Based on a sample of 290 large U.S. corporations, we find that dual positioning on both CEO and board chairperson positions at the corporate top leads to reduced firm risk-taking propensity, serving managerial risk minimization preferences. We also find empirical evidence that traditionally emphasized control mechanisms of board independence and managerial ownership are ineffective in controlling managerial behavior when CEO duality leadership exists. Additionally, the power balance obtained from concentrated shareholder ownership in the firm has significant impact on controlling managerial behavior regarding firm risk taking. The findings of this research contribute to reducing the controversy surrounding CEO duality leadership by furnishing empirical evidence of how CEO duality leadership in corporate governance structure affects managerial behavior in corporate strategic management.

Purpose -The purpose of this article is to better understand the nature of the decision maker's cognitive-affective information processing behavior in the context of strategic decision making. Design/methodology/approach -Reviews of the psychological science, organizational behavior, and strategic management literatures serve as a foundation for the development of a model and a series of research propositions. Propositions and model development lead to a discussion regarding limitations of the current literature, as well as areas for future research that incorporates cognitive-affective information processing issues in organizational research. Findings -Organizational homogeneous and heterogeneous behaviors in the organizational adaptation process depend on a strategic decision maker's cognitive-affective informational interpretation of both internal and external environmental stimuli.Research limitations/implications -The focus of this article is limited to the individual level of analysis. Further theoretical and empirical research should investigate how the framework could be applied at the team and organizational levels and how it holds under various industrial and/or environmental conditions. Practical implications -This article informs practicing managers of how their decision-making behavior is influenced by both cognition and affect when they scan and process their strategic informational environment and, furthermore, how these influence their choice of organizational forms and practices. Originality/value -Extends theoretical understanding of cognitive-affective informational processing and its influence on the organizational homogeneous-heterogeneous adaptation process.

There has been scant research exploring the implications of board heterogeneity for board's functioning and subsequent corporate outcome of stability in firm performance. A number of hypotheses are developed based on a multi-theoretic approach incorporating board resources, board dynamics, and board independence. Results of testing the hypotheses reveal that board heterogeneity in organizational tenure, functional experience, and educational specialty is related to the stability of returns. Furthermore, increased ownership position by directors and institutional investors strengthens the relationship between board heterogeneity and stability of returns. The results of this study suggest that board heterogeneity increases organizational rationality and further the stability in firm performance through its more effective control and counsel functions to management.

The strength of strategic management largely results from its ability to integrate diverse ideas and theories from different fields of study and apply them to real-world organizational issues. However, strategy researchers generally lack an understanding of the potential issues surrounding the paradigm conflicts that are often involved in interdisciplinary research. In response, this paper emphasizes the importance of epistemological paradigms in scientific research and discusses implications of paradigm conflicts on theory progression in strategic management. Suggestions to reduce such paradigm conflicts in interdisciplinary fertilization are also provided.

This paper offers a model based on institutional theory to explain differences in the level of new venture formation and development between the Confucian-based societies of East-Asia and Western countries such as the United States. We propose that the Confucian values underlying the institutional and cultural environments of East-Asian countries adversely affect the social legitimacy of entrepreneurial firms thereby inhibiting new venture formation and growth. The theoretical model and propositions developed in this paper extend the theoretical understanding of the interplay between Confucian values, cognitive behavior, and entrepreneurial firm legitimacy. Implications for international entrepreneurship research are discussed.