Resource-based view, which started shaping in the late 1980s and reached the peak of its popularity in the 1990s, is perceived by many as a response to the positioning school approach, which dominated in the 1980s. Both schools see supra-normal returns as firm’s ultimate objective and seek the sources of competitive advantage that allow firms to enjoy profits above industry’s average.
In attempts to explain the differences in firms’ performance positioning school tends to focus on importance of external environment. Profitability is believed to be predominantly affected by the industry structure and active competition, so successful firms are those who manage to position themselves favorably within attractive industries. In contrast RBV authors argue that “environmental analysis – no matter how rigorous – is only half the story” (Barney, 1995, p.49). Multiple examples of firms demonstrating outstanding performance while competing in high threat and low opportunity environments show that reasons for success can be hidden within. Therefore RBV makes an attempt to open the black box of a firm and explain the differences in performance in terms of firm’s resources, competencies and capabilities. All firms are different from each other and only those in possession of valuable and costly-to-copy resources are able to maintain competitive market position. Such focus on internal analysis represents the major difference of RBV approach in comparison to positioning school.
RBV authors also suggest a new practical approach for strategists: rather than constantly trying to ‘fit’ and searching for right position within a turbulent, ever-changing business environment it is more sensible to found the strategy upon more stable sources of competitive advantage, such as internal resources and organizational capabilities (Grant, 1996). Careful assessment and efficient employment of