Teams, Autonomy, and the Financial Performance of Firms

DeVaro, Jed

doi:10.1111/j.1468-232x.2006.00425.x

Cited by 49 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results are aligned with previous studies linking individual SL practices to aspects of corporate financial performance. Some supporting literature linking these practices to favorable financial performance include amicable labor relations [77], valuing employees [19,78], social responsibility [53,79], plus a strong and shared vision [45,51].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Leadership Practices Driving Financial Performance: Empirical Evidence from Thai SMEs

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many managers and researchers alike are asking: What does an enterprise need to do to generate a proper balance between economic, social, and ecological objectives while gaining superior corporate financial performance, resilience, and sustainability? Several leadership concepts for enhancing organizational sustainability have emerged in recent years, but none provides an integrative approach, with the exception of Sustainable Leadership (SL). However, empirical research examining the effects of various SL practices on financial performance and other business outcomes is lacking. This article addresses this gap by empirically investigating the relationships between 23 SL practices and financial performance. Using a cross-sectional survey, data stem from 439 managers in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Thailand. Of the 23 SL practices in SL, 16 were significantly associated with corporate financial performance. Four SL practices, in particular-amicable labor relations, valuing employees, social responsibility, plus strong and shared vision-were significant drivers, and positive predictors, of enhanced long-term firm performance. Lastly, implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Leadership Practices Driving Financial Performance: Empirical Evidence from Thai SMEs

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The specification for each equation is detailed in the appendix. More discussion of the exclusion restrictions and their justification on the basis of theory, previous empirical work, and independent tests confirming that the variables appear unimportant in the equations from which they are excluded, can be found in DeVaro (2004aDeVaro ( , 2004b.…”

Section: Stage 1: Estimating Structural Models Of Teams Autonomy Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2004a, 2004b, Hamilton, Nickerson, and Owan 2003, Boning, Ichniowski, and Shaw 2003 and are sometimes one of a number of high performance practices that are analyzed together (e.g. Eriksson 2003, Black and Lynch 2001, Ichniowski, Shaw, and Prennushi 1997.…”

Section: Previous Research On Firm Characteristics and The Benefimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples of studies taking this approach include Black and Lynch 2004, DeVaro 2004a, 2004b, Eriksson 2003, Kato and Morishima 2002, Neumark and Cappelli 2001, Caroli and van Reenen 2001, and Black and Lynch 2001 Like case studies, broader samples of firms can shed light on the question of whether and how organizations benefit from teams. In addition, these data are somewhat more conducive to…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These models were proposed and estimated in a pair of recent related papers (DeVaro 2004a(DeVaro , 2004b. The first of these considered financial performance (interpreted as profit) as the measure of organizational performance, and the second considered labor productivity and product quality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What Types of Organizations Benefit from Team Production, and How Do They Benefit?

DeVaro¹,

Kurtulus²

Participation in the Age of Globalization and Information

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract[Excerpt] Using data from a large cross section of British establishments, we ask how different firm characteristics are associated with the predicted benefits to organizational performance from using team production. To compute the predicted benefits from using team production, we estimate structural models for financial performance, labor productivity, and product quality, treating the firm's choices of whether or not to use teams and whether or not to grant teams autonomy as endogenous. One of the main results is that many firm characteristics are associated with larger predicted benefits from teams to labor productivity and product quality but smaller predicted benefits to financial performance. For example, this is true for union recognition as measured by the number of recognized unions in an establishment. Similarly, when a particular firm characteristic is associated with lower benefits from teams to labor productivity or product quality, the same characteristic is frequently associated with higher predicted benefits to financial performance. This is true for the degree of financial participation and employee ownership and also for establishment size and a number of industries. These results highlight the advantages of analyzing broader measures of organizational performance that are more inclusive of the wide spectrum of benefits and costs associated with teams than the labor productivity measures frequently studied in the teams literature. KeywordsBritish, firm, characteristics, team production, performance, model, financial, labor, productivity, product, quality, autonomy, endogenous, benefit, cost Abstract Using data from a large cross section of British establishments, we ask how different firm characteristics are associated with the predicted benefits to organizational performance from using team production. To compute the predicted benefits from using team production, we estimate structural models for financial performance, labor productivity, and product quality, treating the firm's choices of whether or not to use teams and whether or not to grant teams autonomy as endogenous. One of the main results is that many firm characteristics are associated with larger predicted benefits from teams to labor productivity and product quality but smaller predicted benefits to financial performance. For example, this is true for union recognition as measured by the number of recognized unions in an establishment. Similarly, when a particular firm characteristic is associated with lower benefits from teams to labor productivity or product quality, the same characteristic is frequently associated with higher predicted benefits to financial performance. This is true for the degree of financial participation and employee ownership and also for establishment size and a number of industries. These results highlight the advantages of analyzing broader measures of organizational performance that are more inclusive of the wide spectrum of benefits and costs associated with teams than the labor productivity me...

show abstract