Search results

Optimal application and commitment toward financial management practices enhance organization performance. This study aims to assess the influence of financial management practices on organizational performance of small- and medium-scale enterprises.

Data were collected from 45 small-sized and 72 medium-sized firms. Data supported the hypothesized relationships. Construct reliability and validity were established through confirmatory factor analysis. The conceptual model and hypotheses were evaluated by using structural equation modeling.

The results indicate that working capital significantly influenced organizational performance. Capital budget management significantly influenced organizational performance. A non-significant influence of asset management on organizational performance was observed.

The generalizability of the findings will be constrained due to the research’s SMEs focus and cross-sectional data.

The study’s findings will serve as valuable pointers for stakeholders and decision-makers of SMEs in the development of well-articulated and proactive financial management systems to ensure competitiveness, sustainability, viability and financial competences.

The study adds to the corpus of literature by evidencing empirically that financial management practices significantly influenced SMEs’ performance.

This paper aims to verify the presence of a management model that confirms or not the one size fits all hypothesis expressed in terms of risk-return. This study will test the existence of stickiness phenomena and discuss the relevance of business model analysis integration with the risk assessment process.

The sample consists of 60 credit institutions operating in Europe for 20 years of observations. This study proposes a classification of banks’ business models (BMs) based on an agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithm analyzing their performance according to risk and return dimensions. To confirm BM stickiness, the authors verify the tendency and frequency with which a bank migrates to other BMs after exogenous events.

The results show that it is impossible to define a single model that responds to the one size fits all logic, and there is a tendency to adapt the BM to exogenous factors. In this context, there is a propensity for smaller- and medium-sized institutions to change their BM more frequently than larger institutions.

Quantitative metrics seem to be only able to represent partially the intrinsic dynamics of BMs, and to include these metrics, it is necessary to resort to a holistic view of the BM.

This paper provides evidence that BMs’ stickiness indicated in the literature seems to weaken in conjunction with extraordinary events that can undermine institutions’ margins.

As family and nonfamily businesses differ in how they do business, the focus of this manuscript is on understanding how strategy-level models can be misinterpreted if family involvement is not considered. Thus, in this manuscript, the focus is on understanding the extent to which strategic orientations (market orientation and technology orientation, which reflect strategic approach), strategic performance metric focus (financial-based, optimization-based and market-based, which reflect strategy evaluations) and strategic audacity (which reflects boldness in envisioning and delivering strategic outcomes) play a role in driving firm performance – in family businesses vs nonfamily businesses. Understanding how these drivers impact performance differently in family vs nonfamily businesses enables companies to better direct their strategic efforts.

After presenting theoretical concepts, authors use regression analysis on a sample of companies in a developing European Union (EU) country (n = 282) to evaluate the impact of strategic orientation, strategic performance metric focus and strategic audacity on firm performance separately in three samples: the full sample (consisting of both family and nonfamily-owned firms), sample of family businesses and the sample of nonfamily businesses.

The role of strategic orientation, strategic audacity and focal goals in driving firm performance differs depending on the company type (family vs nonfamily). In the case of nonfamily businesses, strategic audacity and technology orientation with the focus on efficiencies and markets are driving firm performance. In the case of family businesses, both market and technology orientation are important drivers of performance; the focus on financial and market indicators of performance is positively impacting performance, while the focus on efficiency indicators is diminishing the performance of family businesses. Thus, results show that of the performance drivers for family businesses, some are insignificant (strategic audacity), while some even have a negative impact (focus on optimization-based measures of performance) on family businesses' performance. Moreover, results show that some of the drivers of performance in case of family businesses (market orientation and focus on financial-based measures of performance) are not drivers of outstanding performance in the case of nonfamily businesses.

Best practices differ for family vs nonfamily businesses. In case of family businesses, comparing them to nonfamily businesses, market orientation and the focus on financial-based measures of performance have a greater impact on firm performance, while, at the same time, family businesses should refrain focusing on pursuing optimization-based measures of performance as such pursuit drives down their performance. Understanding the drivers of performance specific to family businesses will enable such firms to better navigate contexts characterized by ambiguity and uncertainty.

The manuscript evaluates how models, generally researched in the overall firm metrics, differ between family businesses and nonfamily businesses, thus delivering new insights into the important marketing concepts.