Ensuring Quality in the Supply Chain:


Published on

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ensuring Quality in the Supply Chain:

  1. 1. Gaining Strategic Advantage: Managing Social Capital in the Supply Chain Robert R. Wharton and Linda E. Parry Western Kentucky University Department of Management 1 Big Red Way Bowling Green, KY 42101 Track: Strategic Management/International Management, Original Paper Contact Person: Linda E. Parry, Western Kentucky University, Department of Management, Grise 211, 270-745-5810, Linda.parry@wku.edu, 270-745-6376 (fax)
  2. 2. 2 Gaining Strategic Advantage: Managing Social Capital in the Supply Chain Abstract The resource-based approach to strategic management suggests that competitive advantage can be found in the different resources and capabilities a firm controls. Resources that are valuable, rare, difficult to imitate, and can be exploited by the organization can produce sustained competitive advantage and earn above average economic performance. Researchers suggest that companies that learn to develop their organizational social capital will have a strategic advantage that is difficult to imitate. This study looks at the success that Honda Corporation has had in managing social capital in its supply chain. Using self-report surveys from 120 participants at a Honda-sponsored supplier competition, researchers find that those people who participate in quality-teams report that they are more satisfied with their work, feel that they improved the effectiveness of their company, and continue to offer suggestions to improve their supplier’s operations.
  3. 3. 3 Gaining Strategic Advantage: Managing Social Capital in the Supply Chain Introduction In a world where products are copied almost as soon as they are introduced into the marketplace, building and sustaining competitive advantage is a major concern for today’s CEOs. The resource-based approach to strategic management suggests that competitive advantage can be found in the different resources and capabilities a firm controls. Resources that are valuable, rare, difficult to imitate, and can be exploited by the organization can produce sustained competitive advantage and earn above average economic performance (Barney, 2001). Much has been written about the value of people in organizations. Huselid and Becker (1997) found that a one standard deviation improvement in an organization’s human resources system could increase shareholder wealth by as much as $41,000 per employee. Barney (2001) contends that successfully managing relationships can be a source of resource-based competitive advantage because it is a socially complex phenomenon that is difficult to imitate through direct duplication or substitution. Consequently, there is a strong connection between how firms manage their people and the economic results achieved. Results from studies of five year survival rates of initial public offerings; studies of profitability and stock price in large samples of companies from multiple industries; and detailed research on automobile, apparel, and other industries shows that substantial gains of almost 40% can be obtained by implementing high performance management practices (Pffefer & Veiga, 1999). One important management practice for many companies is the relationship that they have with their suppliers. Supply chain partnerships are relationships between two or more independent entities in a supply chain to achieve specific objectives. Initiately these partnerships are generally created to increase the financial and operational performance of each channel.
  4. 4. 4 These objectives are accomplished through reductions in total costs, reductions in inventories, and increased levels of shared information. Over a period of time these partnerships can evolve and lead to improved service, technological innovation, and product design. The concept of managing the supply chain is not new. During the 1980s Michael Porter described a model for operational effectiveness in which all of the firm’s activities are looked at from the perspective of a value chain. He theorized that mastery of the value chain would allow managers to understand how costs, quality, and value are delivered from each segment of the organization. When properly managed, organizations can forecast, produce, ship, and assemble a quality product or service efficiently. Companies that excel in supply chain management can tailor products to meet customer satisfaction. This skill offers the promise of a source of strategic advantage that others less proficient at supply chain management cannot readily duplicate. Many companies have adopted supply chain management principles for tracking their products or services through the chain. However, since most companies do tracking, this skill is not unique, and therefore, no longer offers a source of sustainable advantage. Nevertheless, there are still methods to achieve resource-based advantage through the supply chain. Itami (1987) suggests that developing capabilities such as teamwork among top managers, organizational culture, relationships among other employees and relationships with customers and suppliers are often taken for granted but can become a resource. He contends that those companies that learn to develop their organizational social capital will have a strategic advantage that is difficult to imitate. This research focuses on one company in the automobile industry. The automobile industry is important because it is the industry that has made the largest investments in U.S.
  5. 5. 5 production (Kenney & Florida, 1995). The automotive industry has also been at the forefront of supply chain management. Honda Manufacturing Company is among the industry leaders in attempting to increase its competitive advantage by establishing relationships with members of its supply chain. For example, in the past five years Honda has established networks of Honda managers and their suppliers in order to encourage more effective partnerships. Have they been successful? In this study, we survey the participants of these networks to determine their perceptions of their partnership with Honda. Specifically, we inquire if the supplier team members have acquired new skills and training; if they feel that they are more effective in their jobs; if they are making suggestions to improve their workplace; if they feel more satisfied at their jobs; and if they feel like part of the Honda team. Literature Review The resource-based view of the firm builds upon the strategy literature by noting that it is a firm’s resources that are ultimately the source of competitive advantage. The resource-based view posits that a firm’s internal processes create a resource bundle that can become the means of creating and sustaining competitive advantage (Penrose, 1959; Barney, 1991). This theory rests on two main points. First, the resources are the determinants of firm performance, and second, that the resources are rare, valuable, difficult to imitate and non-substitutable by another rare resource. If these conditions are met, a competitive advantage is created (Barney, 1991). If other firms with the same resources cease efforts to duplicate the firm’s unique configuration of resources, sustainable competitive advantage is achieved (Mahoney & Pandian, 1992). Two forms of the resource-based view have been developed: the strong form and the weak form (Schultz, 1992). The strong form views resources as obtainable from the market.
  6. 6. 6 These resources can then be used to establish competitive position. The weak form emphasizes how generic factors, such as human resource practices, culture, and team-based skills, can be applied to create temporary competitive advantages (Schulze, 1992). These factors become the source of durable advantage if they are bundled together to make it difficult for competitors to duplicate (Ghemawat, 1986; Penrose, 1959). Because many process innovations require organizational and human capital, they become “hard to manage” tasks and also become difficult to imitate, creating another source of firm-specific advantage (Barney, 1986). Organizational social capital focuses on collections of individuals. It includes a firm’s formal and informal planning, controlling, and coordinating systems. It also includes a firm’s culture and reputation as well as informal relations among groups within a firm and between a firm and those in its environment (Barney, 2001). Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) maintain that the development of social capital within an organization is likely to be a source of competitive advantage. They maintain that networks of strong interpersonal relationships can ultimately leads to success. One important relationship that firms engage in is with their supply chain partners. Supply chain management (SCM) is a continuous improvement process, ensuring customer satisfaction from raw material provider to the ultimate finished product customer. Using SCM, companies can create a source for differentiation or cost reduction. However, coordinating the supply chain among customers, distributors, and raw material suppliers is not an easy task. Two issues that keep emerging are ensuring quality throughout the chain at an efficient cost and managing relationships across organizational and international boundaries. The total quality movement (TQM) is an integrative management philosophy aimed at continuously improving the quality of products and processes to achieve customer satisfaction.
  7. 7. 7 TQM is based on the premise that both internal and external customers are the focus of all activities of an organization. TQM authorities recommend that organizations work directly with raw material suppliers to ensure that their materials are of the highest quality possible (Juran, 1974; Ishikawa, 1985; Deming, 1986). Currently, at least 50 percent of TQM organizations collaborate with their suppliers in some way to increase the quality of component parts (Lawler, Mohrman & Ledford, 1992). Often these organizations send out “quality action teams” to consult with their major suppliers. The objective is to help suppliers use TQM to analyze and improve their own work processes (Saskin, 1993). Suppliers can contribute to quality in a number of other ways. Flynn, Schroeder, and Sakakibara (1995) in their empirical study of 75 US and Japanese automotive firms focused on a number of factors such as process flow management, product design, statistical feedback, customer relationships, work attitudes, and management attitudes to determine which factors were critical to achieving quality within the organization. They found that top management support and supplier relationships were critical to achieving quality in the product design process and to meeting the needs of the customer. The ability to execute this mass customization and tailoring of products to customer’s needs provide an efficient edge that others not using SCM find hard to replicate (Donlon, 1998). In fact, a Harvard Business School study concluded that a key driver in the decline of U.S. competitiveness in the international marketplace has originated from investing less in intangible benefits such as supplier relations (MacBeth & Ferguson, 1994). Supply chain management allows companies to become leaner and more agile. Companies can use SCM to develop close partnerships in which each partner collaborates using shared information to forecast, produce, ship, and assemble in true just-in-time fashion. In the
  8. 8. 8 manufacturing process alone, SCM can provide set-up time reduction, improved process-oriented layout, better product design, and enhanced data capture (Scott & Westbrook, 1991). Ring and Van de Ven (1994) provide an overview of the benefits of strategic partnering. However, in the supply chain, organizations are only as strong as their weakest link, so the challenge is to integrate all the functions efficiently. Damanpour (1991) “Truly innovative organizations create a climate conducive to innovation in all their parts, not only in segregated units (p. 584).” All parties must understand and be able to implement similar quality standards. Reaching this understanding takes time, resources, and the ability to manage the relationship between partners. Hypotheses The automotive industry has been at the forefront of supply chain management. Its supplier networks are large and diverse in terms of size, technical sophistication, and global location. Leading automotive manufacturers have developed extensive networks of suppliers over the last decade. All of these factors make the automotive industry an ideal site for investigation into how effectively a company can manage relationships with suppliers to gain a sustained competitive advantage. This study focuses on one major player in the automotive industry. Honda Manufacturing Corporation is a leading automobile manufacturer. The automobile industry has become increasingly competitive in recent years as evidenced by price-cutting, zero percent financing, consolidating within the industry, lay-offs, and inventory build-ups. In an effort to find a way to create sustainable competitive advantage, Honda has turned toward managing its relationships with its suppliers. This management is not in the form of dictating to the suppliers what they need to do but rather it is an attempt to build a unique resource by putting investment
  9. 9. 9 into the people who actually make the parts that ultimately find their way into Honda vehicles. In pursuing this goal, Honda has established networks of suppliers throughout the world. Going under the acronym of CAN (Circle Assistance Network), representatives meet monthly with representatives of supplier companies. The purpose of the meetings is to coordinate the suppliers, address any questions that the suppliers may have concerning production, and most importantly, encourage the suppliers to set up teams of employees that desire to address some problems that they see in the firm. These “quality” teams are composed of 3-8 people who work for the suppliers. They are encouraged to address any issue that they feel causes an environmental, safety, or production problem within their plant. Some of the problems that teams have worked on in recent years include oil spills on the plant floor; lack of security in the building; machinery producing too many rejected parts; and inefficient work processes on the line. However, even the smallest problem can result in major savings for the supplier, and ultimately, for Honda. These teams are voluntary. However, Honda encourages supplier teams by providing training and materials. In addition, Honda hosts a two-day competition twice a year during which supplier teams compete by presenting their ideas, solutions, and results to a panel of six judges. Winners receive trips, plaques, and recognition for their achievements. These competitions and monthly meetings can be expensive. Nevertheless, it is an effort to use social capital to gain a sustainable advantage. Coleman (1990) and Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) noted social capital is a resource that is jointly owned, rather than controlled by any one individual or entity. Consequently, any investigation needs to include perspectives of both organization as a whole and its individual members. In this study we surveyed supplier participants of the Honda-sponsored “Quest for Success” competition on topics relating to skill
  10. 10. 10 and training acquisition; involvement in teams; satisfaction with their company; and attitudes towards Honda. The ability to learn and the ability to change are likely to be among the most important capabilities that a firm can possess (Barney, Wright & Ketchen, 2001). Without additional training, there would be little effect on the performance of the firm. Napapiet & Ghoshal (1998) described how various forms of social capital can facilitate the development of intellectual capital within the firm. A strong social capital model of employment supports high-performance work and includes investments in training, job security, and collaborative work and learning (Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999; Ichniowski, Kochan, Levine, Oson, Strauss, 1996). These practices are meant to build contracts between employer and employee and among co-workers in an organization (Rousseau, 1995). Moreover, people work smarter when they are encouraged to build skills and competence. If Honda had been successful in creating social capital, we hypothesize: H1: Supplier team members will report an increase in their knowledge and skills as a result of their team participation. Teams permit employees to pool their ideas to come up with better and more creative solutions to problems. Shaiken, Loopez, and Mankita (1997) reported that teams at Saturn and the Chrysler Corporation’s Jefferson North Plant “provide a framework in which workers more readily help one another and more freely share their production knowledge-the innumerable “tricks of the trade”- that are vital in any manufacturing process.” (p. 31). This is important, as Fiol (2001) argues, the skills, resources of organizations and the way organizations use them must constantly change to produce continuously temporary advantages. If Honda has been successful in building a culture among suppliers that encourages everyone to look for solutions
  11. 11. 11 continually, we would hypothesize that team members would not be just making one suggestion but: H2: Supplier team members will report making additional individual suggestions to improve their workplace since becoming a part of their quality team. H3: Supplier team members will report making additional team suggestions to improve their workplace since becoming a part of their quality team. Honda invests time and resources into developing supplier teams over time. Efforts to change supplier members from holding a traditional view of “I make car parts.” to “How can we make a car better?” is a change in the culture and can result in significant competitive advantages (Barney, 2001). Overtime, such advantages can develop into unique resources (Barney, 1986b). Investigations of citizenship behavior focus on why some employees engage in actions beyond their normal responsibilities (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine & Bacharach, 2000). Leana and Van Buren (1999) state that rational individuals cannot be expected to engage in social capital without expectation of benefit, even if those benefits are indirect. They do not have to be in the form of compensation. They can be also intrinsic rewards that appeal to the individual’s sense of accomplishment and development. Pfeffer and Veiga (1999) posit that people will work harder because of increased involvement and commitment that comes from having more control and say in their work. Moreover, they will work more responsibly because more responsibility is placed in their hands as opposed to those further up in the organization. This leads to our next hypotheses. H4: Supplier team members will report more pride in their work as a result of their team participation. H5: Supplier team members will report more satisfaction in their work as a result of their team participation. H6: Supplier team members will report an increased likelihood of remaining with their organization as a result of their team participation.
  12. 12. 12 H7: Supplier team members will report an increased perception that their company is more effective as a result of their team participation. Ultimately the goal in building a sustainable advantage that is based on leveraging organizational social capital is to have everyone throughout the supply chain working together as a team. Everyone in a team-based organization should feel accountable and responsible not only for operation and success of their individual company but also for the success and operation of the entire enterprise. Building these allegiances can take some time. Consequently, we hypothesize the supplier team members will report a stronger connection to Honda after they become involved in a quality team. H8: Supplier team members will not report that being part of the Honda team was an important consideration for them when joining the quality team. H9: Supplier team members will report that they feel that they have helped to improve Honda vehicles as a result of their team participation. Methods A self-report questionnaire was given to participants of the Fall, 2002, Honda Quest for Success Competition in Indianapolis, IN. There were eight questions on the survey. Participants responded on a one (not important) to five (extremely important) Likert scale as to the reasons that they joined the team; the improvements that they felt had occurred since they joined the team; and their satisfaction with their work and their company. Participants were also asked if they had received any recognition for their work in teams and if they had received any special training. In other questions, respondents were asked demographic questions about their age, gender, as well as their tenure with the company. They were also asked how long they had been a member of a quality team and number of ideas or suggestions they have made since joining the team.
  13. 13. 13 Participants were given the two days of the competition to complete the surveys. A folder was left at the registration table for completed surveys. In order to increase the response rate, we had a drawing for three gift certificates to Wal-Mart. Anyone who completed a survey was eligible. The survey was announced during the opening of the competition and at the beginning of the second day. The drawing for the gift certificates took place after lunch on the second day. Three hundred and seventy-five people participated in the Honda competition. Seventy- eight suppliers to Honda from the Midwest and Southern parts of the United States, Mexico and Canada participated. One hundred and twenty people returned surveys. This represented a 32% response rate. Seventy respondents were female and fifty were male. Their ages ranged from 20 to 61, with the average age being 41 years old. The time that the participants were employed by their companies varied from less than a year to 20 years. The average time that people had been with their companies was seven years. Thirty-two people had participated in quality teams for more than four years. Fifty people had participated in quality teams for less than a year. Results Descriptive statistics for key survey items are presented in Table 1. As suggested in tour first hypothesis, quality team members reported that their involvement in team activities had resulted in new training in a variety of work-related skills. Nearly ninety percent had received training in statistical methods or data analysis, and over ninety-one percent had received training to help build group problem solving skills. Eighty percent reported special training in presentation skills and communication. Combined into an additive index (where “3” represents training in all three skill areas and “0” in none), the average respondent reports training in 2.60
  14. 14. 14 areas. Therefore, well over half of the responding quality team members have received training in each of these skill areas. Team members report that they have individually submitted a substantial number of suggestions for improvements at their places of work (mean = 20.09) since joining their quality team. It is notable that the quality of these suggestions must also be of a relatively high level. On average 18.45 suggestions were accepted by management, or 91.8 percent of all submissions. Similarly, the teams themselves were also generating a large number of proposals for workplace improvements (mean = 11.12), 82.4 percent of which (mean = 9.16) were accepted and implemented by management. These figures suggest support for the second and third hypotheses. Quality team members are actively contributing to the continuing improvement in their companies’ efficiencies. Supporting hypotheses four through seven, respondents from quality teams also seem to have a broadly positive impression of the impact of their teams on their personal work experience and on the performance of their company. Indeed, less than six percent felt it was “not true” or only “slightly true” that their feeling of pride in their work had increased since joining their team, while over 72 percent felt that statement was “very true” or “extremely true” of them. Similarly, team members reported their work was more satisfying, and that they felt more likely to stay with their employer as a result of their participation. Respondents also reported positive feelings about the impact of their work of their teams on the overall effectiveness of their companies. The success that Honda has had in building motivation and loyalty among its suppliers is somewhat higher than we had expected. Contrary to our expectation in the eighth hypothesis, the desire to be “part of the Honda team” was reported by our respondents as one of the leading
  15. 15. 15 reasons they decided to become involved in their team (although the desire to solve problems and to help their company were the two most important motivations). As expected in the final hypothesis, however, team members are extremely enthusiastic about the impact of their efforts on the final consumer product – Honda vehicles. While a small minority (15.4 percent) felt it was “not true” or only “slightly true” that Honda products were improved as a result of their quality teams, nearly two-thirds (64.2%) felt it was “very true” or “extremely true” that Honda customers received a better product as a result of their teams’ efforts.
  16. 16. 16 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics N Std.Dev. Skill Development Statistical/Data Analysis (percent “yes”) 89.90 119 .30 Group Problem Solving (percent “yes”) 91.60 119 .28 Presentation Techniques (percent “yes”) 80.00 120 .40 Total Skills (0 = none; 3 = all) (Mean) 2.60 120 .8240 Individual Suggestions Suggestions submitted (Mean) 20.09 121 33.23 Suggestions accepted (Mean) 18.45 121 33.80 Team Proposals Formal proposals (Mean) 11.12 121 22.39 Proposals approved (Mean) 9.16 121 27.00 Benefits (1 = Not True; 5 = Extremely True) I take more pride in my work. 3.92 119 1.00 My work seems for satisfying. 3.57 119 .89 I am more likely to stay with this 3.73 120 .97 company. My company is more effective 3.43 120 .91 I have helped improve Honda vehicles. 3.69 117 1.16 Motivation for joining a quality team (1 = Not Important; 5 = Extremely Important) to be part of the Honda team. 3.72 116 1.21 to be with my friends 2.54 118 1.32 to gain recognition 3.08 118 1.25 to solve problems 4.47 120 .70 to help the company 4.22 118 .93 for job advancement 3.28 117 1.34 Discussion In competitive, technology-intensive global markets, competitive advantage can only be achieved through resources that are valuable, rare, and difficult to imitate. One method to acquire these resources is to go into the marketplace and acquire tangible innovations. However, these innovations often provide just temporary advantages because other companies are quick to
  17. 17. 17 copy. Another way to achieve competitive advantage is to adopt processes that are unique and bundled together so it is difficult for competitors to duplicate. Managing people throughout the supply chain is one way to achieve sustained competitive advantage. There are many reasons why building up organizational social capital provides benefits for the firm. Companies that place workers at the core of their strategies produce higher long-term returns to shareholders than their peers (Blimes, Wetzker & Xhonneux, 1997). Other studies have shown that there is a significant relationship between placing value on human resources and firm survival and performance (Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999). So why don’t more firms try to manage their social capital? One reason is that it is a long-term process. Many managers are pushed into solving problems with short-term answers. Another reason is that many organizations still do not see the connection between how they manage their people and the profits they earn. Of those that do understand the connection, only one half persist with their practices long enough to see the results. As a result, it is estimated that only 12% of organizations that actually put into place human resource activities within their own firms will build profits (Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999). Managing people throughout the supply chain is even more difficult. Demanding that suppliers cut costs, be more efficient, and provide better quality is the traditional method that organizations have used. In response, suppliers have automated, instituted just-in-time practices, used electronic data instruments, and installed lean manufacturing processes. Nevertheless, these tools have all been copied by competitors and no longer provide a competitive advantage. The next opportunity appears to be handling people throughout the chain. Honda has tried to incorporate practices that encourage teambuilding, training and increased employee involvement. They are being rewarded. People involved in the Circle Assistance Network are
  18. 18. 18 more committed to their work, more satisfied as employees, and more apt to take pride in their work as a result of their team activities. Supplier companies benefit because teams find and solve problems within the company and report to be more likely to stay with the company. Nevertheless, managing social capital still poses difficulties for Honda. First, participating in a quality team is voluntary and not everyone participates. Currently people who join teams appear to be predisposed to want to be part of the Honda effort. Managers need to find the reasons why some people do not participate so that they can provide incentives to join. In addition, some suppliers are not as helpful in assisting their employees to work in quality teams. A common complaint that we heard at the competition was that companies did not give employees any time during their shift to work on solving problems. As a result, some workers had to come to work an hour early or stay an hour later to work in their teams. This shows the dedication of the team members. At the same time, it also shows that some suppliers do not value the efforts that workers are making. This is surprising given that most of the solutions saved the companies thousands of dollars by correcting inefficiencies throughout the plant. Honda needs to continue educating their suppliers and providing incentives to encourage more active participation. This is especially true during downturns in the economy when organizations are prone to “cut” any program that does not give immediate financial payback. Most advantages do come easily or cheaply. Sustained competitive advantage is about organization learning. It is based on an understanding of organization processes, structure, and outcomes. It is learning how to fit the tools to the company’s mission, vision, and strategy. Managing social capital shows promise for giving managers a method of achieving advantage but it will not come quickly or without cost.
  19. 19. 19 As with most studies, this research had limitations and offers suggestions for future study. First, the participants in this study were members of the quality teams. To get a more complete picture of the process, one needs to study the host organization (in this case Honda), top management of the supplier companies, and employees of the suppliers who chose not to participate in a quality team. Second, this study needs to be replicated over time to observe if advantages are retained over a period of years (Barney et al., 2001). Finally, many of these suppliers supply parts for more than just Honda. They supply parts for companies such as Toyota and General Motors. This suggests a comparison of the supply chain management practices between and among firms would further research in the field. Finally, Rouse and Daellenbach (1999) recommend that intangible resources, such as managing social capital, should be diagnosed via qualitative methods. They suggest that because culture involves tacit knowledge, organizational members cannot easily communicate culture’s role in developing a sustainable competitive advantage. Hoskisson, Hit, Wan and Yiu (1999) expand on this view by recommending that future studies should include multiple approaches.
  20. 20. 20 References Barney, J. (2001). Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, 2nd ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-119. Barney, J.B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Science, 10:1231-1241. Barney, J. B. (1986b). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, II(July), 656-65. Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D., (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27:625-641. Blimes, L., Wetzker, K., & Xhonneux, P. (1997). Value in human resources. Financial Times, February: 10. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators, Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 535-540. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study. Donlon,J. P. (1998). CE roundtable. Chief Executive, 131, 54-63. Fiol, M. (2001). Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 6, 691-699. Flynn, B., Schroeder, R., & Sakakibara, S. (1995). The impact of quality management practices on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 26(5), 659-691. Ghemawat, P. (1986). Sustainable advantage. Harvard Business Review, 67(Sept):53-60. Hoskisson, R.E., Hit, M. A., Wan, W. P., & Yiu, D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25(3): 417-456. Huselid, M. A. & Becker, B.E. (1997). The impact of high performance work systems, implementation effectiveness, and alignment with strategy on shareholder wealth. Unpublished paper, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ: 18-19.
  21. 21. 21 Ichniowski, C., Kochan, T., Levine, D., Olson, C., & Strauss, G., (1996). What works at work: Overview and assessment. Industrial Relations, 35:299-333. Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Itami, H. (1987). Mobilizing Invisible Assets. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Juran, J. M. (1974). The Quality Control Handbook (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Lawler, E., Mohrman, S., & Ledford, G. (1992). Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management Practices and Results in Fortune 1000 Companies. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Leana, C. & Van Buren, H. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 538-555. MacBeth, D.K. & Ferguson, N. (1994). Partnership sourcing: An integrated supply chain management approach. London: Pitman Publishing. Mahoney, J.T., and Panadian, J.R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, 13: 363-380. Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 242-266. Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Blackwell. Pfeffer, J. & Veiga, J. (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management Executive, 13(2): 37-48. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Paine, J., & Bacharach, D. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3): 513-563. Ring, P.S. & Van de Ven, A. (1994). Development processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19 (1): 90-118. Rouse, M.J. & Daellenbach, U.S. (1999). Rethinking research methods for the resource-based perspective: Isolating the sources of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 487-494. Rousseau, D., (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  22. 22. 22 Saskin, M. & Kiser, K. (1993). Putting Total Quality Management to Work. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Schulze, W.S. (1992). The two resource-based models of the firm: Definitions and implications for research, Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 1992. Scott, C., & Westbrook, R. (1991). New strategic tools for supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Conceptual Management, 21 (1): 13-22. Shaiken, H., Lopez, S., & Mankita, I. (1997). Two routes to team production: Saturn and Chrysler compared. Industrial Relations, 36:31.