Christoph Lechner

Decision speed has long been recognized as a critical determinant of firm performance, particularly in dynamic environments. Extending prior studies, which have largely focused on firm-level decision speed in small- and medium-sized organizations, this study explores how control mechanisms set by corporate headquarters in multibusiness firms influence decision speed at the strategic business unit (SBU) level. Using a multimethod approach, we first inductively derive six types of corporate control, before deductively examining their effects on SBU-level decision speed in five international multibusiness organizations. Our results suggest that three corporate control types enhance decision speed (goal setting, extrinsic incentives, and decision process control); two have no effect (negative incentives and conflict resolution); and one has a negative effect (strategy imposition). By integrating results from our qualitative and quantitative analyses, we are also able to identify transparency/alignment, outcome orientation, participation, trust, and timely feedback as the key mechanisms accounting for these effects.

This study examines relationships between group influence activities and the performance of strategic initiatives. Theory suggests that the strength of these relationships is contingent upon the degree of exploration inherent in an initiative's goals. An analysis of 96 initiatives in three large firms supports the moderating role of exploration for the use of formal authority and coalition building, demonstrating that these group influence activities are more important to performance in more exploratory initiatives. Although the direct relationship between rational justification and initiative performance is significant, there is no evidence of the moderating effect for this form of influence. The results show how groups associated with strategic initiatives use different forms of influence to reduce the investment and political uncertainties that limit initiative performance.

This paper examines relationships between three dimensions of network relations on the inter-group level and the performance of strategic initiatives. Findings suggest inverted U-shaped relationships between performance and relational and structural dimensions of networks, and a linear, positive relationship for the cognitive dimension. In addition, exploration moderates relationships between performance and all three dimensions of inter-group networks. Compared to exploitation initiatives, negative consequences of strong ties and centrality are more pronounced in exploratory initiatives. Although exploratory groups appear to benefit less from increases in shared vision, shared vision is a positive influence on performance for both types of initiatives.

Why do so many exploratory initiatives fail? This article suggests the reason may be managers' tendency to under-invest in four key learning activities - searching, processing, codifying and practicing. Based on a study of forty-one exploratory initiatives in three insurance firms, this article explains why each of these four activities is important and why, despite their benefits, managers tend to neglect them. In addition, the study identifies three features of the context surrounding an initiative that facilitate appropriate investments in learning. For managers, the article offers a description of the factors that may either impede or support effective learning in exploratory groups, and provides a fine-grained analysis of the links between learning activities and specific learning outcomes.

The purpose of this article is to describe the theoretical and methodological reasons for the inconsistent findings on the value of strategic consensus. This analysis suggests the need for (a) definitions of consensus that align the locus and content of agreement with the study context and theoretical premises; (b) measures of consensus that take account of locus as well as differences in how the content of strategy is perceived by top-, middle-, and lower-level managers; (c) research designs wherein assumptions about the locus and content of consensus govern the choice of antecedents; and (d) more consistent use of moderators.