Search results

One of the main lessons of the recent financial crisis is that the network structure of the banking system has to be taken into account to assess systemic risk.

In this chapter, we analyze the topological properties of the network of the Euro Area banking sector with the primary aim of assessing the importance of a bank in the financial system with respect to ownership and control of other credit institutions.

The network displays power law distributions in both binary and weighted degree metrics indicating a robust yet fragile structure and a direct nexus between an increase of control diversification and a rise in the market power. Therefore, while in good time the network is seemingly robust, in bad times many banks can go into distress simultaneously. This behavior opens a narrow for Central bank’s actions. In particular, we investigate whether the Single Supervisory Mechanism introduced by the European Central Banks and based on banks’ total asset is a good proxy to quantify their systemic importance. Results indicate that not all the financial institutions with high value of total asset are systemically important but only few of them.

The manager of the 21st century is expected to succeed in an environment strongly characterized by unprecedented volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA). In fact, today’s business environment consists of contradictory pressure and tensions, where competitive advantage could be gained by ambidextrous activities. The concept of ambidexterity has already been discussed by many scholars, but still little is known about managerial practice and actions that are useful for finding the balance between the paradoxes that have been identified at that level. Although there are different tensions, dynamic and evolving according to the changes observed in the environment: more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, the pressure to remain flexible and simultaneously maintain the plan of development, seems to be essential. In recent research studies, networking perspective is mentioned as one of areas worth exploring while analyzing the concept of ambidexterity. For that reason, the main goal of this chapter is to investigate if networking is one of the factors useful for managing ambidexterity. To gain deeper insight, we investigated further, searching for the factors essential for managing ambidexterity: we compared the research results between companies of different sizes to identify any regularities. We focused on ambidexterity reflected by managerial practice where stability/plans and flexibility are implemented simultaneously. We investigated 150 managers using paper-and-pencil interviewing. Our research results confirmed that networking could be one of the main approaches having an impact on ambidextrous activities. However, we cannot conclude that companies are obliged to apply a networking perspective to be ambidextrous, although it could be recommended. Further analysis of companies of different sizes revealed the relationship between ambidexterity and networking in case of small and large companies, and no relation in medium-sized enterprises.

Relationships are socially constructed by companies in interaction. This study explains the dynamic character of business-to-business relationships with the aid of rules theory, a theory borrowed from the communications field. Two forms of rules are identified: constitutive rules guide the interpretation of the other's acts, and regulative rules guide the appropriate response to the interpreted act. Rules theory asserts that companies act as if applying these rules. Relationships provide not only the context in which the parties’ acts are performed but are also the result of such acts. Thus, relationships are potentially reshaped each time one party performs an act and the other party gives meaning to that act and reacts.

The “war for talent” is not limited to developed economies but has become a common feature in emerging economies such as India. From the sociocultural perspective, India represents one of the oldest cultural heritages with distinct cultural values. The cultural difference may contribute to explain organizational practices toward talent retention. In the present chapter, the authors focus on the institutional, legal, and cultural context and highlight their uniqueness with respect to the Indian context. Within the institutional context, the authors found that prior to liberalization (which happened in 1990s), the Indian business scene was dominated by public firms or a small enclave of private firms. For both types of organization, turnover hardly mattered, and turnover was indeed negligible. Employees saw firms as “employers for life”: in such a context, voluntary turnover was extremely rare. Further, in the early legal context, it was hard for any private firm to “fire” an employee. Therefore, involuntary turnover was close to nil as well. Things began to change post-liberalization when the Indian scene was dominated by an influx of private players. The Indian mind too accepted turnover to be a part of the corporate life. In the present chapter, the authors provide a snapshot of what, why, and how of employee turnover in the Indian context. The authors specifically focus on what motivates employees to remain with the organization or why do they leave the organization. The authors close the chapter with insights relevant to both academicians and practitioners.