Competencies and firm performance: examining the causal ambiguity paradox

By A. King, C. Zeithaml. 2001

594 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/679c951495ae5ceed81d95868b6b17e41c414d90

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

CAUSAL AMBIGUITY, MANAGEMENT PERCEPTION, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE (2006, background): “In one of the few studies attempting to do so, King and Zeithaml (2001) asked CEOs in nine textile firms and eight hospitals to identify the competencies most salient to performance, producing extensive lists for each industry – e.g., “knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in an environment of…”
Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research (2011, background): “…importance of causal processes, research from a variety of areas has focused on cause-effect relationships as well as their understanding by strategic decision makers (e.g., Barr et al., 1992; Durand & Vaara, 2009; Grandori & Furnari, 2008; Huff, 1990; King & Zeithaml, 2001; Reger & Huff, 1993).”
A Resource‐Based Approach to the Study of Export Performance (2003, background): “The stickiness of the resources arises out of 244 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT the fact that a firm’s resources are history dependent, causally ambiguous, and socially complex (King and Zeithaml 2001; Eisenhardt and Martin 2000).”
Inbound open innovation for enhanced performance: Enablers and opportunities (2013, background): “Strategy theory (e.g., Liebeskind, 1996) and resource-based views (e.g., Barney, 1991; King & Zeithaml, 2001) also point to the hazards of knowledge loss and the advantage of inimitable resources suggesting fairly compelling logic for safeguarding intellectual property (IP) and the knowledge that…”
When and How Trustworthiness Matters: Knowledge Transfer and the Moderating Effect of Causal Ambiguity (2004, background): “…the template’s performance cannot be precisely determined (not even ex-post), and that it is therefore impossible to produce an unambiguous conception of how the template works, i.e., to produce a unique list of its key components and of how they interact (see also King and Zeithaml 2001).”
Paradox And Theorizing Within The Resource-Based View (2006, background): “Empirically, King and Zeithaml (2001) claim to have resolved the causal ambiguity paradox by identifying and separating two di mensions: (1) characteristic ambiguity?the ex tent to which managers understand the specific resource attributes for superior firm perfor mance, and (2) linkage ambiguity?th”
The contribution of core employees to organizational capabilities and efficiency (2006, background): “CEs are a source of competitive advantage if managers pay attention to developing organizational capabilities that align with the skills of the CEs (Barney & Wright, 1998; King & Zeithaml, 2001; Leonard-Barton, 1992).”
The Importance of Slack for New Organizations Facing ‘Tough’ Environments (2010, background): “These complex, causally ambiguous resources are combinations of resources modified or connected in ways that are idiosyncratic, creating at least short-term advantages for the firm (King and Zeithaml, 2001).”
Resource–performance relationships in industrial export ventures: The role of resource inimitability and substitutability (2006, background): “Inimitability concerns the ability of competitors to replicate the resources used by a firm in achieving its current positional advantages (e.g., King & Zeithaml, 2001; Lippman & Rumelt, 1982).”