Power and Paradigms: The <scp>D</scp>utch Response to Pressures for Shareholder Value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Manuscript Type Empirical Research Question/Issue In recent years, research aimed at identifying and relating the antecedents and consequences of diffusing organizational practices/ideas has turned its attention to debating the international adoption and implementation of the Anglo‐American model of corporate governance, i.e., a shareholder value orientation (SVO). While financial economists characterize the adoption of an SVO as necessary and performance‐enhancing, behavioral scientists have disputed such claims, invoking institutional contingencies in the appropriateness of an SVO. Our study seeks to provide some resolution to the debate by developing an overarching sociopolitical perspective that links the antecedents and consequences of the adoption of the contested practice of SVO. Research Findings/Insights We test our framework using extensive longitudinal data from 1992–2006 from the largest listed corporations in the Netherlands. We find a negative relationship between SVO adoption and subsequent firm performance, although this effect is attenuated when accompanied by greater SVO alignment among major owners and a firm's visible commitment to an SVO. Theoretical/Academic Implications This study extends prior research on the diffusion of contested organizational practices that has taken a sociopolitical perspective by offering an original contingency perspective that addresses how and why the misaligned preferences of corporate owners will affect (i) a company's inclination to espouse an SVO, and (ii) the performance consequences of such misalignment. Practitioner/Policy Implications This study suggests that, when board members are considering the adoption of new ideas/practices (e.g., SVO), they should consider the contextual fitness of the idea/practice with the firm's owners and their interests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".