“…In spite of large body of work on how to drive organizational ambidexterity, established incumbent organizations tend to be exploitative in nature (see Lavie et al, 2010). Organizational preference for exploitation versus exploration can arise from individual characteristics of key decision‐makers (see Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Laureiro‐Martínez et al, 2015; Vlasic et al, 2017; Yadav et al, 2007) with exploitation and exploration being “separate behaviors involving different mind processes” (Cristofaro et al, 2022a). Therefore, to understand the organizational preference for exploration versus exploitation, it is important to understand which cognitive profiles tend to get promoted to the top strategic positions.…”
Organizational ambidexterity has long been in the focus of understanding how organizations address tensions between exploitation, which implies building new competencies in order to drive radical change, and exploitation, which implies building on top of existing competencies in order to deliver persistent incremental improvements. Research has shown that, at the organizational level, established incumbent organizations tend to avoid exploration. In this paper, we focus on understanding which cognitive profiles tend to get promoted to the highest management positions in established incumbent organizations. To address this research question, we used a data set on 176 key decision‐makers at five multinational organizations. Results indicate that inherent biases in promotion decisions at the highest levels of the established incumbent organizations favor pattern‐recognition cognitive profiles of managers, thus influencing organizational preference for exploitation over exploration. Results have implications for theory, explaining neurocognitive underpinnings of preference for exploitation in case of established incumbent organizations which arise from biases in promotional decisions; and for practice, implying the importance of debiasing promotion decisions to ensure organizational ability to deliver on explorative strategies, favoring innovations and new market creation.
“…In spite of large body of work on how to drive organizational ambidexterity, established incumbent organizations tend to be exploitative in nature (see Lavie et al, 2010). Organizational preference for exploitation versus exploration can arise from individual characteristics of key decision‐makers (see Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Laureiro‐Martínez et al, 2015; Vlasic et al, 2017; Yadav et al, 2007) with exploitation and exploration being “separate behaviors involving different mind processes” (Cristofaro et al, 2022a). Therefore, to understand the organizational preference for exploration versus exploitation, it is important to understand which cognitive profiles tend to get promoted to the top strategic positions.…”
Organizational ambidexterity has long been in the focus of understanding how organizations address tensions between exploitation, which implies building new competencies in order to drive radical change, and exploitation, which implies building on top of existing competencies in order to deliver persistent incremental improvements. Research has shown that, at the organizational level, established incumbent organizations tend to avoid exploration. In this paper, we focus on understanding which cognitive profiles tend to get promoted to the highest management positions in established incumbent organizations. To address this research question, we used a data set on 176 key decision‐makers at five multinational organizations. Results indicate that inherent biases in promotion decisions at the highest levels of the established incumbent organizations favor pattern‐recognition cognitive profiles of managers, thus influencing organizational preference for exploitation over exploration. Results have implications for theory, explaining neurocognitive underpinnings of preference for exploitation in case of established incumbent organizations which arise from biases in promotional decisions; and for practice, implying the importance of debiasing promotion decisions to ensure organizational ability to deliver on explorative strategies, favoring innovations and new market creation.
“…The literature distinguishes between management accounting and strategic management accounting. The main differences between both are presented in However, in a highly competitive environment, companies are more likely to focus on future events (Vlašić et al, 2017).…”
Analyzing the strategic aspects of managerial accounting in the context of reporting in industrial SMEs is a critical management issue. This paper aims to present the main results of an empirical study on this topic among some SMEs from the knitwear industry in the southern part of Bulgaria. Analytical and synthesis methods, descriptive statistics, and comparison techniques are used for this study. All the companies studied have been on the market for more than ten years and have experienced and well-trained managers and other characteristics that imply the availability of managerial reporting/accounting and the application of adapted models for strategic planning in SMEs. The analysis is intended to draw basic conclusions about the application of strategic management accounting in SMEs. In addition, the authors’ broader intention is to propose ideas for improving the strategic management reporting techniques that could be useful for management, especially in cases where strategic planning has been implemented. The authors find that the owners or managers of SMEs in Bulgaria are not aware of some features of management accounting that could be useful for their business, especially for strategic planning. It is believed that the range of services offered by external accounting organizations limits the level and thus the role of management accounting information for strategic management. Observations show that some models and techniques that could be good indicators of high risk of business failure are not applied because of the limited information base.
“…In consumer decision-making literature, Wright’s (1974) foundational research showed that, under time pressure, consumers tend to emphasize negative traits of a product. Since then, other research in various shopping contexts suggests that manipulations of time pressure, such as via scarcity of products (Devlin et al, 2007; Soliman, 2017) or length of sale (Aggarwal & Vaidyanathan, 2003), can dictate the strategy with which consumers approach purchases (Chowdhury et al, 2009; Vlašić et al, 2011) and their acceptance of risk (Shehryar, 2008). Indeed, time pressure has been shown to impact the ability of consumers to investigate product information (Kardes et al, 2006; do Prado & Lopes, 2016) and reduces the amount of time they spend browsing unfamiliar products (Liu et al, 2017).…”
The current study examined the effects of security score framing, time pressure, and brand familiarity on mobile application choices. Past research has found the framing of safety versus risk scores affects how potential risks for mobile apps are communicated to users. Both time pressure and brand familiarity have been shown to affect consumers’ purchase behaviors but not yet for app-selection decisions. The current study examined the effects of time pressure and brand familiarity on the effectiveness of risk displays (framed as safety or risk) for mobile apps. Participants were shown screenshots of various apps with these factors manipulated, and they were to choose one out of six apps. Our findings indicate that users rely heavily on brand familiarity when choosing apps, which could lead to insecure decisions. Additionally, security scores guided app choices toward more secure apps when framed as safety than when framed as risk, although this advantage was only evident without time pressure and disappeared under time pressure. The design implications call for more careful screening and user education about the potential risks associated familiar apps, as well as the need of new security design solutions to help users under time pressure.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.