Why â€œTheyâ€ never can be as good as â€œUsâ€: How other organizations must be worse off on essential features
AbstractBeing 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.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by 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. in its series Research Paper with number ERS-2005-073-MKT.
Date of creation: 29 Nov 2005
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.erim.eur.nl/
Distinctiveness; Essence; Organizational Identity; Social Comparison;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Matthew Rabin, 2002.
"Inference By Believers In The Law Of Small Numbers,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 117(3), pages 775-816, August.
- Rabin, Matthew, 2000. "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4sw8n41t, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Matthew Rabin., 2000. "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers," Economics Working Papers E00-282, University of California at Berkeley.
- Matthew Rabin, 2001. "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers," Method and Hist of Econ Thought 0012002, EconWPA.
- 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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ERIM Series Handler at the ERIM Office).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.