How long must a firm be great to rule out chance? Benchmarking sustained superior performance without being fooled by randomness

Although sustained superior firm performance may arise from skillful management or other valuable, rare, and inimitable resources, it can also result from randomness. Studying U.S. companies from 1965–2008, we benchmark how long a firm must perform at a high level to be confident that it is something other than the outcome of a time‐homogeneous stationary Markov chain defined on the state space of percentiles. We find (a) the number of sustained superior performers in Compustat, measured by ROA and Tobin's q, exceeds the number of false positives we would expect to be generated by such a process; yet (b) the occurrence of false positives is often enough to fool many observers, so (c) the identification of sustained superior performers requires particularly stringent benchmarks to enable valid study. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: contrasting Porter's competitive strategy framework and the resource‐based perspective

In this study we revisit some fundamental questions that are increasingly at the heart of current strategic management discourse regarding the relative impact of industry and firm‐specific factors on sustainable competitive advantage. We explore this issue by referring to respective assertions of two major perspectives that dominate the literature over the last two decades: the Porter framework of competitive strategy and the more recent resource‐based view of the firm. A composite model is proposed which elaborates upon both perspectives' divergent causal logic with respect to the conditions relevant for firm success. Empirical findings suggest that industry and firm specific effects are both important but explain different dimensions of performance. Where industry forces influence market performance and profitability, firm assets act upon accomplishments in the market arena (i.e., market performance), and via the latter, to profitability. The paper concludes with directions for future research that will seek to integrate both content and process aspects of firm behavior. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Rethinking Rouse and Daellenbach's rethinking: isolating vs. testing for sources of sustainable competitive advantage

In a recent paper, Rouse and Daellenbach (1999) provide a five‐step methodological approach which they feel will cure alleged inadequacies in empirical resource‐based research. We suggest, however, that their methodology can provide only a useful aid for expanding our understanding of potential sustainable competitive advantages but will not allow researchers to effectively verify those hypothesized advantages. Specifically, we argue that Rouse and Daellenbach's methodology is plagued by three major shortcomings: (1) it confuses the important distinction between knowing‐how and knowing‐what; (2) it fails to recognize the importance of observable variables in verifying the sources of sustainable competitive advantage; and (3) it calls for sampling on the dependent variable. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.