This study explores the relationships between board internationalization, board size, and strategic change of firms from emerging markets. Building upon resource dependency theory (RDT), this study proposes that board internationalization has a positive impact on strategic change. A higher level of nationality heterogeneity on the board of directors, an organization receives more diverse perspectives and experiences from foreign directors. This, in turn, influences firms to identify areas of improvement and engage in strategic change. In addition, conventional wisdom suggests that board size per se has a negative relationship with strategic change. However, this study proposes that large board sizes together with board internationalization can foster strategic change. In other words, board size and board internationalization can jointly counteract the inertial nature of a large board, resulting in strategic change. The analyses of 255 publicly listed firms from nine emerging countries for the 2013–2018 financial years confirm these predictions.

Strategic management scholars have shown increasing interest in explaining strategic change from the perspective of cognitive bias. However, most studies focus on individual cognitive bias but pay little attention to group cognitive bias. This study introduces a typical group cognitive bias (group polarization) to explain strategic change decisions made by the board of directors. Following the theory of group polarization, we argue that, when the average prior strategic change experienced in performance decline by board directors is relatively high (or low), the focal strategic change in performance decline will become even higher (or lower). We further contend that the proportion of female directors and board versus CEO power as the contingencies can mitigate this group polarization effect. Our hypotheses were strongly supported by a longitudinal sample of Chinese publicly listed companies during 2008–2018. The study's framework and findings contribute to the contextualization of social psychology research on group polarization in the study of board's strategic decision-making.

This study examines the effects of two major environmental jolts, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, on strategic change and performance in the U.S. air carrier industry. The sample includes the Major U.S. air carriers during two periods of time: deregulation (1974-1986) and 9/11/2001 (1997-2008). Data were collected from archival sources and analyzed using cross-sectional time series regressions with fixed effects. The results show that following both environmental jolts, the initial response of the airlines was emphasis on cost control. However, over the long run, there was a deceleration of the emphasis on cost control. Further, following deregulation, the long run response involved the acceleration of differentiation change. We also found a significant relationship between strategic change and firm performance. The results contribute towards a reconciliation of the conflicting predictions of the repetitive momentum hypothesis and the deceleration hypothesis.

The relationship between managerial change and strategic change is a complex issue that challenges our understanding of how firms react to their business environment. In this study, we analyse the influence of the management team and more specifically their knowledge and capabilities in the process of strategic change. To do so, we delve deeper into the relationship between managerial change and strategic change by identifying the sequence of these changes. Using qualitative methodology, we analyse 10 companies listed on the Spanish Stock Exchange over an extensive period to formulate our propositions. Our analysis shows that managerial change precedes strategic change. Top management team reorganization, even without Chief Executive Officer succession, was a sufficient condition for strategic change to take place. Moreover, we identified key modifications that took place whenever strategic change occurred. Our results provide meaningful insights into the processes of strategic change within firms that broaden our theoretical knowledge in this area.

This paper examines how the characteristics of CEOs' social networks, such as the size of the network and the strength of the ties, influence strategic flexibility from a strategic change perspective. External social networks can affect strategic flexibility positively. Previous experience with strategic change will influence external social networks differently, in ways that have repercussions for strategic flexibility. The data were gathered from surveys completed by the CEOs of 203 Spanish firms. The methodology used is regression analysis. We observe that external social networks affect strategic flexibility positively, primarily through the greater size of the networks. We also find that the effects vary if previously the organization is involved in a process of strategic change.