Skip to main content

Abstract

The German philosopher Hegel told us that one can understand oneself better by understanding others. By seeing what one is not, one sees better what one is. In the stream of discussions at the Copenhagen conference, I gained a new perspective on the challenge of blending evolutionary and strategic theories of the firm: the biggest hurdles are not analytical but philosophical. Evolutionary theorists and business strategists have fundamentally different world views. Although our preconference paper (see Chapter 1) duly noted the different legacies of each tradition, we missed the enormity of the ideology, the deep-seated convictions and ways of seeing that underlie the respective streams of work.

This paper benefited from many conversations with Robert E. Kennedy and Birger Wemerfelt. Elizabeth Wynne Johnson helped to frame the issues from the venerable perspective of the liberal arts. Their insights are gratefully acknowledged

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., and Schoemaker, P.J. 1993. “Strategic assets and organizational rent.” Strategic Management Journal 14: 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. 1991. “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.” Journal of Management 17:99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, C.R., Andrews, K.R., and Bower, J.L 1978. Business Policy: Text and Cases. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K.R. “A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of the firm?” Journal of Management 17: 121–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I., and Cool, K. 1989. “Asset stock accumulation and sustainable competitive advantage.” Management Science 35: 1504–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Winter, S.G., and Teece, D. 1992. Towards a theory of corporate coherence: preliminary remarks. In G. Dosi, R. Giannetti and P.A. Toninelli (eds.), Technology and enterprise in a historical perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. 1991. Commitment. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R.M. 1991. “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation.” California Management Review 33:114–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M.T., and Freeman, J. 1977. “The population ecology of organizations.” American Journal of Sociology 82: 929–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keillor, Garrison. “Prairie Home Companion.” National Public Radio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. “Core competencies and core rigidities: a paradox in new product development.” Strategic Management Journal 13: 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, C.A. and Hariharan, S. 1991. “Diversified expansion by large established firms.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization: 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R.R. 1991. “Why do firms differ and how does it matter?” Strategic Management Journal 12: 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M.A. 1993. “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view.” Strategic Management Journal 14: 179–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. 1991. “Towards a dynamic theory of strategy.” Strategic Management Journal 12: 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C.K., and Hamel, G. 1990. “The core competence of the corporation.” Harvard Business Review, May/June: 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R.P. 1987. Theory, strategy and entrepreneurship. In D. Teece (ed.), The competitive challenge (pp. 137–58). Cambridge: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P.J. 1990. “Strategy, complexity, and economic rent.” Management Science 36: 1178–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., Pisano, G., and Shuen A. 1992. “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.” Working paper, Consortium on Competitiveness and Cooperation, University of California at Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. 1984. “A resource-based view of the firm.” Strategic Management Journal 5: 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Montgomery, C.A. (1995). Of Diamonds and Rust: A New Look at Resources. In: Montgomery, C.A. (eds) Resource-Based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm: Towards a Synthesis. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2201-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2201-0_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-5923-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-2201-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics