Nissan Eaton Leaf 4.2 kWh Residential energy storage UK (Nissan, 2017a) Nissan Eaton & The Mobility House Leaf 4 MWh / 4 MW Peak shaving, Backup power Netherlands (Nissan, 2016) Nissan Sumitomo Leaf 400 kWh/600 kW Renewable energy Japan (St.John, 2015) Mitsubishi & PSA EDF & Forsee Power Peugeot Ion, C-zero & iMiev n/a Renewable energy France (Green Car Congress, 2015) BMW UC San Diego Mini-E 160 kWh / 100 kW Renewable energy USA (California Energy Commission, 2012) BMW Vattenfall & Bosch ActiveE & i3 2.8 MWh / 2 MW Renewable energy Germany (Lambert, 2016) BMW Vattenfall i3 12 kWh / 50 kW Fast charging Germany (BMW, 2014) Renault Connected Energy Zoe 50 kWh / 50 kW Fast charging UK (Renault, 2017a)

The editors have taken the utmost care to ensure the reliability and completeness of all the published information. However, inaccuracies cannot be precluded. While the greatest possible care was taken during the preparation of these proceedings, there is always the possibility that certain information of sources referred to become(s) outdated or inaccurate over the course of time. Certain references in these proceedings lead to information sources that are maintained by third parties and over which we have no control. The editors and authors therefore do not bear responsibility for the accuracy or any other aspect of the information from these sources. In no way does the mention of these information sources represent a recommendation by the editors or the authors or an implicit or explicit approval of the information. The editors and authors are not responsible for the consequences of activities undertaken on the basis of these proceedings. No part of these proceedings may be reproduced by means of print, photocopies, automated databases or in any other way, without the prior written permission of the corresponding authors. The texts in this publication do not aim to the discriminatory in any way on the basis of race, religion or sex. Wherever it says 'he' in the text, 'she' may naturally be read as well and vice versa.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to broaden the national-level construct of managerial discretion and to investigate the effect of cultural practices on executive discretion. Design/methodology/approach Based on a sample of six Arabian countries and using a panel of prominent cross-cultural scholars who provided 262 discretion scores for the sample countries, the authors replicate and extend the national framework of Crossland and Hambrick (2011) in a new cultural context. The cultural dimensions were measured using survey responses of middle managers based on House et al.’s (2004) cultural practices scale. Findings The authors extend the national-level framework of managerial discretion and find that an encompassing array of cultural practices plays a crucial role in shaping the degree of discretion provided to CEOs. The authors empirically demonstrate that power distance, future and performance orientation, along with gender egalitarianism and assertiveness have positive relationships with managerial discretion. However, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and humane orientation negatively affect the degree of discretion provided to CEOs. Originality/value The study fills a gap in the literature regarding the national-level framework of managerial discretion. The results indicate that executives can take idiosyncratic and bold actions to the extent to which the cultural environment allows them to do so. Also, the authors discover new national-level antecedents of managerial discretion that have not been considered in earlier studies and confirm the context dependency of this concept.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the generalizability of national-level managerial discretion and to assess whether the national context play a role in changing mainstream research findings. Based on a sample of three Arabian countries and using a panel of prominent cross-cultural scholars who provided 138 discretion scores for the sampled countries, we replicate the national framework of Crossland and Hambrick (2011) (2011), we demonstrate that individualism and uncertainty tolerance have the same positive effect on CEOs discretion even in a different cultural setting. In contrast, we show that power distance has a positive and significant effect on managerial discretion. Our results indicate that executives can take idiosyncratic and bold actions to the extent to which the cultural environment allows them to do so. Accordingly, we contribute by showing the importance of the national setting in affecting the generalizability of discretion findings.