Thesis (M.Com. (Accountancy))--University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, School of Accountancy, 2015 / Many studies considering the effects CEOs‟ characteristics have on the companies they run have been carried out in America. This study considers if organisational outcomes and strategic choices are partially predicted by managerial background characteristics as put forward by Hambrick and Mason (1984). It attempts to determine if the personality traits of CEOs of JSE listed companies (which result in them being classified as a narcissist) have an impact on the financial performance on the company for which they work. As identified by Chatterjee and Hambrick (2007), prior research has explored how executive‟s characteristics are manifested in organisational outcomes, however very little research addresses the narcissistic aspect of CEOs personalities. This study explored whether a relationship exists between CEO narcissism and strategic dynamism in a nonprobability, convenience sample.. A 5-item narcissism index was used as a proxy for narcissism and financial leverage, overhead efficiency and plant and equipment newness, were used to measure strategic dynamism. Multiple regression was used to analyse the data by applying CEO narcissism as the independent variable, strategic dynamism as the dependents variable whilst including control variables, including the CEO tenure, the age of the CEO, the age of the company, and indicator variable for the presence of a COO, the phase of the economy during which the CEO served his tenure and an indicator variable for which industry the company is operating in. The results of this study revealed that there is a viii correlation between the level of narcissism, captured using unobtrusive measures, of a JSE listed company‟s CEO and the level of strategic dynamism of that company. The results of the regression models suggest that whilst there is no observable relationship between narcissism and strategic dynamism, there is a relationship between narcissism and two of the components of strategic dynamism, financial leverage and plant and equipment newness. This research contributes further to the study of the effect of narcissistic CEO‟s on the companies for which they work and suggests that the personality traits of CEOs should be considered by company boards and shareholders when deciding to elect a person as CEO as well as by investors when deciding which companies to invest in.

Cette thèse a pour objectif de comprendre la façon dont se fabrique la stratégie dans un contexte pluraliste. Dans ce cadre, nous nous appuyons sur la littérature du pluralisme identitaire (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Gioia & Chittepeddi, 1991; Ashforth & Mael, 1996; Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997; Hatch & Schultz, 1997; Silva, 2010) et sur l'approche pratique de la stratégie (Whittington, 2003; Jarzabkowsky, 2003, 2004; Golsorkhi & al., 2010; Johnson & al., 2010). Ce travail de recherche est né d'un manque dans la littérature qui examine la relation entre la multiplicité des identités organisationnelles et la fabrication des stratégies. Nous avons ainsi opté pour un design de recherche interprétativiste et pour une étude de cas unique: le Conseil Economique et Social du Liban. Cette institution constitutionnelle abrite deux identités organisationnelles: l'identité d'un lieu de négociation et l'identité d'un lieu d'expertise. Etant donné la nouveauté du terrain et du contexte traité, nous adoptons la méthodologie de la théorie enracinée préconisée par Glaser et Strauss. Nous montrons que le pluralisme influence la fabrication des stratégies de trois façons: 1) par la "référentialisation" qui consiste à "opérationnaliser" les systèmes des valeurs à travers "une stratégie d'initiation" et "de renforcement", 2) par la "régulation" identitaire qui consiste à gérer les identités organisationnelles pour des fins stratégiques à travers "une stratégie de légitimation" et 3) la "négociation" identitaire suite à une crise institutionnelle et qui aboutit à "une stratégie de survie". Nous avons également conclu que cette influence évolue avec l'évolution du contexte institutionnel de l'organisation: nous avons identifié un couplage faible entre la multiplicité des identités organisationnelles et la fabrication des stratégies dans la phase de naissance de l'organisation mais qui croit avec la croissance de l'organisation, surtout dans les périodes de "perturbation". Ces périodes entrainent une rupture dans la pratique des praticiens: si cette rupture n'est pas assez significative, la gestion des IO devient une pratique stratégique, si la rupture est significative mettant en cause la survie de l'organisation, les IO deviennent des lentilles perceptuelles à travers lesquelles les praticiens perçoivent les capacités fondamentales de l'organisation ce qui influence ainsi sur leur choix et leur pratique stratégique. / The objective of this thesis is to understand strategizing in pluralistic contexts. Our research is based on the literature of pluralistic organizations (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Gioia & Chittepeddi, 1991; Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997, Ashforth & Mael, 1996; Hatch & Schultz, 1997; Silva, 2010) and the strategy-as-practice approach (Whittington, 2003; Jarzabkowsky, 2003, 2004; Golsorkhi & al., 2010; Johnson & al., 2010). This research addresses the gap in the literature discussing the relationship between the multiplicity of organizational identities and strategizing. Thus, our thesis operates an interpretativist research design and conducts a one case study: the Economic and Social Council of Lebanon. This institutional constitution has two organizational identities: the identity of a negotiation place and the identity of an expertise one. Due to the novelty of the research field and the context studied, we have chosen to apply the grounded theory methodology advocated by Glaser and Strauss. We show that the pluralism influence strategizing in three ways: 1) by the "referentialization" which means the operationalization of the system of values through an "initiation" and "reinforcement strategy", 2) by the identity "regulation" which consists of managing organizational identities for strategic purposes through a "legitimation strategy" and 3) by the identity "negociation" following an institutional crisis and which leads to a "survival strategy". We have also concluded the evolution of this influence with the evolution of the institutional context of the organization: it is weak at the initiation phase (birth) but increases with the growth of the organization and especially in periods of "perturbation". These periods lead to a breakdown in the praxis of practitioners: if the breakdown is weak, the management of organizational identities become a strategic practice, if the breakdown is significant, the organizational identities become lenses trough which practitioners craft their particular definitions of the organizational core capabilities which influence their strategic choice and praxis.