Management mistakes as causes of corporate crises: Managerial implications for countries in transition

Dubrovski, Drago

doi:10.1080/14783360802614281

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hall, 1992) have sought to capture only the most important reason for business failure. Yet, such an approach is contrary to the assumption that there are usually a multitude of reasons for business failure (Dubrovski, 2009). While the evidence about what constitutes the most frequent reason for business failure remains mixed, various empirical studies (e.g.…”

Section: Reasons For Business Failurementioning

confidence: 68%

Firm Bankruptcy Probability and Causes: An Integrated Study

Lukason

Hoffman

2014

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the study is to examine the impact of both the number and types of causes of business failure on the failure risk as indicated by values of bankruptcy scores during the process of business decline. Causes of bankruptcy were obtained from court judgments for 70 Estonian manufacturing firms and classified into two taxonomies-the number of causes and the different types of causes of failure such as internal (different management deficiencies) or from factors external to the firm. Bankruptcy scores for the first and second pre-bankruptcy years were calculated using both Ohlson's model and a local (Grünberg's) bankruptcy prediction model. Independent samples median tests were applied to examine, whether different causes are associated with different failure risk. Findings indicate that multiple causes lead to a significantly higher bankruptcy risk than a single cause for the year prior to the declaration of bankruptcy. On the contrary, no significant effect of different types of failure causes was found on the risk of failure. Implications of the results for research and practice are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Reasons For Business Failurementioning

confidence: 68%

Firm Bankruptcy Probability and Causes: An Integrated Study

Lukason

Hoffman

2014

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the recent development of OP measurement frameworks, researchers have highlighted the importance of multiple dimensions instead of solely emphasising the financial one (Dubrovski, 2009;Kennerley & Neely, 2002;Phusavat, Anussornnitisarn, Helo, & Dwight, 2009). Consequently, researchers have developed various multi-dimensional frameworks for OP evaluation in organisational studies (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…A number of CM researchers have thus embraced a multidisciplinary approach that implicitly provides future researchers with clues regarding the main topic of this study (e.g. Dubrovski, 2009;Mitroff, 1994;Mitroff et al, 2004;Pearson & Clair, 1998;Richardson, 1994;Shrivastava & Mitroff, 1987;Smith, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating organisational performance during crises: A multi-dimensional framework

Wang

2012

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of a literature review indicate the lack of an appropriate framework for evaluating organisational performance (OP) during crisis. A lack of appropriate instruments for use in evaluating OP during crises can limit an organisation's ability to improve itself and thus to mitigate the impact of future problems. Consequently, in this study a literature review and an archival data analysis considering multiple crises were conducted to identify key OP indicators and then develop a multidimensional framework for evaluating OP during crises. A case analysis of two energy companies was then carried out to investigate and, subsequently, summarise the relationships between the managerial behaviours related to the indicators identified and OP during crises in eight theoretical propositions. The research findings can be used by organisations as guidelines for developing their own frameworks for evaluating OP during crises, keeping in mind their particular business concerns. Additionally, measurement of OP during crises should be considered a means of challenging assumptions in order to guide and facilitate organisational change for future improvement. As the proposed performance indicators were studied independently, future research that specifically aims to investigate the inter-relationships among these indicators is strongly encouraged.

show abstract

“…In one of these (Dubrovski, 2009) a more or less typical pattern of predominant errors in management was identified as the most important cause of a crisis in the individual periods of the Slovenian economic and social transition. In another study (Dubrovski, 2010), among other things (in connection with the area dealt with here) it was determined from a sample of 107 companies in difficulty that, according to the management's opinion in the majority of these companies, that the key cause of their problems was the global financial and economic crisis as well as changes in the market, with both factors together representing as much as 74.6% of all causes of the crisis.…”

Section: Research Questions Hypotheses and Their Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handling Corporate Crises Based on the Correct Analysis of Its Causes

Dubrovski¹

2016

JFRM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extent of a crisis is simultaneously reflected in several areas, making it a complex or multidimensional phenomenon affecting the economic, social, traditional, psychological and legal aspects of an organization. An analysis of the real causes of a crisis or serious problems in a company's operations, which should not be confused with the symptoms or consequences of a crisis, is extremely important, as it can be used to identify the areas whose effects need to be limited or eliminated. Despite the fact that in business practice there are often suggestions and pressures in the recovery procedure not to deal with the analysis of the causes that brought on the crisis, claiming that it is all in the past and solutions have to be found for the future, the analysis of the real causes for the preparation of a recovery plan of a company is as important as the preparation of the measures to achieve the desired changes. To resolve a crisis, its real causes need to be eliminated or minimised, while working on the wrong causes is just a further waste of time, money and effort, which only makes the crisis situation worse. In the empirical part of the article, using a sample of 164 Slovenian companies in difficulty, the causes, as were listed by the management of these companies, were studied, while two stances were adopted regarding the two set hypotheses.

show abstract

Management mistakes as causes of corporate crises: Managerial implications for countries in transition

Cited by 22 publications

References 16 publications

Firm Bankruptcy Probability and Causes: An Integrated Study

Firm Bankruptcy Probability and Causes: An Integrated Study

Evaluating organisational performance during crises: A multi-dimensional framework

Handling Corporate Crises Based on the Correct Analysis of Its Causes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About