Journal of Management Research

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

The Effects of Technological Relatedness and Ownership Structure on R&D Performance


Affiliations
1 Long Island University, CW Post Campus 720 Northern Blvd. Brookville, NY 11548
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


In diversified firms, resource relatedness has often been suggested as having positive effects on corporate performance. This paper proposes, however, an inverted U relationship between technological relatedness and corporate R&D performance. In addition, institutional ownership and CEO ownership is proposed to moderate the effects of technological relatedness on R&D performance by influencing CEOs' tendencies to take risks.

Keywords

R&D, Technological Relatedness, Diversification, Institutional Ownership, CEO Ownership
User
Notifications

  • Aghion, P., Van Reenen, J. and Zingales, L. (2009), Innovation and Institutional Ownership, CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP7195.

  • Amihud, Y. and Lev, B. (1999), Does Corporate Ownership Structure Affect its Strategy Toward Diversification? Strategic Management Journal, 20(11): 1063-1069.

  • Barker, V. L. and Mueller, G. C. (2002), CEO Characteristics and Firm R&D Spending, Management Science, 48(6): 782-801.

  • Barney, J. (1991), Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.

  • Benner, M. J. and Tushman, M. L. (2002), Process Management and Technological Innovation: A Longitudinal Study of the Photography and Paint Industries, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4): 676-706.

  • Berger, P. G. and Ofek, E. (1989), Causes and Effects of Corporate Refocusing Programs, Review of Financial Studies, 12: 311-345.

  • Bunderson, J. S. (2003), Recognizing and Utilizing Expertise in Work Groups: A Status Characteristics Perspective, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4): 557-591.

  • Bushee, B. (1998), The Influence of Institutional Investors on Myopic R&D Investment Behavior, Accounting Review, 73(3): 305- 353.

  • Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990), Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000), Dynamic Capabilities: What are They? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11): 1105- 1121.

  • Graves, S. B. (1988), Institutional Ownership and Corporate R&D in the Computer Industry, Academy of Management Journal, 31: 417-428

  • Grossman, W. and Hoskisson, R. E. (1998), CEO Pay at the Crossroads of Wall Street and Main: Toward the Strategic Design of Executive Compensation, Academy of Management Executive, 12(1): 43-57.

  • Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. (2002), Cultivating a Global Mindset, Academy of Management Executive, 16(1): 116-126.

  • Hadlock, P., Hecker, D. and Gannon, J. (1991), High Technology Employment: Another view, Monthly Labor Review, July: 26-30.

  • Hansen, M. T. (1999), The Search-transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge Across Organization Subunits, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82-111.

  • Hill, C. W. L. and Snell, S. A. (1989), Effects of Ownership Structure and Control on Corporate Productivity, Academy of Management Journal, 32(1): 25-46.

  • Hoskisson, R. E. and Hitt, M. A. (1988), Strategic Control Systems and Relative R&D Investment in Large Multiproduct Firms, Strategic Management Journal, 9(6): 605-621.

  • Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R. and Choi, K. W. (1990), Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression, Sage Publications, New York.

  • Johnson, R. A., Hoskisson, R. E. and Hitt, M. A. (1993), Board of Director Involvement in Restructuring: The Effects of Board versus Managerial Controls and Characteristics, Strategic Management Journal, 14: 33-50.

  • Katila, R. and Ahuja, G. (2002), Something Old, Something New: A Longitudinal Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction, Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1183-1194.

  • Kochhar, R. and David, P. (1996), Institutional Investors and Firm Innovation: A Test of Competing Hypotheses, Strategic Management Journal, 17(1): 73-84.

  • Lane, J. P. and Lubatkin, M. (1998), Relative Absorptive Capacity and Interorganizational Learning, Strategic Management Journal, 19: 461-477.

  • Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993), The Myopia of Learning, Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-112.

  • Michel, J. G. and Hambrick, D. C. (1992), Diversification Posture and Top Management Team Characteristics, Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 9-37.

  • Miller, D. J. (2004), Firms' Technological Resources and the Performance Effects of Diversification: A Longitudinal Study, Strategic Management Journal, 25(11): 1097–1119.

  • Miller, D. J. (2006), Technological Diversity, Related Diversification, and Firm Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 27: 610- 619.

  • Mowery, D., Oxley, J. and Silverman, B. (1998), Technological Overlap and Interfirm Coordination: Implications for the Resourcebased View of the Firm, Research Policy, 27: 507-523.

  • Oswald, S. L. and Jahera, J. S. Jr. (1991), The Influence of Ownership on Performance: An Empirical Study, Strategic Management Journal, 12(4): 321-326.

  • Oxley, J. E. and Sampson, R. C. (2004), The Scope and Governance of International R&D Alliances, Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9): 723-749.

  • Palmer, T. B. and Wiseman, R. M. (1999), Decoupling Risk Taking from Income Stream Uncertainty: A Holistic Model of Risk, Strategic Management Journal, 20(11): 1037-1062.

  • Panzar, J. and Willig, R. (1981), Economies of Scope, American Economic Review, 71: 268-272.

  • Phan, P.H. and Hill, C. W. L. (1995), Organizational Restructuring and Economic Performance in Leveraged Buyouts: An Expost Study, Academy of Management Journal, 38(3): 704-739.

  • Robins, J. and Wiersema, M. (1995), A Resource-based Approach to the Multi-business Firm: Empirical Analysis of Portfolio Inter-relationships and Corporate Financial Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 16(4): 277-299.

  • Rosenkopf, L. and Nerkar, A. (2001), Beyond Local Search: Boundary-Spanning Exploration and Impact in the Optical Disc Industry, Strategic Management Journal, 22(4): 287-306.

  • Schellenger, M. H., Wood, D. D. and Tashakori, A. (1989), Board of Director Composition, Shareholder Wealth, and Dividend Policy, Journal of Management, 15(3): 457-467.

  • Silverman, S. S. (1999), Technological Resources and the Direction of Corporate Diversification: Toward an Integration of the Resource-based View and Transaction Cost Economics, Management Science, 45(8): 1109-1124.

  • Silverman, S. S. (1996), Technical Assets and the Logic of Corporate Diversification, Ph.D. dissertation, Hass School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

  • Song, J. Y. and Shin, J. T. (2008), The Paradox of Technological Capabilities: A Study of Knowledge Sourcing from Host Countries of Overseas R&D Operations, Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2): 291-303.

  • Tanriverdi H. and Venkatraman, N. (2005), Knowledge Relatedness and the Performance of Multibusiness Firms, Strategic Management Journal, 26: 97-119.

  • Teece, D. J. (1980), Economies of Scope and the Scope of the Enterprise, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1:223-245.

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533.

  • Wiersema. M. F. and Bantel, K. A. (1992), Top Management Team Demography and Corporate Strategic Change, Academy of Management Journal, 35(1): 91-121.

  • Wright, P. and Ferris, S. P. (1997), Agency Conflict and Corporate Strategy: The Effect of Divestment on Corporate Value, Strategic Management Journal, 18(1): 77-83.

  • Wright, P., Kroll, M., Lado, A. and Ness, B. Van (2002), The Structure of Ownership and Corporate Acquisition Strategies, Strategic Management Journal, 23(1): 41-53.

  • Yayavaram, S. and Ahuja, G. (2008), Decomposability in Knowledge Structures and its Impact on the Usefulness of Inventions and Knowledge-base Malleability, Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 333-362.


Abstract Views: 474

PDF Views: 1




  • The Effects of Technological Relatedness and Ownership Structure on R&D Performance

Abstract Views: 474  |  PDF Views: 1

Authors

Jongtae Shin
Long Island University, CW Post Campus 720 Northern Blvd. Brookville, NY 11548

Abstract


In diversified firms, resource relatedness has often been suggested as having positive effects on corporate performance. This paper proposes, however, an inverted U relationship between technological relatedness and corporate R&D performance. In addition, institutional ownership and CEO ownership is proposed to moderate the effects of technological relatedness on R&D performance by influencing CEOs' tendencies to take risks.

Keywords


R&D, Technological Relatedness, Diversification, Institutional Ownership, CEO Ownership

References