Who needs experts most? Board industry expertise and strategic change—a contingency perspective

Research summary: We analyze the effects of board industry expertise on corporate strategic change and the moderating role of institutional quality. We suggest that country‐level contingency factors mitigate the effect of experienced boards on strategy formation by providing alternative sources of information and control in strategic matters. We develop institutional quality as institutional information provision and institutional control provision to test our hypotheses on a sample of firms from MSCI Europe and the S&P 500. Our findings confirm that industry expertise is a salient driver of strategic change across countries. The strength of the effect, however, depends on the institutional quality. We submit that weak institutions require greater board industry expertise as an alternative channel of information and control. Management summary: This study provides new empirical evidence that experience in the firms' industries enables directors to increase strategic change. Our findings show that this effect is even stronger in countries with weak regulatory environments. We hereby provide guidance for multiple stakeholders. First, shareholders seeking a more active adjustment of their firms' strategies may want to compose boards that leverage such experienced directors. Second, directors can use their industry experience to control and to challenge managers better to move beyond the status quo. Third, managers lacking access to information on potential strategic change can use such experienced directors for strategic advice and as a source of information. Overall, we add to the understanding of the corporate board's role in shaping strategy and the influence of weak regulations. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Who matters more? The impact of functional background and top executive mobility on firm survival

Do some top executives matter more than others? Integrating insights from upper echelons and executive mobility research, we suggest that the functional roles performed by top executives shape their value to the firm. We examine the effects of interfirm executive mobility on firm survival for New York City advertising firms from 1924 to 1996. We find that, while losing any top executive is damaging, the loss of a top executive whose functional role focuses on internal firm processes is more detrimental to firm survival than losing a top executive whose functional role focuses on managing external exchange relationships. Additionally, in situations when multiple executives leave simultaneously, firms are more negatively affected when the group departing is functionally heterogeneous. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Are there always synergies between productive resources and resource deployment capabilities?

While the independent impacts of particular firm resources and deployment capabilities on firm performance are unambiguous cornerstones of the strategy field, it is commonly assumed that their joint impacts are synergistic. This article seeks to understand whether this common misconception of resource‐based theory can be refuted empirically. Using data from hospitals conducting specialist surgery, I find hospital performance improves independently through better surgical resource quality and from more use of a streamlined form of resource management in which overall patient team leadership and operating team leadership are held by the same physician. Generally the interaction of these two firm activities had no impact on performance. These results contribute to the strategy field's understanding of whether and when internal fit affects performance, clarifying an incorrect inference commonly made about resource‐based theory. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Network resource stocks and flows: how do alliance portfolios affect the value of new alliance formations?

We examine how new network resources accessed through alliance formations interact with network resources present in a firm's alliance portfolio. We test our theoretical model using event study methodology and data from the global air transportation industry. We find that the market rewards firms forming alliances that contribute resources that can be synergistically combined with firms' own resources as well as with network resources accessed through their alliance portfolios. Our results also indicate that the market penalizes firms entering into alliances that create resource combinations that are substitutes to resource combinations deployed by existing alliance partners. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Similarities and contradictions in the core logic of three strategy research streams

The logical foundations shaping three prominent streams of strategic management thought are summarized and then compared and contrasted. The intent is to determine whether these research streams are restatements of a single core logic using different terms to describe the same phenomena and relationships, or whether they provide alternate, and potentially competing, explanations for effective strategic action. Analysis reveals some concordant assertions, some similarities across pairs of frameworks, and some fundamental contradictions among the various logic sets. Since key elements in the fundamental premises of each research stream present logical contradictions with each of the other two, a strategy derived from an integration of these perspectives creates inconsistencies in a firm’s enacted context, its assumptions about strategy making, and its administrative arrangements. As circumstances change, a firm may be required to undergo a ‘core logic shift’ to maintain consistency between its strategy and its strategic context. When a shift becomes necessary, a firm needs to overcome structural inertia, competitive inertia, organizational momentum, and its current management logic to maintain internal consistency. Additional implications of the comparison of these three logics for both theory and practice are discussed. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.