Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 6 – uploaded by Mohammad AL Dweiri

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 8 Hypothesis testing. middle managers’ involvement in the strategy implementa- tion and organizational capabilities. The third hypothesis examines the link between middle managers’ autonomy and organizational capabilities. The fourth hypothesis is on the link between organizational capabilities and organi- zational performance. Finally, the fifth hypothesis tests the mediating effect of organizational capabilities on the relationship between middle managers’ involvement as wel as middle managers’ autonomy and firm performance. The Table 7 shows the different indexes examining the adequacy of the model. As can be seen, estimating the hypothesized model produced the following statistics (Chi? = 51.196; p=0.048; RMSEA=0.034; Chi?/DF=1.42; GFI=0.976; CFI = 0.990). Similarly, the Table 8 shows the results of the estimation of the structural equation models used for testing the research hypotheses. This table shows that al coefficients are positive and significant, consistent with the hypotheses, except for the relationship between middle managers’ autonomy and organizational capabilities.

Table 8 Hypothesis testing. middle managers’ involvement in the strategy implementa- tion and organizational capabilities. The third hypothesis examines the link between middle managers’ autonomy and organizational capabilities. The fourth hypothesis is on the link between organizational capabilities and organi- zational performance. Finally, the fifth hypothesis tests the mediating effect of organizational capabilities on the relationship between middle managers’ involvement as wel as middle managers’ autonomy and firm performance. The Table 7 shows the different indexes examining the adequacy of the model. As can be seen, estimating the hypothesized model produced the following statistics (Chi? = 51.196; p=0.048; RMSEA=0.034; Chi?/DF=1.42; GFI=0.976; CFI = 0.990). Similarly, the Table 8 shows the results of the estimation of the structural equation models used for testing the research hypotheses. This table shows that al coefficients are positive and significant, consistent with the hypotheses, except for the relationship between middle managers’ autonomy and organizational capabilities.

Related Figures (9)

Please cite this article in press as: Ouakouak, M.L. et al., The mediating role of organizational capabilities in the relationship between middle manage involvement and firm performance: A European study, European Management Journal (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.03.002 There is no universally accepted definition of a middle man- ager. Nonetheless, middle managers’ role in the strategy development process has been recognized since the 1970s Wooldridge et al., 2008). According to Uyterhoeven 1972), a middle manager is someone ‘‘who is responsible for a particular business unit at the intermediate level of corporate hierarchy’’ (p. 136). Middle managers can also be defined in a positional sense as ‘*those below the general manager’s executive team and above the level of supervi- sor’’ (Heckscher, 1995, p. 9). Bower (1970) is among the first researchers to emphasize the contributions made by middle managers in the strategy making process, by stating that middle managers ‘‘are the only men in the organization who are in a position to judge whether (strategic) issues are being considered in the proper context’’ (Bower, 1970, pp. 297—298). The fundamental importance of middle managers for organizational success has been widely recognized among researchers (Mair & Thurner, 2008), even though their role in organizations was in fact very often limited
Please cite this article in press as: Ouakouak, M.L. et al., The mediating role of organizational capabilities in the relationship between middle manage involvement and firm performance: A European study, European Management Journal (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.03.002 There is no universally accepted definition of a middle man- ager. Nonetheless, middle managers’ role in the strategy development process has been recognized since the 1970s Wooldridge et al., 2008). According to Uyterhoeven 1972), a middle manager is someone ‘‘who is responsible for a particular business unit at the intermediate level of corporate hierarchy’’ (p. 136). Middle managers can also be defined in a positional sense as ‘*those below the general manager’s executive team and above the level of supervi- sor’’ (Heckscher, 1995, p. 9). Bower (1970) is among the first researchers to emphasize the contributions made by middle managers in the strategy making process, by stating that middle managers ‘‘are the only men in the organization who are in a position to judge whether (strategic) issues are being considered in the proper context’’ (Bower, 1970, pp. 297—298). The fundamental importance of middle managers for organizational success has been widely recognized among researchers (Mair & Thurner, 2008), even though their role in organizations was in fact very often limited
Table 1 Profile of the respondents. automatically. The email was comprised of a letter explain- ing the purpose and the structure of the questionnaire and a link to the questionnaire. Approximately, 22% of the 7250 emails sent were not delivered, because of incorrect or changed addresses, anti-spam measures, etc. In the end, 372 usable questionnaires were sent back, which represent a response rate of 6.58%. The responses were collected from 33 different European countries. Table 1 presents the profile of the respondents. Table 2 presents the compo- sition of the sample by country and Table 3 presents the composition of the sample by firm size based solely on the number of headcounts. !
Table 1 Profile of the respondents. automatically. The email was comprised of a letter explain- ing the purpose and the structure of the questionnaire and a link to the questionnaire. Approximately, 22% of the 7250 emails sent were not delivered, because of incorrect or changed addresses, anti-spam measures, etc. In the end, 372 usable questionnaires were sent back, which represent a response rate of 6.58%. The responses were collected from 33 different European countries. Table 1 presents the profile of the respondents. Table 2 presents the compo- sition of the sample by country and Table 3 presents the composition of the sample by firm size based solely on the number of headcounts. !
Table 2 Composition of the sample by country.
Table 2 Composition of the sample by country.
Table 3 Composition of the sample by firm size (European classification). Ramanujam and Venkatraman (1987), that has been subse- quently used in other studies (for example, Papke-Shields, Malhotra, & Grover, 2002; Papke-Shields et al., 2006). As shown in Appendix 1, respondents answered questions per- taining to their companies’ sales growth, earnings’ growth and return on investment compared to those of their direct competitors. without approval from their superiors. As for the third item, it reflects the ability of middle managers to introduce new internal practices without requiring permission from top management.
Table 3 Composition of the sample by firm size (European classification). Ramanujam and Venkatraman (1987), that has been subse- quently used in other studies (for example, Papke-Shields, Malhotra, & Grover, 2002; Papke-Shields et al., 2006). As shown in Appendix 1, respondents answered questions per- taining to their companies’ sales growth, earnings’ growth and return on investment compared to those of their direct competitors. without approval from their superiors. As for the third item, it reflects the ability of middle managers to introduce new internal practices without requiring permission from top management.
Table 5 Reliability and convergent validity of variables. Please cite this article in press as: Ouakouak, M.L. et al., The mediating role of organizational capabilities in the relationship between middle managers’ invo ment and firm performance: A European study, European Management Journal (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.03.002
Table 5 Reliability and convergent validity of variables. Please cite this article in press as: Ouakouak, M.L. et al., The mediating role of organizational capabilities in the relationship between middle managers’ invo ment and firm performance: A European study, European Management Journal (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.03.002
Table 4 Means, standard deviations and correlations. The Table 5 shows the reliability statistics evaluated by means of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (C.R.) coefficients. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients vary from 0.724 (autonomy) to 0.873 (firm performance) and the com- posite reliability ones from 0.845 (autonomy) to 0.922 (firm performance). Since all the indexes are above the recom- mended limit of 0.70, it can be concluded that the variables are sufficiently reliable (Nunnally, 1978). Five hypothesized relationships inspired from the research model (Figure 1) were tested through several structural equation models using AMOS. The first of them concerns the direct relationship between middle managers’ involve- ment in the strategy formulation and organizational capa- bilities. The second hypothesis examines the link between
Table 4 Means, standard deviations and correlations. The Table 5 shows the reliability statistics evaluated by means of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (C.R.) coefficients. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients vary from 0.724 (autonomy) to 0.873 (firm performance) and the com- posite reliability ones from 0.845 (autonomy) to 0.922 (firm performance). Since all the indexes are above the recom- mended limit of 0.70, it can be concluded that the variables are sufficiently reliable (Nunnally, 1978). Five hypothesized relationships inspired from the research model (Figure 1) were tested through several structural equation models using AMOS. The first of them concerns the direct relationship between middle managers’ involve- ment in the strategy formulation and organizational capa- bilities. The second hypothesis examines the link between
Figure 2 Relationship between middle managers’ involve- ment and organizational performance.
Figure 2 Relationship between middle managers’ involve- ment and organizational performance.
The values in the diagonal represent the AVE and the other values are the squares of the inter-construct correlations. Involvement in formulation and involvement in implementation are measured using mono-items; therefore there is no AVE for them.
The values in the diagonal represent the AVE and the other values are the squares of the inter-construct correlations. Involvement in formulation and involvement in implementation are measured using mono-items; therefore there is no AVE for them.
Related topics:
BusinessInformation SystemsMarketingBusiness and ManagementMiddle Management
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved