Theory at both the micro and macro level predicts that investments in superior human capital generate better firm-level performance. However, human capital takes time and money to develop or acquire, which potentially offsets its positive benefits. Indeed, extant tests appear equivocal regarding its impact. To clarify what is known, we meta-analyzed effects drawn from 66 studies of the human capital-firm performance relationship and investigated 3 moderators suggested by resource-based theory. We found that human capital relates strongly to performance, especially when the human capital in question is not readily tradable in labor markets and when researchers use operational performance measures that are not subject to profit appropriation. Our results suggest that managers should invest in programs that increase and retain firm-specific human capital.

Resource-based theory (RBT) has emerged as a key perspective guiding inquiry into the determinants of organizational performance. Since the early 1990s, numerous studies have examined RBT's assertion that the extent to which organizations possess strategic resources is positively related to performance. Although many studies appear to support this assertion, there is no consensus regarding how strongly strategic resources relate to performance. To help resolve this issue, we meta-analyze 125 studies of RBT that collectively encompass over 29,000 organizations. Our conservative estimate is that the effect size of the strategic resources-performance relationship is r c = 0 .22 . Moderator tests suggest that the resources-performance link is stronger (1) when resources meet the criteria laid out in RBT and (2) for those performance measures that are not affected by potential value appropriation. When resources meet RBT's criteria and when performance measures are not affected by potential appropriation, the strength of the relationship grows to r c = 0 .29 . This suggests that the identification, development, and distribution of value from strategic resources should be a primary consideration for scholars, managers, and shareholders.

Corporate political activity (CPA) has increased rapidly in the United States; however, research findings are spread across several social science fields. The authors use meta-analysis to aggregate findings involving two sets of research questions: (1) what factors and to what extent do these factors influence firms to engage in CPA, and (2) does CPA, in turn, affect firm performance and, if so, to what extent? Two important contributions are made. First, the evidence suggests that, although many factors shape CPA, very few affect CPA to a large extent. Second, the results suggest that CPA is positively related to firm performance and is an important determinant of firm performance. The authors build on this evidence to suggest several future research directions.

No abstract