Paper:Firm performance and the axis of errors

Title：Firm performance and the axis of errors

Source：Journal of Management Research, 7(2): 59-77. 2007

Authors：Powell, T. C. and J-L. Arregle

Abstract

Firms sometimes fail to capture opportunities, fail to imitate perfectly-imitable resources, and do not solve their solvable problems. The persistence of errors creates intra-industry performance variation that is usually attributed to the competitive advantages of successful firms. However, firms compete on two axes: the axis of competitive advantage, where performance is driven by the inimitable resources and capabilities of high-performing firms; and the axis of errors, where performance is driven by failures to attend to the activities, resources and opportunities that are equally available to all firms. This paper investigates the latter, showing how errors produce performance variation not attributable to competitive advantages, and discussing their consequences for strategy theory, empirical research and management practice.

原來早在1991就已經有學者有如此洞見，企業會犯兩種錯誤

型一錯誤：錯失機會、沒有行動

型二錯誤：誤判形勢、做了一些自以為是對的事

而企業的行為的對錯，往往如同政治或歷史，要等事過境遷之後才能蓋棺論定是非功過。

所以企業一定會犯錯，官僚與層級組織容易犯型一錯誤(過於保守)，而水平組織容易犯型二錯誤(分散資源在一些不是主力的業務上)

The way the organization handles its failures may be as (or even more) important as how it rewards success.

組織如何處理失敗和它如何致力成功一樣重要！(只不過市面的企管書往往只有強調如何追求成功，卻很少談論如何處理失敗/從新再爬起來)

而這位令人欽佩的學者，還提出了型三錯誤：沒有意識到型一與型二錯誤間存在著trade-off的關係(一昧保守或一昧開放大膽)

Ghemawat refers to an error of the third type: the failure to recognize the trade-offs between errors of commission and omission.

對於企業實務而言，更難的或許是辨識：再什麼時候應該大膽賭一把，在什麼時候又該冷靜下來，不隨市場或客戶躁進(當個膽小鬼)…

而本文作者最有創意的地方，在於沿用以上axis of errors
結合競爭優勢來談

再用以上矩陣來分析不同產業的競爭結構，與現有策略理論的缺口