Search

The paper identifies similarities and differences in the emphases and patterns that U.S. and Japanese managers attribute to a set of 22 generic competitive methods. It highlights the different ways that Japanese and American managers combine these methods to form general business strategies. Using factor analyses and smallest space analyses, the study shows differences in business strategy patterns between managers in Japan and the U.S. Such differences reflect the organizing principles underlying the strategy approaches in U.S. and Japanese firms. The organizing principle underlying U.S. responses is the desire to find way to differentiate a firm from its competitors. In contrast, the organizing principle underlying Japanese responses is a desire to establish a comprehensive, stable and defensible position. The paper discusses the implications of these results for strategic management and suggests directions for future U.S. and Japanese comparative strategy research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Downsizing and layoffs are an important mechanism for U.S. firms to cope with their strategic and economic environment. In contrast, the Japanese tradition of lifetime employment limits the ability of firms to employ layoffs as a strategic measure, relegating its use to conditions of financial distress. This paper provides the first comparison of layoffs in Japan and the United States and examines stock price reactions to layoff announcements in each country from 1990 to 1994. Agency theory and Aoki's cooperative game theory are employed to discuss differences in the governance structures of U.S. and Japanese firms and their implication for stock price reactions. Results show that layoff announcements trigger negative returns for both U.S. and Japanese firms. Specifically, layoff announcements of U.S. firms are associated with a negative 1.78 percent abnormal return, while layoff announcements for Japanese firms are associated with a negative 0.56 percent abnormal return. To better understand the impact of layoffs, this study examines the relationships between stock price reactions and various layoff characteristics (such as whether the layoff is proactive or reactive or whether the layoff is the first in the industry). Implications of the findings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how firms may learn to better time their capacity expansion decisions through their own and their rivals' past experiences. A review of the literature shows that there may be several reasons for firms to bunch their capacity additions or 'hop on an investment bandwagon.' These reasons include coordinating through maintaining market shares, information effects, and decision-making biases. Given the substantial evidence of organizational learning, firms may be expected to improve their timing skills of capacity additions through their previous capacity expansion experience. Hypotheses are developed both for proprietary learning and learning at the industry level, and for forgetting. These hypotheses are tested on a database consisting of 72 companies operating in the petrochemicals industry in the United States, Europe, and Japan from 1975 to 1995. The results indicate that learning in timing capacity expansion decisions comes primarily from within firms through an accumulation of their poor outcomes. However, this timing skill is far more apparent in greenfield than incremental expansion decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We propose a conceptual and analytical framework for assessing metric equivalence in cross-national strategy research. We illustrate this framework by testing the equivalence of measurement models for a set of strategy constructs across the United States and Japan. Results of a two-group LISREL analysis conducted on a data set of 447 interorganizational relationships reveal that some constructs have strong cross-national equivalence, while others need content respecification or reconceptualization. We discuss implications and offer suggestions about how to conduct empirical strategy research in cross-national settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explains one way the home country institutional environment causes strategy differences across firms from different countries. It contrasts the investment conduct of American, German, and Japanese firms in the 10 largest manufacturing industries. We find profound national differences among these firms that are stable across industries. These differing conducts are tied to the institutional environments of the home market. The shareholder firms of the United States make investments primarily in response to expected investment returns, measured by Tobin's Q ratio. The coalitional firms of Germany and Japan make investments primarily in response to the availability of internal finance, measured by operating cash flow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A model of cultural control is developed and contrasted with the more familiar bureaucratic control model. This model is used to explain processes of strategic adaptation as observed in Japanese cultural control and American bureaucratic control firms. A discussion of the strategic costs and benefits to the organization associated with each type of control is then presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]