Search results

This chapter addresses a practical industrial relations problem, namely the absence of a monitoring framework to assess and improve labor–management relations in organizations. The authors argue that assessing and improving organizational labor relations requires attention to both vertical and horizontal alignments of labor relations institutions and practices. Vertical alignment refers to the internal consistency across the strategic, functional, and workplace levels noted by Kochan, Katz, and McKersie in their strategic choice framework (1986). Drawing on two “best practice” labor relations cases, Saturn and Kaiser Permanente as well as two original case studies of healthcare organizations, the authors develop the notion of horizontal alignment, i.e., the internal consistency across labor relations processes, substantive issues, and outcomes.

Drawing upon prior work in cognition, organizational learning, strategy, and organization theory, a multi-level, longitudinal account of change in core competence is presented. The central concern addressed is how knowledge passes from “individual” to “organizational,” and how insight present in one part of the organization comes into broader currency. Data from a mature industry firm form the foundation for a depiction of change as a cognitive process involving multiple individuals, groups, and levels within the organization. Speculative propositions and a process model are presented.

The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm focuses on how firm-level assets and capabilities influence firm performance. Scholars have noted the need for studies grounded in the RBV to account for the role of the strategic group level, but uncertainty remains about how to do so. Random coefficients modeling (RCM) provide an appropriate technique to integrate these two levels of analysis, but its use has been limited in strategic management research to date. I review research integrating firm and strategic group levels and provide a roadmap for future research seeking to integrate these two levels’ influences on firm performance, and use RCM to illustrate the effects of firm resources on performance under three depictions of the strategic group level culled from strategic management research. Findings suggest that interpretations about the efficacy of resources’ influence on performance vary considerably across methodological specification. Next, I use RCM to illustrate how strategic management researchers can further integrate the firm and group levels by demonstrating how variables at the group level of analysis may interact with firm-level characteristics. I conclude with suggestions for future research using RCM to integrate the strategic group into multilevel studies predicting firm performance.

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.

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.

This chapter introduces the specifics of spirituality-centric management practices in service and operation focused industries. Strategic management practices are often challenged by the human factor of businesses. Consequently, businesses often waver with the fulfillment of their strategic goals and face harmful repercussions. Subsequently, strategic leadership plays a crucial role in the advancement of incorporating spirituality in the workplace and cultivating a perception of the spiritual domain at the individual, team, and organizational levels. To succeed, organizations need to overcome the challenges pertaining their members' retainment and wellness. This is because members often act on their emotional, moral, and ethical concerns that are pillared by their spirituality-centric views on colleagues and management. As the overarching term, workplace spirituality has been linked with organizational learning, togetherness, sense of nurturement, and interpersonal fulfillment with tasks and often coincidences with managerial application of strategic approaches. For the synthesis of service focused businesses, authors exemplify studies within tourism and hospitality industries.

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has emerged as a core concept in the field of entrepreneurship. Yet, there continue to be questions about the nature of EO and how best to conceptualize and measure it. This chapter makes the case that EO has grown beyond its roots as a firm-level unidimensional strategy construct and that a new multidimensional version of EO is needed to capture the diverse manifestations and venues for entrepreneurial activity that are now evident around the world – global entrepreneurial orientation (GEO). Building on the five-dimension multidimensional view of EO set forth when Lumpkin and Dess (1996) extended the work of Miller (1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989, 1991), the chapter offers an updated definition of EO and a fresh interpretation of why EO matters theoretically. Despite earnest efforts to reconcile the different approaches to EO, in order to move the study of EO and the theoretical conversation about it forward, we maintain that as a group of scholars and a field, we need to acknowledge that two different versions of EO have emerged. Given that, we consider original approaches to measuring EO, evaluate formative measurement models, consider multiple levels of analysis, call for renewed attention to EO configurations, and discuss whether there is a theory of EO.

The purpose of this chapter is to offer a discussion of the key issues in mixed-level, multi-theoretical research in strategic management. Mixed-level issues are grouped into two categories: (1) measurement of constructs, with discussion of situations in which the level of theory, level of measurement, and level of analysis differ; and (2) relationships among constructs, including cross-level and multilevel models. Key theories and views found in the strategic management literature are discussed briefly to illustrate the basic arguments of each, its focal unit of analysis, and the implicit or explicit incorporation of mixed-level perspectives.