To Be The Same,or To Be Different

As two common phenomena in management practice,firm isomorphism strategy and differentiation strategy have been studied a lot,especially in the fields of institutional theory and resource based theory.However,most existing research are either focused on firm isomorphism or focused on firm differentiation based on different theoretical foundations,thus result in conflicting views.For instance,institutional theory emphasizes on isomorphism while resource based theory suggests that firm should differentiate.In fact,strategy making is a complex firm activity based on internal and external contingency factors,which is to say,to answer the question of"to be the same or to be different" needs to draw moderating variables.This paper tries to answer this question by analyzing firm isomorphism and differentiation strategy from a network perspective with case study methodology.Through a case study of two startups in Shanghai that provide overseas study tours,this paper finds out that network embeddedness is a significant factor that influence firm isomorphism and differentiation strategy.In terms of structural embededness,central firms tend to adopt institutional and competitive differentiation strategy while peripheral firms tend to adopt institutional and competitive isomorphism strategy.In terms of relational embededness,firms with strong ties tend to be institutionally and competitively isomorphic to each other while institutionally and competitively differentiate from the industry.In contrast,firms with weak ties tend to be less institutionally and competitively isomorphic to each other while institutionally and competitively isomorphic to the industry.The findings not only can reconcile conflicting views from different theories and contribute to firm strategy research development,but also can provide implications to firms that can help them better cope with institutional and competitive pressures and thus achieve the dual goal of legitimacy and efficiency.