DISCUSSION
Five
out of our seven direct-effect hypotheses were supported. We found
empirical support at the organizational level for the idea that
opportunity/threat frames explain significant variability in risk
perception and significant variability in a risky, consequential
organizational decision. Similarly, inertia, risk propensity and
perceived risk explained significant variability in the same consequential
risky decision. We were encouraged to find that the majority of
the predicted relationships held up using an objective measure
of risky decision making.
Support
also was found for the prediction that risk propensity partially
mediates the effects of inertia on risky decision making. In addition,
our prediction that risk perception partially mediates the effects
of problem framing on risky decision making revealed that risk
perception acted as a suppressor, revealing an interesting dynamic
related to how problem framing and risk perception may work together
to impact risky decision making.
The
primary intent of this analysis was to provide an organizational
level field test of a portion of Sitkin and Pablo's model (1992).
Overall, our analyses suggest that a variation of Sitkin and Pablo's
model can be extended to the organizational level of analysis
and strongly support the inclusion of risk perception and risk
propensity in models of risky decision making behavior in order
to improve our understanding of the mechanisms through which antecedent
predictors operate. However, the issue of whether risk perception
and risk propensity act as full or partial mediators of the effects
of problem framing, inertia and other antecedent predictors on
risky decision making remains an empirical question.
REFERENCES
Baird,
I. S., & Thomas, H. 1985. Toward a contingency model of strategic
risk taking. Academy of Management Review, 10: 230-243.
Douglas,
M. 1985. Risk acceptability according to the social sciences,
NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hambrick,
D., & Mason, P. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as
a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review,
9: 193-206.
Jackson,
S. & Dutton, J. 1988. Discerning threats from opportunities.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 33:370-387
James,
L., Demaree R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69: 85-98.
Kahneman,
& Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions
under risk. Econometrica, 47: 263-291.
MacCrimmon,
K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. 1986. Taking risks: The management
of uncertainty. New York: The Free Press.
Medsker,
G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. 1994. A review of
current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational
behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management,
20: 439 464.
Miles,
R.E. & Creed, W.E.D. 1995. Organizational forms and managerial
philosophies: A descriptive and analytic review. In L.L. Cummings
& B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich:
JAI Press 1-37.
Rousseau,
D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level
and cross-level perspectives. In L.L. Cummings & B. M. Staw
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich: JAI Press,
333-372
Sitkin,
S. B., & Pablo, A. L. 1992. Reconceptualizing the determinants
of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17: 9-39.
Sitkin,
S. B., & Weingart, L. R. 1995. Determinants of risky decision-making
behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and
risk propensity. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1573-1592.
Staw,
B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat-rigidity
effects in organizational behavior: A multi-level analysis. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21: 378-397.
Wilkinson,
L., & Hill, M. A. 1994. Advanced applications: SYSTAT for
DOS. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT, Inc.
Research
Home - Page 1 | 2
| 3 | 4
| 5 | < PREV
