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. Christensen
Original Paper
  • 225 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
  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