Does improvisation lead to outcome deviation? A conceptual framework of improvisation, its antecedents and outcome deviation

Management and organization literature has extensively noticed the crucial role that improvisation assumes in organizations, both as a learning process (Miner, Bassoff & Moorman, 2001), a creative process (Fisher & Amabile, 2008), a capability (Vera & Crossan, 2005), and a personal disposition (Hmielesky & Corbett, 2006; 2008). My dissertation aims to contribute to the existing literature on improvisation, addressing two general research questions: 1) How does improvisation unfold at an individual level? 2) What are the potential antecedents and consequences of individual proclivity to improvise? This dissertation is based on a mixed methodology that allowed me to deal with these two general research questions and enabled a constant interaction between the theoretical framework and the empirical results. The selected empirical field is haute cuisine and the respondents are the executive chefs of the restaurants awarded by Michelin Guide in 2010 in Italy. The qualitative section of the dissertation is based on the analysis of 26 inductive case studies and offers a multifaceted contribution. First, I describe how improvisation works both as a learning and creative process. Second, I introduce a new categorization of individual improvisational scenarios (demanded creative improvisation, problem solving improvisation, and pure creative improvisation). Third, I describe the differences between improvisation and other creative processes detected in the field (experimentation, brainstorming, trial and error through analytical procedure, trial and error, and imagination). The quantitative inquiry is founded on a Structural Equation Model, which allowed me to test simultaneously the relationships between proclivity to improvise and its antecedents and consequences. In particular, using a newly developed scale to measure individual proclivity to improvise, I test the positive influence of industry experience, self-efficacy, and age on proclivity to improvise and the negative impact of proclivity to improvise on outcome deviation. Theoretical contributions and practical implications of the results are discussed.

Ownership, Multiple Blockholders and Performance: A study of the Indonesian Banking Industry

The objective of this study is to provide empirical evidence on how ownership structure and owner’s identity affect performance, in the banking industry by using a panel of Indonesia banks over the period 2000–2009. Firstly, we analysed the impact of the presence of multiple blockholders on bank ownership structure and performance. Building on multiple agency and principal-principal theories, we investigated whether the presence and shares dispersion across blockholders with different identities (i.e. central and regional government; families; foreign banks and financial institutions) affected bank performance, in terms of profitability and efficiency. We found that the number of blockholders has a negative effect on banks’ performance, while blockholders’ concentration has a positive effect. Moreover, we observed that the dispersion of ownership across different types of blockholders has a negative effect on banks’ performance. We interpret such results as evidence that, when heterogeneous blockholders are present, the disadvantage from conflicts of interests between blockholders seems to outweigh the advantage of the increase in additional monitoring by additional blockholder. Secondly, we conducted a joint analysis of the static, selection, and dynamic effects of different types of ownership on banks’ performance. We found that regional banks and foreign banks have a higher profitability and efficiency as compared to domestic private banks. In the short-run, foreign acquisitions and domestic M&As reduce the level of overhead costs, while in the long-run they increase the Net Interest Margin (NIM). Further, we analysed NIM determinants, to asses the impact of ownership on bank business orientation. Our findings lend support to our prediction that the NIM determinants differs accordingly to the type of bank ownership. We also observed that banks that experienced changes in ownership, such as foreign-acquired banks, manifest different interest margin determinants with respect to domestic or foreign banks that did not experience ownership rearrangements.