Search results

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.

This paper aims to introduce the concept of top management team (TMT) regulatory focus to explain the differences in executive motivation. Upper echelons research has demonstrated that top managers’ willingness to deviate from their current strategies is a key determinant of organizational success. However, it is not clear why some TMTs are motivated to embrace strategic change while others are motivated to favor the strategic status quo.

Recent work in the psychology of motivation is used to develop a conceptual model explaining how the regulatory focus of TMTs can impact their outlooks toward strategic change.

It is theorized that there is a positive (negative) relationship between promotion (prevention)-focused TMTs and strategic change. It is also theorized that executives’ performance aspirations, firm maturity and the stability of the environment will influence the relationship between regulatory focus and strategic change.

Although the theoretical explanations provided by past research on top manager motivation are psychological in their general focus, with few exceptions research has not sought to understand the specific deep-level, socio-cognitive characteristics that shape executives’ perceptions of strategic change. By developing an understanding of the psychological determinants of strategic change, as well as the interplay between these determinants and firm- and environment-level factors, this paper represents a step in the direction of explaining why some TMTs are motivated to embrace strategic change while others seem “locked-in” to the status quo.

The paper's aims is o explore the relationship between having a complete strategic focus and the extent of the internationalisation of university business schools and the level of desire for the future internationalisation and to further validate the model of internationalisation.

Data were collected for business schools and business facilities using the Elkin, Devjee model of internationalisation concerning the current and desired levels of internationalisation of the business schools. In addition schools were asked six key questions about strategic focus.

It was observed that those schools with complete strategic focus had higher levels of current internationalisation and greater aspirations for even higher levels of internationalisation than schools without a complete strategic focus. It was also found that there may be a connection between research intensity and internationalisation.

Future samples would be better to clearly separate whole universities and business schools and the role and status of respondents.

In order to be successful in internationalisation institutes need to develop a complete strategic focus.

The use of the model of internationalisation was further validated and the model was used for the first time in conjunction with strategic focus to illustrate strategy in practice.

Aims to prove that a firm's perception of the strategic nature of supply depends on how it defines its competitive advantage within the marketplace.

Data were collected using a random stratified cross‐sectional design from 142 large manufacturing firms in the UK. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesised model.

Firms defining their competitive advantage as being cost‐focused will generally consider supply as playing merely a cost‐reduction role, i.e. passive and supportive, whereas firms viewing their competitive advantage as being differentiated will see supply as strategic, i.e. as a distinctive capability.

This study's single country setting could limit the generalizability of the findings. Replication of the model would require contrasting empirical contexts. Longitudinal as opposed to cross‐sectional data are needed for studying causations. Also future studies should take a multiple‐source as opposed to a single‐source data collection approach. Finally, more empirical research is needed, specifically grounded in the established strategy literature.

The model presented allows managers to understand what strategies to follow and which relationship modes to adopt. This study has a number of implications for strategy makers at the level of the firm and within supply.

Supply management has so far focused on the wrong question. Instead of “why isn't purchasing strategic?”, it should be “what are the firm's strategic goals and priorities?” This refocusing allows exploration of the linkage between the firm's competitive positioning and priorities and that of supply.

For over 20 years, management control literature has indicated the importance of supporting the strategy development and implementation process with strategic performance measurement systems (SPMS) and integrating traditional financial indicators with a set of multidimensional forward-looking measures focusing on the long term and linked to cause-effect relationships. Nevertheless, knowledge on the specific SPMS models used in practice and their effectiveness in supporting the managerial decision-making process is still fragmented and ambiguous. The purpose of this paper is to first analyse the SPMS models used in practice, also considering the role of strategy and firm size as drivers of adoption, thereafter analysing the capability of SPMS models to provide managers with measures that are consistent with their strategic information needs.

The research is based on a survey involving 88 Italian medium-large sized firms (or subsidiaries of multinational firms) operating on a global level.

The cluster analysis identifies two very different SPMS models used in practice. The first is the Short-term Financial Model, and as its name indicates, is based on short-term, internally focused and unconnected financial indicators. The second is the Multidimensional Additive Model, which integrates financial and non-financial measures but without a fully developed fit with the strategy. The research primarily indicates unsatisfied information needs in both clusters, presenting a significant challenge to the further development of existing SPMS models and in defining new theoretical SPMS frameworks.

The adoption of an incremental approach to SPMS, simply adding new operational and strategic non-financial measures without a real fit with the strategy does not increase the information effectiveness of the system.

The paper analyses the characteristics and use of SPMS models in practice from an exploratory perspective, defining and applying a model to evaluate the information effectiveness of SPMS.

This study investigates how a firm's regulatory focus (i.e. promotion and prevention foci) affects growth- and efficiency-oriented strategic change, highlighting the role of organizational-level regulatory focus as a cognitive frame within which to interpret performance feedback and its subsequent effects on strategic decisions.

The authors collected longitudinal data on 98 S&P 500 manufacturing firms for a seven-year period. The panel data, which includes texts from the firms' 10-K filings, were then analyzed using a feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) regression estimator to test the authors’ hypotheses.

A firm's strategic change orientation is affected by its regulatory focus and performance feedback: a promotion focus increases the magnitude of growth-oriented strategic change, while a prevention focus favors efficiency-oriented strategic change. Furthermore, both foci moderate the effect of performance feedback on the strategic change orientation: under negative performance feedback, a promotion (prevention) focus increases (decreases) the magnitude of growth-oriented strategic change relative to that of efficiency-oriented change. The findings provide robust evidence that regulatory focus can influence how organizations learn from feedback and formulate strategic change.

The authors’ examination of regulatory focus and organizational learning process relied on large manufacturing firms in the USA. However, learning process could be quite different in small and/or young firms. Future work should expand to a wider range of organizational types, such as nascent entrepreneurial ventures. In addition, the authors’ measurement of regulatory focus using corporate text has inherent weakness and could be supplemented with alternative research methods, such as surveys, interviews or experiments. All in all, however, the findings of this study offer a novel behavioral perspective while demonstrating that a regulatory focus is an important antecedent of organizational learning.

This study highlights the importance of motivational characteristics of the top managers in the process of organizational learning from performance feedback. Furthermore, recruitment of a new top manager should be aligned with the organizational context, values and goals. In addition, corporate governance systems such as managerial compensation schemes need to be carefully designed so as to maximize organizational resilience, especially in the context of performance downturn or environmental change. Establishing a constructive organizational culture so that strategic decisions are not overly swayed by the performance outcomes would also be crucial to the organizational learning process.

This study highlights the importance of understanding the motivational orientations of top managers in organizational learning. In terms of managerial compensation, for instance, an optimal incentive system should reflect the desired performance output by encouraging managerial behavior that corresponds to its objective. Furthermore, motivational orientation of new recruits should be considered in the context of the composition of the top management team members in order to achieve “optimal fit.” In addition, this study suggests that top executives' regulatory focus can be a key factor for organizations in balancing goals of different value orientations.

The findings of this study demonstrated that a firm-level regulatory focus has a significant effect on organizational learning and strategic change following performance feedback. The authors hope this study provides an impetus for future discussions on the microcognitive mechanisms of organizational learning by exploring the relations between organizations' regulatory foci, performance feedback and strategic change orientations.

Change literature emphasizes the significance of aligning change at a systemic level for sustained effectiveness of strategic change initiatives. While this body of literature emphasizes the significance of psychological and process dimensions of managing change, research on an integrated and strategic approach to deploy, track, measure and sustain large‐scale changes has been limited and inconclusive. The purpose of this paper is to address this gap in the literature to propose a holistic conceptual framework for identifying, formulating, deploying, measuring, aligning and tracking strategic changes in organizations.

Specifically, core concepts drawn from scholarly literature and practitioner writings from distinct fields of change management and strategy deployment tools, primarily the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) as proposed by Kaplan and Norton, are reviewed, synthesized and critiqued, to inform and advance the integrated framework proposed.

The suggested approach draws significantly from the BSC framework and focuses on the use of formal steps such as developing change themes and results, setting change objectives, developing lead and lag performance measures for measuring strategic change objectives. Furthermore, the proposed framework also provides directions on how to track the progress of change initiatives with respect to the desired objectives, for evaluating the effectiveness of change deployment efforts, all through applying cause and effect linkages.

Although the focus on individual change arose to support technical deployment of change, over the years the strategic deployment process itself has not received the desired focus in the change strategy literature. The proposed framework extends the current literature on strategic change to offer academics fresh insights on the significance of a strategic approach to change deployment. An application of the framework in the context of large‐scale transformational changes in organizations can provide further evidence related to the validity of the proposed approach.

A total of 70 percent of all change efforts fail. While some fail due to incomplete diagnoses, others fail due to gaps in deployment or measurement. However, there is uncertainty about how to prevent change failure, with no one having explicitly articulated the same. A rigorous and practical approach to systematically deploy change with a continuous focus on strategic alignment has specifically been found missing in the literature. The proposed framework fills this gap to offer managers and organizational decision makers a holistic and practical tool to successfully navigate the complexities of their strategic change efforts by measuring strategic alignment in a step‐wise manner throughout the change process.

Mention of the need to use integrated and strategic performance management tools, such as the BSC proposed by Kaplan and Norton, to measure and review change and to manage the change process has been found in recent literature. However, no studies have yet provided any direction on “how” to use such integrated and strategic tools throughout the change process, to deploy measure and ensure continuous strategic alignment during transformational changes. The paper addresses this gap to propose a systematic, integrated and holistic approach for aligning change deployment.

This monograph reports on the strategic and operational roles of learning and development (L&D) professionals in Irish, UK European and US organisations including multinational corporations, small to medium enterprises, the public sector and not for profit organisations. This paper aims to investigate the contextual factors influencing L&D roles in organisations, the strategic and operational roles that L&D professionals play in organisations, the competencies and career trajectories of L&D professionals, the perceptions of multiple internal stakeholders of the effectiveness of L&D roles and the relationships between context, L&D roles, competencies/expertise and perceived organisational effectiveness.

The study findings are based on the use of multiple methods. The authors gathered data from executives, senior managers, line managers, employee and L&D professionals using multiple methods: a survey (n = 440), Delphi study (n = 125) and semi-structured interviews (n = 30).

The analysis revealed that L&D professionals increasingly respond to a multiplicity of external and internal contextual influences and internal stakeholders perceived the effectiveness of L&D professionals differently with significant gaps in perceptions of what L&D contributes to organisational effectiveness. L&D professionals perform both strategic and operational roles in organisations and they progress through four career levels. Each L&D role and career level requires a distinct and unique set of foundational competencies and L&D expertise. The authors found that different contextual predictors were important in explaining the perceived effectiveness of L&D roles and the importance attached to different foundational competencies and areas of L&D expertise.

This is one of the few studies to have investigated the L&D professional role in organisations from the perspective of multiple stakeholders using multiple research methods.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a thorough understanding of the adoption of logistics and supply chain management (SCM) in practice, particularly at a strategic level, through an investigation of the four perspectives taxonomy of the relationship between logistics and SCM.

Based on a comprehensive literature review, three specific research questions are proposed. The empirical work addresses these questions and comprised three phases: focussed interviews, a questionnaire survey and focus groups.

The findings provide a usage profile of the four perspectives and indicate a divergence between the understanding and adoption of logistics and SCM principles and concepts at a strategic level in firms. The findings also identify the critical success factors (CSFs) and inhibitors to success in addressing this divergence.

The insights generated using the authors’ methodologically pluralist research design could be built upon to include case studies, grounded theory and action research. Replicating the research in other geographical areas could facilitate international comparisons.

The findings allow practitioners to compare their perspectives on the relationship between logistics and SCM with those of their peers. The CSFs and inhibitors to success provide a rational basis for realising the strategic potential of logistics and SCM in practice.

New insights are generated into practitioner perspectives vis-à-vis logistics vs SCM. A fresh understanding of those factors which drive and hinder the adoption of strategic SCM is also developed and presented.

The ideas expressed in this work are based on those put into practice at the Okuma Corporation of Japan, one of the world′s leading machine tool manufacturers. In common with many other large organizations, Okuma Corporation has to meet the new challenges posed by globalization, keener domestic and international competition, shorter business cycles and an increasingly volatile environment. Intelligent corporate strategy (ICS), as practised at Okuma, is a unified theory of strategic corporate management based on five levels of win‐win relationships for profit/market share, namely: ,1. Loyalty from customers (value for money) – right focus., 2. Commitment from workers (meeting hierarchy of needs) – right attitude., 3. Co‐operation from suppliers (expanding and reliable business) – right connections., 4. Co‐operation from distributors (expanding and reliable business) – right channels., 5. Respect from competitors (setting standards for business excellence) – right strategies. The aim is to create values for all stakeholders. This holistic people‐oriented approach recognizes that, although the world is increasingly driven by high technology, it continues to be influenced and managed by people (customers, workers, suppliers, distributors, competitors). The philosophical core of ICS is action learning and teamwork based on principle‐centred relationships of sincerity, trust and integrity. In the real world, these are the roots of success in relationships and in the bottom‐line results of business. ICS is, in essence, relationship management for synergy. It is based on the premiss that domestic and international commerce is a positive sum game: in the long run everyone wins. Finally, ICS is a paradigm for manufacturing companies coping with change and uncertainty in their search for profit/market share. Time‐honoured values give definition to corporate character; circumstances change, values remain. Poor business operations generally result from human frailty. ICS is predicated on the belief that the quality of human relationships determines the bottom‐line results. ICS attempts to make manifest and explicit the intangible psychological factors for value‐added partnerships. ICS is a dynamic, living, and heuristic‐learning model. There is intelligence in the corporate strategy because it applies commonsense, wisdom, creative systems thinking and synergy to ensure longevity in its corporate life for sustainable competitive advantage.