Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:26:42.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of subject heterogeneity and absorptive capacity of acquirer on innovation performance in technology-driven M&As

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2021

Michael Yao-Ping Peng Open the ORCID record for Michael Yao-Ping Peng [Opens in a new window]  and
Rui Li
Michael Yao-Ping Peng
Affiliation:
School of Economic & Management, Foshan University, Foshan, China
Rui Li*
Affiliation:
Management School, Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi'an, China
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study uses a sample of technological mergers and acquisitions (M&As) of A-share listed companies in the five major high-tech industries from 2012 to 2016, and conducts factor analysis to measure the heterogeneity of these enterprises in terms of financial slack resources, equity resources, and governance structure. On this basis, multivariate regression analysis is utilized to explore the influence of the acquiring firms' heterogeneity on their innovation performance, and the adjustment action of absorptive capacity between heterogeneity and innovation performance. The research results show that the slack financial resources and highly centralized equity structure of enterprises are not conducive to enterprises improving their innovation performance following a technological M&A, while the impact of governance structure on innovation performance following an M&A is similarly not significant. The empirical evidence provided offer insights and a decision reference for technological M&As of high-tech enterprises.

Keywords

Absorptive capacityinnovation performancesubject heterogeneitytechnological merger and acquisition
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , July 2021 , pp. 650 - 673
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2004). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aliasghar, O., Rose, E. L., & Chetty, S. (2019). Where to search for process innovations? The mediating role of absorptive capacity and its impact on process innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 83(11), 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almeida, H. V., & Wolfenzon, D. (2006). A theory of pyramidal ownership and family business groups. The Journal of Finance, 61(6), 2637–2680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alzoubi, E. S. S. (2016). Ownership structure and earnings management: Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 24(2), 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrea, F., & Tribe, J. A. (2008). Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. The International Journal of Management Science, 36, 173–187.Google Scholar
Apa, R., Marchi, V. D., Grandinetti, R., & Sedita, S. R. (2020). University-SME collaboration and innovation performance: The role of informal relationships and absorptive capacity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–28. In press.Google Scholar
Arikan, A. T., & Knoben, J. (2014). Sources of inter-firm heterogeneity in accessing knowledge-creation benefits within technology clusters. Industry and Innovation, 21(6), 476–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkema, H. G., & Schijven, M. (2008). How do firms learn to make acquisitions? A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 34, 594–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basso, L. F. C. (2012). Intangible driven earnings and value creation in the electric and electronic industry in the USA. African Journal of Business Management, 6(14), 4901–4909.Google Scholar
Bauer, F., Matzler, K., & Wolf, S. (2016). M&A and innovation: The role of integration and cultural differences—A central European targets perspective. International Business Review, 25(1), 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berchicci, L. (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy, 42(1), 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, O., & Zuniga, P. (2006). R&D and M&A: Are cross-border M&A different? An investigation on OECD countries. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(2), 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borch, O. J., Huse, M., & Senneseth, K. (1999). Resource configuration, competitive strategies, and corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical examination of small firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 24(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
Carboni, O. A., & Medda, G. (2019). Does R&D spending boost tangible investment? An analysis on European firms. Applied Economics, 51(28–30), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family–controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrillo, F. J., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Albino, V., & Carbonara, N. (2009). External knowledge sources and proximity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(5), 301–318.Google Scholar
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2015). Crossing the innovation threshold through mergers and acquisitions. Research Policy, 44(3), 698–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cefis, E., & Triguero, Á (2016). Make, buy, or both: The innovation sourcing strategy dilemma after M&A. Growth and Change, 47(2), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y. (2020). Integration decisions and technology innovation in Chinese technology-sourcing overseas M&As: An empirical analysis based on PLS path modelling. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 28(3), 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, F., Huyghebaert, N., Lin, S., & Wang, L. (2019). Do multiple large shareholders reduce agency problems in state-controlled listed firms? Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 57, 101203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y. S., Lin, M. J. J., & Chang, C. H. (2009). The positive effects of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(2), 152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C. J., Lin, B. W., Lin, Y. H., & Hsiao, Y. C. (2016). Ownership structure, independent board members and innovation performance: A contingency perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3371–3379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, F., Li, X., & Meng, Q. (2019). Integration, network and industrial innovation in technology sourcing overseas M&A: a comparison between China and South Korea. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(10), 1168–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloodt, M., Hagedoorn, J., & Van Kranenburg, H. (2006). Mergers and acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries. Research policy, 35(5), 642–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Cornett, M. M., Marcus, A. J., & Tehranian, H. (2008). Corporate governance and pay-for-performance: The impact of earnings management. Journal of Financial Economics, 87(2), 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, A. S., & O'Connor, G. (2012). Alliance portfolio resource diversity and firm innovation. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Datta, P., & Roumani, Y. (2015). Knowledge-acquisitions and post-acquisition innovation performance: A comparative hazards model. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(2), 202–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deeds, D. L. (2001). The role of R&D intensity, technical development and absorptive capacity in creating entrepreneurial wealth in high technology start-ups. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, 18(1), 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dezi, L., Battisti, E., Ferraris, A., & Papa, A. (2018). The link between mergers and acquisitions and innovation: A systematic literature review. Management Research Review, 41(6), 716–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felipe, , Monteiro, , & Birkinshaw, J. (2016). The external knowledge sourcing process in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 38, 342–362.Google Scholar
Fernández, S., Triguero, Á., & Alfaro-Cortés, E. (2019). M&A effects on innovation and profitability in large European firms. Management Decision, 57(1), 100–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Florian, Matzler, Kurt, Wolf, Stefan. (2016). M&A and innovation: The role of integration and cultural differences-A central European targets perspective. International Business Review, 25(1), 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabrielsson, J., & Politis, D. (2007). The impact of ownership and board governance on firm-level entrepreneurship in small technology based firms. Journal of Corporate Governance, 6(3), 43–60.Google Scholar
George, G., Robley Wood, D. Jr, & Khan, R. (2001). Networking strategy of boards: Implications for small and medium-sized enterprises. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 13(3), 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopalani, A., & Shick, K. (2011). The service-enabled customer experience: A jump-start to competitive advantage. Journal of Business Strategy, 32(3), 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graebner, M. E. (2004). Momentum and serendipity: How acquired leaders create value in the integration of technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 751–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., Werder, A., & Zajac, E. J. (2008). New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19(3), 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamidi, D. Y., & Gabrielsson, J. (2017). Corporate governance and innovation in small entrepreneurial firms: The board chairperson's role. In Handbook of Research on Corporate Governance and Entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Hans, D., & de Jong, A. (2006). Investment and internal finance: Asymmetric information or managerial discretion? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(1), 125–147.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L., Papachroni, A., Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2017). Structural ambidexterity and competency traps: Insights from Xerox PARC. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 117, 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herold, D. M., Jayaraman, N., & Narayanaswamy, C. R. (2006). What is the relationship between organizational slack and innovation? Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(3), 372–392.Google Scholar
Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., & Hill, C. W. (1993). Managerial incentives and investment in R&D in large multiproduct firms. Organization Science, 4(2), 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, S., Chen, J., & Liang, L. (2018). How open innovation performance responds to partner heterogeneity in China. Management Decision, 56(1), 26–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussinger, K., & Wastyn, A. (2015). In search for the not-invented-here syndrome: The role of knowledge sources and firm success. R&D Management, 46(S3), 945–957.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (2007). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, R. J., Tao, Q. T., & Santoro, M. D. (2010). Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31(10), 1136–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jo, G. S., Park, G., & Kang, J. (2016). Unravelling the link between technological M&As and innovation performance using the concept of relative absorptive capacity. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 24(1), 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, A. W., & Campbell, A. J. (2003). Effect of environmental dynamism on relational governance in manufacturer-supplier relationships: A contingency framework and an empirical test. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 176–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khafid, M., & Arief, S. (2017). Managerial ownership, corporate governance and earnings quality: The role of institutional ownership as moderating variable. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25, 241–254.Google Scholar
Kostopoulos, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M., & Ioannou, G. (2011). Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 0–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, L. (2016). Absorptive Capacity and Post-M&A Performance: Exploring Role of Absorptive Capacity in Post-Deal Firm Profitability. Master's Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12), 1139–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y. J., Shin, K., & Kim, E. (2019). The influence of a firm's capability and dyadic relationship of the knowledge base on ambidextrous innovation in biopharmaceutical M&As. Sustainability, 11(18), 4920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, E., Warning, S., & Weigand, J. (2004). Governance structures, multidimensional efficiency and firm profitability. Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, 8(3), 279–304.Google Scholar
Lewin, A. Y., Massini, S., & Peeters, C. (2011). Microfoundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routines. Organization Science, 22(1), 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. The Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1830–1830.Google Scholar
Lipton, M., & Lorsch, J. W. (1992). A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. Business Lawyer, 48(1), 59–77.Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Chen, Y. J., & Wang, L. C. (2017). Family business, innovation and organizational slack in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(1), 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H., Ding, X. H., Guo, H., & Luo, J. H. (2014). How does slack affect product innovation in high-tech Chinese firms: The contingent value of entrepreneurial orientation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(1), 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez-Vega, H., Tell, F., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2016). Where and how to search? Search paths in open innovation. Research Policy, 45(1), 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, E. G., & Nohria, N. (2005). Reducing slack: The performance consequences of downsizing by large industrial firms, 1977–93. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1087–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Y., Zhou, L., Bruton, G., & Li, W. (2010). Capabilities as a mediator linking resources and the international performance of entrepreneurial firms in an emerging economy. Journal of international Business studies, 41(3), 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, C., & Liu, Z. (2017). Effects of M&As on innovation performance: Empirical evidence from Chinese listed manufacturing enterprises. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(8), 960–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makri, M., Hitt, M. A., & Lane, P. J. (2010). Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic management journal, 31(6), 602–628.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masulis, R. W., Pham, P. K., & Zein, J. (2011). Family business groups around the world: Financing advantages, control motivations, and organizational choices. The Review of Financial Studies, 24(11), 3556–3600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzarol, T., Reboud, S., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Strategic planning in growth oriented small firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 25(4), 320–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. (2005). Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26(11), 1033–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morck, R., Wolfenzon, D., & Yeung, B. (2005). Corporate governance, economic entrenchment, and growth. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(3), 655–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, V. O. (2014). Do corporate board compensation characteristics influence the financial performance of listed companies? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 983–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerkar, , & Atul, . (2003). Old is gold? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Management Science, 49(2), 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilssen, J., Bertheussen, B. A., & Dreyer, B. (2015). Sustained competitive advantage based on high quality input. Marine Policy, 52(2), 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partington, G. H. (2010). Dividend policy and its relationship to investment and financing policies: Empirical evidence. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 12(4), 531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, W., & Ambrosini, V. (2015). Configuring absorptive capacity as a key process for research intensive firms. Technovation, 36–37, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, Y. P., & Lin, K. H. (2019). International networking in dynamic internationalization capability: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence (1), 1–20. In Press.Google Scholar
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakthin, S., & Calantone, R. J. (2016). Managing market intelligence: The comparative role of absorptive capacity and market orientation. Journal of Business Research, 03, 064.Google Scholar
Reus, T. H. (2012). A knowledge-based view of mergers and acquisitions revisited: Absorptive capacity and combinative capability. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 11, 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riikkinen, R., Kauppi, K., & Salmi, A. (2017). Learning sustainability? Absorptive capacities as drivers of sustainability in MNCs’ purchasing. International Business Review, 04, 001.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, A., & Jesus Nieto, M. J. (2016). Does R&D offshoring lead to SME growth? Different governance modes and the mediating role of innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1734–1753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sammarra, A., & Biggiero, L. (2008). Heterogeneity and specificity of inter-firm knowledge flows in innovation networks. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 800–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapra, H., Subramanian, A., & Subramanian, K. V. (2015). Corporate governance and innovation: Theory and evidence. Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis, 49(4), 82–106.Google Scholar
Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., & Carayannis, E. G. (2017). The effect of social networking sites and absorptive capacity on SMES’ innovation performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwab, D. P. (1999). Research methods for organizational studies. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sears, J., & Hoetker, G. (2013). Technological overlap, technological capabilities, and resource recombination in technological acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 48–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, S. R., Han, J., Marhold, K., & Kang, J. (2017). Reconfiguring the firm's core technological portfolio through open innovation: Focusing on technological M&A. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(3), 571–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorenson, O., & Stuart, T. E. (2001). Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1546–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawal, D. R. (2017). When do relational resources matter? Leveraging portfolio technological resources for breakthrough innovation. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 45(2), 83–96.Google Scholar
Tang, C., & Naumann, S. E. (2016). Team diversity, mood, and team creativity: The role of team knowledge sharing in Chinese R&D teams. Journal of Management & Organization, 23(1), 1.Google Scholar
Tan, J., & Peng, M. W. (2003). Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transitions: Two studies from an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1249–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, P. A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troilo, M. L. (2014). Collaboration, product innovation, and sales: an empirical study of Chinese firms. Journal of Technology Management in China.Google Scholar
Tsai, F. S. (2018). Knowledge heterogeneity, social capital, and organizational innovation. Journal of Organizational Change Management.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentini, G. (2016). The impact of M&A on rivals' innovation strategy. Long Range Planning, 49(2), 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 457–476.Google Scholar
Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Giraud Voss, Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Guo, B., & Yin, Y. (2017). Open innovation search in manufacturing firms: The role of organizational slack and absorptive capacity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(3), 656–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, X., Zou, H., & Qi, G. (2018). Knowledge absorptive capacity and innovation performance in high-tech companies: A multi-mediating analysis. Journal of Business Research, 88, 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhai, J., Li, J., & Gu, Z. (2019). Does performance commitment in M&As push up the asset valuation? Accounting Research, 6, 35–42.Google Scholar
Zobel, A. K. (2017). Benefiting from open innovation: A multidimensional model of absorptive capacity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar