Managing multi-business firms: A comparison between Korean chaebols and diversified U.S. firms

被引:41
作者
Lee, Ji-Hwan [1 ]
Gaur, Ajai S. [2 ]
机构
[1] Korea Adv Inst Sci & Technol, KAIST Coll Business, Seoul 130722, South Korea
[2] Rutgers Business Sch, Dept Management & Global Business, Newark, NJ 07102 USA
关键词
Multi-business firm; Business group; Chaebol; Diversilication; Organizational mechanism; GROUP AFFILIATION; UNIT LEVEL; PERFORMANCE; GOVERNANCE; MECHANISMS; STRATEGIES; MARKETS; CHINA;
D O I
10.1016/j.jwb.2012.09.001
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
We identify and examine the efficacy of organizational mechanisms through which diversified firms are effectively managed without loss of control. Building on the resource based view of business groups, we argue that business groups in emerging markets use these mechanisms more often and derive more benefits from the use of these mechanisms than the diversified U.S. firms. Empirical results based on samples from Korea and the U.S. show that structural mechanisms such as strategic control and contingency arrangements, do not affect divisional performance, whereas socio-cultural mechanisms, such as shared values and corporate-level training, have significant effect on divisional performance. We also find that Korean chaebols have leveraged socio-cultural mechanisms better than large U.S. firms, and thus, have an advantage in continuing to diversify. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:443 / 454
页数:12
相关论文
共 65 条
  • [1] Amsden A., 1994, Industrial and Corporate Change, V3, P111
  • [2] Amsden Alice., 1989, ASIAS NEXT GIANT
  • [3] [Anonymous], 29 SLRP LOND BUS SCH
  • [4] [Anonymous], CHAEBOLS DIVERSIFICA
  • [5] [Anonymous], FUNCTIONS EXECUTIVE
  • [6] FIRM RESOURCES AND SUSTAINED COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
    BARNEY, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, 1991, 17 (01) : 99 - 120
  • [7] Bartlett C.A., 1989, MANAGING BORDERS TRA
  • [8] Bensaou M, 1998, HARVARD BUS REV, V76, P118
  • [9] Bowman E., 1989, CORPORATE RESTRUCTUR, P8
  • [10] Chandler A.D., 1962, STRATEGY STRUCTURE