Knowledge Management Research (지식경영연구)

The Knowledge Management Society of Korea (한국지식경영학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effects of TMT's Cognitive Traits and CEO Factors on R&D Investment

최고경영진의 인지적 특성과 최고경영자 특성이 R&D투자에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2023.04.24
  • Accepted : 2023.06.16
  • Published : 2023.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper investigates how TMT's cognitive traits affect R&D investment. Drawing on the attention-based view, we propose that TMT's future orientation and risk preference increase the level of R&D investment. As R&D activities have long-term goal of generating proprietary knowledge, it is important to understand how TMT's attention toward future and risk affect R&D investment. Also, we test the moderating effect of CEO duality on R&D investment. As the CEO plays a leadership role in the TMT, if the CEO's decision-making authority is highly concentrated, the impact of TMT on R&D may decrease. We measure CEO duality and CEO ownership stake as CEO characteristics. Based on a sample of 837 U.S. manufacturing firms, the results show that when TMT has a higher tolerance for risk and higher future orientation, R&D intensity increases. However, when CEO also serves as chairman of board and CEO has higher ownership, TMT's influence on R&D investment weakens. This implies that TMT and CEO has power dynamic that can change based on CEO power supporting status. Overall, it suggests that TMT's attention and CEO power are important factors to improve longer-term knowledge accumulation of firm.

본 연구는 최고경영진의 인지적 특성이 R&D투자에 어떤 영향을 미치는지 분석한다. 주의기반관점(attention-based view)에 기반하여 최고경영진의 미래지향성과 위험감수성이 R&D투자 수준을 높일 수 있음을 제시한다. R&D활동은 장기적으로 독점적인 지식을 생성하는 것을 목표로 삼고 있기에 기업의 미래성장가능성 및 경쟁우위를 이해하기위해 최고 경영진의 미래지향성과 위험감수성이 R&D투자에 미치는 영향을 이해하는 것이 중요하다. 추가적으로 최고경영진의 영향력을 조절하는 요인으로 CEO 관련 특성을 제시한다. CEO는 최고경영진의 리더역할을 하고 있기 때문에 만약 CEO의 의사결정권한이 높은 수준으로 집중되는 경우 최고경영진 자체의 특성이 R&D에 미치는 영향이 감소할 수 있다. CEO 특성 중 CEO 이사회의장 겸직 여부 및 CEO 소유지분을 통해 CEO의 높은 영향력을 측정하였다. 1994년부터 2015년까지 미국 제조업체 837개의 샘플을 기반으로, 최고경영진의 미래지향성 및 위험감수성이 높을수록 R&D집중도가 증가함이 나타났다. 그러나 CEO가 이사회의 의장도 겸임하며 높은 지분을 보유할 때, 최고경영진의 R&D집중도에 대한 영향력이 감소하였다. 이는 최고경영진과 CEO 사이에 상호작용이 있으며, CEO의 영향력이 커지고 의사결정권한이 높은 상태 및 구조에 따라 변화할 수 있음을 제시한다. 결론적으로 본 연구의 실증 연구 결과는 최고경영진의 주의와 CEO의 영향력 정도가 장기적인 관점에서의 지식 활용 및 개발을 촉진시키는 데 중요한 요소임을 시사한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강병오, 김진수, 안성식 (2010). 프랜차이즈 가맹본부 CEO의 기업가정신이 기업성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 실증연구. 유통연구, 15(4), 87-117.
  2. 김대중, 엄기용 (2018). Influence of R&D intensity on innovation performance in the Korean pharmaceutical industry: Focusing on the moderating effects of R&D collaboration. 지식경영연구, 19(3), 189-223. https://doi.org/10.15813/KMR.2018.19.3.009
  3. 김병수, 한인구 (2012). R&D 조직의 지식 경영 활동이 R&D 성과에 미치는 영향. 지식경영연구, 13(1), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.15813/KMR.2012.13.1.003
  4. 신민식, 김수은 (2010). 기업의 소유구조와 R&D 투자간의 관계. 경영연구, 25(2), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.22903/JBR.2010.25.2.1
  5. 유재욱 (2010). 최고경영자의 임기가 비관련다각화에 미치는 영향과 이사회 구조의 조절효과에 관한 연구. 대한경영학회지, 23(1), 511-525.
  6. 전성일, 이기세, 양해면 (2010). 산업 특성에 따른 연구개발비 지출과 특허취득이 기업가치에 차별적으로 반응하는가? 지식경영연구, 11(3), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.15813/KMR.2010.11.3.001
  7. 정성훈, 조승아 (2014). 최고경영진의 주의가 기업성과에 미치는 영향: 외부환경.내부조직 경계조건의 조절효과. 전략경영연구, 17(3), 69-100. https://doi.org/10.17786/JSM.2014.17.3.004
  8. Agnihotri, A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2015). Determinants of export intensity in emerging markets: An upper echelon perspective. Journal of World Business, 50(4), 687-695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.11.001
  9. Ahn, Y. (2020). A socio-cognitive model of sustainability performance: Linking CEO career experience, social ties, and attention breadth. Journal of Business Ethics, 175, 303-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04651-w
  10. Balkin, D. B., Gideon D. M., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2000). Is CEO pay in high-technology firms related to innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1118-1129.
  11. Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 15-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131004
  12. Barringer, B. R., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 421-444. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199905)20:5<421::AID-SMJ30>3.0.CO;2-O
  13. Bethel, J. E., & Libeskind, J. (1993). The effects of ownership structure on corporate restructuring. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140904
  14. Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62-65. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0211-62
  15. Brielmaier, C., & Friesl, M. (2023). The attention-based view: Review and conceptual extension towards situated attention. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(1), 99-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12306
  16. Chen, M. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2012). CEO replacement in turnaround situations: Executive discretion, institutionality, and tenure. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 877-899.
  17. Cho, M. (1998). Ownership structure, investment, and the corporate value: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 47(4), 103-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(97)00039-1
  18. Cho, T. S., & Hambrick, D. C. (2006). Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: The case of airline deregulation. Organization Science, 17(4), 453-469. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0192
  19. Clark, M. A., & Linzer, D. A. (2015). Should I stay or should I go? A guide to job changes and resignation. The Journal of Medical Practice Management: MPM, 31(3), 188-192.
  20. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101600102
  21. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2(4), 169-187.
  22. Denis, D. D., Denis, D. K., & Atulya, S. (1998). Agency problems, equity ownership and corporate diversification. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 135-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03811.x
  23. Denis, D. J., Denis, D. K., & Sarin, A. (1999). Agency theory and the influence of equity ownership structure on corporate diversification strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(11), 1071-1076.
  24. Dimitratos, P., Lioukas, S., & Carter, S. (2004). The relationship between entrepreneurship and international performance: The importance of domestic environment. International Business Review, 13(1), 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2003.08.001
  25. Donaldson, L. (1990). The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory. Academy of Management Review, 15(3), 369-381. https://doi.org/10.2307/258013
  26. Drucker, P. F. (1985). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 63(3), 67-72.
  27. Finkelstein, S., & D'aveni, R. A. (1994). CEO duality as a double-edged sword: How boards of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1079-1108. https://doi.org/10.2307/256667
  28. Francis, M. E., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1993). The relationship between sex differences in word use and sex differences in personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 1021-1035.
  29. Fu, R., Tang, Y., & Chen, G. (2020). Chief sustainability officers and corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 41(4), 656-680. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3113
  30. Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Whither whorf. In Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 3-14). MIT Press.
  31. Gupta, V., & Turban, D. B. (2018). Top management team time orientation and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 88, 304-313.
  32. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.2307/258434
  33. Hirsh, J. B., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Personality and language use in self-narratives. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 524-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.006
  34. Holtgraves, T. (2011). Interpreting language use in interpersonal communication. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(4), 233-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00357.x
  35. Kaplan, S. (2011). Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making. Organization Science, 22(2), 320-346. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0531
  36. Koryak, O., Lockett, A., Hayton, J., Nicolaou, N., & Mole, K. (2018). Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 47(2), 413-427.
  37. Krause, R., Semadeni, M., & Cannella Jr, A. A. (2014). CEO duality: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 40(1), 256-286.
  38. Kunc, M. H., & Morecroft, J. D. (2010). Managerial decision making and firm performance under a resource-based paradigm. Strategic Management Journal, 31(11), 1164-1182. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.858
  39. Lassen, A. H., Gertsen, F., & Riis, J. O. (2006). The Nexus of corporate entrepreneurship and radical innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(4), 359-372.
  40. Lee, S. H., & Kang, K. H. (2017). How top management team's temporal focus on innovation influences exploratory and exploitative innovation. Management Decision, 55(5), 965-979.
  41. Leiponen, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2010). Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 224-236. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.807
  42. Lemoine, G. J., Wang, M., & Casper, W. J. (2015). Top management team temporal orientation and strategic decision-making: The moderating role of cognitive complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1686-1708.
  43. Li, J. J., Zhou, K. Z., & Shao, A. T. (2015). Fostering strategic innovation through HRM practices: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1025-1034.
  44. Li, Y., Wang, X., & Chen, X. (2018). The impact of top management team time orientation on innovation: Evidence from Chinese firms. Journal of Business Research, 90, 247-256.
  45. Lienhar, R., Naumann, E., & Maier, S. (2004). Effects of mood on evaluative judgments: Influence of neuroticism and task difficulty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 357-368.
  46. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172. https://doi.org/10.2307/258632
  47. McClelland, J. L., Botvinick, M. M., Noelle, D. C., Plaut, D. C., Rogers, T. T., Seidenberg, M. S., & Smith, L. B. (2010). Letting structure emerge: Connectionist and dynamical systems approaches to cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 348-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.002
  48. McConnell, J. J., & Servaes, H. (1995). Equity ownership and the two faces of debt. Journal of Financial Economics, 39(1), 131-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(95)00824-X
  49. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
  50. Muller, A., & Whiteman, G. (2016). Corporate philanthropic responses to emergent human needs: The role of organizational attention focus. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 299-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2556-x
  51. Nadkarni, S., & Barr, P. S. (2008). Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: An integrated view. Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1395-1427. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.717
  52. Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<187::AID-SMJ936>3.0.CO;2-K
  53. Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22(5), 1286-1296. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0602
  54. Ocasio, W. (2017). Organizational power and dependence. In J. A. C. Daum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 363-385). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  55. Pennebaker, J. W. (1993). Putting stress into words: Health, linguistic, and therapeutic implications. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31(6), 539-548. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(93)90105-4
  56. Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
  57. Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Ireland, M., Gonzales, A., & Booth, R. J. (2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
  58. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  59. Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002
  60. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Understanding the role of power in decision making. Power in Organizations, 404-423.
  61. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761-787. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x
  62. Rechner, P. L., & Dalton, D. R. (1991). CEO duality and organizational performance: A longitudinal analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 155-160. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120206
  63. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behaviour. New York: McMillan Pub. Co.
  64. Stone, S. E., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2002). The recovery of meaning through the diminishment of emotion. In S. F. Davis, W. H. O'Donohue & N. A. Cummings (Eds.), The psychopathology of everyday life: Issues and controversies (pp. 159-173). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  65. Wang, D., Gao, J., & Yang, Y. (2020). CEO transformational leadership and TMT risk-taking propensity: A contingency perspective of organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 113, 314-323.
  66. Whorf, B. L. (2012). Language, thought, and reality. selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press.
  67. Yadav, M. S., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2007). Managing the future: CEO attention and innovation outcomes. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 84-101.
  68. Yarkoni, T. (2010). Personality in 100,000 words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(3), 363-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.04.001
  69. Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1996). Director reputation, CEO-board power, and the dynamics of board interlocks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 507-529. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393940
  70. Zhou, X., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2016). CEO tenure and new venture performance: Moderating role of managerial discretion. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(6), 663-682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.09.003