Abstract

Whether to have a similar or different strategy than firms in same industry is the fundamental question for firms that want to build a competitive advantage. Recent literature, such as the new institutional theory and the perspective of optimal distinctiveness, has emphasized the configuration of competing forces that make firms simultaneously similar by conforming to industry norms and different by implementing innovation, leading to high performance. The primary rationale is that firms can exploit their high status of conformity as a stock of capital to differentiate themselves when required. Upon this rationale, we conducted research to test the hypotheses for optimal distinctiveness in the strategies of manufacturing firms in Korea. The results show that Korean firms have higher performance when they are mutually involved in higher conformity and innovation. It also suggests that firms in the industry with high volatility have difficulties in managing optimal distinctiveness of strategic conformity with innovation.

Highlights

  • According to the Fortune 500 survey on firm expectancy, only 61 companies out of 500 appeared in the list both in 1955 and 2016; others went bankrupt, merged, or remained but not in the top of the list [1].This statement is probably the most precise summary of the Fortune 500 survey on firm expectancy.The implication of this summary is simple

  • We examine the role of industry dynamism as a specific context, which moderates the effects of strategic conformity and innovation on firm performance

  • To further present how the interaction effect between conformity and innovation on performance depends on the level of industry dynamism, we identified regions of significance for interaction effects across the entire range of the moderator by employing the Johnson–Neyman technique [74] using

Read more

Summary

Introduction

According to the Fortune 500 survey on firm expectancy, only 61 companies out of 500 appeared in the list both in 1955 and 2016; others went bankrupt, merged, or remained but not in the top of the list [1].This statement is probably the most precise summary of the Fortune 500 survey on firm expectancy.The implication of this summary is simple. According to the Fortune 500 survey on firm expectancy, only 61 companies out of 500 appeared in the list both in 1955 and 2016; others went bankrupt, merged, or remained but not in the top of the list [1]. This statement is probably the most precise summary of the Fortune 500 survey on firm expectancy. The implication of this summary is simple. The probability of a firm’s success or even survival is getting smaller.

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.