Social, behavioral, and cognitive influences on upper echelons during strategy process

This study reviews research on the social, behavioral, and cognitive influences on CEOs, top management teams (TMTs), and the CEO-TMT interface during strategic decision making. We identify the key issues examined in this research over the past 10 years and relate developments in the field to previous knowledge in this area. We also attempt to identify what constitutes an established body of knowledge in the field and, therefore, areas that need additional examination. Our review indicates that while there has been an explosion of research on the influence of CEO personality and TMT social processes on strategy process, much remains to be done in terms of examining CEO and TMT cognition, particularly at the level of the CEO-TMT interface

A better way of managing major risks

The article focuses on important distinction between enterprise risk management and strategic risk management and regarding the role of board directors in the risk management. It mentions that different way to identify and manage risk such as financial crisis to inadequate risk management by banks and other financial institutions, risks with subprime mortgages and increasing the risk for profit.

Missing the point of the practice-based view

In this article, we address Jarzabkowski et al.’s strategy-as-practice criticism of Bromiley and Rau’s practice-based view as ignoring the “who” and “how” of practice implementation. Bromiley and Rau explicitly note that any statistical model under the practice-based view should consider mediating and moderating variables that depend on the specific practice and context but that the article would not attempt to identify such variables. Strategy-as-practice’s focus on the “who” and “how” of a practice are two of many such potential mediating or moderating variables. More fundamentally, strategy-as-practice scholars’ discomfort with the practice-based view may arise both from their different definitions of practice and their different approaches to strategy research. Without diminishing the strategy-as-practice’s contribution to strategy research, we argue for the additional value in the practice-based view’s call for systematic, large-scale, quantitative studies that establish the performance impact of specific practices across populations of organizations

Can Strategic Risk Management Contribute to Enterprise Risk Management? A Strategic Management Perspective

Within the discipline of enterprise risk management (ERM), strategic risk management (SRM) has become a subject of increasing interest to practitioners and academics. To our knowledge, the term “strategic risk management” first appeared in the management literature in 1985 and 1986 (Jammine, 1985; Figenbaum & Thomas, 1986) and in the academic finance literature in 1990 (Rawls and Smithson, 1990), although early usage of the term did not clearly relate to later conceptions. The phrase has been in use even longer than ERM (Bromiley, McShane, Nair, and Rustambekov, 2014). Even with this longevity, the meaning of the term remains unclear, with confusion increasing with the advent of ERM. For example, does SRM mean the management of a specific category of risks known as “strategic risks” (AICPCU, 2013) or does SRM mean strategic actions/responses taken to mitigate major uncertainties facing the enterprise? Can any type of risk potentially become a strategic risk, or are only certain types of risk strategic? Is SRM a separate type of risk management or a subset of ERM

Operations management and the resource based view: another view

This paper evaluates the usefulness of the resource-based view (RBV) to the field of operations management. Based on the seminal RBV articles, we argue that using the RBV does not align with the objectives and activities of operations management researchers in several ways. First, the dependent variable in the RBV is sustained competitive advantage. Using sustained competitive advantage as a dependent variable implies that scholars focus on explaining the differences between the relatively few firms with sustained competitive advantage and all the other firms, ignoring performance variations within the great mass of firms. In addition, competitive advantage exists at the level of the business or the firm and does not directly translate into the normal level of operations management research. Measuring sustained competitive advantage also presents difficulties. Second, the explanatory variables in the RBV are resources that must be rare, valuable and hard or impossible to imitate. Measuring valuable resources or factors firms cannot imitate poses serious problems both in demonstrating value independent of the factor's impact on performance (i.e., avoiding tautology) and in measuring unique or nearly unique entities. Third, under the RBV, prescription is problematic; you cannot prescribe things that firms can readily implement because such things can be imitated. We present the practice-based view (PBV) as a simpler and better alternative for operations management where scholars attempt to explain the entire range of firm and unit performance based on transferable practices

How would behavioral strategy scholarship lead to prescription?

While a substantial literature demonstrates that the assumption of bounded rationality and its related implications help understand strategic behavior, behaviorists have been slow to offer prescriptions. This paper outlines the fundamentals of the behavioral perspective, and lays out an approach to developing prescriptions based on behavioral scholarship. It discusses both what we currently may prescribe, and directions of research that might lead to additional prescriptions

Missing the point of the practice-based view

In this article, we address Jarzabkowski et al.’s strategy-as-practice criticism of Bromiley and Rau’s practice-based view as ignoring the “who” and “how” of practice implementation. Bromiley and Rau explicitly note that any statistical model under the practice-based view should consider mediating and moderating variables that depend on the specific practice and context but that the article would not attempt to identify such variables. Strategy-as-practice’s focus on the “who” and “how” of a practice are two of many such potential mediating or moderating variables. More fundamentally, strategy-as-practice scholars’ discomfort with the practice-based view may arise both from their different definitions of practice and their different approaches to strategy research. Without diminishing the strategy-as-practice’s contribution to strategy research, we argue for the additional value in the practice-based view’s call for systematic, large-scale, quantitative studies that establish the performance impact of specific practices across populations of organizations