Theoretical explanations for family firm underinvestment in R&D relative to nonfamily firms remain nascent. We revisit this question using a refinement to the behavioral agency model (BAM)-the mixed gamble-that allows us to examine the socioemotional trade-offs that R&D represents for the family firm and how this differentiates their R&D investment decision from nonfamily firms. We do so in an empirical context where R&D investment is of greatest importance-high-technology industries. Moreover, we examine three contingencies that allow us to explore heterogeneity across family firms in their R&D decisions due to their effect upon the family's socioemotional wealth mixed gamble: institutional investor ownership, related diversification, and performance hazard.

Foundational RBV work suggests that firms possess capabilities that represent strengths and others that represent weaknesses. In contrast, contemporary research has examined capability strengths while largely ignoring weaknesses. Addressing this oversight, we examine the direct and integrated effects of sets of capability strengths and capability weaknesses on competitive advantage and its empirical correlate-relative performance. Additionally, we explore how environmental and firm-specific factors influence change in these drivers of competitive advantage over time. Results suggest that weakness sets have a negative effect on relative performance, while strength sets have an increasingly positive effect. The integrative effects of strength and weakness sets affect relative performance in a complex manner. For example, while high strength/low weakness firms perform at high levels, firms integrating high strength with high weakness perform well, but experience considerably more variance in their realized outcomes. Lastly, we find that the strength and weakness sets change significantly over time in markets where competition is more intense, thereby undermining the durability of competitive advantage. Our theory and results indicate that achieving temporary advantage is more difficult than previously thought and that the erosion of advantage occurs routinely as a result of dynamic and interactive rivalry.

No abstract

Social class is increasingly recognized as a powerful force in people's lives. Yet, despite the long and extensive stream of research on the upper echelons of organizations, we know little about how executives' formative childhood experiences with social class influence strategic choices. In this study, we investigate the influence of CEO social class origins on firm risk taking. We also explore the moderating influences of other important career experiences, including elite education and diverse functional background. Our theory and findings highlight that one's social class origins have a lasting and varying impact on individual preferences, affecting executives' tendency to take risks. By examining this novel managerial characteristic, we offer important implications for social class and upper echelons theorizing. ABSTRACTSocial class is increasingly recognized as a powerful force in people's lives. Yet, despite the long and extensive stream of research on the upper echelons of organizations, we know little about how executives' formative childhood experiences with social class influence strategic choices. In this study, we investigate the influence of CEO social class origins on firm risk taking. We also explore the moderating influences of other important career experiences, including elite education and diverse functional background. Our theory and findings highlight that one's social class origins have a lasting and varying impact on individual preferences, affecting executives' tendency to take risks. By examining this novel managerial characteristic, we offer important implications for social class and upper echelons theorizing.

Prior research on mergers and acquisitions (M&As) has substantially advanced our understanding of how isolated acquirer-and deal-specific factors affect abnormal returns. However, investors are likely to perceive and evaluate M&As holistically-that is, as complex configurations (i.e., Gestalts) of characteristics, rather than as a list of independent factors. Yet, extant M&A literature has not addressed why and how configurations of factors elicit positive or negative reactions. In other words, overlooking the interdependent nature of factors known to influence acquisition success has limited our understanding of both M&As and investor judgment. Taking an inductive approach to addressing this important issue, this study relies on fuzzy set methodology. Our results provide compelling evidence that investor perceptions of M&A announcements are not only configurational in nature but also characterized by equifinality -or the presence of multiple paths to success -and asymmetric causality -that is, configurations that represent bad deals are not simply a mirror image of good deals, but differ fundamentally. By constructing a typology of "good" and "bad" deals as perceived by market participants, we develop a mid-range theory of M&A stock market performance. As such, this study offers novel theoretical and empirical insights to scholars, and implications for practitioners. ABSTRACTPrior research on mergers and acquisitions (M&As) has substantially advanced our understanding of how isolated acquirer-and deal-specific factors affect abnormal stock returns.However, investors are likely to perceive and evaluate M&As holistically-that is, as complex configurations (i.e., Gestalts) of characteristics, rather than as a list of independent factors. And yet, extant M&A literature has not addressed why and how configurations of factors elicit positive or negative reactions. Overlooking the interdependent nature of factors known to influence acquisition success has limited our understanding of both M&As and investor judgment. Taking an inductive approach to addressing this important issue, this study relies on fuzzy set methodology. Our results provide compelling evidence that investor perceptions of M&A announcements are not only configurational in nature but also characterized by equifinality -or the presence of multiple paths to success -and asymmetric causality -that is, configurations that represent bad deals are not simply a mirror image of good deals, but differ fundamentally. By constructing a typology of "good" and "bad" deals as perceived by market participants, we develop a mid-range theory of M&A stock market performance. As such, this study offers novel theoretical and empirical insights to scholars, and implications for practitioners.