Strategy,human capital investments,business‐domain capabilities,and performance: a study in the global software services industry

Research summary : In knowledge‐based industries, continuous human capital investments are essential for firms to enhance capabilities and sustain competitive advantage. However, such investments present a dilemma for firms, because human resources are mobile. Using detailed project‐level operational, financial, and human capital data from a leading multinational firm in the global IT services industry, this study finds that deliberate investments in improving general human capital can help firms develop superior capabilities and maintain high profits. This paper identifies two types of capabilities essential for success in this industry—technological and business‐domain capabilities—and provides empirical evidence justifying such investments. Theoretical and practical implications of capability‐seeking general human capital investments are discussed. Managerial summary : The primary managerial implication of this research is that capability‐seeking investments in developing general human capital through strategic learning (training and internal certifications) can enhance firm performance. Although investing in general human capital is risky, the firm considered this a strategic necessity in order to thrive in the fast paced IT services industry. By leveraging general technological skills in combination with business‐domain knowledge to address customer's business problems firms can earn and sustain higher profits. Our study also demonstrates how a developing‐country firm responded to strong competitive challenge from global rivals possessing superior capabilities by upgrading the capabilities of its employees through internal development. In doing so the firm was able to narrow the capability gap vis‐à‐vis its foreign peers and expand its business globally. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Signaling valuable human capital: Advocacy group work experience and its effect on employee pay in innovative firms

Research Summary: The ability of innovative firms to create and capture value depends on innovations that are quickly and widely adopted. Yet, stakeholder concerns can establish important barriers to diffusion. We study the human capital aspect of this challenge and investigate whether innovative firms pay salary premiums to new hires with work experience from advocacy groups like Transparency International. We integrate strategic human capital with stakeholder theory and suggest that advocacy group experience creates signals for valuable human capital in terms of stakeholder knowledge and legitimacy transfers to innovative firms. Using matched data for 3,562 employees in Denmark, we find that new hires with advocacy group experience enjoy larger salary premiums at technologically leading firms, in occupations with direct stakeholder interaction, and for advocacy group top management. Managerial Summary: Innovation research is increasingly aware of the non-technological factors behind successful innovations. Users, regulators, or public opinion can be benevolent supporters or stingy opponents of innovations. Employees with an understanding of the needs and sensitivities of societal stakeholders should therefore be valuable to innovative firms. We find this to be the case when innovative firms hire employees from advocacy groups representing such stakeholders (e.g., Transparency International). Such employees receive higher salaries than an otherwise comparable reference group. These findings indicate that recruiting needs of innovative firms reward stakeholder experience, not merely technological expertise. They demonstrate how firms can create value in the pursuit of the public interest. Further, advocacy groups emerge as an important career stage allowing individuals to develop credible signals for stakeholder expertise.     

Firm‐specific human capital investments as a signal of general value: Revisiting assumptions about human capital and how it is managed

Research summary : Prior scholarship has assumed that firm‐specific and general human capital can be analyzed separately. This article argues that, in some settings, this is not the case because prior firm‐specific human capital investments can be a market signal of an individual's willingness and ability to make such investments in the future. As such, the willingness and ability to make firm‐specific investments is a type of general human capital that links firm‐specific and general human capital in important ways. The article develops theory about these investments, market signals, and value appropriation. Then, the article examines implications for human resource management and several important questions in the field of strategic management, including theories of the firm and microfoundations of competitive advantage. Managerial summary : While managers don't often use the terms firm‐specific and general skills, they certainly recognize that investments employees make in their skill sets are more or less relevant to a specific firm. For instance, investing in specific relationships within a firm or learning a firm's proprietary software would be considered firm‐specific investments. While such skills may seem relevant only to the particular firm in which they were invested, these investments may also send valuable signals to competing firms that such employees are willing and able to make similar investments elsewhere. Hence, managers should be interested in determining if a potential hire has made prior firm‐specific investments to help them know whether that person might be likely to make such investments in his or her future place of employment. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

I used to work at Goldman Sachs! How firms benefit from organizational status in the market for human capital

How does employer status benefit firms in the market for general human capital? On the one hand, high status employers are better able to attract workers, who value the signal of ability that employment at those firms provides. On the other hand, that same signal can help workers bid up wages and capture the value of employers' status. Exploring this tension, we argue that high status firms are able to hire higher ability workers than other firms, and do not need to pay them the full value of their ability early in the career, but must raise wages more rapidly than other firms as those workers accrue experience. We test our arguments using unique survey data on careers in investment banking. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Alleviating managerial dilemmas in human‐capital‐intensive firms through incentives: Evidence from M&A legal advisors

Research summary: We examine how human‐capital‐intensive firms deploy their human assets and how firm‐specific human capital interacts with incentives to influence this deployment. Our empirical context is the UK M&A legal market, where micro‐data enable us to observe the allocation of lawyers to M&A mandates under different incentive regimes. We find that law firms actively equalize the workload among their lawyers to seek efficiency gains, while “stretching” lawyers with high firm‐specific capital to a greater extent. However, lawyers with high firm‐specific capital also appear to influence the staffing process in their favor, leading to unbalanced allocations and less sharing of projects and clients. Paradoxically, law firms may adopt a seniority‐based rent‐sharing system that weakens individual incentives to mitigate the impact of incentive conflicts on resource deployment. Managerial summary: The study highlights the dilemmas when professional service firms allocate their key individuals to incoming projects, and the role that monetary incentives play in aggravating or alleviating these dilemmas. In the context of UK M&A law firms, we find that partners have a tendency to be attached to too many projects and not to share enough work, which is exacerbated when individual monetary incentives are stronger. Firms adopting a seniority based incentive system (lockstep system) are able to alleviate this effect. This implies that there is a trade‐off between rewarding personal performance versus balancing workloads and fostering collaboration among professionals. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Status in a strange land? Context‐dependent value of status in cross‐border venture capital

Research Summary: While recent literature has depicted status as an intangible asset that is firm‐specific and mobile, we have a limited understanding of whether status confers advantage in a way similar to other intangible assets. This study examines the macro‐structural contingencies that influence the marginal value of firm status as firms expand to new markets. Building on the literatures on status and social approval assets, as well as globalization and international management, we hypothesize that two conditions influence how valuable home‐country status will be in a given host country: the interconnectedness of the home and host countries, and their relative position in the global network. We test our hypotheses in a study of 187 venture capital (VC)‐backed biotechnology ventures in 19 countries between 1990 and 2006. Managerial Summary: Startups typically prefer high‐status VC investors for endorsements, network connections, and resources. One might expect the benefits of high‐status VCs to be even higher when they invest across borders. Yet, we show that status is ingrained in context, and that the performance advantage of partnering with high‐status cross‐border VC firms depends on the relationship between the country of the VC firm and that of the startup. We find that, when the VC industries in the two countries are more connected, the positive effect of cross‐border VC firm status on successful exit is amplified. However, when the VC firm comes from a more central country than the startup, the benefits of VC firm status are less pronounced and vice versa.     

Capabilities,technologies, and firm exit during industry shakeout: Evidence from the global solar photovoltaic industry

Research Summary: Explanations of entrants’ survival in an emerging industry are premised on pre‐entry capabilities or technology entry choices prior to the emergence of the dominant design. We consider how these drivers interact to strengthen or nullify firms’ pre‐entry advantage, and facilitate adaptation as the industry evolves. We also expand the treatment of exit by separating dissolution from acquisition, in which firms’ capabilities continue to be utilized in the industry. Studying a recent shakeout in the global solar photovoltaic industry, we find that pre‐entry capabilities and technology choices act in a complementary manner for some firms, thereby enhancing survival, and as buffers against exit for others. Nearly half of exits were via acquisitions, and technology choice at entry played an important role in determining how firms exited. Managerial Summary: New industries are often characterized by intense technology competition that culminates in a dominant technology followed by industry shakeout. Although prior research underscores the central role of technology choice and firm capabilities to survival, we do not actually know how firms with different capabilities and who have made competing technology choices survive an industry shakeout. In this article, we show how entrants’ capabilities and technology choices can act in a complementary manner for some firms, enhancing their chance of survival, and as buffers against failure for others. Moreover, we explain why some firms that do exit are acquired, when others are dissolved.     

Skill relatedness and firm diversification

Because of the importance of human capital, a firm's choice of diversification targets will depend on whether these targets offer opportunities for leveraging existing human resources. We propose to quantify the similarity of different industries' human capital or skill requirements, that is, the industries' skill relatedness, by using information on cross‐industry labor flows. Labor flows among industries can be used to identify skill relatedness, because individuals changing jobs will likely remain in industries that value the skills associated with their previous work. Estimates show that firms are far more likely to diversify into industries that have ties to the firms' core activities in terms of our skill‐relatedness measure than into industries without such ties or into industries that are linked by value chain linkages or by classification‐based relatedness. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A path to value creation for foreign entrepreneurs

Research summary : Firms founded by foreign entrepreneurs constitute an influential and growing part of the world economy. Yet, the existing research has given little consideration to the strategies of foreign entrepreneurs beyond their decisions to start a firm. In this article, we address this gap by examining how foreign entrepreneurs may bring value to their firms as firm managers. We argue that foreign owner‐managers may benefit their firms by having access to home‐country resources. We demonstrate that, compared to hired local managers, foreign owner‐managers reduce firms' operating costs by disproportionately hiring home‐country labor when this labor is more cost‐efficient. This effect is larger for labor‐intensive industries and for entrepreneurs from less wealthy countries. Managerial summary : Foreign entrepreneurs represent an important part of the world economy. Yet, we know little of how foreign entrepreneurs manage their firms. In this article, we examine whether foreign entrepreneurs and domestic managers hire different employees. We find that when foreign entrepreneurs manage their firms personally, they hire a larger number of foreign workers, and such workers are cheaper and more productive than the local labor. Conversely, domestic managers tend to hire local employees, despite their higher relative wages. Foreign owner‐managers are particularly valuable in labor‐intensive industries and when their home‐country labor is inexpensive. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Employee Mobility and Interfirm Relationship Transfer: Evidence from the Mobility and Client Attachments of United States Federal Lobbyists, 1998–2014

Research summary : Employee mobility can erode competitive advantage by facilitating interfirm knowledge and relationship transfer. This study investigates the latter and identifies factors that influence the likelihood of its occurrence. Using a novel database that tracks the employment and client attachments of U.S. federal lobbyists, I show that repeated exchange with employees (firms) increases (decreases) the likelihood clients follow employees who switch firms. Structurally, multiplexity reduces the likelihood of client transfer and weakens the effect of employee–client repeated exchange, with the multiplexity effect strongest when team members have specialized expertise. By examining the main and interactive effects of repeated exchange, multiplexity, and specialized human capital, this study extends prior work by demonstrating how individual, organizational, and structural relationship characteristics affect client transfer and retention ex‐post employee mobility . Managerial summary : When do clients follow employees who switch firms? What can firms do to guard against it? These questions are important in service‐based industries where clients may become loyal to individual employees within the firm rather than to the firm itself. This study provides evidence that helps practicing managers: (a) identify which clients are most at risk of defecting if employees exit, and (b) structure relationships in ways that mitigate the likelihood that employee exit results in client loss. Findings suggest that a client is more likely to defect when she has extensive history working with the exiting employee, particularly if the employee was the sole link between the client and firm. Managers, however, can reduce the risk of client loss following employee exit by structuring relationships so that clients work with teams of employees rather than exclusively with an individual and by increasing the degree of specialization within these teams . Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic incentives to human capital

Motivating human capital in knowledge‐intensive activities is a serious managerial challenge because it is difficult to link rewards to actions or performance. Firms instead might motivate knowledge workers by offering them opportunities to increase personal benefits (e.g., learning, satisfaction) through autonomy in the decision‐making process. Our model shows that firms can offer less autonomy in projects closer to their core business: Because firm specialization raises the value of the project's outcomes, it also increases the benefits for knowledge workers, who derive motivation even though they make fewer decisions to support their realization of personal goals. Projects farther from the core offer weaker firm contributions, so firms can motivate knowledge workers by allowing them to benefit from greater autonomy. We discuss several implications of our analysis. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Let them go? How losing employees to competitors can enhance firm status

Research summary : Because employees can provide a firm with human capital advantages over competitors, firms invest considerably in employee recruiting and retention. Departing from the retention imperative of strategic human capital management, we propose that certain employee departures can enhance a firm's competitiveness in the labor market. Specifically, increased rates of career‐advancing departures by a firm's employees can signal to potential future employees that the firm offers a prestigious employment experience that enhances external mobility opportunities. Characterizing advancement based on subsequent employers and positions, we analyze data on U.S. law firm hiring and industry surveys of perceived firm status between 2004 and 2013. We find that increased rates of employee departures lead to increases in a firm's prestige when these departures are for promotions with high‐status competitors. Managerial summary : Firms often emphasize employee retention. Employee departures, especially as a result of being hired away by competitors, are often viewed as threats to a firm's competitive advantage. We propose, however, that employee retention need not be an unconditional strategic imperative. We argue that certain employee departures can enhance a firm's competitiveness in the market for human capital by signaling to potential employees that the firm offers a prestigious employment experience, which can help them obtain attractive positions with other employers. Analyzing data on U.S. law firm hiring and industry surveys of firm associates between 2004 and 2013, we find that increased rates of employee departures lead to increases in a firm's prestige when these departures are for promotions with high‐status competitors. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Human capital matters: Market valuation of firm investments in training and the role of complementary assets

Research summary: This article empirically examines the economic value to firms of investing in the training of their employees and firm‐level factors that influence how much the firms benefit. Event study methodology is used to obtain a measure of the economic impact of information regarding a firm's human capital management investments and policies. Subsequent regression analyses are then used to test hypotheses regarding possible complementary relationships between firm‐level factors and human capital investments. Results provide robust support for the proposition that effective investments in human capital and training matter, and that these human capital investments are more impactful when combined with complementary assets of R&D, physical capital, and advertising investments . Managerial summary: Do firm investments in training and the development of employee human capital matter with regard to financial performance? We find that, yes, these investments do matter. Our results show that managers who view employee human capital as an asset to be invested in and developed can expect to outperform those who view it as a cost to be minimized. In addition, we find that these human capital investments will be of even greater economic value to firms when they have made complementary investments in R&D, physical capital, and advertising . Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Time compression (dis)economies: An empirical analysis

Research Summary: To investigate time compression diseconomies (TCD), this study estimated time–cost elasticities using 459 oil and gas global investment projects (1997–2010). Results show that the average cost of accelerating investments is negative: a firm could cut $6.3 million in costs of a single project by accumulating asset stocks 1 month faster. About 88% of the projects exhibit negative time–cost elasticities with over 39% of unrealized economies of time compression. Only 12% of the projects are subject to TCD. These time inefficiencies or frictions do not negate the existence of TCD, but suggest they are less prevalent than assumed in the literature. Management experience, R&D investment, firm size, economic development, and political stability are shown to be associated with greater time compression efficiency. Managerial Summary: How fast should firms invest? The conventional view is that acceleration increases market revenues but also inflates costs. However, there is no recent empirical evidence of this tradeoff. Our article systematically investigates the costs of compressing time in investment projects. Results show that most firms in the oil and gas industry are significantly time inefficient in their operations. Specifically, by accelerating investments, firms would also substantially decrease costs. We estimate the magnitude of these time inefficiencies for specific oil and gas industries and firms and study which strategies might mitigate this problem. This fine‐grained analysis should help firms assess their financial incentives to accelerate projects and prove informative to stock market analysts’ valuations of firm investment timing.     

Assessing the effects of mergers and acquisitions on firm performance,plant productivity,and workers: newl evidence from matched employer‐employee data

Empirical studies of mergers and acquisitions typically focus on firm‐level financial performance. In contrast, we use human capital theory to model these events as transactions that simultaneously have cross‐level, real effects on workers, plants, and firms. Our empirical analysis is based on longitudinal, linked employer‐employee data for virtually all Swedish manufacturing firms and employees. We find that mergers and acquisitions enhance plant productivity, although they also result in the downsizing of establishments and firms. Firm performance does not decline in the aftermath of these ownership changes. We conclude that such transactions constitute a mechanism for improving the sorting and matching of plants and workers to more efficient uses. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Market frictions and the competitive advantage of internal labor markets

Research summary : We show that frictions in labor and capital markets can be a source of competitive advantage for affiliates of corporate groups over stand‐alone firms in environments where benefits from internal markets' flexibility are high. We argue that the advantage of flexibility in changing labor inputs is related to how difficult it is to change capital inputs. We predict that if substituting labor with capital is difficult, the group advantage of flexibly changing labor would be stronger in countries with high levels of financial development. Consistent with this prediction, we find a stronger competitive advantage for group affiliates in countries with rigid labor markets but flexible capital markets. In these environments, group affiliates are more prevalent and outperform stand‐alone firms in terms of growth and profitability. Managerial summary : This research shows that the capacity to redeploy workers across internal units of the firm can be a source of competitive advantage in countries that impose strict employment protection laws. We show that the strategic advantage of labor flexibility is affected by how difficult it is to change capital inputs and that labor flexibility is a stronger source of competitive advantage in countries where developed financial markets allow for more flexible capital adjustment. In these settings, strategies designed to lower costs of internal mobility (e.g., locations of greater geographic concentration between units and in regions with less competitive external markets), development of corporate culture supportive of frequent change, and personnel development through internal rotation can result in substantial financial payoffs. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

That special someone: When the board views its chair as a resource

Research summary: Many boards view their chairs as valuable resources. We predict that whether a board adopts such a view depends on the board chair's human and social capital. Data from S&P 500 firms suggest that while a board chair's human capital increases the probability that the board views him or her as a resource, social capital has no overall effect. In a post‐hoc investigation, however, we find the board chair's independence to be an important boundary condition for the effect of social capital. With this exploratory research, we aim to spur research devoted specifically to board chairs. Such research will become increasingly important over time as firms continue to separate their CEO and board chair positions. Managerial summary: The purpose of this research was to determine the factors that lead a board of directors to view its chair as a valuable resource. We expected that board chairs with high human and social capital would be more likely to be viewed as a resource by their colleagues. Surprisingly, only human capital exhibited such an effect overall. Social capital increases the likelihood a chair is viewed as a resource when the chair is independent, but actually decreases the likelihood a chair is viewed as a resource when the chair is either the current or former CEO. These results suggest that boards generally value human capital in their chairs, but view social capital through a somewhat more complex lens. We explore the possible implications of these findings in the article. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Leveraging who you know by what you know: Specialization and returns to relational capital

Research Summary: This paper investigates the interaction effects of specialization and relational capital on performance. We distinguish between upstream and downstream relational capital and theorize that higher levels of specialization will buffer against decreases in upstream relational capital, because of deeper domain expertise and stronger downstream relational capital. Conversely, higher levels of generalization permit greater gains from increases in upstream relational capital, due to leverage across a more diversified downstream portfolio of activities. We test and find support for these hypotheses in the context of the US lobbying industry. Our study contributes to the strategic human capital literature by isolating the dimension of specialization and relational capital embodied within individuals and providing performance implications of the interactions. Managerial Summary: Both “what you know” and “whom you know” impacts performance. Generalists and specialists are different on the “what you know” dimension. On the “who you know” dimension, we distinguish between upstream (supplier) and downstream (client) relationships. We show that specialists are buffered by deeper downstream relations from performance declines when their powerful upstream connections lose power. Generalists benefit from broader networks when their upstream connections gain power. Thus, when the value of their relationships change, specialists and generalists should each assess when they can reap performance benefits, and when they need to bolster against adversities. For firms, our study suggests hiring the right mix of specialists and generalists is important to reduce risks from relational losses while enjoying the performance benefits from relational gains.     

Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage

This paper seeks to identify the sources of wide and persistent variations in learning performance in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. In the resource‐based view of the firm, human capital is frequently assumed to contribute to competitive advantage due to its inimitability based on its intangible, firm‐specific, and socially complex nature. Consistent with this view, we find that investments in firm‐specific human capital have a significant impact on learning and firm performance. More specifically, human capital selection (education requirements and screening), development through training, and deployment significantly improve learning by doing, which in turn improves performance. However, we find that acquiring human capital with prior industry experience from external sources significantly reduces learning performance. We also find that firms with high turnover significantly underperform their rivals, revealing the time‐compression diseconomies that protect firm‐specific human capital from imitation. These results provide new empirical evidence of the inimitability of human capital. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Positive and negative synergies between the CEO's and the corporate board's human and social capital: A study of biotechnology firms

This paper contributes to the corporate governance literature by developing and testing theory regarding positive and negative synergies between the CEO's and the board's human and social capital. Using a sample of 360 biotechnology firms that went public between 1995 and 2010, we demonstrate that accumulated public company board experiences of the CEO and the board have positive synergistic effects on IPO performance whereas the current board appointments have negative effects. While scientific educational backgrounds have positive synergies, industry‐specific experiences produce either positive or counterproductive effects depending on the age and profitability of the firm. Thus, our paper contributes to the corporate governance and human and social capital literatures by describing the costs and benefits of specific types and combinations of CEO and board capital. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.