Raffaele Conti, Miguel Godinho de Matos, Giovanni Valentini
Big data analytics (BDA) is one of the most important general-purpose technologies. Despite the increasing pervasiveness of BDA across industries and some preliminary evidence indicating that BDA adoption is positively related to firm productivity, previous studies have not fully investigated how BDA benefits actually materialize. To address this question, we explore the effect of BDA on the innovation process, a key determinant of firm productivity. Our findings indicate that both large and small firms can gain from BDA, yet size is a critical organizational attribute determining the most relevant performance gains captured: BDA benefits for value-added are particularly salient for large firms, whereas benefits for sales are more relevant in small firms. This suggests that the relative propensity to use BDA to decrease costs and enhance efficiency through process innovation vs. to increase sales through product innovation is increasing in firm size. Funding: R. Conti received financial support from the CY initiative. M. Godinho de Matos received the support from FCT – Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology [Grant UID/GES/00407/2020].
{"title":"Big Data Analytics, Firm Size, and Performance","authors":"Raffaele Conti, Miguel Godinho de Matos, Giovanni Valentini","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2022.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0007","url":null,"abstract":"Big data analytics (BDA) is one of the most important general-purpose technologies. Despite the increasing pervasiveness of BDA across industries and some preliminary evidence indicating that BDA adoption is positively related to firm productivity, previous studies have not fully investigated how BDA benefits actually materialize. To address this question, we explore the effect of BDA on the innovation process, a key determinant of firm productivity. Our findings indicate that both large and small firms can gain from BDA, yet size is a critical organizational attribute determining the most relevant performance gains captured: BDA benefits for value-added are particularly salient for large firms, whereas benefits for sales are more relevant in small firms. This suggests that the relative propensity to use BDA to decrease costs and enhance efficiency through process innovation vs. to increase sales through product innovation is increasing in firm size. Funding: R. Conti received financial support from the CY initiative. M. Godinho de Matos received the support from FCT – Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology [Grant UID/GES/00407/2020].","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138963786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Prior studies suggest that acquisitions can increase employee turnover. However, acquired workers are technically new hires, who are generally prone to turnover. Therefore, it is important to benchmark acquired workers against other new hires in the organization. One view suggests that compared with regular hires who select their employer based on a mutual vetting process, acquired workers can experience a poor fit with their new employer (e.g., culture clash), resulting in elevated rates of turnover. Meanwhile, as acquisitions represent a bundle of assets, acquired workers can possess complementarities accumulated with the target firm that reinforce worker–employer fit and thus their retention prospects. Using population-level data from the United States, I find empirical support for both perspectives. Acquired workers from startups exhibit significantly higher turnover rates than regular hires. Moreover, in conditions under which acquired workers’ complementarities are more likely to be preserved—specifically, individuals with longer prior tenure, teams in which the founders remain intact, and target organizations that are structurally separated rather than integrated into the acquirer—I find reduced turnover differences for acquired workers relative to regular hires. Together, these results elucidate whether and when firms can harness human capital through startup acquisitions (“acqui-hiring”). Funding: This research was funded in part by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0026 .
先前的研究表明，并购会增加员工流失率。然而，从技术上讲，被收购的员工属于新员工，他们通常容易发生离职。因此，将收购来的员工与组织中的其他新员工进行比较非常重要。一种观点认为，与通过相互审查选择雇主的普通员工相比，被收购的员工可能会与新雇主不适应（如文化冲突），从而导致离职率上升。同时，由于并购代表着资产的捆绑，被并购的员工可能拥有与目标公司积累的互补性，从而加强员工与雇主的契合度，进而加强他们的留任前景。通过使用美国人口层面的数据，我发现这两种观点都得到了实证支持。从初创企业获得的员工的离职率明显高于普通员工。此外，在被收购员工的互补性更有可能得到保留的条件下--特别是之前任职时间较长的个人、创始人保持完整的团队以及在结构上分离而非并入收购方的目标组织--我发现被收购员工的离职率差异相对于普通员工要小。这些结果共同阐明了企业是否以及何时可以通过初创企业收购（"收购-招聘"）来利用人力资本。资助：本研究由尤因-马里恩-考夫曼基金会（Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation）提供部分资助。补充材料：在线附录见 https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0026 。
{"title":"Startup Acquisitions as a Hiring Strategy: Turnover Differences Between Acquired and Regular Hires","authors":"J. D. Kim","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2022.0026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0026","url":null,"abstract":"Prior studies suggest that acquisitions can increase employee turnover. However, acquired workers are technically new hires, who are generally prone to turnover. Therefore, it is important to benchmark acquired workers against other new hires in the organization. One view suggests that compared with regular hires who select their employer based on a mutual vetting process, acquired workers can experience a poor fit with their new employer (e.g., culture clash), resulting in elevated rates of turnover. Meanwhile, as acquisitions represent a bundle of assets, acquired workers can possess complementarities accumulated with the target firm that reinforce worker–employer fit and thus their retention prospects. Using population-level data from the United States, I find empirical support for both perspectives. Acquired workers from startups exhibit significantly higher turnover rates than regular hires. Moreover, in conditions under which acquired workers’ complementarities are more likely to be preserved—specifically, individuals with longer prior tenure, teams in which the founders remain intact, and target organizations that are structurally separated rather than integrated into the acquirer—I find reduced turnover differences for acquired workers relative to regular hires. Together, these results elucidate whether and when firms can harness human capital through startup acquisitions (“acqui-hiring”). Funding: This research was funded in part by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0026 .","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139263571","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Several literatures in strategy propose models of the displacement of incumbent firms by newer firms that adopt newer technologies. Although that pattern likely plays out often, it is also often the case that incumbents adopt new technologies less intensively than entrants and yet, are not displaced; the new and old firms coexist. We propose one explanation built on the fundamental notion in strategy of the importance of fit between activity system components. We combine three existing models from strategy in a way that allows us to generate novel predictions. When corroborated, these predictions suggest that the patterns we observe are likely the result of issues of multidimensional fit and cannot be explained by a simpler model. One model predicts that market segment choice is a function of the order of entry. A second suggests that organizational form must fit with market segment choice, and a third suggests that information technology adoption returns depend on organizational form. Jointly, these models produce a chain of logic explaining why early entrants might be less likely to adopt information technology. The combined model also yields a novel prediction about when we expect this pattern to emerge. Specifically, in settings without a sufficiently large scope for product customization or the possibility of variation in organizational form, we predict that the relationship between entry order and technology adoption is attenuated. We find patterns consistent with our predictions using rich employer-employee linked administrative data from Portugal. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0071 .
{"title":"Market Segment, Organizational Form, and Information Technology Fit","authors":"Victor Manuel Bennett, Ines Black, Todd Hall","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2022.0071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0071","url":null,"abstract":"Several literatures in strategy propose models of the displacement of incumbent firms by newer firms that adopt newer technologies. Although that pattern likely plays out often, it is also often the case that incumbents adopt new technologies less intensively than entrants and yet, are not displaced; the new and old firms coexist. We propose one explanation built on the fundamental notion in strategy of the importance of fit between activity system components. We combine three existing models from strategy in a way that allows us to generate novel predictions. When corroborated, these predictions suggest that the patterns we observe are likely the result of issues of multidimensional fit and cannot be explained by a simpler model. One model predicts that market segment choice is a function of the order of entry. A second suggests that organizational form must fit with market segment choice, and a third suggests that information technology adoption returns depend on organizational form. Jointly, these models produce a chain of logic explaining why early entrants might be less likely to adopt information technology. The combined model also yields a novel prediction about when we expect this pattern to emerge. Specifically, in settings without a sufficiently large scope for product customization or the possibility of variation in organizational form, we predict that the relationship between entry order and technology adoption is attenuated. We find patterns consistent with our predictions using rich employer-employee linked administrative data from Portugal. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0071 .","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135696513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jason Potts, Andrew Torrance, Dietmar Harhoff, Eric von Hippel
We define data commons as repositories of freely-accessible, “open source” innovation-related data, information and knowledge. Data commons are and can be a significant resource for both innovating and innovation-adopting firms and individuals. First, the availability of free data and information from such commons reduces the innovation-specific private or open investment required to access the data and make the next innovative advance. Second, the fact that the data are freely accessible lowers transactions costs substantially. In this paper, we draw on the theory and empirical evidence regarding innovation commons in general and data commons in particular. Based on these foundations, we consider strategic decisions in the private and public domain: how can individuals, firms and societies profit from data commons? We first discuss the varying nature of and contents of data commons, their functioning, and the value they provide to private innovators and to social welfare. We next explore the several types of data commons extant today, and their mechanisms of action. We find that those who develop innovation-related information at private cost already have, surprisingly often, an economic incentive to freely reveal their information to a data commons. However, we also find and discuss important exceptions. We conclude with suggestions regarding needed innovation research, data commons “engineering”, and innovation policymaking that could together increase private and social welfare via enhancement of data commons. Funding: D. Harhoff was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [CRC TRR 190].
{"title":"Profiting from Data Commons: Theory, Evidence, and Strategy Implications","authors":"Jason Potts, Andrew Torrance, Dietmar Harhoff, Eric von Hippel","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2021.0080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2021.0080","url":null,"abstract":"We define data commons as repositories of freely-accessible, “open source” innovation-related data, information and knowledge. Data commons are and can be a significant resource for both innovating and innovation-adopting firms and individuals. First, the availability of free data and information from such commons reduces the innovation-specific private or open investment required to access the data and make the next innovative advance. Second, the fact that the data are freely accessible lowers transactions costs substantially. In this paper, we draw on the theory and empirical evidence regarding innovation commons in general and data commons in particular. Based on these foundations, we consider strategic decisions in the private and public domain: how can individuals, firms and societies profit from data commons? We first discuss the varying nature of and contents of data commons, their functioning, and the value they provide to private innovators and to social welfare. We next explore the several types of data commons extant today, and their mechanisms of action. We find that those who develop innovation-related information at private cost already have, surprisingly often, an economic incentive to freely reveal their information to a data commons. However, we also find and discuss important exceptions. We conclude with suggestions regarding needed innovation research, data commons “engineering”, and innovation policymaking that could together increase private and social welfare via enhancement of data commons. Funding: D. Harhoff was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [CRC TRR 190].","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135397281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The institutionalized status of markets is undoubtedly due to their presumed ability to aggregate individual bids into a single unbiased estimate of value. While not denying this emergent property of market processes, we propose and test an alternative perspective that explains how market processes can also generate the propagation of individual valuation errors that aggregate into price bubbles. Theoretically, we advance a microinstitutional perspective that draws from social and evolutionary psychology linking market processes to a more general process of institutionalization, whereby individuals seeking the adaptive benefits of conformity may—due to bounded and socially biased rationality—instead generate maladaptive individual and collective outcomes. Empirically, we craft an efficient experimental market and find three sets of evidence consistent with our microinstitutionalization perspective. We first show—at the individual level—that market participants exhibit a social bias toward conformity with the market’s collective valuation, even when the emergent market valuation is demonstrably incorrect. We then show—at the market level—that the range of valuations over time also decreases in a conforming direction, again independent of valuation accuracy. Last, we provide the first experimental test of the long-assumed effect of social ambiguity on institutionalization, finding that market participants’ over-attention to the collective valuation is indeed sensitive to variation in social ambiguity. We conclude by highlighting the relevance of our theoretical perspective, method, and findings for future research on institutions and institutionalization processes, as well as future studies on social influence and conformity-based errors. Funding: S. S. Levine acknowledges research grants from Singapore Management University; the University of Texas at Dallas; and the European Research Council (agreement 695256). Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0173 .
毫无疑问，市场的制度化地位是由于它们假定有能力将个人出价汇总成一个公正的价值估计。在不否认市场过程的这种突发性属性的同时，我们提出并测试了另一种观点，该观点解释了市场过程如何也会产生个体估值错误的传播，并最终形成价格泡沫。从理论上讲，我们提出了一个微观制度的观点，从社会和进化心理学的角度出发，将市场过程与更一般的制度化过程联系起来，在这个过程中，寻求从众的适应性利益的个人可能——由于有限的和社会偏见的理性——反而产生了不适应的个人和集体结果。从经验上看，我们设计了一个有效的实验市场，并找到了三组与我们的微观制度化观点一致的证据。我们首先在个人层面上表明，市场参与者表现出一种社会偏见，倾向于与市场的集体估值保持一致，即使在新兴市场估值明显不正确的情况下也是如此。然后，我们在市场层面上显示，随着时间的推移，估值的范围也在一个一致的方向上缩小，同样与估值准确性无关。最后，我们首次对长期以来假设的社会模糊性对制度化的影响进行了实验检验，发现市场参与者对集体估值的过度关注确实对社会模糊性的变化敏感。最后，我们强调了我们的理论观点、方法和研究结果对未来制度和制度化过程的研究，以及未来社会影响和从众错误的研究的相关性。资助:S. S. Levine接受新加坡管理大学的研究资助;德克萨斯大学达拉斯分校;和欧洲研究理事会(协议695256)。补充材料:在线附录可在https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0173上获得。
{"title":"The Other Invisible Hand: How Markets—as Institutions—Propagate Conformity and Valuation Errors","authors":"Sheen S. Levine, Edward J. Zajac","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2022.0173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0173","url":null,"abstract":"The institutionalized status of markets is undoubtedly due to their presumed ability to aggregate individual bids into a single unbiased estimate of value. While not denying this emergent property of market processes, we propose and test an alternative perspective that explains how market processes can also generate the propagation of individual valuation errors that aggregate into price bubbles. Theoretically, we advance a microinstitutional perspective that draws from social and evolutionary psychology linking market processes to a more general process of institutionalization, whereby individuals seeking the adaptive benefits of conformity may—due to bounded and socially biased rationality—instead generate maladaptive individual and collective outcomes. Empirically, we craft an efficient experimental market and find three sets of evidence consistent with our microinstitutionalization perspective. We first show—at the individual level—that market participants exhibit a social bias toward conformity with the market’s collective valuation, even when the emergent market valuation is demonstrably incorrect. We then show—at the market level—that the range of valuations over time also decreases in a conforming direction, again independent of valuation accuracy. Last, we provide the first experimental test of the long-assumed effect of social ambiguity on institutionalization, finding that market participants’ over-attention to the collective valuation is indeed sensitive to variation in social ambiguity. We conclude by highlighting the relevance of our theoretical perspective, method, and findings for future research on institutions and institutionalization processes, as well as future studies on social influence and conformity-based errors. Funding: S. S. Levine acknowledges research grants from Singapore Management University; the University of Texas at Dallas; and the European Research Council (agreement 695256). Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0173 .","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135944507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We re-examine the finding that new ventures employing individuals with industry experience have survival advantages and conclude that it is unlikely a reflection of the underlying theoretical mechanism advanced in the literature—individuals applying their industry-specific knowledge. We come to this conclusion by leveraging detailed linked employer-employee data from Denmark and conducting an inferred pattern analysis where we analyze several empirical relationships that we interpret in tandem. After replicating the industry experience–venture survival relationship, we identify several empirical puzzles if the underlying causal mechanism is leveraging industry-specific knowledge. In light of these puzzles, analysis of their robustness, and initial exploratory empirical investigations, we propose that other human capital characteristics that correlate with industry experience (i.e., overall experience and wages) are better explanatory factors. The analysis illustrates how the data-grounded steps of an inferred pattern analysis can guide future theoretical development and empirical investigations to identify the causal mechanism underlying a well-established empirical relationship in the literature. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0033 .
{"title":"Re-Examining the Industry Experience–Venture Survival Relationship","authors":"Agnes Guenther, J. Shaver","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2022.0033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0033","url":null,"abstract":"We re-examine the finding that new ventures employing individuals with industry experience have survival advantages and conclude that it is unlikely a reflection of the underlying theoretical mechanism advanced in the literature—individuals applying their industry-specific knowledge. We come to this conclusion by leveraging detailed linked employer-employee data from Denmark and conducting an inferred pattern analysis where we analyze several empirical relationships that we interpret in tandem. After replicating the industry experience–venture survival relationship, we identify several empirical puzzles if the underlying causal mechanism is leveraging industry-specific knowledge. In light of these puzzles, analysis of their robustness, and initial exploratory empirical investigations, we propose that other human capital characteristics that correlate with industry experience (i.e., overall experience and wages) are better explanatory factors. The analysis illustrates how the data-grounded steps of an inferred pattern analysis can guide future theoretical development and empirical investigations to identify the causal mechanism underlying a well-established empirical relationship in the literature. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0033 .","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43048606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The academic field of strategy has a strong history of developing theories and frameworks to explain real-world phenomena but a relatively younger empirical literature testing these theories. Partly because of the nature of questions in strategic management, scholars have often relied on collecting their own data or using specialized, and often expensive, proprietary data. This limits the possibility of replication exercises, which are a key step to refining and reinforcing the theories that are most supported in practice. To support this effort, we revisit the World Management Survey: a crosscountry, crossindustry survey data set with over 20,000 observations at the establishment level that is collected through a rigorous and well-documented process and made free and accessible to researchers. Although it is not without influence in the strategy literature, we propose that it is underused and that better exposure to these data’s offerings has the potential to add significant value to the field. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0006 .
{"title":"Revisiting the World Management Survey in Strategy: Applications to Theory and Replication","authors":"Daniela Scur, Sarah Wolfolds","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2022.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0006","url":null,"abstract":"The academic field of strategy has a strong history of developing theories and frameworks to explain real-world phenomena but a relatively younger empirical literature testing these theories. Partly because of the nature of questions in strategic management, scholars have often relied on collecting their own data or using specialized, and often expensive, proprietary data. This limits the possibility of replication exercises, which are a key step to refining and reinforcing the theories that are most supported in practice. To support this effort, we revisit the World Management Survey: a crosscountry, crossindustry survey data set with over 20,000 observations at the establishment level that is collected through a rigorous and well-documented process and made free and accessible to researchers. Although it is not without influence in the strategy literature, we propose that it is underused and that better exposure to these data’s offerings has the potential to add significant value to the field. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0006 .","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46270438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is uncontroversial for strategy scholars that culture matters for both strategy formulation and execution. Yet, the diversity of approaches and concepts for thinking about culture can prove daunting for operationalizing this insight. We introduce the concept of a “code”—a fuzzy mapping between two distinct sets of cognitive constructs—as a fundamental construct to study culture. The concept of a code, and the distinction between using a code versus expectations about the code others use, can be applied to study many different elements of culture both in terms of theorizing about them with precision and for empirical applications. Furthermore, we argue that a code-based perspective on culture is particularly useful from the normative, design-oriented stance that is characteristic of strategy. Using an example of creating stakeholder alignment around the problem of sustainability, a first-order challenge for business and society today, we show that the perspectives of culture as shared values and culture as a toolkit point to different interventions that are each likely to work under different conditions.
{"title":"Decoding Culture: Tools for Behavioral Strategists","authors":"Özgecan Koçak, P. Puranam","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2022.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0008","url":null,"abstract":"It is uncontroversial for strategy scholars that culture matters for both strategy formulation and execution. Yet, the diversity of approaches and concepts for thinking about culture can prove daunting for operationalizing this insight. We introduce the concept of a “code”—a fuzzy mapping between two distinct sets of cognitive constructs—as a fundamental construct to study culture. The concept of a code, and the distinction between using a code versus expectations about the code others use, can be applied to study many different elements of culture both in terms of theorizing about them with precision and for empirical applications. Furthermore, we argue that a code-based perspective on culture is particularly useful from the normative, design-oriented stance that is characteristic of strategy. Using an example of creating stakeholder alignment around the problem of sustainability, a first-order challenge for business and society today, we show that the perspectives of culture as shared values and culture as a toolkit point to different interventions that are each likely to work under different conditions.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49192488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Both the societal purpose of the corporation and an individual corporation’s sense of purpose have been subject to increased attention by business elites and academics alike. This special issue presents diverse viewpoints on these two distinct yet interrelated topics. In this introduction, we present the various contributions and build on their insights to develop our independent sensemaking of what corporate purpose entails. Thus, we define corporate purpose, at both the organizational and societal levels, as an institutionalized ideal, a historical, value-based aspiration guiding strategic decision making and practices. We interpret the current societal movement on corporate purpose as one rejecting the logic of shareholder capitalism and proposing sustainable capitalism in its place: an ideal for corporate purpose based on sustainable prosperity for society and its population. At the organizational level, corporate purpose can thus be articulated as a distinctive and meaningful intent to enhance the lives of people. We identify four strategic issues to consider in reconstituting a corporation’s purpose: corporate governance, strategic leadership, stakeholder engagement, and implementation. We conclude by highlighting the centrality of purpose to corporate strategy, an emphasis that was present in the field during its origins but one that got displaced under a logic of shareholder primacy. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.
{"title":"Making Sense of Corporate Purpose","authors":"W. Ocasio, Matthew S. Kraatz, D. Chandler","doi":"10.1287/stsc.2023.0054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0054","url":null,"abstract":"Both the societal purpose of the corporation and an individual corporation’s sense of purpose have been subject to increased attention by business elites and academics alike. This special issue presents diverse viewpoints on these two distinct yet interrelated topics. In this introduction, we present the various contributions and build on their insights to develop our independent sensemaking of what corporate purpose entails. Thus, we define corporate purpose, at both the organizational and societal levels, as an institutionalized ideal, a historical, value-based aspiration guiding strategic decision making and practices. We interpret the current societal movement on corporate purpose as one rejecting the logic of shareholder capitalism and proposing sustainable capitalism in its place: an ideal for corporate purpose based on sustainable prosperity for society and its population. At the organizational level, corporate purpose can thus be articulated as a distinctive and meaningful intent to enhance the lives of people. We identify four strategic issues to consider in reconstituting a corporation’s purpose: corporate governance, strategic leadership, stakeholder engagement, and implementation. We conclude by highlighting the centrality of purpose to corporate strategy, an emphasis that was present in the field during its origins but one that got displaced under a logic of shareholder primacy. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.","PeriodicalId":45295,"journal":{"name":"Strategy Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48054546","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：