See my Google Scholar Citations
‘A model scholar and preeminent contributor to our understanding of strategic entrepreneurship: Arnold C Cooper (1933-2012).’ Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8 (2014): 349-360.
Abstract: This paper discusses the scholarly work of Arnold C. Cooper. He was an influential pioneer in the study of entrepreneurship, strategic management, and technology management, and his work provided an important foundation for subsequent development in those fields. Many of his contributions are a result of methodological approaches to gathering data, enabling him to draw insights from systematic empiricism of phenomena. Many of his most influential works are discussed and linked to subsequent work, including work emanating from this journal. Future research opportunities tied to his work are also elaborated.
‘Getting beyond relatedness as a driver of corporate value,’ (with A. Sakhartov) forthcoming in Strategic Management Journal.
Abstract: Our paper scrutinizes how corporate value derives from redeployability of firms’ resources to new product markets. We focus on the underexplored determinant of redeployability, inducements, defined as advantages in returns in new over existing markets. We assemble separate dimensions of inducements from research on corporate diversification and real options and consider inducements in their entirety. A simulation model casts redeployability as a real option to switch the use of resources across markets and explicates important interdependences among the dimensions of inducements. The model also demonstrates that inducements modify the effect of relatedness on corporate value. Our theoretical arguments amend existing theory and have important implications for corporate diversification research.
‘Resource relatedness, redeployability, and firm value,’ (with A. Sakhartov) 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.
‘Rationalizing organizational change: A need for comparative testing,’ (with A. Sakhartov) Organization Science, 24, 4 (2013): 1140-1156.
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.
‘Entrepreneurial entry thresholds,’ (with B. McCann), Journal of Economic and Behavioral Organization, 84, 3 (2012): 782-800.
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.
‘Hybrid Entrepreneurship,’ (with F. Delmar and K. Wennberg) Management Science, 56, 2(2010): 253-269.
Abstract: In contrast to previous efforts to model an individual’s movement from wage work into entrepreneurship, we consider that individuals might transition incrementally by retaining their wage job while entering into self-employment. We show that these hybrid entrepreneurs represent a significant share of all entrepreneurial activity. Theoretical arguments are proposed to suggest why hybrid entrants are distinct from self-employment entrants, and why hybrid entry may facilitate subsequent entry into full self-employment. We demonstrate that there are significant theoretical and empirical consequences for this group and our understanding of self employment entry and labor market dynamics. Using matched employee–employer data over eight years, we test the model on a population of Swedish wage earners in the knowledge-intensive sector.