Home

Today’s highly volatile business environment has initiated a wide variety of changes within organizations of all industries (Hurn, 2012). Change dynamics, in general, is likely to increase in organizational context due to: Digital and innovation disruption; Shifting social and demographic trends; Growing knowledge-based economy and knowledge workforce development; More sophisticated customer needs; and Global economic integration and liberalization. Regardless of its root-cause, it has been argued that change occurs in various shapes, forms and intensity (Jarrett, 2008). Accordingly, many authors recognize that key factor of an organization’s effectiveness lie in the ability to adapt to ever-present change, while successful change management became a pattern for organizational survival and long-term sustainability.

The world’s population continues to increase rapidly, and, within the next 30 years, more than half of all people will choose to live in large urban centers (Faria et al., 2018). This has led to a number of problems, such as congested people and transportation traffic and increased pollution that produces climate change. The concept of “smart” cities has emerged as a way to deal with these issues, in which these cities are defined as an ecosystem that seeks to improve citizens’ quality of life through a combination of technology, sustainability, and physical infrastructures (Estrada et al., 2018). Smart cities have to use new technologies ranging from the Internet of Things (IoT), which facilitates connections between everything, to home automation (i.e., the ease with which citizens can manage daily routines through their homes).

Firms are struggling to gain competitive advantage to resist the ever-increasing global market pressures. Many strategic management studies have identified several essential pillars of building firm’s strategy, often highlighting positive relationships between the use of human resources and the firm performance (Collins & Clark, 2003; Wright et al., 2005). Thus, human capital as the stock of productive knowledge and skills embodied in individuals is a crucial strategic production factor. Knowledge and human resource are intrinsically related concepts since it is people who can learn, generate, utilise and disseminate knowledge in collaborative networks. Knowledge is a primary input in the innovation process, and the ability to use knowledge is crucial in achieving high innovation performance and the strategic competitive advantage (Bock, Opsahl et al., 2012).

High-g rowth firms (HGFs) make a significant impact on the development of countries’ economies and micro, or firm level, factors are vital in understanding this phenomenon. Indeed, HGFs are unique engine of national economies that contribute essentially to economic growth which is much sought after in internationally open economic environment. More specifically, HGFs internationalization is perceived as a source of productivity, export and employment growth in the country. Economic policies of countries, as a macro level stimulus, aim to provide impetus for HGFs development, however understanding micro level factors of HGFs creation, development and internationalization are the basis for macro level decisions. Studying and modelling of micro level factors not only provides an opportunity to understand the phenomenon of HGFs but also develops the basis for policy decisions especially in the field of business internationalization.

The traditional interpretation of corporate finance is characterized by ownership. Although, their rights are widely distributed among individual stockholders, but can be managed by few managers. Hence, conflict of interest is arisen among managers and shareholders and this results in an agency problem (Fama, 1980; Fama & Jensen, 1983). A number of empirical studies also confirmed the ownership concentration of firms, especially those dominated by few large owners or block-holders (La Porta et al., 1999). The concentrated structure of ownership also contributes towards agency conflict between block-holders and minority shareholders. From another perspective, the block-holders can benefit minority shareholders by their role in monitoring managers and also can be hazardous if they strive to achieve their own private goals (Shleifer & Vishny, 1997).