IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ems/eureri/7119.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why “They” never can be as good as “Us”: How other organizations must be worse off on essential features

Author

Listed:
  • van Rekom, J.
  • van Nierop, A.E.

Abstract

Being different from competitors, in a positive sense, is an important asset to organizations. Well-chosen emphasis on distinctive organizational features is very helpful in achieving a superior position relative to rival organizations. However, organizations often claim to be distinctive on features where they appear be at best only moderately distinctive. Systematic bias seems to arise because what members see as distinctive about their organization is so closely interwoven with how they see its identity. In this study, organization members rated competitors systematically lower on a feature to the extent that they considered that feature to make up the essence of the identity of their own organization. The results point to a serious tendency to underestimate comparable competitors as a consequence of the social comparison heuristics. Managerially, this implies an important caution when designing corporate strategy and positioning.

Suggested Citation

  • van Rekom, J. & van Nierop, A.E., 2005. "Why “They” never can be as good as “Us”: How other organizations must be worse off on essential features," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2005-073-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    • Handle: RePEc:ems:eureri:7119
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/7119/ERS%202005%20073%20MKT.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David L. Deephouse, 1999. "To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 147-166, February.
    2. Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 775-816.
    3. Edwards, Jeffrey R., 1995. "Alternatives to Difference Scores as Dependent Variables in the Study of Congruence in Organizational Research," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 307-324, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David M. Ritzwoller & Joseph P. Romano, 2019. "Uncertainty in the Hot Hand Fallacy: Detecting Streaky Alternatives to Random Bernoulli Sequences," Papers 1908.01406, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2021.
    2. Kamini Gupta & Donal Crilly & Thomas Greckhamer, 2020. "Stakeholder engagement strategies, national institutions, and firm performance: A configurational perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(10), pages 1869-1900, October.
    3. Xueyan Dong & Jingyu Gao & Sunny Li Sun & Kangtao Ye, 2021. "Doing extreme by doing good," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 291-315, March.
    4. Alessandri, Todd M. & Khan, Raihan H., 2006. "Market performance and deviance from industry norms: (Mis)alignment of organizational risk and industry risk," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(10-11), pages 1105-1115, October.
    5. Andreas Koch & Harald Strotmann, 2006. "Determinants of Innovative Activity in Newly Founded Knowledge Intensive Business Service Firms," International Studies in Entrepreneurship, in: Michael Fritsch & Juergen Schmude (ed.), Entrepreneurship in the Region, chapter 10, pages 195-224, Springer.
    6. , G. & , & ,, 2008. "Non-Bayesian updating: A theoretical framework," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(2), June.
    7. Julius H. Johnson, Jr. & Dinesh A. Mirchandani & Seng-Su Tsang, 2008. "Competitive Dynamics, Global Industry Cycles, Integration-Responsiveness, and Financial Performance in Emerging and Industrialized Country Markets," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 7(1), pages 61-88, April.
    8. Mohrschladt, Hannes, 2021. "The ordering of historical returns and the cross-section of subsequent returns," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    9. Dohmen, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Marklein, Felix & Sunde, Uwe, 2009. "Biased probability judgment: Evidence of incidence and relationship to economic outcomes from a representative sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 903-915, December.
    10. Rachel Croson & James Sundali, 2005. "The Gambler’s Fallacy and the Hot Hand: Empirical Data from Casinos," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 195-209, May.
    11. Sigrid Suetens & Claus B. Galbo-Jørgensen & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2016. "Predicting Lotto Numbers: A Natural Experiment on the Gambler's Fallacy and the Hot-Hand Fallacy," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 584-607.
    12. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    13. Evan M. Calford & Anujit Charkraborty, 2022. "The Value of and Demand for Diverse News Sources," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2022-688, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    14. Francesca Bernini & Fabio La Rosa, 2024. "Research in the greenwashing field: concepts, theories, and potential impacts on economic and social value," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 28(2), pages 405-444, June.
    15. Wu, Chen-Hui & Wu, Chin-Shun & Liu, Victor W., 2009. "The conservatism bias in an emerging stock market: Evidence from Taiwan," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 494-505, September.
    16. Sang-June Park & Youjae Yi, 2016. "Performance-only measures vs. performance-expectation measures of service quality," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(15-16), pages 741-756, December.
    17. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2020. "The distribution of information and the price efficiency of markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    18. Stöckl, Thomas & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian, 2015. "Hot hand and gambler's fallacy in teams: Evidence from investment experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 327-339.
    19. Lex Borghans & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "Understanding the Technology of Computer Technology Diffusion: Explaining Computer Adoption Patterns and Implications for the Wage Structure," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 17(3-4), pages 37-70, September.
    20. Tiziana Assenza & Te Bao & Cars Hommes & Domenico Massaro, 2014. "Experiments on Expectations in Macroeconomics and Finance," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments in Macroeconomics, volume 17, pages 11-70, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Distinctiveness; Essence; Organizational Identity; Social Comparison;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure
    • M - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ems:eureri:7119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: RePub (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/erimanl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.