and provide simple formulas and algorithms to compute these metrics. We use these measures to describe in detail the ownership structure of Korean chaebols in the period of 2003 to 2004. In addition, we validate the usefulness of our new metrics by showing empirically that they are important for understanding the valuation and performance of group firms. In particular, we show evidence that firms that are central to the control structure of the chaebol (central firms), firms in cross-shareholdings, and firms that are placed at the bottom of the group (i.e., with lower ultimate ownership) have lower profitability than other group firms. The valuation results suggest that central firms and firms in cross-shareholding loops have lower valuations than other public Chaebol firms. The lower valuation of these firms is not explained by variation in measures of ownership concentration and separation between ownership and control.