When Simple Levers Fail: Why Management Interventions Require Strategic Coherence

Listen to this article:

Abstract: Management practice often relies on isolated interventions—cost reduction, performance systems, workplace policies—that show surprisingly weak main effects when studied empirically. This article examines why conventional management levers frequently deliver disappointing results absent contextual enablers and strategic coherence. Drawing on organizational behavior, strategic management, and empirical research, the analysis demonstrates that tactical choices decoupled from managerial capability, organizational context, and strategic logic reliably underperform. The evidence suggests that durable performance gains emerge not from binary either-or decisions but from integrated systems that align leadership competence, resource allocation, and stakeholder value creation. This article synthesizes research on contextual moderators of intervention effectiveness, documents organizational consequences of decontextualized decision-making, and provides evidence-based guidance for designing interventions that build systemic capability rather than pursuing isolated efficiency gains.

Every experienced leader has encountered the appeal of the simple solution. Cut costs to improve margins. Install performance reviews to boost productivity. Change workplace policies to enhance collaboration. Yet practitioners increasingly report that these intuitive interventions often disappoint—not because the actions themselves are inherently flawed, but because they address symptoms while ignoring the systems that govern organizational performance.

The pattern appears across management domains. Research on telecommuting reveals enormous variability in productivity effects, with outcomes ranging from significantly negative to significantly positive depending on job characteristics, technology infrastructure, and managerial competence (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Studies of downsizing show similarly inconsistent results: some organizations improve performance following workforce reductions, while others experience productivity declines, innovation losses, and customer satisfaction erosion (Cascio, 2002). The same intervention produces opposite outcomes in different contexts.

This variability matters because organizations invest billions annually in management practices that fail when leaders mistake correlation for causation, confuse activity with outcomes, and underestimate the explanatory power of implementation quality. As competitive intensity rises and stakeholder expectations broaden, the cost of simplistic thinking compounds. Leaders need frameworks that account for contextual complexity rather than universal prescriptions that ignore situational demands.

This article examines why seemingly obvious management choices frequently fail to deliver promised results, what organizational consequences follow from decontextualized interventions, and how evidence-based leaders build systems that address root causes rather than chase fashionable tactics.

The Management Intervention Landscape

Defining Context-Dependent Effectiveness in Practice

A fundamental challenge in management practice involves distinguishing interventions that work universally from those whose effectiveness depends critically on implementation quality and organizational context. When research reveals weak average effects for widely adopted practices, the finding typically does not mean the intervention never works—it means outcomes depend more on how, when, and under what conditions the practice is deployed than on whether it exists at all.

This distinction matters because management discourse too often treats empirical relationships as context-free laws. If restructuring correlates with improved returns in one high-profile case, executives assume it will work everywhere. Yet systematic reviews consistently reveal substantial heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies, signaling that implementation quality, leadership capability, and situational moderators drive results more than intervention choice alone (Rousseau, 2006). The weak average effect reflects this heterogeneity: some organizations benefit significantly, others suffer meaningful harm, and many experience negligible change.

Consider performance management systems. Research suggests that formal performance appraisal processes show inconsistent relationships with individual or organizational performance improvements (DeNisi & Murphy, 2017). This null average does not mean performance feedback is unimportant—extensive evidence confirms that high-quality feedback accelerates learning and skill development. Rather, it means that the presence of a formal system predicts little without considering manager capability to conduct developmental conversations, organizational culture supporting candor, and strategic clarity connecting individual goals to business priorities.

State of Practice and Institutional Drivers

Several patterns explain why context-dependent interventions persist despite weak average effects:

Cognitive availability and pattern-matching. Executives anchor on salient examples—the competitor that restructured and thrived, the technology firm that adopted new workplace policies and grew—without accounting for unobserved factors that enabled success. Availability bias leads to pattern-matching on surface features while ignoring underlying capabilities (Kahneman, 2011). Leaders see the visible intervention but miss the invisible infrastructure of talent quality, strategic clarity, and operational discipline that determined outcomes.

Institutional isomorphism and legitimacy seeking. Organizations imitate peer practices to gain legitimacy and manage stakeholder expectations, not necessarily because they have evidence the practices fit their strategic context (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). When competitors announce restructuring initiatives, boards may pressure leadership to demonstrate comparable decisiveness. When industry surveys report widespread adoption of new workplace models, laggards feel compelled to match peer practice to avoid appearing outdated. This mimetic pressure substitutes for strategic diagnosis.

Measurement system limitations. Performance measurement frameworks often reward visible action and short-term metric improvement over durable value creation. Interventions that produce immediate, measurable changes—quarterly cost reductions, headcount adjustments, policy announcements—may satisfy external stakeholders even if they degrade longer-term organizational capabilities that surface only gradually. Leaders face asymmetric career incentives: the upside of decisive action accrues quickly and visibly; the downside of capability erosion manifests after leadership transitions.

These drivers interact in predictable ways. A CEO facing board pressure to improve margins (institutional pressure) recalls a peer's restructuring success story (availability bias) and launches changes that hit short-term targets (measurement system incentives) while potentially degrading organizational capabilities needed for sustained competitiveness. The intervention may succeed or fail depending on factors the decision process never examined: whether cuts target genuinely low-value activities, preserve critical talent and capabilities, and align with strategic priorities rather than spreadsheet convenience.

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Decontextualized Interventions

Organizational Performance Impacts

When leaders deploy isolated interventions without addressing systemic enablers, organizations experience predictable dysfunctions. Research on downsizing reveals that workforce reductions show highly variable effects on organizational performance, with outcomes depending critically on implementation approach (Cascio, 2002). Organizations that reduce headcount without redesigning workflows, preserving critical capabilities, or maintaining strategic investment often experience what researchers term "post-restructuring syndrome": remaining employees face unsustainable workloads, institutional knowledge evaporates, and customer service quality deteriorates.

Cascio's (2002) review of restructuring research identifies that indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts frequently correlate with productivity declines rather than improvements. Organizations that lay off high performers along with low performers, eliminate entire functional capabilities regardless of strategic value, or cut training and development investments to meet short-term targets often find that savings are offset by increased turnover costs, quality problems, and lost customer relationships. By contrast, organizations that approach restructuring strategically—targeting genuinely redundant activities, investing in remaining workforce capability, maintaining strategic priorities—show more favorable outcomes.

The performance management domain illustrates similar dynamics. DeNisi and Murphy's (2017) comprehensive review notes that despite decades of refinement in appraisal instruments and process design, formal performance management systems show disappointingly weak relationships with performance improvement. The authors argue this occurs because system effectiveness depends almost entirely on factors external to the system itself: manager skill in providing useful feedback, organizational culture supporting developmental conversations, clarity of strategic goals that give meaning to individual objectives, and trust levels that determine whether employees engage authentically or defensively.

In organizations where managers lack coaching skills, where culture punishes candor, or where strategic priorities shift unpredictably, even well-designed performance systems become compliance rituals that consume time without generating value. Employees learn to "manage" the process—crafting politically safe goals, avoiding stretch objectives that risk failure, presenting carefully curated narratives—rather than using it for genuine development.

Workplace location decisions reveal the same pattern of context-dependent effectiveness. Gajendran and Harrison's (2007) meta-analysis of telecommuting research found that remote work effects on productivity, job satisfaction, and turnover varied dramatically across studies. The analysis revealed that outcomes depended on job characteristics (routine versus complex tasks), extent of telecommuting (occasional versus full-time), and quality of manager-employee relationships. Jobs involving low task interdependence and high autonomy showed positive telecommuting effects; roles requiring intensive collaboration or where employees lacked established relationships showed neutral or negative effects.

The variability matters because blanket policies—mandating office presence or remote work for all roles—ignore the heterogeneity that determines outcomes. Organizations that impose uniform approaches experience uneven results: some employees thrive while others struggle, producing weak average effects that mask the underlying variation.

Individual Wellbeing and Stakeholder Impacts

Context-insensitive interventions impose hidden costs on individuals and external stakeholders. Poorly managed downsizing leaves surviving employees with ambiguous role expectations, increased workloads, and elevated job insecurity—a combination that research associates with stress, reduced organizational commitment, and increased voluntary turnover among the high performers organizations most need to retain (Cascio, 2002). The phenomenon affects not only those who lose jobs but those who remain, creating what some researchers term "survivor syndrome": reduced trust in leadership, guilt about retained employment, and anxiety about future cuts.

Customer-facing roles experience particularly acute strain when organizations reduce service capacity without adjusting service promises or redesigning customer interaction models. Employees find themselves unable to deliver expected service quality, creating frustration that degrades both employee wellbeing and customer experience simultaneously. The downstream costs—customer defection, brand damage, employee burnout—may exceed short-term savings but surface gradually enough that causal attribution becomes difficult.

Performance management systems misaligned with developmental needs create what some practitioners describe as ritualized exchanges that waste time, increase cynicism, and provide neither genuine accountability nor useful guidance. When managers lack skills to conduct meaningful conversations or when organizational culture makes candid feedback risky, employees invest energy in impression management rather than capability development. The opportunity cost includes both direct time spent on unproductive meetings and indirect costs of forgone learning and misallocated effort.

Workplace policies imposed without consideration of individual circumstances create uneven impacts that aggregate to neutral average effects while producing clear winners and losers. Mandated office presence may disadvantage caregivers, employees with disabilities, and those who relocated during periods of remote flexibility, while potentially benefiting early-career workers who value mentorship and informal learning opportunities. Conversely, mandated remote work may advantage experienced employees with strong self-direction while isolating workers who lack home infrastructure, live alone, or prefer social interaction for wellbeing. Blanket policies that ignore this heterogeneity create unnecessary hardship even when average productivity remains stable.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

Strategically Aligned Resource Management

Effective resource management begins with strategic clarity about sources of competitive advantage and value creation. Organizations whose restructuring efforts preserve or enhance performance distinguish themselves through disciplined focus on strategic priorities. Rather than applying uniform cost targets across units, these organizations ask: Which capabilities differentiate us in the market? Where must we excel versus where is acceptable parity sufficient? What investments enable future growth even as we reduce current spending?

Research-informed approaches to resource management include:

• Strategic prioritization over uniform targets: Identifying genuinely low-value activities for elimination while protecting or increasing investment in strategic capabilities, even when this produces uneven distribution of resource changes across units.

• Process redesign preceding headcount decisions: Eliminating redundant workflows, automating transactional tasks, and simplifying bureaucratic procedures before reducing staff, ensuring remaining employees can execute effectively rather than simply absorbing additional workload.

• Workforce capability preservation: Protecting high performers and employees with critical, hard-to-replace skills; research consistently shows that losing top talent creates costs—replacement, lost productivity, knowledge erosion—that typically exceed short-term savings from indiscriminate cuts (Cascio, 2002).

• Transparent communication about strategic logic: Explaining not only what is changing but why, connecting resource decisions to competitive strategy in ways that help employees understand priorities and make informed choices about their futures.

Cascio (2002) identifies that organizations practicing "responsible restructuring" focus on work redesign and strategic repositioning rather than headcount reduction as the primary objective. These organizations may reduce employment as a consequence of strategic choices—exiting unprofitable businesses, automating processes, consolidating operations—but the employment change follows strategic logic rather than driving it. The distinction produces meaningfully different outcomes: employees understand the connection between restructuring and competitive positioning, customers experience continuity in strategic capabilities, and organizational performance tends to improve rather than stagnate or decline.

Manager Capability Development as Performance System Foundation

High-impact performance management requires shifting focus from system design to manager capability development. The most sophisticated appraisal instruments and process architectures deliver little value when managers lack skills to conduct useful developmental conversations. Conversely, capable managers can generate substantial performance improvement even with simple, minimalist systems.

DeNisi and Murphy (2017) argue that decades of performance management research focusing on appraisal format, rating scale design, and process timing may have addressed the wrong questions. Their review suggests that the critical determinants of system effectiveness lie not in technical design but in human factors: manager ability to observe performance accurately, deliver feedback constructively, diagnose development needs, and connect individual work to organizational strategy. Organizations that invest in building these capabilities tend to see stronger results than those that invest primarily in system refinement.

Effective approaches to developing manager capability include:

• Structured skill development: Training programs that teach feedback delivery, coaching conversations, goal-setting, and development planning as core leadership competencies, not optional "soft skills."

• Practice-based learning: Opportunities for managers to practice difficult conversations—delivering constructive criticism, addressing performance problems, navigating defensive reactions—in low-stakes environments before facing high-stakes situations.

• Ongoing support systems: Access to coaching, peer learning communities, and resources that help managers navigate complex situations rather than expecting mastery after one-time training.

• Accountability for people development: Including team development, engagement, and retention outcomes in manager performance evaluation, signaling that leadership capability is central to role success.

Organizations that treat manager capability as foundational infrastructure—investing systematically rather than episodically—create conditions where performance management processes can function as intended. Those that install sophisticated systems without investing in manager capability often find that process complexity exceeds manager capacity to execute, producing frustration rather than performance improvement.

Context-Sensitive Workplace Design

Evidence-based workplace decisions require moving beyond binary choices (remote versus office) to context-specific configurations that account for task demands, team interdependencies, employee circumstances, and managerial capability. Research suggests that remote work effectiveness depends critically on job characteristics and implementation quality rather than location itself (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).

Gajendran and Harrison's (2007) meta-analysis revealed several patterns relevant to workplace design:

• Jobs characterized by low task interdependence (where workers can complete assignments without intensive real-time coordination) show more favorable telecommuting outcomes than highly interdependent roles.

• Moderate telecommuting intensity (part-time remote work) often produces better outcomes than either no flexibility or full-time remote arrangements, potentially because it balances autonomy benefits with relationship maintenance and coordination advantages.

• Relationship quality between managers and employees moderates outcomes significantly—high-quality relationships enable effective remote work, while weak relationships struggle with distance.

These findings suggest that effective workplace models diagnose role requirements and team contexts rather than imposing uniform policies. Organizations can implement:

• Task-based analysis: Mapping work by interdependence level (individual, sequential, reciprocal) and ambiguity (routine, adaptive, creative) to identify roles where location flexibility aligns with task structure versus roles where coordination demands favor colocation.

• Team-level flexibility: Allowing teams to define working arrangements suited to their collaboration needs rather than mandating enterprise-wide uniformity, with guardrails ensuring that decisions account for inclusivity and equity considerations.

• Infrastructure investment: Providing collaboration technology, communication tools, and practices that enable effective remote interaction for roles where flexibility makes sense, rather than assuming technology ubiquity ensures success.

• Manager capability assessment: Evaluating manager readiness to lead distributed teams effectively—setting clear expectations, providing feedback asynchronously, building trust without face-to-face interaction—and providing development where capabilities lag.

Organizations implementing these approaches often discover that workplace effectiveness depends less on location per se and more on alignment between work characteristics, team practices, manager capability, and employee circumstances. The policy becomes less important than the diagnostic process that determines appropriate configurations for different contexts.

Building Psychological Safety for Adaptive Implementation

Even well-designed interventions fail when frontline employees fear raising concerns about implementation problems or unintended consequences. Research on psychological safety demonstrates that team climates where members feel safe speaking up predict learning, error detection, and adaptive performance across diverse contexts (Edmondson, 2019).

Edmondson's (2019) research shows that psychological safety emerges from specific leadership behaviors rather than personality traits or organizational culture alone. Leaders who frame work as learning problems rather than execution problems, acknowledge their own fallibility, and actively invite input create conditions where team members surface issues early when they are easier to address. By contrast, leaders who present plans as finished products, react defensively to challenges, or punish messengers create conditions where problems remain hidden until they become crises.

Practices that build psychological safety during intervention implementation include:

• Transparent communication about uncertainty: Explicitly acknowledging what is known and unknown about intervention effects, reducing the pressure to defend decisions against all evidence.

• Invitation to identify problems: Direct requests for employees to surface unintended consequences, implementation barriers, and improvement opportunities, with visible leadership response that legitimizes constructive dissent.

• Learning orientation: Framing interventions as experiments with planned review cycles rather than permanent decisions, which reduces defensiveness when adjustments are needed.

• Separation of execution challenges from competence judgments: Distinguishing between "this approach isn't working as intended" (system problem) and "you are failing to execute properly" (individual competence problem) to preserve motivation for problem-solving.

Organizations that combine clear strategic direction with permission to surface implementation problems and adapt locally often outperform those that demand rigid adherence to central mandates. The former approach treats implementation as learning process; the latter treats it as compliance exercise. The difference shapes both immediate intervention effectiveness and longer-term organizational capability to adapt.

Building Long-Term Adaptive Capability and Strategic Coherence

Integrating Interventions Within Strategic Logic

Organizations escape the trap of weak intervention effects by embedding individual management choices within coherent systems that align strategy, capabilities, and stakeholder value creation. Rather than asking "Should we restructure?" or "Should we change workplace policies?", strategic leaders ask "What capabilities must we build to create distinctive value, and how do resource allocation, talent management, and operating models reinforce those capabilities?"

This systems perspective requires several shifts in thinking:

• Explicit competitive logic: Leaders must articulate the specific mechanisms through which their organization creates value that competitors cannot easily replicate—the distinctive capabilities, relationships, assets, or positions that justify customer choice and enable acceptable returns.

• Intervention-strategy alignment: Testing whether proposed management changes strengthen strategic capabilities or merely optimize short-term metrics that may be unrelated or inversely related to long-term value creation.

• Stakeholder value integration: Considering how interventions affect multiple stakeholders—employees, customers, suppliers, communities—whose sustained cooperation enables organizational success, rather than optimizing narrowly for short-term shareholder returns.

Leaders who build systemic coherence recognize that management interventions make sense only in relation to strategic context. Cost reduction makes sense when it reallocates resources from genuinely low-value activities to strategic priorities, not when it preserves outdated business models while cutting investment in future capabilities. Performance management drives outcomes when embedded in culture supporting development and staffed by capable managers, not when installed as bureaucratic overlay onto unchanged practices. Workplace flexibility works when matched to task demands and supported by infrastructure, not when imposed uniformly across diverse roles.

Distributed Leadership and Contextual Adaptation

Hierarchical organizations often fail to capture local knowledge that reveals when and how management interventions should adapt to specific contexts. Leadership models that distribute decision authority closer to frontline work enable faster learning and context-specific tailoring while maintaining strategic coherence (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).

Uhl-Bien et al.'s (2007) complexity leadership framework distinguishes between administrative leadership (formal authority, planning, resource allocation) and adaptive leadership (enabling emergent problem-solving, learning, and innovation). Effective organizations balance both: administrative leadership sets strategic direction and allocates resources; adaptive leadership enables teams to solve complex problems in context-appropriate ways. Organizations that over-emphasize administrative control stifle adaptation; those that neglect strategic coordination fragment into silos.

Practices supporting distributed sensemaking and adaptation include:

• Clear decision rights: Defining which decisions require central approval (resource allocation across major initiatives, enterprise-wide policy) and which reside with teams or business units (work process design, local implementation approaches), reducing ambiguity about authority boundaries.

• Transparent performance visibility: Providing teams with data about outcomes they influence—customer satisfaction, productivity, quality, employee engagement—enabling self-correction without waiting for executive intervention.

• Cross-unit learning mechanisms: Creating forums where teams share approaches, compare results, and learn from collective experience, accelerating diffusion of effective practices while allowing contextual variation.

Organizations implementing distributed leadership models often discover that strategic coherence emerges not from detailed central planning but from shared understanding of competitive logic combined with local autonomy to adapt. The role of senior leadership shifts from specifying solutions to framing strategic challenges, providing resources, removing obstacles, and facilitating learning across organizational boundaries.

Continuous Learning and Evidence Discipline

Organizations that sustain performance commit to disciplined learning: they test assumptions, measure outcomes rigorously, and update beliefs based on evidence rather than defending initial choices regardless of results. This learning orientation contrasts with the "decide-announce-defend" pattern common in hierarchical settings, where admitting that interventions underperformed may feel like leadership failure.

Building learning discipline involves:

• Pilot-scale testing: Implementing interventions in limited contexts before enterprise-wide deployment, learning from failures when they affect smaller populations and course-correcting before massive resource commitments (Edmondson, 2019).

• Rigorous outcome measurement: Moving beyond anecdote and satisfaction surveys to quantify effects on productivity, quality, customer outcomes, and financial performance, using comparison groups where feasible to isolate intervention effects from confounding trends.

• Willingness to reverse decisions: Creating cultural norms where changing course based on evidence is celebrated as learning rather than stigmatized as indecision or weakness, which requires senior leadership modeling adaptation publicly.

• External learning with contextual translation: Studying peer practices and research evidence while always asking "What contextual factors enabled success there that may not apply here?" rather than assuming portability.

These capabilities compound over time. Organizations that learn effectively from one intervention apply lessons to subsequent initiatives, building institutional wisdom about what works in their specific context. Those that lurch from initiative to initiative without reflection never accumulate learning, condemning themselves to perpetual disappointment with average intervention effects.

Thompson (1967) observed decades ago that organizational effectiveness depends on fitting structure and process to technology and environment. His insight remains relevant: the organizations that outperform are not those that adopt the newest management practices fastest, but those that most accurately diagnose their context and adapt practices to fit. Building this diagnostic capability—understanding one's strategic logic, competitive environment, workforce characteristics, and stakeholder needs well enough to predict what will work—represents durable competitive advantage.

Conclusion

The recognition that many management interventions show weak or inconsistent average effects is not a puzzle to be solved but a signal to be heeded. These findings remind us that management practices divorced from strategic logic, implementation capability, and organizational context reliably fail to deliver promised benefits.

The path forward requires rejecting simplistic either-or thinking in favor of systems perspective. Leaders must ask not "What single action will fix this problem?" but rather "What combination of strategic clarity, capability development, process design, and adaptive implementation will build sustainable advantage?" They must invest in often-invisible enablers—manager skill, psychological safety, distributed sensemaking, learning discipline—that determine whether well-intentioned interventions create value or consume resources without meaningful return.

The research reviewed here—spanning downsizing, performance management, workplace design, and organizational leadership—reveals consistent themes. Interventions that work in some contexts fail in others. Average effects mask enormous variation. Implementation quality matters more than intervention choice. Manager capability moderates most effects. Strategic coherence trumps tactical optimization.

Organizations that achieve consistently strong results from management interventions share common disciplines: they align decisions with explicit competitive logic, they build managerial competence as foundational infrastructure, they test assumptions and learn from evidence systematically, and they resist institutional pressure to imitate peers without examining strategic fit. These disciplines require patience, investment, and comfort with complexity in environments that often reward decisive simplicity.

The stakes justify the effort. In increasingly dynamic environments, competitive advantage belongs to organizations that execute coherent systems rather than chase isolated levers. The weak intervention effects documented in research are not indictments of restructuring, performance management, or workplace flexibility as concepts—they are indictments of decontextualized thinking that treats management as a collection of independent tools rather than an integrated system. Real progress comes when we build coherence, capability, and the organizational wisdom to recognize that context always matters.

References

1. Cascio, W. F. (2002). Strategies for responsible restructuring. Academy of Management Perspectives, 16(3), 80–91.

2. DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421–433.

3. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

4. Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.

5. Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541.

6. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

7. Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as "evidence-based management"? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256–269.

8. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill.

9. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). When Simple Levers Fail: Why Management Interventions Require Strategic Coherence. Human Capital Leadership Review, 28(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.28.1.4