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

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。

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.