Advertisement

Entrepreneurial orientation and firm value: Does managerial discretion play a role?

  • 638 Accesses

  • 4 Citations

Abstract

Considerable interest exists in understanding the extent to which entrepreneurial orientation (EO) generates value in the capital markets. Drawing on insights from the discretion literature, we focus on three distinct loci of managerial discretion—organizational, industrial, and national—to examine their contingent influence on the EO-value relation. Predictions were tested on a panel dataset of firms from five advanced economies listed in the Forbes 2000 ranking. Data were analyzed using ordinary least squares to reveal that the contribution of EO to firm valuation is statistically significant and economically meaningful when organizational and/or industrial discretion are high: each unit increase in EO boosts value generation by 7.4 % when organizational discretion is high and 5.6 % when industrial discretion is high. EO therefore creates value for the firm in capital markets when the appropriate discretionary conditions are present. These findings suggest that the relation between EO and capital market value is more complex than generally believed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    There are two different ways in which EO has been conceived in the literature: the gestalt approach (Covin and Slevin 1989; Miller 1983) and the disaggregated approach (Lumpkin and Dess 1996). Wales et al. (2013) found that 123 of the 150 EO articles published from 1976 to 2010 adopted the gestalt construct, so that it is now the dominant paradigm in the field (Anderson and Eshima 2013). Covin et al. (2006) explain that though the gestalt and disaggregated conceptualizations share the same name (‘EO’), they are actually two very different constructs. Our focus in this study is on the gestalt EO conception.

  2. 2.

    Hambrick and Finkelstein (1987) developed the managerial discretion construct that has since received much attention in the management literature, as well as in accounting (Adams and Hossain 1998), marketing (Boyd et al. 2010) and finance (Adams et al. 2005). However, the broad notion of discretion already existed in various literatures such as economics (Williamson 1973) and sociology (Lieberson and O’Connor 1972) before Hambrick and colleagues introduced it to management researchers.

  3. 3.

    Since 2004, every year Forbes ranks the 2000 largest publicly listed companies around the world based on a composite score reflecting the sum of four equally weighted metrics: revenues, profits, assets, and market cap. The ranking is the result of a multi-step procedure: (1) Four separate lists are created for the 2000 biggest companies in each of the metrics. Only companies that make it to at least one of the four lists merits further consideration; (2) Each company is assigned a separate score for each of the four metrics based on its ranking in that list. Companies that rank below the minimum cutoff for the year for a metric receive a score of zero on that metric; (3) Scores for the four metrics are added up for each company to obtain a composite score. The highest composite score gets the highest rank.

  4. 4.

    Our sample does not include data for 2009 because of two reasons. First, the 2010 Forbes ranking is based on 2009 firm data. Second, 2009 was the year of ‘Sudden Stop’ (Mendoza 2010) when worldwide GDP growth fell from 3.76 % in 2008 to 0.07 % in 2009 (3.9 % to −0.04 % respectively, if one does not consider Zimbabwe and the West Bank).

  5. 5.

    According to Wangrow et al’s (2015) recent review of the empirical discretion literature, 43 published articles have empirically measured discretion since the publication of Hambrick and Finkelstein (1987). We found 7 other empirical journal articles using discretion during the period 1987-2015 (August), so the total number of published empirical discretion studies comes to 50. Of these, we found that 14 studies used discretion at the organizational level, 20 at industrial level, and 5 at the national level (3 are at individual level, 1 mixes organizational and industrial levels, 1 mixes industrial and organizational levels, and 7 could not be coded for lack of relevant information). Thus, we successfully identified the measurement for discretion in 43 articles. Based on this analysis, we identified measures for organizational, industrial, and national discretion that could be considered most reliable and reputable, depending on where they were published, by whom, and how much impact they have had on the field.

  6. 6.

    Graffin et al. (2011) actually used five indicators: the four we used here plus average annual advertising intensity (advertising/sales). Unfortunately, advertising expenses was not available for the non-American firms in our sample. Using data for American firms only, we calculated the correlation between organizational discretion with and without advertising intensity, and found it to be 0.91 (p < 0.01), which suggests that the two overlap almost completely.

  7. 7.

    Results are robust to using quartiles instead of tertile in conceiving high versus low discretion. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

References

  1. Adams M, Hossain M (1998) Managerial discretion and voluntary disclosure: empirical evidence from the New Zealand life insurance industry. J Acc Public Policy 17(3):245–281

  2. Adams RB, Almeida H, Ferreira D (2005) Powerful CEOs and their impact on corporate performance. Rev Financ Stud 18(4):1403–1432

  3. Ahern K, Dittmar A (2012) The changing of the boards: the impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Q J Econ 127(1):137–197

  4. Allen F, Qian J, Qian M (2005) Law, finance, and economic growth in China. J Financ Econ 77(1):57–116

  5. Andersén J (2010) A critical examination of the EO-performance relationship. Int J Entrepreneurial Behav Res 16(4):309–328

  6. Anderson BS, Covin JG (2014) Entrepreneurial orientation: disposition and behavior. In: Fayolle A (ed) Handbook of research in entrepreneurship: what we know and what we need to know. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 215–237

  7. Anderson B, Eshima Y (2013) The influence of firm age and intangible resources on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm growth among Japanese SMEs. J Bus Ventur 28(3):413–429

  8. Anderson BS, Covin JG, Slevin DP (2009) Understanding the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic learning capability: an empirical investigation. Strateg Entrep J 3:218–240

  9. Anderson BS, Kreiser PM, Kuratko DF, Hornsby JS, Eshima Y (2015) Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial orientation. Strateg Manag J 36:1579–1596

  10. Barr PS, Stimpert JL, Huff AS (1992) Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strateg Manag J 13(S1):15–36

  11. Basso O, Fayolle A, Bouchard V (2009) Entrepreneurial orientation: the making of a concept. Int J Entrep Innov 10(4):313–321

  12. Bettis R, Gambardella A, Helfat C, Mitchell W (2014) Quantitative empirical analysis in strategic management. Strateg Manag J 35(7):949–953

  13. Boal KB, Hooijberg R (2000) Strategic leadership research: moving on. Leadersh Q 11(4):515–549

  14. Boling JR, Pieper TM, Covin JG (2015) CEO tenure and entrepreneurial orientation within family and non-family firms. Entrep Theory Pract 40(4):891–913

  15. Boyd B, Gove S (2006) Managerial constraint: the intersection between organizational task environment and discretion. Res Methodol Strategy Manag 3:57–95

  16. Boyd DE, Chandy RK, Cunha M (2010) When do chief marketing officers affect firm value? A customer power explanation. J Mark Res 47(6):1162–1176

  17. Boyd BK, Haynes KT, Hitt MA, Bergh DD, Ketchen DJ (2012) Contingency hypotheses in strategic management research. Use, disuse, or misuse? J Manag 38(1):278–313

  18. Certo ST, Moss TW, Short JC (2009) Entrepreneurial orientation: an applied perspective. Bus Horiz 52(4):319–324

  19. Chang JJ, Khanna T, Palepu K (2000) Analyst activity around the world. HBS Strategy Unit Working Paper No. 01-061

  20. Clapham SE, Schwenk CR (1991) Self-serving attributions, managerial cognition, and company performance. Strateg Manag J 12(3):219–229

  21. Connolly RA, Hirschey M (2005) Firm size and the effect of R&D on Tobin’s q. R&D Manag 35(2):217–223

  22. Cooley TF, Quadrini V (2001) Financial markets and firm dynamics. Am Econ Rev 91:1286–1310

  23. Coviello NE, Jones MV (2004) Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. J Bus Ventur 19(4):485–508

  24. Covin JG, Lumpkin GT (2011) Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: reflections on a needed construct. Entrep Theory Pract 35(5):855–872

  25. Covin JG, Slevin DP (1989) Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strateg Manag J 10(1):75–87

  26. Covin J, Slevin D (1991) A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrep Theory Pract 16(1):7–25

  27. Covin JG, Slevin DP (2002) The entrepreneurial imperatives of strategic leadership. In: Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Camp SM, Sexton DL (eds) Strategic entrepreneurship: creating a new mindset. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp 309–327

  28. Covin JG, Green KM, Slevin DP (2006) Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation–sales growth rate relationship. Entrep Theory Pract 30(1):57–81

  29. Crossland C, Chen G (2013) Executive accountability around the world: sources of cross-national variation in firm performance–CEO dismissal sensitivity. Strateg Org 11(1):78–109

  30. Crossland C, Hambrick DC (2007) How national systems differ in their constraints on corporate executives: a study of CEO effects in three countries. Strateg Manag J 28(8):767–789

  31. Crossland C, Hambrick DC (2011) Differences in managerial discretion across countries: how nation-level institutions affect the degree to which CEOs matter. Strateg Manag J 32(8):797–819

  32. D’Aveni RA, MacMillan IC (1990) Crisis and the content of managerial communications: a study of the focus of attention of top managers in surviving and failing firms. Adm Sci Q 35(4):634–657

  33. Davis GF, Stout SK (1992) Organization theory and the market for corporate control: a dynamic analysis of the characteristics of large takeover targets, 1980–1990. Adm Sci Q 37:605–633

  34. De Clercq D, Dimov D, Thongpapanl NT (2013) Structural and relational interdependence and entrepreneurial orientation in small and medium-sized enterprises: the mediating role of internal knowledge-sharing. Int Small Bus J 33:514–536

  35. Dess GG, Lumpkin GT (2005) The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Acad Manag Exec 19(1):147–156

  36. Dess GG, Pinkham BC, Yang H (2011) Entrepreneurial orientation: assessing the construct’s validity and addressing some of its implications for research in the areas of family business and organizational learning. Entrep Theory Pract 35(5):1077–1090

  37. Donaldson L, Qiu J, Luo BN (2013) For rigour in organizational management theory research. J Manage Stud 50(1):153–172

  38. Dushnitsky G, Lenox MJ (2006) When does corporate venture capital investment create firm value? J Bus Ventur 21(6):753–772

  39. Engelen A, Neumann C, Schmidt S (2013) Should entrepreneurially oriented firms have narcisstic CEOs? J Manag 42(3):698–721

  40. Engelen A, Neumann C, Schwens C (2014) “Of Course I Can”: the effect of CEO overconfidence on entrepreneurially-oriented firms. Entrep Theory Pract 39:1137–1160

  41. Engelen A, Gupta VK, Strenger L, Brettel M (2015) Entrepreneurial orientation, firm performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors. J Manag 41(4):1069–1097

  42. Evans DS (1987) Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. J Polit Econ 95(4):657–674

  43. Finkelstein S, Boyd BK (1998) How much does the CEO matter? The role of managerial discretion in the setting of CEO compensation. Acad Manag J 41(2):179–199

  44. Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC (1990) Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: the moderating role of managerial discretion. Adm Sci Q 35(3):484–503

  45. Finkelstein S, Peteraf MA (2007) Managerial activities: a missing link in managerial discretion theory. Strateg Org 5(3):237–248

  46. Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC, Canneella AA (2009) Strategic leadership: theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press, New York

  47. Gedajlovic ER, Shapiro DM (1998) Management and ownership effects: evidence from five countries. Strateg Manag J 19(6):533–553

  48. George B, Marino L (2011) The epistemology of entrepreneurial orientation: conceptual formation, modeling, and operationalization. Entrep Theory Pract 35(5):989–1024

  49. Graffin SD, Carpenter MA, Boivie S (2011) What’s all that (strategic) noise? Anticipatory impression management in CEO succession. Strateg Manag J 32(7):748–770

  50. Gupta VK, Gupta A (2015) Relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in large organizations over time. J Int Entrep 13:7–27

  51. Gupta V, Gupta A (2016) The concept of entrepreneurial orientation. Found Trends Entrepreneurship 11(2):55–137

  52. Gupta VK, Wales W (2013) Organizational performance in entrepreneurial orientation research: a comprehensive review and suggestions for future research. Paper presented at Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Lyon, France

  53. Hambrick DC (2007) Upper echelons theory: an update. Acad Manag Rev 32:334–343

  54. Hambrick DC, Abrahamson E (1995) Assessing managerial discretion across industries: a multimethod approach. Acad Manag J 38(5):1427–1441

  55. Hambrick DC, Finkeltsein S (1987) Managerial discretion: a bridge between polar views on organizations. Res Organ Behav 9:369–406

  56. Hambrick DC, Lei D (1985) Toward an empirical prioritization of contingency variables for business strategy. Acad Manag J 28(4):763–788

  57. Hambrick DC, Quigley TJ (2014) Toward more accurate contextualization of the CEO effect on firm performance. Strateg Manag J 35:473–491

  58. Hambrick DC, Geletkanycz MA, Fredrickson JW (1993) Top executive commitment to the status quo: some tests of its determinants. Strateg Manag J 14(6):401–418

  59. Hill CW, Jones TM (1992) Stakeholder-agency theory. J Manag Stud 29(2):131–154

  60. Hitt MA, Dacin M, Tyler BB, Park D (1997) Understanding the differences in Korean and US executives’ strategic orientations. Strateg Manag J 18(2):159–167

  61. Hsiao C (2007) Panel data analysis: advantages and challenges. Test 16:1–22

  62. Hult GTM, Ketchen DJ, Griffith DA, Finnegan CA, Gonzalez-Padron T, Harmancioglu N, Cavusgil ST (2008) Data equivalence in cross-cultural international business research: assessment and guidelines. J Int Bus Stud 39(6):1027–1044

  63. Hutzschenreuter T, Kleindienst I (2013) (How) Does discretion change over time? A contribution toward a dynamic view of managerial discretion. Scand J Manag 29(3):264–281

  64. James LR, Mulaik SA, Brett JM (1982) Causal analysis: assumptions, models, and data. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

  65. Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3(4):305–360

  66. Kalcheva I, Lins KV (2007) International evidence on cash holdings and expected managerial agency problems. Rev Financ Stud 20(4):1087–1112

  67. Ketchen DJ, Ireland RD, Baker LT (2013) The use of archival proxies in strategic management studies castles made of sand? Org Res Methods 16(1):32–42

  68. Kollmann T, Stockmann C (2014) Filling the entrepreneurial orientation—performance gap: the mediating effects of exploratory and exploitative innovations. Entrep Theory Pract 38:1001–1026

  69. Kraus S, Rigtering JC, Hughes M, Hosman V (2012) Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: a quantitative study from the Netherlands. RMS 6(2):161–182

  70. Leuz C, Nanda D, Wysocki PD (2003) Earnings management and investor protection: an international comparison. J Financ Econ 69(3):505–527

  71. Levine S, White PE (1961) Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational relationships. Adm Sci Q 5:583–601

  72. Lieberson S, O’Connor JF (1972) Leadership and organizational performance: a study of large corporations. Am Sociol Rev 37:117–130

  73. Lindenberg EB, Ross SA (1981) Tobin’s q ratio and industrial organization. J Bus 54:1–32

  74. Ling YAN, Simsek Z, Lubatkin MH, Veiga JF (2008) Transformational leadership’s role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: examining the CEO-TMT interface. Acad Manag J 51(3):557–576

  75. Liu H, Ding XH, Guo H, Luo JH (2014) How does slack affect product innovation in high-tech Chinese firms: the contingent value of entrepreneurial orientation. Asia Pac J Manag 31(1):47–68

  76. Lockett A, Thompson S, Morgenstern U (2009) The development of the resource-based view of the firm: a critical appraisal. Int J Manag Rev 11(1):9–28

  77. Lumpkin G, Dess G (1996) Clarifiying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad Manag Rev 21(1):135–172

  78. McGahan A, Porter M (1997) How much does industry matter, really? Strateg Manag J 18:15–30

  79. Mendoza EG (2010) Sudden stops, financial crises, and leverage. Am Econ Rev 100(5):1941–1966

  80. Miller D (1983) The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manag Sci 29:770–791

  81. Miller D (2011) Revisited: a reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future. Entrep Theory Pract 35(5):873–894

  82. Miller D, Breton-Miller L (2011) Governance, social identity, and entrepreneurial orientation in closely held public companies. Entrep Theory Pract 35(5):1051–1076

  83. Montgomery CA, Wernerfelt B (1988) Diversification, Ricardian rents, and Tobin’s q. RAND J Econ 19(4):623–632

  84. Morck R, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1988) Management ownership and market valuation: an empirical analysis. J Financ Econ 20:293–315

  85. Moss TW, Neubaum DO, Meyskens M (2015) The effect of virtuous and entrepreneurial orientations on microfinance lending and repayment: a signaling theory perspective. Entrep Theory Pract 39(1):27–52

  86. Mousa FT, Wales WJ, Harper SR (2015) When less is more: EO’s influence upon funds raised by young technology firms at IPO. J Bus Res 68(2):306–313

  87. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  88. Ocasio W (1994) Political dynamics and the circulation of power: CEO succession in US industrial corporations, 1960–1990. Adm Sci Q 39:285–312

  89. Oh WY, Chang YK, Cheng Z (2015) When CEO career horizon problems matter for corporate social responsibility: the moderating roles of industry-level discretion and blockholder ownership. J Bus Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2397-z

  90. Pastor L, Veronesi P (2003) Stock valuation and learning about profitability. J Finance 58(5):1749–1789

  91. Penrose ET (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Basil Blackwell and Mott Ltd, Oxford

  92. Petersen M (2009) Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: comparing approaches. Rev Financ Stud 22(1):435–480

  93. Preston DS, Chen D, Leidner DE (2008) Examining the antecedents and consequences of CIO strategic decision-making authority: an empirical study. Decis Sci 39:605–641

  94. Priem R (2007) A consumer perspective on value creation. Acad Manag Rev 32:219–237

  95. Rajan RG, Zingales L (1998) Which capitalism? Lessons from the East Asian crisis. J App Corporate Finance 11(3):40–48

  96. Rauch A, Wiklund J, Lumpkin GT, Frese M (2009) Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrep Theory Pract 33(3):761–787

  97. Reeb D, Sakakibara M, Mahmood IP (2012) From the editors: endogeneity in international business research. J Int Bus Stud 43(3):211–218

  98. Reynolds NL, Simintiras AC, Diamantopoulos A (2003) Theoretical justification of sampling choices in international marketing research: key issues and guidelines for researchers. J Int Bus Stud 34(1):80–89

  99. Semadeni M, Withers MC, Trevis Certo S (2014) The perils of endogeneity and instrumental variables in strategy research: understanding through simulations. Strateg Manag J 35(7):1070–1079

  100. Short J, Broberg J, Cogliser C, Brigham K (2010) Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA): an illustration using entrepreneurial orientation. Org Res Methods 13(2):320–347

  101. Srivastava RK, Shervani TA, Fahey L (1998) Market-based assets and shareholder value: a framework for analysis. J Mark 62(1):168–179

  102. Tsui AS (2007) From homogenization to pluralism: international management research in the academy and beyond. Acad Manag J 50(6):1353–1364

  103. Wales W, Gupta VK, Moussa F (2011) Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: an assessment and suggestions for future research. Int Small Bus J 31(4):357–383

  104. Wales WJ, Gupta VK, Mousa FT (2013) Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: an assessment and suggestions for future research. Int Small Bus J 31(4):357–383

  105. Wangrow DB, Schepker DJ, Barker VL (2015) Managerial discretion: an empirical review and focus on future research directions. J Manag 41:99–135

  106. Wiklund J, Shepherd D (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach. J Bus Ventur 20(1):71–91

  107. Wiklund J, Shepherd DA (2011) Where to from here? EO-as-experimentation, failure, and distribution of outcomes. Entrep Theory Pract 35(5):925–946

  108. Williamson OE (1973) Markets and hierarchies: some elementary considerations. Am Econ Rev 63:316–325

  109. Wolfe MT, Shepherd DA (2013) ‘Bouncing back’ from a loss: entrepreneurial orientation, emotions, and failure narratives. Entrep Theory Pract 37:1–26

  110. World Bank (2013) Global GDP Growth (% annual). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG

  111. Yermack D (1996) Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. J Financ Econ 40(2):185–211

  112. Yukl GA (2002) Leadership in organizations. Prentice Hall, New York

  113. Zachary MA, McKenny AF, Short JC, Davis KM, Wu D (2011) Franchise branding: an organizational identity perspective. J Acad Mark Sci 39(4):629–645

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our sincerest gratitude to the editor Wolfgang Kursten and the two anonymous reviewers who were tremendously constructive and helpful during the review process. We also thank Nachiket Bhawe, Alka Gupta, and Erik Markin for suggestions and comments on prior drafts of this paper. Early versions of this research were presented at Kent State University, Indian Institute of Management at Ahmedabad, and University of Texas at El Paso, where it received much useful feedback. Of course, all errors and omissions remain our own.

Author information

Correspondence to Vishal Gupta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gupta, V., Mortal, S.C. & Yang, T. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm value: Does managerial discretion play a role?. Rev Manag Sci 12, 1–26 (2018) doi:10.1007/s11846-016-0210-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Entrepreneurial orientation
  • Managerial discretion
  • Firm value

JEL Classification

  • C12
  • L25
  • L26
  • M10