Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe rapid, yet low-profit, expansion of the production capacity of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) represents a remarkable phenomenon. However, the motivation behind this key operational decision remains underexplored, especially concerning the prioritization of sociopolitical and financial goals in operations management. Drawing on the multiple-goal model in the behavioral theory of the firm (BTOF), the authors' study aims to examine how SOE capacity expansion is driven by performance feedback regarding the sociopolitical goal of employment provision and how SOEs differently prioritize sociopolitical and financial goals based on negative versus positive feedback on the sociopolitical goal.Design/methodology/approachThe authors' study uses panel data on 826 Chinese SOEs in manufacturing industries from 2011 to 2019. The authors employ the fixed-effects model with Driscoll–Kraay standard errors, which are robust to heteroscedasticity, autocorrelation and cross-sectional dependence.FindingsThe authors find that SOEs increase capacity expansion as sociopolitical feedback becomes more negative, but they may not increase capacity expansion in response to positive sociopolitical feedback. Moreover, negative profitability feedback strengthens SOEs' capacity expansion in response to negative sociopolitical feedback. In contrast, negative profitability feedback weakens their response to positive sociopolitical feedback.Originality/valueThe authors' study offers a novel behavioral explanation of SOEs' operational decisions regarding capacity expansion. While the literature has traditionally assumed multiple goals as either hierarchical or compatible, the authors extend the BTOF's multiple-goal model to illuminate when firms pursue sociopolitical and financial goals as compatible (i.e. the activation rule) versus hierarchical (i.e. the sequential rule), thereby reconciling their tension in distinct performance situations. Practically, the authors provide fine-grained insights into how operations managers can prioritize multiple goals when making operational decisions. The authors' study also shows how policymakers can influence SOE operations to pursue sociopolitical goals for public benefit.

Research Summary: The role of corporate political connections (CPC) in global strategy has been examined in a variety of institutional contexts and analyzed from different theoretical perspectives. This literature, along with the articles in this special issue, demonstrate the importance of contextualization in understanding the motivations, processes, and outcomes of firms developing and utilizing CPC in global strategy. We argue that context-specific aspects of CPC, such as the political system in which the firm is operating, need to be incorporated more systematically to advance theory development globally. Future studies on CPC can advance this agenda through cross-country comparative research, deeper engagement with political science literature, linking CPC with other nonmarket strategies, and configurational analysis of the multidimensional context of CPC. Managerial Summary: Multinational companies not only compete in a market environment, they engage with political actors in both their home and host societies. This special issue brings together research that explores how companies use their corporate political connections (CPC) to achieve firm objectives. Each study takes a different approach to studying the phenomenon, informed by the national context of their empirical data. Together, these studies highlight the importance of CPC around the world. However, the variation in research approaches also highlights that the "how and why" of companies' development and utilization of CPC vary across cultures and political systems. In consequence, the development of managerial recommendations always needs to carefully consider the pertinent political context of the available empirical evidence.

Prior evidence suggests that board independence may enhance financial performance, but this relationship has been tested almost exclusively for Anglo-American countries. To explore the boundary conditions of this prominent governance mechanism, we examine the impact of the formal and information institutions of 18 national business systems on the board independence-financial performance relationship. Our results show that while the direct effect of independence is weak, national-level institutions significantly moderate the independence-performance relationship. Our findings suggest that the efficacy of board structures is likely to be contingent on the specific national context, but the type of legal system is insignificant.