請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/45221
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 湯明哲 | |
dc.contributor.author | Hsiu-Fen Tsai | en |
dc.contributor.author | 蔡秀芬 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T04:09:30Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2013-02-11 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2010-02-11 | |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2010-02-02 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. Barney J. B. 1986. Types of competition and the theory of strategy: towards an integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 11(4): 791-800.
2. Barney, J.B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120. 3. Barney J. B. 1995. Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4): 49-61. 4. Bowman, E.H. 1980. A risk/return paradox for strategic management. Sloan Management Review, 21: 17-31. 5. Bowman, E.H. 1982. Risk seeking by troubled firms. Sloan Management Review, 23(4): 33-42. 6. Bromiley, P. 1991. Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1): 37-59. 7. Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W.H., & Huber, G.P. 2001. Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 937-955. 8. Cheng, J.L.C., & Kesner, I.F. 1997. Organizational slack and response to environmental shifts: The impact of resource allocation patterns. Journal of Management, 23(1): 1-18. 9. Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152. 10. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. U.S.: Prentice-Hall. 11. Dalton, D. R., Johnson, J. L., & Ellstrand, A. E. 1999. Number of directors and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6): 674-686. 12. Dierickx W.M., & Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12): 1504-1513. 13. D’Aveni, R.A. 1989. The aftermath of organizational decline: a longitudinal study of the strategic and managerial characteristics of declining firms. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(3): 577-605. 14. Fiegenbaum, A., & Thomas, H. 1988. Attitudes toward risk and the risk-return paradox: prospect theory explanations. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1):85-106. 15. Fiegenbaum, A., Hart, S., & Schendel, D. 1996. Strategic reference point theory. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3):219-235. 16. Fombrun, C.J., & Ginsberg, A. 1990. Shifting gears: enabling change in corporate aggressiveness. Strategic Management Journal, 11(4):297-308. 17. Grant, R.M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue, 17:109-122. 18. Greve, H.R. 1998. Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 58-86. 19. Gulati, R. 1995. Social structure and alliance formation pattern: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 619-652. 20. Gulati, R. 1999. Network location and learning: the influence of network of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20:397-420. 21. Hambrick, D.C., & D’Aveni, R.A., 1988. Large corporate failures as downward spirals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1): 1-23. 22. Helfat, C.E., & Peteraf, M.A. 2003. The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 997-1010. 23. Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M., & Sexton, D.L. 2001. Guest edithors’ introduction to the special issue strategic entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 479-491. 24. Jackon, S. & J. Dutton. 1988. Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 370-387. 25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263-291. 26. Karim, S., & Mitchell, W. 2000. Path-dependent and path-breaking change: reconfiguring business resources following acquisitions in the U.S. medical sector, 1978-1995. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1061-1081. 27. Lane, P.J., & Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning, Strategic Management Journal, 19: 461-477. 28. Lei, D., Hitt, M.A., & Bettis, R. 1996. Dynamic core competencies through meta-learning and strategic context. Journal of Management, 22:549-569. 29. Lee, C. Lee, K. & Pennings, J.M. 2001. Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 615-640. 30. Mahoney, J.T., & Pandian, J.R. 1992. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 363-380. 31. Madhok, A., & Tallman, S.B. 1998. Resources, Transactions and Rents: managing value through interfirm collaborative relationships. Organization Science, 9(3): 326-339. 32. March, J.G., & Shapira, Z. 1987. Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33:1404-1418. 33. Mone, M.A., Mckinley, W., & Barker III, V.L. 1998. Organizational decline and innovation: a contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 23(1): 115-132. 34. Montgomery, C. A. & Wernerfelt. B. 1988. Diversification, Ricardian rents, and Tobin’s q. Rand journal of Economics, 19: 623-632. 35. Nohria, N., Gulati, R. 1996. Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1245-1264. 36. Ocasio, W. 1995. The enactment of economic diversity: A reconciliation of theories of failure-induced change and threat-rigidity. In L.L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 17:287-331. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 37. Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18:187-206. 38. Penrose E. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press: Oxford. 39. Peteraf, M. A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resourced-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 179-191. 40. Palmer, T.B., Danforth, G.M., & Clark, S.M. 1995. Strategic responses to poor performance in the health care industry: a test of competing predictions. Academy of Management Journal, Best Papers Proceedings: 125-129. 41. Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3): 71-91. 42. Priem R. L., & Butler J. E. 2001. Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 22-40. 43. Reuer, J.J., & Leiblein, M.J. 2000. Downside risk implications of multinationality and international joint ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2):203-214. 44. Rugamn, A.M., & Verbeke, A. 2002. Edith Penrose’s contribution to the resource-based view of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8): 769-780. 45. Rumelt, R. P. 1984. Toward a strategic theory of the firm. In Competitive Strategic Management: 556-570. Lamb RB (Ed). Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ. 46. Simmonds, P. G. 1990. The combined diversification breadth and mode dimensions and the performance of large diversified firm. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5): 399-410. 47. Singh, J.V. 1986. Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3): 562-585. 48. Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. 2000. Note: The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217-226. 49. Stam, W, Elfring, T. 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role of intra- and extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1): 97-111. 50. Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L.E., & Dutton, J.E. 1981. Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: a multilevel analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4): 501-524. 51. Tan, J. & Peng, M. W., 2003. Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transitions: two studies from an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 1249-1263. 52. Teece, D.J. 1982. Toward an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3: 39-63. 53. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533. 54. Tippins, M.J., & Sohi, R.S. 2003. IT competence and firm performance: Is organizational learning a missing link. Strategic Management Journal, 24:745-761. 55. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. 1986. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(4): s251-s278. 56. Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 996-1004. 57. Voss, G.B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z.G. 2008. The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1): 147-164. 58. Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resources-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171-180. 59. Wiseman, R.M., & Bromiley, P. 1996. Toward a model of risk in declining organizations: an empirical examination of risk, performance and decline. Organization Science, 7(5): 524-543. 60. Wiseman, R.M., & Gomez-Mejia, L.R. 1998. A Behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking. Academy of Management, 23(1): 133-153. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/45221 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 在高度變化的環境中,企業的成長常扮隨著高風險的承擔,尤其在高科技產業(Hi-tech industry),冒風險是一種競爭的現實亦是它們存在的本質,然而廠商何時會採取冒風險的行為(risk-taking behavior),在理論上有二派相異的論點,一為展望理論(Prospect theory),展望理論一反傳統經濟學假設人是一個完全理性的經濟人,該理論架構在有限理性之上,認為人們在做決策時的風險態度受制於決策者所處的情境(framing effect),當在正面情境(positives)時會傾向於保守,然而在負面情境(negatives)時會傾向於激進,所以風險態度以決策者的參考點(reference point)為分界點會有逆轉的現象(reflection effect); 另一派理論為威脅僵固化假說(Threat-rigidity hypothesis),認為決策者在面臨威脅情境時會限縮組織內資訊的處理過程及在組織內採強勢控制,所以在此情境下會表現的更保守,反之,會比較激進。兩派理論對預測廠商何時會進行風險性行為及決策即有不同的看法,本文嘗試併入冒風險能力(Risk-taking capabilities)的因素,來解決該歧異。
冒風險能力(Risk-taking capabilities)此概念最先由Miller & Lessard(2000)提出,該作者認為若具備高度的冒風險的能力,不僅能成功的掌握及解決冒風險過程中所內崁的風險因子,得到比較好的報酬,並進一步認為冒風險的能力亦是競爭優勢的來源之一,高度具備的廠商應將此優勢用於風險性的投資,擁抱風險並賺取高風險所帶來的高報酬。所以本文主張分析決策者是否會採行風險性的投資及其投資的時間點,不應只是單純的「刺激---反應」的行為模式,而是應再考量內部的資源及能耐所扮演的角色,增加預測模型的解釋能力。本文亦主張冒風險能力對廠商投資決策的影響可從三個層面去解構:組織的吸收能耐(Absorptive capacity)、網絡資源(Network Resources) 及組織寬裕(Organizational slack)。在決策前,吸收能耐佳的廠商有較佳的能力去分析及辨識新的投資機會及正確評估其所衍生的風險態樣,而組織的網絡資源亦提供一個管道去尋求有能力的策略夥伴及取得有價值的投資機會、另一方面,高風險的投資方案在組織內易得到組織的認同獲得合宜性(Legitimacy)若該組織有較多組織寬裕。 在冒風險決策後,廠商是否會獲得比較好的報酬,實証上亦有兩派爭議,Bromiley (1991)實証上發現,績效不佳的廠商會傾向於冒風險,但在冒風險之後又陷組織於更差的績效狀態,形成惡性循環。另一方面,Bowman (1980, 1982)發現某些管理良好的廠商卻能同時降低風險並提高報酬。故在實証上不同的發現,亦可能來自於某些重要因素的遺漏。本文主張,冒風險的能力會干擾(Moderating effect)冒風險策略及將來績效間的關係,亦即俱備高度冒風險能力的廠商在冒風險後會有較佳的報酬。因為在高風險的投資決策後,吸收能耐有助於組織間或組織內的學習,讓知識的傳遞更有效率及效能,提高投資案成功的機會; 網絡資源會讓廠商有機會尋求將特定風險轉嫁於有能力承擔該風險的策略夥伴,進而將風險內化; 而組織寬裕能夠緩衝外部環境所帶來的衝擊及,讓組織有條件忍受短期虧損等待長期利潤的到來。 本文的貢獻在於提出一個整合性的架構分析影響廠商風險態度的因素,及冒風險能力在風險性決策行為中所扮演的角色及其對績效的影響。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The previous literature presents two different streams of research in explaining organization risk-taking behavior. One line of argument is associated with prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). It argues that when a firm is below a specific self-perceived reference point, then the firm will behave in a risk-taking manner. The second body of research is associated with the threat-rigidity hypothesis (Staw, Sandelands and Dutton, 1981; Ocasio, 1995), which suggests that organizations will behave conservatively under threat conditions (D’ Aveni, 1989; Fombrun and Ginsberg, 1990). Previous empirical studies have examined whether external threat stimulates risk-taking behavior. Less explored is the question of how change in internal capabilities stimulates risk-taking behavior. Therefore, we incorporate the concept of a resource-based viewpoint (RBV) into our analysis and highlight the role of risk-taking capabilities (Miller and Lessard, 2000) to answer two research questions. First, what influences drive a firm’s risk attitude and risk-taking behavior? Second, does risk-taking always lead to bad results? Could organizational characteristics moderate the relationship between risk-taking behavior and future performance?
We decomposed risk-taking capabilities into three dimensions, namely absorptive capacities, network resources and organizational slack. Results indicated that some aspects of risk-taking capabilities indeed drive firm’s risk-taking behavior and also moderate the relationship between past performance and risk-taking behavior. Thus, we asserted that firms equipped high level of risk-taking capabilities should embrace risk and benefit form risk-taking. Just as Miller and Lessard (2000; p201) argued that “sponsors gain comparative advantages not only through core competencies but also by embracing the risks over which they can achieve some degree of control by internalizing (endogenizing) them. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T04:09:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-99-D91724001-1.pdf: 596428 bytes, checksum: c3d0fc16ec21aa9c388459d6a5c0157a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………1
1.1 Research Motivation……………………………………………………...1 1.2 Research Questions……………………………………………………….2 1.3 Research Design…………………………………………………………..6 Chapter 2 Literature Review…………………………………………………….…..7 2.1 The drivers of risk-taking behavior: prospect theory vs. threat-rigidity hypothesis…………………………………………………………….…...8 2.2 The theoretical conflict of prospect theory and threat-rigidity hypothesis..12 2.3 The drivers of risk-taking behavior: risk-taking capabilities……………..14 Chapter 3 Conceptual and Hypotheses……………………………………………..20 3.1 Prospect theory and threat-rigidity hypothesis……………………………20 3.2 Risk-taking capabilities……… …………………………………………..21 3.3 The moderating role of risk-taking capabilities…………………………..30 Chapter 4 Data and Methodology……………………………………………….....37 4.1 Research setting and data resources…………………………………..…..37 4.2 Measurements and methodology…………………………………………38 Chapter 5 Results and discussion…………………………………………………..53 5.1The drivers of risk-taking behavior………………………………………..53 5.2 The moderating role of risk-taking capabilities on future performance…..58 Chapter 6 Conclusion and contribution………………………………………….....68 References……………………………………………………………………….....71 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 冒風險能力對廠商採行風險性行為及績效影響層面之研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The role of risk-taking capabilities plays on risk-taking behavior and performance | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 98-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李吉仁,吳學良,陳俊忠,莊璦嘉 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 冒風險能力,冒風險行為,吸收能耐,組織寬裕,網絡資源, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Risk-taking capabilities,Risk-taking behavior,Absorptive capacity,Organizational slack,Network resources, | en |
dc.relation.page | 74 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2010-02-03 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 國際企業學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 國際企業學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-99-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 582.45 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。