两把剪刀:组织风险承担中的绩效反馈与内在属性

IF 8.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Administrative Science Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-08-23 DOI:10.1177/00018392221117996
Xavier Sobrepere i Profitós, T. Keil, Pasi Kuusela
{"title":"两把剪刀:组织风险承担中的绩效反馈与内在属性","authors":"Xavier Sobrepere i Profitós, T. Keil, Pasi Kuusela","doi":"10.1177/00018392221117996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We draw on the behavioral theory of the firm and prospect theory to examine how performance feedback (decision context) and the characteristics of the alternatives (decision content) that decision makers face jointly determine organizational risk-taking choices. While the behavioral theory of the firm has identified performance feedback’s important role in driving organizational risk-taking decisions, it has not considered the intrinsic attributes of alternatives, specifically the magnitude and likelihood of their outcomes, which have been the focus of prospect theory. We argue that these two attributes play a key role in decision makers’ assessment of alternatives, but because achieving organizational goals is the prime objective in organizations, performance feedback drives how decision makers process information regarding these attributes. Analyzing 23,895 fourth-down decisions from the U.S. National Football League, we find that decision makers weigh attainment discrepancy and the magnitude and likelihood of outcomes in their choices, depending on deadline proximity. Furthermore, the size and valence of attainment discrepancy modify the weight of the magnitude and likelihood of outcomes in risky choices. Our arguments and findings suggest extensions to the behavioral theory of the firm and imply modifications to prospect theory when applied to the organizational context.","PeriodicalId":7203,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Science Quarterly","volume":"67 1","pages":"1012 - 1048"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Two Blades of the Scissors: Performance Feedback and Intrinsic Attributes in Organizational Risk Taking\",\"authors\":\"Xavier Sobrepere i Profitós, T. Keil, Pasi Kuusela\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00018392221117996\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We draw on the behavioral theory of the firm and prospect theory to examine how performance feedback (decision context) and the characteristics of the alternatives (decision content) that decision makers face jointly determine organizational risk-taking choices. While the behavioral theory of the firm has identified performance feedback’s important role in driving organizational risk-taking decisions, it has not considered the intrinsic attributes of alternatives, specifically the magnitude and likelihood of their outcomes, which have been the focus of prospect theory. We argue that these two attributes play a key role in decision makers’ assessment of alternatives, but because achieving organizational goals is the prime objective in organizations, performance feedback drives how decision makers process information regarding these attributes. Analyzing 23,895 fourth-down decisions from the U.S. National Football League, we find that decision makers weigh attainment discrepancy and the magnitude and likelihood of outcomes in their choices, depending on deadline proximity. Furthermore, the size and valence of attainment discrepancy modify the weight of the magnitude and likelihood of outcomes in risky choices. Our arguments and findings suggest extensions to the behavioral theory of the firm and imply modifications to prospect theory when applied to the organizational context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administrative Science Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"1012 - 1048\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administrative Science Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392221117996\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392221117996","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

我们利用企业行为理论和前景理论来研究决策者所面临的绩效反馈(决策语境)和备选方案的特征(决策内容)是如何共同决定组织风险选择的。虽然企业行为理论已经确定了绩效反馈在推动组织冒险决策方面的重要作用,但它没有考虑备选方案的内在属性,特别是其结果的大小和可能性,而这一直是前景理论的重点。我们认为,这两个属性在决策者对备选方案的评估中起着关键作用,但由于实现组织目标是组织的主要目标,因此绩效反馈驱动决策者如何处理有关这些属性的信息。分析了23,895个来自美国国家橄榄球联盟的第四次进攻决定,我们发现决策者在他们的选择中权衡了成就差异以及结果的大小和可能性,这取决于截止日期的接近程度。此外,成就差异的大小和效价改变了风险选择结果的大小和可能性的权重。我们的论点和研究结果提出了对企业行为理论的扩展,并暗示了在应用于组织背景时对前景理论的修改。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Two Blades of the Scissors: Performance Feedback and Intrinsic Attributes in Organizational Risk Taking
We draw on the behavioral theory of the firm and prospect theory to examine how performance feedback (decision context) and the characteristics of the alternatives (decision content) that decision makers face jointly determine organizational risk-taking choices. While the behavioral theory of the firm has identified performance feedback’s important role in driving organizational risk-taking decisions, it has not considered the intrinsic attributes of alternatives, specifically the magnitude and likelihood of their outcomes, which have been the focus of prospect theory. We argue that these two attributes play a key role in decision makers’ assessment of alternatives, but because achieving organizational goals is the prime objective in organizations, performance feedback drives how decision makers process information regarding these attributes. Analyzing 23,895 fourth-down decisions from the U.S. National Football League, we find that decision makers weigh attainment discrepancy and the magnitude and likelihood of outcomes in their choices, depending on deadline proximity. Furthermore, the size and valence of attainment discrepancy modify the weight of the magnitude and likelihood of outcomes in risky choices. Our arguments and findings suggest extensions to the behavioral theory of the firm and imply modifications to prospect theory when applied to the organizational context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.50
自引率
3.80%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Administrative Science Quarterly, under the ownership and management of the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, has consistently been a pioneer in organizational studies since the inception of the field. As a premier journal, it consistently features the finest theoretical and empirical papers derived from dissertations, along with the latest contributions from well-established scholars. Additionally, the journal showcases interdisciplinary work in organizational theory and offers insightful book reviews.
期刊最新文献
This Is Why I Leave: Race and Voluntary Departure The Dynamics of Inferential Interpretation in Experiential Learning: Deciphering Hidden Goals from Ambiguous Experience Christina Lubinski. Navigating Nationalism in Global Enterprise: A Century of Indo-German Business Relations Falling Fortunes: The Contingent and Asymmetric Effect of Rankings on Organizational Outcomes Michel Anteby. The Interloper: Lessons from Resistance in the Field
×
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