Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe article's purpose is to address complementary perspectives for managing uncertainty by looking at a historical example.Design/methodology/approachThis is done using a case study of the experience of ancient Greek mercenaries that fought in and out of Persia over two years and approximately 2,000 miles.FindingsAn unexpected finding is that the size of an organization can be instrumental to its environment fit.Research limitations/implicationsAn implication is that the application of existing models to the historical example suggests existing perspectives of change do not appear adequate individually in explaining or preparing organizations for change.Practical implicationsA wider implication of the study involves confirming the need for research and society to better understand the role of organization politics in outcomes.Originality/valueThe study uses a unique historical example to examine organizational responses to uncertainty that range between rational and haphazard explanations and it offers insights for management thought and practice today.

Consolidation of the defense industrial base has led to concerns about whether enough competition exists between remaining firms to maintain needed cost reduction and innovation. We examine competition in the U.S. defense industrial base by performing an in‐depth case study of Lockheed Martin and the F‐22 program that considers multiple tiers of the industrial base. We find that defense firm specialization has led to outsourcing practices and arguably a more robust U.S. defense industrial base. Implications for government policy are identified. (JEL H57, O38, D43, L14)

The process of identifying and evaluating a target firm, completing a deal after its negotiation and announcement, and then integrating a target firm after legal combination is a multi-year process with uncertain returns to acquiring firms. Research on mergers and acquisitions (M&As) is progressing rapidly yet it remains fragmented across multiple research perspectives that largely examine different acquisition phases separately and coincide with a focus on different research variables. As a result, research fragmentation means that a researcher in one area may be unaware of research from related areas that is likely relevant. This contributes to research silos with M&A research displaying different traditions, starting points, and assumptions. Mergers and Acquisitions: A Research Overview summarizes the frontier in M&A research and provides insights into where it can be expanded. It undertakes the needed integration and reconciliation of research in order to derive practical knowledge for managing acquisitions from beginning to end, providing a summary of what is known and its implications for future research. This concise overview reconciles and integrates the state of the art in our understanding of mergers and acquisitions, providing an essential first stopping point in the research journey of students and scholars working in this area.

We explore the role of resource interactions in explaining firm performance in the context of acquisitions. Although we confirm that acquisitions do not lead to higher performance on average, we do find that complementary resource profiles in target and acquiring firms are associated with abnormal returns. Specifically, we find that acquiring firm marketing resources and target firm technology resources positively reinforce (complement) each other; meanwhile, acquiring and target firm technology resources negatively reinforce (substitute) one another. Implications for management theory and practice are identified.

Care during mass casualty events (MCE) has improved during the last 15 years. Military and civilian collaboration has led to partnerships which augment the response to MCE. Much has been written about strategies to deliver care during an MCE, but there is little about how to transition back to normal operations after an event. A panel discussion entitled The Day(s) After: Lessons Learned from Trauma Team Management in the Aftermath of an Unexpected Mass Casualty Event at the 76th Annual American Association for the Surgery of Trauma meeting on September 13, 2017 brought together a cadre of military and civilian surgeons with experience in MCEs. The events described were the First Battle of Mogadishu (1993), the Second Battle of Fallujah (2004), the Bagram Detention Center Rocket Attack (2014), the Boston Marathon Bombing (2013), the Asiana Flight 214 Plane Crash (2013), the Baltimore Riots (2015), and the Orlando Pulse Night Club Shooting (2016). This article focuses on the lessons learned from military and civilian surgeons in the days after MCEs.

Care during mass casualty events (MCE) has improved during the last 15 years. Military and civilian collaboration has led to partnerships which augment the response to MCE. Much has been written about strategies to deliver care during an MCE, but there is little about how to transition back to normal operations after an event. A panel discussion entitled The Day(s) After: Lessons Learned from Trauma Team Management in the Aftermath of an Unexpected Mass Casualty Event at the 76th Annual American Association for the Surgery of Trauma meeting on September 13, 2017 brought together a cadre of military and civilian surgeons with experience in MCEs. The events described were the First Battle of Mogadishu (1993), the Second Battle of Fallujah (2004), the Bagram Detention Center Rocket Attack (2014), the Boston Marathon Bombing (2013), the Asiana Flight 214 Plane Crash (2013), the Baltimore Riots (2015), and the Orlando Pulse Night Club Shooting (2016). This article focuses on the lessons learned from military and civilian surgeons in the days after MCEs.

Importance: Trauma is the leading cause of death for US individuals younger than 45 years, and uncontrolled hemorrhage is a major cause of trauma mortality. The US military's medical advancements in the field of prehospital hemorrhage control have reduced battlefield mortality by 44%. However, despite support from many national health care organizations, no integrated approach to research has been made regarding implementation, epidemiology, education, and logistics of prehospital hemorrhage control by layperson immediate responders in the civilian sector. Objective: To create a national research agenda to help guide future work for prehospital hemorrhage control by laypersons. Evidence Review: The 2-day, in-person, National Stop the Bleed (STB) Research Consensus Conference was conducted on February 27 to 28, 2019, to identify and achieve consensus on research gaps. Participants included (1) subject matter experts, (2) professional society-designated leaders, (3) representatives from the federal government, and (4) representatives from private foundations. Before the conference, participants were provided a scoping review on layperson prehospital hemorrhage control. A 3-round modified Delphi consensus process was conducted to determine high-priority research questions. The top items, with median rating of 8 or more on a Likert scale of 1 to 9 points, were identified and became part of the national STB research agenda. Findings: Forty-five participants attended the conference. In round 1, participants submitted 487 research questions. After deduplication and sorting, 162 questions remained across 5 a priori-defined themes. Two subsequent rounds of rating generated consensus on 113 high-priority, 27 uncertain-priority, and 22 low-priority questions. The final prioritized research agenda included the top 24 questions, including 8 for epidemiology and effectiveness, 4 for materials, 9 for education, 2 for global health, and 1 for health policy. Conclusions and Relevance: The National STB Research Consensus ...