Search results

Drawing on organizational identity theory, we develop a model linking family ownership and expectations, entrepreneurial risk taking, and image in family firms to explain family firm growth. Testing our model on a sample of 163 Swiss family firms, we suggest that entrepreneurial risk taking and image can both lead to growth in family firms. We further find that family expectations have an influence on both entrepreneurial risk taking and family firm image. This finding suggests that family firms may benefit from two growth paths – forward looking risk taking and the image of the family firm that builds on the past, and that these paths are nurtured by family expectations.

Purpose – This paper examines the interaction of efficiency and bank risk taking in the Ghanaian banking industry.

Design/methodology/approach – We relate risk taking to price competitiveness, foreign ownership and cost efficiency and other control variables. Cost-inefficiency scores from a stochastic frontier model are used, and a Lerner price index is employed to proxy for market power.

Findings – Our results suggest that market power affects risk taking when conditioned on foreign ownership, but foreign bank risk-taking behaviour is not statistically different from local banks. Cost inefficiency diminishes bank soundness. We also find that industry concentration discourages greater risk taking.

Originality/value – Our study extends the views on risk taking and competition among banks in Ghana, which throws more light from an emerging economy perspective.

The goal of this chapter is to both provide a sociological explanation for gender differences in risk-taking behavior and to explain how such gender differences in behavior may contribute to women’s underrepresentation at the top of hierarchies.

I synthesize relevant research findings from the fields of social psychology, economics, psychology, decisions science, and sociology.

I argue that risk-taking is a gendered action due to both prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes. The fact that risk-taking is a gendered action offers sociological insights as to why women take fewer risks than men. First, women may rationally choose to take fewer risks, given that risk-taking is less rewarding for them. Second, the aforementioned gender stereotypes may cause institutional gatekeepers to give women fewer opportunities to take risks.

Sociologists should care about this phenomenon because large rewards are attached to successful risk-taking behavior. Thus, if men as a group take more successful risks than women as a group – simply because they take more risks, and thus by chance experience more successful risks – then more men than women will experience upward mobility caused by risk-taking.

Gender differences in risk-taking behavior likely depress the upward mobility of women and are a contributing factor to the dearth of women in top positions. In this era of falling formal barriers and women’s educational gains, gender differences in risk-taking behavior are likely of increasing importance for understanding the inequalities in hierarchies in U.S. society.

U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs) have experienced dynamic changes over a period of 2000–2010. We find that the size distribution of sample banks becomes highly positively skewed with a small number of big banks becoming super-sized, and these big banks tend to take extra risk by holding derivative positions for trading purposes. The ten largest risk-taking banks hold about 70% of total assets of all the sample banks in 2010. We investigate whether the risk-taking activities of the BHCs translate into higher risk-adjusted return performance. In extensive panel regression analyses, we find that the risk-taking strategies of large banks by holding derivative positions for trading purpose do not show the clear evidence of enhancing risk-adjusted performance. We find that negative impacts of extra risk-taking on the risk-adjusted performance become bigger with the size of banks.

Teenagers are typically described as impulsive and risk taking. Yet recent research shows that this observation does not hold in all contexts. Rather, adolescents show higher impulsivity and risk taking than children or adults in affective contexts. Motivational and affective processes are therefore of particular interest when trying to understand typical adolescent behavior. Additionally, pubertal hormones are hypothesized to play a special role in adolescents’ motivated decision making. However, evidence for the mechanisms underlying this relationship is sparse. In this chapter, we aim to integrate findings from human and animal studies in order to elucidate the specific impact of pubertal hormones on motivational processes in adolescence. Against this background, we critically discuss and reinterpret recent findings in psychology and neuroscience, speculate about underlying mechanisms, and suggest new approaches for future studies of adolescent behavior.

Purpose – In the recent financial crisis, the risk-taking behavior of banks led to severe financial and economic instability. Many reasons have been attributed to the cause of the financial crisis. This paper attempts to investigate the effect of government ownership, market structure, and regulations on risk-taking behavior in a sample of banks listed on the stock exchanges of the six Gulf Cooperative Council (GCC) markets during the period from 1998 until 2010.

Methodology – The paper utilizes the fixed effect regression model to measure the impact of government ownership indicator, and market structure on risk while controlling for bank-specific characteristics and macroeconomic indicators in the GCC region.

Findings – We find consistent evidence that private-owned banks are more risky than government-owned banks. The results also show a positive and significant relationship between market concentration and risk. Islamic banks show more stability than conventional banks, while government regulations are insignificantly related to risk.

Originality and value – This research is essential to understand the probability of government ownership entities facing losses associated with distress due to both direct and indirect insurance guarantees provided by the government agencies in case of crisis. The results of the study are crucial for understanding the implications of bank ownership and market structure and its relation to risk for the stability of the financial system in the GCC market.

Purpose: Risk is a multifaceted concept, and its identification requires complex approaches that are often misunderstood. The consequence is that decisions are based on limited perception rather than the full value and meaning of what risk is, as a result, the way it is being tackled is incorrect. The individuals are often limited in their perceptions and ideas and do not embrace the full multifaceted nature of risk. Regulators and individuals want to follow norms and checklists or overuse models, simulations, and templates, thereby reducing responsibility for decision-making. At the same time, the wider use of technology and rules reduces the critical thinking of individuals. We advance the automation process by building robots that follow protocols and forget about the part of risk assessment that cannot be programed. Therefore, with this study, the objective of this study was to discover how people define risk, the influencing factors of risk perception and how they behave toward this perception. The authors also determine how the perception differed with age, gender, marital status, education level and region. The novelty of the research is related to individual risk perception during COVID-19, as this is a new and unknown phenomenon. Methodology: The research is based on the analysis of the self-administered purposely designed questionnaires we distributed across different social media platforms between February and June 2020 in Europe and in some cases was carried out as a interview over communication platforms such as “Skype,” “Zoom” and “Microsoft Teams.” The questionnaire was divided into four parts: Section 1 was designed to collect demographic information from the participants; Section 2 included risk definition statements obtained from literature and a preliminary discussion with peers; Section 3 included risk behavior statements; and Section 4 included statements on risk perception experiences. A five-point Likert Scale was provided, and participants were required to answer along a scale of “1” for “Strongly Agree” to “5” for “Strongly Disagree.” Participants also had the option to elaborate further and provide additional comments in an open-ended box provided at the end of the section. 466 valid responses were received. Thematic analysis was carried out to analyze the interviews and the open-ended questions, while the questionnaire responses were analyzed using various quantitative methods on IBM SPSS (version 23). Findings: The results of the analysis indicate that individuals evaluate the risk before making a decision and view risk as both a loss and opportunity. The study identifies nine factors influencing risk perception. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that we can continue to develop models and rules, but as long as the risk is not understood, we will never achieve anything.

We investigate the link between firm volatility and risk-taking (RT) among 4232 institutions across 11 countries during the period of 2000–2017 and find RT is negatively correlated with volatility measures. Second, a decomposition of the primary risk measure, the Z score and Merton distance-to-default, reveals that high RT contributed to lower stock return volatility mainly through better corporate governance, firm size, higher information efficiency, and strong BOD. Third, Australia firms engage in more RT compared to other countries. Finally, majority of the selected countries show the negative impact of RT in firm volatility in the pre-crises period (2002–2006) and during the crises period (2007–2009) but not in the post-crises period (2010–2014).

Chance models – mechanisms that explain empirical regularities through unsystematic variance – have a long tradition in the sciences but have been historically marginalized in management scholarship, relative to an agentic worldview about the role of managers and organizations. An exception is the work of James G. March and his coauthors, who proposed a variety of chance models that explain important management phenomena, including the careers of top executives, managerial risk taking, and organizational anarchy, learning, and adaptation. This paper serves as a tribute to the beauty of these “little ideas” and demonstrates how they can be recombined to generate novel implications. In particular, we focus on the example of an inverted V-shaped performance association centering around the year when executives were featured in a prominent listing, Barron’s annual list of Top 30 chief executive officers. Our recombination of several chance models developed by March and his coauthors provides a novel explanation for why many of the executives’ exceptional performances did not persist. In contrast to the common accounts of complacency, hubris, and statistical regression, the results show that declines from high performance may result from the way luck interacts with these executives’ slow adaptation, incompetence, and self-reinforced risk taking. We conclude by elaborating on the normative implications of chance models, which address many current management and societal challenges. We further encourage the continued development of chance models to help explain performance differences, shifting from accounts that favor heroic stories of corporate leaders toward accounts that favor their changing fortunes.