Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,346

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Strategy, Distinctive Competence, and Organizational Performance

Snow, Charles C., Hrebiniak, Lawrence G.·1980·Administrative Science Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/2392457
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

June 1980, volume 25 This study examines relationships among strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational performance. The analysis focuses on the perceptions of top managers in four industries (plastics, semiconductors, automotives, and air transportation). Findings indicate that these managers perceive four strategy types, Defender, Prospector, Analyzer, and Reactor, to be present within their industry. Defenders, Prospectors, and Analyzers all show competence in general and financial management. Beyond these two functions, Defenders and Prospectors have identifiable but different configurations of distinctive competence, while Analyzers' special capabilities are considerably less apparent. Reactors, as expected, have no consistent pattern of distinctive competence. Finally, although the data are only suggestive, Defenders, Prospectors, and Analyzers consistently outperform Reactors in competitive industries, but not in an industry that is highly regulated.*

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2392457

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Snow, C. C., & Hrebiniak, L. G.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1980-06
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
317
ISSN
0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/2392457
OpenAlex
W2016294741
Cited by
1,346
References
1
FWCI
34.71
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.