Empirical Methods in Strategy Research: Regression Analysis and the Use of Cross-Section Versus Pooled Time-Series, Cross-Section Data

  • Margarethe F. Wiersema
  • Harry P. Bowen


Empirical research in strategic management has relied extensively on the use of cross-section data analysis. This paper undertakes a formal examination of methodological issues raised by a cross-section analysis. Specifically we address the limited ability of a cross-section analysis to account for coefficient variation across firms and over time. These pose as important limitations in the context of strategic management research. This paper discusses alternative analytical techniques that can control for many of the limitations of a cross-section analysis. Regression methods based on pooled time series, cross-section data can help overcome biases introduced because model parameters can vary across firms or over time.


Firm Size Strategy Research Corporate Financial Performance Diversification Strategy Pool Time Series 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chakravarthy. B. (1986), Measuring Strategic Performance. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp 437–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Greene, William H. (1993), Econometric Analysis, Second Edition ( New York: Macmillan )Google Scholar
  3. Hill, C. W.L.and Hansen, G.S. (1991), A longitudinal study of the cause and consequences of changes in diversification in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry 1977–1986. Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp 187–199.Google Scholar
  4. Hoskisson, R.E.and Hitt, M.A. (1990), Antecedents and performance outcomes of diversification: A review and critique of theoretical perspectives. Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp 461–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jacquemin, A.P. and Berry, C.H, (1979), Entropy measure of diversification and corporate growth. Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 27, pp 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lubatkin, M.H and Chatterjee, S. (1991), The strategy-shareholder value relationship: Testing temporal stability across market cycles. Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp 251–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Michel, J. and Hambrick, D. (1992), Diversification posture and top management team characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, pp 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ramanujam, V. and Varadarajan, P. (1989), Research on corporate diversification: A synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 10, pp 523–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Robins, J.and Wiersema, M. F. (1995), A resource-based approach to the multibusiness firm: Empirical analysis of portfolio interrelationships and corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 16, pp 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rumelt, R. P. (1991), How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp 167–185. Venkatraman, N. and Grant, J. (1986), Construct Measurement in Organizational Strategy Research: A Critique and Proposal. Academy of Management Review, Vol.11:1, pp 71–87.Google Scholar
  11. Wiersema, M.F. and Bantel, K.A. (1992), Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. 1992. Academy of Management Journal, 35, pp 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margarethe F. Wiersema
    • 1
  • Harry P. Bowen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations