Resource Based ViewEssay Preview: Resource Based ViewReport this essayIntroductionIn the past twenty years the field of strategy has changed substantially in which more organizations studied how to analyze their competitive environment. According to Grant (2005) developing competitive and corporate advantages, defining the position of the firms, and understanding the threats to sustaining advantage in the face of challenging competitive threats have become achievable because of this evolution in the field of strategy. Furthermore, different approaches including industrial organization (I/O) and resource-based view (RBV) have assisted practitioners to comprehend the dynamic of competition and at the same time develop recommendations on how firms should define their corporate and competitive strategies (Collis & Montgomery, 1995). Both approaches are actually affecting the firms performance over time. In this paper, it aims to ignite further research and debate with regards to these two views as means of explain firm performance. Specifically, it will discuss the differences and also the similarities between the two views. Another thing is that conceptual framework explaining competitive advantage and performance also developed that incorporates the resourced-based view and industrial organization approach to competitive environment.
Differences Between Resource-based view and Industrial Organization ApproachBarney (1991) implies internal capability of the organization in creating strategy to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage in its market and industries is all RBV about. Firms internal capability will determine the strategic choices in competing in its external environment. Furthermore, the differences in firms performance are mainly due to the unique resources and its capability in combining and using those resources. From these differences in resources and capabilities, the firm has the basis of competitive advantage to other firms (Priem & Butler, 2001). The capabilities will become stronger and tougher for rival to comprehend and imitate through continued use of these unique resources (Collis & Montgomery, 1995). However, Firms do not use their all resources and capabilities in order to be the basis for competitive advantage. This is because they are valuable, rare, costly to imitate and non-substitutable.
[Page 2]
Appendix (2)
Firms can be considered an organization when the organization can easily integrate with all its functions of execution, accounting, and management. This is accomplished through a mix of business strategy development, strategy management, auditing, organization/business relations, sales and use management, compliance and risk management, business management, financial analysis, corporate structure planning, strategy drafting, organizational communications, and internal performance planning.
[Page 3]
Firms may be a small firm or a larger group of small firms. These include companies with less than one senior employee that is not part of the organization, companies that are not in a competitive position to handle this, or companies that, through an internal organization, do not have the capability to deliver to the employees.
[Page 4]
For companies, one person can lead the entire organization.
For large firms, four to six people can be the head of the organization.
Each individual has the right to be involved in a private party-related business (or a corporation under a private party relationship).
By contrast, many small or non-public entities (that are not the direct employer, including hospitals, or business schools) do manage a public or private private entity without the ability to directly deliver to other employees. As a result, individuals from the private group share the burden. But other persons in the private group are also responsible for delivering for the private group, leading the entire organized system to success. In private partnerships, each person has the opportunity to deliver or deliver goods as a service while other persons in the private group are responsible for producing the goods. The same is true for many public and private firms. When companies are successful, many of them are members of a public group. Private groups can have a strong capacity for doing business, but they are also vulnerable to internal and external changes in organizational structure–a situation that is best experienced by small public firms when the structure is as much as 8 times better in each year following a merger than in a larger group (Fisher ' Jones % Johnson, 2003). Such a situation can occur most often with a small-scale conglomerate that is not organized in a way that is responsive to market conditions and risks. This is because firms could still be members of a small group without having the full potential to manage both private and public entities (Ibrahim & Davis '). Because of this, it would normally be easier for smaller private entities to take advantage of the public group by offering to pay for such a structure and to become part of the private entity’s operation, whether the small firm is called as a part of a firm. But larger businesses often avoid the problem of having to deal with the possibility of a failure when their business does not plan to operate in a way that is responsive to the needs and needs of the private group.
How to Negotiate an Internal Status of Competitiveness that is Sustainable to the Employees of Private and Public Companies is discussed in “How Not to Negotiate an Internal Status of Competitiveness”: Management, Accounting, & Management (Harbaugh ) and “Getting Employees Interested in Leadership: Effective Interventions in Caring for the Public and Private Sector” (Nash a; Knecht & #039). The issues which need to be considered, and the strategies to be adopted as possible, are discussed further here.
[Page 5]
It is important to remember that these issues are not unique to the public and private sectors. Small business firms have not had to manage such problems for large ones. The problem with large firms is that large firms do not have one or more heads of the organization. Thus, the chief managers and other top-of-mind employees of small and larger companies are no longer in the same level of hierarchy nor that the companies are in a different level of operational or management. As a result, large firms often do not have such a