Marco S. Giarratana

This article explores the pivotal role of causal identification in the domain of management research and its alignment with theory creation. It seeks to stimulate thought about how researchers can approach theories and their causal identification with a review of the canonical methods. The article first addresses the intricacies of identification and the principal methodologies that researchers have recently employed in their investigations. Subsequently, it delves into the inherent costs associated with identification, specifically the need for additional assumptions, and the potential constraints on generalizability. It also promotes a more thoroughly examination of the nature of endogeneity. Finally, it explores how the link between causal identification and theory legitimacy could generate superstitious trajectories.

This paper investigates empirically the types of CSR investments that can create a higher perceived value to focal stakeholders (i.e., customers and employees). Differently from stakeholder theory,...

Diversified firms may benefit from fungible resources because they can give firms flexibility to adapt to changing environmental conditions. However, the benefits of fungible resources could be lim...

Research Summary: Whether diversified firms have advantages over their single‐business counterparts is the focus of much research in strategic management. Indeed, there is sparse evidence that corporate advantage exists, on average. We explore one potential driver of corporate advantage—that multi‐business firms have more flexibility than single‐business firms to cope with uncertainty, because they can internally redeploy resources across businesses. Using Compustat data, we show that uncertainty increases the relative advantage of multi‐business firms, a finding robust to controls for endogeneity. Consequently, the paper provides important insight and evidence around when corporate advantage might obtain. Moreover, we find that growth option value is accentuated in the presence of switching flexibility. Finally, multi‐business firms with redeployment experience and businesses with more inversely correlated returns benefit more from uncertainty. Managerial Summary: Multi‐business firms have a flexibility advantage over single‐business firms as they can reallocate firm resources from one business unit to another depending on inducements. What is the impact of this flexibility on firm value? In this paper, we test whether such a flexibility advantage translates into greater economic returns in more volatile markets. We expect that resource redeployment creates value if it amplifies business‐specific positive shocks while alleviating business‐specific downturns. Consistent with this argument, we find empirical evidence that with increasing stock market volatility, multi‐business firms benefit significantly more in terms of firm value than their single‐business counterparts. In particular, in highly volatile stock markets, monthly adjusted returns are 2.3 times higher for multi‐business firms than for single‐business firms.

Transaction costs strongly influence diversification dynamics, as predicted by resource theory. A mainstream view links the profitability of diversification with the existence of transaction costs that prevent a firm from trading in fungible, scale-free resources. This study applies a neo-Penrosian perspective to transaction costs, with the notion that diversification may be driven by the redeployment of non-scale-free resources. An empirical analysis, using tax changes in the drink sector as a measure of exogenous demand variation, offers results consistent with the prediction that redeployment is particularly relevant when retailing is concentrated and single-product competition within a focal product niche (e.g., beer) is fragmented. This study also measures redeployment across a portfolio of a multiniche firm when changes in its sales-growth rates for a particular product niche might imply contrasting changes in other product niches. The resulting evidence is consistent with predictions that demand uncertainty, and transaction costs create viable redeployment opportunities for multiniche companies.

Research summary: This article investigates how diversified firms reallocate internal non‐scale free resources when one of their product business units (BUs) experiences increased exposure to international competition driven by a sharp decrease in trade tariffs. On average, firms tend to fight, by reallocating resources toward the BU affected by the trade shock and away from other BUs within the same firm. Two variables moderate this first‐order effect with opposite signs. The level of sunk costs of the assets allocated to the BU affected by the shock is a positive moderator of resource reallocation to it. The presence of technological synergies between the BU affected and the rest of BUs instead moderates the relationship negatively. This negative moderation seems to only take place when competition increases the value of technology as a competitive resource. Managerial summary: An important question in the strategic decision‐making process of diversified firms is how to react to competitive threats that affect one business unit but not the others. Should managers allocate more resources to the affected business or should they instead reduce their commitment and use the same resources in the remaining operating sectors? In this article, we examine firms’ reallocation decisions following increases in foreign competition due to import tariff cuts. Our results show that firms tend to allocate more resources to the business affected by the tariff cut and less to the businesses unaffected. Furthermore, we find evidence that this behavior is positively associated with performance.

By bridging literature on resource partitioning and markets for technology, this article proposes that companies that pursue a broad (focused) product strategy buy more (less) technology in the market but sign fewer (more) deals as technology suppliers. Furthermore, an alignment between product and technology market strategies increases firms’ survival chances: Companies that pursue a broad (focused) product strategy are more likely to prosper when they buy (sell) technology in the market. To test these contentions, the authors consider a population of 736 firms that entered the security software industry between 1989 and 2002.

This article analyzes the effects of diversification and brand breadth on firm performance for professional service firms (PSFs). The research aim is two-fold. First, we test whether moving into products may put at risk the core resources that sustain PSFs’ competitive advantage. Second, we study which branding strategies best match their diversification attempts. Broad (narrow) brands characterize a branding strategy with scarce (plentiful) associations to specific product characteristics. We analyzed trademark portfolios of 47 U.S.-based management consulting firms in the 2000 to 2009 time period. Panel regression results suggest that (1) PSFs always benefit from diversification when they remain pure-service providers; (2) performance is positively related to a strategy of specialized narrow brands.

This study investigates the effects of rewards in an R&D setting in which employees' inventive efforts lead to patented inventions. Pay for performance (PFP) for inventions is associated with two challenges: Low quality inventions may be rewarded (false positives), and high quality inventions may be overlooked (false negatives). Building on previous findings regarding the motivational and informational effects of rewards, we use social identity theory to predict that different types of inventors react differently to such false positive and false negative information. Specifically, we hypothesize that PFP that produces false positives has detrimental effects on corporate inventors with a taste for science, who are motivated by scientific prestige, reputation, and intellectual curiosity. The empirical results from survey data related to 3,995 inventor-patent pairs show that, for this particular group of inventors, false positives are associated with reduced effort in research activities and fewer interactions with peers in the R&D department. In addition, these effects are stronger when firms have many patents and thus provide less noisy information to corporate inventors.

Purpose: This study aims to investigate how a firm’s uncertainty avoidance – as indicated by the headquarters’ national culture – impacts firm performance by affecting exploratory (product innovation) and exploitative (brand trademark protection) activities. It aims to show that firms characterized by high levels of uncertainty avoidance may be less competitive in the exploratory product development stage, but may be more competitive in the exploitative commercialization stage by producing more durable brands. Design/methodology/approach: The study uses data from US Software Security Industry (SSI) trademarks, registered by firms from 11 countries during 1993–2000, that provide 2,911 trademarks and a panel of 18,213 observations. It uses the SSI database to identify the number of product innovations introduced by firms. Findings: Results show that uncertainty avoidance lowers the rate of product innovation, but helps firms to appropriate more value by greater protection of their brands. Uncertainty avoidance thus creates an exploration–exploitation trade-off. Practical implications: This study provides useful insights for managers regarding where to locate a firm’s front-end development (product innovation) activities and commercialization (brand trademarking protection) activities. Originality/value: This is the first study to demonstrate the influence of a cultural trait on both explorative and exploitative stages simultaneously. As a methodological contribution, it shows how objective, longitudinal brand trademark data can be used to analyze the long-term impact of marketing activities on firm performance.