Business unit relatedness and performance: A look at the pulp and paper industry

Discussions of relatedness in the strategy literature concentrate on linkages among business units in terms of key business functions such as marketing and production. While much is known about relatedness from the standpoint of corporate diversification, evidence about the relationship between relatedness and performance at the business unit level has been notably lacking. To further our understanding of the benefits and costs of relatedness, this study examined the perspectives of business unit managers to assess: (1) how the relationship between the two primary types of relatedness–production and marketing–are emphasized at the business unit level, and (2) how these types of relatedness affect business unit performance.

[1]  P. Rajan Varadarajan,et al.  Diversification and Measures of Performance: Additional Empirical Evidence , 1987 .

[2]  R. Pitts.  Toward a Contingency Theory of Multibusiness Organization Design , 1980 .

[3]  H. Donald Hopkins,et al.  Firm Diversity: Conceptualization and Measurement , 1982 .

[4]  Richard A. Bettis,et al.  Strategic Portfolio Management in the Multibusiness Firm , 1981 .

[5]  M. Porter.  The Contributions of Industrial Organization To Strategic Management , 1981 .

[6]  Vasudevan Ramanujam,et al.  Diversification and Performance: A Reexamination using A New Two-Dimensional Conceptualization of Diversity in Firms , 1987 .

[7]  Robert K. Kazanjian,et al.  Implementing Internal Diversification: Contingency Factors for Organization Design Choices , 1987 .

[8]  Robert E. Hoskisson,et al.  Multidivisional Structure and Performance: The Contingency of Diversification Strategy , 1987 .

[9]  Anil K. Gupta.  SBU Strategies, Corporate-SBU Relations, and SBU Effectiveness in Strategy Implementation , 1987 .

[10]  George S. Yip.  Diversification entry: Internal development versus acquisition , 1982 .

[11]  J. F. Pickering,et al.  DIVISIONALIZATION, DECENTRALIZATION AND PERFORMANCE OF LARGE UNITED KINGDOM COMPANIES 1 , 1986 .

[12]  R. Rumelt,et al.  Diversification strategy and profitability , 1982 .

[13]  Shorey Peterson,et al.  The Modern Corporation and Private Property. , 1933 .

[14]  Vijay Mahajan,et al.  Business synergy does not always pay off , 1988 .

[15]  J. Child.  Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice , 1972 .

[16]  Peter R. Richardson,et al.  Implementing the unrelated product strategy , 1982 .

[17]  Cynthia A. Montgomery,et al.  Product-Market Diversification and Market Power , 1985 .

[18]  Donald F. Heany,et al.  INTEGRATING STRATEGIES FOR CLUSTERS OF BUSINESSES , 1983 .

[19]  H. Grabowski,et al.  Managerial and Stockholder Welfare Models of Firm Expenditures , 1972 .

[20]  Carolyn Y. Woo.  Evaluation of the strategies and performance of low ROI market share leaders , 1983 .

[21]  Roderick E. White.  Generic business strategies, organizational context and performance: An empirical investigation , 1986 .

[22]  Robert E. Hoskisson,et al.  Strategy and Structure in the Multiproduct Firm , 1987 .

[23]  R. Gooding,et al.  A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relationship between Size and Performance: The Productivity and Efficiency of Organizations and Their Subunits. , 1985 .

[24]  John H. Grant,et al.  Construct Measurement in Organizational Strategy Research: A Critique and Proposal , 1986 .

[25]  Carolyn Y. Woo,et al.  Strategies of effective low share businesses , 1981 .

[26]  D. Teece.  ECONOMIES OF SCOPE AND THE SCOPE OF THE ENTERPRISE , 1980 .

[27]  Anil K. Gupta,et al.  Resource Sharing Among Sbus: Strategic Antecedents and Administrative Implications , 1986 .

[28]  Gilbert A. Churchill.  A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs , 1979 .

[29]  Cynthia A. Montgomery,et al.  Corporate economic performance: Diversification strategy versus market structure , 1981 .