The innovative enterprise and corporate governance

National corporate governance institutions and post‐acquisition target reorganization

“…While reorganization is a process that takes place at the micro level, it does not occur in an institutional vacuum. We argue that regulatory corporate governance institutions affect the reorganization process by giving the various stakeholders in the firm different degrees of power and influence over corporate decisions, as business historians have noted (e.g., O'Sullivan, 2000O'Sullivan, , 2003. Strategy scholars have not theorized exactly how corporate governance systems may affect post-acquisition dynamics, and evidence on the extent to which national institutions influence the firm's ability to change and adapt is scarce.…”

Shareholder Primacy and Managerial Accountability

“…Yet it is a relentless message of organizational theory that the wealth creation process and corporate profits are part of a complex cognitive dynamics hardly observable at a distance-an insight we can trace back to Berle and Means (1932), Alchian and Demsetz (1972) or Galbraith (1973). The revival of non-contractarian, cognitive-based theories of the firm-with the resource-based approach or evolutionary theory-should reinforce the scepticism towards shareholder primacy (see for example O'Sullivan, 2000A and2000B;Grandori, 2004;Aglietta and Rebérioux, 2005). Indeed, cognitive approaches explore the way in which the firm constructs, maintains and develops tacit and collective productive knowledge.…”

An Economic Sociological Look at Economic Anthropology

“…With respect to her immediate subject, she draws on the relevant studies by the Max Planck Institute in Cologne (Hassel/ Höpner/ Kurdelbusch/ Rehder/ Zugehör, 2000; Streeck / Höpner, 2003;Beyer, 2003;Höpner/ Jackson, 2003;Vitols, 2003;Becker, 2003;Höpner, 2003). Surprisingly, she does not even mention the studies by Stephen Lazonick and Mary O'Sullivan on the Innovative Enterprise and on the change of corporate governance in the US and Germany (O'Sullivan, 2000a(O'Sullivan, , 2001Lazonick, 2001Lazonick, , 2004O'Sullivan, 2000b The author frequently refers to the concepts of structural and institutional theory and their central terms and mechanisms, but does not really bring to bear them in the analytical development of the argument. For example, while isomorphism is used as a key concept to explain corporate change following Powell/DiMaggio (1983), this is done at the expense of abandoning internal differentiation within this category: "The theory of this study amounts to saying that forced, mimetic and normative isomorphism works jointly in such a way that one cannot distinguish their effects empirically.…”