Search results

1 – 3 of 3
Per page
102050
Citations:
Loading...
Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 27 August 2019

Ofer Meilich

The purpose of this paper is to review, integrate and extend the methods for constructing and interpreting a strategic groups map. A strategic groups map is a visualization tool…

2695

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to review, integrate and extend the methods for constructing and interpreting a strategic groups map. A strategic groups map is a visualization tool for capturing the essence of the competitive landscape in an industry: extent of competition between and among strategic groups, mobility barriers, available niches, positioning and industry dynamics.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper extends Porter’s (1980, pp. 152-155) original prescriptions by reviewing the research on strategic groups in the almost 40 years since Porter’s contribution and by amalgamation of practitioners’ uncodified practices.

Findings

The process for constructing a strategic groups map consists of five steps: first, define the industry; second, identify strategic characteristics that distinguish between groups; third, divide firms into groups; forth, select the two main dimensions of the map, and draw the map; and five, interpret the map. Specific instructions are provided for practitioners and academic researchers. Several examples of strategic groups maps illustrate this. Ways to interpret the maps are discussed, followed by limitations and conclusion.

Originality/value

Though the topic of strategic groups has been widely researched since the 1980s, there has been very little done in the area of mapping these groups, leaving scholars of businesses and industries with few directions for constructing strategic groups maps. To fill this gap, a structured process for constructing and interpreting a strategic groups map is provided.

Details

Journal of Strategy and Management, vol. 12 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1755-425X

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 8 February 2008

Emmeline de Pillis, Richard Kernochan, Ofer Meilich, Elise Prosser and Victoria Whiting

The purpose of this paper is to compare the extent to which the stereotype of “manager” aligns with the stereotype of “male” in the Continental United States (CUS) and Hawai’i.

1561

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to compare the extent to which the stereotype of “manager” aligns with the stereotype of “male” in the Continental United States (CUS) and Hawai’i.

Design/methodology/approach

In total, 176 male and 187 female business undergraduates in Hawai’i and the CUS were asked to describe either a manager, a male manager, or a female manager using the 92‐item Schein Descriptive Index.

Findings

Men and women in Hawai’i, and women in the CUS, did not report a strong “think manager  =   think male” bias, but male participants in the CUS did: These men described hypothetical female managers as comparatively obedient, submissive, timid, reserved, fearful, uncertain, passive, and interested in their own appearance. They rated male managers as relatively more firm, independent, persistent, self‐reliant, and having a high need for achievement.

Research limitations/implications

The relative lack of a “think manager  =   think male” bias in Hawai’i is remarkable, since this bias is observed worldwide. Further investigation would confirm or clarify these findings.

Practical implications

Stereotypical views persist among some of our future business leaders, but are not universal. Educators and businesspeople should be aware of the strong “think manager  =   think male” bias still extant among male business students in the CUS.

Originality/value

Although the persistence of the “think manager  =   think male” stereotype is troubling, this stereotype is not universal. While past cross‐cultural investigations treat the US’ culture as homogeneous, we find significant regional differences with regard to managerial gender stereotypes.

Details

Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, vol. 15 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1352-7606

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 17 June 2009

Marc Fetscherin and Mark Toncar

Chinese and Indian car manufacturers are entering developed markets. The question arises how they will be perceived by consumers from those countries. Using the multi‐dimensional…

1767

Abstract

Chinese and Indian car manufacturers are entering developed markets. The question arises how they will be perceived by consumers from those countries. Using the multi‐dimensional brand personality scale, this paper provides an explorative study of the country of origin effect on U.S. consumers’ brand perception of automobiles from China and India. Our multivariate analysis of variance shows differences in terms of brand excitement, brand competence, brand sophistication, and brand ruggedness. Our results indicate that the Chinese car is perceived to be more daring, up‐to‐date, and outdoorsy than the Indian and U.S. car; more intelligent, successful, and upper‐class than the Indian car; and more charming than the U.S. car. The U.S. car is perceived as more successful than the Indian car.

Details

Multinational Business Review, vol. 17 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1525-383X

Keywords

1 – 3 of 3
Per page
102050