Search

Research Summary Extant empirical work partitioning the variance in firm (business segment) profitability has identified industry, corporate parent, business segment, and time as key sources. However, this variance decomposition research stream has treated firms as atomistic, autonomous entities. We employ a fast-unfolding community-detection algorithm to detect firms' network memberships and use the Shapley Value method to isolate the effect of the firm's alliance network, in addition to industry, corporate parent, business segment, and year effects, on the variance in business unit performance. Our findings demonstrate that the effect of the firm's alliance network explains 11% of the variance in firm ROA among 16,381 business segments from 1979 through 1996. We also extend the time period through 2018 and find that our results broadly hold. Managerial Summary In the search for superior firm performance, managers typically focus their attention externally on profitable industries in which to operate, as well as internally on their firms' idiosyncratic and valuable resources and capabilities. In addition to these profitability sources, our work suggests another important, but heretofore overlooked, factor in the managerial quest for competitive advantage: the value-creating potential of alliance networks. We employ a machine-learning algorithm to detect firms' network memberships. Our findings indicate that as much as 11% of the variance in firm profitability (ROA) is explained by the network of alliances of which the firm is a part. Our study also implies that the emphasis on networks continues to be relevant in a technology age in which industry boundaries are blurring. Published version

Research Summary: We ask if managerial opportunism is a significant problem in alliance partner choice and examine the role of corporate governance mechanisms in explaining this choice. Using a sample of 313 alliances of U.S. firms from the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries from 1992 to 2010, we find that managerial incentives lead to managerial preference for relationally risky distant partners over existing and new close partners. Further, board monitoring encourages managers to pursue existing and distant partners over new close ones, choices aligned with shareholder interests. In addition, we find that board monitoring substitutes for managerial incentives in alliance partner choice. We contribute to the literature on alliance partner choice to identify an important, and hitherto, unexplored perspective. Managerial Summary: This article examines whether managers and shareholders view alliance‐related risks differently, and how the divergent interests between managers and shareholders affect alliance partner choice. We argue that managers’ concern about their loss of employment and compensation from alliance failure impedes the choice of relationally risky alliance partners that may increase shareholder value. We also argue that managerial stock ownership and board monitoring mitigate this managerial propensity. Our findings suggest that stock ownership owned by managers and strong board monitoring are effective governance mechanisms to align managers’ interests with those of shareholders. Our study offers a novel perspective to understand alliance partner choice by viewing the firm as an entity comprised of fragmented interests.

Research summary: In family businesses, investment decisions often involve both socioemotional wealth and economic considerations. Focusing on new technology adoption, we argue that multiple dimensions of socioemotional wealth contribute to complex effects within different types of family firms—depending on the level of family control—as well as in contrast to non-family firms. Results based on cable TV operators from 1983 to 1987 confirm that family ownership correlates negatively with technology adoption, especially when family owners hold a minority rather than majority position. We also show contingencies based on performance improvements and competitive threats. Our arguments contribute new insights about the tensions between economic and socioemotional factors within minority family ownership that are absent from non-family firms and more pronounced than in majority family firms. Managerial summary: We find evidence of greater reluctance toward new technology adoption among firms with minority family influence than majority family influence. This suggests that goals related to socioemotional wealth only partly explain the cautious decision-making observed in family firms, with further caution arising from conflicting priorities between family and non-family owners. Recent performance improvements help offset the reluctance to adopt new technology, albeit to a lesser degree among firms with minority family ownership. High levels of competitive threats also offset the reduction in new technology adoption, and contrary to expectations, to a greater extent among minority family firms. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Research summary: Although prior research has suggested that equity ties are important for business groups, less attention has been paid to the specific mechanisms through which equity ties create value. We develop a framework that specifies how centralization of intragroup equity ties affects the performance of group affiliates. We use the exogenous shock of the 2008 financial crisis and a difference-in-differences analysis of 51,730 observations of business group affiliates in Taiwan to show that centralization of equity ties enhances affiliate performance, but such effects weaken when the environment becomes turbulent. Moreover, we find that listed affiliates obtain fewer benefits from centralization than unlisted affiliates. Overall, our study deepens scholarly understanding of not only how groups create value, but also how value is differentially appropriated among affiliates. Managerial summary: Our research speaks directly to owner-managers of business groups with respect to creating an optimal equity network structure that binds the affiliated firms of the group. Our findings suggest to managers that the overall structure of equity ties in a business group has major implications for the performance of the affiliate firms of the group, and the network structure within the group should be designed deliberately and thoughtfully on an on-going basis. In particular, control through centralized equity ties is performance-enhancing in normal periods, but such control may be counterproductive as turbulence increases in business environments, or as the number of listed group firms increases. Hence, owner-managers may consider optimizing the network structure by lowering the degree of centralized equity ties under such circumstances, or at a minimum, lowering centralized control. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

In exploring the downsides of partnering with large firms, extant literature has typically focused on the external perspective and the alliance characteristics of small firms. We argue that jointly considering the internal dimension of firm capability together with the external perspective promises to yield a fuller understanding of the nature and consequences of a small firm's relationships with large partners. We analyze a longitudinal dataset on the alliance activities and growth of small, independent studios in the U.S. motion picture industry during 1990�2010. Our findings indicate that small firms that engage in higher levels of alliance activity with large partners, i.e., the major studios, realize lower growth benefits from their internal capability

Some research suggests that knowledge transfer and performance suffer when entities are distant from each other, while other work emphasizes that distance is beneficial by allowing firms to access novel and diverse knowledge. We resolve this paradox by focusing on the differing roles of MNC subsidiaries and headquarters vis-a-vis its alliances: distance between technology alliance partners and subsidiaries hurts MNC performance, but MNCs benefit when such partners are located afar from headquarters. We find support for these ideas in a longitudinal sample (2002 to 2006) of 126 Fortune 500 firms. Our work broadens the concept of the geographic scope of the firm, and suggests that MNCs gain by searching globally but collaborating locally.

Drawing on expectancy, equity, and collective effort theories, we argue that the level of involvement of individual firms in multifirm alliances depends on both individual firms’ self-focused interests and factors stemming from the firms’ membership in the alliance group. We apply our theoretical arguments to the context of venture capital syndicates and test the hypotheses using data about 160 venture capital firms (VCFs) drawn from a survey instrument and a secondary data source. The results show that individual firms’ involvement in a multifirm alliance is somewhat dominated by group effects; specifically, financial stake relative to that of the group and the reputation of the other group members significantly influence the focal firm's involvement. However, focal firms’ involvement relates negatively to their own reputation. We discuss the implications of these findings for future research. Our results imply that firms in multiparty alliances pay attention to the characteristics of their alliance partnership to calibrate their own behaviour. In our specific setting, VCF involvement in syndicates depends more on relative syndicate characteristics than on the focal firm's absolute level of investment. Further, because reputation is negatively associated with involvement, entrepreneurs and potential syndicate entrants should ensure that they fully leverage VCF reputation to achieve their goals.

While strategy scholars primarily focus on internal firm capabilities and network scholars typically examine network structure, we posit that firms with superior network structures may be better able to exploit their internal capabilities and thus enhance their performance. We examine how innovative capabilities—both those of focal firms and those they access through their networks—influence the performance of Canadian mutual fund companies. We find that a firm's innovative capabilities and its network structure both enhance firm performance, while the innovativeness of its contacts does not do so directly. Innovative firms that also bridge structural holes get a further performance boost, suggesting that firms need to develop network-enabled capabilities—capabilities accruing to innovative firms that bridge structural holes. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The extensive literature on geographical clusters has argued that firms stand to gain from the knowledge spillovers and the easy availability of skills in regional agglomerations. At the same time, the research on strategic alliances, particularly in technology-intensive industries, views alliances as vehicles for the transfer of technology and knowledge. Does membership in a geographical cluster or a network of alliances}an alliance cluster}benefit firms equally? More importantly, does it matter whether firms form alliances with firms within their geographical cluster, or do they do better by reaching out beyond their cluster? In this paper, we investigate these and other related questions in the context of technology-intensive industries such as biotechnology and argue that the high-level knowledge sensing and acquiring needs of firms in such industries may require combinations of both kinds of knowledge-access mechanisms. We use the BioScan database to obtain 648 alliances for the period 1985–1998 among 248 public companies, and complement it with COMPUSTAT data to examine the effect of clustering and alliances on market value. Our results suggest that merely being part of geographical clusters is not enough, and nor is it adequate for firms to join alliance clusters. Rather, firms gain by forming alliances both within and beyond their geographical clusters, which highlights the complexities of acquiring technology-intensive knowledge and suggests that the acquisition of knowledge in technology-intensive settings is best achieved through mechanisms both formal and informal, both proximate and distant. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

On-line marketplaces raise several interesting issues, among them the relevance of location when content is digitized, and the assessment of a supplier's capabilities when buyers worldwide only have electronic contact with sellers. In global B2B on-line marketplaces, market microstructures, i.e. which firms compete for the same customers, are thus likely to be influenced by how customers value location and firm capabilities in their decisions to do business with different suppliers on-line. We suggest that both these sets of attributes will continue to matter on-line—firms possessing similar capabilities, as well as firms that are similar in location by country, time zones or clusters, will compete for business from the same customers. We model the similarity in competitive positions between pairs of firms based on the overlap in their customer networks, using data on actual interactions between supplier and customer banks on an electronic trading system. Using QAP network regression techniques on the 100 largest banks in this industry, we find that similarity in capabilities influences who competes with whom, and that location still matters in a global B2B exchange. Interestingly, location influences who a firm's competitors are, but not where its customers are from. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

What explains differences in firms’ abilities to acquire competitive capabilities? In this paper we propose that a firm’s embeddedness in a network of ties is an important source of variation in the acquisition of competitive capabilities. We argue that firms in geographical clusters that maintain networks rich in bridging ties and sustain ties to regional institutions are well-positioned to access new information, ideas, and opportunities. Hypotheses based on these ideas were tested on a stratified random sample of 227 job shop manufacturers located in the Midwest United States. Data were gathered using a mailed questionnaire. Results from structural equation modeling broadly support the embeddedness hypotheses and suggest a number of insights about the link between firms’ networks and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

We develop a model of relational governance as a specific form of interorganizational strategy that is distinct from the traditional modes of markets and hierarchies. We conceptualize this form of strategy in terms of structural and processual dimensions and derive a model of its determinants through arguments drawn from transaction cost economics and the sociological exchange literature. Hierarchical regression modeling is employed to test the theoretical model on data collected from a sample of 329 independent insurance agencies. We include the relational variable of trust and demonstrate that the combined model explains relational governance better than a model with the traditional determinants of governance form alone. Further, we observe that governance structure and process are related and discuss implications of the dynamic link between them. Directions for extensions are developed for strategic management research and practice.