رویکرد رفتاری به حاکمیت شرکتی: نظریه‌ها و روش‌شناسی پژوهش‌ها

نوع مقاله: مقاله استخراج شده از پایان نامه

نویسندگان

1 استاد گروه مدیریت بازرگانی دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 کاندیدای دکتری سیاستگذاری بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

3 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد مدیریت دولتی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

بیشتر تحقیقات حاکمیت شرکتی، با تمرکز بررویکرد ساختاری، برپایه نظریه نمایندگی و توسط محققین حوزه حسابداری و مالی انجام‌گرفته و رفتار واقعی اعضای هیئت‌مدیره کمتر مورد مطالعه بوده است. ازاین‌رو، فرایندهای تصمیم‌گیری هیئت‌مدیره به‌عنوان جعبه سیاه، برای محققین حوزه‌های استراتژی و رفتار سازمانی باقی‌مانده است. هدف این تحقیق مروری نظام مند به پژوهش های رویکرد رفتاری به حاکمیت شرکتی  و پاسخ  به این سؤال است که محققین رفتاری از چه نظریه‌ها و روش‌های پژوهشی در حوزه حاکمیت شرکتی استفاده کرده­اند؟. در  این تحقیق فراترکیب، 78 مقاله با شاخص تاثیرگذاری 4.34 کد گذاری شدند و در نتیجه 1404 کد توصیفی و 337 کد محتوایی ثبت گردید. بدین ترتیب، 28 نظریه شناسایی شد که در قالب سه مقوله «نظریه‌های مرتبط با نقش هیئت‌مدیره»، «نظریه‌های عمومی» و «نظریه‌های روانشناسی اجتماعی» دسته‌بندی گردید. نتایج همچنین نشان داد که بیشتر تحقیقات، بنیان نظریه نمایندگی داشته و از روش‌های کمّی و طرح‌های تحقیق مقطعی بهره برده­اند. پیشنهاد می‌گردد نویسندگان در آینده به گردآوری داده‌های اولیه از طریق پیمایش، مصاحبه و مشاهده و بااستفاده از روش‌های کیفی و آمیخته و نیز با طرح‌های تحقیق طولی، به توسعه نظریه‌های اقتضایی برای فهم پویایی‌های فرایندهای هیئت‌مدیره بپردازند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Behavioural Approach to Corporate Governance: Theories and Methodologies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Divandari 1
  • Mohammad Sadegh Hashemi 2
  • Amin Moeinian 3
1 Prof. in Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D. Candidate in Business Policy (Strategic Management), Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 MSc. student in Public Policy, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
Most of the studies oncorporate governance that have been conducted thus far are based on Agency Theory and are mainly focused on the structural approach. These studies which are mostly have done by accounting and finance scholars, do not represent  the board members real behavior and interactions among the players as well. Therefore, the board decision-making processes has remained a black box for those researchers specializing strategy and organizational behavior. This study aims to systematically review the corporate governance  researches  that have been particularly focused on organizational behavior perspective.  The research question is what scholars have published so far on theory and methods in this area of study? We used a systematic literature review applying a qualitative Meta-synthesis approach. We found 140 articles from which 78 articles with average JIF score 4.34, were selected. From coding process we recorded 1404 descriptive and 337 content analysis codes which revealed 28 theories that have been classified in three categories of “Board Role Theories”, “General Theories” and “Social Psychological Theories”. Findings show that until now most of the studies are based on the Agency Theory, using  quantitative  data with cross-sectional research design unable to perfectly explore the processes and dynamics of board meetings. Based on the findings , in order to better understand the processes and dynamics of board members behavior, we suggest that researchers consider mixed research designs  and  collect  primary data from interviews, and direct observations, instead of relying on archival data that comes out  from securities market databases.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Corporate Governance
  • Behavioral Approach
  • Board Processes
  • Systematic Literature Review
  • meta-synthesis
  • Social Psychological Theories

Arun, T. G., & Turner, J. D. (2004). Corporate Governance of Banks in Developing Economies: concepts and issues. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(3), 371-377.

Bailey, B. C. (2009). Board level strategic decison making: Process characteristics and context. Unpublished Qualitative Research Report, Case Western Reserve University, Weatherhead School of Management, Cleveland, OH.

Bailey, B. C., & Peck, S. I. (2013). Boardroom Strategic Decision‐Making Style: Understanding the Antecedents. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(2), 131-146.

Baysinger, B., & Hoskisson, R. E. (1990). The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of management review, 15(1), 72-87.

Ben‐Amar, W., Francoeur, C., Hafsi, T., & Labelle, R. (2013). What makes better boards? A closer look at diversity and ownership. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 85-101.

Bezemer, P.-J., Nicholson, G., & Pugliese, A. (2014). Inside the boardroom: exploring board member interactions. Qualitative research in accounting & management, 11(3), 238-259.

Bezemer, P. J., Nicholson, G., & Pugliese, A. (2018). The influence of board chairs on director engagement: A case‐based exploration of boardroom decision‐making. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 26(3), 219-234.

Brundin, E., & Nordqvist, M. (2008). Beyond facts and figures: The role of emotions in boardroom dynamics. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(4), 326-341.

Carpenter, M. A., & Westphal, J. D. (2001). The strategic context of external network ties: Examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 639-660.

Chen, H. L. (2011). Does board independence influence the top management team? Evidence from strategic decisions toward internationalization. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(4), 334-350.

Combs, J. G., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Perryman, A. A., & Donahue, M. S. (2007). The moderating effect of CEO power on the board composition–firm performance relationship. Journal of management studies, 44(8), 1299-1323.

Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of management review, 28(3), 371-382.

Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella Jr, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of management review, 28(3), 371-382.

Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (1998). Meta‐analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic management journal, 19(3), 269-290.

Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Evans, G. (2010). Corporate governance culture-an interview-based ethnography of two boards of directors using grounded theory. The Poznan University of Economics Review, 10(2), 15.

Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 505-538.

Finkelstein, S., & D'aveni, R. A. (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.

Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of management review, 24(3), 489-505.

Gabaldon, P., Kanadlı, S. B., & Bankewitz, M. (2018). How does job-related diversity affect boards' strategic participation? An information-processing approach. Long Range Planning.

Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2004). Context, behavior, and evolution: Challenges in research on boards and governance. International Studies of Management & Organization, 34(2), 11-36.

Gabrielsson, J., & Winlund, H. (2000). Boards of directors in small and medium-sized industrial firms: examining the effects of the board's working style on board task performance. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(4), 311-330.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management learning & education, 4(1), 75-91.

Golden, B. R., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). When will boards influence strategy? Inclination× power= strategic change. Strategic management journal, 22(12), 1087-1111.

Goodstein, J., Gautam, K., & Boeker, W. (1994). The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic management journal, 15(3), 241-250.

Gulati, R., & Westphal, J. D. (1999). Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 473-506.

Gwet, K. L. (2012). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among multiple raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC.

Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update: Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of management review, 9(2), 193-206.

Hambrick, D. C., Werder, A. v., & Zajac, E. J. (2008). New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19(3), 381-385.

Haynes, K. T., & Hillman, A. (2010). The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic management journal, 31(11), 1145-1163.

Hendry, K. P., Kiel, G. C., & Nicholson, G. (2010). How boards strategise: A strategy as practice view. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 33-56.

Huse, M. (1998). Researching the dynamics of board—stakeholder relations. Long Range Planning, 31(2), 218-226.

Huse, M. (2008). Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance The Value Creating Board (pp. 51-72): Routledge.

Huse, M., & Gabrielsson, J. (2008). Context, behaviour and evolution: Challenges in research on boards and governance The Value Creating Board (pp. 28-50): Routledge.

Huse, M., Hoskisson, R., Zattoni, A., & Viganò, R. (2011). New perspectives on board research: Changing the research agenda. Journal of Management & Governance, 15(1), 5-28.

Huse, M., & Zattoni, A. (2008). Trust, firm life cycle, and actual board behavior: Evidence from" one of the lads" in the board of three small firms. International Studies of Management & Organization, 38(3), 71-97.

Ingley, C. B., & Van der Walt, N. T. (2001). The strategic board: The changing role of directors in developing and maintaining corporate capability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 9(3), 174-185.

Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K., & Hill, A. D. (2013). Board composition beyond independence: Social capital, human capital, and demographics. Journal of Management, 39(1), 232-262.

Judge Jr, W. Q., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1992). Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 766-794.

Kanadlı, S. B., Bankewitz, M., & Zhang, P. (2018). Job-related diversity: the comprehensiveness and speed of board decision-making processes—an upper echelons approach. Journal of Management and Governance, 22(2), 427-456.

Kim, B., Burns, M. L., & Prescott, J. E. (2009). The strategic role of the board: The impact of board structure on top management team strategic action capability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(6), 728-743.

Kirkbride, J., Howells, G., Letza, S., Kirkbride, J., Sun, X., & Smallman, C. (2008). Corporate governance theorising: limits, critics and alternatives. International Journal of law and management, 50(1), 17-32.

Knockaert, M., Bjornali, E. S., & Erikson, T. (2015). Joining forces: Top management team and board chair characteristics as antecedents of board service involvement. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(3), 420-435.

Kor, Y. Y. (2006). Direct and interaction effects of top management team and board compositions on R&D investment strategy. Strategic management journal, 27(11), 1081-1099.

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of management review, 24(4), 691-710.

Leblanc, R., & Schwartz, M. S. (2007). The black box of board process: Gaining access to a difficult subject. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5), 843-851.

Liang, Q., Xu, P., & Jiraporn, P. (2013). Board characteristics and Chinese bank performance. Journal of banking & finance, 37(8), 2953-2968.

Mashayekhi, B., & Bazaz, M. S. (2008). Corporate governance and firm performance in Iran. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 4(2), 156-172.

McDonald, M. L., Khanna, P., & Westphal, J. D. (2008). Getting them to think outside the circle: Corporate governance, CEOs' external advice networks, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 453-475.

McNulty, T., & Pettigrew, A. (1999). Strategists on the board. Organization studies, 20(1), 47-74.

Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International journal of qualitative methods, 5(1), 25-35.

Neuman, W., & Robson, K. (2017). Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4 ed.): Pearson.

Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). Women directors' contribution to board decision‐making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception. European Management Review, 7(1), 16-29.

Pearce, J. A. (1995). A structural analysis of dominant coalitions in small banks. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1075-1095.

Pearce, J. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (1983). Attribution theory and strategic decision making: An application to coalition formation. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 119-128.

Pearce, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (1991). The relative power of CEOs and boards of directors: Associations with corporate performance. Strategic management journal, 12(2), 135-153.

Pearce, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (1992). Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective. Journal of management studies, 29(4), 411-438.

Pettigrew, A., & McNulty, T. (1995). Power and influence in and around the boardroom. Human relations, 48(8), 845-873.

Pugliese, A., Bezemer, P. J., Zattoni, A., Huse, M., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Boards of directors' contribution to strategy: A literature review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 292-306.

Pye, A., & Pettigrew, A. (2005). Studying board context, process and dynamics: Some challenges for the future. British Journal of Management, 16(s1), S27-S38.

Qian, X., Zhang, G., & Liu, H. (2015). Officials on boards and the prudential behavior of banks: Evidence from China's city commercial banks. China Economic Review, 32, 84-96.

Rindova, V. P. (1999). What corporate boards have to do with strategy: A cognitive perspective. Journal of management studies, 36(7), 953-975.

Roberts, J. (2001). Trust and control in Anglo-American systems of corporate governance: The individualizing and socializing effects of processes of accountability. Human relations, 54(12), 1547-1572.

Roberts, J., McNulty, T., & Stiles, P. (2005). Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the non‐executive director: Creating accountability in the boardroom. British Journal of Management, 16(s1), S5-S26.

Ruigrok, W., Peck, S. I., & Keller, H. (2006). Board characteristics and involvement in strategic decision making: Evidence from Swiss companies. Journal of management studies, 43(5), 1201-1226.

Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., & Voils, C. I. (2007). Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(1), 99-111.

Schmidt, S. L., & Brauer, M. (2006). Strategic governance: How to assess board effectiveness in guiding strategy execution. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(1), 13-22.

Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 433-440.

Stiles, P. (2001). The impact of the board on strategy: An empirical examination. Journal of management studies, 38(5), 627-650.

Subramaniam, N., Stewart, J., Ng, C., & Shulman, A. (2013). Understanding corporate governance in the Australian public sector: A social capital approach. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(6), 946-977.

Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of management review, 28(3), 397-415.

Tian, J., Haleblian, J., & Rajagopalan, N. (2011). The effects of board human and social capital on investor reactions to new CEO selection. Strategic management journal, 32(7), 731-747.

Tihanyi, L., Ellstrand, A. E., Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2000). Composition of the top management team and firm international diversification. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1157-1177.

Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Morner, M. (2015). Board of directors’ diversity, creativity, and cognitive conflict: The role of board members’ interaction. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(1), 6-24.

Udueni, H. (1999). Power dimensions in the board and outside director independence: Evidence from large industrial UK firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 7(1), 62-72.

Van der Walt, N., & Ingley, C. (2003). Board dynamics and the influence of professional background, gender and ethnic diversity of directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(3), 218-234.

Van Ees, H., Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2009). Toward a behavioral theory of boards and corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 307-319.

Van Puyvelde, S., Brown, W. A., Walker, V., & Tenuta, R. (2018). Board Effectiveness in Nonprofit Organizations: Do Interactions in the Boardroom Matter? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 0899764018762318.

Wan, D., & Ong, C. H. (2005). Board Structure, Process and Performance: evidence from public‐listed companies in Singapore. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(2), 277-290.

Weitzner, D., & Peridis, T. (2011). Corporate governance as part of the strategic process: rethinking the role of the board. Journal of business ethics, 102(1), 33-42.

Westphal, J. D. (1998). Board games: How CEOs adapt to increases in structural board independence from management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 511-537.

Westphal, J. D. (1999). Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 7-24.

Westphal, J. D., & Bednar, M. K. (2005). Pluralistic ignorance in corporate boards and firms' strategic persistence in response to low firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 262-298.

Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. (2000). How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 366-398.

Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. (2006). The other pathway to the boardroom: Interpersonal influence behavior as a substitute for elite credentials and majority status in obtaining board appointments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(2), 169-204.

Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1995). Who shall govern? CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60-83.

Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2013). A behavioral theory of corporate governance: Explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 607-661.

Willems, J., Andersson, F. O., Jegers, M., & Renz, D. O. (2017). A coalition perspective on nonprofit governance quality: Analyzing dimensions of influence in an exploratory comparative case analysis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(4), 1422-1447.

Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1995). Accounting for the explanations of CEO compensation: Substance and symbolism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 283-308.

Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1996). Who shall succeed? How CEO/board preferences and power affect the choice of new CEOs. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 64-90.

Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1998). Toward a behavioral theory of the CEO/board relationship: How research can enhance our understanding of corporate governance practices Navigating change: How CEOs, top teams, and boards steer transformation.

Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 229-239.

Zhang, P. (2013). Power and trust in board–CEO relationships. Journal of Management & Governance, 17(3), 745-765.

Zona, F., & Zattoni, A. (2007). Beyond the black box of demography: Board processes and task effectiveness within Italian firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5), 852-864.

 

جدول 7، نظریه­های استفاده‌شده در مقالات حاکمیت شرکتی با رویکرد رفتاری

ارجاعات (کدها) به‌صورت گزینشی

درصد تکرار

مفاهیم (نظریه­ها)

کد مفهوم

(Baysinger & Hoskisson, 1990; Ben‐Amar et al., 2013; Chen, 2011; Combs et al., 2007; Finkelstein & D'aveni, 1994; Golden & Zajac, 2001; Gulati & Westphal, 1999; McDonald et al., 2008; Pettigrew & McNulty, 1995; Ruigrok et al., 2006; Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003; Tian et al., 2011; Wan & Ong, 2005; Weitzner & Peridis, 2011; Westphal & Zajac, 1995; Zajac & Westphal, 1995)

50%

نظریه نمایندگی

1-1-1

(Ben‐Amar et al., 2013; Gabrielsson & Winlund, 2000; Goodstein et al., 1994; Haynes & Hillman, 2010; Huse & Zattoni, 2008; Johnson et al., 2013; Judge Jr & Zeithaml, 1992; Kim et al., 2009; McNulty & Pettigrew, 1999; Pugliese et al., 2009; Roberts et al., 2005; Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003; Van Puyvelde et al., 2018; Wan & Ong, 2005; Zhang, 2013)

29%

دیدگاه منبع محور (انتخاب­های استراتژیک و نظریه وابستگی منابع)[i]

1-1-2

(Ghoshal, 2005; Johnson et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2009; Roberts, 2001; Roberts et al., 2005; Van Puyvelde et al., 2018; Westphal, 1999; Zhang, 2013)

22%

نظریه خادمیت[ii]

1-1-3

(Gabrielsson & Huse, 2004; Gulati & Westphal, 1999; Huse, 2008; Huse et al., 2011; McDonald et al., 2008; Pearce, 1995; Pearce & Zahra, 1991; Van Ees et al., 2009; Westphal & Milton, 2000)

13%

نظریه شبکه­های اجتماعی

1-1-4

(Chen, 2011; Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Kanadlı et al., 2018; Kor, 2006; Tihanyi et al., 2000)

10%

نظریه رده­های بالای سازمان[iii]

1-1-5

(Daily, Dalton, & Cannella, 2003; Gabrielsson & Huse, 2004; Huse, 2008; Huse et al., 2011; Judge Jr & Zeithaml, 1992; Van Ees et al., 2009; Westphal & Zajac, 2013)

9%

نظریه نهادگرایی[iv]

1-1-6

(Gabrielsson & Huse, 2004; Huse, 1998, 2008; Huse & Zattoni, 2008; Van Ees et al., 2009)

8%

نظریه ذینفعان[v]

1-1-7

(Daily, Dalton, & Cannella, 2003; Huse & Zattoni, 2008; Kim et al., 2009; Pettigrew & McNulty, 1995; Stiles, 2001)

6%

نظریه سیطره مدیریتی[vi]

1-1-8

(Gabrielsson & Huse, 2004; Hambrick et al., 2008; Huse et al., 2011)

4%

رویکردهای قانونی[vii]

1-1-9

(Johnson et al., 2013; Subramaniam et al., 2013; Tian et al., 2011)

4%

نظریه سرمایه اجتماعی

1-1-10

(Westphal & Zajac, 2013)

1%

نظریه نمایندگی واقع­شده در دلِ اجتماع[viii]

1-1-11

(Ben‐Amar et al., 2013; Gabrielsson & Huse, 2004; Huse, 2008; Kim et al., 2009; Pearce & Zahra, 1992; Pye & Pettigrew, 2005; Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003)

9%

نظریه اقتضایی

1-2-1

(Ben‐Amar et al., 2013; Brundin & Nordqvist, 2008; Gabrielsson & Huse, 2004; Huse, 2008; Pye & Pettigrew, 2005)

6%

نظریات تکاملی (یادگیری)

1-2-2

(Bailey & Peck, 2013; Finkelstein & D'aveni, 1994; Gulati & Westphal, 1999)

4%

نظریه سازمان[ix]

1-2-3

(Pettigrew & McNulty, 1995; Stiles, 2001)

3%

نظریه ساختار[x]

1-2-4

(Combs et al., 2007; Finkelstein, 1992; Huse et al., 2011; Johnson et al., 2013; Pye & Pettigrew, 2005; Udueni, 1999; Willems et al., 2017)

9%

قدرت و سیاست در سازمان­ها/نظریه چرخش قدرت[xi]

1-3-1

(Gabaldon et al., 2018; Ingley & Van der Walt, 2001; Rindova, 1999; Torchia et al., 2015; Zona & Zattoni, 2007)

6%

دیدگاه شناختی[xii]

1-3-2

(Forbes & Milliken, 1999; Golden & Zajac, 2001; Westphal & Bednar, 2005; Zand, 1972)

5%

تصمیم­گیری گروه­های کوچک[xiii]

1-3-3

(Gabaldon et al., 2018; Hendry et al., 2010; Schmidt & Brauer, 2006; Stiles, 2001)

5%

فرایند استراتژی[xiv]

1-3-4

(Westphal & Stern, 2006; Westphal & Zajac, 1995; Zajac & Westphal, 1996)

4%

نظریه دسته­بندیِ خود[xv]

1-3-5

(Van Ees et al., 2009; Willems et al., 2017)

3%

نظریه رفتاری از شرکت[xvi]

1-3-6

(Forbes & Milliken, 1999; Zand, 1972)

3%

اثربخشی گروهِ کاری[xvii]

1-3-7

(Westphal, 1998; Westphal & Stern, 2006)

3%

نظریات تأثیرگذاری اجتماعی و مدیریت تأثیرگذاری و نفوذ[xviii]

1-3-8

(Knockaert et al., 2015)

1%

نظریه خودکامیابی[xix]

1-3-9

(Pearce & DeNisi, 1983)

1%

نظریه اِسناد[xx]

1-3-10

(Nielsen & Huse, 2010)

1%

نظریه تهدید کلیشه­ها[xxi]

1-3-11

(Knockaert et al., 2015)

1%

دیدگاه توجه پایه شرکت[xxii]

1-3-12

(Huse et al., 2011)

1%

مدیریت نمادین[xxiii]

1-3-13

 

 

 



[i] Resource base view (Strategic choices, Resource dependency theory)

[ii] Stewardship theory

[iii] Upper echelons theory

[iv] Institutional theory

[v] Stakeholders’ theory

[vi] Managerial hegemony theory

[vii] Legalities perspectives

[viii] Socially situated agency theory

[ix] Organization theory

[x] Structuration theory

[xi] Power and Politics in organizations/Power Circulation Theory

[xii] Cognitive perspective