Measuring Long Term Superior Performance. The UK's Long-Term Superior Performers 1984-2003

Long Range Planning

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 390-413

  Yip, George S ^a   Devinney, Timothy M ^a   Johnson, Gerry ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRITICAL ISSUES; FINANCIAL DATA; FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE; FRONTIER ANALYSIS; LONG TERM; LONG TERM PERFORMANCE; MULTIDIMENSIONAL NATURE; RELATIVE PERFORMANCE;

SPEECH RECOGNITION;

FINANCIAL CRISIS; FIRM SIZE; INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE; INTEGRATED APPROACH; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT;

EURASIA; EUROPE; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 68249143298     PISSN: 00246301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Peters T.J., and Waterman R.H. Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best Run Companies (1982), Harper & Row, New York However, even those companies they identified as superior long-term performers soon fell back to average or worse since, by selecting firms based on a small number of criteria for a limited period of time, they failed to account for the natural variability and stickiness in performance. What was discovered (but not by Peters and Waterman) was that most of their 'excellent' firms had regressed to the mean by the time the second edition of their very popular book went to press
2. See. Who's excellent now?. Business Week 5 (Nov 5, 1984) 76-86
3. Aupperle K.E., Acar W., and Booth D.E. An empirical critique of in search of excellence: how excellent are the excellent companies?. Journal of Management 12 4 (1986) 499-512
4. Rosenzweig P. Misunderstanding the nature of company performance: the Halo effect and other delusions. California Management Review 49 (2007) 6-20
5. P. J. Richard, T. M. Devinney, G. S. Yip and G. Johnson, Measuring organizational performance: towards methodological best practice, Journal of Management, 35(3), 718--804 (2009).
6. Abell D.F. Managing with Dual Strategies: Mastering the Present - Preempting the Future (1993), The Free Press, New York
7. This can be seen in the October 2001 issue of Academy of Management Review, which was devoted to time and organisational research. See also. Wright T. The importance of time in organisational research. Academy of Management Review 27 (2001) 343-345
8. See. Kaplan R.S., and Norton D.P. The balanced scorecard - measures that must drive performance. Harvard Business Review (January-February 1992) 71-79
9. Kaplan R.S., and Norton D.P. The Balanced Scorecard (1996), Harvard Business School Press, Boston
10. For the theoretic background, see. Devinney T.M., Midgley D.F., and Venaik S. The organisational imperative and the optimal performance of the global firm: formalizing and extending the integration-responsiveness framework. Organization Science 11 (2000) 674-695
11. and for a technical discussion of strategic application dominance see. Devinney T.M., Midgley D.F., and Venaik S. Managerial beliefs, market contestability and dominant strategic orientation in the eclectic paradigm. In: Cantwell J., and Narula R. (Eds). Reevaluating the Eclectic Paradigm (2003), Routledge, London
12. There are many discussions of the GE saga. Two relevant cases to the discussion here are. Bartlett C.A. GE's Growth Strategy: The Immelt Initiative (2006), Harvard Business School Case 9-306-087
13. and. Bartlett C.A., and Wozny M. GE's Two Decade Transformation: Jack Welch's Leadership (2002), Harvard Business School Case 9-399-150
14. See also. Useem J. Meet 'da man': GE's new CEO. Fortune 14 (2001) 102-106
15. and. Brynes N. Was Jack Welch's run all it was cracked up to be?. Business Week (29 April 2002) 86-87
16. For TRS, see, for example. Rappaport A. Creating Shareholder Value: The New Standard for Business Performance (1986), Wiley, New York
17. Danielson M.G., and Press E. Accounting returns revisited: evidence of their usefulness in estimating economic returns. Review of Accounting Studies 8 (2003) 493-530
18. For a review of the extensive literature on the differences between the Anglo-Saxon, Continental and Japanese business systems, see. Dore R. Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism. Japan and Germany versus Anglo-Saxons (2000), Oxford University Press, New York
19. Aoki M. Towards a Comparative Institutional Analysis (2001), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
20. Dowling G.D., and Roberts P.W. Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 23 (2002) 1077-1093
21. See. Bond S.R., and Cummins J.G. The stock market and investment in the new economy: some tangible facts and intangible fictions. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1 (2000) 61-108
22. Day G., Fein A.J., and Ruppersberger G. Shakeouts in digital markets: lessons from B2B exchanges. California Management Review 45 2 (2003) 131-150
23. For a more technical and comprehensive comparison, readers are directed to T. M. Devinney, G. Johnson and G. S. Yip, Using frontier analysis to evaluate company performance, British Journal of Management, in press.
24. Farrell M.J. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 120 3 (1957) 253-281
25. Charnes A.W., Cooper W.W., and Rhodes E. Measuring the Efficiency of Decision-Making Units. European Journal of Operational Research 2 6 (1978) 429-444
26. Cooper W.W. Operational research/management science: where it's been. where it's going?. Journal of the Operational Research Society 50 1 (1997) 3-11
27. Banker D., and Maindiretta A. Nonparametric analysis of technical and allocative efficiencies in production. Econometrica 56 6 (1988) 1315-1332
28. Gigerenzer G., Todd P.M., and ABC Research Group. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart (2000), Oxford University Press, Oxford
29. Examples can be found in. Cook W., and Zhu J. Data Envelopment Analysis: Modelling Operational Processes and Measuring Productivity (2008), Createspace, Scotts Valley
30. and. Zhu J. Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking (2002), Springer, New York
31. Devinney T.M., and Milde H. Agency contracting and inside debt. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft und Statistik 129 (1990) 97-111
32. Quoted in. Kirby J. Toward a theory of high performance. Harvard Business Review 83 7 (2005) 30-39
33. Industry and market segment effects on performance are well established. Various studies have examined the relative contributions of industry, company and business unit effects on firm performance. See particularly. Schmalensee R. Do markets differ much?. American Economic Review 75 3 (1985) 341-351
34. Rumelt R. How much does industry matter?. Strategic Management Journal 12 3 (1991) 167-185
35. McGahan A.M., and Porter M.E. How much does industry matter, really?. Strategic Management Journal 18 special issue, summer (1997) 15-30
36. Hawawini G., Subramanian V., and Verdin P. Is performance driven by industry-or firm-specific factors? A new look at the evidence. Strategic Management Journal 24 1 (2003) 1-16
37. Similarly, it is well established that the extent of international activities affects company performance: see. Tallman S., and Li J.T. Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the performance of multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal 39 1 (1996) 179-197
38. Hitt M., Hoskisson R., and Kim H. International diversification: effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal 40 4 (1997) 767-799
39. Luo Y. Industry attractiveness, firm competence, and international investment performance in a transitional economy. Bulletin of Economic Research 50 1 (1998) 73-83
40. Lastly, presence in particular countries exposes a company to each country's particular economic conditions. For the case for cross-border comparisons, see. Ghemawat P. Semi-globalization and international business strategy. Journal of International Business Studies 34 2 (2003) 138-152
41. Porter M.E. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors (1980), Free Press, New York
42. The problems with using SIC codes as a measure of industry are discussed in. Clarke R.N. SICs as delineators of economic markets. Journal of Business 62 (1984) 17-31
43. For an in-depth study using the Osiris data base industry classification, see. Yip G.S., Rugman A.M., and Kudina A. International success of British companies. Long Range Planning 39 3 (2006) 241-264 which also shows that the Dow Jones industry classifications are comparable to but generally better than classifications based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC code) system
44. For competitive positioning, see G. S. Yip, A. M. Rugman and A. Kudina (2006), ibid.
45. For superior resources, see. Barney J.B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantages. Journal of Management 17 (1991) 99-120
46. Stanley M. The Competitive Edge (1998), Morgan Stanley, New York
47. Peters and Waterman (1982), op. cit. at Ref 1, used 20 years
48. Kotter J.P., and Heskett J.L. Corporate Culture and Performance (1982), Free Press, New York used 11 years
49. Collins J.C., and Porras J.I. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (1994), HarperBusiness, New York used up to 15 years
50. Foster R., and Kaplan S. Creative Destruction: Why Companies that are Built to Last Underperform the Market - and How to Transform Them (2001), Currency/Doubleday, New York used 15 years
51. Joyce W., Nohria N., and Roberson B. What Really Works: The 4 + 2 Formula for Sustained Business Success (2003), HarperBusiness, New York used 10 years
52. For a review of these studies, see also. Kirby J. Toward a theory of high performance. Harvard Business Review (July-August 2005) 30-39
53. Frontier analysis has the added advantage of being flexible with respect to weighting. One could, if desired, weight the various measures according to some rule - in this analysis we assume that any measure is equally valid and what matters is the mixture of measures.
54. This is consistent with. Feroz E.H., Kim S., and Raab S.L. Financial statement analysis: a data envelopment analysis approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society 54 (2003) 48-58 They specifically note that DEA is particularly useful when different output measures are providing different pieces of information and interpretation is problematic
55. The frontier with 3 measures was as good as others with more measures. In other words, little if any additional information was gleaned from the other measures and hence a simpler frontier could be formed without any loss of generality. The firm-year combinations represented the highest performance combinations over the full study period from the full list of all major oil companies - this accounts for the fact that three of these four companies do not appear in Tables 1 and 2.
56. Timmons H. S.E.C. Investigating Shell's restatement of oil and gas reserves. New York Times (20 February 2004) C6
57. Reckitt & Colman PLC and Benckiser NV were separate large companies that merged in 1999 to form Reckitt Benckiser.
58. Bauer P. Recent developments in the econometric estimation of frontiers. Journal of Econometrics 46 (1991) 39-56
59. Day D.L., Lewin A.Y., and Li S.H. Strategic leaders or strategic groups: a longitudinal data envelopment analysis of the U.S. brewing industry. European Journal of Operations Research 80 (1995) 619-638
60. T. M. Devinney, D. F. Midgley and S. Venaik, (2000), op. cit. at Ref 5
61. Teece D.J., Pisano G., and Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18 (1997) 509-533