Search results

The dual importance of centrally induced strategic intent and the ability to engage in autonomous strategic initiatives has been demonstrated in both qualitative and quantitative empirical studies over the past decades. However, the particular mechanisms required to facilitate the interaction between these strategy-making approaches and achieve better corporate performance are less clear. The authors argue that the commonly conceived but rarely examined role of the strategic control process is essential to the implied adaptive performance dynamic. Although the strategic control typically is conceived as the diagnostic monitoring of outcomes, the authors contend that an interactive control (IC) mechanism is conducive to superior performance outcomes. To examine this, the authors use the extant strategy literature to generate the basic hypothesized relationships and conduct an empirical study based on a large corporate sample to uncover the intricate strategy-making model. The analyses show that adherence to ICs is an essential mediator for the positive combined effects of strategic planning and autonomous strategy-making processes.

This chapter contends that the international business (IB) and strategic management (SM) fields have many commonalities that should be considered in a turbulent globalized business context. IB studies refer to the need for local integration and local adaptation whereas empirics in SM pinpoint the complementary effects of central planning and decentralized decision-making. We present and synthesize these rather field specific perspectives and try to synthesize insights from both fields in an adaptive strategy-making model including the effects of autonomous subsidiary initiatives and intended mandates from corporate headquarters. The model considers local subsidiary actions of both operational and strategic nature and we argue that it may be futile to distinguish between these effects as incremental operational responses can cumulate into more substantial changes over time with dimensions of strategic adaptation. The model provides a foundation for further considerations about how to combine central intent and direction with decentralization and autonomous initiatives in the multinational corporation.

The combined roles of strategic planning and decentralized strategy-making remain an essential issue in strategy research and its resolution has implications for management practice. To this end the current study considers the added effects of adopted leadership style and use of interactive controls and thereby uncovers new interesting insights about the combined strategy-making process. The authors use structural equation analyses to investigate these more fine-grained relationships based on an updated cross-sectional dataset from among the largest companies in Denmark. The analyses find that a participative leadership style drives the application of interactive controls, which in turn has a positive interaction effect on the relationship between strategic planning and corporate performance. A participative leadership style also exerts positive influence on autonomous strategic actions, which in turn has a negative direct relationship to performance, but a positive interaction effect on performance together with use of interactive controls. The authors discuss the theoretical foundation for these intricate relationships and consider opportunities to extract further research insights.

This study of a market-leader in a turbulent hostile telecommunications market uncovers how the competitive context influences strategy-making and cultivates central control that opposes autonomous initiatives. It shows how a highly competitive industry context reduces organizational slack that inhibits autonomy and drives central actions. Strategic initiatives primarily arise as deliberate actions induced by top management. This creates an information gap between ongoing experiences gained by employees operating in the periphery of the organization and the perceptions of decision-makers at the corporate center. In this organizational setting, the authors observe maverick behavior among entrepreneurial individuals that deliberately circumvent the formal rules to turn autonomous initiatives into viable strategic ventures in the best interest of the firm. Where conventional views presume that power delegation and organizational slack are necessary for autonomous strategic initiatives to emerge, the authors find that central control can provoke autonomous rule-breaking maverick behavior among resource-deprived entrepreneurial individuals inside the organization.

In this paper, we investigate how digital technology disruptors and the incumbents who stand to be disrupted by them frame their arguments to transform or sustain existing institutional frameworks to enable or deter the market entry of these technologies. Using a longitudinal, comparative case analysis of three digital technologies – namely, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), cloud antenna, and over-the-top (OTT) technologies – we explore how stakeholders use public interest frames for this purpose. We find that entrepreneurs use three specific frames to drive institutional change for the successful adoption of digital technologies in the presence of established incumbents and powerful regulators: frames that emphasize the broad public appeal of the new digital technology; frames that emphasize efficiency, democracy, and technological advancement; and frames that emphasize present as well as future benefits to the public. We find that constructing interpretations of what serves the public interest is the primary tactic used by disruptors to gain market entry, and an equally popular weapon for incumbents to block the entry of new digital technologies. These interpretations lead to a framing contest aimed at influencing regulators and obtaining a more favorable institutional environment. Our empirical findings illustrate that new digital technologies themselves are not the sole contributors to institutional change. Rather, institutional outcomes associated with the introduction of new digital technologies are shaped by how disruptors and incumbents use public interest frames and how regulators react to these frames.

How do organizations respond to negative feedback regarding their innovation activities? In this chapter, the authors reconcile contradictory predictions stemming from behavioral learning and from the escalation of commitment (EoC) perspectives regarding persistence under negative performance feedback. The authors core argument suggests that the seemingly contradictory psychological processes indicated by these two perspectives occur simultaneously in decision makers but that the design of organizational roles and reward systems affects their prevalence in decision-making tasks. Specifically, the authors argue that for decision makers responsible for an individual project, responses given to negative performance feedback regarding a project are dominated by self-justification and loss-avoidance mechanisms predicted by the EoC literature, while for decision makers responsible for a portfolio of projects, responses to negative performance regarding a project are dominated by an under-sampling of poorly performing alternatives that behavioral learning theory predicts. In addition to assigning decision-making authority to different organizational roles, organizational designers shape the strength of these mechanisms through the design of reward systems and specifically by setting more or less ambiguous goals, aspiration levels, time horizons of incentives provided, and levels of failure tolerance.

The chapter presents a theoretical framework that deals with the basic question of how networks and industries coevolve. We draw upon the structural and relational perspectives of networks to theorize about changes occurring in interfirm networks over time and the coevolutionary linkage of these changes to the industry life cycle. We further extend the widely accepted industry life cycle model by claiming that industry-specific evolutionary patterns impact the structure of the network’s relations, which in turn lead to diversification in the sources of innovation and to variation in the patterns of industrial evolution.

Individuals sometimes feel compelled to confront a rule‐violator. Because the goal of a confrontation is to stop the objectionable action, the violator may feel that his or her autonomy is being threatened and may resist complying. To reduce the likelihood of negative outcomes, confronters are advised to engage in discourse that makes them appear face‐sensitive. However, we argue that the authority of a speaker and the type of directive (imperative or suggestion) that is spoken interact so as to affect the degree of face‐sensitivity attributed to a confronter. We conducted an experiment to test this notion. Consistent with our position, authorities are perceived as more sensitive when expressing suggestions and are attributed coercive potential regardless of the directive enacted Peers, however, are attributed greater coercive potential when communicating imperatives, while face‐sensitivity is unaffected by the type of directive. Implications for confrontation are discussed.

This chapter argues that intra-firm geographic mobility is an understudied mechanism that can help mitigate coordination failures in a geographically distributed organization. The chapter presents an organizing framework on how intra-firm geographic mobility creates value for firms and discusses how intra-firm geographic mobility can create value for individual workers. The chapter concludes by presenting a future research agenda for intra-firm geographic mobility in light of emerging phenomena such as global collaborative patenting by multinationals, temporary colocation of knowledge workers, and nonstandard work.

This paper aims to study how three incumbent mobile network operators (MNOs) in Germany forecasted, framed and responded in terms of their strategy to the emergence of the wireless local area network technology (W‐LAN) and how they interpreted this potential technological disruption in their own strategic context.

Drawing on empirical evidence from case studies conducted with these three major MNOs in Germany using the theoretical framework of disruptive technology, the results were then evaluated in a cross‐case analysis to study how these firms interpreted and reacted to the potential disruptiveness of W‐LAN. To meet this objective, an explorative, multiple and holistic case study design was utilized. Data was collected by the combination of information gained through semi‐structured interviews with key informants and background information that were publicly available. Interviews were conducted with company representatives using a semi‐structured interview guide. Information gathered from the interview, documentation and direct observations was transposed into a content analysis framework to enable easy analysis of the information gathered for each company.

As a result, significant differences for the respective MNOs between their perception of W‐LAN as a potential disruptive technology, their strategic development processes inside the organisation to understand the potential impact of W‐LAN on their respective business model, and to enforce an appropriate response strategy and structural implementation were identified. The results indicated that corporate representatives from each incumbent interpreted potentially disruptive technologies like W‐LAN from a different perspective and direction depending primarily on the strategic and structural context and their organisation's resources, processes, and values. The findings also identified that practitioners inside the organisation were aware about the disruptive technology concept but however did not react in accordance with the theory. Forecasting results and categorisation that prove wrong can still lead to taking the right action since it seems to provide better results than non‐forecasting and inactivity due to a lack of awareness of potential risks.

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisation and need to be further studied in a larger number of cases with different technologies and industries.

For managers and forecasters the study indicates that they should consider the impact of the heterogeneity in firms when formulating a response strategy based on their respective perception of the impact of a potential disruptive technology on their business. They should also be considerate about the consistency between their motivation to respond, the strategic development processes inside their organisation supporting the development of the response strategy and the subsequent structural implementation. Threat‐framing seemed to be a key factor in unlocking resources even in the face of sustaining technological change and can be activated by threatening forecasts.

The consideration of incumbent heterogeneity in different framing settings and the resulting innovation categorisation with respect to the organisational actions and outcomes was not studied before.