Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 99, Supplement 1, pp 121–130 | Cite as

Conventional Resource-Based Theory and its Radical Alternative: A Less Materialist-Individualist Approach to Strategy

  • Geoffrey G. BellEmail author
  • Bruno Dyck


Management scholars, practitioners, and policy makers alike have sought to develop a deeper understanding of recent business crises—including corporate scandals, the collapse of financial institutions, and deep recession—in order to prevent their recurrence. Among the “culprits” that have been identified is Conventional management theory based upon a moral-point-of-view founded on assumptions of materialism and individualism. There have been calls to move beyond the dominant profit maximization paradigm and think about other, potentially more compelling, corporate objectives (Hamel, 2009). In this article, we respond to those calls, and seek to develop what we call Radical resource-based theory (RBT), which draws from and contrasts with the highly-influential Conventional RBT. Radical RBT defines the value of resources more broadly than profit maximization, rarity as an occasion for stewardship, inimitability as an opportunity for teaching, and non-substitutability as an opportunity to meet a panoply of human needs. This augmentation of RBT promises to help managers and scholars address a myriad of problems that are insoluble under Conventional assumptions. More generally, it shows the value of broadening management theory to a radical perspective by relaxing assumptions of self-interest and materialism.


Materialism Individualism Radical management Resource-based theory Weber Aristotle 



We thank the participants of the Ethics Conference and Dr. Reg Litz for their encouragement and helpful comments.


  1. Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1992). On the idea of emancipation in management and organizational studies. Academy of Management Review, 27, 432–464.Google Scholar
  2. Barney, J. (1991a). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barney, J. B. (1991b). Special theory forum: The resource-based model of the firm: Origins, implications, and prospects. Journal of Management, 17(1), 97–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barney, J. B., & Hesterley, W. (2006). Organizational economics: Understanding the relationship between organizations and economic analysis. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, C. Lawrence, & T. B. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational studies (2nd ed., pp. 111–148). London, UK: SAGE.Google Scholar
  6. Barney, J. B., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennis, W. (2000). Managing the dream: Reflections on leadership and change. New York: Perseus.Google Scholar
  8. Bowie, N. E. (1991). Challenging the egoistic paradigm. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conner, C. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organizational economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17(1), 121–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dean, C. (2007). Executive on a mission: Saving the planet. New York: New York Times.Google Scholar
  11. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond Money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dierksmeier, C., & Pirson, M. (2009). Oikonoimia versus Chrematistke: Learning from Aristotle about the future orientation of business management. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. Dimaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  15. Dyck, B. (1994). Build in sustainable development and they will come: A vegetable field of dreams. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(4), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dyck, B., Buckland, B. J., Harder, H., & Wiens, D. (2000). Community development as organizational learning: The importance of agent-participant reciprocity. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 21, 605–620.Google Scholar
  17. Dyck, B., & Kleysen, R. (2001). Aristotle’s virtues and management thought: An empirical exploration of an integrative pedagogy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(4), 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dyck, B., & Neubert, M. (2010). Management: Current practices and new directions. Boston: Cengage/Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  19. Dyck, B., & Schroeder, D. (2005). Management, theology and moral points of view: Towards an altnerative to the conventional materialist-individualistic ideal-type of management. Journal of Management Studies, 42(4), 705–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dyck, B., & Weber, J. M. (2006). Conventional versus radical moral agents: An exploratory empirical look at Weber’s moral-points-of-view and virtues. Organization Science, 27(3), 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elsbach, K. D., Sutton, R. I., & Whetten, D. A. (1999). Perspectives on developing management theory, circa 1999: Moving from shrill monologues to (relatively) tame dialogues. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 627–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Etzioni, A. (2001). The monochrome society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171.Google Scholar
  25. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Freeman, R. E. (1999). Response: Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 233–236.Google Scholar
  27. Frey, D. E. (1998). Individualistic economic values and self-interest: The problem in the Puritan Ethic. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1573–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits (pp. 122–126). New York: Times Magazine.Google Scholar
  29. Friedman, M. (1982). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gates, W. (2007). Remarks of Bill Gates: Harvard Commencement, Gazettte Online.Google Scholar
  32. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Giacolone, R. A. (2004). A transcendent business education for the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 415–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Giacolone, R. A., & Thompson, K. R. (2006). Business ethics and social responsibility education: Shifting the worldview. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 266–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 20, 874–907.Google Scholar
  36. Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). Quaker foundations for Greenleaf’s servant-leadership and ‘friendly disentangling’ method. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on Leadership (pp. 126–144). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. W. (2001). An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In P. A. Hall & D. W. Soskice (Eds.), Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage (pp. 1–68). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hamel, G. (2009). Moon shots for management. Harvard Business Review: 91–98.Google Scholar
  39. Johnson, F. R. (2009). Keynote address. Winnipeg, Canada: Asper School of Business.Google Scholar
  40. Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.Google Scholar
  41. Kant, I. (1990). Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (L. W. Beck, Trans.) (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  42. Kasser, T. (2003). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kolstad, I. (2007). Why firms should not always maximize profits. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krishnan, V. R. (2003). Do business schools change students’ values along desirable lines? A longitudinal study. In A. F. Libertella & S. M. Natale (Eds.), Business education and training: A value-laden process (Vol. 8, pp. 26–39). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  45. Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1979). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works. Organizational Dynamics, 8(2), 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lewis, M. W., & Grimes, A. J. (1999). Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 672–690.Google Scholar
  47. Litz, R. A. (1996). A resource-based-view of the socially responsible firm: Stakeholder interdependence, ethical awareness, and issue responsiveness as strategic assets. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(12), 1355–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Litz, R. A. (2010). Feedback comments.Google Scholar
  49. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Google Scholar
  50. Margolis, J., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (2001). The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behavior. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 20(1), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 440–463.Google Scholar
  53. Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mintzberg, H., Simons, R., & Basu, K. (2002). Beyond selfishness. Sloan Management Review, 44(1), 67–74.Google Scholar
  55. Mitroff, I. I. (2004). An open letter to the Deans and the Faculties of American business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 185–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organization: The executive edition. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  57. Neubaum, D. O., Pagell, M., Drexler, J. A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., & Larson, E. (2009). Business education and its relationship to student personal moral philosophies and attitudes toward profits: An empirical response to critics. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. New American Dream. (2004). More of what matters survey report.
  59. Paine, C. (2006). Who killed the electric car? A lack of consumer confidence. or conspiracy?: 93 minutes. USA: Sony Pictures.Google Scholar
  60. Podolny, J. 2009. The buck stops (and starts) at business school: Unless America’s business schools make radical changes, society will become convinced that MBAs work to serve only their own selfish interests. Harvard Business Review 62–67.Google Scholar
  61. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using a paradox to build management and organization theories. The Academy Of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.Google Scholar
  62. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  63. Primeaux, P., & Stieber, J. (1994). Profit maximization: The ethical mandate of business. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rees, W. E. (2002). Globalization and sustainability: Conflict or convergence? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 22(4), 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Riviere, P. (2003). A historic agreement: At last, generic anti-AIDS medicine for sub-Saharan Africa, Le Monde diplomatique, December ed.Google Scholar
  66. Schapler, M. (Ed.). (2005). Making ecopreneurship: Developing sustainable entrepreneurship. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  67. Schrader, S. (1991). Informal technology transfer between firms: Cooperation through information trading. Research Policy, 20, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schreiner, M. (1997). Ways donors can help the evolution of sustainable microfinance organizations. Columbus, OH: Economics and Sociology, Occasional Papers.Google Scholar
  69. Smith, A. (1986) [1776]. The Wealth of Nations: Books IIII. London, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  70. Smith, A. (2004) [1759]. The theory of moral sentiments. New York: Barnes & Noble Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  71. Stead, W. E., & Stead, J. G. (1994). Can humankind change the economic myth? Paradigm shifts necessary for ecologically sustainable business. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(4), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stern, S. N. (2006). Executive summary from stern review: The economics of climate change. London, UK: Her Majesty’s Treasury.Google Scholar
  73. Stieb, J. A. (2009). Assessing Freeman’s stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  75. von Hippel, E. (1987). Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 16, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar
  77. Weisbrot, M., Baker, D., Kraev, E., & Chen, J. (2001). The scorecard on globalization 1980–2000: Twenty years of diminished progress. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research.Google Scholar
  78. Wernerfeld, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wernerfeld, B. (1995). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wijnberg, N. M. (2000). Normative stakeholder theory and Aristotle: The link between ethics and politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  82. Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. University of Chicago Law School Journal of Law and Economics, 22(1), 233–261.Google Scholar
  83. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management Studies, Labovitz School of Business and EconomicsUniversity of Minnesota DuluthDuluthUSA
  2. 2.Department of Business AdministrationI.H. Asper School of BusinessWinnipegUSA

Personalised recommendations