Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-4n89n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-21T19:38:28.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invest in Innovation or Not? How Managerial Cognition and Attention Allocation Shape Corporate Responses to Performance Shortfalls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2021

Lerong He ,
Liying Huang  and
Guangqing Yang
Lerong He*
Affiliation:
Fuzhou University, China State University of New York College at Brockport, USA
Liying Huang
Affiliation:
WuYi University, China
Guangqing Yang
Affiliation:
MinJiang University, China
*
Corresponding author: Lerong He (lhe@brockport.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the influence of managerial cognition and attention allocation on firms’ responses to negative performance feedback. We explore how managerial cognition, as shaped by managers’ experiences, connections, positions, and industry environments, affects underperforming firms’ attention allocation and, consequently, their decisions to invest in innovation. Utilizing a longitudinal sample of Chinese high-tech firms from 2009 to 2017, we find that firms increase investment in research and development (R&D) when performance falls below aspiration levels. We also document that underperforming firms are associated with an even larger R&D investment increase when their CEOs have an R&D or engineering background, serve simultaneously as the board chair, or are not politically connected. In addition, we highlight the moderating effects of industry competition and industry norms on the relationship between firm underperformance and R&D intensity. We conclude that managerial cognition affects firms’ allocation of attention to innovation as a solution for closing performance gaps and shapes corporate responses to negative performance feedback.

摘要

本文研究高管认知与注意力分配对企业面临负面绩效反馈时所采取的反应。具体而言，本文探讨了高管的认知能力—由其经历、关系、职位和行业环境所塑造的-- 对绩效下滑企业的管理者注意力分配以及企业创新投资行为的影响。作者对2009年至2017年期间在深圳创业板上市的高新技术企业数据进行了分析，发现当业绩低于期望水平时，企业会增加研发投入。而且，创新研发投入在CEO本人兼任董事长、有工程或研发背景、或者没有政治联系时，幅度更大。此外，行业竞争强度以及行业研发投入强度对企业在业绩下滑时的研发投入也具有调节作用。总而言之，高管认知会直接影响企业是否把注意力放在创新上作为应对企业业绩下滑的解决方法。

Keywords

attention-based viewinnovationmanagerial cognitionperformance feedback theoryR&D注意力基础观绩效反馈机制高管认知研发投入创新
Type
Special Issue Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 17 , Special Issue 4: Remembering James G. March , October 2021 , pp. 815 - 850
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Guest Editor Bilian Sullivan

References

REFERENCES

Adams, R., & Ferreira, D. 2007. A theory of friendly boards. Journal of Finance, 62(1): 217–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahuja, G., Lampert, C. M., & Tandon, V. 2008. Moving beyond Schumpeter: Management research on the determinants of technological innovation. Academy of Management Annals, 2(10): 1–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audia, P. G., & Brion, S. 2007. Reluctant to change: Self-enhancing responses to diverging performance measures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102: 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audia, P. G., & Greve, H. 2006. Less likely to fail? Low performance, firm size, and factory expansion in the shipbuilding industry. Management Science, 52(1): 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, V. L. III, & Mueller, G. 2002. CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Management Science, 48(6): 782–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belloc, F. 2012. Corporate governance and innovation: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(5): 835–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blettner, D., He, Z., Hu, S., & Bettis, R. 2015. Adaptive aspirations and performance heterogeneity: Attention allocation among multiple reference points. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7): 987–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogner, W., & Barr, P. 2000. Marking sense in hypercompetitive environments: A cognitive explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Organization Science, 11(2): 212–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromiley, P., & Washburn, M. 2011. Cost reduction vs innovative search in R&D. Journal of Strategy and Management, 4(3): 196–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, W., & Miller, K. 2007. Situational and institutional determinants of firms’ R&D search intensity. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4): 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, T. S., & Hambrick, D. 2006. Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: The case of airline deregulation. Organization Science, 17(4): 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conyon, M., He, L., & Zhou, X. 2015. Star CEOs or political connections? Evidence from China's publicly traded firms. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 42(3–4): 412–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cull, R., Li, W., Sun, B., & Xu, L. C. 2015. Government connections and financial constraints: Evidence from a large representative sample of Chinese firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 32: 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R., & March, J. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Day, D. V., & Lord, R. G. 1992. Expertise and problem categorization: The role of expert processing in organizational sense-making. Journal of Management Studies, 29(1): 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desai, V. 2016. The behavioral theory of the (governed) firm: Corporate board influences on organizations’ responses to performance shortfalls. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3): 860–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowell, G. W., Shackell, M. B., & Stuart, N. V. 2011. Boards, CEOs, and surviving a financial crisis: Evidence from the internet shakeout. Strategic Management Journal, 32(10): 1025–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duran, P., Kammerlander, N., van Essen, M., & Zellweger, T. 2016. Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4): 1224–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. 1987. Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12(1): 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. 2009. Cognition and renewal: Comparing CEO and organizational effects on incumbent adaptation to technical change. Organization Science, 20(2): 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. 2013. Cognition and capabilities: A multi-level perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1): 295–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, J. P., & Kaul, A. 2018. Motivation and ability? A behavioral perspective on the pursuit of radical invention in multi-technology incumbents. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1): 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, J. P., & Song, L. 2015. Dealing with failure: Serial entrepreneurs and the costs of changing industries between ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6): 1785–1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, J. P., & Suh, J. 2019. Experience and behavior: How negative feedback in new versus experienced domains affects firm action and subsequent performance. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2): 309–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Making fast strategic decisions in high velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3): 543–576.Google Scholar
Faccio, M., McConnell, J., & Masulis, R. W. 2006. Political connections and corporate bailouts. Journal of Finance, 61(6): 2597–2635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, J. P., Wong, T. J., & Zhang, T. 2007. Politically connected CEOs, corporate governance, and post-IPO performance of China's newly partially privatized firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 84(2): 330–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, S., & D'Aveni, R. 1994. CEO duality as a double-edged sword: How boards of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5): 1079–1108.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D., & Cannella, A. 2009. Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gaba, V., & Joseph, J. 2013. Corporate structure and performance feedback: Aspirations and adaptation in M-form firms. Organization Science, 24(4): 1102–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galasso, A., & Simcoe, T. 2011. CEO overconfidence and innovation. Management Science, 57(8): 1469–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garg, V. K., Walters, B. A., & Priem, R. L. 2003. Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental dynamism, and manufacturing firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24(8): 725–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1): 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavetti, G., Greve, H., Levinthal, D., & Ocasio, W. 2012. The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, H. 1998. Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1): 58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, H. 2003. A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6): 685–702.Google Scholar
Greve, H. 2010. Positional rigidity: Low performance and resource acquisition in large and small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 32(1): 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, H., & Gaba, V. 2017. Performance feedback in organizations and groups: Common themes. In Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational learning: 315–337. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greve, H., & Taylor, A. 2000. Innovations as catalysts for organizational change: Shifts in organizational cognition and search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1): 54–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. 1987. Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9: 369–406.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top management. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193–206.Google Scholar
He, J. Y., & Wang, H. C. 2009. Innovation knowledge assets and economic performance: The asymmetric roles of incentives and monitoring. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5): 919–938.Google Scholar
Heath, C., & Tversky, A. 1991. Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(1): 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, K., Tsai, W., & Chen, M. 2015. If they can do it, why not us? Competitors as reference points for justifying escalation of commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1): 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, S., Blettner, D., & Bettis, R. A. 2011. Adaptive aspirations: Performance consequences of risk preferences at extremes and alternative reference groups. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13): 1426–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, A., & Audia, P. 2012. Self-enhancement and learning from performance feedback. Academy of Management Review, 37(2): 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, J., Klingebiel, R., & Wilson, A. 2016. Organizational structure and performance feedback: Centralization, aspirations, and termination decisions. Organization Science, 27(5): 1065–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, S. 2008. Cognition, capabilities and incentives: Assessing firm response to the fiber-optic revolution. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4): 672–695.Google Scholar
Keats, B., & Hitt, M. 1988. A causal model of linkage among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3): 570–598.Google Scholar
Kim, J. Y., Finkelsteis, S., & Haleblian, J. 2015. All aspirations are not created equal: The differential effects of historical and social aspirations on acquisition behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5): 1361–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 215–233.Google Scholar
Krause, R., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, J. A. 2014. CEO duality: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 40(1): 256–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuusela, P., Keli, T., & Maula, M. 2017. Driven by aspirations, but in what direction? Performance shortfalls, slack resources, and resource-consuming vs. resource-freeing organizational change. Strategic Management Journal, 38(5): 1101–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., Meng, L., Wang, Q., & Zhou, L. 2008. Political connections, financing, and firm performance: Evidence from Chinese private firms. Journal of Development Economics, 87(2): 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., & Zhang, Y. 2007. The role of managers’ political networking and functional experience in new venture performance: Evidence from China's transition economy. Strategic Management Journal, 28(8): 791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., & Tang, Y. 2010. CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1): 45–68.Google Scholar
Lieberman, M., & Asaba, S. 2006. Why do firms imitate each other? Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 366–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G., Knoben, J., & Meeus, M. 2018. Contradictory yet coherent? Inconsistency in performance feedback and R&D investment change. Journal of Management, 44(2): 658–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lv, D., Chen, W., Zhu, H., & Lan, H. 2019. How does inconsistent negative performance feedback affect the R&D investments of firms? A study of publicly listed firms. Journal of Business Research, 102: 151–162.Google Scholar
March, J., & Simon, H. 1958. Organizations. New York: Willey.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1991. Stale in the saddle: CEO tenure and the match between organization and environment. Management Science, 37(1): 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskowitz, G. B. 2005. Social cognition: Understanding self and others. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Nadkarni, S., & Barr, P. S. 2008. Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: An integrated view. Strategic Management Journal, 29(13): 1395–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadkarni, S., & Chen, J. 2014. Bridging yesterday, today, and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6): 1810–1833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1): 187–206.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocasio, W. 2011. Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22(5): 1286–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocasio, W., Rhee, L., & Milner, D. 2020. Attention, knowledge, and organizational learning. In Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of group and organizational learning: 81–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peng, M., & Luo, Y. 2000. Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 486–501.Google Scholar
Posen, H., Kell, T., Kim, S., & Meissner, F. 2018. Renewing research on problemistic search: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1): 208–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudy, B., & Johnson, A. 2016. Performance, aspirations, and market versus nonmarket investment. Journal of Management, 42(4): 936–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, C., Keck, S., & Tang, W. 2020. Biased interpretation of performance feedback: The role of CEO overconfidence. Strategic Management Journal, 41(6): 1139–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, J. 1911. The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shimizu, K. 2007. Prospect theory, behavioral theory, and the threat-rigidity thesis: Combinative effects on organizational decisions to divest formerly acquired units. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1495–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souder, D., & Shaver, J. 2010. Constraints and incentives for making long horizon corporate investments. Strategic Management Journal, 31(12): 1316–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat-rigidity effects in organizational-behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4): 501–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuggle, C. S., Sirmon, D. G., Reutzel, C. R., & Bierman, L. 2010. Commanding board of director attention: Investigating how organizational performance and CEO duality affect board members’ attention to monitoring. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9): 946–968.Google Scholar
Tushman, M., & O'Reilly, C. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4): 8–29.Google Scholar
Vissa, B., Greve, H., & Chen, W. 2010. Business group affiliation and firm search behavior in India: Responsiveness and focus of attention. Organization Science, 21(3): 696–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, J. 2011. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wu, J. 2011. Asymmetric roles of business ties and political ties in product innovation. Journal of Business Research, 64(11): 1151–1156.Google Scholar
Yu, W., Minniti, M., & Nason, R. 2019. Underperformance duration and innovative search: Evidence from the high-tech manufacturing industry. Strategic Management Journal, 40(5): 836–861.Google Scholar