Technological Diversification, Coherence, and Performance of Firms

Technological diversification at the firm level (i.e., the expansion of a firm's technology base into a wide range of technology fields) is found to be a prevailing phenomenon in all three major industrialized regions,—the United States, Europe, and Japan—prompting the term multitechnology corporation. Whereas previous studies have provided insights into the composition of technology portfolios of multitechnology firms, little is known about the relationship between technological diversification and firms' technological performance. Against a backdrop of the technology and innovation management literature, the present article investigates the relationship between technological diversification and technological performance, taking into account the moderating role of technological coherence in firms' technology portfolios. Hereby, technological coherence is defined as the degree to which technologies in a technology portfolio are technologically related. To measure the technological coherence of portfolios, a measure of technological relatedness of technology fields is constructed based on patent citation patterns found in 450,000 European Patent Office (EPO) patent grants. Two hypotheses are presented here: (1) Technological diversification has an inverted U‐shaped relationship with technological performance; and (2) technological coherence moderates the relationship between technological diversification and technological performance positively. These hypotheses are tested empirically using a panel data set (1995–2003) on patent portfolios pertaining to 184 U.S., European, and Japanese firms. The firms selected are the largest research and development (R&D) actors in five industries: pharmaceuticals and biotechnology; chemicals; engineering and general machinery; information technology (IT) hardware (i.e., computers and communication equipment); and electronics and electrical machinery. Empirical results, obtained by fixed‐effects negative binomial regressions, support both hypotheses in the present article. Technological diversification has an inverted U‐shaped relationship with technological performance. Technological diversification offers opportunities for cross‐fertilization and technology fusion, but high levels of diversification may yield few marginal benefits as firms risk lacking sufficient levels of scale to benefit from wide‐ranging technological diversification, and firms may encounter high levels of coordination and integration costs. Further, the results show that the net benefits of technological diversification are higher in technologically coherent technology portfolios. If firms build up a technologically coherent diversified portfolio, the presence of sufficient levels of scale is ensured and coordination costs are limited. At the same time, technologically coherent diversification puts firms in a better position to benefit form cross‐fertilization between technologies. The present article clearly identifies the important role of technological coherence in technology diversification strategies of firms.     

The relationship between corporate diversification and corporate social performance

Does diversification affect firm response to stakeholder demands and social issues? Despite extensive interest in corporate diversification in the strategy literature, the relationship between diversification and corporate social performance (CSP) remains largely unexplored. In this study, I propose that the level of diversification will be positively related to the CSP of firms. However, when diversified firms have a strong focus on short‐term profit, it may discourage firm response to stakeholder demands and investment in social issues, thereby negatively moderating the positive relationship between the level of diversification and CSP. Empirical testing on a sample of U.S. firms generally supports my predictions. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Diversification in the venture capital industry: leveraging knowledge under uncertainty

This study contributes to the research on the effect of diversification on performance under conditions of uncertainty. More specifically, we examine diversification in the context of venture capital firms. Drawing on the knowledge and organizational learning literature, we hypothesize that firms benefit from either low levels of diversification because of efficiencies in processing knowledge or high levels of diversification because of access to broad information that facilitates solving complex problems and the ability to direct a portfolio company down different trajectories. Consistent with our hypotheses, we find a U‐shaped relationship. Firms benefit from either low or high levels of diversification; moderate levels yield the poorest results. When uncertainty is highest (i.e., early stage investing, no coinvestors), the effects are most pronounced. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Corporate diversification and the value of individual firms: A Bayesian approach

Research summary: Prior theory suggests that the performance effects of a firm's diversification strategy depend on a firm's individual resources and capabilities and the setting within which it is operating. However, prior tests of this theory have examined the average diversification‐performance relationship across all firms, instead of estimating the diversification‐performance relationship at the individual firm level. Efforts to estimate this average relationship are inconsistent with a central assumption of much of strategic management theory—that firms maximize value by choosing strategies that exploit their heterogeneous resources and individual situation. By adopting an approach that allows an evaluation of the diversification‐performance relationship for individual firms, this article shows that firms, both focused and diversified, tend to choose that diversification strategy—focus, related diversification, or unrelated diversification—that maximizes value. Managerial summary: Instead of a universal diversification discount or premium, this article shows that the effect of diversification on performance is heterogeneously distributed across firms and that firms tend to be rational in their diversification decisions. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Within‐industry diversification and firm performance—an S‐shaped hypothesis

This study shows that the interplay between “adjustment costs”, “coordination costs” and within‐industry diversification benefits, results in an S‐shaped relationship between within‐industry diversification and firm performance. At low levels of within‐industry diversification, coordination costs are negligible but “adjustment costs” are higher than the synergy benefits of a limited product scope, hence leading to negative performance outcomes. At moderate levels of within‐industry diversification synergies between related product categories substantially increase and outweigh the rise in adjustment and coordination costs, resulting in positive performance outcomes. Yet, extensive within‐industry diversification gives rise to considerable coordination costs, which, coupled with adjustment costs, outweigh synergy effects and hamper performance. The study further shows that a greater change rate of within‐industry diversification results in negative performance outcomes. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of intra- and inter-regional geographic diversification and product diversification on export performance: Evidence from the Chilean fresh fruit export sector

This study examines individually the effects of intra- and inter-regional geographic diversification on the export performance of firms from the Chilean fresh fruit sector. It also explores the direct effect of related product diversification on export performance and its role as a moderator in the relationship between geographic diversification and export performance. By employing panel trade data of 279 purely exporting firms over a six-years period (2010–2015), we found that both intra- and inter-regional diversification have an inverted U-shaped relationship with export performance, where moderate levels of diversification have positive effects on export performance, but higher levels may be counterproductive. Results also showed that related product diversification has a positive effect on firm export performance and a negative moderating effect on the relationship between inter-regional diversification and export performance. In the case of intra-regional diversification, we did not find any moderating effect from product diversification. By focusing on firms from the agricultural sector based in an emerging economy, this study offers practical implications for firm managers, trade organizations and private export associations, that may also be applicable to other export-based activities and emerging economies.     

Implementation strategy and performance outcomes in related diversification

Strategy research has a long‐standing interest in the performance consequences of corporate diversification. In theory, resource sharing should yield economic benefits in related multi‐business firms, but the extensive empirical research remains equivocal. To explore this paradox, this paper examines the process of implementing a related diversification strategy. Working from existing theory, a formal model is constructed that describes the process and performance implications of a related diversification move. The model is analyzed using computer simulation, and the analysis suggests that successful diversification strategies require managerial policies that maintain organization slack. In the absence of such policies, related diversification can negatively impact firm performance even when substantial synergy opportunities exist. The analysis also demonstrates, contrary to existing theory, that diversification strategies based on a very high degree of relatedness can lead to lower performance than less related strategies in some circumstances. Counter‐intuitively, extracting potential synergies may require additional investment in shared resources. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Customer collaboration,service firms' diversification and innovation performance

To sustain competitive advantage, service firms must adapt to the market environment, often by means of diversification and innovation. While extensive research has focussed on the role of customer collaboration in service firm innovation performance, fewer studies have examined the role of firm diversification in this relationship. This study draws on the resource-based view and dynamic capability literature to explore relationships between customer collaboration, diversification and innovation performance of service firms. A conceptual framework was developed and tested using a survey of 156 mining equipment, technology and services (METS) firms in South Australia, and case studies. The findings indicate that service and market diversification mediate the relationship between customer collaboration and innovation performance. Importantly, our findings demonstrate that customer collaboration has no direct effect on the innovation performance of service firms. The research helps practitioners and policymakers to understand the importance of enhancing collaboration across supply chains to build diversified and resilient to downturns in traditional sectors service economies.     

Technological diversity,related diversification,and firm performance

Previous findings that related diversification creates value have been called into question over concerns about methodology and measures. Reviewing existing theory to consider how a firm's knowledge base interacts with its product market activity, I address several of these concerns by creating a measure of technological diversity based on citation‐weighted patents. The measure indicates a firm's opportunity for corporate diversification based on economies of scope in valuable knowledge assets, is defined for both single‐ and multibusiness firms, and is not correlated with more fundamental aspects of diversification, such as the number of businesses in the corporate portfolio. Evidence from a large sample of firms shows the positive relationship between diversification based on technological diversity and market‐based measures of performance, controlling for R&D intensity and capital intensity as further indicators of the type of assets underlying diversification. Results hold when controlling for the endogeneity of diversification and performance in a cross‐sectional sample or when controlling for unobserved factors using panel data. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic control systems and relative r&d investment in large multiproduct firms

This paper hypothesizes that tight financial controls associated with large diversified M-form firms lead to a short-term, low-risk orientation and thereby lower relative investment in R&D. Further, it is hypothesized that increasing levels of diversification require different control systems which have significant implications for investing in R&D. Results of the study of 124 major U.S. firms suggest that less diversified U-form firms invest more heavily in R&D than more diversified M-form firms after controlling for size and industry effects. Additionally, dominant business firms invested more in R&D than either related or unrelated business firms. Finally, the relationship between R&D intensity and market performance was negative for related and unrelated firms. The findings suggest that the market evaluates R&D investment more positively for firms that are organized to seek synergy than for those that are organized to pursue a hedging (or diversification) strategy.     

Diversification and performance: evidence from East Asian firms

We examine the impact of diversification on performance for firms operating in different institutional environments during a relatively stable period and during a major economy‐wide shock. We locate our study in six Asian countries at different levels of institutional development. Results indicate that diversification negatively impacts performance in more developed institutional environments while improving performance only in the least developed environments. Even in the least developed institutional environments, diversification offers limited benefits when an economy‐wide shock strikes. Though successful diversifiers are sometimes affiliated with business groups, diversification is associated with poorer performance for both affiliated firms and independent firms. In sum, we find that the outcomes of diversification are influenced by institutional environments, economic stability and affiliation with business groups. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Geographic scope,product diversification,and the corporate performance of Japanese firms

The study extends research on the geographic scope, product diversification, and performance relationship by exploring both the antecedents and consequences of geographic scope. In so doing, it addresses a fundamental criticism of the geographic scope–performance relationship; namely, that the observed positive relationship between geographic scope and performance is spurious because it is the possession of proprietary assets that is the foundation of superior performance, not expansion into international markets per se. We tested the research model with data on the corporate performance of 399 Japanese manufacturing firms. In the partial least squares analyses used to examine the study’s six main hypotheses, we demonstrate that geographic scope was positively associated with firm profitability, even when the competing effect of proprietary assets on firm performance was considered. Further, we find that performance was not related to the extent of product diversification, although investment levels in rent‐generating, proprietary assets were related to the extent of product diversification. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Firms' technological resources and the performance effects of diversification: a longitudinal study

While agency theory claims managerial self‐interest creates a diversification discount, strategic theory explains that firms with certain kinds of resources should diversify. Longitudinal data on 227 firms that diversify between 1980 and 1992 reveal that the sample firms invest less in R&D and have greater breadth of technology (based on patent citations) than their industry peers prior to the diversification event. Also, acquiring firms may appear to have lower performance because of accounting conventions and because firms that use internal growth rather than acquisition pursue less extensive diversification. These findings help explain how diversification and financial performance are endogenous. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Variations in ownership behavior and propensity to diversify: a study of the Indian corporate context

The relationship between ownership and diversification has been the focus of renewed debate between financial economists and strategic management scholars. While financial economists hold that manager‐controlled firms tend to reflect higher levels of diversification, strategy researchers argue that ownership and diversification are not systematically related. In throwing light on this debate, this study uses a fine‐grained definition of ownership groups to explore how the different objectives and monitoring predispositions of distinct ownership groups might influence diversification strategy. The empirical examination is set in India to offer a striking contrast from the predominantly U.S.‐based studies that have shaped the ongoing debate. Findings show that diverse ownership groups adopt different postures in monitoring and/or influencing organizational diversification. While some ownership groups are closely associated with focused strategies, and some encourage diversification, others are quite indifferent. These results suggest that the context‐specific variation among ownership groups is germane to our understanding of diversification strategy. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Multinationals' diversification and the risk-return trade-off

This paper advances a theoretical rationale to explain Bowman's paradox (1980) that firms with high returns can have low risk. Here we draw on the rich body of international management research and argue that global market diversification, which provides firms with three distinct options and opportunities over domestic firms, can explain the high return-low risk profile. We also argue that no strong theoretical rationale exists in support of either related or unrelated product diversification generating such a favorable risk-return profile. By integrating both the product and the global market dimension of diversification into our analyses and by controlling for the industry effect, this paper sheds new light on the relationship between corporate diversification and the risk-return tradeoff. The results of this research, which are based on the diversification experiences of 125 multinationals, reveal the strikingly important, though so far overlooked, role that global market diversification plays in the joint management of corporate risk and return. Global market diversification here reflects both the multiplicity of international market areas in which a firm operates and the distribution pattern of a firm's industries across these multiple areas.     

The effect of within‐industry diversification on firm performance: synergy creation,multi‐market contact and market structuration

This paper examines the effect of diversification upon intra‐industry performance. We propose that intra‐industry diversification promises three sets of benefits, which, separately and in combination, provide firms with a competitive advantage: synergies arising from economies of scope; premiums from mutual forbearance enabled by multi‐market competition; and efficiencies derived from market structuration. The additive and integrative effects of the first two have not been explored. The benefits of market structuration remain untheorized and thus untested. The test of our theoretical model in the Canadian general insurance industry indicates that mutual forbearance provides advantage under specified conditions, that market structuration also provides advantages, but that diversification per se does not. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The performance implications of intra‐ and inter‐regional geographic diversification

Engaging the debate regarding the appropriate level of geographic diversification for multinational enterprises (MNEs), we examine a critical, yet unresolved, question: How is performance impacted by the MNE's level of intra‐ and inter‐regional diversification versus the total level of geographic diversification? Using data from 123 U.S.‐based MNEs over a seven‐year period and leveraging both sales‐based and subsidiary‐based measures for diversification, we find that performance increases at an increasingly higher rate as firms concentrate more heavily on intra‐regional diversification. Regarding inter‐regional diversification and total geographic diversification, we find inverted‐U relationships to exist between firm performance and the level of geographic diversification. Different from recent research on multinationality, our robustness checks indicate no evidence of a sigmoidal relationship between the degree of regional diversification and performance. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When do firms change technology‐sourcing vehicles? The role of poor innovative performance and financial slack

This paper examines the adjustments firms make to the composition of their portfolios of technology‐sourcing vehicles (i.e., alliance, acquisition, or go‐it‐alone) in response to poor innovative performance. We advance a behavioral perspective on the make/buy/ally question, suggesting that differences in financial slack will generate different portfolio decisions. Specifically, we posit that firms with greater levels of financial slack are more likely to respond to poor innovative performance by opting for (1) greater vehicle diversification, and (2) new sourcing vehicles, while firms with less financial slack will respond by (1) downscoping their portfolio of sourcing vehicles, and (2) reverting to more familiar vehicles. We find support for our predictions using extensive data from the population of U.S. public pharmaceutical firms from 1992 to 2006. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Diversification strategies,business cycles and economic performance

Two major diversification strategies of firms are examined: diversification into related businesses and diversification into unrelated businesses. The first strategy attempts to exploit operating synergies. In the second, the firm attempts to gain financial benefits from its ability to increase leverage due to a greater stability of cash flows. The study utilizes a large sample affirms to assess empirically the benefits and costs of these two diversification strategies by developing a new measure of diversification across business cycles and economic sectors. This new measure is compared with Berry—Herfindahl type measures of total diversification and recent measures of diversification into related businesses. The results indicate that pure financial diversification is associated with (a) more stable cash flows, i.e. lower operating risk; (b) increased levels of leverage; and (c) lower profitability. These observations are in accord with the theory. We also reaffirm that firms which diversify into related businesses have, on the average, higher profitability than non-diversified firms, although these results are not always statistically significant.     

Product and international diversification among Japanese multinational firms

This paper examines the relationship of performance with product and international diversification on Japanese multinational firms from 1977 to 1993. We show the relationships between diversification and performance change over time through the use of multiple time periods and accounting for keiretsu membership. Results show that while diversity strategies vary between keiretsu and non‐keiretsu firms, performance is not much different. Across time periods, performance varies considerably, but strategies are less variable. Product diversity has weak effects on firm performance only in one time period, while international diversification has negative profitability and positive growth consequences in in some periods. These results suggest first that diversification strategies and their effects on performance vary across time periods and generally produce some unexpected findings. We do not find strong interactive diversity effects. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.