How Formal and Informal Institutions of Middle Eastern Countries Influence Managerial Discretion: An Empirical Investigation

Managerial discretion is the focal theme bridging the clash between two schools of thoughts; whether executives have greater influence on their firms’ outcomes or other factors restrain their actions (Hambrick & Finkelstein, 1987). It is argued that constraints come from inertial, normative and environmental forces (e.g. DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Of these restraints is the institutional environment in which a firm is headquartered. Our paper falls within this research stream and provides an extension for Crossland and Hambrick (2007, 2011) work. We investigate the national level of discretion in new cross-cultural contexts, provide deeper understanding of its concept, and shed the light on undiscovered discretion’s antecedents and consequences. We adopt a quantitative approach in which questionnaires represent our data collection instrument. We anticipate that in high discretion countries firms tend to follow what Miles & Snow (1978) labeled ‘Prospector’ strategy as opposed to low discretion countries in which firms incline to implement a ‘Defender’ strategy.

Cross-National Differences in Managerial Discretion: Insights from the Middle East

Our study examines the effect of cultural practices on CEO discretion across six Middle Eastern countries. Using a panel of senior management consultants, we extend the national-level framework of managerial discretion and find that an encompassing array of cultural practices play a crucial role in shaping the degree of discretion provided to CEOs’ of public firms headquartered in these countries. We empirically demonstrate that power distance, future and performance orientation along with gender egalitarianism and assertiveness have positive relationships with managerial discretion. However, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and humane orientation negatively affect the degree of discretion provided to CEOs. As such, our results indicate that executives are able to take idiosyncratic and bold actions to the extent to which the cultural environment allows them to do so. As such, we contribute to the strategic leadership literature by finding new national-level antecedents of managerial discretion that haven’t been considered in earlier studies and confirm the context dependency of the discretion construct.