Search results

In multi-business firms, mergers and acquisitions (M&As) serve as a primary growth strategy. Yet, within multi-business firms, the value of an M&A can vary substantially for the different business divisions. Despite this, divisional-level drivers of corporate acquisition decisions and the subsequent performance implications for the divisions remain insufficiently explored. This study, grounded in the internal capital market and resource redeployment theories, seeks to fill this gap by investigating a sample of 1,728 multi-business firms spanning from 1998 to 2017. The statistical findings suggest that firms engage in acquisitions to allocate resources to their more promising divisions, particularly those with higher growth prospects and greater potential for resource sharing among sister businesses. A post-hoc analysis reveals that acquisitions are associated with a rise in the performance of those divisions that are in the same business segment as the acquisition target.

Drawing on the literature on technological acquisition and the knowledge-based view , this study examines how technological overlap between acquiring and target firms influences acquisition premiums. We further explore how the resulting synergies are contingent on the dynamic characteristics of the target firm, specifically its technology clockspeed and industry munificence. Technology clockspeed indicates the pace of technological evolution, reflecting internal dynamic resources, while industry munificence represents the abundance of external resources. These boundary conditions illustrate the dynamics of synergies, explaining their moderation effects on acquisition premiums.

We analyze a sample of 369 technological acquisitions by publicly traded U.S. firms between 1990 and 2011. To test our hypotheses, we used the ordinary least squares regression model with robust standard errors clustered by acquiring firms. In the robustness checks, we applied the generalized estimating equations to account for non-independent observations in our sample and verified that the results were robust to an alternative two-way clustering approach.

We suggest that a low level of technological overlap between an acquiring firm and its target firm leads the acquiring firm to offer a high acquisition premium because of the expected synergistic potential that evolves from combining two distant technological bases. We further find that this effect is contingent on the target firm's technology clockspeed and industry munificence. Specifically, the negative effect is amplified when target firms exhibit a rapid pace of technological evolution, whereas it is weakened when target firms operate in highly munificent industries characterized by robust growth and abundant resource flows.

This study has several limitations, but it offers opportunities for future research. First, our sample is limited to domestic acquisitions between U.S. publicly traded firms, which may restrict generalizability. Cross-border acquisitions could reveal different dynamics, as technology leakage and national security concerns might make technological overlap a more sensitive factor. Additionally, private firms were not included, and their distinct strategic considerations could provide further insights. Future research could explore post-acquisition data to validate these synergies and expand the scope to include international contexts and private firms for a comprehensive analysis.

Our findings highlight important implications for managers in technology sector acquisitions. This study underscores the need for a thorough evaluation of target firms to avoid misjudging synergies. Low technological overlap can heighten expectations for value creation, making it crucial for executives to accurately assess potential synergies to prevent overestimation. Managers should consider both internal resources and external industry conditions when evaluating synergies. Ultimately, these insights help managers offer informed prices that reflect true strategic synergies, adopting effective valuation practices to mitigate risks of financial overpayments and poor post-merger performance.

The social implications of our findings emphasize the broader impact of acquisition decisions on innovation and competition within the technology sector. By ensuring accurate valuation and avoiding overpayment, companies can allocate resources more efficiently, fostering sustainable growth and innovation. This diligent approach can reduce the risk of corporate failures.

This study makes two key theoretical contributions. First, it identifies technological overlap as a critical determinant of acquisition premiums in technological acquisitions, addressing gaps in the literature that focused on CEO characteristics and managerial attention. Second, it expands the theoretical framework by highlighting the dynamic nature of synergies, influenced by the target firm's technology clockspeed and industry munificence. By integrating both acquiring and target firm characteristics, this study provides a relational perspective on value creation, explaining why firms pay high premiums and offering a more comprehensive understanding of the strategic motivations in technological acquisitions.

Endeavoring to expand their global market presence, firms often launch products into emerging markets where managers face the daunting task of deploying products by managing available, and often limited, supply chain resources. Yet, literature has not empirically examined managerial resource orchestration in this context. Accordingly, by embedding resource orchestration theory (ROT) into the emerging market context, the authors offer middle-range theorizing on supply chain resource orchestration (SCRO) and empirically test how acquiring, bundling and leveraging activities impact new product launch performance.

The authors test the model by analyzing empirical data from 175 individual product launches into emerging markets using a survey methodology.

The authors’ results suggest that SCRO holds the promise of being a viable middle-range theory in the supply chain field, especially where managers face limited resources and must “work with what they have to do what they can.”

The authors’ study also has some limitations. First, because a panel data service company was used to collect the data, the authors were not provided with any information regarding the respondents' company names or other identifying data. Second, because the authors did not directly interact with the respondents nor were the authors able to contact multiple individuals from their respective organizations, the study was limited to a single-respondent design. However, to counter issues associated with single-response bias, the central constructs in the study referenced phenomena related to a specific product launch project as opposed to constructs at the firm or inter-firm relational level.

The authors’ results reveal that SCRO activities can enhance the performance of new product launches, even in resource-starved emerging market contexts.

The results validate measures for several of the SCRO processes (i.e. supply chain resource acquisition, supply chain resource bundling and supply chain leveraging) and provide evidence that supply chain resource bundling and supply chain leveraging mediate the relationship between supply chain resource acquisition and product launch performance. Further, soft logistics infrastructure is found to be an important boundary condition for these relationships.

Are divestitures really just the “flip side” of acquisitions? Both divestiture and acquisition are important processes for firm scope change. Frequently, these processes are considered to be “two sides of the same coin” wherein a divestiture is simply an acquisition performed “in reverse.” In contrast to this perspective, the authors submit that these two corporate strategic processes have fundamental differences in their motivations, implementation, and ramifications. Failure to recognize and address these differences could have serious consequences for firms, especially in the domains of capability development and deployment. In this chapter, the authors begin by recognizing the similarities between divestitures and acquisitions that have contributed to their “mirror image” reputations. The authors then identify and categorize the major differences between divestitures and acquisitions and explain how these distinctions can present significant challenges to firms when building and utilizing their corresponding divestiture and acquisition capabilities. Finally, the authors leverage these insights to develop not only suggestions for future research but also recommendations for firms to avoid succumbing to the fallacy of sameness between divestitures and acquisitions – and perhaps even successfully exploit it – when building, wielding, and honing the tools in their capability portfolios.

Integrating the resource-based view (RBV) with pay dispersion research, the authors examine how the allocation of resources between hiring new employees and compensating current employees, as well as the allocation of resources among new employees, affects organizational performance.

The authors use panel data on Major League Baseball teams. The authors also use system generalized method of moments (GMM) estimations to control for the impact of past performance on current performance, unobserved individual heterogeneity and omitted variable bias.

The authors find that the larger the portion of the human resources (HR) budget allocated to hiring new employees, the poorer organizational performance becomes unless the focal organization has already significantly underperformed. The authors also find that pay concentration among new employees has a positive impact on organizational performance unless the focal organization has already significantly overperformed.

This study extends RBV research by examining how resource allocation patterns affect organizational performance, which has rarely been studied. Moreover, by showing the organizational context's significant effect on the outcome of financial allocation for resource acquisition, this study extends both the RBV research and the pay dispersion research.

Numerous biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms have undergone considerable changes and adapted to the challenge of developing sustainable products and services. However, few studies have explored the factors that contribute to the success of external innovation and value co-creation strategies adopted by biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms. The purpose of this study is to examine how biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries use value co-creation strategies to obtain external resources.

This study developed a conceptual framework based on the relevant literature. The study applied a resource-based approach, dynamic capability theory and a qualitative multiple-case study design to investigate several research questions; semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from 11 biotechnology/pharmaceutical firms in Taiwan, and the data extracted from the interview content were axially coded.

This study revealed that factors such as dynamic marketing capabilities and process optimization contributed to the success of the aforementioned strategies; several propositions were also developed on the basis of the literature review and coded data, thereby providing insights regarding the relative efficacy and propriety of various external innovation and value co-creation strategies and models in various situations and contexts. Firms and technology providers might enter a technology licensing agreement, establish a joint venture company; participate in a merger/acquisition depending on their size, research and development capabilities; or goals and time- and cost-related factors.

The main original contributions of this study are the proposed conceptual framework and the insights provided regarding the relative efficacy and propriety of different external innovation and value co-creation strategies and models in different situations and contexts.

By exploring the microimplementation mechanism of common prosperity, this paper aims to offer a strategic direction for Chinese enterprises to achieve sustainable development. It also provides theoretical support and practical guidance for the Chinese Government in exploring feasible paths to common prosperity, starting from the enterprises.

This paper takes the digital business model innovation of Rainbow Planet as a case study, systematically explicating the mechanism through which digital business model innovation fosters common prosperity by constructing a research framework of “digital business model innovation-resource orchestration-common prosperity.”

First, from a microperspective, the role of enterprises in promoting common prosperity in China is confirmed. Second, based on the theory of resource orchestration, it is concluded that digital resources can generate three types of digital effects, such as association, interaction and feedback, through effective resource orchestration under the support of the value elements of the business model. Finally, this paper emphasizes that enterprises should take actions such as demand aggregation, trust building and relationship reshaping to connect with relevant stakeholders, so as to achieve the win-win purpose of improving enterprise competitiveness and deepening common prosperity.

For Chinese enterprises, linking their development with the overall welfare of society is an essential path to sustainable development. Enterprises can promote the integration of their development with social welfare in three aspects: enhancing the efficiency and innovation capability of digital operations, strengthening cooperation with stakeholders and advancing sustainable business models. For the Chinese Government, it is important to encourage enterprises to play a positive role in the fields of economy, environment and society. The government can promote excellent practices in digital innovation, social responsibility and environmental protection among enterprises by publicizing successful cases, inspiring more enterprises to follow suit.

Although it is acknowledged that entrepreneurial networks play a crucial role in fostering business model innovation (BMI) for start-ups, it is unclear how and when these networks affect BMI. This research developed a moderated mediation model to explore the impact of entrepreneurial networks on BMI in start-ups and examined the dual mediating effects of causation and effectuation, as well as the moderation of environmental dynamism.

The proposed framework was tested by hierarchical regression analyses and bootstrapping using samples of 248 start-ups in China.

The results showed that entrepreneurial networks significantly positively impacted start-up BMI. Causation and effectuation played dual mediating roles between entrepreneurial networks and BMI. Furthermore, the entrepreneurial networks-effectuation-BMI association was more substantial in highly dynamic environments, whereas the entrepreneurial networks-causation-BMI relationship was unaffected.

There are several theoretical contributions resulting from this research. The findings offer new insights for understanding the antecedents of start-up BMI from the network perspective. This research adds to the growing literature on resource orchestration (RO) by exploring the dual mediating influences of causation and effectuation in resource management. This investigation revealed the boundary condition between entrepreneurial networks and BMI by testing the moderating influence of environmental dynamism.

Start-ups must effectively use external resources embedded within networks to advance BMI. Start-up entrepreneurs should apply causation and effectuation to transform entrepreneurial network resources into BMI. Start-up entrepreneurs must dynamically manage resources in response to ever-changing environmental conditions. Resource acquisition and management of entrepreneurial networks can vary significantly in their influence on start-up BMI under different environmental contexts.

Unlike previous BMI research focused on internal organizational factors, this study highlighted the critical importance of entrepreneurial networks as a prerequisite for achieving start-up BMI, contributing to the literature on open innovation and resource-based view. Examining the dual mediating roles of causation and effectuation illustrated the bridging role of strategic decision-making logic in connecting resources to value creation, contributing to the developing RO literature. The moderating influence of environmental dynamism was explored, clarifying how start-up BMI benefits from entrepreneurial networks in differing situations. A framework for reconciling contradictory findings concerning the association between entrepreneurial networks and innovation is provided.

An important but neglected area of investigation in digital entrepreneurship is the combined role of both core and peripheral members of an emerging technological field in shaping the symbolic and social boundaries of the field. This is a serious gap as both categories of members play a distinct role in expanding the pool of resources of the field. I address this gap by exploring how membership category is related to funding decisions in the emerging field of artificial intelligence (AI).

The first quantitative study involved a sample of 1,315 AI-based startups which were founded in the period of 2011–2018 in the United States. In the second qualitative study, the author interviewed 32 members of the field (core members, peripheral members and investors) to define the boundaries of their respective role in shaping the social boundaries of the AI field.

The author finds that core members in the newly founded field of AI were more successful at attracting funding from investors than peripheral members and that size of the founding team, number of lead investors, number of patents and CEO approval were positively related to funding. In the second qualitative study, the author interviewed 30 members of the field (core members, peripheral members and investors) to define their respective role in shaping the social boundaries of the AI field.

This study is one of the first to build on the growing literature in emerging organizational fields to bring empirical evidence that investors adapt their funding strategy to membership categories (core and peripheral members) of a new technological field in their resource allocation decisions. Furthermore, I find that core and peripheral members claim distinct roles in their participation and contribution to the field in terms of technological developments, and that although core members attract more resources than peripheral members, both actors play a significant role in expanding the field’s social boundaries.

Core AI entrepreneurs who wish to attract funding may consider operating in fewer categories in order to be perceived as core members of the field, and thus focus their activities and limited resources to build internal AI capabilities. Entrepreneurs may invest early in filing a patent to signal their in-house AI capabilities to investors.

The social boundaries of an emerging technological field are shaped by a multitude of actors and not only the core members of the field. The author should pay attention to the role of each category of actors and build on their contributions to expand a promising field.

This paper is among the first to build on the growing literature in emerging organizational fields to study the resource acquisition strategies of entrepreneurs in a newly establishing technological field.

The purpose of this study is to provide insights into bootleg innovation by investigating whether perceived hindrance stressors play an important role in bootlegging and how different organizational ownership types (state-owned enterprises (SOEs) vs non-SOEs) affect this relationship.

The study samples comprised 3,967 employees from 674 knowledge-intensive companies in southern China. Multilevel structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses.

Drawing on the conservation of resources (COR) theory, the results show that hindrance stressors have a curvilinear (U-shaped) influence on bootleg innovation, and that the curve relationship between the hindrance stressors and bootlegging is more pronounced among employees in non-SOEs.

The findings indicate that either a low or high level of hindrance stressors can activate a high level of bootlegging activities among employees. These results suggest that managers need to be vigilant in detecting the level of hindrance because different motivations predominate at different stressor levels.

Based on the COR theory, the findings cast perceived hindrance stressors as an antecedent of bootlegging at the individual level. The inquiry into state ownership types further provides a comprehensive understanding of the non-linear relationship between hindrance stressors and bootlegging.