“Firm performance” measurement in strategic management: some notes on our performance

IF 0.9 Q4 MANAGEMENT Journal of Management History Pub Date : 2023-12-07 DOI:10.1108/jmh-09-2023-0094
Joel Bolton, Frank C. Butler, John Martin
{"title":"“Firm performance” measurement in strategic management: some notes on our performance","authors":"Joel Bolton, Frank C. Butler, John Martin","doi":"10.1108/jmh-09-2023-0094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Firm performance remains at the heart of strategic management. In the quest to refine the field’s contribution, Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986) argued that reliance upon single measures of firm performance is risky and firm performance should be treated as a multidimensional construct. Subsequently, researchers have examined trends in firm performance measurement ever since. Over a decade since the last examination of this issue, this study aims to add to the ongoing conversation.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The authors investigated 1,972 research papers published in five premier management journals for the years 2015–2019 to determine if multidimensional measurement of firm performance has improved.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The findings suggest that approximately two-thirds of papers that measure firm performance are published using only a single measure of firm performance, and approximately three-fourths do not measure firm performance across multiple dimensions.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This study contributes to the literature by emphasizing the necessity to consider the dimensionality of firm performance, use multiple measures and consistently ground firm performance variables with theory – especially control variables – to keep firm performance as the focus of the strategy field. Evidence and implications are discussed and recommendations for researchers and reviewers are provided.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":45819,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management History","volume":"127 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmh-09-2023-0094","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Firm performance remains at the heart of strategic management. In the quest to refine the field’s contribution, Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986) argued that reliance upon single measures of firm performance is risky and firm performance should be treated as a multidimensional construct. Subsequently, researchers have examined trends in firm performance measurement ever since. Over a decade since the last examination of this issue, this study aims to add to the ongoing conversation.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors investigated 1,972 research papers published in five premier management journals for the years 2015–2019 to determine if multidimensional measurement of firm performance has improved.

Findings

The findings suggest that approximately two-thirds of papers that measure firm performance are published using only a single measure of firm performance, and approximately three-fourths do not measure firm performance across multiple dimensions.

Originality/value

This study contributes to the literature by emphasizing the necessity to consider the dimensionality of firm performance, use multiple measures and consistently ground firm performance variables with theory – especially control variables – to keep firm performance as the focus of the strategy field. Evidence and implications are discussed and recommendations for researchers and reviewers are provided.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
战略管理中的“企业绩效”衡量:关于我们绩效的一些注释
企业绩效仍然是战略管理的核心。为了完善该领域的贡献,Venkatraman和Ramanujam(1986)认为,依赖单一的企业绩效衡量标准是有风险的,企业绩效应该被视为一个多维结构。随后,研究人员对此后公司绩效评估的趋势进行了研究。自上次对这一问题进行调查以来,已有十多年了,这项研究的目的是增加正在进行的对话。设计/方法/方法作者调查了2015-2019年在五家主要管理期刊上发表的1972篇研究论文,以确定公司绩效的多维衡量是否有所改善。研究结果表明,大约三分之二的衡量企业绩效的论文只使用了单一的企业绩效衡量标准,大约四分之三的论文没有从多个维度衡量企业绩效。原创性/价值本研究通过强调考虑企业绩效维度的必要性,使用多种测量方法,并始终将企业绩效变量与理论(特别是控制变量)联系起来,从而使企业绩效成为战略领域的焦点,从而对文献做出了贡献。讨论了证据和影响,并为研究人员和审稿人提供了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
50.00%
发文量
28
期刊最新文献
Unveiling the intellectual nexus between Peirce’s synechism and Goldratt’s theory of constraints: insights for management and organization studies Back to roots! The singular introduction of statutory auditing in France, Germany and Great Britain (1844–1935) Rooting firm responsibility in social-ecological systems through ancient Nahua thought: rethinking the logic model in the global reporting initiative The troubled establishment of the Tourist Hotel Corporation of New Zealand Boundary spanning activities and resource orchestration as microfoundations of dynamic capability: a systematic literature review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1