All risk-taking is not the same: examining the competing effects of firm risk-taking with meta-analysis

Mathias Arrfelt, Michael Mannor, Jennifer Craig, Amanda L. Christensen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Although researchers have vigorously studied organizational risk-taking for over 35 years, relatively little emphasis has been placed on theoretically differentiating the unique relationships between the many risk-taking choices organizations make and firm risk or firm performance. In this research, we propose a new framework that builds from March’s exploration–exploitation model to argue that different risk-taking choices can have substantially different influences on firm outcomes. We use meta-analysis to examine the unique and at times competing effects of four of the most commonly studied risk-taking choices on firm risk and firm performance. Results from a meta-analysis of 257 unique studies (N = 499,808) demonstrate support for our proposed framework and cast significant doubt on the idea that commonly studied firm risk-taking choices theoretically aggregate into one overarching risk-taking construct.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-40
Number of pages40
JournalReview of Managerial Science
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Nov 18 2016

Fingerprint

Firm risk
Meta-analysis
Risk taking
Firm performance

Keywords

  • Firm risk
  • Meta-analysis
  • Risk-taking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Business, Management and Accounting(all)

Cite this

All risk-taking is not the same : examining the competing effects of firm risk-taking with meta-analysis. / Arrfelt, Mathias; Mannor, Michael; Craig, Jennifer; Christensen, Amanda L.

In: Review of Managerial Science, 18.11.2016, p. 1-40.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a1a12f3b7cdd491aba1c1ba4ad19f016,
title = "All risk-taking is not the same: examining the competing effects of firm risk-taking with meta-analysis",
abstract = "Although researchers have vigorously studied organizational risk-taking for over 35 years, relatively little emphasis has been placed on theoretically differentiating the unique relationships between the many risk-taking choices organizations make and firm risk or firm performance. In this research, we propose a new framework that builds from March’s exploration–exploitation model to argue that different risk-taking choices can have substantially different influences on firm outcomes. We use meta-analysis to examine the unique and at times competing effects of four of the most commonly studied risk-taking choices on firm risk and firm performance. Results from a meta-analysis of 257 unique studies (N = 499,808) demonstrate support for our proposed framework and cast significant doubt on the idea that commonly studied firm risk-taking choices theoretically aggregate into one overarching risk-taking construct.",
keywords = "Firm risk, Meta-analysis, Risk-taking",
author = "Mathias Arrfelt and Michael Mannor and Jennifer Craig and Christensen, {Amanda L.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1007/s11846-016-0225-9",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--40",
journal = "Review of Managerial Science",
issn = "1863-6683",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - All risk-taking is not the same

T2 - examining the competing effects of firm risk-taking with meta-analysis

AU - Arrfelt, Mathias

AU - Mannor, Michael

AU - Craig, Jennifer

AU - Christensen, Amanda L.

PY - 2016/11/18

Y1 - 2016/11/18

N2 - Although researchers have vigorously studied organizational risk-taking for over 35 years, relatively little emphasis has been placed on theoretically differentiating the unique relationships between the many risk-taking choices organizations make and firm risk or firm performance. In this research, we propose a new framework that builds from March’s exploration–exploitation model to argue that different risk-taking choices can have substantially different influences on firm outcomes. We use meta-analysis to examine the unique and at times competing effects of four of the most commonly studied risk-taking choices on firm risk and firm performance. Results from a meta-analysis of 257 unique studies (N = 499,808) demonstrate support for our proposed framework and cast significant doubt on the idea that commonly studied firm risk-taking choices theoretically aggregate into one overarching risk-taking construct.

AB - Although researchers have vigorously studied organizational risk-taking for over 35 years, relatively little emphasis has been placed on theoretically differentiating the unique relationships between the many risk-taking choices organizations make and firm risk or firm performance. In this research, we propose a new framework that builds from March’s exploration–exploitation model to argue that different risk-taking choices can have substantially different influences on firm outcomes. We use meta-analysis to examine the unique and at times competing effects of four of the most commonly studied risk-taking choices on firm risk and firm performance. Results from a meta-analysis of 257 unique studies (N = 499,808) demonstrate support for our proposed framework and cast significant doubt on the idea that commonly studied firm risk-taking choices theoretically aggregate into one overarching risk-taking construct.

KW - Firm risk

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Risk-taking

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995776531&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84995776531&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11846-016-0225-9

DO - 10.1007/s11846-016-0225-9

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84995776531

SP - 1

EP - 40

JO - Review of Managerial Science

JF - Review of Managerial Science

SN - 1863-6683

ER -