Network and firm performance under balanced scorecard approach
Main Article Content
Abstract
Network and firm performance is an interesting topic, attracting many scholars. There is a sizable body of research on the field. However, this paper is unique since (1) we approach firm performance under balanced scorecard framework, and (2) this is the first paper conducted in a developing context of Vietnam. Utilizing survey data from 158 firms operating in Vietnam, we found that network impacts positively on firm performance. The more network a firm has, the better financial performance, the more customer satisfies, and the more learning and growth of employees. The managerial implication is that firms should invest in building network with others at both individual level and organizational level.
Article Details
Keywords
network, firm performance, learning and growth, financial perspective, customer perspective
References
Strategic Management Journal, 21: 295-315.
2. Arroyo, P. (2010). Implementing a Three-Level Balanced Scorecard System at Chilquinta Energía, International Journal of Case Study in Management, 8(2) pp. 1-20
3. Banker, R., S. Lee, and G. Potter. (1996). A field study of the impact of a performance-based incentive plan. Journal of Accounting and Economics 21 (2): 195-226.
4. Chakravarthy, B. (1986). Measuring strategic performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(5), pp 437-458.
5. Child, J. 2001. Learning through strategic alliances. In M. Dierkes & A. B. Antal & J. Child & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge: 657-680. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
6. Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128-152.
7. Darr, E. D., Argote, L., & Epple, D. 1995. The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: Productivity in franchises. Management Science, 41(11): 1750-1762.
8. Dyer, J. H. & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 660679.
9. Galaskiewicz, J. & Zaheer, A. 1999. Networks of competitive advantage. In S. Andrews & D. Knoke (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 16: 237-261. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
10. George, G., Zahra, S. A., Wheatley, K. K., & Khan, R. 2001. The effects of alliance portfolio characteristics and absorptive capacity on performance. A study of biotechnology firms.
The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12: 205-226.
11. Geringer, J. & Hebert, L. (1991). Measuring performance of international joint ventures.
Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2), 249-263.
12. Globerman, S. (1979). Foreign direct investment and spillover efficiency benefits in Canadian Manufacturing Industries. Canadian Journal of Economics, 12, 42-56.
13. Gulati, R. 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 293-317.
14. Hamel, G., Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K. 1989. Collaborate with your competitors and win.
Harvard Business Review, 67(1): 133-139.
15. Hax, A.C. & Majluf, N.S. (1984). Strategic management: an integrative perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
16. Hoque, Z., and W. James. 2000. Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors: impact on organizational performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research 12: 1-17
17. Ingram, P. 2002. Interorganizational learning. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations: 642-663. Oxford: Blackwell Business.
18. Inkpen, A. C. 1998. Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategic alliances. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4): 69-80.
19. Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. 2002. Alliance capability, stock market response, and longterm alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23:
747-767.
20. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School.
21. Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced ScorecardMeasures That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review.
22. Lubatkin, M., Florin, J., & Lane, P. (2001). Learning together and apart: A model of reciprocal interfirm learning. Human Relations, 54(10): 1353-1382.
23. Matusik, S. F. (2000). Absorptive capacity and firm knowledge: Separating the effects of public knowledge, flexible firm boundaries and firm absorptive abilities, Working Paper.
24. Rosenkopf, L. & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 287-306.
25. Rowley, T. J., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 369-386.
26. Schilling, M. A. & Steensma, H. K. (2001). The use of modular organizational forms: An industry-level analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6): 1149-1168.
27. Scott M. B, Jack, W.W. & Hause, E.L. (2012). Using Employee and Customer Perspectives to Improve Organizational Performance. Kenexa Research Institute, Lawrence Fogli, Editor.
28. Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 387-394.