3.2.4. PerformanceHaving reviewed h

3.2.4. Performance
Having reviewed how performance was measured in
different works of strategic research (e.g., Venkatraman &
Ramanujan, 1986), we drew up an eight-item scale to measure
organizational performance. The CEOs were asked to evaluate
their firms’ performance for the last 3 years, measured as return
on assets, return on internal resources, and sales growth in their
main products or services and markets. They were also asked to
compare these measures with their principal competitors’
performance, noting which were above the mean. The use of
scales evaluating performance in comparison with main
competitors is one of the practices most widely used in recent
studies to provide an objective reference for sampled managers
(Steensman & Corley, 2000).
Many researchers have used managers’ subjective perceptions
to measure beneficial outcomes for firms. Others have
preferred objective data, such as return on assets. Scholars have
widely established that there is a high correlation and
concurrent validity between objective and subjective data on
performance, which implies that both are valid when calculating
a firm’s performance (e.g., Dess & Robinson, 1984;
Venkatraman & Ramanujan, 1986). We included questions
involving both types of assessment in our interviews, but the
managers were more open to offering their general views than
to offering precise quantitative data; therefore, we tested the
model using a perceptual measure of financial performance
(three items, seven-point scale). When possible, we calculated
the correlation between objective and subjective data, and these
were high and significant. A confirmatory factor analysis
(v20
2=285.95, NFI=0.92, NNFI=0.90, GFI=0.96, CFI=0.93,
AGFI=0.92) showed that the scale was unidimensional and
highly reliable (a =0.889).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

3.2.4. kinerjaMeninjau bagaimana kinerja diukur dalamkarya yang berbeda strategis penelitian (misalnya, Venkatraman &Ramanujan, 1986), kita menyusun skala delapan-item untuk mengukurkinerja organisasi. CEO diminta untuk mengevaluasikinerja perusahaan mereka selama 3 tahun terakhir, diukur sebagai kembalipada aset, kembali pada sumber daya internal, dan pertumbuhan penjualan di merekautama produk atau layanan dan pasar. Mereka juga diminta untukBandingkan langkah-langkah ini dengan pesaing utama merekakinerja, mencatat yang berada di atas mean. PenggunaanTimbangan mengevaluasi kinerja dibandingkan dengan utamapesaing adalah salah satu praktek yang paling banyak digunakan dalam haristudi untuk memberikan referensi obyektif untuk sampel Manajer(Steensman & Corley, 2000).Banyak peneliti telah menggunakan Manajer persepsi subyektifuntuk mengukur hasil yang menguntungkan bagi perusahaan. Lain memilikilebih disukai tujuan data, seperti laba atas aset. Sarjana-sarjanabanyak didirikan bahwa ada korelasi tinggi danserentak validitas antara tujuan dan subjektif datakinerja, yang menyiratkan bahwa keduanya berlaku ketika menghitungkinerja perusahaan (misalnya, Dessa & Robinson, 1984;Venkatraman & Ramanujan, 1986). Kami termasuk pertanyaanmelibatkan kedua jenis penilaian dalam wawancara kami, tetapiManajer yang lebih terbuka terhadap menawarkan pemandangan umum mereka daripadamenawarkan data kuantitatif yang tepat; oleh karena itu, kami mengujimodel menggunakan ukuran persepsi kinerja keuangan(tiga item, tujuh-titik skala). Bila mungkin, kami dihitungkorelasi antara tujuan dan subjektif data, dan iniitu tinggi dan signifikan. Analisis faktor konfirmasi(v202 = 285.95, NFI = 0.92, NNFI = 0,90, GFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.93,AGFI = 0.92) menunjukkan bahwa skala unidimensional dansangat handal (= 0.889).