@article{young_sapienza_baumer_2003, title={The influence of flexibility in buyer-seller relationships on the productivity of knowledge}, volume={56}, ISSN={["0148-2963"]}, DOI={10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00243-0}, abstractNote={This study is the first empirical examination of the knowledge substitution and flexibility effects derived from the relational and resource-based views of the firm. In these perspectives, it is critically important for firms whose strategic value creation depends on innovation and knowledge to develop interfirm knowledge-sharing routines with their trading partners. These routines enable more productive knowledge resources to replace less productive stocks of knowledge, and the effectiveness of the substitution is influenced by the flexibility with which the supplier and buyer firms adapt to the change. Using a sample of entrepreneurial software firms, we find that their productivity increases as their relationships with trading partners become increasingly flexible. Thus, this paper offers evidence that in an innovative, knowledge-intensive industry context, flexibility in interorganizational relationships is an important interfirm resource.}, number={6}, journal={JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH}, author={Young, G and Sapienza, H and Baumer, D}, year={2003}, month={Jun}, pages={443–451} }
 @article{young_smith_grimm_simon_2000, title={Multimarket contact and resource dissimilarity: A competitive dynamics perspective}, volume={26}, DOI={10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00080-5}, abstractNote={Does the competitive dynamics perspective support the mutual forbearance (Edwards, 1955) and resource dissimilarity (Caves & Porter, 1977) theories of competitive behavior? This research examines competitive behavior in the U.S. software industry and finds: (1) as multimarket contact increases, a firm moves less frequently but more quickly following the moves of rivals; (2) as a firm’s resources are more dissimilar relative to rivals, it becomes more rivalrous along both action and timing dimensions of competitive behavior; and, (3) the influence of multimarket contact on firm-level action is most influential for firms whose resources are more dissimilar relative to rivals, but its influence on a firm’s time to move is most influential for firms whose resources are more similar relative to rivals. Thus, the dynamic perspective generally supports, but goes beyond, the insights of the established mutual forbearance and resource dissimilarity theories.}, number={6}, journal={Journal of Management}, author={Young, G. and Smith, K. G. and Grimm, C. M. and Simon, D.}, year={2000}, pages={1217–1236} }
 @article{smith_grimm_wally_young_1997, title={Strategic groups and rivalrous firm behavior: towards a reconciliation}, volume={18}, DOI={10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199702)18:2<149::AID-SMJ854>3.0.CO;2-O}, abstractNote={This research examines the question of whether rivalry is greater between or within strategic groups by utilizing more direct, dynamic and fine-grained measures of rivalry. Examining the competitive actions of firms in different strategic groups to determine if competitive responses were more likely to occur from firms in the same strategic group, or from firms in different strategic groups, the research found that competitive responses cannot be predicted by strategic group membership. Importantly, however, strategic group membership is a predictor of the manner by which firms compete with one another, or the frequency with which they undertake competitive actions, cut prices, instigate warfare and imitate rivals. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.}, number={2}, journal={Strategic Management Journal}, author={Smith, K. G. and Grimm, C. M. and Wally, S. and Young, G.}, year={1997}, pages={149–157} }