Pub Date : 2018-09-10DOI: 10.1108/S0742-332220180000039006
P. Puranam
Behavioral strategy aspires to build theories that are behaviorally plausible. However, the diversity of human behaviors can make it challenging to know what behavioral assumptions to use when building theories about organizations and their strategies. Fortunately, organizational contexts are, to varying degrees, designed. This introduces a powerful set of levers – sorting, framing, and structuring – that reduce this diversity of behavioral possibilities to a tractable yet plausible few. Attention to the organizational contexts that shape individual and group behavior can, therefore, help behavioral strategists attain their objectives of building theories with sound behavioral foundations.
{"title":"The Organizational Foundations of Behavioral Strategy","authors":"P. Puranam","doi":"10.1108/S0742-332220180000039006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039006","url":null,"abstract":"Behavioral strategy aspires to build theories that are behaviorally plausible. However, the diversity of human behaviors can make it challenging to know what behavioral assumptions to use when building theories about organizations and their strategies. Fortunately, organizational contexts are, to varying degrees, designed. This introduces a powerful set of levers – sorting, framing, and structuring – that reduce this diversity of behavioral possibilities to a tractable yet plausible few. Attention to the organizational contexts that shape individual and group behavior can, therefore, help behavioral strategists attain their objectives of building theories with sound behavioral foundations.","PeriodicalId":46550,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Strategic Management-A Research Annual","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41643382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-10DOI: 10.1108/S0742-332220180000039001
J. March
Abstract The earliest contributors to discussions of strategy were advisors to military leaders, and that model was carried into early business schools, where the teachers of strategy were, for the most part, people with extensive experience as executives or advisors to them. The key course materials were anecdotes and cases, and the standard intellectual discourse was organized around recollected episodes in organizational history. The central contributions of the early teaching of strategy were consciousness of the complications introduced by complexity, competition, and attention to the second-order surprises of intentional action. There was neither a pretense of theory nor a significant involvement in research. Although it shared in the onus of a general academic skepticism about the academic legitimacy of research on business, the “discipline” of strategy sought to emulate the attributes of more established disciplines. The new field was typified by an early open interdisciplinary flavor that facilitated the differentiation of a new field, and a subsequent refinement that restricted access. By the start of the twenty-first century, this process had run much of its course, and the field of strategy had taken its place as a reasonably respectable academic specialty. The history of an emphasis on real organizations in real situations led to an openness to anchors drawn from sources other than conventional economics. These included particularly the theory of games, the evolutionary theory of the firm, and the behavioral theory of organizations. The struggle for respectability in economics was repeatedly frustrated by the difficulty of discovering a formulation that honored the litany of economics while fitting the observations of real strategy making. The future seems likely to be more of the same, a combination of efforts to secure recognition through emulation of the standards and barriers to entry that characterize established disciplines, and of exploratory gambits that are mostly destined to be forgotten. The optimal balance is likely to be as elusive as it is in other domains.
{"title":"Some Thoughts on the Development of Disciplines, with Particular Attention to Behavioral Strategy","authors":"J. March","doi":"10.1108/S0742-332220180000039001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000The earliest contributors to discussions of strategy were advisors to military leaders, and that model was carried into early business schools, where the teachers of strategy were, for the most part, people with extensive experience as executives or advisors to them. The key course materials were anecdotes and cases, and the standard intellectual discourse was organized around recollected episodes in organizational history. The central contributions of the early teaching of strategy were consciousness of the complications introduced by complexity, competition, and attention to the second-order surprises of intentional action. There was neither a pretense of theory nor a significant involvement in research. \u0000 \u0000Although it shared in the onus of a general academic skepticism about the academic legitimacy of research on business, the “discipline” of strategy sought to emulate the attributes of more established disciplines. The new field was typified by an early open interdisciplinary flavor that facilitated the differentiation of a new field, and a subsequent refinement that restricted access. By the start of the twenty-first century, this process had run much of its course, and the field of strategy had taken its place as a reasonably respectable academic specialty. The history of an emphasis on real organizations in real situations led to an openness to anchors drawn from sources other than conventional economics. These included particularly the theory of games, the evolutionary theory of the firm, and the behavioral theory of organizations. \u0000 \u0000The struggle for respectability in economics was repeatedly frustrated by the difficulty of discovering a formulation that honored the litany of economics while fitting the observations of real strategy making. The future seems likely to be more of the same, a combination of efforts to secure recognition through emulation of the standards and barriers to entry that characterize established disciplines, and of exploratory gambits that are mostly destined to be forgotten. The optimal balance is likely to be as elusive as it is in other domains.","PeriodicalId":46550,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Strategic Management-A Research Annual","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42146470","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-10DOI: 10.1108/S0742-332220180000039007
H. Greve
Abstract Problemistic search is a central part of behavioral strategy because it is a fundamental step in the decision process leading to strategic change. Despite the significant research efforts so far, there is a gap in our understanding of search. Unlike the theory of myopic search, most research so far has emphasized search initiated by performance relative to aspiration levels on goals that are too broad to justify directing search toward the form of strategic change selected for investigation. In the following, I outline the foundation of an extended theory of problemistic search in response to broad goals through either broad search, use of multiple goals, use of power, reliance on cognitive biases, or responses to environmental stimuli. Each of these processes, alone or in combination, can give more specific predictions of where firms search when encountering performance below aspiration levels on broad goals. Substantial progress in empirical research is needed, however, to distinguish which of these processes occur.
{"title":"Where to Search?","authors":"H. Greve","doi":"10.1108/S0742-332220180000039007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039007","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000Problemistic search is a central part of behavioral strategy because it is a fundamental step in the decision process leading to strategic change. Despite the significant research efforts so far, there is a gap in our understanding of search. Unlike the theory of myopic search, most research so far has emphasized search initiated by performance relative to aspiration levels on goals that are too broad to justify directing search toward the form of strategic change selected for investigation. In the following, I outline the foundation of an extended theory of problemistic search in response to broad goals through either broad search, use of multiple goals, use of power, reliance on cognitive biases, or responses to environmental stimuli. Each of these processes, alone or in combination, can give more specific predictions of where firms search when encountering performance below aspiration levels on broad goals. Substantial progress in empirical research is needed, however, to distinguish which of these processes occur.","PeriodicalId":46550,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Strategic Management-A Research Annual","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48103961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-10DOI: 10.1108/S0742-332220180000039008
S. Winter
Abstract What can a behavioral approach contribute to the understanding of strategizing? Assuming that “strategizing” is a deliberative process typically engaged in by small groups in the leadership of a large organization, the most promising targets for behavioral studies may not be that process itself. Attention could well go instead to the organizational sensors that detect strategic issues and provide the information input for considering them, and the constraints that limit implementation. In contrast to the content of deliberation, these sensors and related structures are often slow-moving organizational traits and may be readily observable from external vantage points – such as the position of an observer seeking to predict the strategic choices of the organization.
{"title":"Organizational Sensing and the Occasions for Strategizing","authors":"S. Winter","doi":"10.1108/S0742-332220180000039008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000What can a behavioral approach contribute to the understanding of strategizing? Assuming that “strategizing” is a deliberative process typically engaged in by small groups in the leadership of a large organization, the most promising targets for behavioral studies may not be that process itself. Attention could well go instead to the organizational sensors that detect strategic issues and provide the information input for considering them, and the constraints that limit implementation. In contrast to the content of deliberation, these sensors and related structures are often slow-moving organizational traits and may be readily observable from external vantage points – such as the position of an observer seeking to predict the strategic choices of the organization.","PeriodicalId":46550,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Strategic Management-A Research Annual","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46934442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-10DOI: 10.1108/S0742-332220180000039015
Christina Fang, Chengwei Liu
Abstract Behavioral strategy completes the analyses of superior profitability by highlighting how non-economic, behavioral barriers generate an alternative source of strategic opportunities. Existing internal and external analysis frameworks fail to explain why strategic factors can be systematically mispriced and why large firms’ structural and resource advantage are regularly disrupted by entrepreneurs. We argue that the systematic biases documented in the behavioral and organizational sciences in fact illuminate an alternative source of competitive advantage. Strategists could develop superior insights into the value of resources and recognize factors that are either under- or overvalued while competitors remain blind to such possibilities. Our argument is illustrated by how three “underdogs” disrupted the incumbents in their industries by exploiting rivals’ predictable biases and blind spots. We conclude by discussing how our ideas can be generalized as an alternative, behavioral approach for strategy.
{"title":"Behavioral Strategy: An Alternative Account of Superior Profitability?","authors":"Christina Fang, Chengwei Liu","doi":"10.1108/S0742-332220180000039015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039015","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000Behavioral strategy completes the analyses of superior profitability by highlighting how non-economic, behavioral barriers generate an alternative source of strategic opportunities. Existing internal and external analysis frameworks fail to explain why strategic factors can be systematically mispriced and why large firms’ structural and resource advantage are regularly disrupted by entrepreneurs. We argue that the systematic biases documented in the behavioral and organizational sciences in fact illuminate an alternative source of competitive advantage. Strategists could develop superior insights into the value of resources and recognize factors that are either under- or overvalued while competitors remain blind to such possibilities. Our argument is illustrated by how three “underdogs” disrupted the incumbents in their industries by exploiting rivals’ predictable biases and blind spots. We conclude by discussing how our ideas can be generalized as an alternative, behavioral approach for strategy.","PeriodicalId":46550,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Strategic Management-A Research Annual","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46291059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-10DOI: 10.1108/S0742-332220180000039012
V. Rindova, L. Martins
Abstract By theorizing choice as an information and decision problem, behavioral strategy research has not considered fully the agentic capacities of strategists. We argue that agentic capacities are distinct from decision-making and information-processing capacities as they rest on temporally anchored engagements with the world through habit, imagination, and judgment. We propose that understanding agency as temporally anchored action capacities is particularly important for research in behavioral strategy, as strategic phenomena encompass accumulated experience and path-dependencies (the past), ongoing competitive, market, and organizational interactions and exchanges (the present), and plans, visions, and forecasts for the future (the future). We outline how strategic choice and agency involve cognitive engagement in the three time horizons through distinct cognitive capabilities and the organizational processes that support them.
{"title":"The Three Minds of the Strategist: Toward an Agentic Perspective in Behavioral Strategy","authors":"V. Rindova, L. Martins","doi":"10.1108/S0742-332220180000039012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000By theorizing choice as an information and decision problem, behavioral strategy research has not considered fully the agentic capacities of strategists. We argue that agentic capacities are distinct from decision-making and information-processing capacities as they rest on temporally anchored engagements with the world through habit, imagination, and judgment. We propose that understanding agency as temporally anchored action capacities is particularly important for research in behavioral strategy, as strategic phenomena encompass accumulated experience and path-dependencies (the past), ongoing competitive, market, and organizational interactions and exchanges (the present), and plans, visions, and forecasts for the future (the future). We outline how strategic choice and agency involve cognitive engagement in the three time horizons through distinct cognitive capabilities and the organizational processes that support them.","PeriodicalId":46550,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Strategic Management-A Research Annual","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41262646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-10DOI: 10.1108/S0742-332220180000039014
P. Bromiley, Devaki Rau
Can (and should) strategy scholarship attempt to find general prescriptions for business strategy that are applicable to all firms across all business conditions? We suggest that a universal theory of business strategy is a chimera: attractive but completely illusory. Our argument is based on two fundamental insights namely, organizations do not automatically adopt all practices and activities that could benefit them (even if knowledge about those activities is in the public domain), and theories and empirical work can address portions of the strategy problem usefully without attempting or achieving a general theory of strategy. Based on this, we believe strategy scholarship can fruitfully build on a variety of mid-range theories to offer three things from a prescriptive standpoint: (1) understanding the structure and processes inherent in organizations and markets; (2) offering productive ways to frame and analyze problems; and (3) offering recommendations for stratagems that appear successful. More generally, organizations might find immense value in strategy scholarship that offers specific tools, prescriptions, and alternative ways of looking at a problem, and that raise performance, on average.
{"title":"Behavioral Strategy and Strategy Prescription","authors":"P. Bromiley, Devaki Rau","doi":"10.1108/S0742-332220180000039014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039014","url":null,"abstract":"Can (and should) strategy scholarship attempt to find general prescriptions for business strategy that are applicable to all firms across all business conditions? We suggest that a universal theory of business strategy is a chimera: attractive but completely illusory. Our argument is based on two fundamental insights namely, organizations do not automatically adopt all practices and activities that could benefit them (even if knowledge about those activities is in the public domain), and theories and empirical work can address portions of the strategy problem usefully without attempting or achieving a general theory of strategy. Based on this, we believe strategy scholarship can fruitfully build on a variety of mid-range theories to offer three things from a prescriptive standpoint: (1) understanding the structure and processes inherent in organizations and markets; (2) offering productive ways to frame and analyze problems; and (3) offering recommendations for stratagems that appear successful. More generally, organizations might find immense value in strategy scholarship that offers specific tools, prescriptions, and alternative ways of looking at a problem, and that raise performance, on average.","PeriodicalId":46550,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Strategic Management-A Research Annual","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43100920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-10DOI: 10.1108/S0742-332220180000039009
E. Green, Z. Shapira
Abstract There are many cases where top management either missed or almost missed detecting or interpreting a major change in the environment that might have led them to a major setback. We propose a model of sensing in hierarchical organizations that describes a sequence of sensing and detecting changes in the environment, followed by successive stages of perception, interpretation, and finally action. We model an organization as a complex signal detection system, where the flow of information among members of the organization is constrained by two elements: the structure of the organization, which is defined by who reports to whom, and the attentional and cognitive limitations of the individuals. We infer the probability of sensing over time for different levels of environmental shocks and different organizational structures. By focusing on the (un)reliability of sensing and the information flow in different organizational structures, we are able to provide preliminary analysis of the trade-offs among cognitive limitations, speed of detection, modes of information flow, and the resulting performance measure of delay, false-alarms, and true detections.
{"title":"Hierarchical Sensing and Strategic Decision-Making","authors":"E. Green, Z. Shapira","doi":"10.1108/S0742-332220180000039009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039009","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000There are many cases where top management either missed or almost missed detecting or interpreting a major change in the environment that might have led them to a major setback. We propose a model of sensing in hierarchical organizations that describes a sequence of sensing and detecting changes in the environment, followed by successive stages of perception, interpretation, and finally action. We model an organization as a complex signal detection system, where the flow of information among members of the organization is constrained by two elements: the structure of the organization, which is defined by who reports to whom, and the attentional and cognitive limitations of the individuals. We infer the probability of sensing over time for different levels of environmental shocks and different organizational structures. By focusing on the (un)reliability of sensing and the information flow in different organizational structures, we are able to provide preliminary analysis of the trade-offs among cognitive limitations, speed of detection, modes of information flow, and the resulting performance measure of delay, false-alarms, and true detections.","PeriodicalId":46550,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Strategic Management-A Research Annual","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44926649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-09-10DOI: 10.1108/S0742-332220180000039002
D. Hambrick, Craig Crossland
Abstract Despite widespread interest in “behavioral strategy,” it is not clear what this term, or its associated academic subfield, is all about. Unless a critical mass of scholars can agree on the meaning of behavioral strategy, and professionally identify with it, this embryonic community may face a marginal existence. We describe three alternative conceptions for the academic subfield of behavioral strategy, along with assessments of the pros and cons of each. The “small tent” version amounts to a direct transposition of the logic of behavioral economics to the field of strategic management, specifically in the style of behavioral decision research. The “midsize tent” view is that behavioral strategy is a commitment to understanding the psychology of strategists. And the “large tent’ view includes consideration of any and all psychological, sociological, and political factors that influence strategic outcomes. We conclude that the midsize tent represents the best path forward, not too narrow and not too broad, allowing rich scope but with coherence. The large tent conception of behavioral strategy, however, is not out of the question and warrants serious consideration.
{"title":"A Strategy for Behavioral Strategy: Appraisal of Small, Midsize, and Large Tent Conceptions of This Embryonic Community","authors":"D. Hambrick, Craig Crossland","doi":"10.1108/S0742-332220180000039002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000Despite widespread interest in “behavioral strategy,” it is not clear what this term, or its associated academic subfield, is all about. Unless a critical mass of scholars can agree on the meaning of behavioral strategy, and professionally identify with it, this embryonic community may face a marginal existence. We describe three alternative conceptions for the academic subfield of behavioral strategy, along with assessments of the pros and cons of each. The “small tent” version amounts to a direct transposition of the logic of behavioral economics to the field of strategic management, specifically in the style of behavioral decision research. The “midsize tent” view is that behavioral strategy is a commitment to understanding the psychology of strategists. And the “large tent’ view includes consideration of any and all psychological, sociological, and political factors that influence strategic outcomes. We conclude that the midsize tent represents the best path forward, not too narrow and not too broad, allowing rich scope but with coherence. The large tent conception of behavioral strategy, however, is not out of the question and warrants serious consideration.","PeriodicalId":46550,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Strategic Management-A Research Annual","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/S0742-332220180000039002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45242029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-31DOI: 10.1108/S0742-332220180000038013
Matthew K. O. Lee, Christopher Marquis
A large and growing literature examines the explicit social responsibility practices of companies. Yet corporations’ greatest consequences for social welfare arguably occur through indirect processes that shape the social fabric that sustains generosity and mutual support within communities. Based on this logic, we theorize and test a model that suggests two pathways by which large corporations affect community philanthropy: (1) through direct engagement in community philanthropy and (2) by indirectly influencing the efficacy of community social capital, defined as the relationships among community members that facilitate social support and maintenance of social welfare. Our analysis of United Way contributions in 136 US cities over the 46 years from 1952 to 1997 supports our model. We find that the presence of corporations weakens the contributions of both elite and working-class social capital on community philanthropy. Our findings thus contribute to a novel view of corporate social responsibility based on how corporations influence the social capital of the communities in which they are embedded.
{"title":"Large Corporations, Social Capital, and Community Philanthropy","authors":"Matthew K. O. Lee, Christopher Marquis","doi":"10.1108/S0742-332220180000038013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-332220180000038013","url":null,"abstract":"A large and growing literature examines the explicit social responsibility practices of companies. Yet corporations’ greatest consequences for social welfare arguably occur through indirect processes that shape the social fabric that sustains generosity and mutual support within communities. Based on this logic, we theorize and test a model that suggests two pathways by which large corporations affect community philanthropy: (1) through direct engagement in community philanthropy and (2) by indirectly influencing the efficacy of community social capital, defined as the relationships among community members that facilitate social support and maintenance of social welfare. Our analysis of United Way contributions in 136 US cities over the 46 years from 1952 to 1997 supports our model. We find that the presence of corporations weakens the contributions of both elite and working-class social capital on community philanthropy. Our findings thus contribute to a novel view of corporate social responsibility based on how corporations influence the social capital of the communities in which they are embedded.","PeriodicalId":46550,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Strategic Management-A Research Annual","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/S0742-332220180000038013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43421400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","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：