See my Google Scholar Citations
‘Resource relatedness, redeployability, and firm value‘ – forthcoming in Strategic Management Journal
Abstract: Our paper elaborates the effects of resource relatedness on value of a multibusiness firm. We emphasize that value results from interplay of benefits of synergy and redeployability. This view, considering how synergy and redeployability interact in determining value, extends prior separate considerations of the two benefits. We also diagnose that the value effect of resource relatedness is contingent on uncertainty and specify this contingent relationship. We use the real option valuation approach and formally evaluate the impacts of the two effects of relatedness. This explication enables us to demonstrate how redeployability contributes to value beyond synergy, and how they contribute in tandem. In this sense, we illuminate previously undiagnosed value in multibusiness firms. Beyond theoretical implications our results have important empirical and managerial implications.
‘Entrepreneurial Entry Thresholds‘ – published in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Abstract: Much of prior research recognizes that entry into entrepreneurship involves a comparison of expected economic returns in a venture to some threshold leel of acceptable performance. Despite this recognition, theory commonly focuses on drivers of economic returns at the exclusion of threshold drivers. Moreover, typical empirical investigation of entry provide little insight into whether determinants influence expected returns, the required threshold, or both. Drawing from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics, we apply an empirical approach new to the entrepreneurial entry literature to investigate the drivers of both expected performance and the unobserved threshold, providing greater insight into the specific causal role of entry determinants.
‘Rationalizing organization change: The need for comparative testing‘ – published in Organization Science
Abstract: Behavioral theory explains that organizational change is prompted by performance relative to a firm-specific aspiration. Although this explanation has been empirically confirmed, it has not been tested comparatively alongside other explanations, most notably rational choice. This lack of comparative study implies that prior research may be committing Type I errors—confirming aspiration-level decision making when it is not actually occurring. This paper contributes to behavioral theory in two specific ways. First, we show that several foundational studies purporting to provide empirical support for aspiration-level decision making may actually represent maximizing behavior. To consider this potential, we simulate a sample of subjectively rational agents who choose strategies by maximizing expectations. We show that it is possible and highly probable to diagnose satisficing when agents are, in fact, maximizing. Second, we develop and implement recommendations for comparative testing to demonstrate reliability. Analysis shows that the recommendations are effective at reducing Type I and II errors for both behavioral theory and rational choice. This paper is meant to inspire the design of future studies on aspirations and, indeed, all studies of organizational change.