Assessing Managerial Discretion across Different Industries in China 被引量：2

Assessing Managerial Discretion across Different Industries in China

导出

摘要 In this study, managerial discretion in 37 industries in China is measured and ranked into high, medium and low groups. The results are compared with findings from Hambrick and Abrhamson＇s （1995） study in the U.S. context, and changes are examined in two dimensions of managerial discretion from 2001 to 2009. This study contributes a reliable measure of managerial discretion for future organizational and strategic studies, which can help explain the differences in managerial phenomena across different industries in China＇s institutional environment. In this study, managerial discretion in 37 industries in China is measured and ranked into high, medium and low groups. The results are compared with findings from Hambrick and Abrhamson＇s （1995） study in the U.S. context, and changes are examined in two dimensions of managerial discretion from 2001 to 2009. This study contributes a reliable measure of managerial discretion for future organizational and strategic studies, which can help explain the differences in managerial phenomena across different industries in China＇s institutional environment.

作者 Runtian Jing Xuelian Huang ZeyuWang

机构地区 School of Management and Economics

出处《Frontiers of Business Research in China》 2014年第1期98-112,共15页 中国高等学校学术文摘·工商管理研究（英文版）

关键词 managerial discretion industry categories market power environ-mental dynamics managerial discretion, industry categories, market power, environ-mental dynamics

分类号 D922.1 [政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献31

1Abrahamson, E., & Hambrick, D.C. 1997. Attentional homogeneity in industries: The effect of discretion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(SI): 513-532.
2Child, J. 1972. Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1): 1-22.
3Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. 2011. Difference in managerial discretion across countries: How nation-level institutions affect the degree to which CEOs matter. Strategic Management Journal, 32(8): 797-819.
4Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. 1984. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1): 71-93.
5Dimaggio, P. J, & Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage and corporate revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147-160.
6Espedal, B. 2007. Why rules rather than discretion: When the leadership intends to transform a desired policy into reality. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(1): 95-108.
7Finkelstein, S., & Boyd, B. K. 1998. How much does the CEO matter? The role of managerial discretion in the setting of CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 41(2): 179-199.
8Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. 1990. Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3): 484-503.
9Goll, I., Johnson, N. B., & Rasheed, A. A. 2008. Top management team demographic characteristics, business strategy, and firm performance in the US airline industry: The role of managerial discretion. Management Decision, 46(2): 201-222.
10Hambrick, D. C., & Abrahamson, E. 1995. Assessing managerial discretion across industries: A multi-method approach. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1427-1441.