Murat Tarakci

When does power disparity help or hurt group performance

Power differences are ubiquitous in social settings. However, the question of whether groups with higher or lower power disparity achieve better performance has thus far received conflicting answers. To address this issue, we identify 3 underlying assumptions in the literature that may have led to these divergent findings, including a myopic focus on static hierarchies, an assumption that those at the top of hierarchies are competent at group tasks, and an assumption that equality is not possible. We employ a multimethod set of studies to examine these assumptions and to understand when power disparity will help or harm group performance. First, our agent-based simulation analyses show that by unpacking these common implicit assumptions in power research, we can explain earlier disparate findings--power disparity benefits group performance when it is dynamically aligned with the power holders task competence, and harms group performance when held constant and/or is not aligned with task competence. Second, our empirical findings in both a field study of fraud investigation groups and a multiround laboratory study corroborate the simulation results. We thereby contribute to research on power by highlighting a dynamic understanding of power in groups and explaining how current implicit assumptions may lead to opposing findings.

Do Disruptive Visions Pay Off? The Impact of Disruptive Entrepreneurial Visions on Venture Funding: Do Disruptive Visions Pay Off?

Entrepreneurs often articulate a vision for their venture that purports to fundamentally change, disturb, or re‐order the ways in which organizations, markets, and ecosystems operate. We call these visions disruptivevisions. Neglected in both the disruption and the impression management literature, disruptive visions are widespread in business practice. We integrate real options and impression management theories to hypothesize that articulating a disruptive vision increases the likelihood of the venture receiving funding but reduces the amount of funding obtained. A novel dataset of Israeli start‐ups shows that a standard deviation increase in disruptive vision communication increases the odds of receiving a first round of funding by 22 per cent, but reduces amounts of funds received by 24 per cent. A randomized online experiment corroborates these findings and further demonstrates that the expectation of extraordinary returns is the key mechanism driving investors’ sensemaking.

Do Group and Organizational Identification Help or Hurt Intergroup Strategic Consensus

Implementing strategy demands an organizationwide effort, where teams should not operate in isolation. A challenge many organizations face in implementing their strategy is eradicating silo thinking and creating shared understanding of strategy between interdependent teams—that is, intergroup strategic consensus. However, strategy process research is silent on how such intergroup strategic consensus can emerge. Drawing on social identity theory, we offer a lens to understand what influences the degree of intergroup strategic consensus. We unveil a tension between organizational and group identification such that organizational identification enhances intergroup strategic consensus, whereas group identification reduces it. Moreover, we hypothesize that high group identification crowds out positive effects of organizational identification on intergroup strategic consensus. Data from 451 intergroup relationships between 92 teams within a service organization support these hypotheses. We replicate our results using 191 intergroup relationships between 37 teams from another organization. These results allow us to develop an understanding of intergroup strategic consensus, expand the conversation in strategy process research to between-team interdependencies, and challenge the assumption in management literature and practice that higher identification is always desirable.

Reconsidering Middle Managers’ Strategic Role in Modern Organizations

Middle managers have a long legacy in strategy, organizational development, and management research. Uniquely positioned as ‘linking pins’ between strategic and operational interfaces, middle manag...

Temporary De-Embedding Buyer-Supplier Relationships: A Complexity Perspective

Research on buyer-supplier relationships has debated the advantages and disadvantages of embedded relationships. We join this debate by developing theory on the performance implications of relaxing embedded buyer-supplier relationships for a limited period of time — a previously neglected phenomenon we refer to as temporary de-embedding. To capture this phenomenon’s dynamic and complex nature, we use a combined-method approach. First, we conducted a longitudinal case study of the relationship between Nissan and a strategic first-tier supplier. This case study suggests that temporary de-embedding reinvigorates search and leads to higher performance for both the buyer and supplier. Second, we built a computational simulation model using the search perspective from complexity theory to complement the theory grounded in our case study. Our simulations confirm the case findings while shedding additional light on how frequency, duration, and intensity of de-embedding affect supply chain performance.