In this paper, we examine the impact of managerial characteristics and consumer proximity on corporate environmental performance (CEP). By analyzing the interaction effects between managerial and organizational factors on the firm's environmental performance, we go beyond the extant literature that has primarily focused on the linkage between CEP and financial performance. Drawing mainly from the upper echelons perspective and institutional theory, we examine the impact of managerial characteristics as antecedents of CEP along with the moderating effect of consumer proximity on CEP. In particular, we focus on the effects of three characteristics of CEOs: tenure, educational level, and functional background. Based on the analysis of 49 companies in textile and apparel industries in Korea, our results provide support for the predicted positive relationships between CEO attributes and CEP.

For most forms of conscious consumer choice, product attributes serve as the means that consumers use to accomplish their goals. Because there is competition between products in the marketplace, consumption decisions typically present conflict between means to achieve a goal. In this article, we examine the consequences of conflict between regulatory means on consumers' decisions and show that its resolution depends on whether the means-that is, the attributes-are compatible with the consumer's regulatory orientation. We show that compatibility with more than one attribute arouses acute decision conflict and evokes decision processes that result in a pronounced tendency to make counternormative choices. We also show that incompatibility with a product's attributes leads to choosing extreme alternatives, which suggests the presence of a "pick-your-poison" effect. We test our hypotheses using the attraction, compromise, and deferral paradigms. We close by discussing our results in the context of the Lewinian view of decision conflict. (c) 2010 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Webrooming is a two‐stage shopping process that begins with examining product options online followed by making a purchase at an offline store. In four experiments, we investigate webrooming effects on product evaluation and purchase intentions. The results suggest that webrooming (vs. non‐webrooming) has negative impacts on (1) perceived product performance vis‐à‐vis expectations and (2) purchase intentions for the products offline. Our moderated‐mediation analyses show that webrooming leads to lower perceived product performance, which in turn results in lower purchase intentions, and participants’ Need for Touch (NFT) moderates the negative mediation effect, which is stronger with instrumental NFT than autotelic NFT. However, this moderated‐mediation effect is attenuated when products are searched across multiple categories. These findings contribute to the marketing literature by providing a more nuanced understanding of how two‐stage, webrooming behavior affects consumers’ cognitions and purchase decisions. They also provide several managerial implications that when controlling for time intervals between the stages, (1) webrooming may adversely affect retailers’ business outcomes when webrooming within a single (e.g., blankets), related (e.g., baby products), and unrelated product categories; (2) thus, creating an integrated online‐to‐offline cross‐channel customer experiences is critical to minimize the negative webrooming effects on final sales.

It is self-evident that performing poorly on a task makes people dissatisfied relative to performing well. How can this negative affect be overcome? We provide an adaptive strategy for dealing with poor performance. Experiment 1 shows that poor performers tend to recruit the highest potential performance as a comparison standard and hence are dissatisfied. However, if they are reminded that they set their own low goals, and that these goals were met, they are as satisfied as better performers. Experiment 2 shows that incremental theorists who believe that they can improve their performance in the future tend to compare their performance to the initially set goal rather than the highest potential performance, and are hence as satisfied as better performers. These findings shed light on the dynamic comparison process underlying satisfaction judgment. Implications of these findings for perennial low goal setters and for satisfaction in general are discussed.

PurposeThis study investigates how a firm's regulatory focus (i.e. promotion and prevention foci) affects growth- and efficiency-oriented strategic change, highlighting the role of organizational-level regulatory focus as a cognitive frame within which to interpret performance feedback and its subsequent effects on strategic decisions.Design/methodology/approachThe authors collected longitudinal data on 98 S&P 500 manufacturing firms for a seven-year period. The panel data, which includes texts from the firms' 10-K filings, were then analyzed using a feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) regression estimator to test the authors’ hypotheses.FindingsA firm's strategic change orientation is affected by its regulatory focus and performance feedback: a promotion focus increases the magnitude of growth-oriented strategic change, while a prevention focus favors efficiency-oriented strategic change. Furthermore, both foci moderate the effect of performance feedback on the strategic change orientation: under negative performance feedback, a promotion (prevention) focus increases (decreases) the magnitude of growth-oriented strategic change relative to that of efficiency-oriented change. The findings provide robust evidence that regulatory focus can influence how organizations learn from feedback and formulate strategic change.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors’ examination of regulatory focus and organizational learning process relied on large manufacturing firms in the USA. However, learning process could be quite different in small and/or young firms. Future work should expand to a wider range of organizational types, such as nascent entrepreneurial ventures. In addition, the authors’ measurement of regulatory focus using corporate text has inherent weakness and could be supplemented with alternative research methods, such as surveys, interviews or experiments. All in all, however, the findings of this study offer a novel behavioral perspective while demonstrating that a regulatory focus is an important antecedent of organizational learning.Practical implicationsThis study highlights the importance of motivational characteristics of the top managers in the process of organizational learning from performance feedback. Furthermore, recruitment of a new top manager should be aligned with the organizational context, values and goals. In addition, corporate governance systems such as managerial compensation schemes need to be carefully designed so as to maximize organizational resilience, especially in the context of performance downturn or environmental change. Establishing a constructive organizational culture so that strategic decisions are not overly swayed by the performance outcomes would also be crucial to the organizational learning process.Social implicationsThis study highlights the importance of understanding the motivational orientations of top managers in organizational learning. In terms of managerial compensation, for instance, an optimal incentive system should reflect the desired performance output by encouraging managerial behavior that corresponds to its objective. Furthermore, motivational orientation of new recruits should be considered in the context of the composition of the top management team members in order to achieve “optimal fit.” In addition, this study suggests that top executives' regulatory focus can be a key factor for organizations in balancing goals of different value orientations.Originality/valueThe findings of this study demonstrated that a firm-level regulatory focus has a significant effect on organizational learning and strategic change following performance feedback. The authors hope this study provides an impetus for future discussions on the microcognitive mechanisms of organizational learning by exploring the relations between organizations' regulatory foci, performance feedback and strategic change orientations.