We fill a gap in the resource-based literature by identifying conditions and mechanisms that make a resource valuable to a firm ex ante-that is, before a decision on acquiring or building it is made. These conditions are (1) the firm's ex ante market position; (2) its ex ante resource base, which allows for complementarities; (3) its position in interorganizational networks, which gives it access to privileged information; and (4) the prior knowledge and experience of its managers, which allow superior judgment concerning the value-creating potential of the resource. These factors help explain why firms initially differ in how much value they attribute to a resource and, subsequently, why firms differ in their resource endowments. Our results also contribute to resource management theories by highlighting the role of managerial judgment in acquiring and accumulating resources and, thus, shaping firms' paths toward superior competitive positions. Furthermore, identifying firms' market positions and managerial judgment about demand-side value creation opportunities as resource value drivers highlights the importance of demand-side factors to strategic outcomes. We also discuss how our findings may open avenues for further studies and provide a basis for empirical tests of the resource-based view of strategic management.
We examine how determinants of absorptive capacity influence learning in alliances over time. Using longitudinal patent cross-citation data, we find an inverted U-shaped pattern over time that is influenced by firm-level and relational factors. Technological similarity only modestly increases learning in the initial stages of a relationship, but moderate levels substantially increase knowledge flows later in the alliance. High technological diversity is related to higher initial learning rates, but the effects diminish over time. Somewhat surprisingly, research and development intensity is negatively related to initial learning rates but has a considerable positive effect later in the relationship. We suggest that initial learning rates in alliances may be constrained by the capacity to absorb knowledge, while later-stage outcomes are constrained by exploitation capacity.
Studies invoking a capabilities lens often ascribe deliberateness in organizational decisions to develop new capabilities. Drawing on five longitudinal case studies of large, global firms in the information and communication technology sector, we examine how firms engender cognizance of their future capability needs in situations characterized by high decision-making uncertainty. We develop a theoretical account of how firms use investments in start-ups to actively engage in experimentation outside organizational boundaries, a learning process which we term as disembodied experimentation. Disembodied experimentation creates awareness of voids in the capability base of an incumbent and helps to overcome inertial restraints thereby influencing the decision to invest in capability development. The relationship between learning from disembodied experimentation and the decision to develop capabilities is moderated by knowledge brokering functions and adaptation complexity.
This paper presents a new method for the analysis of moral hazard principal-agent problems. The new approach avoids the stringent assumptions on the distribution of outcomes made by the classical first-order approach and instead only requires the agent's expected utility to be a rational function of the action. This assumption allows for a reformulation of the agent's utility maximization problem as an equivalent system of equations and inequalities. This reformulation in turn transforms the principal's utility maximization problem into a nonlinear program. Under the additional assumptions that the principal's expected utility is a polynomial and the agent's expected utility is rational in the wage, the final nonlinear program can be solved to global optimality. The paper also shows how to first approximate expected utility functions that are not rational by polynomials, so that the polynomial optimization approach can be applied to compute an approximate solution to non-polynomial problems. Finally, the paper demonstrates that the polynomial optimization approach, unlike the classical approach, extends to principal-agent models with multi-dimensional action sets.
Both theoretical considerations as well as empirical findings report mixed results on the relationship between sustainability disclosure and sustainability performance. Theoretical considerations are mainly based on legitimacy theory and voluntary disclosure theory. Due to shortcomings of previous studies with regard to the measurement of the main variables, our paper concentrates on new measurement approaches for sustainability disclosure and sustainability performance. Findings from a sample of 50 German and Swiss companies support our methodological approach. In particular, we find empirical evidence that legitimacy theory and voluntary disclosure theory likewise can explain certain aspects of sustainability reporting.
