Decision speed, also known as regulatory mode locomotion is a cognitive and behavioral orientation that describes a proactive and action-oriented mindset. It is based on regulatory mode theory, which focuses on two primary modes of regulation: locomotion and assessment. Companies with a locomotion-oriented regulatory mode exhibit traits such as decisiveness, self-confidence, and persistence. They actively engage with their environment, embrace change, and take risks to overcome obstacles and accomplish objectives.

Companies high in decision speed are often mentioned in connection with words like fast, dynamic, motion, change, etc. This also includes variations of the words, like the corresponding nouns. 

Our conceptualization and use of decision speed, aka regulatory mode locomotion stems from Higgins, Kruglanski, Pierro (2003). In their influential paper, they provided compelling evidence highlighting the contrasting management styles associated with locomotion and assessment orientations. The locomotion orientation is marked by a keen emphasis on goal pursuit, progress, and forward movement. 

Companies explore by identifying new opportunities. This refers to “processes of concerted variation, planned experimentation, and play”. The innovation activity focuses on technological innovation aimed at entering new product-market domains. (Baum, Li, and Usher, 2000; Benner and Tushman, 2002; He and Wong, 2004). Exploring is the opposite construct to exploiting.

Companies high in exploration are often mentioned in connection with words like searching, risk-seeking, exploring, flexibility, experimentation, discover, playing, etc. This also includes variation of the words, like corresponding nouns.

The most prominent literature that focuses on exploration discusses the so-called exploration-exploitation dilemma, which states that companies struggle to face an inherent trade-off of exploitation and exploration. As such, only “ambidextrous” organizations, which are rare, manage to overcome that hurdle (O’Reilly & Tushman: The ambidextrous organization, 2004; O’Reilly & Tushman: Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability, 2008)

Companies which focus on exploiting “seize existing opportunities”, and focus on processes of “local search, experiential refinement, and selection and reuse of existing routines”. These companies’ activity focuses on “improving existing product-market domains” (Uotila et al., 2009; Allison, McKenny, & Short, 2014; March, 1991; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Baum, Li, and Usher, 2000; Gupta, Smith, and Shalley, 2006). Exploiting is the opposing construct to exploring.

Companies high in exploitation are often mentioned in connection with words like refining, choosing, exploiting, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution, etc. This also includes variations of the words, like the corresponding nouns.

The most prominent literature that focuses on exploitation discusses the so-called exploration-exploitation dilemma, which states that companies struggle to face an inherent trade-off of exploitation and exploration. As such, only “ambidextrous” organizations, which are rare, manage to overcome that hurdle (O’Reilly & Tushman: The ambidextrous organization, 2004; O’Reilly & Tushman: Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability, 2008)

Learning orientation is a behavior derived from the literature on organizational learning and describes the motivation, ability, and executional quality of learning in an organization. Learning orientation concerns the whole organization and not only individuals. It also measures the dissemination of the relevant organizational knowledge throughout the organization.

Companies high in learning orientation are often mentioned in connection with words like analyse, evaluate, discuss, exchange, fail, identify, interpret, induce, infer, learn. This also includes variations of the words, like the corresponding nouns.

Many management scholars have researched organizational learning orientation. For example, Calantone, Cavusgil, and Zhao (2002) investigated the link between learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. They find that learning orientation is a key factor to organizational competitive advantage. Further, Sujan, Harish, Weitz, and Kumar (1994) find that learning orientation is important for effective marketing and sales staff. Finally, Baker and Sinkula (1999) suggest that learning orientation and market orientation contribute to good organizational performance.

Digital orientation is an organization’s guiding principle to pursue digital technology-enabled opportunities to achieve competitive advantage. It encompasses the dimensions of digital technology scope, digital capabilities, digital ecosystem coordination, and digital architecture configuration.

Companies high in digital orientation are often mentioned in connection with words from the four dimensions mentioned above. These include algorithm, compute, API, developer, digital, functionality, IoT, open source, virtual, etc. This also includes variations of the words, like the corresponding nouns.

Our conceptualization and use of digital orientation stems from Kindermann et al. (2020), who are the first scholars to propose a digital dictionary for automated textual analysis. These scholars conceptualize digital orientation as a distinct type of strategic orientation, i.e., an orientation which “reflects the firm’s philosophy of how to conduct business through a deeply rooted set of values and beliefs that guides the firm’s attempt to achieve superior performance (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997)”.