Conceptualizando la tecnología

Decisions Coordination & Integration + + Ginkel & Knippenberg (2009)

Bloom(2010)

Information Gap

+

Andersen(2000)

Allaire & Firsirotu (1990) Yan et al. (2010) Andersen (2000) Barua et al. (1997) Zahra et al. (2006) - Barua et al. (1997) Performance Decline + - Zahra et al. (2006) Limited Responses

Golden & Powell (2000) Late

Responses

+

Teece et al. (1997)

Shimizu& Hitt(2004)

Golden & Powell (2000) Teece et al. (1997) Zahra et al. (2006) Zahraetal.(2006) Unprepared Resources + + T eeceetal.(1997) Sanchez (1997) Golden & Powell (2000) Shimizu & Hitt (2004) +

Teece et al. (1997) Resistance to Change

+

+ B.-Fuller & Volberda (1997) Shimizu & Hitt (2004)

Delayed Decisions Shimizu & Hitt (2004) Uncertainty Assumption Biases Inability to Predict Milliken (1987) + + Teece et al. (1997)

Shimizu & Hitt (2004) Inadequate Decisions Unclear Goals

+ +

Ginkel & Knippenberg (2009)

Shimizu & Hitt (2004) + Milliken (1987)

Allaire & Firsirotu (1990) Volberda (1997) Sköldberg (1992) Barua et al. (1997) Melnyk (2010) Teece et al. (1997) +

Figure 3.1 Uncertainty Effects Model

Each arrow is also annotated with citations to the works that support the corresponding relationship between the factors. For example, the relationship between centralized decision

making and delayed decisions was empirically observed both by Andersen [6] and Bloom et

al. [10]. The relationship between the resistance to change and delayed decisions, on the other hand, was proposed by Shimizu and Hitt [104] in a model based on their study of real compa- nies.

Each of these relationships has been identified in the literature, but in isolated works. Pre- senting them in an integrated framework allow us to design a path through which a company can mitigate the undesired effects of environmental uncertainty. For example, if we increase the clarity and dissemination of goals throughout the organization, the chances of inadequate decisions are reduced. This subject will be approached in the next chapters.

We now detail each of these factors and relationships and explain the arguments provided in the literature to support them.

3.1 OVERVIEW 38

3.1.1 The Inability to Predict

When we are subject to situations in which our current position and/or our future destination are uncertain, our decision capacity is largely reduced. We may not be able to identify which choices are available for us or may not be able to completely predict the results of our choices. It is worth notice that the volatility or variability of the environment is not necessarily un- predictable [75]. The organizational environment may be very volatile, yet changes may occur in a predictable way. Thus, this does not necessarily imposes any difficulty to the organization. Therefore, a better understanding of the concept of uncertainty is demanded if we intend to investigate its implications to an organization’s performance. Milliken [75] argues that there are three distinguishable types of environmental uncertainty:

• state uncertainty - this is the type of uncertainty of an administrator when he/she per- ceives the organizational environment (or some of its components) to be unpredictable. It means that one is not able to understand how components of the environment might be changing;

• effect uncertainty - this type of uncertainty is defined as an inability to predict the impact that an environmental change will have on the organization, even if the environmental change is itself predictable;

• response uncertainty - even when the change is predictable and its impact over the firm is also known, this type of uncertainty may still remain. It is defined as a lack of knowledge of an organization’s response options (what to do) and/or an inability to predict the likely consequences of a response choice when a need to act is perceived. The three types of environmental uncertainty described by Milliken [75] share a common symptom. Regardless of the type of uncertainty that is present in the environment, the factor that makes it difficult to manage is an increase in the inability to predict. Hence, the inability

to predict is a mediating factor of the effects of uncertainty over organizational performance.

This is remarked by the speak of John Browne, CEO of BP, an oil industry major [40]: “We gave up trying to forecast what would happen some time ago – we’d just

learned from experience that even the most sophisticated models can’t predict the reality of oil prices or any other key variables”.

The environment uncertainty is not the single factor that impacts a manager’s capacity to predict. There are also psychological variables in place. As Shimizu and Hitt [104] point out, over time, “managers develop a particular mind-set along with a set of decision rules and heuristics based on their experiences” [104]. Successful managers often become overconfident and assume that their decisions are unlikely to fail. As a result, they “unconsciously ignore negative signs regarding their decision outcomes” [104].

Shimizu and Hitt [104] add that top managers decision rules are often routinized and taken for granted within the organization. This reduces the organization’s capacity to pay attention to important new information regarding the environment. As such assumption biases increase around the firm, the ability to adequately analyze information and predict the future reduces.

3.1 OVERVIEW 39