IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v28y2007i4p407-429.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic responsiveness and Bowman's risk–return paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Torben J. Andersen
  • Jerker Denrell
  • Richard A. Bettis

Abstract

One of the most enduring puzzles in the strategy literature is the negative association between risk and return known as the Bowman paradox. This paper formalizes a model of strategic conduct based on the concept of strategic fit and the heterogeneity of firm strategic capabilities. This model is shown mathematically to yield the negative association of the Bowman paradox. Furthermore, the model makes several other testable predictions. To examine these predictions, simulated data from the model are compared with a large empirical study of 45 industries during 1991–2000. The predictions of the model are consistent with the empirical data. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Torben J. Andersen & Jerker Denrell & Richard A. Bettis, 2007. "Strategic responsiveness and Bowman's risk–return paradox," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 407-429, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:28:y:2007:i:4:p:407-429
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.596
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.596
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.596?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Xu & Vermeulen, Freek, 2021. "High risk, low return (and vice versa): the effect of product innovation on firm performance in a transition economy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120268, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Metin Coskun & Gulsah Kulali, 2016. "Relationship between Accounting Based Risk and Return: Analysis for Turkish Companies," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(4), pages 240-240, March.
    3. DRAGHICI, Dalis Maria, 2021. "Implementing Quantitative Techniques In Assessing The Risk Attitudes," Studii Financiare (Financial Studies), Centre of Financial and Monetary Research "Victor Slavescu", vol. 25(2), pages 64-78, June.
    4. Csonka, Arnold & Bareith, Tibor, 2019. "Profitperzisztencia vizsgálata a magyar sertésszektorban [Analysis of profit persistence in the Hungarian pig sector]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 847-862.
    5. Yan Li & Neal M. Ashkanasy, 2019. "Risk adaptation and emotion differentiation: An experimental study of dynamic decision-making," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 219-243, March.
    6. Minhas Akbar & Ahsan Akbar & Petra Maresova & Minghui Yang & Hafiz Muhammad Arshad, 2020. "Unraveling the Bankruptcy Risk‒Return Paradox across the Corporate Life Cycle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, April.
    7. Xue-Feng Shao & Kostas Gouliamos & Ben Nan-Feng Luo & Shigeyuki Hamori & Stephen Satchell & Xiao-Guang Yue & Jane Qiu, 2020. "Diversification and Desynchronicity: An Organizational Portfolio Perspective on Corporate Risk Reduction," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-16, May.
    8. Farrukh Mahmood & Robert M. Kunst, 2023. "Modeling nonlinear in Bowman’s paradox: the case of Pakistan," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 2357-2372, May.
    9. Bhattacharya, Abhi & Misra, Shekhar & Sardashti, Hanieh, 2019. "Strategic orientation and firm risk," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 509-527.
    10. Hoang, Khanh & Nguyen, Cuong & Zhang, Hailiang, 2021. "How does economic policy uncertainty affect corporate diversification?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 254-269.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:28:y:2007:i:4:p:407-429. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.