Executive Pay and Firm Performance: Methodological Considerations and Future Directions

This paper is an investigation of the pay-for-performance link in executive compensation. In particular we document main issues in the pay-performance debate and explain practical issues in setting pay as well as data issues including how pay is disclosed and how that has changed over time. We also provide a summary of the state of CEO pay levels and pay mix in 2009 using a sample of over 2,000 companies and describe main data sources for researchers. We also investigate what we believe to be at the root of fundamental confusion in the literature across disciplines – methodological issues. In exploring methodological issues, we focus on empirical specifications, causality, fixed-effects, first- differencing and instrumental variables issues. We then discuss two important but not yet well explored areas; international issues and compensation in nonprofits. We conclude by examining a series of research areas where further work can be done, within and across disciplines

Assessing the role of the research in the transition to organic farming by using the Actor Network Theory: lessons from two case studies in France and Bulgaria

This paper explores the potential of Actor Network Theory (ANT) in understanding how the process of interaction and translation between human and non-human actors contribute to the development, adoption and diffusion of science-based innovations linked to the transition to organic farming. The study relies on two case studies, the French Camargue case covering a range of technical and social innovations, and the case from Bulgaria focusing on the development of a technical and product innovation, i.e. a veterinary product for organic beekeeping. The paper shows the limitations of classical approaches in studying innovations since they underestimate the role of heterogeneous actors, their status, and how they interact with each other. We argue that focusing on actors’ interactions helps to better understand the so-called “uncertainties” and “turning points” in the innovation development, as well as to interpret them as natural elements. Moreover we argue that challenges to tackle should be problematized to increase the success of research programs. We also stress the importance of opinion leaders during the implementation and diffusion phase of the innovation

Innovation behaviour and the use of research and extension services in small-scale agricultural holdings

[EN] Farmers¿ views on research and extension services (RES) included in the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System are rarely investigated. This study analyses the relationship between key factors of innovation behaviour (market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation attitude) and the use of RES through structural equation modelling, focusing on small-scale agricultural holdings. Market orientation and learning orientation appear to be positively correlated, confirming that synergies between both factors provide a background for innovativeness. Learning orientation and farm-holders¿ education level, improve knowledge exchange and make the agriculture innovation process more inclusive. However, farmers¿ innovation attitude is not clearly correlated with the use of RES. Motivations about ¿the will to do innovations¿ are represented by a construct that does not appear to have a determinant effect as a mediator in farmer¿s decisions about using RES.Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Project AGL2015-65897-C3-3-R "Knowledge innovation services and agri-food systems. Innovation and transfer networks.")Ramos-Sandoval, R.; García Alvarez-Coque, JM.; Mas Verdú, F. (2016). Innovation behaviour and the use of research and extension services in small-scale agricultural holdings. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 14(4):1-14. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2016144-8548S114144García Álvarez-Coque, J. M., Alba, M. F., & López-García Usach, T. (2012). Innovation and sectoral linkages in the agri-food system in the Valencian Community. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 10(1), 18. doi:10.5424/sjar/2012101-207-11Alfranca, O. (2005). Private R&D and Spillovers in European Agriculture. International Advances in Economic Research, 11(2), 201-213. doi:10.1007/s11294-005-3016-7Anderson, V., & Boocock, G. (2002). Small firms and internationalisation: learning to manage and managing to learn. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(3), 5-24. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2002.tb00068.xAudretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113-1122. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.009Avermaete, T., Viaene, J., Morgan, E. J., Pitts, E., Crawford, N., & Mahon, D. (2004). Determinants of product and process innovation in small food manufacturing1The content of the paper is the responsibility of the first three authors. firms1. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15(10), 474-483. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2004.04.005Chaston, I., Badger, B., Mangles, T., & Sadler‐Smith, E. (2001). Organisational learning style, competencies and learning systems in small, UK manufacturing firms. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(11), 1417-1432. doi:10.1108/eum0000000006224Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2002). Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5(1), 5-23. doi:10.1023/a:1012543911149Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., Sambrook, S., & Davies, D. (2012). Innovation in food sector SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(2), 300-321. doi:10.1108/14626001211223919Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 49-60. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.002Bell, S. J., Whitwell, G. J., & Lukas, B. A. (2002). Schools of Thought in Organizational Learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 70-86. doi:10.1177/03079459994335Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., … Cohen, M. (2009). From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Designing and Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 15(4), 341-355. doi:10.1080/13892240903309595Byrne B, 2006. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.) Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524. doi:10.1016/s0019-8501(01)00203-6Capitanio, F., Coppola, A., & Pascucci, S. (2009). Indications for drivers of innovation in the food sector. British Food Journal, 111(8), 820-838. doi:10.1108/00070700910980946Chang, Y.-Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2011.08.003Chaston, I., Badger, B., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2001). Organizational Learning: An Empirical Assessment of Process in Small U.K. Manufacturing Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(2), 139-151. doi:10.1111/1540-627x.00013Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128. doi:10.2307/2393553Day, G. S. (1994). The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37. doi:10.2307/1251915Diederen P, van Meijl H, Wolters A, Bijak K, 2003. Innovation adoption in agriculture: innovators, early adopters and laggards. Cahiers d'Économie et Sociologie Rurales 67: 30-50.Edelman, L. F., Brush, C. G., & Manolova, T. (2005). Co-alignment in the resource–performance relationship: strategy as mediator. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 359-383. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.004Esparcia, J. (2014). Innovation and networks in rural areas. An analysis from European innovative projects. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.12.004Farrell MA, 1999. Antecedents and consequences of a learning orientation. Market Bull 10 (38): 38-51.Fearne, A., María García Álvarez‐Coque, J., López‐García Usach Mercedes, T., & García, S. (2013). Innovative firms and the urban/rural divide: the case of agro‐food system. Management Decision, 51(6), 1293-1310. doi:10.1108/md-12-2011-0482García Álvarez-Coque JM, López-García Usach T, Sanchez García M, 2013. Territory and innovation behaviour in agri-food firms: does rurality matter? New Medit 3: 1-10.García Álvarez-Coque JM, Mas-Verdú F, Sanchez García M, 2014. Determinants of Agri-food Firms' Participation in Public Funded Research and Development. Agribusiness (0): 1-16.Garcia Martinez, M. (2000). Innovation in the Spanish food & drink industry. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3(2), 155-176. doi:10.1016/s1096-7508(00)00033-1García-Quevedo, J., Mas-Verdú, F., & Montolio, D. (2013). What types of firms acquire knowledge intensive services and from which suppliers? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(4), 473-486. doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.774348Garver MS, Mentzer JT, 1999. Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. J Busin Logist 20 (1): 33-57.Gellynck, X., Vermeire, B., & Viaene, J. (2007). Innovation in food firms: contribution of regional networks within the international business context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(3), 209-226. doi:10.1080/08985620701218395Gellynck, X., & Kühne, B. (2008). Innovation and collaboration in traditional food chain networks. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 8(2), 121-129. doi:10.3920/jcns2008.x094Grinstein, A. (2008). The relationships between market orientation and alternative strategic orientations. European Journal of Marketing, 42(1/2), 115-134. doi:10.1108/03090560810840934Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R, 2010. Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA. Chapter 11.Hall, A., Rasheed Sulaiman, V., Clark, N., & Yoganand, B. (2003). From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research. Agricultural Systems, 78(2), 213-241. doi:10.1016/s0308-521x(03)00127-6Hamed G, Amran R, Parastoo R, Nadhirah N, 2012. A review on the market orientation evolution. Asia Pacific Busin Innov Technol Manage Soc 40: 542–549.Han, X., Hansen, E., Panwar, R., Hamner, R., & Orozco, N. (2013). Connecting market orientation, learning orientation and corporate social responsibility implementation: is innovativeness a mediator? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 28(8), 784-796. doi:10.1080/02827581.2013.833290Harrison, D. A., Mykytyn, P. P., & Riemenschneider, C. K. (1997). Executive Decisions About Adoption of Information Technology in Small Business: Theory and Empirical Tests. Information Systems Research, 8(2), 171-195. doi:10.1287/isre.8.2.171HOELTER, J. W. (1983). The Analysis of Covariance Structures. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(3), 325-344. doi:10.1177/0049124183011003003Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Managing the International Strategic Sourcing Process as a Market-Driven Organizational Learning System. Decision Sciences, 29(1), 193-216. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb01349.xHurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42. doi:10.2307/1251742INE, 2009. Censo Agrario 2009. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Espa-a.Isaksen, A., & Nilsson, M. (2013). Combined Innovation Policy: Linking Scientific and Practical Knowledge in Innovation Systems. European Planning Studies, 21(12), 1919-1936. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.722966Jacobs, B., Nahuis, R., & Tang, P. J. G. (2002). De Economist, 150(2), 181-210. doi:10.1023/a:1015696202835JOHNSON, J. D., MEYER, M. E., BERKOWITZ, J. M., MILLER, V., & ETHINGTON, C. T. (1997). Testing Two Contrasting Structural Models of Innovativeness in a Contractual Network. Human Communication Research, 24(2), 320-348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00417.xKarantininis, K., Sauer, J., & Furtan, W. H. (2010). Innovation and integration in the agri-food industry. Food Policy, 35(2), 112-120. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.10.003Keskin, H. (2006). Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4), 396-417. doi:10.1108/14601060610707849Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 849-860. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., & Leeuwis, C. (2010). Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems, 103(6), 390-400. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.012Klerkx, L., van Mierlo, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2012). Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic, 457-483. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_20Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1. doi:10.2307/1251866Laforet, S. (2008). Size, strategic, and market orientation affects on innovation. Journal of Business Research, 61(7), 753-764. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.08.002Langemeier MR, Jones RD, 2000. Measuring the impact of farm size and specialization on financial performance. J Am Soc Farm Manag Rural Apprais 63 (1): 90–96.Läpple, D., Renwick, A., & Thorne, F. (2015). Measuring and understanding the drivers of agricultural innovation: Evidence from Ireland. Food Policy, 51, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.11.003Leeuwis, C., & Van den Ban, A. (Eds.). (2004). Communication for Rural Innovation. doi:10.1002/9780470995235Lin, C., Peng, C., & Kao, D. T. (2008). The innovativeness effect of market orientation and learning orientation on business performance. International Journal of Manpower, 29(8), 752-772. doi:10.1108/01437720810919332Mas-Verdú, F. (2006). Services and innovation systems: European models of Technology Centres. Service Business, 1(1), 7-23. doi:10.1007/s11628-006-0002-yMavondo, F. T., Chimhanzi, J., & Stewart, J. (2005). Learning orientation and market orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1235-1263. doi:10.1108/03090560510623244Micheels ET, Gow HR, 2014. The effect of market orientation on learning, innovativeness, and performance in primary agriculture. Can J Agric Econ (0): 1–25.Morriss, S., Massey, C., Flett, R., Alpass, F., & Sligo, F. (2006). Mediating technological learning in agricultural innovation systems. Agricultural Systems, 89(1), 26-46. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2005.08.002Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20. doi:10.2307/1251757Nunnally JC, 1978. Psychometric theory, 701 pp. McGraw Hill, NYOECD, 2006. The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.OECD, 2013. Agricultural innovation systems: A framework for analysing the role of the government, OECD Publ., Paris.Oreszczyn, S., Lane, A., & Carr, S. (2010). The role of networks of practice and webs of influencers on farmers’ engagement with and learning about agricultural innovations. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(4), 404-417. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.03.003Pascucci S, De-Magistris T, 2012. Factors affecting farmers' likelihood to use advisory and extension services. New Medit 11 (3): 2-11.Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731. doi:10.3758/bf03206553Rama R, Alfranca O, 2003. Introduction: innovation in the food industry and biotechnology. Int J Biotechnol 5: 213-221.Rhee, J., Park, T., & Lee, D. H. (2010). Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs in South Korea: Mediation of learning orientation. Technovation, 30(1), 65-75. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.008Schwartz, M., & Hornych, C. (2010). Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and the impact of incubator specialization: Empirical evidence from Germany. Technovation, 30(9-10), 485-495. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.05.001Segarra-Blasco, A., & Arauzo-Carod, J.-M. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry–university interaction: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, 37(8), 1283-1295. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.05.003Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A Framework for Market-Based Organizational Learning: Linking Values, Knowledge, and Behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305-318. doi:10.1177/0092070397254003Sivo, S. A., Fan, X., Witta, E. L., & Willse, J. T. (2006). The Search for «Optimal» Cutoff Properties: Fit Index Criteria in Structural Equation Modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(3), 267-288. doi:10.3200/jexe.74.3.267-288Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market Orientation and the Learning Organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63. doi:10.2307/1252120Sophonthummapharn, K. (2009). The adoption of techno‐relationship innovations. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27(3), 380-412. doi:10.1108/02634500910955254Spielman, D. J., Ekboir, J., Davis, K., & Ochieng, C. M. O. (2008). An innovation systems perspective on strengthening agricultural education and training in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems, 98(1), 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2008.03.004Ton, G., Klerkx, L., de Grip, K., & Rau, M.-L. (2015). Innovation grants to smallholder farmers: Revisiting the key assumptions in the impact pathways. Food Policy, 51, 9-23. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.11.002Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1991). Cultural Leadership in Organizations. Organization Science, 2(2), 149-169. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.2.149Tsai, K.-H., & Wang, J.-C. (2005). Does R&D performance decline with firm size?—A re-examination in terms of elasticity. Research Policy, 34(6), 966-976. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.017Turan D, Ascigil S, 2014. Antecedents of innovativeness: Entrepreneurial team characteristics and networking. J Innov Manage 2 (1): 83-103.Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.1192

Perspectives on safety culture

Overviewing selected elements from the literature, this paper locates the notion of safety culture within its parent concept of organisational culture. A distinction is drawn between functionalist and interpretive perspectives on organisational culture. The terms ‘culture’ and ‘climate’ are clarified as they are typically applied to organisations and to safety. A contrast is drawn between strategic top down and data-driven bottom up approaches to human factors as an illustrative aspect of safety. A safety case study is used to illustrate two measurement approaches. Key issues for future study include valid measurement of safety culture and developing methods to adequately represent mechanisms through which safety culture might influence, and be influenced by, other safety factors

Consolidating Findings from Business Process Change Case Studies Using System Dynamics: The Example of Employee Morale

In this paper, we explore system dynamics as a useful approach to consolidate findings from case studies on business process change (BPC) projects. We compile data from 65 BPC case studies to develop a system dynamics simulation model that helps us to investigate ‘employee morale’ as an important construct in BPC projects. We show that such simulation models consolidate the complex and often non-linear findings from BPC case studies in a way that makes it available to discourse among researchers, lecturers and students as well as BPC professionals. Thus, this paper contributes to knowledge management and learning by suggesting system dynamics as a valuable approach to illustrate and convey the complex relationships between important constructs in BPC. This paper also contributes to the domain of business process management by demonstrating the benefits of system dynamics as a way to review and consolidate the abundance of BPC case studies

The emergence of information systems: a communication-based theory

An information system is more than just the information technology; it is the system that emerges from the complex interactions and relationships between the information technology and the organization. However, what impact information technology has on an organization and how organizational structures and organizational change influence information technology remains an open question. We propose a theory to explain how communication structures emerge and adapt to environmental changes. We operationalize the interplay of information technology and organization as language communities whose members use and develop domain-specific languages for communication. Our theory is anchored in the philosophy of language. In developing it as an emergent perspective, we argue that information systems are self-organizing and that control of this ability is disseminated throughout the system itself, to the members of the language community. Information technology influences the dynamics of this adaptation process as a fundamental constraint leading to perturbations for the information system. We demonstrate how this view is separated from the entanglement in practice perspective and show that this understanding has far-reaching consequences for developing, managing, and examining information systems

The nature of professional small business advisor knowledge and the knowledge transmission process : A regional Australian perspective

This thesis specifically examines the relationship between professional business advisor (PBA) knowledge and the knowledge transmission actions undertaken by such advisors when addressing the knowledge requirements of businesses, specifically Regional Australian small businesses. The thesis adopts a qualitative research approach to explore perceptions of individuals who provide advisory services to small businesses, within the context of Regional Australia. The analysis undertaken is a practical application of the critical realist research paradigm to explain how human agency, social structures, and mechanisms interact in the process of creating a knowledge transmission event by PBAs. The conceptual framework developed in this thesis brings together key concepts from scholarly research disciplines of knowledge management, information management, communications, services marketing and business advice. The conceptual framework reflects the research aims and provides the basis for the research methodology. The framework is of a unique critical realist research design that allows the study to progress through sequential world views. Each world view allows the continual broadening of the reality being studied, enabling more focused answers to the research questions posed. This study focuses on PBAs who service small businesses operating in four inner regional and two outer regional locations within the State of Victoria. Over the six regions, a total of 29 face-to-face interviews were conducted, along with one focus group in each region. The findings from this database, using the conceptual framework as a guide, identified a complex, heterogeneous, open environment in which PBA knowledge transmission occurs. This research process recognises PBAs as social structures with causal powers whose knowledge stock is the primary mechanism through which these powers are exercised to generate a knowledge transmission event. A significant conclusion emerges that PBA tacit (and not explicit) knowledge is a conditional mechanism which gate-keeps whether the PBA knowledge transmission event is enacted.Doctor of Philosoph

An exploratory system dynamics model to investigate the relationships between errors that occur in construction documents in Saudi Arabia and their possible causes

The aim of the thesis is to reduce the occurrence of errors in construction documents by developing a theoretical model to capture the dynamics of processes that define the relationship between the factors causing errors in construction documents. The research justified a mixed-mode research approach and the use of system dynamics as the modelling tool. Different types of errors in construction documents were identified that can be classified as follows, starting with the most serious: the erroneous; omissions; failure to conform to design parameters; failure to follow procedures; coordination problems; failure to address operability and constructability issues; and finally, the difficulty of biddability. Also factors affecting the occurrence of errors in construction documents were identified and classified. The classification was based on individual and includes project management, designer, client, and project characters. Using System Dynamics modelling tools each factor has been concluded, with experts’ validated causal analysis diagrams that explain the highly dynamic relationship between the factors and the element(s) having a direct influence on the occurrence of errors in construction documents, using prior theoretical knowledge extracted from the literature, case-study projects and interviews. The developed model simulated the occurrence and behaviour of errors while producing construction documents. The focus of the model is based on an understanding of the internal mechanism of the occurrence of these errors, to avoid placing blame in favour of finding the true, long-term solution to a problem. Measuring the model's behaviour and using sensitivity tests for the correctly solved errors revealed two types of behaviour: one where the model shows reasonable behaviour up to a certain drop in the value of the factors, and the second where the model is under full control of the value of the factors when this value drops below 10%. Among the most sensitive factors were the designer’s previous experience, the designer’s education, the experience of the designer with similar projects, and the factor of the designer’s reputation. These findings were validated and supported by case study projects. The model can be used as a valuable tool in communicating the impact of complex structures on the behaviour of errors in construction documents, and has created opportunities for expanding the study of project dynamics in several potentially valuable directions. This research points to ways of improving performance through improved understanding of the occurrence and structure of errors in construction documents