No abstract

This study considers the decision to undertake an acquisition using a framework built around the concepts of motivation and ability to acquire. The paper develops an integrative model to examine how firm characteristics contribute to motivation and ability in predicting the likelihood of an acquisition and draws on two streams of literature to motivate the model: behavioral theory of the firm to explain a firm's motivation to acquire, and absorptive capacity to explain a firm's ability to acquire. Results from a publicly traded sample show that firms failing to meet aspirations (i.e., those with motivation) are more likely to acquire, as are firms that have a high absorptive capacity (i.e., those with ability). Most interestingly, absorptive capacity moderates the influence of performance shortfalls in the decision to acquire and is most important when the motivation to acquire is low.

This study explored the role of strategic leadership in declining firms by empirically examining CEOs’ founder status and extensiveness of external board of director appointments as predictors of the likelihood of successful turnaround. The authors used the resource dependence and board interlock literatures to develop their hypotheses. Their analysis of data collected from a matched pair of 82 turnaround and bankrupt U.S. firms indicate that the extensiveness of CEOs’ external board appointments significantly increase the likelihood of turnaround. Contrary to the authors’ prediction, there was no significant relationship between founder status and likelihood of turnaround. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Today, firms face joint pressures to increase the representation of women at the highest levels of their organizations, and to be more environmentally responsible. Still, the impact of these movements on firm performance is less clear. Through the lens of the Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) Cycle, this study looks at the impact of Board Gender Diversity (BGD) and Environmental Responsibility on Innovative Output as measured by patents. Using a longitudinal sample of the top-patenting firms at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, we find that both BGD and Environmental Responsibility lead to higher levels of Innovative Output, and BGD positively moderates the relationship between Environmental Responsibility and Innovative Output. This paper contributes to existing literature by highlighting the need to consider BGD and Environmental Responsibility at the same time when considering their implications on firm performance. We also expand the scope of the ASA Cycle to include overall firm performance with respect to innovation.

No abstract