Research SummaryPolitical and regulatory actors routinely adopt or enforce policies to protect domestic firms at the expense of foreign firms. However, since courts are expected to be neutral and act independently, a question arises whether (and why) they discriminate against foreign firms. We argue that the courts are nationalistic, which emanates from judges differentiating between in‐group (domestic) and out‐group (foreign) members. In a sample of 58,754 patent disputes adjudicated by US federal district courts between 1983 and 2016, we find domestic patent holders and challengers are more successful than their foreign counterparts. Rulings involving foreign firms are more likely to exhibit nationalistic rhetoric. Judicial ideology moderates the differential odds of success between domestic and foreign firms. Thus, the legal system is another source of economic nationalism.Managerial SummaryMultinational firms might face a disadvantage relative to domestic firms because politicians and regulators are nationalistic; they routinely adopt policies that favor domestic firms. If courts are neutral, this disadvantage should not exist in litigation between multinational and domestic firms. On the contrary, if courts are also nationalistic, domestic firms should enjoy an advantage and greater success than multinational firms in judicial verdicts. Using data on patent disputes in the United States observed over a 33‐year period, we find domestic patent holders and challengers are more successful than their foreign counterparts suggesting that the legal system is another source of economic nationalism. Rulings involving multinationals are more likely to exhibit nationalistic rhetoric. Judicial ideology moderates the differential odds of success between domestic and multinational firms.
{"title":"Economic nationalism and the home court advantage","authors":"Arnab Choudhury, Srividya Jandhyala, Anand Nandkumar","doi":"10.1002/smj.3658","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3658","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryPolitical and regulatory actors routinely adopt or enforce policies to protect domestic firms at the expense of foreign firms. However, since courts are expected to be neutral and act independently, a question arises whether (and why) they discriminate against foreign firms. We argue that the courts are nationalistic, which emanates from judges differentiating between in‐group (domestic) and out‐group (foreign) members. In a sample of 58,754 patent disputes adjudicated by US federal district courts between 1983 and 2016, we find domestic patent holders and challengers are more successful than their foreign counterparts. Rulings involving foreign firms are more likely to exhibit nationalistic rhetoric. Judicial ideology moderates the differential odds of success between domestic and foreign firms. Thus, the legal system is another source of economic nationalism.Managerial SummaryMultinational firms might face a disadvantage relative to domestic firms because politicians and regulators are nationalistic; they routinely adopt policies that favor domestic firms. If courts are neutral, this disadvantage should not exist in litigation between multinational and domestic firms. On the contrary, if courts are also nationalistic, domestic firms should enjoy an advantage and greater success than multinational firms in judicial verdicts. Using data on patent disputes in the United States observed over a 33‐year period, we find domestic patent holders and challengers are more successful than their foreign counterparts suggesting that the legal system is another source of economic nationalism. Rulings involving multinationals are more likely to exhibit nationalistic rhetoric. Judicial ideology moderates the differential odds of success between domestic and multinational firms.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141938168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryWe examine the relationship between political competition, corporate bribery, and corporate contributions to politically connected charities, and whether there is a shift from covert to concealed corporate nonmarket action as political competition increases. Panel analysis using rare corporate bribery and charity donations panel data from South Korea reveals that as political competition increases, corporate bribery decreases, whereas corporate contributions to politically connected charities increase. Subsequent panel analysis uncovers that amid increased political competition, firms that made larger bribes in the prior year contribute more to politically connected charities in the subsequent year, and that this form of rechanneling is more pronounced for smaller business groups. Implications are discussed.Managerial SummaryThis study argues that the field of strategy needs to do more to analyze firms' illegal strategic behavior, both to gain a deeper understanding of business practices in the corporate world and to develop recommendations for policymakers on how to curb such behavior over time. Using comprehensive and rare firm‐level data on bribery of high‐level government officials and donations to politically connected charities from South Korea, this study analyzes how businesses rechannel their bribery of senior‐level politicians to contributions to politically connected charities as the country's level of political competition becomes stronger. This study proposes a theory of rechanneling and demonstrates support for the theory using the extensive data set on bribery and politically connected charity donations from South Korea.
{"title":"Political competition and the rechanneling of corporate bribery into politically connected charity donations: Evidence from South Korea","authors":"Yujin Jeong, Jordan I. Siegel","doi":"10.1002/smj.3640","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3640","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryWe examine the relationship between political competition, corporate bribery, and corporate contributions to politically connected charities, and whether there is a shift from covert to concealed corporate nonmarket action as political competition increases. Panel analysis using rare corporate bribery and charity donations panel data from South Korea reveals that as political competition increases, corporate bribery decreases, whereas corporate contributions to politically connected charities increase. Subsequent panel analysis uncovers that amid increased political competition, firms that made larger bribes in the prior year contribute more to politically connected charities in the subsequent year, and that this form of rechanneling is more pronounced for smaller business groups. Implications are discussed.Managerial SummaryThis study argues that the field of strategy needs to do more to analyze firms' illegal strategic behavior, both to gain a deeper understanding of business practices in the corporate world and to develop recommendations for policymakers on how to curb such behavior over time. Using comprehensive and rare firm‐level data on bribery of high‐level government officials and donations to politically connected charities from South Korea, this study analyzes how businesses rechannel their bribery of senior‐level politicians to contributions to politically connected charities as the country's level of political competition becomes stronger. This study proposes a theory of rechanneling and demonstrates support for the theory using the extensive data set on bribery and politically connected charity donations from South Korea.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141938170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummarySocial networks are integral to collaborative work, but research on network change has shed little light on the mechanisms firms use to stimulate collaborative network ties among their employees. In this study, we examine the effects of corporate offsites on the evolution of social networks within an organization. We find that offsites lead to rewiring of intraorganizational networks, but with a surprising asymmetry: they stimulate everyone to initiate more collaboration ties, but only those who attend the offsite receive more ties. These results are consistent with a conceptualization of offsites as direct interventions that focus on social interactions for those who attend, but also as indirect interventions that signal the value of collaboration to everyone, even those who do not attend.Managerial SummaryCorporate offsites are events that convene people from across a firm to interact outside their regular work environment. Despite their popularity, this article offers the first data‐driven analysis of their effectiveness in promoting collaboration among employees. Offsites facilitate employees' awareness of who knows what, build trust, and foster interpersonal affect among employees. This study shows that offsites have a dual effect on the social network of an organization: they prompt everyone in the firm to initiate more collaborative ties following an offsite, but those who actually attend the offsite attract more of those collaborative tie requests. Therefore, offsites can be a useful tool to boost collaboration—with benefits accruing both to the individuals whose networks grow and to the firm in which they work.
{"title":"Rewiring the organizational network: Corporate offsites and network tie formation","authors":"Madeline K. Kneeland, Adam M. Kleinbaum","doi":"10.1002/smj.3653","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3653","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummarySocial networks are integral to collaborative work, but research on network change has shed little light on the mechanisms firms use to stimulate collaborative network ties among their employees. In this study, we examine the effects of corporate offsites on the evolution of social networks within an organization. We find that offsites lead to rewiring of intraorganizational networks, but with a surprising asymmetry: they stimulate everyone to <jats:italic>initiate</jats:italic> more collaboration ties, but only those who attend the offsite <jats:italic>receive</jats:italic> more ties. These results are consistent with a conceptualization of offsites as direct interventions that focus on social interactions for those who attend, but also as indirect interventions that signal the value of collaboration to everyone, even those who do not attend.Managerial SummaryCorporate offsites are events that convene people from across a firm to interact outside their regular work environment. Despite their popularity, this article offers the first data‐driven analysis of their effectiveness in promoting collaboration among employees. Offsites facilitate employees' awareness of who knows what, build trust, and foster interpersonal affect among employees. This study shows that offsites have a dual effect on the social network of an organization: they prompt everyone in the firm to initiate more collaborative ties following an offsite, but those who actually attend the offsite attract more of those collaborative tie requests. Therefore, offsites can be a useful tool to boost collaboration—with benefits accruing both to the individuals whose networks grow and to the firm in which they work.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141938169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryThis article develops a theoretical framework to explicate how third parties, who are not transactionally involved in a given exchange relationship, can promote or impede the creation and capture of value by influencing market actor beliefs and behaviors. I investigate these issues empirically through an abductive mixed‐method case study of the Michelin Guide's entry into New York City. An examination of two decades of the openings and closings of New York City's elite restaurants indicates that receiving a Michelin star corresponded to an increased likelihood of restaurant exit. Michelin stars appear to have fostered disruptions at recipients' upstream and downstream interfaces, which inhibited their ability to capture value. This ultimately underscores how value network reactivity to third‐party evaluations may lead to unintended consequences for firms.Managerial SummaryThis article explains how third‐party evaluators' reviews, ratings, and rankings can promote or impede the creation and capture of value. This occurs because third‐party evaluations engender reactions by those being evaluated, as well as reactions by other market actors such as competitors and exchange partners. I study these issues within the context of the Michelin Guide's entry into New York City, and my findings indicate that restaurants that received a Michelin star were more likely to close in subsequent years. Evidence suggests that intensified bargaining problems with landlords, suppliers, and employees, along with heightened consumer expectations, created new challenges for these Michelin‐starred restaurants, which ultimately made it more difficult for them to stay in business.
{"title":"Double‐edged stars: Michelin stars, reactivity, and restaurant exits in New York City","authors":"Daniel B. Sands","doi":"10.1002/smj.3651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3651","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis article develops a theoretical framework to explicate how third parties, who are not transactionally involved in a given exchange relationship, can promote or impede the creation and capture of value by influencing market actor beliefs and behaviors. I investigate these issues empirically through an abductive mixed‐method case study of the Michelin Guide's entry into New York City. An examination of two decades of the openings and closings of New York City's elite restaurants indicates that receiving a Michelin star corresponded to an increased likelihood of restaurant exit. Michelin stars appear to have fostered disruptions at recipients' upstream and downstream interfaces, which inhibited their ability to capture value. This ultimately underscores how value network reactivity to third‐party evaluations may lead to unintended consequences for firms.Managerial SummaryThis article explains how third‐party evaluators' reviews, ratings, and rankings can promote or impede the creation and capture of value. This occurs because third‐party evaluations engender reactions by those being evaluated, as well as reactions by other market actors such as competitors and exchange partners. I study these issues within the context of the Michelin Guide's entry into New York City, and my findings indicate that restaurants that received a Michelin star were more likely to close in subsequent years. Evidence suggests that intensified bargaining problems with landlords, suppliers, and employees, along with heightened consumer expectations, created new challenges for these Michelin‐starred restaurants, which ultimately made it more difficult for them to stay in business.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141938131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gino Cattani, Mariano Mastrogiorgio, Giuseppe Carignani
Research SummaryDespite the importance of resource reallocation in shaping a variety of strategic outcomes, strategy scholars have paid only limited attention to the processes by which firms reallocate their resources across successive systemic innovations. To explore these processes, we conducted an in‐depth historical case study on Rolls‐Royce's role in three distinct systemic innovations that marked the transition from piston engines to jet engines in the civil aviation industry: the turbojet, the turboprop, and the turbofan. The analysis helps explain how and why Rolls‐Royce's central role stemmed from its ability to reallocate existing non‐scale free organizational and technical resources. A key finding of this study is the identification of the horizontal transfer of functional modules as a critical process, especially during the incipient phase of a systemic innovation. The analysis also highlights the role that specific organizational arrangements, particularly a firm's integrative capabilities, have in shaping the effectiveness with which resources are reallocated.Managerial SummaryFocusing on resource reallocation is important to understand why some firms effectively reallocate their resources through successive systemic innovations while others cannot, even if they have similar resources and face the same environmental conditions. By delving into the technological aspects of aeroengine development and exploring why Rolls‐Royce had the capabilities to successfully integrate key functional modules across various modular levels, we clarify the relationship between technology and organization that underlies resource reallocation—a topic that has received only scant attention in the strategy literature.
{"title":"Resource reallocation across successive systemic innovations: How Rolls‐Royce shaped the evolution of the turbojet, turboprop, and turbofan","authors":"Gino Cattani, Mariano Mastrogiorgio, Giuseppe Carignani","doi":"10.1002/smj.3655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3655","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryDespite the importance of <jats:italic>resource reallocation</jats:italic> in shaping a variety of strategic outcomes, strategy scholars have paid only limited attention to the processes by which firms reallocate their resources across successive <jats:italic>systemic innovations</jats:italic>. To explore these processes, we conducted an in‐depth historical case study on <jats:italic>Rolls‐Royce</jats:italic>'s role in three distinct systemic innovations that marked the transition from piston engines to jet engines in the civil aviation industry: the turbojet, the turboprop, and the turbofan. The analysis helps explain how and why Rolls‐Royce's central role stemmed from its ability to reallocate existing non‐scale free organizational and technical resources. A key finding of this study is the identification of the <jats:italic>horizontal transfer</jats:italic> of functional modules as a critical process, especially during the incipient phase of a systemic innovation. The analysis also highlights the role that specific organizational arrangements, particularly a firm's <jats:italic>integrative capabilities</jats:italic>, have in shaping the effectiveness with which resources are reallocated.Managerial SummaryFocusing on resource reallocation is important to understand why some firms effectively reallocate their resources through successive systemic innovations while others cannot, even if they have similar resources and face the same environmental conditions. By delving into the technological aspects of aeroengine development and exploring why Rolls‐Royce had the capabilities to successfully integrate key functional modules across various modular levels, we clarify the relationship between technology and organization that underlies resource reallocation—a topic that has received only scant attention in the strategy literature.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141938084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article argues that strategic risk-taking in the form of unethical behavior can lead to successful entry and that this entry can drive incumbents to either adopt similar behavior or potentially be forced out of the market. Thus, entrepreneurs can introduce innovative, but socially destructive, behavior to a market and motivate its adoption by incumbents. Empirical support is found using a policy change in the liver transplant market to identify the use and adoption of unethical misrepresentation of patient health status. This article contributes to our understanding of entrepreneurial strategy as well as the competitive dynamics between entrants and incumbents in adopting new risky innovations and, in particular, unethical behaviors.
{"title":"The competitive dynamics of strategic risk-taking, unethical behavior, and entry","authors":"James Ostler","doi":"10.1002/smj.3650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3650","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that strategic risk-taking in the form of unethical behavior can lead to successful entry and that this entry can drive incumbents to either adopt similar behavior or potentially be forced out of the market. Thus, entrepreneurs can introduce innovative, but socially destructive, behavior to a market and motivate its adoption by incumbents. Empirical support is found using a policy change in the liver transplant market to identify the use and adoption of unethical misrepresentation of patient health status. This article contributes to our understanding of entrepreneurial strategy as well as the competitive dynamics between entrants and incumbents in adopting new risky innovations and, in particular, unethical behaviors.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141938132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryThis research addresses the tension of audiences often rejecting creative products despite creativity being foundational to organizational success. To better understand this issue, we take an abductive approach to disentangle the effects of creative content (how creative the core concept is) and creative packaging (how creatively the core concept is presented and visualized) while accounting for audiences' different expertise levels. Across two archival studies and a pre‐registered experiment, we find that both experts and general audiences react positively to creative content. However, reactions to creative packaging display greater variability: on average, experts react positively whereas general audiences react negatively. We find no interaction between the two variables. We discuss the theoretical implications of these findings for the literature.Managerial SummaryWhile creativity is foundational to organizational success, audiences often reject creative products. Across two archival studies and an experiment, we show how the effect of creativity on different audience's reception can be better understood when disentangling creative content (how creative the core concept is) from creative packaging (how creatively the core concept is presented and visualized). Our results suggest that companies should (a) invest more resources in developing products high in creative content—products that break current norms and are different from others—and (b) acknowledge that heavy investments into novel and visually groundbreaking packaging lend diminishing returns, particularly for general audiences: for the same level of quality a traditional (vs. creative) packaging yields more advantages.
{"title":"Disentangling audiences' reactions to creative content and creative packaging","authors":"Davide C. Orazi, Pier Vittorio Mannucci","doi":"10.1002/smj.3649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3649","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis research addresses the tension of audiences often rejecting creative products despite creativity being foundational to organizational success. To better understand this issue, we take an abductive approach to disentangle the effects of <jats:italic>creative content</jats:italic> (how creative the core concept is) and <jats:italic>creative packaging</jats:italic> (how creatively the core concept is presented and visualized) while accounting for audiences' different expertise levels. Across two archival studies and a pre‐registered experiment, we find that both experts and general audiences react positively to creative content. However, reactions to creative packaging display greater variability: on average, experts react positively whereas general audiences react negatively. We find no interaction between the two variables. We discuss the theoretical implications of these findings for the literature.Managerial SummaryWhile creativity is foundational to organizational success, audiences often reject creative products. Across two archival studies and an experiment, we show how the effect of creativity on different audience's reception can be better understood when disentangling <jats:italic>creative content</jats:italic> (how creative the core concept is) from <jats:italic>creative packaging</jats:italic> (how creatively the core concept is presented and visualized). Our results suggest that companies should (a) invest more resources in developing products high in creative content—products that break current norms and are different from others—and (b) acknowledge that heavy investments into novel and visually groundbreaking packaging lend diminishing returns, particularly for general audiences: for the same level of quality a traditional (vs. creative) packaging yields more advantages.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":"75 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141884893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryEntrepreneurial firms are fertile sources of patented inventions. Yet little is known about what happens to patent assets when startups go out of business: Do the assets have a “second life” through redeployment to new owners? Based on 264 failed VC‐backed startups, we document an active market for the patents both as standalone assets and through co‐movement with inventors to the purchasing organization. We then model and test how the redeployment likelihood and mode of transfer is shaped by trading thickness in the secondary patent market and the degree to which asset value is firm‐specific and tied to the original venture. The study sheds new light on conditions that affect the redeployment of intangible assets and the abilities of startups to preserve value in liquidation.Managerial SummaryThe process of innovation naturally gives rise to failed attempts and abandoned projects. While prior studies document that disbanded ventures are important sources of human capital and learning spillovers, we are the first to document an active resale market for their patent assets. This study shines new light on conditions that affect the redeployment likelihood and mode of patent transfer, whether as standalone assets or through co‐mobility with an inventor to the purchasing organization. The evidence is based on 264 VC‐backed startups in the semiconductor, software, and medical device sectors. The formal model and empirical findings suggest that trading conditions in the secondary market not only affect the likelihood that patents originating from failed startups will be sold but also influence managerial incentives to retain inventors and preserve complementarities with the human capital.
{"title":"Do patent assets have a second life when startups fail? An analysis of the redeployment likelihood and mode of transfer","authors":"Carlos J. Serrano, Rosemarie H. Ziedonis","doi":"10.1002/smj.3644","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3644","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryEntrepreneurial firms are fertile sources of patented inventions. Yet little is known about what happens to patent assets when startups go out of business: Do the assets have a “second life” through redeployment to new owners? Based on 264 failed VC‐backed startups, we document an active market for the patents both as standalone assets and through co‐movement with inventors to the purchasing organization. We then model and test how the redeployment likelihood and mode of transfer is shaped by trading thickness in the secondary patent market and the degree to which asset value is firm‐specific and tied to the original venture. The study sheds new light on conditions that affect the redeployment of intangible assets and the abilities of startups to preserve value in liquidation.Managerial SummaryThe process of innovation naturally gives rise to failed attempts and abandoned projects. While prior studies document that disbanded ventures are important sources of human capital and learning spillovers, we are the first to document an active resale market for their patent assets. This study shines new light on conditions that affect the redeployment likelihood and mode of patent transfer, whether as standalone assets or through co‐mobility with an inventor to the purchasing organization. The evidence is based on 264 VC‐backed startups in the semiconductor, software, and medical device sectors. The formal model and empirical findings suggest that trading conditions in the secondary market not only affect the likelihood that patents originating from failed startups will be sold but also influence managerial incentives to retain inventors and preserve complementarities with the human capital.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":"366 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141884895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryThis study contrasts traditional entry dynamics with platform owner entry into a complementor market and examines cross‐platform complementor response to competition with the platform. Generalists experience low repositioning cost and are more likely to shift effort away, while specialists focus their effort on the focal platform. We examine Apple's “Files” app entry and find support for our hypotheses: generalists shift effort toward the competing platform, while specialists double down on the focal platform. Moreover, empirically comparing Apple's entry with that of other large firms, we find that only the platform owner elicits a strong complementor response. This article contributes to the competitive and corporate strategy literatures, underscoring how complementor heterogeneity affects cross‐platform allocation of effort when the platform owner becomes a competitor in complementor spaces.Managerial SummaryGiven the growing managerial and regulatory interest in competitive arenas on digital platforms, we analyze how firms respond to competition with the platform owner. We hypothesize that platform‐enabled firms (complementors) with an outside option—those who also operate on a different platform—reposition, while firms only focused on a single platform double down. Examining the case of the “Files” app on Apple's App Store, we find support for these predictions. We also study other large firm entries on App Store (by Microsoft and SanDisk), but do not observe a meaningful response by complementors. We describe how market entry by the platform owner differs from traditional entry and argue stakeholders may benefit from a deeper understanding of the unique nature of competing with a platform.
研究摘要本研究对比了传统的进入动态与平台所有者进入互补者市场的动态，并考察了跨平台互补者对与平台竞争的反应。通才的重新定位成本低，更有可能将精力转移到其他方面，而专才则将精力集中在焦点平台上。我们研究了苹果公司的 "Files "应用程序入口，发现它支持了我们的假设：通才将精力转向竞争平台，而专才则加倍努力于焦点平台。此外，通过对苹果公司与其他大型公司的进入进行实证比较，我们发现只有平台所有者才会引起强烈的互补者反应。本文强调了当平台所有者成为互补者空间的竞争者时，互补者的异质性如何影响跨平台的努力分配，为竞争和企业战略文献做出了贡献。我们假设，拥有外部选择权的平台企业（互补者）--那些同时在不同平台上运营的企业--会重新定位，而只专注于单一平台的企业则会加倍努力。通过研究苹果应用商店的 "文件 "应用，我们发现这些预测得到了支持。我们还研究了其他进入 App Store 的大型企业（微软和闪迪），但没有观察到互补者做出有意义的反应。我们描述了平台所有者进入市场与传统进入市场的不同之处，并认为利益相关者可以从更深入地了解与平台竞争的独特性中获益。
{"title":"Competing with the platform: Complementor positioning and cross‐platform response to entry","authors":"Aldona Kapacinskaite, Ahmadreza Mostajabi","doi":"10.1002/smj.3643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3643","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryThis study contrasts traditional entry dynamics with platform owner entry into a complementor market and examines cross‐platform complementor response to competition with the platform. Generalists experience low repositioning cost and are more likely to shift effort away, while specialists focus their effort on the focal platform. We examine Apple's “Files” app entry and find support for our hypotheses: generalists shift effort toward the competing platform, while specialists double down on the focal platform. Moreover, empirically comparing Apple's entry with that of other large firms, we find that only the platform owner elicits a strong complementor response. This article contributes to the competitive and corporate strategy literatures, underscoring how complementor heterogeneity affects cross‐platform allocation of effort when the platform owner becomes a competitor in complementor spaces.Managerial SummaryGiven the growing managerial and regulatory interest in competitive arenas on digital platforms, we analyze how firms respond to competition with the platform owner. We hypothesize that platform‐enabled firms (complementors) with an outside option—those who also operate on a different platform—reposition, while firms only focused on a single platform double down. Examining the case of the “Files” app on Apple's App Store, we find support for these predictions. We also study other large firm entries on App Store (by Microsoft and SanDisk), but do not observe a meaningful response by complementors. We describe how market entry by the platform owner differs from traditional entry and argue stakeholders may benefit from a deeper understanding of the unique nature of competing with a platform.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141869891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research SummaryPlatforms create value by connecting users to complementors offering goods or services. Complementors compete on platforms but may also benefit each other by drawing demand to the platform, which may then “spillover” from one complementor to another. This tension raises the question: When are relationships between complementors competitive versus complementary? To help address this question, I apply theory on agglomeration‐driven demand spillovers to examine when on‐platform demand spillovers created by peer product launch are larger versus smaller. Studying the Spotify platform, I find spillovers are larger, and peer album release more beneficial to an artist, when the peer stimulates greater demand expansion, platform‐mediated inter‐complementor proximity is higher, and the artist benefits more from consumer learning. Findings extend literature on on‐platform competition and inform complementor strategy.Managerial SummaryOn digital platforms, complementor product launch may hurt peer performance by causing substitution or may benefit peer performance by drawing demand to the platform which may then “spillover” from the complementor to a peer. Studying the Spotify platform, I examine when such spillovers are larger versus smaller, shedding light on when peer product launch is beneficial versus detrimental for complementors competing on digital platforms. On Spotify, demand spillovers are larger, and peer album release more beneficial to an artist, when peer album release draws listeners to the platform, Spotify recommendations connect the artist to the peer, and the artist reaches new or unfamiliar listeners. The findings suggest that, on platforms featuring demand spillovers, complementors can take strategic actions to leverage spillovers and improve performance.
{"title":"More is (sometimes) merrier: Heterogeneity in demand spillovers and competition on a digital platform","authors":"Manav Raj","doi":"10.1002/smj.3647","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3647","url":null,"abstract":"Research SummaryPlatforms create value by connecting users to complementors offering goods or services. Complementors compete on platforms but may also benefit each other by drawing demand to the platform, which may then “spillover” from one complementor to another. This tension raises the question: When are relationships between complementors competitive versus complementary? To help address this question, I apply theory on agglomeration‐driven demand spillovers to examine when on‐platform demand spillovers created by peer product launch are larger versus smaller. Studying the Spotify platform, I find spillovers are larger, and peer album release more beneficial to an artist, when the peer stimulates greater demand expansion, platform‐mediated inter‐complementor proximity is higher, and the artist benefits more from consumer learning. Findings extend literature on on‐platform competition and inform complementor strategy.Managerial SummaryOn digital platforms, complementor product launch may hurt peer performance by causing substitution or may benefit peer performance by drawing demand to the platform which may then “spillover” from the complementor to a peer. Studying the Spotify platform, I examine when such spillovers are larger versus smaller, shedding light on when peer product launch is beneficial versus detrimental for complementors competing on digital platforms. On Spotify, demand spillovers are larger, and peer album release more beneficial to an artist, when peer album release draws listeners to the platform, Spotify recommendations connect the artist to the peer, and the artist reaches new or unfamiliar listeners. The findings suggest that, on platforms featuring demand spillovers, complementors can take strategic actions to leverage spillovers and improve performance.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141781377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：