Article Critique-2280830

Introduction to the Critique

The article “Managerial Behavior and Small Firm Growth: A Critical review” by {authors’ names} finds itself into an investigation of the nuanced relationship found between the managerial behavior and the firm growth within the context of small manufacturing companies. The authors aim to shed light on whether there are discernable differences in the managers’ behaviors between the fast-growing firms even as they employ a more structured observation study. They argue that such disparities, particularly in terms of the behavioral repertoire and strategic orientation, could provide more valuable insights into knowing the mechanisms that drives the firm growth. In essence, the study tries to address an important gap in the literature by trying to know how the managerial actions and decisions contribute to or even the growth trajectory of the small organizations. For them to make sure that this is accomplished, the authors meticulously examine the various aspects of managerial behavior that includes even time allocation across the different activities and even the strategic focus of the mangers in both types of firms. This method will thereby examine closely the methods of research that are employed, evaluate the theoretical framework that guides the study, scrutinize the findings and their implications, not forgetting the discussion of the proposed future research directions that are stated in the article. We therefore aim to provide a nuanced understanding of the strengths and limitations of the study through this comprehensive analysis by identifying the areas for further inquiry, and even asses the broader implications for the theory and practice in the field of small firm management and entrepreneurship.

Evaluation of Research Methods

The proposed observation method utilized in the study provides valuable insights into the daily activities and strategic focus of managers in small manufacturing firms. Through direct observation of the managerial behavior in real time, the researchers were able to capture rich data that provide a better understanding on how the managers allocate their time and prioritize the different tasks. This approach method is very advantageous as it reduces reliance on the subjective self-reports, which may hence be prone to biases and inaccuracies.

However, the study’s reliance on a small sample size of six firms in each group raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings. The limited sample size on the other hand may limit the extent at which the findings can be extrapolated to the broader population of the small manufacturing companies even as the researchers take the steps in order for them to select the firms with similar characteristics to reduce variability. Moreover, the process of selecting the fast-growing firms from a list of “Gazelle-firms” brings about the possibility of selection bias, as these firms may not be representative of all rapid growing companies in the sector.

Furthermore, while the efforts were made in order to mitigate researcher bias through frank discussions with the managers, the Hawthorne effect-the phenomenon whereby the individuals modify their behavior in response to being observed-may still have led to an influence on the observed behavior. Despite these limitations, the structured observations methods still remain to be a robust approach that examines the managerial behavior in the small firms, hence offering valuable insights that contribute to our understanding of the dynamics that dives the firms’ growth.

Analysis of Theoretical Framework

While the article effectively discusses the contrasting behavioral repertoires of the managers in fast growing and slow-growing firms, it therefore falls short in integrating other pertinent theoretical frameworks in order to enrich the analysis. Even though the leadership theories and situational perspectives are mentioned, there is a missed opportunity to dig deeper into how these theories shape the research questions and even inform the interpretation of the findings. For instance, in the fact that the article briefly mentions the importance of managers’ interpretation of the internal culture and external environment, a more comprehensive exploration of how these factors influence the managerial decision-making and firm growth could enhance the theoretical framework. Furthermore, the dichotomous classification of managers into fats-growing and slow-growing categories oversimplifies the nuanced nature of the managerial behavior and its implications for the firms’ performance. A more based approach that considers factors such a industrial dynamics, market conditions, and the organizational culture could provide a richer understanding of the complex theoretical perspectives and adopting a more nuanced classification system. The theoretical framework could also provide deeper insights into the dynamics that drive the small firm growth.

Discussion of Results and Findings

Unexpected similarities are therefore revealed by the findings of the study in the behavioral repertoire of the managers in fast-growing firms, thereby leading to the contradiction of the initial hypothesis. Both group managers allocated the majority of their time to similar activities, primarily focusing on the operational, administrative, and strategic tasks. This in turn puts to challenge the common assumption that their successful managers in the rapidly growing firms exhibit a broader range of behaviors than their counterparts in the slow-growing firms. However, the article doesn’t have a comprehensive discussion of the implications of these findings and therefore fails to explore the potential explanations for the observed similarities.

Influence of the external factors such as the industry dynamics or market conditions, is one of but the few explanations for the lack of significant differences between the two groups, which may even put to limitation the managerial autonomy in order to innovate or diversify the behavioral repertoire. In addition, the organization culture and leadership style might play a big role in ensuring that it shapes the managerial behavior regardless of the firm’s growth trajectory.


In conclusion, while the article “Managerial Behavior and Small Firm Growth: A critical Review” plays an important role by contributing to the literature through examining the relationship between the managerial behavior and firm growth in the small manufacturing companies. More limitations and the areas for the improvement have thereby also been identified. The research method of the study, theoretical framework, results interpretation, practical implications, and future research directions would then benefit greatly in a deeper depth, rigor, and consideration of contextual factors. These issues could then enhance the contribution of the article to the field when they are addressed and even go ahead to advance our understanding of the managerial behavior and its impact on the growth of the firm.


Tell, J. (2015). Challenges facing small-firm managers in growing manufacturing firms. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship4, 1-12.