THESIS FOR A PHD DISSERTATION

(1)

EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITYFACULTY OF EDUCATION AND PSYCHOLOGY DOCTORAL SCHOOL OF PSYCHOLOGY

Director of Studies: Dr. Attila Oláh, university professor

DOCTORATE PROGRAM FOR SOCIALIZATION AND SOCIAL PROCESSES Director of Studies: Dr. GyörgyHunyady, professor emeritus,

regular member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

THESIS FOR A PHD DISSERTATION

KÁDI ANNA

EXAMINATION OF

ORGANIZATIONALRISKTAKING AND SUCCESS FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS

Director of Studies: Dr. KláraFaragó, professor emeritus

2016

(2)

THESIS STATEMENT. OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH.

In our age, organizations operate in a rapidly changing and complex environment. Research conducted among business organizations verified that proactive organizations, and their senior managers, willing to take the lead proved to be the most successful entities, capable of permanent renewal, innovation and adaptive taking of risks.

Research in the field of economy, scientific management and organizational psychology revealed several links concerning relationships existing between risks versus yields or risk taking versus performance, deemed as attributes influencing success and risk taking and their related factors.

The results of browsing the literature and hands-on experience call one's attention to the extremely complex and antinomic relationship between the risks assumed by organizations and their performance.

Most of the research related to this subject has approached this issue from aspects of scientific management and the science of economy, focusing on objectively measurable resources and factors that can be characterized by technical and economic data and on results and relationships expressed by means of financial ratios and indices, largely ignoring the psychological factors, relationships and processes that promote achievement and sustainment of competitiveness and success. Fairly less researchers analyzed the organizations' success and performance from aspects of psychology and, in turn, most of such efforts tended to ignore the objective economic elements.

By integrating the aspects of psychology, economy and scientific management, the primary objective of my dissertation is to scrutinize empirically the ways the factors and attributes of organizational and management psychology can influence the economic performance and success of the organizations and their willingness to take risks. Furthermore, how can the succes proved by objective results be compared to the success perceived by the organizations' senior managers or how strong is the relationship between the image suggested by representations and objective data, on the one hand, and the variables of strategy, risk taking and organizational psychology, on the other hand.

The research results related to organizational risk taking have been derived from examinations carried out under normal economic circumstances. In the course of studies conducted during the period of economic crisis, I intended to understand the way of thinking of organizations, i.e. how did they judge the opportunities they had during the crisis period, in function of the resources available to them and how did they handle the risks.

(3)

RESEARCH ISSUES

I conducted my research focused on revealing relationships between organizational success and risk taking among Hungarian business enterprises, during the period of economic crisis, i.e. between 2009 and 2015, trying to find answers to the following questions:

How do the organizations evaluate their success and risk taking? How can the subjective perceiving of the organization's success and risk taking be compared to any evaluation based on objective ratios and how can the two methods of assessment be fitted together?

How can the general assessment and perceiving of success be related to the organizational risk taking?

Which are the market and intrapreneurial strategies and the methods of risk taking that character- ize the successful organizations?

Which are the organizational and managerial factors that shape and support the organizations' success and risk taking?

How do the very perception and enduring process of the economic crisis influence the examined relationships?

THE RESEARCH METHOD

The process of research consisted of several phases. A series of in-depth interviews was followed by the development of a set of questionnaires and their testing in the frame of research using small-sample questionnaires. The next phase started with my active participation in 2008. Based on the results of the first two phases, the set of questionnaires was refined in autumn of 2008 when the first signs of the economic crisis became discernible in Hungary, as well. With due regard to that circumstance, we added crisis-related questions to the questionnaire and introduced issues related to trust to the set of the examined variables. The questionnaires were filled after the first phase of the crisis, i.e. in the first half of 2009. It proved to be a most opportune move because the managers could thus distinguish their surmises developed under the former normal management circumstances from the changes they experienced during the economic crisis. In Phase 4 of the research, i.e. by two years following the outbreak of the crisis, i.e. in 2011 and three years later, in 2015, I repeated the research in order to assess the effects produced by the processes prompted by the crisis. In that way, I was able to follow up the changes occurring in terms of risk taking, success and strategy preferences.

(4)

On each of the three occasions, senior managers of Hungarian small and medium size and large enterprises participated in the questionnaire-based tests. In 2009, 224 senior managers of 72 enterprises gave appraisable answers to all questions. In 2011 and 2015, 161 managers of 52 enterprises and 156 managers of 46 enterprises, respectively, filled in validly the questionnaire. On each occasion, the composition of the sample was balanced: the questionnaires were filled by managers of companies different in terms of scope of activities, size, market share, ownership structure and the age of the company. The most significant differences in the samples' composition could be identified in terms of the companies' ownership structure, corporate size and oper- ating form. However, these variables made only a negligible effect on the outcome. No significant difference could be identified in respect to the key characteristics of the altogether 541 managers interviewed during the three periods.

I used questionnaires of two sorts for the research. The managerial questionnaire searched into the following areas: nature of risky decisions and characterization of managers featuring high or low propensity to risk taking, assessment of areas and intensity of organizational risk taking, assessment of the propensity to risk taking, success, competitiveness and their mutual relationship, evaluation of factors influencing the organization's willingness to take risks, finally, self- evaluation of the managers filling in the questionnaire. I examined the organization's success by scrutinizing the following factors:

- Success: evaluation using objective ratios, indices and subjective scoring tables

- Entrepreneurial orientation, market strategies: reacting, waiting for opportunity, pro- activity, aggressive rivalry

- Intrapreneurship: product development, innovation, risk taking (evaluation using objective ratios and subjective scoring)

- Organizational, managerial factors: organizational culture, competition-related values, observation of environment, organizational support, trust, motivation, autonomy, management, providing resources, communication, control/supervision.

The managers evaluated their organization's success and risk taking by granting scores along a 1 to 5 scale. In respect to organizational success, the questionnaire comprised 57 statements where the degree of agreement could be marked again along a 1 to 5 scale.

In the part of the questionnaire developed to describe the general organizational features, the managers compared them with the industry's average, along a 1 to 5 scale, in addition to data suitable for classifying the organization and the managers into categories. Objectivity was further improved by following the method of Wiklund (1999) and Poon et als.(2006), i.e. by in-

(5)

quiring about the level of success on the basis of various aspects and ratios. The objective ratios and subjective scores and items were evaluated by applying an identical approach (1 to 5 scale).

For the purpose of measuring the level of success, I attached the following data: increase of price revenues and profitability relative to the industry's average, return-on-sales ratio, return-on- equity ratio. The basis for measuring objectively the propensity to risk taking was provided by the evaluation of the amount of R&D expenditure and the introduction of new products and services as compared to the industry's average, again along a 1 to 5 scale.

I processed the answers given to the questionnaires by using the SPSS software package used for statistical analysis and applied factor analysis to create aggregate factors based on the statements found in the questionnaires. I analyzed the relationships and deviations by applying correlation calculations, variance and regression analysis. The processability of the data and the reliability and validity of the results are proven by the completed statistical tests.

RESULTS

I describe the results according to the sequence of the inquired research issues.

Judgment of organizational success, distortions in perceiving success

I established the degree of success along a global scale and by evaluating the objective data. My results suggest that the companies tend, in general, to overestimate their success. While analyzing the relationship between the perceived success versus the objective one, I established that such overestimation is primarily characteristic of the enterprises classified, on the basis of their objective data, in the less successful category. On the contrary, the successful companies' self- evaluation proved to be quite accurate and, what is more, the most successful ones tend to under- estimate their success.

Evaluation of organizational risk taking, deviations in assessing the degree of risk taking

When analyzing the issue of risk taking, I examined the activities the senior managers tended to consider an excessively risky undertaking. From among the decisions meant to ensure the company's survival, most of the managers thought that decisions related to the introduction of new products and services, to the innovation needed to improve the existing products and services

(6)

and to the restructuring of the marketing and sales methods tended to generate the most crucial risks. In contrast to that, within the scope of decisions to be made to facilitate further developments, the managers already considered the reform of the system of wages and rewards/bonuses and introduction of new corporate management practices the most risky changes rather than the introduction or improvement of the products and services.

Pursuant to the results of my investigations, the companies positioned themselves to the weak/medium range of risk taking. The risks undertaken to ensure further development exceeded only slightly the risks involved in decisions made to support survival or sustainment.

The question related to the relationshipbetween the global assessment of risk taking and the evaluation of the objective indices emerged also when I examined the level of risk taking. The deviation showed by the average results of evaluations made by using either subjective scoring scales or objective indices was significantly smaller than the deviation experienced in the case of success. The companies showed approximately medium-level risk taking, irrespective of the evaluation method.

Relationship between the organizational risk taking and success – in a one-dimensional approach

When actual questions concerning the relationshipbetweensuccess and risk taking had to be an- swered, the managers theoretically proposed to diminish the risk taking in periods of loss making, saying that a more cautious approach should be chosen, otherwise they face a "the higher the risk taking the higher the probability of loss making" situation. Theoretically, they opt for taking more risks in underperforming periods, i.e. when they undergo losses, in a near-bankruptcy situation and, prefer to assume less risks when they get nearer their pre-set target: accordingly, they presumed dominance of a reverse relationshipbetweenrisk taking and performance, in this specific case. In the proximity of the pre-set targets, when the company does not make losses any more, the relationship reverses again and assumes a positive sign: in that phase, they think that higher performances require higher propensity to take risks. Accordingly, risk takingshould be increased as to avoid bankruptcy or liquidation, while it should be decreased in order to reduce the losses (which means improved performance) and again, risk takingshould be increased if the company intends to improve its profitability. The expected ideal risk taking and the practice ac- tually exercised by the managers fit nicely, except for the behavior adopted near the point of survival, i.e. the higher degree of success entails a higher risk tak-

(7)

ing. In reality, however, the managers refuse to assume more risks in order to handle an excessively loss-making situation and they presume that also other managers will follow the same course.

When I used statistical methods to analyze relationships betweenrisk taking and organizational success and the connection between the success and risk taking indices derived from scales or scores, I proved existence of a positive relationshipon the basis of evaluation of both the objective data and the managers' subjective value judgment. In other words, the successful companies are, in general, characterized by a higher level of risk taking than the unsuccessful ones.

A multifactor model of organizational success and risk taking

In addition to the one-dimensional analysis of relationships betweenrisk taking and success, I scrutinized also the differences observable in the corporate strategies and the organizational and managerial factors linked to such strategies. On the basis of the available literature and the results of Phase I of the research, I developed a model of organizationalsuccess(Kádi, 2013). My research proved the effect made by the examined variables on the organizational successaccording to an arrangement other than that suggested by the work model. The following variables un- folded in my investigation in the wake of the multifactor analysis: beyond the objective and subjective success, being dependent variables, the independent variables can be classified in three groups:

- Rivalry and pro-activity are the two key types of the market strategies.

- Factors of intrapreneurship: innovation, product development and the perceived and the objective risk taking.

- The five groups of the organizational and managerial factors: 1. observation of the environ- mentlinked to the market strategies, 2. a trustful, open and motivating organizational culture, 3. autonomy, authorization, 4. organizational support manifesting in organizational proce- dures and the organization's operations, 5. managerial support.

I performed a regression analysis, as to analyze the relationships. The results revealed a relationship of particularly weak significance between the objective and subjective success,furthermore, I established that other factors played a key role in the development of the objective and the perceived organizational success. The objective risk taking is the most important or, perhaps, the single determining factor of the objectiveorganizational success. Although the direct effect made by organizational and managerial factors on the objectivesuccesscan not be

(8)

verified over the entire period, however, they seem to have some slight negative effect in a few moments of time, arranged according to different patterns. In contrast to that, the role played by the trustful, open and motivating organizational culture is the key determining factor in the development of the perceived success. Every other factor makes only negligible effect and emerges only provisionally.

According to the results of the regression analysis, themanagers' internal representations seemed to arrange the objective conception of successaccording to the generally accepted relationship:

the objectiverisk taking is closely connected with the increase of the revenues and profitability, the rivalry strategy is in positive connection with the same, however, no effect of human factors can be revealed. On the contrary, the subjective perception and internal representation of success shall evolve when mutual trust and communication is present in the organization.

The level of explicative power and reliability of the regression analysis remained low over the entire sample and nothing alluded to that success could be examined only as a dependent variable. When I looked upon success as a resource and considered the objectiverisk taking a dependent variable, the regression analysis revealed that the objectivesuccess determined significantly the degree of objectiverisk taking in each segment of time and, in addition, the effect made by specific organizational managerial factors became apparent in different patterns and having varied power.

I discarded the results produced by the regression analysis and, subsequently, I analyzed the significant relationships detected using correlation analysis and whose strength was at least measurable (r ≥ 0,3, p ≤ 0,05). The relationships revealed among the examined factors as a result of the factor analysis are illustrated by Figure 1 below. In order to understand the manifold relationships existing among the examined variables, I applied variance analysis to analyze the differences recognized between the various factors, according to the level of success. Variance analysis revealed significant differences in respect to both the strategies and the supportive factors provided by the organization, when examined along either the objective and the perceived success, however, the distribution pattern of such differences was fairly divergent. The use of both the intrapreneurial strategies (innovation and risk taking), the market strategies (pro-activity and rivalry) and the positive role played by organizational factors (like autonomy, authorization, organizational support and management) was characteristic, well beyond the average, of the companies found to be the most successful ones according to their objective indices. When analyzing the differences in the mirror of subjectivesuccess, the lack of strategies be-

(9)

came quite conspicuous among the companies considering themselves the least successful ones, in addition to the low level of organizational managerial factors that remained well below the average.

Figure 1:Significant relationships of the examined variables of the organizationalsuccess (r ≥ 0,3, p ≤ 0,05)

Changes in organizational success and risk taking during the economic crisis

The economic crisis made a powerful effect on the ways of perceiving success. Upon recognizing the crisis, the level of perceived success slumped significantly and to a degree unjustified by the actual changes of the objective indices. This suggests that emergence of danger in representation of success affects the representation of success through the assessment of the perspectives.

The crisis restrained, in general, the overestimation of success and, simultaneously, improved, almost in each group, the accuracy of perception of success and the more realistic understanding of the economic situation could result in making more well-grounded decisions. One of the results should, however, be reconsidered: in 2015, nearing the end of the crisis period, the companies tended again to overestimate their success quite significantly. In that period, none of the examined companies considered itself an unsuccessful enterprise, although a true

(10)

evaluation of the objective indices would have justified that option. One could surmise that the very survival of companies capable of staying alive and continuing their operations even nowa- days was considered by them a success in itself even if their business results yet keep lagging behind the industry's average. However, such assumption could be verified reliably only after having conducted a further targeted investigation.

The process of the economic crisis shaped the organizations'risk taking in different ways. Upon recognizing the crisis, the perceived level of risk taking dropped significantly, then increased during the crisis, followed subsequently again by a minor fallback in 2015. Since the beginning of the crisis, the unsuccessful companies constantly perceived their risk takingdeclining. On the basis of the objective indices, however, a significant but only temporary fall of risk taking occurring during the crisis could be demonstrated exclusively among the excessively unsuccessful companies. The successful companies considered their risk taking remaining at a steady level and no significant change could be demonstrated in the level of their perceived risk taking during the examined period, however, a minor fallback of their objectiverisk taking experienced at the outbreak of the crisis was succeeded by a consistent improvement. On the contrary, the outstand- ingly successful companies reacted in an extremely sensitive way: they reported a very powerful fallback in their risk taking upon the first signs of the crisis (while their objective indices marked only some hardly noticeable decrease), then a temporary fallback in this regard was followed by an increase by leaps and bounds, according to their objective data and subjective judgment, as well, followed again by a mild slump in 2015.

The transformation of the relationshipbetweensuccess and risk taking could be attributed to the changes experienced in the level of success and the perception of success, on the one hand and in the changes observed in the taking to take risks, on the other hand.

Examination of organizational success during the economic crisis, according to a multifactor model

Considerable differences emerged during the crisis in the application of entrepreneurial strategies, as well. During the entire period, objectiverisk taking was a determinant factor of objectivesuccess. Upon perceiving the first signs of crisis, both the objectivesuccess and the objectiverisk taking was significantly influenced by almost every intrapreneurial strategy, and a direct negative effect of the organizational, managerial factors has developed. The multifarious relationships linked to the objective success when first signs of the crisis appeared, indicated

(11)

that the senior management centralized the control processes in order to ensure proper crisis management, intensively sought for ways needed to get out of the crisis and, therefore, harnessed almost every promising strategy. At the same time, only the open, motivating organizational culture based on mutual trust was associated to the perceived success. At the beginning of the crisis, the factors of the perceived and the objectivesuccess changed oppositely. At the outbreak of the crisis, the roles played by the objective strategies and risk taking appreciated and a tighter managerial direction and control appeared as to facilitate the objectivesuccess while the perception of subjectivesuccess broke away from such processes and developed or sustained only where the atmosphere of trust and open communication was fruitfully preserved. Following a period of temporary and drastic re-arrangements, the situation slowly settled down. By 2011, only three variables (objectiverisk taking, rivalry and organizational processes introduced to handle the risks) remained to shape the objective success. The organizational support made a positive effect also on the perceived success and the role of trust and supporting culture continued to be determinant elements of the success perceived by the organization. By 2015, the positive effect produced by the intrapreneurial strategies gained strength, however, the role of the organizational processes and support took a complete turn and began to make a negative effect on both the objective and the perceived success. This process demonstrated in my investigation can be associated with a phenomenon identified in several studies, namely that organizations tend to draw on

"impromptu" strategies in periods of environmental turbulence and to harness every available means in order to handle the on-going changes(Hodgson, 2013). The results reflect also the practice of crisis management: in a crisis situation, immediate making of determined decisions and centralization is a must.

The strong connection between the perceived success and the open and motivating organizational culture based on trust could be demonstrated vigorously while the impact made by the rest of the organizational, managerial factors on the perceived success varied in a contradictory manner.

In the course of the crisis, i.e. in 2011, autonomy, authorization and organization made a positive effect on the perceived success which turned into a negative effect by 2015. The effect of changes observed at the outbreak and in the course of the crisis proved to be temporary and, most probably, that process did not calm down in 2015, either. The observed and extremely contradictory processes seem to indicate that the crisis unsettled the organizations and the managers could find no firm anchoring points needed to develop their strategy and to make decisions. In spite of the environmental turbulences and the associated uncertainties, success has two sure sources: the objectiverisk taking which becomes apparent in both the development and introduction of new products and services and the open, motivating organizational culture

(12)

based on mutual trust. The simultaneous presence of these two elements can support the organizations in handling the environmental challenges with appropriate flexibility and risk taking.

CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION

My investigation raised several questions and left many questions unanswered. However, it con- firmed that the key to survival and success in a highly complex, rapidly changing and dynamic environment is hidden in innovation and renewal, where knowledge and application of the aspects of organizational psychology can help the organizations which can retain their competitive edge and improve their performance by introducing strategic and structural changes. My results revealed that the subjective managerial situation analyses and the perceptions related to success and risk taking versus the picture drawn using objective indices do not coincide, in general. The nature and accuracy of such situation analysis determine essentially the strategic options, opera- tion and, in consequence, success of the business enterprises. I encountered assessments of accuracy beyond the average in case of the more successful companies. The crisis situation improved the accuracy of assessments also in the "club" of less successful enterprises, as well, however they kept overestimating their success quite significantly. Successful companies tend to take risks in excess of the average propensity and their willingness to take risks just further grows in emergency while crisis makes a negative effect on both the perceived and the objectiverisk taking among the less successful enterprises.The successful companies are more courageous in applying the intrapreneurial and market strategies in crisis situations, tend to take more risks, act as more innovative entities and their activities are characterized by trust, open communication, motivating atmosphere, autonomy and authorization, flexibly changing organization and supportive management.

Based on my series of research conducted during the crisis, it can be stated, that the actual and perceived relation of risk taking, as well as the strategies, leading to success, are formed in a complex, multifactorial system, which is greatly influenced by environmental factors. This is especially true in turbulent times such as in the period of economic crisis.Generalization of the results is hindered by unfavorable effects made by the extremely uncertain economic environment, the samples of varying composition found in different periods of time and the limitations confusing the evaluation and comparability of the objective data.

(13)

However, an examination of organizationalrisktaking and success from psychological aspects highlights the fact that the relationships found in the literature discussing economic and management issues can, in practice, be altered significantly by the psychological factors.

In addition to the results shown above, any further scientific research can derive benefit from the bi-fold approach and the multifarious analysis applied in my research as a useful addition. Inte- gration of the diverse approaches and complex application of the various methods of evaluation can raise further questions, guiding us towards a better recognition and understanding of the real processes.

In my research, I did not examine the representations given by the managers in respect to their organizationalsuccess or the incidental effects made by such differences on the development of strategies and the improvement of risk taking. Examination of the ways the managers think of the organizational success and successfulness and identifying relationships between the content of their success representations and their strategic preferences and success can be an exciting issue for further research. Furthermore, it is not clear, as yet, how much can the organizationalsuccess and performance be made corresponsive notions, what kind of other contents can be observed in ideologies discussing organizational success beside performance, how do the ideologies discussing organizational success emerge and how do they relate with the organizational culture and the values embodied in such culture. Another open issue relates to the managers' choice of reference points used for assessing their own position and their organization. Is there any fixed reference point or its position changes in function of the objectives and the evaluated areas furthermore how can the variability of the reference points be related with the accuracy of situation analysis and the choice of strategies?

My research called the attention to the importanceof the psychological aspects and demonstrated that the role of the subjective aspects, the perception and the social relationships is as important, at the least, as the objective factors and circumstances that influence the risk taking needed to run a successful business enterprise.

By means of my research, I intended to make the experts and managers involved in everyday operations aware of aspects that can encourage the respective organizations to take risks more confidently in favor of their revitalization, to avoid focusing exclusively on their financial indices and to endeavor to improve understanding of their situation, the accuracy of the value ap- praisals and to develop their human relations, mutual trust, communication and motivation.

(14)

References

Andersen T J ésBettis R A: Exploring longitudinal risk-return relationships, Strategic Management Journal 2015.

Vol. 36 p 1135-1143

Antoncic, Hisrich (2000) An Empirical Investigation of Impacts of Corporate Entrepreneurship-Related Contingen- cies on Organizational Wealth Creation, 2000

Antoncic, Hisrich (2001) Intrapreneurship: contruct refinement and cross-cultural validation Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 2001. 495-527

Antoncic B, Scarlat C (2005). Corporate entrepreneurship and organizational performance: A comparison between Slovenia and Romania. 6th Int. Conf. of the Faculty of Management Koper Congress Centre Bernardin, Slovenia, pp. 71-89

Becerra M, Markarian G (2013), The Bowman Paradox and Industry Competition: Dynamics of the Risk - Perfor- mance Relationship, Paper submitted for presentation at XXXVIII Jornadas de Economia Industrial, May 23, 2013 Beck, Ulrich (2003) A kockázat-társadalomÚtegymásikmodernitásbaSzázadvégKiadó, 2003

Bonß W. Bizonytalanság, kockázatésveszély, Replika 1998, 31-32 szám

E Bowman: Risk/Return Paradox for Strategic Management Cambridge, Mass (Massachusetts Institute of Technol- ogy), 1980

Bromiley, P. (1991). Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 34. 37-59.

Brown, R., Sarma, N. P. (2007) CEO Dominance and Corporate AcquisitionsJournal of Economics and Business , 59, 5, 358-379

Chapman, R.J. (2006): Simple tools and techniques for enterprise riskmanagement. Chichester, Nagy-Britannia:

Wiley. 494 p.

Covin&Slevin (1986). The development and testing of an organizational-level entrepreneurship scale. In: R. Ron- stadt, J.A. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research—1986. Wellesley, MA: Babson.

DenreffJ.:Organizational risk taking: adaptation versus variable risk preferences, Industrial and Corporate Change, 2008 Vol. 17. No 3 p. 427-466

Dess CG, & Robinson RB Jr. (1984) Measuring organizational performance in the absensce of objective measures:

The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategy Manegement Journal, 5 265-273 Douglas, M., &Wildavsky, A. B. (1982). Risk and Culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press

Douglas M: A kockázatés a hibáztatásReplika, 1998, 31-32. szám

Faragó, K., Vári, A.:(2002) A kockázat in Paprika, Z. (szerk.) Döntéselmélet Budapest Alinea Kiadó

Faragó Klára, (2008a) „Bandázs nélkül, sisak nélkül”: Az erőforrás hatása a kockázatvállalásra Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle 4. szám 651-674.

Faragó, K. (2008b). Siker, kockázatvállalás és versengés a szervezetekben. AlkalmazottPszichológia, X. 1-2 sz. pp 7-30

Fenton-O’Creevy, M. – Soane, E. (2001): The subjective perception of risk. 25-31. p. In: Pickford, J. (Szerk.): Mas- tering risk volume 1: Concepts. London, Nagy-Britannia: Pearson Education. 336 p.

Fiegenbaum, H Thomas: Dynamic and Risk measurement perspectives on Bowman’s Risk-Return Paradox for Stra- tegic Management: An empirical Study BEBR Faculty Working Paper No 1163, 1985

Fiegenbaum: Prospect Theory and the Risk-return association An empirical Examination in 85 industries, Journal of Economic Nehaviornad Organization 14. 1990, 187-201

Fischhoff, B. – Slovic, P. – Lichtenstein, S. – Read, S. – Combs, B. (2000). How safe is safe enough? – A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. 80-103. p. In: Slovic, P. (Szerk.): The perception of risk. London , Nagy-Britannia: Earthscan Publications. 518 p.

(15)

Fishbach, A., Zhang, Y., 2009. The Dynamics of Self-Regulation: When Goals Commit versus Liberate in M. Wan- ke Social psychology of consumer behavior Taylor & Francis Group, LLC pp. 365-387

Frese, M., Brantjes, A. and Hoorn, R. (2002) ‘Psychological Success Factors of Small Scale Businesses in Namibia:

The Roles of Strategy Process, Entrepreneurial Orientation and the Environment’, Journal of Developmental Entre- preneurship 7(3): 259–82.

Gooby P T and J O. Zinn: Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology Risk Analysis, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2006

Hamann P. M, F Schiemann, L Bellora and T W. Guenther: Exploring the Dimensions of Organizational Perfor- mance: A Construct Validity Study, Organizational Research Methods 2013 16: 67

Hardy, M. (2003): Investment guarantees – Modeling and risk management for equity-linked life insurance. Hobo- ken, USA: Wiley

Heath, C. &Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief: ambiguity and choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4:5–28.

Holmes R. M. Jr, P. Bromiley, C. E, Devers, T. R. Holcomb, J. B. McGuire: Management Theory Application of Prospect Theory: Accomplishments, Challenges and Opportunity Journal of Management Vol. 37, No 4. 2011, 1069-1107

Hult,G. T. M., Hurley, R. F. and Knight,G. A. (2004) ‘Innovativeness: Its Antecedents and Impact on Business Performance’, Industrial Marketing Management 33(5): 429–38.

Isen, A. (1997). Positive affect and decision making. In: W.M. Goldstein & R.M. Hogarth, Research on Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 507–537.

Kádi A. Faragó K. (2011) Perception and Reality: Organisational risk taking, choice of strategy, and success under ordinary conditions and in times of crisis in R. J. Fairchild (ed) Entrepreneurship: Motivation, Performance and Risk NOVA New York, pp. 27-54

Kádi A (2013): Szervezetiinnovativitáséskockázatvállalás, mint a szervezeteksikerességénekmotor- jaSzervezetpszichológiainézőpontokéseredmények In: FaragóKlára (szerk.) Szervezetéspszichológia – újirányza- tokazezredfordulón II. kötet.

Lee, C., Lee, K. and Pennings, J. M. (2001) ‘Internal Capabilities, External Networks, and Performance: A Study on Technology-based Ventures’, Strategic Management Journal 22(6–7): 615–40.

Lee, D. Y. and Tsang, E. W. K. (2001) ‘The Effects of Entrepreneurial Personality, Background, and Network Ac- tivities on Venture Growth’, Journal of Management Studies 38(4): 583–602.

LI Xiaodong; YANG Fan*; ZHANG Ruiwen (2014) Determinants of Corporate Risk Taking and Risk-Return Rela- tionship Canadian Social Science Vol. 10, No. 2, 2014, pp. 24-32

Lopes, L.L. (1993) Reasonsand resources: the human side of risk taking in N.J. Bell, R. Bell (eds.) Adolescent Risk Taking, Sage Newbury Park, CA 29-57.

Loomes, G., (2005). Modelling the Stochastic Component of Behaviour in Experiments: Some Issues for the Inter- pretation of Data, Experimental Economics, 8, 301-23.)

Malmendier, U., Tate, G., , Jun, A, Jun, Y. 2005. Corporate Financial Policies with Overconfident Managers (No- vember 5, 2005). 8th Annual Texas Finance Festival. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=895843

Maurer F, (2004) ORDINAL STRATEGIC RISK AND RETURN: A FRESH LOOK AT BOWMAN’S PARA- DOX, 64th Academy of Management Meeting. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, August 6-11, 2004

March J.G. &Saphira Z. (1992). Variable risk preference and the focus of attention. Psychological Review, Vol 99.

1. 172–183.

Miller K. D., P. Bromiley: Strategic risk and corporate performance: An analysis of alternative risk measures , Academy of Management Journal 1990, vol. 33 no 4 756-779

Miller, K. D. ,W Chen: Variable organizational risk preferences: Test of the March-Shapira model, Academy of Management Journal, 2004, 47. 106-115

Miller K. D. Corporate risk-return relations: Return variability versus downside risk Academy of Management Jour- nal, 1996, Vol.39, 91-122)

A Mukherji, A B. Desai, O P Wright A Contingent Relationship Between Risk and Return: Toward A Behavioral Model of Decision Making Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management, 2008

(16)

Nickel M N, Rodriguez M C: (2002) A review of research on the negative accounting relationship between risk and return: Bowman’s paradox OMEGA, 2002, vol. 30, nº 1, p. 1-18.

Osborn R.N., Jackson, D.H. (1988). Leaders, riverboat gamblers or purposeful unintended consequences is the management of complex dangerous technologies. Academy of Management Journal, 31. 924-947

Palmer T. B. and Wiseman R. M: Decoupling risk taking from income stream uncertainty: A holistic model of risk Strategic Management Journal, 1999, 201037-1062

Renn, Ortwin 1992: Concepts of Risk: A Classification. In: S. Krimsky – D. Golding (szerk): Social Theories of Risk. Westport, 53-79.o.

Rottenstreich, Y., &Tversky, A. (1997). Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psycho- logical Review, 104, 406-

Shapira Z. (1995). Risk Taking: a managerial perspective. Russel Sage Foundation, New York.

S Shamsuddin , J Othman , M A Shahadan , Z Zakaria THE DIMENSIONS OF CORPORATE ENTREPRENEUR- SHIP AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ESTABLISHED ORGANIZATION ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives Vol. 1, Issue 2, p. 111-131, Nov. 2012

Shinkle G. A.: Organizational Aspirations, Reference Points and Goals: Building on the Past and Aiming for the Future Journal of Management Vol 38. No 1. 2012 p 415-455

Simon H.A (1982): Korlátozottracionalitás, Válogatotttanulmányok Budapest KJK, 1982

Singh J. V.(1996) : Performance, slack and risk taking in organizational decision making , Academy of Management Journal, 1996. 29, 562-585

Sitkin, S. B., Pablo, A. L. (1992) Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management review 1. 9-38.

Slovic, Paul (1987): Kockázatészlelés. In Pszichológia, 7(4): 455-468.

Slovic, Paul (1992): Perception of Risk. Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm. In Social Theories of Risk. S.

Krimskyés D. Golding szerk., 117-152. London: Praeger.

Slovic, P. (2000): Perception of risk. 221-231. p. In: Slovic, P. (Szerk.): The perception of risk. London, Nagy- Britannia: Earthscan Publications. 518 p.

Smart, D.T. & Conant, J.S. (1994). Entrepreneurial orientation, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(3), 28-39.

Starr, Chauncey (1969): Social Benefit versus Technological Risk. What is Our Society Willing to Pay for Safety?

In Science, 165: 1232-1238.

Staw,B.M., Sandelands, L.E. & Dutton, J.E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior. Administra- tive Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524.

Tversky A. &Kahneman D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 1, 453–

458.

Yusuf,A. (2002) ‘Environmental Uncertainty, the Entrepreneurial Orientation of Business Ventures and Perfor- mance’, International Journal of Commerce & Management 12(3–4): 83–103.

Vasvári Tamás: Kockázat, kockázatészlelés, kockázatkezelés – szakirodalmiáttekintésPénzügyiSzemle 2015/1 29 Vermeulen, P., Curseu, P. (2008) Entrepreneurial Strategic Decision Making. A cognitive perspective. Edward Elgar Pub.

Wiklund J and Dean Shepherd: Aspiring for and Achieving Growth: The Moderating Role of Resources and Oppor- tunities (Journal of Management Studies December 2003 p. 1919-1941)

Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurial Orientation and Small Business Performance: A Configura- tional Approach’, Journal of Business Venturing 20(1): 71–91.

Wiseman, R M. A H. Catanach Jr: A longitudinal disaggregation of operational risk under changing regulations:

Evidence from the savings and loan industry Academy of Management Journal, 1997. 40. No 4. p- 795-830

Zahra, S.A. (1991). “Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study.” Jour- nal of Business Venturing, 6, 259–285.

(17)

Zahra, S.A. (1993). “Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach.”

Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 319–340.

Zahra, S.A. &Covin J.G. (1995). “Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship- performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis.” Journal of Business Venturing, 10 (1): 43–58.