Peter J. Lane

Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning

Much of the prior research on interorganizational learning has focused on the role of absorptive capacity, a firms ability to value, assimilate, and utilize new external knowledge. However, this definition of the construct suggests that a firm has an equal capacity to learn from all other organizations. We reconceptualize the firm-level construct absorptive capacity as a learning dyad-level construct, relative absorptive capacity. One firms ability to learn from another firm is argued to depend on the similarity of both firms (1) knowledge bases, (2) organizational structures and compensation policies, and (3) dominant logics. We then test the model using a sample of pharmaceutical–biotechnology R&D alliances. As predicted, the similarity of the partners basic knowledge, lower management formalization, research centralization, compensation practices, and research communities were positively related to interorganizational learning. The relative absorptive capacity measures are also shown to have greater explanatory power than the established measure of absorptive capacity, R&D spending.

Emerging Issues in Corporate Entrepreneurship

Research on corporate entrepreneurship (CE) has grown rapidly over the past decade. In this article, we identify four major issues scholars can pursue to further our understanding about CE. The issues we explore include various forms of CE (e.g., sustained regeneration, domain redefinition) and their implications for organizational learning; the role of leadership and social exchange in the CE process; and, key research opportunities relevant to CE in an international context. To address the latter issue, we propose a typology that separates content from process-related studies and new ventures vs. established companies. We close with a reassessment of the outcomes in CE research, which becomes particularly salient with the increasing importance of social, human, and intellectual capital in creating competitive advantages and wealth in today’s knowledge economy. Throughout the article, we use the organizational learning theory as a means of integrating our discussion and highlighting the potential contributions of CE to knowledge creation and effective exploitation.

Agency problems as antecedents to unrelated mergers and diversification: Amihud and Lev reconsidered

Amihud and Lev (1981) are widely cited as providing evidence that managers, unless closely monitored by large block shareholders, will attempt to reduce their employment risk through unrelated mergers and diversification. These corporate strategies, however, may not be in shareholders interests. Reconsidering the agency assumptions underlying Amihud and Levs study and the methodology they used, we develop hypotheses regarding the association between ownership structure, board vigilance, corporate strategy, and corporate performance from management theory and test them using Amihud and Levs data from the 1960s and new data from the 1980s. Neither study supports the conclusions of Amihud and Lev, nor the agency theory belief that monitoring efforts by principals affect the strategic behaviors of agents or the performance of firms that they manage.

Learning together and apart: A model of reciprocal interfirm learning

This article reviews the processes involved in interfirm learning and identifies an alternative form of alliance in which the objective is knowledge creation, not knowledge acquisition or transfer. Grounded on theories from sociology (relational governance) and educational psychology (jigsaw), the article develops an evolutionary model in which successive learning cycles of convergence, divergence, and reorientation facilitate knowledge creation and innovation.

Origins of Corporate Governance in the USA, Sweden and France

We reason that agency theory’s behavioral assumptions may too closely reflect the US institutional context to explain the governance heritages that exist elsewhere. We propose that what constitutes opportunistic behavior and what can be done to limit it may vary due to differences in national background and formal institutions. We then test the validity of this nationally bounded model using historical sociology analysis of three nations whose corporate governance heritages are believed to differ (USA, Sweden, and France). Specifically, we review their political, cultural, and economic institutions to explore the different ways that their governance practices have evolved and infer causes for these historical variations.

Ownership structure and corporate strategy: one question viewed from two different worlds

In their response to our paper, Amihud and Lev (1999) and Denis, Denis, and Sarin (1999) claim that disciplinary differences don’t matter and that methods and evidence should speak for themselves. In contrast, we argue that important differences exist between financial economics and strategic management, leading to differing beliefs, norms, methods, and interpretations of empirical results. Using a strategic management perspective to review the evidence presented by Amihud and Lev in their earlier study (1981) and in their and Denis et al.’s critiques of our work (1999), we find no reason to revise our original conclusion: there is little theoretical or empirical basis for believing that monitoring by a firm’s principals influences its diversification strategy and acquisition decisions. Copyright

A search theoretic model of productivity, science and innovation

Building on macroeconomic research on technology searches in response to diminishing technological opportunities, we develop an industry-level search theoretic model of productivity, knowledge sources, and innovation. We argue that increasing the use of science in technology development increases the novelty of ideas in the innovation search distribution and thus increases the likelihood of finding productivity improvements. We also propose that this relationship will hold outside the traditional science-based industries (pharmaceuticals, chemicals), and that there is no similar relationship between productivity and non-science patents. Random effect analyzes of 32 US manufacturing industries during 1985-1997 support these hypotheses.

Facilitating Strategic Renewal by Managing Strategic Role Conflict

We use the term ‘strategic renewal’ to refer to an evolutionary view of strategic change (Barnett and Burgelman, 1996; Burgelman, 1983; Huff et al., 1992; Nelson and Winter, 1982). It is an iterative process of belief, action and learning that can align the organisation’s strategy with changing environmental circumstances (Doz, 1996; Huff et al., 1992; Johnson, 1988). Long periods of incremental adjustment (single loop learning) are broken by bursts of revolutionary change (double loop learning) (Argyris, 1976; Gersick, 1991; Tushman and Anderson, 1986). Successful strategic renewal overcomes the inertial forces embodied in the organisation’s established strategy and closes the gap between its existing core competencies and the evolving basis of competitive advantage in the industry (Agarwal and Helfat, 2009; Burgelman, 1991, 1994; Huff et al., 1992; Hurst et al., 1989).