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 extends research on strategic decision making into the realm of strategic al-liances by examining the interactive effect of decision process characteristics at the firm and al-liance levels on alliance performance. Located both within and at the boundary between partners, alliance-related decision processes have to balance each partner's self-interest on one hand and collective actions on the other hand, with both partners being dependent on each other's collabo-ration. Using primary, cross-sectional data obtained from 103 high-technology alliances, we study the effects of procedural rationality and politics in decision making. Our results corroborate the importance of procedural rationality that facilitates collective actions between alliance partners, but also uncover the pitfall of an unconditional reliance on procedural rationality at the firm level. Our results further show that politically charged decision processes impair decision makers' ability to reconcile individual interests both within and between alliance partners, and therefore jeopardize alliance performance.

The premise underlying most of the research on strategic consensus is that a higher degree of consensus has a positive impact on organizational performance. Empirical studies, however, have produced inconsistent results for the strength and direction of this relationship, as well as for the role of potential moderators. With this meta-analysis, we provide empirical support for a positive effect of strategic consensus on organizational performance, and offer evidence for the existence of several moderators of the aforementioned relationship, which we then discuss as fruitful avenues for future research. This study enhances our understand-ing of this important strategy process construct and benefits managerial practice by discussing means for improving the realization and implementation of strategies.

Using a sample of 106 organizations engaged in strategic alliances, we develop and test a framework of alliance-related organizational decision-making processes and their impact on alli-ance performance. With regard to direct effects, our results show a negative impact of decision-making recursiveness and no significant relationship for openness and procedural rationality. Acknowledging the importance of the organization's micropolitical context in which these deci-sion processes are embedded, we also test the moderating influence of politicality. Our findings provide support for our hypotheses that in a context of low politicality, the decision-making characteristics of openness and procedural rationality have a positive influence, whereas recur-siveness negatively affects alliance performance. In a context of high politicality, however, openness and procedural rationality exert a negative influence, and the negative impact of recur-siveness is aggravated. We suggest that alliance-related decision making cannot be adequately understood without explicitly considering the micropolitical context in organizations.

This article examines the process through which multilevel network structures translate into knowledge acquisition from alliance partners. The degree of knowledge transfer a multidivisional company achieves from its network of alliance partners is determined not only by the organization's external network structure, but also by the structure of relationships among its business units. By distinguishing two perspectives on the distribution of social capital's benefits - private versus collective - this article's approach reconciles the competing views on what types of network structures create social capital, that is, the brokerage and closure views of the social network literature. Private benefits of brokerage and centrality are more beneficial in interfirm networks, whereas collective benefits provided by network closure and low levels of centralization are more beneficial in intrafirm networks

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.

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.

This study extends both traditional contingency approaches to organizational control as well as the fledgling, and largely conceptual, literature on more holistic control approaches by examining whether and to what extent formal and informal controls interact with each other in their influence on performance outcomes. In particular, we examine whether formal and informal controls act as complements or substitutes for each other, as well as whether such an interaction will be more or less pronounced in the context of higher degrees of exploration. Our empirical findings from an analysis of 184 strategic initiatives conducted by firms across a variety of industries provide support for the benefits of a complementary use of formal and informal controls, but also suggests that the degree of exploration at least partially moderates this effect, and thereby contribute to a more com-prehensive understanding of organizational control.