Search results

The world in which companies operate today is volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, thus subjecting contemporary forms to an array of risks that challenge their viability in an increasingly competitive landscape. Organizations that cling to their traditional ways of operating impede their ability to survive while those able to embrace evolving changes and lever their strategic response capabilities (SRCs) will thrive against the odds. The possession of such capabilities has become a prominent explanation for effective adaptation to the impending changes but is rarely analyzed and tested empirically. Strategic adaptation typically assumes innovation as an important component, but we know little about how the innovative processes interact with the firm’s SRCs. Hence, this study investigates these implied relationships to discern their effects on organizational performance and risk outcomes. It explores the effects of SRCs and the role of innovation as intertwined adaptive mechanisms supporting strategic renewal that can attain superior performance and risk effects. The relationships are analyzed based on a large sample of US manufacturing firms over the decade 2010–2019. The study reveals that firms possessing effective SRCs have the ability to exploit opportunities and deflect risky situations to gain favorable performance and risk outcomes. While innovation indeed plays a role, the precise nature and dynamic effect thereof remain inconclusive.

Efficiency and productivity has always being a key issue in economic science. The analysis of the impact of research and development (R&D) has been extensively studied in industries and countries of more or less aggregated level. This chapter aims to investigate the impact of corporate R&D in performance of low-tech industries, medium-tech, and high-tech in OECD countries.

This chapter aims to answer the questions: Is the impact of R&D significant for all types of industries? If so, what are the differences and the magnitude of these effects in each of these types of industries?

To this end, an unbalanced data set from 2000 to 2011 was collected for the main countries of Europe and the United States concerning low-, medium-, and high-tech to analyze the impact of the magnitude of corporate R&D and capital accumulation on productivity of these industries. The productivity of industries was measured by stochastic parametric frontier functions, in order to measure the efficiency of R&D and accumulation of capital on labor productivity.

The main results highlight the impact of corporate R&D on productivity of high-tech industries, but for other industries those relations are not clear. However, capital accumulation became crucial on low technology to improve their performance. These results, although needing to include a more extensive data set of industries across countries, refer the need for policy and decision makers to allocate public funds for R&D in high-tech industries, while the investment in capital seems crucial, particularly in low-tech industries to improve the productivity.

To innovatively address challenges faced by corporate entrepreneurship (CE) in this modern age of globalization and digitalization, this chapter takes a fresh look at questions of learning and leadership from the perspective of organization development (OD), a field that has long studied questions of planned and emergent change. This alternate perspective adds to our knowledge and understanding of the role of individuals and teams in CE and presents opportunities to integrate learning and leadership. In particular, the OD literature provides us with multilevel measurement methods and tools to better analyze the employee and team level-of-analysis. As a result, these insights should enable us to better explain the interaction between CE strategic orientation and the performance of corporate venturing employees and teams, as well as the progress of organizational strategic renewal and market (re)creation efforts.

The essential investments in new product development (NPD) made by industrial companies entail effective management of NPD activities. In this context, performance measurement is one of the means that can be employed in the pursuit of effectiveness.

The chapter examines whether the lowering of dividend taxes as part of the US Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) resulted in an increase in dividend payouts at the expense of research and development (R&D) spending. Using 1,206 US firm-years data, we find that R&D investments responded negatively to higher levels of dividend payout in the post-JGTRRA of 2003 tax regime compared with the pre-regime. We also find that R&D intensity and financial constraint moderate this negative relation. That is, this relation only holds for firms in low R&D-intensity industries and firms facing high levels of financial constraint. From a tax policy perspective, even though the tax cut on dividend receipts has the benefit of lowering the cost of equity capital, the benefit appears to have come at the expense of R&D investment.

The study of corporate psychopaths has gone from something which some academic peers found somewhat incredible, and even laughable, in 2005, to an area where an increasing amount of research is taking place across many disciplines. The paradigmatic view in 2005 was that psychopaths were criminal and, therefore, to be found in prisons and not in ‘respectable’ corporations. That chapters like this on corporate psychopaths and destructive leadership are now invited in 2020 for inclusion in academic management books that illustrates how relatively quickly the idea that psychopaths are found in corporations has gained acceptance. Nonetheless, destructive, unethical and psychopathic leadership is, by and large, still unexpected in the workplace, and this magnifies its impact as employees struggle to know how to deal with it. Such destructive leadership is also jarring and quite often traumatic for the employees concerned as well as being damaging to the organisations involved. This chapter examines psychopathic leadership and outlines its importance. This subject has been covered before in books and other chapters which describe psychopaths as organisational destroyers and producers of a climate of fear. Therefore, an aim of this chapter is to present some of the most up-to-date findings on corporate psychopaths and how they influence their environment via abusive supervision involving discrimination, ridicule and lowered job satisfaction. Abusiveness and unfairness lead to employees experiencing workplace stress and reduced mental health. The implications of corporate psychopathy for corporate legal responsibility are only just being considered as lawyers, ethicists and philosophers engage with this difficult subject.

Matrix structures are complex and conflict prone, so multinational enterprises (MNEs) would utilize them only if they conferred some advantage over less complex organizational structures. Based upon the information-processing view, a theory of matrix advantage is proposed. It is supported by a secondary analysis of data from a major study of German MNEs. Matrix structures are shown to have an advantage over the elementary structural types. Specifically, the matrix structures fit higher levels of transnational strategy than elementary structures. Transnational strategy is assessed by two concepts: firm internationalization (involvement in foreign sales, manufacturing, and research and development (R&D)) and corporate integration (intracompany transfers). Moreover, three-dimensional matrices are associated with higher levels of transnational strategy than are two-dimensional matrices, confirming the gains from having additional structural dimensions. Matrix structures arise because of the need to simultaneously fit high levels of both firm internationalization and corporate integration. Matrices fit the transnational strategy type of Bartlett and Ghoshal. Implications are drawn for the relationship between the head office and the subsidiary. The matrix often subjects the subsidiary to conflicting expectations from the head office, which it can attempt to manage. Similarly, the head office is challenged by the task of integrating the information that comes from different dimensions of the matrix.

To show that differences in the extent to which firms engage in unrelated diversification can be attributed to differences in ownership structure.

We draw on longitudinal data and use a panel analysis specification to test our hypotheses.

We find that unrelated diversification destroys value; pressure-sensitive Anglo-American owners in a firm’s equity reduce unrelated diversification, whereas pressure-resistant domestic owners increase unrelated diversification; the greater the firm’s free cash flow, the greater the negative effect of pressure-sensitive Anglo-American owners on unrelated diversification.

We contribute to corporate governance and strategy research by bringing in owners’ institutional origin as a shaper of owner preferences in particular with regards to unrelated diversification. Future research may expand our investigation to more than one home institutional context, and theorize on institutional origin effects beyond the dichotomy between Anglo-American and non-Anglo-American (not oriented toward shareholder value maximization) owners.

Policy makers, financial analysts, owners, and managers may want to reflect about the implications of ownership structure, as well as promoting or joining corporations with particular ownership configurations.

A shareholder value-destroying strategy, such as unrelated diversification has adverse consequences for society at large, in terms of opportunity costs, that is, resources could be allocated to value-creating activities instead. Promoting an ownership configuration that creates value should contribute to social welfare.

Owners may not be exclusively driven by shareholder value maximization, but can be influenced by normative beliefs (biases) stemming from the institutional context they originate from.

The impact of competition on innovation has been extensively studied, but with ambiguous findings. We study the impact of import competition on U.S. corporate innovation and present some new perspectives. We conjecture that U.S. firms view import competition from high-wage countries (HWCs) as “neck-and-neck” competition and will respond by intensifying innovation. In contrast, U.S. firms will reduce innovation in response to import competition from low-wage countries (LWCs), because such competition does not always increase the potential benefits from innovation. Our empirical results are supportive. We find that, when confronting HWC import competition, U.S. firms increase R&D spending while intensifying and improving innovation output (file more patents, receive more citations to their patents, and produce more breakthrough patents). Moreover, U.S. firms closest to the technological frontier – largest firms, firms with the largest stocks of knowledge, and most profitable firms – increase and improve their innovation the most in response to HWC competition. These results shed light on the relationship between product market competition and innovation, and point to the origin of import competition as a determinant of innovation decisions made by different U.S. companies.