Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Organizational Culture - Can It Be A Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage
Organizational Culture - Can It Be A Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage
Organizational Culture - Can It Be A Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.
http://www.jstor.org
Recent attempts to explain the sustained supe- ways they conduct business. It is these core val-
rior financial performance of firms like IBM, ues (about how to treat employees, customers,
Hewlett-Packard, Proctor and Gamble, and Mc- suppliers, and others) that foster innovativeness
Donald's have focused on the managerial val- and flexibility in firms; when they are linked with
ues and beliefs embodied in these firms' organi- management control, they are thought to lead to
zational cultures ("Corporate Culture," 1980;Deal sustained superior financial performance.
& Kennedy, 1982; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Many of these explanations have a strong nor-
Tichy, 1983). These explanations suggest that mative orientation. Firms with strong cultures are
firms with sustained superior financial perfor- pointed out as examples of excellent manage-
mance typically are characterized by a strong ment (Peters & Waterman, 1982); mechanisms
set of core managerial values that define the for modifying the cultures of other firms to approxi-
mate closely the cultures of successful firms have
Major funding for this research was provided by the Office been widely discussed and applied ("Corporate
of Naval Research, by the US-Japan Friendship Commission,
Culture," 1980; Tichy, 1983; Quinn, 1980). These
and by the Mellon Foundation. Additional support was pro-
vided by the IBM Corporation; the General Electric Founda- efforts are seen not only as ways of improving
tion; the Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Amp, Inc.; and employee morale or quality of work life, but also
the Alcoa Foundation. Discussions with William G. Ouchi, as vital for improving a firm's financial perfor-
William McKelvey, Richard Rumelt, Alan Wilkins, Stan mance. Recall that Peters and Waterman (1982)
Ornstein, Maggi Phillips, Connie Gersick and the Organiza-
chose firms for their sample that not only had an
tional Economics Seminar at UCLA have been invaluable in
the development of this work. excellent reputation for management, but also
Correspondence should be addressed to Jay B. Barney, were superior financial performers over the last
Graduate School of Management, University of California, two decades (Peters & Waterman, 1982, pp.
Los Angeles, CA 90024. 22-23).
656
657
659
660
661
662
663
References
Alchian, A. (1950) Uncertainty, evolution, and economic Copeland, T. E., & Weston, J. F. (1979) Financial theory and
theory. Journal of Political Economy, 58, 211-221. corporate policy. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Alchian, A., & Demsetz, H. (1972) Production, information Corporate culture: The hard-to-change values that spell suc-
costs, and economic organization. American Economic cess or failure. (1980, October 27) Business Week, pp.
Review, 62, 777-795. 148-160.
Barley, S. P. (1983) Semiotics and the study of occupational Crozier, M. (1964) The bureaucratic phenomena. Chicago:
and organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quar- University of Chicago Press.
terly, 28, 393-413. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. E. (1982) Corporate cultures. Read-
Barney, J. B. (1985a) Strategizing processes and returns to ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
strategies. Unpublished manuscript, University of Califor- Demsetz, H. (1973) Industry structure, market rivalry, and
nia, Graduate School of Management, Los Angeles.
public policy. Journal of Law and Economics, 16, 1-9.
Barney, J. B. (1985b) Types of competition and the theory of DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983)The iron cage revisited:
strategy. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Institutional isomorophism and collective rationality in
Graduate School of Management, Los Angeles. organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2),
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1967) The social construction of 147-160.
reality. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life.
Chamberlin, E. H. (1933) The theory of monopolistic competi- New York: Doubleday.
tion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gregory, K. L. (1983) Native-view paradigms: Multiple cul-
Clark, B. R. (1970) The distinctive college: Antioch, Reed, and tures and culture conflicts in organizations. Administrative
Swarthmore. Chicago: Aldine. Science Quarterly, 28, 359--376.
Clark, B. R. (1972) The organizational saga in higher educa- Hirshleifer, J. (1980) Price theory and its applications (2nd
tion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 178-184. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
664
665