2014 International Conference on Management Science & Engineering (21th)
August 17-19, 2014
Helsinki, Finland
Impact of the Fitness between Business Strategy and
HRM System on Sustained Competitive Advantage
XU Long1，GAO Su-ying1,2，LIU Bing1，GRAMI Bahram2，YU Hui1
1 School of Economic and Management, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, P.R.China
2 School of International Education, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300130, P.R.China
Abstract: Based on contingency theory and the
resource-based view of firms, this paper summarizes
hypotheses of Business strategies, HRM systems and
sustained competitive advantage of firms, and uses the
data from 263 Chinese listed companies to empirically
test for the hypotheses. The results show that companies
that pursue different business strategies implement
different HRM systems to match with them. Those that
pursue cost leadership strategy would implement external
HRM system, and those that pursue differentiation
strategy tend to implement internal HRM system.
Moreover, companies whose HRM system matches with
business strategy do not have necessarily higher
short-term performance while companies whose HRM
system matches with business strategy always have
higher long-term performance than those whose HRM
system does not match.
Keywords: business strategies, firm performance,
HRM system, listed companies, sustained competitive
advantage
1 Introduction
Theories of strategy management have historically
acknowledged the importance of internal resource and
activities, which have Value, Rare, Inimitable and
Organized (VRIO) characters, as the potentially
important sources to maintain competitive advantage and
to achieve higher performance [1, 2]. For this reason,
Human Resource (HR) and Human Resource
Management (HRM) become the center issue of strategy
management due to its strategic importance and dynamic
suitability [3, 4]. It is the first requirement to maintain
sustained competitive advantage that rationally deploy
HR and implement HRM. Many scholars’ seminal works
on competitive advantage could be able to acknowledge
such ideas. [5, 6]
In the realm of HRM, different researchers have
various opinions about the relationship between HRM
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (71172153, 71072149), the Natural Science Foundation
of Hebei Province (G2014202233) and the Soft Science
Foundation of Hebei Province (14455306D)
978-1-4799-5376-9/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE
and firm performance. Those opinions can be classified
into four perspectives: 1) The universalistic perspective
is the simplest approach to analyze human resource
management strategies. They believed that the best HRM
systems exist, and it could adapt to any organizations
regardless of environment and capacity, and will help the
companies achieve higher performance. There are some
examples of best human resource practices: highperformance work systems, high-involvement work
systems, and flexible work systems [7, 8]. 2) The
contingency perspective proposes a model based on
interactivity. It brings the generic contingent model to the
HRM context, on the assumption that the dependent and
independent variables will no longer be stable. These
variables will depend, in turn, on contingency variables.
The contingency variables include strategic variables,
organizational variables and a broad set of environment
factors. This contingency perspective explains that the
contribution of HR practices to performance depends
directly on the extent to which they fit the business
strategy, especially when focusing on the strategy
variables. [9] 3) The configuration perspective, contrary to
the contingency view, contributes to the explanation of
strategic HRM with an insight about the internal aspects
of the function, by the analysis of the synergic integration
of its components. In this sense, those researchers define
HRM system as a multidimensional set of elements that
can be combined in different ways to obtain an infinite
number of possible configurations. This HRM system
must be consistent not only with the environment and
organizational capacity but with internal consistency [10].
4) The contextual perspective introduces a descriptive,
global explanation through a broader model. The
researchers for the contextual perspective argue that it is
necessary to expand the concept of the HRM system to
offer a more complex explanation. The contextual
perspective explains not only its internal working and
reinforcement for the achievement of business strategy,
but also its influence on the global and industrial context
[11]
.
Above researches have clarified the basic ideas of
HRM field and laid a solid foundation for future research.
However, there are problems with the questionnaires that
- 584 -
are widely used [13-16]. As an effective data collection
method, the questionnaire could collect vast credible data
[12]
. Because all data come from just one source, the
common method variance exists. In addition, it is
difficult to reach a consensus due to the use of different
questionnaires, perception deviation of the subject, and
other factors [13]. Researchers use the following methods
to avoid those problems. Takeuchi et al. attempted to
mitigate such problems by having multiple raters to study
the relationship between high performance work system
and firm performance [14]. Jiang et al. used the
meta-analysis method to survey the impact of HRM
systems on firm performance. [15]
This study, based on the configuration perspective,
attempts to analyze the impact of fitness between
business strategies and HRM systems on sustained
competitive advantage. Using the data from the annual
financial statements of the listed companies, we could
effectively avoid the common method variance and the
perception deviation [16]. Besides, the using of time series
data makes the study of sustained competitive advantage
more feasible.
2 Literature review
2.1 Business strategy
The most influential model in strategy management
is Porter’s generic strategies model, i.e. cost leadership,
differentiation and focus [17]. Companies pursuing the
cost leadership strategy are trying to earn excess profits
by reducing costs. Companies pursuing differentiation
strategy are trying to maximize the profits by offer
distinctive products to various groups of consumers.
Companies pursuing the focus strategy are trying to meet
the need of a particular market segment and achieve
higher performances by using cost leadership or
differentiation strategy. Due to the concept of focus
strategy, we simplify Porter’s generic strategies model to
two strategies: cost leadership and differentiation.
2.2 HRM system
According to the configuration perspective, different
elements of HRM practices combine to exhibit several
configurations of HRM systems. By using empirical
taxonomies, Arthur divided HRM systems of
manufacturing enterprises into “commitment” and
“controlled”, and empirically tested the relationship
between HRM system and firm performance. [18] Based
on an extensive review of literature, Miles and Snow [19]
classified HRM systems into “contract” and “making”
types. Later, Rousseau and Greller validated Miles and
Snow’s hypotheses [20]. Delery and Doty classified HRM
systems into “market-type” and “internal”, by using
conceptual typologies and empirical taxonomies [21].
These HRM classifications are made according to
the source of the HR. The HRM system that acquire
human resource, by internal training, were called as
“commitment”, “making” or “internal”. This kind of
HRM system uses rigorous recruitment to acquire human
resource and provides a number of on-the-job training for
improvement of staffs’ skills. It also establishes a fair
performance appraisal system and a salary system to
maintain long-term symbiotic relationship with the staff.
While the “controlled”, “contract” or “market-type”
HRM system is simpler. This kind of HRM system
acquires human resources from the labor market, controls
employees by laying down strict regulations, builds a
results-oriented appraisal system, and establishes a
compensation system consistent with the market.
In this paper, we classify HRM systems into
“external” and “internal”. Companies implementing
external HRM system acquire standardized human
resources from the labor market. These companies need
to reduce investment on employees. Companies
implementing internal HRM system culture a requisite
human resource by offering professional training and
providing higher salary. These companies will have
higher human resource cost.
2.3 Fitness between business strategy and HRM
system
In order to obtain sustained competitive advantage,
companies that use the cost leadership strategy, focus on
reducing cost and pursuing efficiency [22]. In the premise
of ensuring the products quality, these companies are
committed to reduce cost and to maximize excessive
profits. Under cost leadership strategy, their tasks are
repetitive and easy to predict. In this case, employees
only need to have basic knowledge and skills to fulfill
the strategy goal. Recruitment and selection, therefore,
only need follow the job descriptions and it is not
necessary to offer professional on-the-job training. In
daily management, staff is asked to be strictly complying
with the norms. Moreover, the results-oriented appraisal
system is built and salary is remained in line with market
level.
On the other hand, in order to increase market share,
companies that use differentiation strategy need to focus
on the distinctness of products or services [23]. Under the
premise of not ignoring the cost, those companies strive
to enhance the uniqueness of their brand, and technical
and appearance features. At this point, employees are
expected of higher creativity and more cooperation as
well as sharing their experience and ideas. In the
recruitment and selection, strict criteria are established to
choose applicants with professional skills and right
personality. In addition to basic training, those companies
will also provide employees with management training,
extension training, and other activities that could
improve the staff’s skills and efficiency. Managers
establish flexible regulations, encourage innovation
behaviors, and tolerate strange behaviors. Result-oriented
and process-oriented appraisal systems are both built to
ensure fairness. Based on our extensive review of
literature and analyzing the performance of a number of
companies, we would like to set different hypotheses for
various companies:
Hypothesis 1: Companies that use different business
- 585 -
strategies choose different HRM systems. Those that use
the cost leadership strategy implement external HRM
system and those that use differentiation strategy
implement internal HRM system.
2.4 Impact of fitness between business strategy and
HRM system
The configuration perspective holds that companies
whose HRM systems fit their strategy would achieve
higher performance. Youndt et al. examined
“HR-performance”
relationship
by
using
97
manufacturing plants. The results show that the HR
system, focused on human capital enhancement, directly
related to multiple dimensions of operational
performance [24]. Chow et al. revealed that HR
configurations significantly related to overall outcome
performance and turnover [25]. Based on the data from 86
banking institutions in Spain, Pena and Villasalero found
that when HRM system matched with business strategies,
organization would render better organizational
performance [26].
Hypothesis 2: The companies whose HRM system
matches with strategy will achieve higher short term
performance.
Hypothesis 2a: Under the cost leadership strategy,
companies that implement external HRM system will
achieve higher short-term performance than those with
internal HRM system.
Hypothesis 2b: Under differentiation strategy,
companies that implement internal HRM system will
achieve higher short-term performance than those with
external HRM system.
Because of using cross-sectional data, most of the
existing studies have been unable to draw conclusion
from analysis of sustained competitive advantage [27]. In
this paper, however, we use the data from annual
financial statements that enable us to explore “the black
box” in HRM realm.
Hypothesis 3: The companies whose HRM system
matches with their strategy will achieve higher long-term
performance.
Hypothesis 3a: Under cost leadership strategy, the
companies that implement external HRM system will
achieve higher long-term performance than those with
internal HRM system.
Hypothesis 3b: Under differentiation strategy, the
companies that implement internal HRM system will
achieve higher long-term performance than those with
external HRM system.
3 Methodology
3.1 Sample
In order to exclude subordinate factors, such as
policy or industry, data are only collected from
manufacturing industry listed companies.
All disclosed financial statements were derived
from two websites (CNINFO and Sina Finance).
According to “Guidelines on Industry Classification of
Listed Company” which issued by China’s securities
regulatory commission, we randomly selected 300 listed
companies in the manufacturing sector as the research
sample. The data from 300 listed companies are filtered
based on the following criteria: (1) All PT, ST, *ST, STT
and S*ST is deleted due to sustained losses. (2)
Companies fewer than five in an industry are deleted. (3)
Companies with less than three financial statements are
deleted. (4) Companies with diversification strategy are
deleted [28]. (5) Apparent abnormalities and incomplete
data are deleted. At the beginning of 2007, Chinese
government required that listed companies to adopt a
new accounting standard for preparation of financial
statements. For the sake of consistency, 2007 was used as
the base year for data collection. A total of 263 valid
samples with 798 records were collected to examine our
hypotheses. The descriptive statistics is shown in Tab.1.
Ownership
Staff number
Tab.1 Descriptive statistics
Category
Quantity
State
90
Collective
2
Private
143
Foreign
2
Sino-Foreign
26
<1000
61
1000~5000
89
5000~10000
74
>10000
39
Frequency
34%
1%
54%
1%
10%
23%
34%
28%
15%
3.2 Variables
1) Firm performance
We choose Return on assets (ROA) as an indicator
to measure firm performance [29].
2) Business strategy
By using the measurement method of David et al.
seven indicators were selected to measure the type of
business strategy [30].
The following four indicators were used to measure
cost leadership: (1) X1 (turnover of total capital =
operating receipt/total assets); (2) X2 (turnover of fixed
asset = operating receipt/fixed assets); (3) X3 (turnover
of account receivable = operating receipt/average
accounts receivable); (4) X4 (employees’ productivity =
operating receipt/payroll).
The following three indicators are used to measure
differentiation: (1) X5 (gross profit rate = gross
profit/operating cost); (2) X6 (selling expenses/operating);
(3) X7 (R&D costs/operating receipt).
2) HRM system
Based on human resource accounting, the following
five indicators were used to identify the type of HRM
systems [31]. (1) X8 (the average pay for senior
management); (2) X9 (the average salary for employees);
(3) X10 (the ratio of the average pay for senior
management to the average salary for employees); (4)
X11 (the ratio of the average pay for senior management
of the company to of the industry); (5) X12 (the ratio of
the average salary for employees of the companies to of
- 586 -
the industry). In summary, Tab.2 shows all variables and
their definitions and calculation.
Tab.2 Variables and their definition and calculation
Variables
Definitions
Calculation
(operating receipts - operating
Return on
ROA
costs)/total assets - average ROA
assets
of the industry
Z normalization and Confirmatory
Cost
Lowc
factor analysis. The higher score,
leadership
the more cost of leadership
Z normalization and Confirmatory
Differentia
Diff
factor analysis. The higher score,
tion
the more differentiation
Z normalization and Confirmatory
HRM
HRM
factor analysis. The higher score,
system
the more internal HRM system.
4 Results
In this paper, we use the software (SPSS 19.0 and
AMOS 17.0) to test the hypotheses.
4.1 Reliability and validity analysis
Using confirmatory factor analysis, we examine
reliability and validity of data from the listed companies’
annual fiscal report. The results, shown in Tab.3, suggest
that all indicators reached the acceptable level and some
even passed the well level. However, because the large
amount of samples and its susceptible to the number of
samples, χ2/df reached a higher score but acceptable.
Tab.3 Confirmatory analysis
Loading
Goodness
Factor Indictor
CR
AVE
(t-value)
of fit
0.84
X2
(11.62)
0.76
Lowc
X4
0.79 0.68
(17.23)
0.68
X3
Χ2/df=0.67;
(15.36)
GFI=0.86;
0.75
X5
AGFI=0.82;
(21.25)
RMR=0.05;
0.78
Diff
0.81 0.72
X6
NFI=0.87;
(14.68)
NNFI=0.94;
0.63
X7
CFI=0.84;
(23.57)
RMSEA=0.08;
0.71
X9
(14.53)
0.78
HRM
0.73 0.56
X10
(15.87)
0.82
X12
(19.85)
empirical methods.
4.2 Cluster analysis
According to the result from confirmation factors
analysis, 6 indictors of business strategy and 3 of HRM
system are remained. Then, those indictors are tested by
cluster analysis to distinct different type of business
strategies and HRM systems. The result in Tab. 4 shows
that 361 enterprises are classified into A1, 437 of those
into A2, 461 into B1, and 337 into B2. In older to know
whether the classification have good discriminated, we
use discrimination analysis to test data. The result shows
that 11 samples are misclassified in Strategy A1, 7 in
Strategy A2, 19 in HRM B1, and 14 in HRM B2. The
probability of correct classification is 95.9%.Depending
on the mean, strategy A1 is named as cost leadership
strategy, A2 as differentiation strategy, HRM B1 as
external HRM system, and HRM B2 as internal HRM
system.
Factor
Lowc
Diff
Factor
HRM
A2(N=437)
4.57
8.72
B2(N=337)
3.91
4.3 Fitness between business strategies and HRM
systems
We use chi-square test to examine the relationship
between business strategy and HRM system. The result,
shown in Tab.5, indicates that companies have different
tendency to implement HRM system according to their
business strategies. Companies that use cost leadership
strategy implement external HRM system, and those that
use differentiation strategy implement internal HRM
system. Under cost leadership strategy, in 277 cases, they
implement external HRM system and in other cases, they
implement internal HRM system. Under differentiation
strategy, in 184 cases, they implement internal HRM
system and in other cases, they implement external HRM
system. Hypothesis 1, therefore, is completely verified.
Business
strategy
Lowc
Diff
Total
In conclusion, all factors loading are above 0.5,
t-values are above 10, CR is above 0.8, and AVE is
above 0.5. All indicators, therefore, show that this
paper has good reliability and validity. That will make
us have good reason to believe that the data of this
paper could be able to analyze for the following
Tab.4 Cluster analysis
A1(N=361)
9.26
5.89
B1(N=461)
8.65
Tab.5 Chi-square test
HRM system
External
Internal
277
84
184
253
461
337
Total
361
437
798
4.4 Impact of the fitness between business strategies
and HRM systems
The impact of fitness between business strategy and
HRM system was confirmed based on the method of
variance analysis. We use the average of ROA as an
indicator to sustained competitive advantage. The result,
shown in Tab.6, suggests that companies whose HRM
system matches with business strategy do not have
necessarily higher short-term performance. Under cost
- 587 -
leadership strategy, the average value of the short-term
performance of companies whose HRM system matches
with business strategy is higher (3.37) than other cases
(2.97). However, under differentiation strategy, the
average value of short-term performance of companies
that do not match with business strategy is higher (3.16)
than other cases (3.04). Since only the difference under
cost leadership was significant, the hypothesis 2 is
partially verified.
Fitness
No fitness
p-value
Tab.6 Variance analysis
Short-term
Long-term
Lowc
Diff
Lowc
Diff
3.37
3.04
3.21
3.21
2.97
3.16
2.83
3.13
0.01
0.43
0.01
0.01
Companies whose HRM system matches with
business strategy always have higher long-term
performance than those whose HRM system do not
match. Under cost leadership strategy, the average value
of the long-term performance of companies whose HRM
system matches with business strategy is higher (3.21)
than other cases (2.83). Likewise, under differentiation
strategy, the average value of long-term performance of
companies that match is higher (3.51) than other cases
(3.13). Both differences are significant, and therefore the
hypothesis 3 is completely verified.
5 Conclusion
The data from annual financial statements of
Chinese Listed Companies were collected and analyzed
by statistical analysis software include SPSS 19.0 and
AMOS 17.0 to examine the impact of fitness between
business strategy and HRM systems on sustained
competitive advantage. By using confirmation analysis,
cluster analysis, chi-square analysis and variance analysis,
hypotheses 1 and 3 were verified, and hypothesis 2 was
partially verified.
Company will implement different HRM systems
according to its competitive strategy. Companies that use
cost leadership strategy would implement external HRM
system while companies that use differentiation strategy
tend to implement internal HRM system. The formation
of business strategies could enable enterprises to achieve
their strategic goals, either cutting costs or motivating
innovation. This will make HR department more focus
on different practices to help the company achieve their
strategic goal.
Under cost strategy, in order to minimize costs, HR
department must reduce investment in human resources.
Those companies can easily acquire human resources
from the labor market. Subsequently, little professional
training is offered to employees and they are paid almost
the same as others in the industry. This kind of HR
practices, in turn, reduce further its cost by less consume
for employees’ welfare. Under differentiation strategy,
companies need numerous of employee who is talent and
hard to hire from original workforce. As a result, the kind
of companies has to provide professional on-the-job
training to culture their employees. Moreover, in order to
avoid brain loss, the companies should offer financial
and career secure to talent.
Investments in human resource, however, do not
have an immediate influence. Companies need a
buffering time to acquire more required human capital.
Under differentiation strategy, companies that implement
internal HRM system usually have higher costs without
having higher income. On one hand, training itself
should take time to culture employee with professional
knowledge, skills and abilities. On the other hand, in that
time, companies’ goods are as same as competitor’s. As a
result, their short-term performance is lower than
companies that implement external HRM system. Under
cost leadership strategy, companies that implement
internal HRM system usually have higher cost too.
Consequently, those companies will achieve lower
short-term performance than companies that implement
extern HRM system. In a word, companies whose HRM
system matches with business strategy do not have
necessarily higher short-term performance. It depends on
what kind of HRM system that company was implement
due to cost of human resouces.
Gradually, the influence of investment in human
resource will start to appear. Under cost leadership
strategy, HR departments have vast experience how to
effectively manage and control the staff. Necessary rules
and regulations are set to lower cost and higher the
productivity. A higher long-term performance, therefore,
will achieved by those companies. Meanwhile, under
differentiation strategy, investments in human resource
elevate the skill level of the staff. High-tech employees
would meet the requirement to achieve the strategy goal.
The more distinct product or service, the more market
share the companies gain. Consequently, companies
would achieve higher performance in long-term. To
summarize, companies whose HRM system matches with
business strategy always have higher long-term
performance than those whose HRM system does not
match.
Although most hypotheses were verified, there is
still one important issue need to address. There is little
data about the accounting of human resource in Chinese
companies. For example, their annual financial
statements lack the information on how or in what way
the human resource budget was spent. Due to the
shortage of such data, indictors for measuring HRM
system are not perfect and unable to make a clear
distinction between internal and external HRM systems.
References
[1]Barney J B. Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage [J]. Journal of Management, 1991, 17(1):
99-120.
[2]Campbell-Hunt C. What have we learned about
generic competitive strategy? A meta-analysis [J].
- 588 -
Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21(2): 127-154.
[3]Sirmon D G, Hitt M A. Contingencies within dynamic
managerial capabilities: Interdependent effect of resource
investment and deployment on firm performance [J].
Strategic Management Journal, 2009, 30(13): 1375-1394.
[4]Wright P M, Dunford B B, Snell S A. Human
resources and the resource based view of the firm [J].
Journal of Management, 2001, 27(6): 701-721.
[5]Becker B E, Gerhart B. The impact of human resource
management on organizational performance: Progress
and Prospects [J]. The Academy of Management Journal,
1996, 39(4): 779-801.
[6]Boselie P, Dietz G, Boon C. Commonalities and
contradictions in HRM and performance [J]. Human
Resource Management Journal, 2005, 15(1): 67-94.
[7]Combs J, Lie Y, Hall A, Ketchen D. How much do
high-performance work practices matter? A metaanalysis of their effects on organizational performance [J].
Personnel Psychology, 2006, 59(3): 501-528.
[8]Boxall P, Macky K. Research and theory on highperformance work systems: Progressing the highinvolvement stream [J]. Human Resource Management
Journal, 2009, 19(1): 3-23.
[9]Richard O C, Johnson N B. Strategic human resource
management effectiveness and firm performance [J]. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management,
2001, 12(2): 299-310.
[10]Delery J E. Issues of fit in strategic human resource
management: Implications for research [J]. Human
Resource Management Review, 1998, 8(3): 289-309.
[11]Brewster C. SHRM: The value of different
paradigms [J]. Management International Review, 1999,
39(3): 45-64.
[12]Chen X P, Xu S Y, Fan J L. Empirical method in
organization and management research [M]. 2nd ed.
Beijing: Peking University Press, 2012.
[13]Wright P M, McMahan G C. Exploring human
capital: Putting human back into strategic human
resource management [J]. Human Resource Management
Journal, 2011, 21(2): 93-104.
[14]Takeuchi R, Lepak D, Wang H, Takeuchi K. An
empirical examination of the mechanisms mediating
between high-performance work systems and the
performance of Japanese organizations [J]. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 2007, 92(4): 1069-1093.
[15]Jiang K F, Hu J, Baer J C. How does human resource
management influence organizational outcomes? A
meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms [J].
Academy of Management Journal, 2012, 55(6):
1264-1294.
[16]Johnson R E, Rosen C C, Djurdjevic E. Assessing
the impact of common method variance on higher order
multidimensional constructs [J]. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 2011, 96(4): 744.
[17]Porter M E. Competitive advantage [M]. Beijing:
The Publishing House of Chain Culture, 2012. (in
Chinese)
[18]Arthur J B. Effects of HR systems on manufacturing
performance and turnover [J]. Academy of Management
Journal, 1994, 37(3): 670-687.
[19]Miles R E, Snow C C. Designing strategic human
resource systems [J]. Organizational Dynamics, 1984,
13(1): 36-52.
[20]Rousseau D M, Greller M M. Human resource
practices: Administrative contract makers [J]. Human
Resource Management, 1994, 33(3): 385-401.
[21]Delery J E, Doty D H. Models of theorizing in
strategic human resource management: Tests of
universalistic, contingency, and configurationally
performance predictions [J]. Academy of Management
Journal, 1996, 39(4): 802-835.
[22]Akan O, Allen R S, Helms M M, Spralls III S A.
Critical tactics for implementing Porter’s generic
strategies [J]. Journal of Business Strategy, 2006, 27(1):
43-53.
[23]Zheng B Y, Chen Q, Li S. The research of the impact
of differentiation strategy on firm performance: A
mediator view based on innovation [J]. Studies in
Science of Science, 2011, 29(9): 1406-1414. (in Chinese)
[24]Youndt M A, Snell S A, Dean J W, Jr, Lepak D P.
Human resource management, manufacturing strategy
and firm performance [J]. The Academy of Management
Journal, 1996, 39(4): 836-866.
[25]Chow I H, Huang J C, Liu S S. Strategic HRM in
China: Configurations and competitive advantage [J].
Human Resource Management, 2008, 47(4): 687-706.
[26]Pena I, Villasalero M. Business strategy, human
resource systems, and organizational performance in the
Spanish banking industry [J]. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 2010, 21(15):
2864-2888.
[27]Barney J B, Ketchen D J, Wright M. The future of
resource-based theory revitalization or decline? [J].
Journal of Management, 2011, 37(5): 1299-1315.
[28]Dess G G, Davis P S. Porter’s generic strategies as
determinants of strategic group membership and
organizational
performance
[J].
Academy
of
Management Journal, 1984, 27(3): 467-488.
[29]Liu S X, Xu Z Y. Competitive strategy, firm
performance, and sustainable competitive advantage:
Empirical evidence form Chinese listed companies [J].
Science Research Management, 2008, 29(6): 36-43. (in
Chinese)
[30]David J S, Hwang Y, Pei B K, Reneau J H. The
performance effects of congruence between product
competitive strategies and purchasing management
design [J]. Management Science, 2002, 48(7): 866-885.
[31]Zhang Y. A preliminary exploration on management
accounting of manpower resources [J]. Journal of Shanxi
Finance and Economics University, 2006, 28(2): 209-210.
- 589 -