Method in the madness? A meta-analysis on the strategic implications of decision comprehensiveness

Abstract

Is strategic decision comprehensiveness beneficial for firms? Despite significant empirical attention on this research question, inconsistent findings have prevented strong insights from being formed. To help the field move forward, we address long-standing controversies surrounding whether comprehensiveness is beneficial for firms, and whether environmental dynamism enhances or diminishes its effects. We meta-analyze 37 studies and provide the most definitive evidence possible regarding the strategic value of decision comprehensiveness. Our analyses show (1) that strategic decision comprehensiveness and organizational outcomes are positively related to a meaningful degree when subjective outcome measures are used, and (2) that environmental dynamism does not have a moderating impact on this comprehensiveness–outcomes linkage. Our results indicate that measurement strategies and methodological choices may have primarily driven the effects of strategic decision comprehensiveness reported in the literature. They also suggest that long-standing ideas related to moderating effects of dynamism do not hold. We define an agenda for future research and a roadmap for empirical efforts.

Deciding Fast: Examining the Relationship between Strategic Decision Speed and Decision Quality across Multiple Environmental Contexts

“…In doing so, we contribute to the richness of understanding about the effects of the external environment on strategic decision‐making. More specifically, we advance the strategic decision‐making literature by tackling a problem that has hindered theory development: a sole focus on the moderating effects of environmental dynamism (Treffers et al ., 2020; Samba et al ., 2020), thereby omitting the influence of other important environmental contingencies, and in particular, environmental munificence (Goll and Rasheed, 1997; Shepherd and Rudd, 2014; Elbanna et al ., 2020). In the present study we argue that since the external environment is complex and multi‐dimensional, there is a need to study the effects of environmental dynamism and munificence in conjunction, rather than in isolation.…”

“…Since the relationship between decision processes and outcomes is not a simple one, our study contributes to the emerging consensus regarding the need to build more complex theories concerning this relationship (Rajagopalan et al ., 1993; Elbanna, 2006; Elbanna and Child, 2007b; Dykes et al ., 2019; Strauch et al ., 2019; Elbanna et al ., 2020; Samba et al ., 2020) – and in particular – of the need to focus attention on the moderating role of contextual variables (Elbanna and Child, 2007a; Shepherd and Rudd, 2014). More specifically, linking to the literature on environmental factors and decision speed (Eisenhardt, 1989; Judge and Miller, 1991; Baum and Wally, 2003), we have developed a comprehensive context‐specific perspective (e.g., Goll and Rasheed, 1997 ; Mitchell et al ., 2011) on decision speed, by building theory concerning the likelihood of fast decision‐making yielding high quality outcomes across dynamic and munificent contexts.…”

“…Our multi‐dimensional contingency approach contrasts studies that have emphasized the direct effects of decision speed and those that have focused solely on the moderating effects of environmental dynamism (e.g., Eisenhardt, 1989; Judge and Miller, 1991; Baum and Wally, 2003; Souitaris and Maestro, 2010). In contrast, we developed the argument that research needs to move away from a focus just on environmental dynamism (Treffers et al ., 2020; Samba et al ., 2020), and that dynamism should be considered in conjunction with other environmental contingencies, such as munificence (Goll and Rasheed, 1997; Mitchell et al ., 2011). In adopting this approach our theory also helps to reconcile contradictory findings concerning decision speed, with some studies reporting negative consequences (e.g., Perlow et al ., 2002; Forbes, 2005) and others showing evidence of more positive outcomes (e.g., Judge and Miller, 1991; Souitaris and Maestro, 2010).…”

“…We are not aware of any other studies of decision speed that follow our method – using a sample of real and recent strategic decisions, obtaining data from multiple informants, and examining the effects of decision speed on decision quality – while jointly modeling interactive effects of several key dimensions of the external environment. We also control for a series of well‐established influences on decision quality, including procedural rationality and political behavior (Samba et al ., 2020). In order to enhance the generalizability of our findings, we used the FAME database to sample a range of manufacturing and services industry sectors.…”

“…While prior studies in the strategic decision-making literature are based predominantly on manufacturing firms, because the service sector represents a vital component of the UK economy and many other Western economies (Papadakis et al, 2010), we sampled all firms incorporating manufacturing and services sectorsthereby maximizing variance in our environmental contingency variables (Samba et al, 2020) and extending the generalizability of our findings. Table 1 shows the industries included in our sample.…”