Advertisement

Review of Managerial Science

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 621–660 | Cite as

All risk-taking is not the same: examining the competing effects of firm risk-taking with meta-analysis

  • Mathias Arrfelt
  • Michael Mannor
  • Jennifer D. Nahrgang
  • Amanda L. ChristensenEmail author
Original Paper
  • 400 Downloads

Abstract

Although researchers have vigorously studied organizational risk-taking for over 35 years, relatively little emphasis has been placed on theoretically differentiating the unique relationships between the many risk-taking choices organizations make and firm risk or firm performance. In this research, we propose a new framework that builds from March’s exploration–exploitation model to argue that different risk-taking choices can have substantially different influences on firm outcomes. We use meta-analysis to examine the unique and at times competing effects of four of the most commonly studied risk-taking choices on firm risk and firm performance. Results from a meta-analysis of 257 unique studies (N = 499,808) demonstrate support for our proposed framework and cast significant doubt on the idea that commonly studied firm risk-taking choices theoretically aggregate into one overarching risk-taking construct.

Keywords

Firm risk Risk-taking Meta-analysis 

References

  1. Ahuja G, Katila R (2001) Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study. Strateg Manag J 22:197–220Google Scholar
  2. Andersen TJ, Denrell J, Bettis RA (2007) Strategic responsiveness and Bowman’s risk-return paradox. Strateg Manag J 28:407–429Google Scholar
  3. Andrade G, Kaplan SN (1998) How costly is financial (not economic) distress? Evidence from highly leveraged transactions that became distressed. J Finance 53:1443–1493Google Scholar
  4. Ashforth BE, Gibbs BW (1990) The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organ Sci 1(2):177–194Google Scholar
  5. Barker VL, Mueller GC (2002) CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Manage Sci 48:782–801Google Scholar
  6. Baum JAC, Rowley TJ, Shipilov AV, Chuang YT (2005) Dancing with strangers: aspiration performance and the search for underwriting syndicate partners. Adm Sci Q 50:536–575Google Scholar
  7. Benner MJ, Tushman M (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28:238–256Google Scholar
  8. Black F (1972) Capital market equilibrium with restricted borrowing. J Bus 45:444–455Google Scholar
  9. Bloom M, Milkovich GT (1998) Relationships among risk, incentive pay, and organizational performance. Acad Manag J 41:283–297Google Scholar
  10. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Nonfinancial Corporate Business; Debt Securities; Liability [NCBDSL], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NCBDSL. 7 Sept 2016
  11. Bowman EH (1980) A risk/return paradox for strategic management. Sloan Manag Rev 21:17–31Google Scholar
  12. Bowman EH (1982) Risk seeking by troubled firms. Sloan Manag Rev 23:33–42Google Scholar
  13. Bowman EH (1984) Content analysis of annual reports for corporate strategy and risk. Interfaces 14:61–71Google Scholar
  14. Boyd BK (1991) Strategic planning and financial performance: a meta-analytic review. J Manag Stud 28:353–375Google Scholar
  15. Bromiley P (1991) Testing a causal model of corporate risk-taking and performance. Acad Manag J 34:37–59Google Scholar
  16. Bromiley P, Miller KD, Rau D (2001) Risk in strategic management research. In: Hitt MA, Freeman RE, Harrison JS (eds) The Blackwell handbook of strategic management. Blackwell, Malden, pp 259–288Google Scholar
  17. Capon N, Farley JU, Hoenig S (1990) Determinants of financial performance: a meta-analysis. Manage Sci 36:1143–1159Google Scholar
  18. Certo ST, Lester RH, Dalton CM, Dalton DR (2006) Top management teams, strategy and financial performance: a meta-analytic examination. J Manage Stud 43(4):813–839Google Scholar
  19. Chaganti R, Damanpour F (1991) Institutional ownership, capital structure, and firm performance. Strateg Manag J 12:479–491Google Scholar
  20. Coffee JC (1988) Shareholders versus managers: the strain in the corporate web. In: Coffee JC, Lowenstein L, Rose-Ackermman S (eds) Knights, raiders, and targets: the impact of hostile takeover. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 77–134Google Scholar
  21. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152Google Scholar
  22. Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  23. Dalton DR, Metzger MB (1993) “Integrity testing” for personnel selection: an unsparing perspective. J Bus Ethics 12:147–165Google Scholar
  24. Dalton DR, Daily CM, Ellstrand AE, Johnson JL (1998) Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strateg Manag J 19:269–290Google Scholar
  25. Dalton DR, Aguinis H, Dalton CM, Bosco FA, Pierce CA (2012) Revisiting the file drawer problem in meta-analysis: an assessment of published and nonpublished correlation matrices. Pers Psychol 65:221–249Google Scholar
  26. David P, O’Brien JP, Yoshikawa T (2008) The implications of debt heterogeneity for R&D investment and performance. Acad Manag J 51:165–181Google Scholar
  27. Deephouse DL, Suchman M (2008) Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. Sage Handb Organ Inst 49:77Google Scholar
  28. Desai VM (2008) Constrained growth: how experience, legitimacy, and age influence risk taking in organizations. Organ Sci 19:594–608Google Scholar
  29. Dess GG, Beard DW (1984) Dimensions of organizational task environments. Adm Sci Q 29:52–73Google Scholar
  30. Deutsch Y, Keil T, Laamanen T (2011) A dual agency view of board compensation: the joint effects of outside director and CEO stock options on firm risk. Strateg Manag J 32:212–227Google Scholar
  31. Devers CE, McNamara G, Wiseman RM, Arrfelt M (2008) Moving closer to the action: examining compensation design effects on firm risk. Organ Sci 19:548–566Google Scholar
  32. Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res Policy 11:147–162Google Scholar
  33. Eden D (2002) Replication, meta-analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ’s publication policy. Acad Manag J 45:841–846Google Scholar
  34. Ettlie JE (1998) R&D and global manufacturing performance. Manage Sci 44:1–11Google Scholar
  35. Fiegenbaum A, Thomas H (1986) Dynamic and risk measurement perspectives on Bowman’s risk-return paradox for strategic management: an empirical study. Strateg Manag J 7:395–407Google Scholar
  36. Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC, Cannella A (2009) Strategic leadership: theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Fisher IN, Hall GR (1969) Risk and corporate rates of return. Quart J Econ 83:79–92Google Scholar
  38. Ghemawat P, Ricart i Costa JE (1993) The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strateg Manag J 14:59–73Google Scholar
  39. Gomez-Mejia LR, Wiseman RM (1997) Reframing executive compensation: an assessment and outlook. J Manag 23:291–374Google Scholar
  40. Greve HR (1998) Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Adm Sci Q 43:58–86Google Scholar
  41. Greve HR (2003a) A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: evidence from shipbuilding. Acad Manag J 46:685–702Google Scholar
  42. Greve HR (2003b) Investment and behavioral theory of the Firm: evidence from shipbuilding. Ind Corp Change 12:1051–1076Google Scholar
  43. Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 49:693–706Google Scholar
  44. Hambrick DC (2007) Upper echelons theory: an update. Acad Manag Rev 32:334–343Google Scholar
  45. Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manag Rev 9:193–206Google Scholar
  46. Harrison JS, Hall EH, Nargundkar R (1993) Resource allocation as an outcropping of strategic consistency: performance implications. Acad Manag J 36:1026–1051Google Scholar
  47. He Z, Wong P (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15:481–494Google Scholar
  48. Henkel J (2009) The risk-return paradox for strategic management: disentangling true and spurious effects. Strateg Manag J 30:287–303Google Scholar
  49. Holmqvist M (2004) Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical study of product development. Organ Sci 15:70–81Google Scholar
  50. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL (2004) Methods of meta-analysis: correcting error and bias in research findings, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand OaskGoogle Scholar
  51. Hurdle GJ (1974) Leverage, risk, market structure and profitability. Rev Econ Stat 56:478–485Google Scholar
  52. Jensen MC (1986) Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. Am Econ Rev 76:323–329Google Scholar
  53. Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3:305–360Google Scholar
  54. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica 42:262–291Google Scholar
  55. Kamien MI, Schwartz NL (1971) Limit pricing and uncertain entry. Econometrica 39:441–454Google Scholar
  56. Kerin RA, Varadarajan PR, Peterson RA (1992) First-mover advantage: a synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions. J Mark 56:33–52Google Scholar
  57. King AA, Lenox MJ (2000) Industry self-regulation without sanctions: the chemical industry’s responsible care program. Acad Manag J 43:698–716Google Scholar
  58. Klein KJ, Sorra JS (1996) The challenge of innovation implementation. Acad Manag Rev 21:1055–1080Google Scholar
  59. Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Hart, Schaffner & Marx; Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  60. Kor YY (2006) Direct and interaction effects of top management team and board compositions on R&D investment strategy. Strateg Manag J 27:1081–1099Google Scholar
  61. Korteweg A (2010) The net benefits to leverage. J Finance 65:2137–2170Google Scholar
  62. Kothari SP, Laguerre TE, Leone AJ (2002) Capitalization versus expensing: evidence on the uncertainty of future earnings from capital expenditures versus R&D outlays. Rev Acc Stud 7:355–382Google Scholar
  63. Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Manage Sci 43:934–950Google Scholar
  64. Lieberman MB, Montgomery DB (1988) First-mover advantages. Strateg Manag J 9:41–58Google Scholar
  65. Lintner J (1965) The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfolios and capital budgets. Rev Econ Stat 47:13–37Google Scholar
  66. Mansfield E (1969) Industrial research and technological innovation. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:71–87Google Scholar
  68. Markowitz HM (1952) Portfolio selection. J Finance 7:71–91Google Scholar
  69. Matta E, Beamish PW (2008) The accentuated CEO career horizon problem: evidence from international acquisitions. Strateg Manag J 29:683–700Google Scholar
  70. Miller KD, Bromiley P (1990) Strategic risk and corporate performance: an analysis of alternative risk measures. Acad Manag J 33:756–779Google Scholar
  71. Miller KD, Leiblein MJ (1996) Risk-return relations: returns variability versus downside risk. Acad Manag J 39:91–122Google Scholar
  72. Modigliani F, Miller MH (1963) Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: a correction. Am Econ Rev 53:433–443Google Scholar
  73. Myers SC, Majluf NS (1984) Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. J Financ Econ 13:187–221Google Scholar
  74. Nyberg AJ, Fulmer IS, Gerhart B, Carpenter MA (2010) Agency theory revisited: CEO return and shareholder interest alignment. Acad Manag J 53:1029–1049Google Scholar
  75. O’Brien JP (2003) The capital structure implications of pursuing a strategy of innovation. Strateg Manag J 24:415–431Google Scholar
  76. Palmer TB, Wiseman RM (1999) Decoupling risk-taking from income stream uncertainty: a holistic model of risk. Strateg Manag J 11:1037–1062Google Scholar
  77. Parkhe A (1993) Strategic alliance structuring: a game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Acad Manag J 36(4):794–829Google Scholar
  78. Powell TC, Lovallo D, Fox CR (2011) Behavioral strategy. Strateg Manag J 32(13):1369–1386Google Scholar
  79. Rappaport A (2006) Ten ways to create shareholder value. Harvard Bus Rev 84(9):66–77Google Scholar
  80. Reuer JJ, Leiblein MJ (2000) Downside risk implications of multinationality and international joint ventures. Acad Manag J 43:203–214Google Scholar
  81. Rhoades DL, Rechner PL, Sundaramurthy C (2000) Board composition and financial performance: a meta-analysis of the influence of outside directors. J Manag Issues 12:76–91Google Scholar
  82. Sanders WG (2001) Behavioral responses of CEOs to stock ownership and stock option pay. Acad Manag J 44:477–492Google Scholar
  83. Sanders WMG, Hambrick DC (2007) Swinging for the fences: the effects of CEO stock options on company risk-taking and performance. Acad Manag J 50:1055–1078Google Scholar
  84. Scherer FM (1967) Research and development resource allocation under rivalry. Quart J Econ 81:359–394Google Scholar
  85. Scherer FM (1984) Innovation and growth: Schumpeterian perspectives. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  86. Scherer FM, Ross D (1990) Industrial market structure and economic performance. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  87. Schwenk CR, Shrader CB (1993) Effects of formal strategic planning on financial performance in small firms: a meta-analysis. Entrep Theory Pract 17:53–77Google Scholar
  88. Shapiro AC, Titman S (1986) An integrated approach to corporate risk management. In: Stern JM, Chew DH (eds) The revolution in corporate finance. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 215–229Google Scholar
  89. Sharpe WF (1964) Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. The J Finance 19:425–442Google Scholar
  90. Siggelkow N, Levinthal DA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ Sci 6:650–669Google Scholar
  91. Singh M, Faircloth S, Nejadmalayeri A (2005) Capital market impact of product marketing strategy: evidence from the relationship between advertising expenses and cost of capital. Acad Mark Sci 33:432–444Google Scholar
  92. Sitkin SB, Pablo AL (1992) Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Acad Manag Rev 17:9–38Google Scholar
  93. Sobel ME (1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociol Methodol 13:290–312Google Scholar
  94. Uotila J, Maula M, Keil T, Zahra SA (2009) Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strateg Manag J 30:221–231Google Scholar
  95. Van Binsbergen JH, Graham JR, Yang J (2010) The cost of debt. J Finance 65:2089–2136Google Scholar
  96. Venkatraman N, Ramanujam V (1986) Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Acad Manag Rev 11:801–814Google Scholar
  97. Viswesvaran C, Ones DS (1995) Theory testing: combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Pers Psychol 48:865–885Google Scholar
  98. Warner JB (1977) Bankruptcy costs: some evidence. J Finance 32:337–347Google Scholar
  99. Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  100. Wiseman RM, Gomez-Mejia L (1998) A behavioral agency model of managerial risk-taking. Acad Manag J 23:133–153Google Scholar
  101. Wright P, Ferris SP, Sarin A, Awasthi V (1996) Impact of corporate insider, blockholder, and institutional equity ownership on firm risk-taking. Acad Manag J 39:441–463Google Scholar
  102. Yang M, Hyland M (2006) Who do firms imitate? A multilevel approach to examining sources of imitation in the choice of mergers and acquisitions. J Manag 32:381–399Google Scholar
  103. Zahra SA (1996) Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Acad Manag J 39:1713–1735Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathias Arrfelt
    • 1
  • Michael Mannor
    • 2
  • Jennifer D. Nahrgang
    • 1
  • Amanda L. Christensen
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.W. P. Carey School of BusinessArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Mendoza College of BusinessUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  3. 3.Carl H. Lindner College of BusinessUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations