Search results

In this study, we develop understanding of factors that shape the propensity of market incumbents to collaborate in response to the threat posed by new market entrants. We are particularly interested in instances when a market's competitive structure becomes unsettled by new entrants who engage in nonconforming strategic tactics. In such situations, we propose two factors – strategic similarity among competitors and market-share instability – will systematically shape competitors' collaborative response to new entrants. To test our theory, we use data on strategic tactics and collaborative dynamics in the US airline industry from 1989 to 2010. We demonstrate that greater strategic similarity among a market's incumbents increases the likelihood of cooperation in response to the threat of a nonconforming new entrant, while greater market-share instability reduces cooperative response. Through this study, we extend existing understanding of the contextual circumstances under which established competitors recognize their mutual interests and band together.

Strategy scholars have theorized that a firm's strategic leaders play an important role in firm dynamic capabilities (DCs). However, little research to date has studied how leaders shape the development of DCs. This inductive theory-building study sheds new light on the multilevel architecture of DCs by uncovering that the three core DCs – sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring – operate through distinct individual, group, and organizational processes. Further, the role of strategic leadership is critical as organizational processes create DCs only when they are purposefully designed by firms' strategic leaders to enable change and opportunity pursuit. Whether strategic leaders design processes for change and opportunity pursuit, in turn, reflects the extent to which they view change as positive and desirable. Our insights about the role of strategic leaders' positive attitude toward change as an important aspect of firm DCs uncover new interconnections between strategic leadership, organizational design, and the micro-foundations of DCs. Collectively our findings about the role of positive attitude toward change, the purposeful design of processes for change, and the varying manifestations of these processes at different levels of analysis reveal the coupling of strategic and organizational processes in enabling strategic dynamism and change.

In this chapter we develop a new approach, based on the identification of strategy classes, to study how firms face multiple demands. The procedure that we propose (called Relational Class Analysis) stems from an analysis of the similarity of associative patterns across multiple observable outcomes, which reflect the underlying set of choices firms make to similarly address demands. Empirically, the study of 18 financial and extra-financial performance outcomes for 3,655 firms shows the existence of three main strategic classes. Drawing on our analysis, we redefine strategy as the set of committed decisions undertaken to resolve trade-offs between multiple concurrent objectives and discuss the implications of our approach for eight core questions for strategy and organizational theory.

In this chapter, we reflect on cognitive aids and their role in strategy work. Strategy research and practice abound with frameworks, models, tools, and processes meant to describe and guide the strategy work of managers. These are all examples of cognitive aids. These aids guide and support managerial cognition, the way managers make sense of the world. What we collectively call the cognitive aids of strategy have a profound impact on the way managers learn about, conceptualize, share, and enact strategy work and strategies in their organizations. Despite the importance of their cognitive role, many cognitive aids in strategy are presented without reference to the underlying cognitive theory that explains why and how the aid might be useful. Tools are presented as useful for management thinking, but without any substantive reflection or exploration of the cognitive reasons. In this chapter, we provide a definition of cognitive aids in strategy and begin exploring the landscape of cognitive theories that can explain why something might be a cognitive aid. We then briefly outline the contributions to the edited volume “Cognitive Aids in Strategy,” and end with an invitation to expand your exploration beyond.

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.

In this chapter, we first examine the distribution characteristics of firm performance across different competitive industry contexts and periodic economic conditions of growth, recession, and recovery. There is mounting evidence that the contours of accounting-based economic returns consistently display (extreme) left-skewed leptokurtic distributions with negative risk-return relationships, which implies the existence of many negative performance outliers and some positive outliers. We note how negative skewness, excess kurtosis, and inverse risk-return relationships prevail in industries with more intense competition and in economic growth scenarios where more innovative initiatives compete. As the study of outliers typically is ignored in mainstream management studies, we extract a total of 23 extreme performers using a conventional winsorization technique that identifies 16 negative and 7 positive outliers. We study the performance trajectories of these firms over the full period and find that negative performers typically operate in capital-intensive innovative industries whereas positive performers operate in activities that cater to prevailing demand conditions and expand the business in a balanced manner. The firms that under- and over-perform as measured by the financial return ratio both constitute smaller firms compared to the total sample and show how relative movements in the ratio numerator and denominator affect the recorded return measure. However, the negative outliers generally use their public listing to access capital for investment in more risky development efforts that require a certain scale to succeed and thereby limits their flexibility. The positive outliers appear to expand their business activities in incremental responses to evolving market demands as a way to enhance maneuverability and secure competitive advantage by honing their unique firm-specific capabilities.

In this chapter, we perform more detailed analyses and present the distribution characteristics and risk-return relationships of accounting-based financial returns (ROA) across different industry contexts and between periods with different economic conditions. We first display the frequency diagrams of the return measure (ROA) and its two components, net income and total assets, that show entirely different contours in the density graphs that must be reconciled. This is partially accomplished by analyzing the skewness, kurtosis, cross-sectional, and longitudinal risk-return characteristics of each of the three variables. The analyses further considers potential effects of accounting manipulation, and different organizational and executive traits, that identifies significant effects on the accounting-based return measures. We find extremely left-skewed return distributions with high negative correlations between the average return and risk measures, which reproduces the “Bowman paradox” as originally conceived. The same analysis is performed on net income and operating cash flows, the latter being less susceptible to accounting manipulation, which should display similar effects even though these performance distributions show positive skewness. We find negative but insignificant cross-sectional risk-return relations that nevertheless reappear in analyses performed within the specific industry contexts. The study further uncovers effects from prevailing economic conditions where left-skewness and kurtosis as well as negative risk-return correlations are much more significant during periods of high economic growth and business expansion where competition is more pronounced.

The purpose of this explanatory research was to understand how firms align strategic planning and budgeting both ex ante and ex post. After the literature review indicated that there was a shortcoming in explaining how the alignment was done, we interviewed management accountants at 20 large, profitable, stock-market listed firms with head offices in the Toronto area of Canada. To understand practice through interviews, we used qualitative, multi-case field research to address our research question, how do firms achieve alignment between their strategic plans and budgets, both ex ante and ex post? Our findings and contribution were that, rather than multiple processes (strategy, strategic planning, budgeting, and forecasting), strategic planning and budgeting are part of a single process. Alignment of strategic planning and budgeting is undertaken prior to the beginning of the fiscal year (ex ante) and during the fiscal year (ex post). Both provide opportunities to change ineffective strategies, strategic plans, and actions to minimize financial harm. Ex ante and ex post alignments enable the accomplishment of firms’ financial objectives through explicit and verifiable decisions. With forecasting heretofore being an unclear and ambiguous subprocess, this chapter has made it transparent and manageable in assisting with accomplishing the strategy, strategic plan, and budget.