Search results

Organizational performance is widely recognized as an important – if not the most important – construct in strategic management research. Researchers also agree that organizational performance is a multidimensional construct. However, the research implications of the construct's multidimensionality are less understood. In this chapter, we use a synthesis of previous attempts to describe the dimensions of performance and our own analysis of performance measurement in the Strategic Management Journal to build a conceptual model of organizational performance and its dimensions. Our model suggests that operational performance and organizational performance are distinct, and that organizational performance can be further dimensionalized into accounting returns, stock market, and growth measures. The model has implications for how future research might advance understanding about performance and how empirical studies should conceptualize and measure performance.

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.

This chapter introduces empirical studies of firm performance and related risk outcomes conducted in the management and finance fields presenting underlying theoretical rationales as they have evolved over time. Early finance studies of market-based returns predominantly found positively skewed return distributions that conform to assumptions about higher returns associated with more risky investments. Subsequent studies found that performance outcomes measured as accounting-based financial returns generally display left-skewed distributions that reflect negative risk-return relationships. This artifact was first observed by Bowman (1980), thus often referred to as the “Bowman paradox” because it contravened the conventional assumptions in finance. The management studies have largely confirmed the inverse risk-return observations but often following rather confined research streams. A contingency perspective inspired by prospect theory and behavioral rationales have investigated the lagged effects of performance on risk outcomes and vice versa. Another stream has focused on the spurious relationships between negatively skewed performance distributions and the inverse risk-return associations. A third approach considered the performance and risk outcomes as deriving from the firms responding in distinct ways to exogenous changes. These studies reach comparable results but underpinned by very different rationales. The finance studies observe deviations from the pure doctrine of positive risk-return associations embedded in the widely adopted capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and note deficiencies with alternative interpretations that even question the validity of CAPM. A more recent strain of studies in behavioral finance observes how many (even professional) investment managers have biases that lead to inverse relationships between perceived risk and return outcomes. While these diverse fields of study have different starting points, they uncover an increasing number of interesting commonalities that can inspire the ongoing search for explanations to observed left-skewed financial returns and negative risk-return correlations across firms.

This chapter outlines the major analytical efforts performed as part of the overarching research project with the aim to investigate the organizational and environmental circumstances around the extreme negatively skewed performance outcomes regularly observed across firms. It presents the collection and treatment of comprehensive European and North American datasets where subsequent analyses reproduce the contours of performance distributions observed in prior empirical studies. Key theoretical perspectives engaged in prior studies of performance data and the implied risk-return relationships are presented and these point to emerging commonalities between empirical findings in the management and finance fields. The results from extended analyses of more fine-grained data from North American manufacturing firms uncover the subtle effects of leadership and structural features, and computational simulations demonstrate how the implied adaptive processes can lead to the empirically observed performance distributions. Finally, the findings from the analytical project activities are set in context and the implications of the observed results are discussed to reach at a final conclusion.

In this paper, we consider the relationship between the investment decision process and returns to investments in capabilities. We draw on characteristics of capabilities to develop a framework that identifies four components of the returns to an investment that are derived from industry-based versus firm-specific elements, and option and non-option elements. We then link these components to elements of the resource allocation process. In taking this approach we place the study of real options into the larger investment context, recognizing that they co-exist with and should be understood in conjunction with other investment characteristics. These arguments highlight the importance of connecting the investment process with realization of returns, thereby providing the conceptual foundations for a decision tool.

Contemporary organizations are facing an operating environment characterized by volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous, and “permanent whitewater.” To sustain high performance in this context, organizations must be able to change and develop as efficiently and effectively as possible. Within organizations, there are actors who catalyze and advance change in this manner; these actors are known as “champions.” Yet the scholar who wishes to conduct research concerning champions of change and organizational development is likely to be met by a highly fragmented literature. Varying notions of champions are scattered throughout extant research, where authors of articles cite different sources when conceptualizing champions; often superficially. Furthermore, many types of highly specific and nuanced non-generalizable champions have proliferated, making it difficult for practitioners and researchers to discover useful findings on how to go about making meaningful changes in their context. The purpose of this study was to address these problems for practitioners and researchers by engendering thoroughness, clarity, and coherence within champion scholarship. This was done by conducting the first comprehensive, critical yet insightful review of the champion literature within the organizational sciences using content analysis to re-conceptualize champions and develop a meaningful typology from which the field can be advanced. The chapter first suggests a return to Schön (1963) as the basis from which to conceptualize champions and, second, offers a typology consisting of 10 meta-champions of organizational change and development – Collaboration, Human Rights, Innovation, Product, Project, Service, Strategic, Sustainability, Technology, and Venture Champions – from which change practice and future research can benefit.

In this chapter, we extend existing models of individual and collective emotional intelligence to the organizational level and provide an empirical study on the performance impact of organizational emotional intelligence. We propose that organizational emotional intelligence is composed of the average level of individual emotional intelligence of organization members and the collectively shared emotionally intelligent norms, values, and behaviors that shape their interaction. Across 156 organizations, we demonstrate sufficient within-organization consistency and between-organization difference to consider emotional intelligence a collective organizational characteristic. In addition, we show that the level of organizational emotional intelligence is positively associated with operational performance, financial performance, and innovation performance, and negatively associated with involuntary absence. Thus, organizational emotional intelligence can be considered a valuable asset for organizations.

Israel, characterized by various knowledge-intensive entrepreneurial firms, provides an interesting case study for examining sector-based differences and “small country” regional patterns. This chapter has a dual goal of exploring sector and regional differences of knowledge-intensive firms in Israel. The first goal is to depict similarities and differences between firms in three knowledge-intensive sectors: Life Sciences, information technology, and Cleantech. The second goal questions whether the geographical distribution of these firms across regions is associated with different levels of knowledge concentration and organizational homogeneity. Regional and sector-based differences were measured by firm-level network structures, funding patterns, and innovation proxies. One way analysis of variance tests were conducted for attaining these research goals. The main findings show that while most regions exhibit similar patterns of firm and network characteristics, many differences exist on the sector level that are associated with sector-specific attributes. These findings support the notion of a “small country inter-regional homogeneity effect.”

Changes in the format of library materials, increased amounts of information, and the speed at which information is being produced have created an unrelenting need for training for library staff members. Additionally, library employees are retiring in greater numbers and their accompanying expertise is being lost. The purpose of this study was to document evaluation practices currently used in library training and continuing education programs for library employees, including metrics used in calculating return-on-investment (ROI). This research project asked 272 library training professionals to identify how they evaluate training, what kind of training evaluation practices are in place, how they select programs to evaluate for ROI, and what criteria are important in determining an effective method for calculating ROI.

The primary purpose of this chapter is to examine some old truths about leadership at the CEO level, and to summarize a new perspective based on charismatic leadership theory that could help cast light on this important area of strategic management. In so doing, we attempt to move charismatic leadership theory in some new directions by bridging micro-and macro-level conceptualizations. The upper echelons perspective from the strategic management literature is first summarized. We then identify problems in conceptualization and measurement that have served to limit the usefulness of this theoretical approach with regard to understanding the leadership role and effects of CEOs. We present two alternative new models that incorporate the constructs of strategic change, CEO charisma, and perceived environmental uncertainty. Data are also presented, suggesting mixed support for the models. Suggestions are made with regard to future quantitative and qualitative research.