Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • Despite scholars have examined various variables as

    2018-11-12

    Despite scholars have examined various variables as well as their interrelationships to differentiate one life melatonin receptor agonist stage from another, there is no agreement in the literature on either the time span for each stage, or the deterministic linkage or development of that stages (Galbraith, 1982; Miller & Friesen, 1984; Quinn & Cameron, 1983). Rather, organizations may move forth and back between stages (Miller & Friesen, 1984). Within the literature, organizational life cycle is typically characterized as comprising five stages: inception (initial growth), expansion (rapid growth), maturity, revival and decline. Many models do not consider decline as an explicit life cycle stage (Adizes, 1989; Miller & Friesen, 1984, are exceptions). Hanks et al. (1993) and Miller and Friesen (1984) attributed this omission of the decline stage to two reasons. First, decline can occur at any time and in any stage of organization development. Second, the effect of decline is less predictable if it is compared with the effect of growth and expansion. Notwithstanding the organizational life cycle approach is open to criticism regarding, for example, the possible generalization inherent in classifying organizations into a finite number of life cycle stages (Mintzberg, 1984) and the operational definitions that should be adopted to discriminate the life cycle stages (Olson & Terpstra, 1992), it has been applied widely to explain various managerial and organizational issues. Examples of these issues include organizational effectiveness (Quinn & Cameron, 1983), organizational power (Mintzberg, 1984), strategic human resource (Milliman, Von Glinow, & Nathan, 1991), response of stock market (Anthony & Ramesh, 1992), management accounting systems (Moores & Yuen, 2001), performance appraisal (Chen & Kuo, 2004), incentive reward systems (Chen & Hsieh, 2005), product innovation (Liao, 2006), corporate governance (Filatotchev, Toms, & Wright, 2006), corporate environmental policy (Elsayed & Paton, 2009), R&D expenditure (Ahmed & Jinan, 2011), and inventory management (Elsayed, 2014).
    Hypothesis development Organizations in the initial growth stage of their life tend to be concerned more with survival and securing the needed resources to develop their product and market in the right way (Dodge, Fullerton, & Robbins, 1994). In this context, Lant and Montgomery (1987) concluded that performance below aspirations leads to riskier choices than performance that meets or exceeds aspirations. March and Shapira (1987, 1992) suggest that managers in firms threatened by organizational failure may focus on a survival level. Thus, low performance and lack of resources drive risk taking, but the risks taken may have poor outcomes (Bromiley, 1991). The expected problems depend much on the expected level of competition in the market (Dodge ad Robbins, 1992; Kazanjian, 1988), and threat of organizational failure induces decision makers to adopt a risk-seeking strategy that entails the choice of risky options (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). In fact, intensive competition and low volume sales collaborate with importance of product availability and increasing of stock-out cost to weaken initial growth organizations’ market-power. Organizations often mitigate weak market-power by holding more inventories (Blazenko & Vandezande, 2003). Holding more inventories is expected to affect performance negatively given that organizations in the initial growth stage have fluctuated demand, relatively small ordering quantity, and limited choices either in possibilities for purchasing or in supplier selection. For instance, organizations in the initial growth stage make “an exclusive commitment to a single supplier for a specific duration in order to obtain a steady supply of an item (or items) (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001, p. 406). The preceding argument will be tested empirically through the following hypothesis: For organizations in the rapid growth stage, concerns about survival are less crucial than in the initial growth stage and this drives organizations to adopt a risk-averse strategy and focus more on internal operations (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001; Quinn & Cameron, 1983). An implication of this argument is that distinctive problems that face rapid growth organizations are stabilizing production and product availability, as well as matching demand increases, as demand progressively increases in this stage (Dodge & Robbins, 1992; Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). Since potential for profit is greater in this stage, organizations may “pursue growth at the cost of excess inventory in the short-term” (Gaur & Kesavan, 2009) to avoid stock outs (Blazenko & Vandezande, 2003). Thus, it is expected that inventory in the rapid growth organizations affects their performance positively not only to match demand, but also “to translate this demand into sales rather than stock outs” (Blazenko & Vandezande, 2003, p. 362). This is likely to occur as unexploited market potential need more inventory to increase sales growth by increase service levels of existing products in order to stimulate demand, open new stores, or add new product lines (Gaur & Kesavan, 2009). The preceding argument will be tested empirically through the following hypothesis: