Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Series Title
      Series Title
      Clear All
      Series Title
  • Reading Level
      Reading Level
      Clear All
      Reading Level
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
      More Filters
      Clear All
      More Filters
      Content Type
    • Item Type
    • Is Full-Text Available
    • Subject
    • Country Of Publication
    • Publisher
    • Source
    • Donor
    • Language
    • Place of Publication
    • Contributors
    • Location
5,805,180 result(s) for "performance of"
Sort by:
Product and environmental social performance: Varying effect on firm performance
Corporate social performance (CSP) consists of actions in different domains that vary in the information they provide stakeholders, and hence, in their effect on firm performance. To demonstrate this, the authors examine the impact of CSP on firm performance in two areas—the product and the environment, referred to as product social performance (PSP) and environmental social performance (ESP), respectively. PSP has a stronger positive impact on firm performance compared to ESP. The findings using disaggregated measures of PSP and ESP indicate negativity bias in that PSP weakness has a stronger negative impact on firm performance compared to PSP strength.
Are subjective business performance measures justified?
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to operationalize the subjective measures of business performance and assessing their justification for use in place of objective measures of business performance. Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a sample survey of 171 companies listed on Bombay Stock Exchange, India. A cross-sectional descriptive research design has been used. Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the factor structure and dimensionality of objective and subjective measures of business performance. The psychometric properties of these measures and their interrelationship have been assessed through confirmatory factor analysis. Findings – The study finds a strong positive correlation between subjective business performance and objective business performance. The study finds it justified to use the subjective measures of business performance. Research limitations/implications – Response bias may have crept in because of self-reported measure used for the study. Future researchers may cross-verify the subjective perception of respondents with data available from the records of the firms. Second, the study focuses only on financial and operational indicators of performance. The future studies may widen the scope of business performance by incorporating the interests of other stakeholders like suppliers, government, environment and society in general. Practical implications – The strategy researchers confronting the challenge of adopting appropriate measures of business performance can use either or both of subjective and objective performance measures, as suggested in this study. The study has suggestions for strategic decision makers regarding measurement of business performance in terms of financial as well as operational indicators. Originality/value – The study operationalizes and validates two measures of performance, namely, subjective business performance and objective business performance. The study contributes to the strategic management literature by providing evidence for association between objective and subjective measures of performance.
Assessing Performance Outcomes in Marketing
Research in marketing has increasingly focused on building knowledge about how firms' marketing contributes to performance outcomes. A key precursor to accurately diagnosing the value firms' marketing creates is conceptualizing and operationalizing appropriate ways to assess performance outcomes. Yet, to date, there has been little conceptual development and no systematic examination of how researchers in marketing should conceptualize and measure the performance outcomes associated with firms' marketing. The authors develop a theory-based performance evaluation framework and examine the assessment of such performance outcomes in 998 empirical studies published in the top 15 marketing journals from 1981 through 2014. The results reveal a large number of different performance outcome measures used in prior empirical research that may be only weakly related to one another, making it difficult to synthesize findings across studies. In addition, the authors identify significant problems in how performance outcomes in marketing are commonly conceptualized and operationalized. They also reveal several theoretically and managerially important performance areas in which empirical knowledge of marketing's impact is limited or absent. Finally, they examine the implications of the results, provide actionable guidelines for researchers, and suggest a road map for systematically improving research practice in the future.
The ETTO Principle: Efficiency-Thoroughness Trade-Off
Accident investigation and risk assessment have for decades focused on the human factor, particularly 'human error'. Countless books and papers have been written about how to identify, classify, eliminate, prevent and compensate for it. This bias towards the study of performance failures, leads to a neglect of normal or 'error-free' performance and the assumption that as failures and successes have different origins there is little to be gained from studying them together. Erik Hollnagel believes this assumption is false and that safety cannot be attained only by eliminating risks and failures.