Knowledge that Transforms

By highlighting conditions under which viable interorganizational relationships do not materialize, we explore the limitations of interorganizational knowledge acquisition. In the empirical context of corporate venture capital (CVC), we analyze a sample of 1,646 start‐up‐stage ventures that received funding during the 1990s. Under a regime of weak intellectual property protection (IPP), an entrepreneur‐CVC investment relationship is less likely to form when the entrepreneurial invention targets the same industry as corporate products. In contrast, under a strong IPP regime, industry overlap is associated with an increase in the likelihood of an investment relationship. Our findings suggest that many relationships do not form because the corporation will not invest unless the entrepreneur discloses his or her invention, and the entrepreneur may be wary of doing so, fearing imitation. To the extent that a CVC has greater capability and inclination to target same‐industry ventures, such industry overlap would exacerbate imitation concerns under a weak IPP regime, yet facilitate an investment relationship under a strong IPP regime. Beyond CVC, this insight may explain patterns of other interorganizational relationships, including research and development alliances and technology licensing between start‐ups and incumbents.

A central problem in strategic management is how the inference ‘sustainable competitive advantage generates sustainable superior performance’ can be put into practice. In this article we develop a theoretical framework to understand the causal relationships among (1) sustainable competitive advantage, (2) configuration, (3) dynamic capability, and (4) sustainable superior performance. We propose that a firm's competitive advantage, resource bundle configuration, and dynamic learning capability cannot be comprehended by outsiders. Its operational performance, however, can be captured by financial indicators. We promote an inductive Bayesian interpretation of the sustainable competitive advantage proposition. From this viewpoint, the presence or absence of competitive advantage may be reflected in the causal relationship between resource configuration, dynamic capability, and observable financial performance. We apply this theoretical framework to an example drawn from the global semiconductor industry, an area in which resource configuration and dynamic capability are essential to performance. The paper concludes with a summary of the proposed model and suggestions for future theoretical development of strategic management.

Strategy researchers have argued that heterogeneity in firms' practices and profitability within and across industries may derive from industry‐level differences in the extent of interdependencies among firms' activities. Theoretical models have clarified how and why differences in the extent of the interdependencies faced by firms across industries may affect the distributions of firm profits, but the specific predictions from these models have not been empirically tested. In this paper, we present what we believe is the first large scale empirical analysis linking differences in the extent of interdependencies across industries to differences in the distribution of firm profits within and across those industries. We use survey data to measure interdependencies systematically across a wide number of industries, thus addressing the primary obstacle to incorporating interdependencies in larger scale empirical work, and find evidence consistent with the theoretical predictions: average profitability is highest in industries with moderate levels of interdependency; the dispersion of profits among firms is higher in industries with more extensive interdependencies; and industries with more extensive interdependencies have a more positively skewed performance distribution. We find that the effect of interdependencies on average industry profitability is similar in scale to the effect of patent protection and industry growth rates, placing interdependency squarely among the strategy field's central concepts.

This paper characterizes interindustry heterogeneity in rates of learning‐by‐doing, and examines how industry learning rates are connected with firm performance. Using plant‐level data from the U.S. manufacturing sector, we measure the industry learning rate as the coefficient on cumulative output in a production function. We find that learning rates vary considerably among industries and are higher in industries with greater R&D, advertising, and capital intensity. More importantly, we find that higher rates of learning are associated with wider dispersion of Tobin's q and profitability among firms in the industry. These findings suggest that learning intensity represents an important characteristic of the industry environment that affects the range of firm performance.

This study investigates why firms choose to undertake product expansion through alliances with competitors rather than on their own. We highlight product heterogeneity as a determinant of this make or ally choice. We propose that firms turn to horizontal alliances in order to implement product expansion projects that require greater resources than those available to them. More precisely, we hypothesize that a firm is more likely to launch a new product through a horizontal alliance rather than autonomously when the resource requirements of the project are greater, the resources available to the firm are more limited, there is a mismatch between resource endowment and requirement, and the firm's collaborative competence allows it to better cope with the interorganizational concerns that collaboration with competitors raises. We find support for our arguments on a sample of 310 new aircraft developments launched between 1945 and 2000, either by a single prime contractor or as a horizontal alliance in which prime contractorship is shared with another industry incumbent.

This study empirically examines the determinants of heterogeneous firm‐level cooperative R&D commercialization strategies. While the volume of interfirm collaboration has increased dramatically in recent decades, the determinants of firm‐level choices among alternate modes of such cooperative activity remain relatively understudied. We develop a conceptual model of factors determining collaborative mode choice at the organizational portfolio level. These factors include the firm‐level appropriation environment, in which deal‐level choices have portfolio‐level spillover implications, as well as governance capabilities developed by the firm over time. Using a random sample of innovating biotechnology start‐ups, we assemble a firm‐year panel dataset that aggregates transaction‐level collaboration data to the firm‐year level, allowing us to characterize firms' portfolios of collaborative deals. We find broad empirical support for our model, suggesting that a firm's appropriation environment and governance capabilities strongly influence portfolio‐level collaboration mode choices. In addition, we explore the implications of governance capability development, finding that experience with particular modes, as well as deviations from existing capabilities, impact firm valuation.

We use agency theory to predict the influence of related and unrelated product diversification on a firm's level of debt financing. Further, we argue that the link between diversification and capital structure is moderated by the environment in which firms operate. Using SAS PROC MIXED, we fit a mixed‐effects model to our unique six‐year longitudinal dataset (1995–2000) of 245 publicly listed Singapore firms. Our data spans the period of the Asian Financial Crisis (1997–1998). We find that firms pursuing unrelated product diversification take on less debt financing in stable environments, but more debt financing in dynamic environments. Using longitudinal structural equation modeling, we find a reciprocal relationship between a firm's product diversification strategy and its debt financing level.

Organizational scholars have highlighted the importance of interpretive ambivalence for mindfulness, creativity, and strategic change. Ambivalence occurs when an issue is seen simultaneously as positive and negative. We examine organizational factors that influence the propensity of organizational leaders to evaluate a new strategic issue ambivalently. Data come from a survey of 220 German CEOs confronted with the enlargement of the European Union. We find that CEOs of firms with a more ambidextrous strategic orientation and a moderate sense of organizational control over their environment are most likely to be ambivalent about this issue. Our findings affirm the prevalence of interpretive ambivalence at the executive level and suggest ways for organizations to promote or prevent ambivalence in strategic sensemaking.

In this paper we study the frequency of formal R&D investments. We link real options theory to the knowledge‐based view to explain how a firm's knowledge resources influence its frequency of investing in R&D to establish technological options. Specifically, we propose that a firm that lacks internal knowledge resources is more likely to never invest in R&D, a firm that has both internal and external knowledge resources is more likely to sometimes invest in R&D, while a firm that has internal knowledge resources but lacks external knowledge resources is more likely to always invest in R&D.

This study focuses explicitly on the methodological implications of the endogenous theory of governance as applied to firm performance. In particular, if firms choose their governance structures as part of a constrained performance maximization process, then application of an appropriate empirical methodology should reveal statistical evidence of such behavior. In this study we take advantage of the endogenous switching regression model framework to determine whether such predicted optimizing behavior can be corroborated by the data. The model allows us to test explicitly for selection behavior in accordance with comparative advantage and, concomitantly, the presence of selectivity bias, in estimating the impact of CEO duality on firm performance. The selection and performance equations are modeled in accordance with the extant accounting, economics, and management literature on the impact of the dual governance structure on firm performance. Overall, we tested four performance measures for the entire sample of firm‐year observations as well as for the largest three industries in terms of sample sizes. The major finding, robust in all cases, is that there is no evidence to support a contention that CEO duality is a structure purposefully chosen for optimizing performance. If firms are indeed choosing the dual leadership structure, they are doing so for reasons other than improving performance from what it would be otherwise. In fact, for performance measured as market return and earnings per share, there is evidence of a significant selectivity bias that acts to lower performance below what it would have been under random assignment. For performance measured by Tobin's q and return on assets, we found neither evidence of selectivity bias, nor any significant marginal performance impacts of CEO duality. Such findings are inconsistent with an endogenous governance theory, at least when applied to firm performance.