London Business School

Scholars of the theory of the firm have begun to emphasize the sources and conditions of what has been described as “the organizational advantage,” rather than focus on the causes and consequences of market failure. Typically, researchers see such organizational advantage as accruing from the particular capabilities organizations have for creating and sharing knowledge. In this article we seek to contribute to this body of work by developing the following arguments: (1) social capital facilitates the creation of new intellectual capital; (2) organizations, as institutional settings, are conducive to the development of high levels of social capital; and (3) it is because of their more dense social capital that firms, within certain limits, have an advantage over markets in creating and sharing intellectual capital. We present a model that incorporates this overall argument in the form of a series of hypothesized relationships between different dimensions of social capital and the main mechanisms and proces...

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

This paper critically examines available theoretical models which have been derived from statistically established patterns of association between contextual and organizational variables. These models offer an interpretation of organizational structure as a product of primarily economic constraints which contextual variables are assumed to impose. It is argued that available models in fact attempt to explain organization at one remove by ignoring the essentially political process, whereby power-holders within organizations decide upon courses of strategic action. This `strategic choice' typically includes not only the establishment of structural forms but also the manipulation of environmental features and the choice of relevant performance standards. A theoretical re-orientation of this kind away from functional imperatives and towards a recognition of political action is developed and illustrated in the main body of the paper.

Global competition highlights asymmetries in the skill endowments of firms. Collaboration may provide an opportunity for one partner to internalize the skills of the other, and thus improve its position both within and without the alliance. Detailed analysis of nine international alliances yielded a fine-grained understanding of the determinants of interpartner learning. The study suggests that not all partners are equally adept at learning; that asymmetries in learning alter the relative bargaining power of partners; that stability and longevity may be inappropriate metrics of partnership success; that partners may have competitive, as well as collaborative aims, vis-à-vis each other; and that process may be more important than structure in determining learning outcomes.

NUMEROUS MARKETS ARE characterized by informational differences between buyers and sellers. In financial markets, informational asymmetries are particularly pronounced. Borrowers typically know their collateral, industriousness, and moral rectitude better than do lenders; entrepreneurs possess "inside" information about their own projects for which they seek financing.

This paper reviews the use of case study research in operations management for theory development and testing. It draws on the literature on case research in a number of disciplines and uses examples drawn from operations management research. It provides guidelines and a roadmap for operations management researchers wishing to design, develop and conduct case‐based research.

We investigated contextual organizational ambidexterity, defined as the capacity to simultaneously achieve alignment and adaptability at a business-unit level. Building on the leadership and organization context literatures, we argue that a context char-acterized by a combination of stretch, discipline, support, and trust facilitates contex-tual ambidexterity. Further, ambidexterity mediates the relationship between these contextual features and performance. Data collected from 4,195 individuals in 41 business units supported our hypotheses. A recurring theme in a variety of organizational literatures is that successful organizations in a dy-namic environment are ambidextrous—aligned and efficient in their management of today’s busi-ness demands, while also adaptive enough to changes in the environment that they will still be around tomorrow (Duncan, 1976; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). The simple idea behind the value of ambidexterity is that the demands on an organi-zation in its task environment are always to some degree in conflict (for instance, investment in cur-rent versus future projects, differentiation versus low-cost production), so there are always trade-offs to be made. Although these trade-offs can never entirely be eliminated, the most successful organi-zations reconcile them to a large degree, and in so doing enhance their long-term competitiveness. Authors have typically viewed ambidexterity in structural terms. According to Duncan (1976), who first used the term, organizations manage trade-offs between conflicting demands by putting in place “dual structures, ” so that certain business units—or groups within business units—focus on alignment, while others focus on adaptation (Duncan, 1976). We refer to this as structural ambidexterity.1 In-creasingly, however, organizational scholars have recognized the importance of simultaneously bal-ancing seemingly contradictory tensions and have begun to shift their focus from trade-off (either/or) to paradoxical (both/and) thinking (Bouchikhi,

This article argues that academic research related to the conduct of business and management has had some very significant and negative influences on the practice of management. These influences have been less at the level of adoption of a particular theory and more at the incorporation, within the worldview of managers, of a set of ideas and assumptions that have come to dominate much of management research. More specifically, this article suggests that by propagating ideologically inspired amoral theories, business schools have actively freed their students from any sense of moral responsibility. As has been extensively documented in the literature over the last 50 years business school research has increasingly adopted the scientific model--an approach that Friedrich A. Von Hayek described as the pretense of knowledge. This pretense has demanded theorizing based on partialization of analysis, the exclusion of any role for human intentionality or choice, and the use of sharp assumptions and deductive reasoning. Since morality, or ethics, is inseparable from human intentionality, a precondition for making business studies a science has been the denial of any moral or ethical considerations in our theories and, therefore, in our prescriptions for management practice.

We investigate whether superior performance on corporate social responsibility ( CSR ) strategies leads to better access to finance. We hypothesize that better access to finance can be attributed to (1) reduced agency costs due to enhanced stakeholder engagement and (2) reduced informational asymmetry due to increased transparency. Using a large cross‐section of firms, we find that firms with better CSR performance face significantly lower capital constraints. We provide evidence that both better stakeholder engagement and transparency around CSR performance are important in reducing capital constraints. The results are further confirmed using several alternative measures of capital constraints, a paired analysis based on a ratings shock to CSR performance, an instrumental variables approach, and a simultaneous equations approach. Finally, we show that the relation is driven by both the social and environmental dimension of CSR . Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

In our hypotheses, we stated that the various dimensions of internationalisation are expected to be a function of firm size, international experience of the founders, external fmance, technology intensity, innovativeness, the extent to which products are customised and the costs of commercialisation. Accordingly, we have to measure these influence factors. Firm size was operationalised in several ways. In the questionnaire, we asked respondents to state employees and sales both at start-up and at the time of the survey. The descriptive analysis revealed that the distributions are highly skewed to the right. Such a distribution is to be expected in a sample of start-up firms. Consequently, the direct operationalisations of size, i.e. the inclusion of the absolute sales volume or number of employees risk producing statistically insignificant parameter coefficients. Highly skewed distributions can be normalised using logarithmic transformations. We therefore first calculated log values of our various size measures. Second, for the regression models shown here, we constructed an index of the log values for firm size measured by number of employees and firm size by sales. The levels of the alpha coefficient (0.72 at start-up; 0.88 today) are above the recommended thresholds (Nunally and Bernstein 1994), therefore indicating construct validity. Since the actual firm size at the time of the survey could at the same time represent the cause and effect of international activities, we primarily used size at start-up in our regressions. We thus avoid possible effects of endogeneity in the models. Nonetheless, in most cases we also report parameter coefficients when size today is entered into the regression equation in order to explore whether the results are consistent.

We investigate the effect of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Using a matched sample of 180 U.S. companies, we find that corporations that voluntarily adopted sustainability policies by 1993—termed as high sustainability companies—exhibit by 2009 distinct organizational processes compared to a matched sample of companies that adopted almost none of these policies—termed as low sustainability companies. The boards of directors of high sustainability companies are more likely to be formally responsible for sustainability, and top executive compensation incentives are more likely to be a function of sustainability metrics. High sustainability companies are more likely to have established processes for stakeholder engagement, to be more long-term oriented, and to exhibit higher measurement and disclosure of nonfinancial information. Finally, high sustainability companies significantly outperform their counterparts over the long term, both in terms of stock market and accounting performance. This paper was accepted by Bruno Cassiman, business strategy.

We evaluate the out-of-sample performance of the sample-based mean-variance model, and its extensions designed to reduce estimation error, relative to the naive 1-N portfolio. Of the 14 models we evaluate across seven empirical datasets, none is consistently better than the 1-N rule in terms of Sharpe ratio, certainty-equivalent return, or turnover, which indicates that, out of sample, the gain from optimal diversification is more than offset by estimation error. Based on parameters calibrated to the US equity market, our analytical results and simulations show that the estimation window needed for the sample-based mean-variance strategy and its extensions to outperform the 1-N benchmark is around 3000 months for a portfolio with 25 assets and about 6000 months for a portfolio with 50 assets. This suggests that there are still many "miles to go" before the gains promised by optimal portfolio choice can actually be realized out of sample. The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org, Oxford University Press.

Research Summary: The recent surge of interest in “ecosystems” in strategy research and practice has mainly focused on what ecosystems are and how they operate. We complement this literature by considering when and why ecosystems emerge, and what makes them distinct from other governance forms. We argue that modularity enables ecosystem emergence as it allows a set of distinct yet interdependent organizations to coordinate without full hierarchical fiat. We show how ecosystems address multilateral dependences based on various types of complementarities—supermodular or unique, unidirectional or bidirectional—which determine the ecosystem's value‐add. We argue that at the core of ecosystems lie nongeneric complementarities, and the creation of sets of roles that face similar rules. We conclude with implications for mainstream strategy and suggestions for future research. Managerial Summary: We consider what makes ecosystems different from other business constellations, including markets, alliances, or hierarchically managed supply chains. Ecosystems, we posit, are interacting organizations, enabled by modularity, not hierarchically managed, bound together by the nonredeployability of their collective investment elsewhere. Ecosystems add value as they allow managers to coordinate their multilateral dependence through sets of roles that face similar rules, thus obviating the need to enter into customized contractual agreements with each partner. We explain how different types of complementarities (unique or supermodular, generic or specific, uni‐ or bi‐directional) shape ecosystems and offer a “theory of ecosystems” that can explain what they are, when they emerge, and why alignment occurs. Finally, we outline the critical factors affecting ecosystem emergence, evolution, and success—or failure.

Organizational ambidexterity, defined as an organization's ability to be aligned and efficient in its management of today's business demands while simultaneously being adaptive to changes in the environment, has gained increasing interest in recent years. In this article, the authors review various literature streams to develop a comprehensive model that covers research into the antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of organizational ambidexterity. They indicate gaps within and across different research domains and point to important avenues for future research.

Abstract Though there is a wide acceptance of the strategic importance of integrating operations with suppliers and customers in supply chains, many questions remain unanswered about how best to characterize supply chain strategies. Is it more important to link with suppliers, customers, or both? Similarly, we know little about the connections between supplier and customer integration and improved operations performance. This paper investigated supplier and customer integration strategies in a global sample of 322 manufacturers. Scales were developed for measuring supply chain integration and five different strategies were identified in the sample. Each of these strategies is characterized by a different “arc of integration”, representing the direction (towards suppliers and/or customers) and degree of integration activity. There was consistent evidence that the widest degree of arc of integration with both suppliers and customers had the strongest association with performance improvement. The implications for our findings on future research and practice in the new millennium are considered.

A considerable body of work highlights the relevance of collaborative research, contract research, consulting and informal relationships for university–industry knowledge transfer. We present a systematic review of research on academic scientists’ involvement in these activities to which we refer as ‘academic engagement’. Apart from extracting findings that are generalisable across studies, we ask how academic engagement differs from commercialisation, defined as intellectual property creation and academic entrepreneurship. We identify the individual, organisational and institutional antecedents and consequences of academic engagement, and then compare these findings with the antecedents and consequences of commercialisation. Apart from being more widely practiced, academic engagement is distinct from commercialisation in that it is closely aligned with traditional academic research activities, and pursued by academics to access resources supporting their research agendas. We conclude by identifying future research needs, opportunities for methodological improvement and policy interventions.

This paper shows that corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm value are positively related for firms with high customer awareness, as proxied by advertising expenditures. For firms with low customer awareness, the relation is either negative or insignificant. In addition, we find that the effect of awareness on the CSR–value relation is reversed for firms with a poor prior reputation as corporate citizens. This evidence is consistent with the view that CSR activities can add value to the firm but only under certain conditions. This paper was accepted by Bruno Cassiman, business strategy.

Organizational ambidexterity has emerged as a new research paradigm in organization theory, yet several issues fundamental to this debate remain controversial. We explore four central tensions here: Should organizations achieve ambidexterity through differentiation or through integration? Does ambidexterity occur at the individual or organizational level? Must organizations take a static or dynamic perspective on ambidexterity? Finally, can ambidexterity arise internally, or do firms have to externalize some processes? We provide an overview of the seven articles included in this special issue and suggest several avenues for future research.

This paper studies how the Hodrick-Prescott filter should be adjusted when changing the frequency of observations. It complements the results of Baxter and King (1999) with an analytical analysis, demonstrating that the filter parameter should be adjusted by multiplying it with the fourth power of the observation frequency ratios. This yields an HP parameter value of 6.25 for annual data given a value of 1600 for quarterly data. The relevance of the suggestion is illustrated empirically.

Transaction cost economics (TCE), and more specifically the version of TCE that has been developed by Oliver Williamson (1975, 1985, 1993b), has become an increasingly important anchor for the analysis of a wide range of strategic and organizational issues of considerable importance to firms. As argued by some of its key proponents, the theory aims not only to explain but also to influence practice (Masten, 1993). In this article, we argue that prescriptions drawn from this theory are likely to be not only wrong but also dangerous for corporate managers because of the assumptions and logic on which it is grounded. Organizations are not mere substitutes for structuring efficient transactions when markets fail; they possess unique advantages for governing certain kinds of economic activities through a logic that is very different from that of a market. TCE is “bad for practice” because it fails to recognize this difference. We identify some of the sources of the “organizational advantage” and argue for the ...