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.

AbstractThis 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.

Many studies in strategic management attempt to explain macro‐level firm behaviors or characteristics and/or the influence of such behaviors or characteristics on firm performance. Current strategy scholarship, however, rarely considers specific, actual techniques that managers might use to develop strategies or generally applicable firm practices. We propose a practice‐based view ( PBV ) of strategy scholarship to address this gap. In contrast with the resource‐based view emphasis on things that other firms cannot imitate, the PBV examines publicly known, imitable activities, or practices amenable to transfer across firms. We provide evidence for the PBV and discuss its contribution to strategy. The PBV has two important implications, one relating to potential explanations for performance and the other relating to the kinds of prescription strategy that scholars might offer . Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Research summary : Many studies use research and development ( R & D) intensity or R & D spending as a proxy for risk taking, but we have little evidence that either associates positively with firm risk. We analyze the relations between R & D intensity ( R & D spending to sales) and R & D spending on the one hand and 11 different indicators of firm risk on the other, using data from 1,907 to 3,908 firms in various industries over 13 years. The analysis finds a general lack of consistent positive association between R & D and firm risk, making the use of R & D as an indicator of risk taking questionable. Furthermore, R & D intensity and spending do not correlate positively, suggesting they measure different constructs. We discuss potential reasons for these nonsignificant results. Our study demonstrates that researchers should avoid casual use of R & D as a proxy for risk taking without explicitly providing a clear definition and measurement model for risk . Managerial summary : Risk is a key construct in strategic management research. Many studies in this area measure risk taking by research and development ( R & D) intensity (the ratio of R & D spending to sales) or R & D spending. However, since R & D intensity and spending have also been used to measure various other things such as information processing demands, this raises the question of whether R & D intensity and spending are valid indicators of firm risk. We examine this issue by considering the associations of R & D intensity and R & D spending with conventional measures of firm risk. We find a general lack of consistent positive association between R & D and firm risk, making the use of R & D as an indicator of risk taking questionable. Furthermore, R & D intensity and spending do not correlate positively, suggesting they measure different things . Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.