Offshoring and firm innovation

Offshoring has been one of the most enduring themes in the corporate world in recent times. It still splits the opinion of fans and opponents in a manner that is usually the preserve of obscure religious disputes

Effects of measurement strategy and statistical analysis on dose-response relations between physical workload and low back pain

BACKGROUND: In epidemiological studies on physical workloads and back complaints, among the important features in modelling dose-response relations are the measurement strategy of the exposure and the nature of the dose-response relation that is assumed. AIM: To evaluate the effect of these two features on the strength of the dose-response relation between physical load and severe low back pain. METHODS: The study population consisted of 769 workers in nursing homes and homes for the elderly. Observations at the workplace were made of 212 subjects. These observations were analysed to determine exposure to physical load according to two measurement strategies: the individual approach and the group approach. The nature of the dose-response relation was evaluated with nested logistic regression models. RESULTS: The group approach resulted in higher odds ratios for the associations between physical load and low back pain than the individual approach. Spline logistic regression models appeared to describe the dose-response relation between physical load and low back pain best. The corresponding curve showed small changes in risk for small changes in exposure, whereas the categorical model only showed sudden large changes in risk at predefined exposure values. CONCLUSION: The choice for a particular measurement strategy of physical load influences the strength of the associations between physical load and severe low back pain. Spline models allow changes in risk over the whole exposure range and are therefore a promising approach to identify quantitative dose-response patterns between physical load and low back pain

Corporate Entrepreneurship: Sensing and Seizing Opportunities for a Prosperous Research Agenda

Strategic and corporate entrepreneurship have been widely acknowledged by scholars and executives alike as an effective means of revitalizing organizations to improve performance. Spurring entrepreneurial behavior and exploration within established organizations, however, remains a big challenge facing today’s businesses. As organizations grow and age over time, like people in general, they tend to become set in their ways of thinking, learning, managing and acting – they become less flexible and less willing to sense and seize new opportunities. There is little doubt that the mindsets and organizational attributes needed for exploring and leveraging new opportunities are radically different from those needed for smoothening ongoing operations, making it difficult to pursue both sets of activities at the same time within an organization. Given the importance for future sustainable growth, scholars have yet to uncover how organizations may reconcile conflicting demands and resolve the challenges associated with corporate entrepreneurship’s emphasis on leveraging existing opportunities as well as new ones ‘out there’. The aim of this inaugural address is to draw the foundations and to identify emergent opportunities for moving forward research on strategic entrepreneur - ship in general and on corporate entrepreneurship in particular. It considers the challenges associated with corporate entrepreneurship and details important organizational and managerial features of successful organizations that span different levels of analysis. The inaugural address concludes that the integration of theory and research in strategic management and entrepreneurship using such a multilevel approach generates valuable new research avenues underlying a prosperous research agenda

Bringing focus to entrepreneurship

Fostering entrepreneurship has long been a core part of the RSM ethos. But a new centre bringing together some key players promises to take this philosophy to a new and even more successful level

Who violates expectations when? How firms' growth and dividend reputations affect investors' reactions to acquisitions

Research summary: We investigate the role of a firm's dividend and growth reputations in shaping investors' interpretations of acquisitions as a negative or positive expectation violation. While our findings reveal that both an acquiring firm's dividend and growth reputations trigger positive investor reactions, they also show that investors react negatively to an acquisition of a target firm with a strong growth reputation when the acquiring firm has a strong dividend reputation. We also find that investors are inclined to give managers “the benefit of the doubt” to the extent that an acquiring firm strategically frames an acquisition announcement in such a way that it provides assurance to investors that the acquisition is meant to exceed investors' expectations about shareholder value creation. Managerial summary: We study why investors respond to some acquisitions positively and others negatively. We find that the way acquiring and target firms have created shareholder value in the past, and the information conveyed in the acquisition announcements are important determinants of investors' differential reactions to acquisitions. Our findings show that while investors generally react positively to acquisitions by firms known for creating value either through dividends or growth, their reactions become negative when a firm known for value creation through dividends acquires a target known for value creation through growth. We further find that managers can favorably influence investor reactions by making it salient in the acquisition announcement how the acquisition is intended to exceed investors' value creation expectations from the acquiring firm

Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators

Research on exploration and exploitation is burgeoning, yet our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of both activities remains rather unclear. We advance the growing body of literature by focusing on the apparent differences of exploration and exploitation and examining implications for using formal (i.e. centralization and formalization) and informal (i.e. connectedness) coordination mechanisms. This study further examines how environmental aspects (i.e. dynamism and competitiveness) moderate the effectiveness of exploratory and exploitative innovation. Results indicate that centralization negatively affects exploratory innovation while formalization positively influences exploitative innovation. Interestingly, connectedness within units appears to be an important antecedent of both exploratory and exploitative innovation. Furthermore, our findings reveal that pursuing exploratory innovation is more effective in dynamic environments whereas pursuing exploitative innovation is more beneficial to a unit’s financial performance in more competitive environments. Through this richer explanation and empirical assessment, we contribute to a greater clarity and better understanding of how ambidextrous organizations coordinate the development of exploratory and exploitative innovation in organizational units and successfully respond to multiple environmental conditions

Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and ambidexterity

Organizational ambidexterity (i.e., the ability to pursue exploratory and exploitative innovation simultaneously) is crucial to firm survival. In this study we explore how multiunit firms might develop ambidextrous organizational units in response to environmental demands. We examine how environmental and organizational antecedents affect a unit’s level of organizational ambidexterity. Our study reveals that multiunit firms develop ambidextrous organizational units to compete in dynamically competitive environments. Moreover, we show that organizational units with decentralized and densely connected social relations are able to act ambidextrously and pursue exploratory and exploitative innovations simultaneously. Our study provides new insights how multiunit firms can cope with contradictorily pressures for exploratory and exploitative innovations