The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When using knowledge can hurt performance: the value of organizational capabilities in a management consulting company
Abstract
This paper explores the possibility that utilizing the firm's knowledge resources to complete important tasks can backfire and undermine competitive performance. Drawing on organizational capabilities and knowledge‐sharing research, we develop a situated performance view that holds that the value of obtaining and using knowledge within a firm depends on the task situation. Using a data set of 182 sales proposals for client work in a management consulting company, we show that sales teams that had varying needs to learn and differentiate themselves from competitors derived different levels of value from obtaining and using electronic documents and advice from colleagues. Highly experienced teams were more likely than inexperienced teams to lose the sales bids if they utilized such knowledge. Teams that had a high need to differentiate themselves from competitors also had a lower chance of winning if they utilized electronic documents. There were situations, however, where teams performed better if they utilized the firm's knowledge resources. These results suggest that competitive performance depends not on how much firms know but on how they use what they know. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939
Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072
Teece, D. J. (1986) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2 · Cited by 7,842
Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm
Szulanski, G. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105 · Cited by 7,839
The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits
Hansen, M. T. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667032 · Cited by 5,809
Self-citationGrant, R. M. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.4.375 · Cited by 5,649
Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776 · Cited by 3,021
Information richness. A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1983) · doi:10.21236/ada128980 · Cited by 2,263 · cited 1×
“…its conversion to document form to make it more widely applicable, it is unlikely to be rich enough or sufficiently specific to the client’s situation to help the team with the challenge of developing the highly customized solution that a successful sales bid demands (cf. Daft and Lengel, 1984).”
BackgroundPrice, Authority, and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms
Bradach, J. L., & Eccles, R. G. (1989) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.000525 · Cited by 1,990
Cited by
The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues
Hoetker, G. (2007) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.582 · Cited by 1,519
Assessing business value of big data analytics in European firms
Côrte-Real, N., Oliveira, T., & Ruivo, P. (2017) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.011 · Cited by 538
Krasnikov, A., & Jayachandran, S. (2008) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.4.001 · Cited by 823
Chuang, C.-H., Chen, S.-J., & Chuang, C.-W. (2013) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.04.002 · Cited by 98
Toward a science of human–AI teaming for decision making: a complementarity framework
Gonzalez, C., Donahue, K., Goldstein, D. G., Heidari, H., Jalali, M. S., Schelble, B., Singh, A., & Woolley, A. W. (2026) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgag030 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Haas, M. R., & Hansen, M. T.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-10-28
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-24
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W2090330175
- Cited by
- 547
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 44.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.