Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the performance implications associated with production outsourcing. Specifically, the paper analyzes the cost of goods sold for firms who outsource core manufacturing processes, using empirical data from a variety of industries. The paper seeks to better understand the influence of outsourcing on factory cost by looking at these in the context of related strategies, such as supplier integration, information technology (IT) implementation, and manufacturing process decisions.

The paper draws on transaction cost economics, manufacturing strategy, and supply chain management literature to aid in predicting the performance to be expected when outsourcing production activities. Furthermore, the paper investigates the moderating effects of manufacturing strategies, supplier integration, and IT expenditures on outsourcing. The primary model is a two-way panel model for the cross-sectional and longitudinal data drawn from the MPI Census of Manufacturers Survey of US manufacturing plants.

The analysis indicates that production outsourcing tends to shift costs among cost of goods sold (COGS) categories, but does not consistently reduce them as measured by overall COGS. The effects of production outsourcing on both the cost of labor and the cost of materials are strong, tending to decrease labor, and increase materials. Additionally, this study shows that a high level of supplier integration has a notable moderating influence on overall COGS, but that process strategies do not. Finally, this analysis indicates that IT expenditures were not influential as a moderator variable when outsourcing, but did have a marked influence on overall COGS, as well as on labor and materials costs.

This research investigates the effects of outsourcing on the components of COGS, a level of analysis that is typically not looked at relative to outsourcing. This research also provides methodological contributions with the development of a nested random effects structural model for use with a secondary data source.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a personal retrospective on six of the key events/experiences that influenced the development of the structure, foundational premises, and models of the resource‐advantage theory of competition.

The paper uses a personal retrospective approach.

The paper finds that six key events influenced the development of resource‐advantage theory: B.J. “Bud” LaLonde emphasizes the works of Alderson; Rob Morgan suggests an article on the resource‐based theory of the firm; Roy Howell suggests a presentation on R‐A theory; Randy Sparks shows a “socialist calculation” article; Kim Boal suggests the Journal of Management Inquiry as a publication outlet; and Bob Phillips discusses his work on “firm effects vs industry effects”. The paper then relates each of the six events to the paths, routes, or procedures that are often proposed as (or reported to be) likely to lead to the development of theories.

By providing the evolutionary history of resource‐advantage theory, the paper provides implications for developing marketing theories.

Isaac Newton has been described as the father of modern science. What is less well known is that he had mental health problems. Here, the authors aim to review the literature on his problems and life to see if he was a mental health recovery hero.

The paper reviewed all the published papers on Newton's mental health problems, as well as many of the biographies written on him.

Scholars of Newton have focussed most of their attention on Newton's breakdown of 1693. This has been attributed to mercurialism or paranoid psychosis. The more likely explanation is depression or bipolar disorder. Personality factors are also critical in understanding Newton; he had a troubled upbringing and problems in relating to others. The latter enabled him to focus exclusively on his research and experiments and may have contributed to his greatness.

The authors have brought to bear their insights as a professional historian and as a clinical psychologist, giving this paper a unique perspective from previous uni‐disciplinary reviews.

The primary purpose of this chapter is to examine some old truths about leadership at the CEO level, and to summarize a new perspective based on charismatic leadership theory that could help cast light on this important area of strategic management. In so doing, we attempt to move charismatic leadership theory in some new directions by bridging micro-and macro-level conceptualizations. The upper echelons perspective from the strategic management literature is first summarized. We then identify problems in conceptualization and measurement that have served to limit the usefulness of this theoretical approach with regard to understanding the leadership role and effects of CEOs. We present two alternative new models that incorporate the constructs of strategic change, CEO charisma, and perceived environmental uncertainty. Data are also presented, suggesting mixed support for the models. Suggestions are made with regard to future quantitative and qualitative research.

This study considers the viability of the combination strategy with regard to the Porter and Miles & Snow generic strategy typologies. Within each framework, it is possible to pursue a “combination strategy,” whereby dimensions of two or more pure strategies are incorporated simultaneously. The present study presents findings from a recent assessment of perceptions of 415 American and Mexican managers regarding their firms’ strategies and levels of performance. Data suggests that combination strategies can be associated with either inferior or superior performance. This paper also suggests that additional research should considerre‐visit the I/O versus resource‐based schism and seek to integrate the two schools of thought into a broader consensus.