Xavier Castañer

Synergy Sources, Target Autonomy, and Integration in Acquisitions:

Determining the appropriate level of integration is crucial to realizing value from acquisitions. Most prior research assumes that higher integration implies the removal of autonomy from target managers, which in turn undermines the functioning of the target firm if it entails unfamiliar elements for the acquirer. Using a survey of 86 acquisitions to obtain the richness of detail necessary to distinguish integration from autonomy, the authors argue and find that integration and autonomy are not the opposite ends of a single continuum. Certain conditions (e.g., when complementarity rather than similarity is the primary source of synergy) lead to high levels of both integration and autonomy. In addition, similarity negatively moderates the relationship between complementarity and autonomy when the target offers both synergy sources. In contrast, similarity does not moderate the link between complementarity and integration. The authors’ findings advance scholarly understanding about the drivers of implementation strategy and in particular the different implementation strategies acquiring managers deploy when they attempt to leverage complementarities, similarities, or both.

The Determinants of Artistic Innovation: Bringing in the Role of Organizations

This article deals with the determinants of artistic innovation by arts organizations. First, we define artistic innovation. Second, we review the literature on its determinants, identifying some gaps. In particular, we observe that existing research mostly focuses on macro-environmental factors and tends to ignore the role of the organizations themselves. Thus, drawing from the organizational literature on innovation we formulate testable propositions that relate organizational factors to artistic innovation. We hope that our focus on organizational factors contributes to a more comprehensive framework on the determinants of artistic innovation in particular and programming in general.

Ownership Effects on Unrelated Diversification: An Institutions’ Perspective

Abstract Purpose To show that differences in the extent to which firms engage in unrelated diversification can be attributed to differences in ownership structure. Methodology/approach We draw on longitudinal data and use a panel analysis specification to test our hypotheses. Findings We find that unrelated diversification destroys value; pressure-sensitive Anglo-American owners in a firm’s equity reduce unrelated diversification, whereas pressure-resistant domestic owners increase unrelated diversification; the greater the firm’s free cash flow, the greater the negative effect of pressure-sensitive Anglo-American owners on unrelated diversification. Research limitations/implications We contribute to corporate governance and strategy research by bringing in owners’ institutional origin as a shaper of owner preferences in particular with regards to unrelated diversification. Future research may expand our investigation to more than one home institutional context, and theorize on institutional origin effects beyond the dichotomy between Anglo-American and non-Anglo-American (not oriented toward shareholder value maximization) owners. Practical implications Policy makers, financial analysts, owners, and managers may want to reflect about the implications of ownership structure, as well as promoting or joining corporations with particular ownership configurations. Social implications A shareholder value-destroying strategy, such as unrelated diversification has adverse consequences for society at large, in terms of opportunity costs, that is, resources could be allocated to value-creating activities instead. Promoting an ownership configuration that creates value should contribute to social welfare. Originality/value Owners may not be exclusively driven by shareholder value maximization, but can be influenced by normative beliefs (biases) stemming from the institutional context they originate from.

Cultural Innovation by Cultural Organizations

Abstract This chapter assesses the theories and related empirical evidence regarding the factors that explain cultural innovation by cultural organizations. It begins by defining key concepts, including what is meant by a cultural organization, cultural innovation, and the innovation referent. The chapter identifies two main disciplines that have been interested in cultural innovation or innovative programming by cultural organizations: sociology and economics. The focus, contributions, and overlap of these two disciplinary approaches to cultural innovation are discussed, and the chapter concludes by identifying some gaps and putting forward some suggestions for future research.

REDEFINING CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN ORGANISATIONS: SUGGESTIONS FOR REDIRECTING RESEARCH

In this paper, I examine three questions: (1) how creativity and innovation in organisations are defined in the scientific literature, (2) which theories are applied and hence which explanatory factors have been discussed, and (3) what the empirical evidence is regarding these factors. I uncover an overlap between the definitions of creativity and innovation, which in my view are distinct but related concepts. Further, despite the significant overlap in their definitions, research has evolved in two almost separate streams. Moreover, I observe that the multiple theories used (even regarding the same factor) to explain organisational creativity are not always integrated and that the empirical evidence about factors concerning individuals seems to converge but is much more mixed in relation to factors at the organisational level. Finally, I propose a new definition of organisational creativity and organisational innovation to distinguish them and suggest some avenues for future research.

The role of middle and top managers in the strategy process

Since Bower’s (1970) early pioneering work in strategy process, there havebeen several decades of empirical, often survey-based or in-depth casebased, studies that examine middle managers’ involvement in strategy (e.g., Burgelman, 1983a, 1983b; Mintzberg and McHugh, 1985; Guth and MacMillan, 1986; Schilit, 1987; Westley, 1990; Wooldridge and Floyd, 1990). Though much has been accomplished with regards to the understanding of the underlying process (e.g., Floyd and Wooldridge, 2001; Wooldridge et al., 2008), we believe there is still a need for some basic clarifications on the definitions of middle (and top) managers and the strategy process itself, a task that Wooldridge et al. (2008) previously called for. We believe the definitions we provide can open new avenues for future research with new managerial implications. Further, in this chapter, we contend that extant research which has adopted the Bower‒Burgelman (B-B) perspective tends to overemphasize the role of middle managers while it underestimates the influence that top managers can directly exert in the strategy process (Bower, 1970; Burgelman, 1984, 1991, 2002), a depiction that we believe is not always accurate from a descriptive perspective or adequate from a normative point of view (see Mirabeau and Maguire, 2013 for a recent exception). The remainder of the chapter proceeds as follows. We first define the following key terms: “middle managers,” “top managers,” and the “strategy process.” Then, we describe what we believe is the current dominant view on the role of middle and top managers in the strategy process, which we think from a descriptive perspective has taken on a normative tone. Next, we proceed to discuss the limitations of this currently dominant perspective, and argue for the need of a more balanced and contingent view on the role of middle and top managers in the strategy process. We conclude with a summary of our contributions.

Acquiring Managers’ Intent and Actions in Acquisition Implementation

Based on researchers’ observations of the degree of relatedness or interdependence in a business combination, most past corporate strategy literature has assumed that managers try to achieve certain goals, i.e. the pursuit of economic synergies. Based on that assumption, theory predicts that certain designs and implementation actions should ensue. In this paper, we directly address and measure managers’ goals in the context of acquisitions. We theorize and empirically test the effect of different acquisition goals (efficiency and knowledge) on two distinct dimensions of acquisition implementation, namely, the acquirer’s effort at involving target employees and at cross-fertilization. We offer alternative hypotheses about the impact of efficiency intent on acquisition implementation: whereas past literature argues that the pursuit of efficiency should lead acquiring managers to consolidate operations while not involving target employees, we claim instead that efficiency may require certain effort at involving target employees and might benefit from cross-fertilization. Further, we claim that knowledge intent requires substantial and even greater effort at target involvement and cross-fertilization than the pursuit of efficiency. We test our model in a sample of 85 U.S. Midwest acquisitions. We find mixed support for our hypotheses. Counter to existing acquisition research, we find that efficiency pursuit prompts acquiring managers to exert substantial effort to involve target personnel and to cross-fertilize. However, we do not find support that knowledge intent has a significant impact on implementation actions. Our paper contributes to the acquisition, implementation and knowledge literatures, as well as to corporate strategy and design research broadly.